109 Reply in the Knesset by Prime Minister Peres- 28 October 1985

Prime Minister Peres: At the very outset I want to say something unequivocal, since I know that the discussion is going on not only in the Knesset, but also outside it, and afterwards all kinds of interpretations are adduced: I do not retract one word that is said in the United Nations, I do not retract one word that I said in the Knesset, and I have no intention of backing down on any matter, and it is pointless for them to try to attribute such things to me outside. Nor was I asked - I must say to Yitzhak Shamir's credit - to back down on retract anything.

Housing Minister Levy: You promised clarifications, that's not backing down. You promised - are you going to keep that promise or not?

Peres: Am I under interrogation by you? Are you interrogating me? Sit patiently and listen to what I have to say. Are you interrogating me? What are you here, the chief interrogator?

The proper procedure was that I should have asked for clarifications from the cabinet members, not them from me. I went abroad for a week or ten days. Based on I know not what, the cabinet members accused me of things which are absolutely groundless. An honorable cabinet minister gets up and says that I proposed that if we see the PLO, we should turn our heads. We didn't see it. I must say that even the clarifications that are requested amaze me. I was on a very tiring trip, more than 200 speeches, appearances. And most of the trip was dedicated to the struggle against the PLO. Suddenly I have to clarify that I am against the PLO. Where is such a thing heard? I ask this minister to have the courage and public decency to get up and apologize. You ask me for clarifications? Afterwards he got up and said I am rushing to hand over Judea and Samaria. Did I mention Judea and Samaria at all? I ask for clarifications. What kind of clarifications are you asking of me? If we're talking honestly. I also want to say that certain colleagues called me up [and asked] that before I return and report to the cabinet, I should report to the Alignment ministers. I said no; first of all I will report to the cabinet. Even before they heard a report from me, a group of ministers got together and decided on things that never even happened. And afterwards I have to supposedly clarify. What do I have to clarify, that I'm against the PLO? You didn't know that? Is this the first time you hear that I oppose PLO participation because it is a terrorist organization which advocates the destruction of the State of Israel? You could have heard this in Vienna in my speech to the Socialist International. You need clarifications from me? I need clarifications from you about an irresponsible campaign. I need clarifications. I also want to make several clarifications regarding an international conference. I address the United Nations. It could be that some MK's, in this case cabinet ministers, can't read Hebrew or English. I say in my speech, paragraph four: Negotiations must take place in a direct manner between the states. I say in the speech that there is no alternative to direct negotiations. What kind of clarifications do you want? I want to understand just once. If there is a need for an international forum...

David Magen (Likud): Paragraph five means yes and no, one yes and one no.

Peres: You're only "no." I have some things yes and some no. Palestinians yes, PLO no. Direct negotiations yes.

Magen: Tell us what's in paragraph five.

Peres: Excuse me, are you such a great ideologue? Menachem Begin was in favor of the Geneva Conference. Menachem Begin and all of Herut supported the Geneva Conference. Is there a new ideology every day? The cabinet never gave up on this. I will tell you other things about the international conference, what yes and what no. Maybe you live in a world where there is only "yes" and "no." I live in a world where there are things I am in favor of and things I am opposed to, and this one calls yes and no. I will refer to the international conference in greater detail and will explain my position as it was before my trip, as it was at the time of my trip, and as it remains today. If ministers slander, they have to do the clarifying, not me. I have nothing to back down from.

I want to begin to take issue in an orderly fashion with the various speeches.

MK Geula Cohen, what does it mean, "Israel will turn upside down." How will you turn Israel upside down? Did you turn Israel upside down at Yamit? In Yamit Israel was turned upside down and remained the way you didn't want it to remain. Is this any sort of reasoning? Do you want to threaten us? How will you turn Israel upside down? You made a proposal whose logic escapes me. You proposed something that not one Herut member can vote for. You said that you propose a vote of non-confidence and that you demand that Menachern Begin get up and admit that the Camp David Agreement was a mistake. You are isolating yourself terribly, in my opinion. Who from the Likud can get up and vote for your proposal? I think you made a mistake.

Geula Cohen: I was speaking about you and not about Begin.

Peres: Now Geula, since I really do have respect for you, not like your predecessors in other parties, I ask you, doesn't it bother you what we should do so as not to get into another war? Is that such an invalid question? Do you know in advance how we prevent this?

Yuval Neeman (Tehiya): What about a war along borders that can't be defended?

