Three subjects from the focus of Mr. Shamir's address. The first dealt with Zionism, still subjected to massive onslaught ten years after the passage of Zionism is Racism resolution. Zionism proved its vitality in the recent "Operation Moses", said Mr. Shamir. He also noted the changing international climate and the improvement of relations between the two major blocs. He expressed the hope that this transformation would be accompanied by Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union. Finally, he suggested to his audience not to believe in what he called Arab "double speak", saying one thing publicly and another privately. Text:
Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Jackson, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, in whose memory we are holding this conference, was a man of principles. His outlook on the moral imperatives in American foreign policy was firm and consistent. A dedicated opponent of totalitarianism and oppression, he strove resolutely for the strengthening of the free world, as he struggled for the safeguarding of the human rights of Soviet Jews and other oppressed minorities. His ideology was a total contradiction to opportunism and to the determination of policy by criteria of interest and power-play. He left behind him a legacy which the free world would do well to remember and emulate.
It has been said that a policy that is divorced from principle is like a ship without a rudder. It may create the impression of movement along a set course, but in reality, its course is determined by the waves of the ocean. It is a constant threat to other vessels - and to itself.
We are living in an era in which political leaders feel constrained to adopt and declare their own particular ideology or set of principles. It is an age of proliferation of ideologies. Too often, however, there is a gulf between ideology and practice, and even more disconcerting are the stark contradictions between enunciated principles and the actual conduct of policy. In saying this, I am sure I am not unveiling anything that is not known to historians and political scientists. I mention this phenomenon because I want to focus on some of the side-effects as they pertain to our region.
In a democracy, there is some kind of system of cheeks and balances that ensures that the politician in power follows a policy that is consonant with his ideology. In a totalitarian regime, both principles and policy are tools to be used as the ruler sees fit.
Leaders of totalitarian regimes have taken words and definitions from the free world, misused and abused them and adapted them to serve their needs. They went a step further and invested great efforts in creating confusion and in order to blur the differences between themselves and the truly free and democratic peoples. This was done through a deliberate, massive and sustained propaganda campaign. As a result, some naive, well-meaning and ideologically motivated people in the free societies have been attracted to counterfeit slogans and theories that seem appealing because they sound humanistic, peace-loving and universal. These people, many of them young, have set up popular movements that have raised the banners of peace and disarmament. There is a common denominator to these groups that have risen in the west. They are obsessed with an urge for unilateral concessions in favor of the totalitarian states, and they are oblivious of the fact that no movement similar to theirs exists in any of the totalitarian countries.
I believe the time has come for the democracies to adopt a resolute and united stand against the confusion and attempts at brain-washing that are being inspired by the true enemies of freedom and human rights. The dividing line between oppression and freedom must be reaffirmed, not just for the sake of decency and honesty, but also for the sake of our young generation, so that none of them should succumb to the campaign of disinformation and deceit that is mounted by the forces of evil and despotism.
If the present talks will open up the possibility of improving relations between the two world blocs, then, I submit, the totalitarian group should be required to prove its good will by deeds and not just by words. Freedom for Soviet Jewry, for example, could be one indication of their readiness to improve the international climate.
In this regard, the situation in Israel is relatively good, because most of our people are well aware of the national goals of the state, as they are aware of the intentions of our adversaries and enemies.
The campaign to malign and slander the Jewish national liberation movement of Zionism - the basic tenet of the State of Israel - was one of the most massive propaganda efforts that was mounted in our time. It united all the totalitarian and oppressive regimes in such a frenzy that seemed to be trying to do by force of words what our enemies had failed to achieve by force of arms. One may well wonder what motivated such passions and extreme measures. It may be that the continued existence of an outpost of freedom and democracy in a region so utterly devoid of these characteristics is considered an affront and challenge by them. The obscene equation of Zionism with racism was approved by a majority of the members of the United Nations. But it was a hollow victory to those who initiated the resolution. Nobody seemed to take it seriously. Israel was and remains open for all to see its people, its way of life, and its conduct in regard to the protection of freedom of speech and human rights.
Now, ten years after this infamous resolution was passed, it has sustained another heavy blow with the revelation of the story of the coming home of the Ethiopian Jews. This is an outstanding example of what Zionism is all about. It demonstrates the absurdity of the Zionism-racism equation. It is the fulfillment of a centuries-old devotion to the Jewish dream of the return of the Jewish people from all over the world to the Land of Israel and the reestablishment of the Jewish sovereign state in that land.
Zionism is, at the same time, the struggle of Soviet Jews to maintain and develop their Jewish culture, to reassert their commitment to the Jewish people, and to join their brethren in the Jewish state whenever they wish to do so. Zionism is the rescuing of the Jews of Syria from their status as hostages in the hands of the Syrian government. Finally, Zionism is Israel's response to the call of any Jew, wherever he may be, who is ill-treated because he is a Jew.
No less obscene than the Zionism-racism equation is the more subtle campaign to cast Israel in the guise of the Aggressor and opponent of peace, and to present the Arab states as the victim and seeker of peace. Perhaps the very peak of obscenity is the attempt to paint the PLO terrorists as moderate or peaceful and striving for political accommodation. This exercise in deceit has been aptly described by Joan Peters as "turnspeak," "the cynical inverting or distorting of facts which, for example, makes the victim appear as the culprit."
This campaign, in which peace is used as a weapon against Israel, has taken advantage of certain weaknesses in western society. Free people are naturally sympathetic to the word "Peace" and to those who make constant reference to it. Arab, totalitarian, and recently even PLO spokesmen have been making extensive use of the world "peace" and its derivatives, to an extent that was bound to make a dent in the minds of people in the west. Together with the references to peace, there are a great many statements and articles in the Arab media that are totally hostile and uncompromising towards Israel.
Recently, when a visitor from the west confronted the president of a major Arab country with the media attacks on Israel, the Arab leader suggested that his guest should not pay attention to what was published in the Arab media, but to what was being said in a private audience. This particular explanation of Arab double-talk has been advanced ever since the beginning of the Arab-Israel conflict. Five wars have been fought and still the same pretext does not fail to make an impact on a visitor from the west who wants to believe what he is being told; and the more it is laced with moderate and peace-loving words, the more does it sound appealing and credible to his ears.
In our efforts to combat and expose the usage of "turnspeak," we have to remind our friends in the west that a truly free and democratic society cannot be anything but peace-loving. It does not have to provide proof of its dedication to peace, because if it were to turn its back on peace, it would cease to be free and democratic. Therefore, Israel has no need of peace movements like those existing in Europe. But there is certainly such a need in our neighboring states where, characteristically, no call for peace with Israel has been proclaimed.
We cannot compete with the propaganda machines and media control that are exercised by non-democratic and autocratic governments. We cannot outdo them by repeating the word peace and its synonyms as many times as they do. But we can challenge them to give practical expression to their declarations, or to go beyond generalizations on peace to more specific references. For example, we would like to hear an Arab leader tell his people, in their language, that Israel should be accepted as a permanent feature in this region and as a state, with the same rights as theirs, with which they should learn to live in peace. Such a statement would go a long way toward producing the climate in which true and lasting peace can be established and developed for the benefit of all the peoples of the region.
As in the past, Israel would immediately respond, and the result could well be another round of direct negotiations for peace which, in the true spirit of democracy, should also be a genuine expression of the vision and hopes of our dear, unforgettable friend, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson.