Mr. Shamir was far more harsh than the prime minister when he responded to the recent speeches in Amman by both the Jordanian monarch and Yasser Arafat. He ruled out any PLO involvement in the peace process, reminding the House that the PLO was bent on the annihilation of Israel. He also expressed dismay at the failure of Egypt to criticize the PLO... for saying that "Egypt... did not accept the Camp David policy; Egypt and its people opposed the normalization which others tried to force on them" . He repeated the government's call on Jordan to enter into negotiations. It was now clear that Jordan required the approval of the PLO to negotiate with Israel. The latter required Syrian approval. For the time being, the peace process was deadlocked. Abridged text follows:
... The organization called the P.L.O., and the forum connected to it, known as the "Palestine National Council," are not worthy of the Knesset's consideration; and the deliberations concerning them, their deeds, and their decisions are beneath the dignity of this house.
The element known as the P.L.O. was set up by the Arab states twenty years ago as a means of working against the existence of the State of Israel, and as an instrument through which to demand the ownership of all of the land of Israel. Until it split and broke up into several bodies, in the wake of operation "Peace for Galilee," The P.L.O. was a sort of umbrella organization of terrorist groups, united by one goal, which is set forth in the infamous document called the National Palestinian Covenant. This goal, in simple words, is to annihilate the State of Israel, and to establish in its stead another Arab state, as though the existing 22 Arab states were insufficient.
Along with its terrorist activities - whose practical expression is the killing of Jews and Israelis, men, women, old people, and children, at every possible opportunity. The P.L.O. also developed widespread propaganda activity which is financed by the Arab oil states. The aim of this activity was to cover for the terrorism, and to advance the delegitimization of Israel in the diplomatic arena. Without changing one whit the original goal the terrorist organizations had set themselves, their propaganda branches, at their various conventions, also dealt with tactical moves to serve their goals, in accordance with changing circumstances. Thus, for example, there were those who greeted with joy the decisions of the 12th session, in 1974, of the body known as the Palestine National Council, in which it was decided not to suffice with terrorist activity only, but to act [also] in the diplomatic arena, in accordance with a phased political program. Thus came into being the "phases doctrine" of the P.L.O. what it means is this: It is necessary to concentrate on a more modest goal, or in their words to liberate any portion whatever of the Palestinian lands, in order to set up a Palestinian entity which would [then] serve as a base for the continuation of liberation actions, until the completion of the process, that is to say... Israel's annihilation.
The P.L.O.'s true aim was presented once again, this time by Arafat's deputy who goes under the alias "Abu Iyad," to those attending the convention in Amman. He said: "Every one of us wants the return of Jaffa, or every inch of the Palestinian lands. When we said we wanted an independent state on any part of the Palestinian land, we wanted a place where our nation could live in comfort and not be in a condition of exile. It does not mean that we have given in. The Palestinian leadership which decided this is a courageous one. At one time we were charged with treason. We said that we want a democratic secular state on all the Palestinian land. We have not given up on this, but every stage must be dealt with as befits it. " And Abu Iyad further stated: "The Zionists took Palestine inch by inch, and we must retrieve it inch by inch."
I think it might have been unnecessary for me to resort to quoting Abu Iyad and his colleagues in order to remind the Knesset and the Israeli public of the true face of the P. L. O.: every child in Israel knows who we are talking about and what their goals are. Every Israeli citizen has long since developed a sixth sense for suspicious objects in public places, and we all know who emplaces them, and what they are trying to attain...
There is a national consensus in the State of Israel that no political contact whatever is to be made with the P.L.O.; it is not a partner in the political process, and it is a definite obstacle to peace. Time and again, the Frankenstein monster known as the P.L.O. has risen against its creators, the Arab states - and the lesson has not yet been learned. The terrorist organizations have cast their pall of fear over the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District, as well as over the governments and leaders in the Arab countries. Despite this, the Arab leaders have given over to the P.L.O. some of their ability to decide. They have found themselves the captives of this element, and have paid a heavy price therefor, time after time. But the hands which have tied themselves up are the ones which must release the bonds, and give back to their masters their power of decision.
As long as the terrorist organizations deal in terror, Israel will strike at them at every opportunity which arises. We have succeeded in breaking their backs, in depriving them of the territorial base which they had set up for themselves on Lebanese soil, and in scattering them to the four corners of the Arab world. Those Arab leaders who proclaim their desire for a settlement are being afforded a chance to free themselves of the P. L. 0. stranglehold, in order to go over finally to the path of relevant, true, respectable political negotiation, and to find a joint way to coexistence and peace.
These words apply especially to the Kingdom of Jordan; this is a state most of whose inhabitants are Palestinians from the western part of the Land of Israel, while the P.L.O. has not concealed its basic enmity for its royal Hashemite regime. Jordan was faced with the peril of a civil war in 1970. At that time it almost lost its independence because of the rampage of P.L.O. terror in its midst, and the support of its Arab neighbor for that organization. King Hussein's decision to host the P.N.C. this time in Amman stems apparently from his estimation that neither he nor his kingdom would be harmed by the organization, which has undergone crises of dissension and fragmentation.
On various occasion, and even from this podium, Israeli governments have called on Jordan to take the valiant step and come to the negotiating table. This call still stands, not because Israel alone wants and needs a settlement, but precisely because peace is a necessity for both neighbors, Israel and Jordan equally.
Jordan must clear away from the road to peace with Israel two obstacles: The first is the partnership with the P.L.O.; any Jordanian partnership with this murderous organization blocks every approach and every path to peace. The second obstacle the dream of Israel returning to its 1949 borders. This is a vain dream and a dangerous illusion. Israel made very many concessions at Camp David. The faster Jordan frees itself of these two obstacles, the stronger will be the chances of peace between the two states which live side by side on either bank of the Jordan.
... We signed a peace treaty with Egypt almost 6 years ago. This was a revolutionary, historic event in the annals of the Middle East, which was accompanied by sharp opposition and threats of murder on the part of the P.L.O. members and their leaders. When Egyptian President Sadat was murdered, Arafat and his friends danced in the streets. And now, here are the Egyptian newspapers loaded with words of praise and glorification for the P.L.O. performance in Amman. Nor does Arafat withhold his praises from Egypt. These are his words: "The historic Egypt... did not accept the Camp David policy; Egypt and its people opposed the normalization which others tried to force on them." Dixit Arafat.
We ask the Egyptian government: Where are the denials of these statements, which are in contradiction to the repeated declarations in Cairo to western statesmen of commitment and loyalty to the Camp David Agreements? One can indeed wonder at that special Middle Eastern art of doublespeak, of saying something and its contradiction; but peace is not a toy - it behooves clarity and sincerity.
... The P.L.O. is not a topic for discussion when it represents... The negation of peace; but Jordan and Egypt - our neighbors to the south and the east, who proclaim their desire for peace - must decide on their path: Support for the P. L. 0., or peace. The two are incompatible.