Peres: Yuval, you were on the General Staff and you know that there are different opinions there. There are differing opinions about what constitute defensible borders. You know that. You should know. You're an educated man and you know that. I'm in favor of defensible borders, don't get me wrong. I am only saying to Geula: You speak to the youth. We've already had five wars here. We have invested a lot of thought into how to prevent them. We didn't succeed. We paid a heavy price. Why is it so wrong to invest thought, to use a stratagem, to try to create strategy and tactics, maybe this will lead to peace.

I want to praise the remarks of MK Elazar Granot who distinguished between the right of the Palestinians to representation and the lack of right of those who do not prevent terrorism because they do not control the Palestinians, or those who deal in terror and who cannot represent them. This is the proper formulation. He essentially told Arafat: One of the two, decide. If you don't penetrate terrorism, how are you the representative of the Palestinians? If you perpetrate terrorism, how do you represent peace? At least from this standpoint of logic and argument, I definitely take your remarks seriously. One thing you said which I do not accept is when you say, let us propose to the Palestinians that they stop terrorism and we will halt our responses to it. Not because there is no connection between the two, but because there is no equality between the two. Naturally if there is no terrorism there will be no responses. But you can't pit one against the other as if they were equal - one perpetrates terrorism, the other responds, so let us both stop. Here there is definitely cause and effect, and the cause and the effect are not equal. Just as I agree with you on other points, in this matter I disagree with you.

Now I want to argue a bit with MK Eliahu Ben-Elissar. I also praise the way MK Ben-Elissar argues and I also take substantive issue with him. He says: Hussein wants the 1967 borders. Correct. MK Ben-Elissar - Sadat did not want this? He didn't stand at this rostrum and ask for the 1967 borders? You say there should be no international auspices. You didn't sit at Mena House, where a PLO flag stood alongside the table? You were lucky that the PLO didn't come. I don't know what you would have done if they had. You got a letter in the mail and you came, and I commend you for it. I don't understand why you rule it out now, although I did not propose that we sit with the PLO and with PLO flags. I'm saying this only to clarify things. Regarding the international conference, I want to make my opinion clear as it was beforehand, as it is now, and as it will be in the future, and not leave room for any questions although this is a bit complicated, MK David Magen, I admit. There are nuances here. You know, this happens in life, what you can you do. There is a bit of gray, there is a bit of shadow, there is a bit of complication.

I want to explain to you: The thing we want is direct negotiations between us and Jordan or between us and a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation which is not PLO. I explained this in my earlier remarks, and I am repeating it now again. We don't need an international conference. If it was only up to Israel, I would not seek an international forum, nor an international conference nor anything else. Why then are there still discussions about an international forum? Because there is also another side to the negotiations. MK David Magen, if only we could conduct the negotiations by ourselves, we would spare Ms. Sarah Doron: The question of illusion in peace. With ourselves there are no illusions. We sit, wrap up an agreement, and go home. What happens when there is another side? Now I will present you with a theoretical question. Let us say that there is a political situation in which to remove the PLO from center stage, it is worthwhile for Israel to agree to an international conference, to an international forum, to international accompaniment. I think that this is logical if there is such a possibility, for example. Even in such a situation - I want to explain - in no way do I propose that instead of the sides and instead of direct negotiations, the Russians, the Americans, the French, the British or the Chinese conduct the negotiations in our place. Nor do I under any circumstances agree that if there is an international forum and if there is an international conference, they can coerce us or vote on any matter, or that if we and the Jordanians and the Palestinians reach an agreement, they will be able to change it. This is not fitting, this is extraneous. And if we are invited to an international conference or an international forum and the conditions are acceptable to us, we will go. And I don't back down from anything and this does not frighten me. The decision about the holding of the Geneva Conference was never cancelled. It exists, so don't try to frighten us. Don't make cheap ideology out of something which is simply a political step, sometimes necessary, sometimes dangerous and sometimes useful -depending on how it is conducted.

MK Ben-Elissar says: To lure Jordan into negotiations is a good thing, but not via concessions in advance. What are you giving up in advance? I want to know what we gave up in advance. We say that they cannot present pre-conditions and we cannot present pre-conditions, and this is the reason that Camp David is not presented as a condition for negotiations with Jordan - without conditions, definitely. This government stated that if direct negotiations begin, Camp David will be presented as a peace plan, but not as a pre-condition, and the Jordanians need not accept it. I want to understand, what concessions have we made? You know, others made concessions, and III get to that.

Now I want to say something else. I see a change in Hussein's stand on the following matters - you say that he made no concessions, and I say that he did make concessions. I did not see the full text of the remarks by President Mubarak, and I will not respond to them. I only want to tell you: Hussein is standing firm against the establishment of a separate Palestinian state. He claims that the agreement between him and Arafat is no federation or confederation. That's one thing. Another thing on which in my opinion Hussein made a concession - from his standpoint, not ours is that he presents no pre-conditions for negotiations, as he did in the past. A third thing: Hussein stated - and don't look for backtracking here - that he is in favor of direct negotiations. The argument is whether it's direct negotiations with accompaniment or without accompaniment. If direct negotiations require accompaniment, there will be accompaniment, but not in place of direct negotiations. Where's the tragedy? True, it is a little complicated, but not so much. Afterwards Hussein - no less and no more than Sadat - spoke for the first time in a positive tone - even more so than did MK Tawfiq Toubi, I'd say - about the things that an Israeli representative voiced in the General Assembly. I don't understand, MK Tawfiq Toubi, why Hussein is permitted a bit of generosity and kind words in responding to that speech, and you are not. So there is no proposal for a Palestinian state, not even from the Jordanian side, and I would be very surprised if Mubarak really is suddenly demanding a Palestinian state. If he supports Hussein, Hussein is not demanding a Palestinian state. He is making an agreement with Arafat to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and not to support the establishment of such a Palestinian state.

[To MK Tawfiq Toubi] what does that mean, I exclude the Soviet Union? I admit, the Soviet Union is a large country, Israel is a small country, that is true. When it comes to diplomatic relations we are equal, the big ones and the small ones. If the big ones want their voice to be heard regarding the affairs of the little ones - please go back to the rules of the game. Russia cut off its relations with us, and not vice versa.

Tawbi: You sat in Geneva when there were no relations.

Peres: But you don't agree with everything Begin did. Ahh, this is not Begin, so what those who came before did. Tell me, are you interested in the renewal of diplomatic relations - yes or no?

Tawbi: I'm interested.

Peres: What do you care when this is sought? Why should you object? I don't understand your illogic.

The whole while the Soviet Union is preaching peace, but when it comes to itself, everything is permitted. Cutting off relations, supporting only the Arab side, the radical side in the Arab world. Why is it forbidden to say to Israel. Forgive me. What right do I have, for example, to think of Assad as extreme. You know, MK Wilner, I even think, I hope you won't get angry, that even Kadaffii is not the most moderate in the Arab world. Kadaffi is in Moscow now. I want to tell the Knesset members, even Tawfiq Toubi so he isn't disappointed and doesn't despair. Kadaffi has one special thing: Wherever he goes, he proposes unification. His last visit was in China, I'm not joking, he proposes Chinese-Libyan unification, to establish one state, a Chinese-Libyan one. I don't know what China's response to this was, but it only shows that even little ones can be equal to big ones. They support Kaddafi, north Yemen. Excuse me, just a minute, I forgot, there is a fourth, besides Syria - Ethiopia. True, that's something very moderate. In Addis Abbaba they invested $100 million in a celebration marking the third or fourth anniversary of the revolution, and several kilometers away, children die with stomachs swollen with starvation. But this is not extreme.

This is why I say that Israel is permitted to tell the Soviet Union, with all its large size, if you want us to listen to you, act accordingly, in keeping with international norms. I say this with respect. The Soviet Union will not dictate to us, just as no one will dictate to us, what to do first and what to do later on. What you say is not correct. The Palestinian people, if Arafat is really their representative, relinquished the idea of a Palestinian state.

Are you his representative? In the Arafat-Hussein agreement there is no Palestinian state. Why are you seeking this in the Knesset, judging by your statements. The representative of the Palestinian people has conceded on this. Why do you raise it here? I want to tell MK Tawfiq Toubi that we are not proposing negotiations without representatives who brought catastrophe on the Palestinian people and are bringing catastrophe on peace, the PLO. What, are there no Palestinian representatives whose hands are clean of murder and violence, or who do not advocate terrorism?

Charlie Biton (DFPE): There is an official representation, why don't you conduct negotiations with them?

Peres: Official? Appointed by whom? Who appointed it? The Rakah Faction?

Avner Shaki (NRP): Who elected them?

Muhammad Miari (PLP): Who elected the Jewish Agency before the establishment of the State?

Peres: I want to tell MK Ehud Olmert, it is not correct that Hussein rejected all our proposals. If you are prepared to read - you can also not read - Hussein agreed for the first time to direct negotiations. And to negotiations as we understand them. As far as I know, the Jordanian position and the position of the United States - and I must clarify that neither America nor Jordan is proposing an international conference dictated from above, or forced upon us or not agreed upon. The proposals I received from the U.S. regarding an international forum consist of the following principles:

First principle: All the participants must be agreed to by all the sides; second principle: All decisions must be agreed to by consensus; third principle: The sponsors of the conference cannot dictate solutions and cannot cancel agreements; fourth principle. No conference, no forum will be convened unless there is agreement to direct and immediate negotiations. I don't see any clarifications, this is what the Americans gave me, with the concurrence of all the other partners. There is no argument about this. That someone cast suspicions, threw a word here or there and ran to television and said that I will clarify and I will back down - I have nothing to clarify, I have nothing to back down from, I clarify exactly what was said to me. And I stated this in my remarks speech as well.

I want to thank Rabbi Peretz for asking me to deny something I did not say. I never cast doubt on our historic right to Eretz-Israel. No one cast any doubt. There is no argument about the right, there is an argument about peace, about demography, how we organize the country in a way that will permit peace and will permit Jewish demography. And I don't know where this whole story came from. I must admit that until I got to Israel I didn't know I was accused of this. And even then I sought to find out where it came from. Afterwards I saw in one of the newspapers and saw the work of art. I was asked: Mr. Begin adheres to the whole Land of Israel, what is your opinion? And I said: I don't see eye to eye with Mr. Begin on our history and our geography, and this is true. I don't see eye to eye...

Geula Cohen (Tehiya): That's the same thing. What is 'geographically' and 'historically'?

Peres: You say it's the same thing, so say it. That is to say that we see things differently, Geula. You will put it differently. Our rights are one thing, and one compromises not because one has no right but because we also have other needs. Not because of an absence of rights. We do it because we have to make a compromise.

MK Simcha Dinitz described, I think correctly, the entire matter of the backing accompaniment, the international conference or the international forum in one sentence. He said that any international backing depends on direct negotiations. I think that this is a correct description.

I return, since I was stopped in the middle, to the remarks of Ehud Olmert: Ehud, I will tell you how Hussein backedtracked. I repeat: The first thing is that he backtracked from his previous policy on the PLO. I don't say he changed it, he stated that he would conduct a revaluation. In a published article in "the New York Times," which you yourself read out. You can say this is nothing only yesterday they signed an agreement and he changed it. The second thing is that he said that he is in favor of direct negotiations; this is a change and I respect it. The third thing is the tone. The tone also helps make the music today I saw on television, on the news, how tone and music are made, how I am giving in, that I am backtracking, that I am clarifying. I am not backtracking I am not giving in, I am not clarifying. This was my opinion before the trip. During the trip, and now.

I want to tell MK Benny Shalita - the Reagan Plan, not the Reagan Plan, territorial compromise, not territorial compromise, autonomy or not autonomy, I don't advise holding to any plan because it is acceptable or not acceptable to the U.S. I advise being for or against a plan because it is good or bad for the State of Israel. I can definitely say that in the U.S., what is good or bad for Israel is also a point that is considered. Because even the U.S. knows very well that if war breaks out we fight ourselves. This is why decisions about what is good and what is bad have to be made in line with the country's considerations.

I don't want to argue with the remarks of MK Matti Peled, but one thing I must tell him: The description, Matti - I've known you for so many years - that you gave the Soviet Jews, that we are asking the Soviet Union to bring Jews by train to Israel as if it was being forced upon them - is that what's at stake?

Well, we are asking that these 400,000 Jews - and it's true, I'm ashamed of it that some of the Jews who requested and obtained visas to Israel, went to the U.S. instead of coming to Israel. If you ask me, this is not right. They stopped over in Vienna and what happened, and some of them dropped out. What we are seeking from the Soviet Union - if there are no requests, what are you worried about, but if there are such requests and I know that there are is that they permit these Jews to fly to the State of Israel. Israel is a free country.

MK Avraham Shapira, I listened carefully to your remarks and as usual I enjoyed your sense of humor. There is no proposal that the General Assembly, even if its called international accompaniment, replace direct negotiations. There are problems, and I want to tell the Knesset members - so that, heaven forbid, no murkiness be created - that we have problems, the Arabs have problems. Jordan has, according to its own estimate, a need for international accompaniment. If this need does not endanger direct negotiations, I see no reason not to take this Jordanian need into consideration - but not give them power-of-attorney to conduct direct negotiations instead of us - and we will go to this.

I think that MK Micha Harish was right in recalling that during this current discussion as well, we shouldn't forget another peace that is troubled, a peace in which we invested great hopes and which cost a full price, the peace with Egypt. I don't want to hand out copyrights, but I definitely remember - I don't want to reduce the role of Menachern Begin - I remember the constellation that existed then. Do I offend anyone if I say that the constellation that exists today is somewhat different than what existed then? I'm not necessarily referring to Likud members, I am referring for example to someone who is no longer alive, Moshe Dayan. I think that he had a large part in achieving that peace. There is Ezer Weizman. There was a certain constellation. I don't regret this peace. With all that this peace is currently undergoing a difficult test, peace at a test is preferable to constantly undergoing the test of another war. But we must also act to include Egypt in the continuation of the peace process, as we said. We want to settle the things that are at dispute between us without erasing from our hearts the bitterness over the events that took place, and I am referring to the incident event at Ras-Burka, a very serious incident, and I do not intend to make light of it, and we have requested a report from Egypt on this matter.

I want to tell MK Chaim Druckman, also in a good spirit: Mr Druckman said, what does Jordan want, what does Hussein want with negotiations for peace and negotiations regarding peace? MK Druckman, there is a document approved by an overwhelming majority in the Knesset called the Camp David Accords. If it was proposed today, they would ask for clarifications about capitulations and backtracking. But in this document, the following is written: Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District - Egypt, Israel, Jordan and representatives of Arabs from Eretz-lsrael - incidentally in English: "Palestinian people" - must participate in negotiations on settling the problem of the Arabs of Eretz-Israel in all its aspects. In order to achieve this goal, negotiations must be held regarding Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District in three stages, and here follows a detailing of the stages. There is a document. The Knesset approved it. One party formulated it. I can be quite critical of this formulation. But no one can disregard it. Someone is always appointing himself chief rabbi for national affairs, chief rabbi for matters related to the territories. There are no chief rabbis. We are all equally loyal.

I want to understand, what dangerous murkiness did I create? I said the clearest things in the world, both in the U.N. and here, there is no contradiction and there is no backtracking, and I say again: Direct negotiations, without preconditions, with a Jordanian-Palestinian Delegation, not the PLO. What secret talks? I don't understand, is it forbidden to hold secret talks, is it permissible to hold secret talks? I heard on the radio today that I met in Paris for a secret talk with the president of Sri Lanka. I must say, I met in Paris with the president of Sri Lanka - until I heard it on the radio I didn't know it was a secret meeting. I was glad to hear on the radio that it was a secret meeting. I didn't conceal the meeting at all. The journalists photographed, didn't photograph. There was no secret meeting. Despite this, MK Geula Cohen determined that I met with Hussein in Paris. When I was in Paris, and I looked for Hussein, I didn't find him, MK Geula Cohen.

Geula Cohen (Tehiya): He was in London.

Peres: Change your place, change your luck? Perhaps. perhaps not. How do you determine such things? But a prime minister is permitted, it is even his duty, to conduct secret diplomacy. What does this mean? What sin is it to hold secret talks? The policy must be open; the diplomacy can be partly secret. What do you want to tell me, that I am forbidden to meet with anyone privately, to examine an idea? That I must first run to the party leadership or to a press conference and tell about it? Where did you hear this? What kind of rule is this? I know where it came from. A new sin, the prime minister acts behind the government's back. What does this mean? The prime minister acts as a prime minister. You say criticism could have been prevented if I had said things in advance. What criticism could I have prevented? That I sold out Judea and Samaria? Was that firmly based criticism? That all of a sudden I accepted the PLO, or as one cabinet member insinuated, that I don't care at all if weapons are sold to Jordan. This is unheard of. In a conversation with the U.S. President, he turned to me directly and asked that Israel change its position. I told him: Mr. President, we have such good relations between us, we agree on almost everything, let us leave this one subject in dispute, so that it won't be so boring. He got a negative response from me. Afterwards I appeared before the Senate, and one of the Senators told me that after my appearance, another 15 Senators signed [to postpone the arms deal with Jordan]. A minister writes in the newspapers to the effect that the Alignment leaders don't care if weapons are sold to Jordan. So what do you want to say, that if I had appeared in the Knesset I would have prevented these slanders, these baseless slanders? What has this got to do with anything?

I want to tell you, a blatant violation of the rotation agreement? I am not violating the rotation agreement. If someone here doesn't vote [against the no-confidence motion] they are breaking the rotation agreement, not me. I am acting in line with the basic policy guidelines of the government, to open a new page of peace in the Middle East by means of direct negotiations with Jordan. There is nothing in the basic policy guidelines which bars international accompaniment or an international forum. There is nothing in the Likud's past that bars this. Just because someone jumps? Then we have to endanger the rotation agreement? Or because someone made a false accusation?

Members of the Knesset, I am in favor of maintaining the rotation agreement, I am in favor of maintaining the policy. I have no intention of compromising on either. And I have no intention of being afraid of anyone here. I have no need to clarify to you, David Levy, nor to anyone else. My stand is clear without any change, and I acted accordingly. I stand firm on what I said and I ask for the approval of the Knesset.