In his reply at the conclusion of the Knesset debate, Mr. Peres elaborated on the nature of the new coalition agreement. He explained that while Likud and the Alignment have not abandoned their principles, at this juncture Israel required a strong government and therefore accommodations had to be made. The government won a vote of confidence of 89 in favour, 18 against and one abstention. The government of national unity was now assured of a massive support in the Knesset and could devote attention to Mr. Peres' three urgent priorities: The Lebanese front, the economic and social front and the peace front. Text:
It has been a long debate, incisive, and, in my opinion, also civilized and serious, for anyone who had the patience to follow it...
I want to say to my good friend MK Victor Shemtov, who has taken my place as leader of the opposition - and there are perils in the opposition, too - that a national unity government is not a sin. And even if it is a sin, it has a precedent. Even a Mapam precedent. Mapam also participated in a national unity government, and there is no reason to disguise that fact. I also want to tell you that it isn't even a socialist sin. The president of the Socialist International, Willi Brandt, was foreign minister in what the Germans term a "Grand Coalition," a national unity government. He was a minister in a government in which Franz Josef Strauss participated, a government headed by a very right-wing party...
The overwhelming majority of the Alignment believes that under the right conditions, which are right for this time, it is necessary to form a national unity government; and a minority says not to. What are we to do? To accept the minority view? How is that more democratic than rotation?... The price the Likud would have had to pay for a narrow government, and the price the Alignment would have had to pay for a narrow government, would not have been less than the price we have paid for a national unity government.
As for the inner cabinet... this is not our invention. In England there is "The Government" and there is a Cabinet. The government sometimes has as many as 30 members... there is a government and there is a cabinet - this does not mean first class and second class. There are topics which are dealt with in a smaller group, and topics which are dealt with in a wider forum. This is no disgrace.
MK Victor Shemtov has said that this is a Likud government, and MK Geula Cohen... has said that this is an Alignment government... which of you is right? You said that we gave in to the Likud on the whole issue of Judea and Samaria; and Geula Cohen, who read the same basic principles, said that the Likud had given in to the Alignment on the very same issue... Now I want to explain, and I think it is the view of both parties: The Likud did not forego its views, and I say this to my colleagues in the Alignment; the Alignment did not forego its views - this I say to the members of the Likud. We are not here to blur points, or to strike flags, or to surrender. We are here to find how -despite contradictory views, and because there are more serious questions - we can find what seems to be, or can be, a common denominator, despite the historic and real differences.
The Likud and the Alignment have agreed... to discuss in greater depth what the document appears to call for. The document plainly calls for guaranteeing the security of the Galilee settlements, to make security arrangements, and to enable the I.D.F. to return home... in my opinion, this policy can be carried out more easily in a unified framework, than when there is disputation among the people, and when every party is being careful lest, heaven forbid, it be caught making a misstep. In my opinion, a defense minister in a national unity government can act free of the fear that he be attacked for an error which would be difficult to anticipate in advance. And here, in my opinion, the unity contributes to the goal which is really united and which unites, by its very nature.
Secondly, on the economic issue. I want to say to the members of, let us say, the more leftist section of the Knesset: If we are a Social-Democratic party, we do not accept Leninism; that is to say - when things are bad economically, it's good for the opposition. We do not accept this. When things are bad economically it's bad for all of us. And when a company goes bankrupt, workers are dismissed. We shall not put [action] off to the days of the Messiah in order to translate it into votes. We go on being responsible, our sensitivity is constant... I can stand up and say: The Likud is the guilty party. And if we form a narrow government, and we have to make steps in order to correct the economic situation, the Likud will say we are the guilty ones. We will share the guilt - but there will be unemployed workers, there will be bankruptcies. I don't see, as a responsible person in this country, if it is possible [to act] together, [why we should] divide the country. And it doesn't matter at this moment who is responsible for having created this situation...
And now I want to say to my colleagues, from both the right and the left: Search your hearts, each of you. We have reached a dangerous level of debate. The debate is not dangerous, but the mode is. It has stopped being a debate, and has begun to be incitement, hatred within the nation, insupportable exaggerations. I want a debate with the Likud, but a debate without hatred, without bombast, a true debate. And we can already see what has happened on the fringes, to what we have come. Why is it forbidden to stop this? Even if a national unity government will contribute to a new and restrained style, even when from this house will be heard the sound of restrained and civilized debate. I sat this evening and heard the maiden [Knesset] speech of Rabbi Peretz. I had a really pleasant surprise: for the first time in a long time I heard a rabbi expressing himself in such an incisive and civilized fashion on the need for improvement in relations between Jews and Arabs. This was, for me, the most unexpected speech today... And I was very happy about it. Perhaps if I had called to Rabbi Peretz only across the hackneyed and usual partitions, I would have thought differently of him, and perhaps he too would have thought differently of me...
We have seen democracies in, which there have been incisive debates, in England as well, but they never reached such divisiveness, such hatred, to the fear of our not being able to live as one people. This is beyond left and right, beyond hawks and doves, beyond religious and secular. A new backdrop, a new style. Perhaps this government will serve as an example; perhaps our Knesset, the eleventh, despite having started out in considerable mutual doubt, will introduce something which we have lost and which we so sorely lack.
... The basic guidelines of the new government contain a commitment to pass a law against racist incitement. I believe that almost all the members of this house - and the world "almost" does not refer to more than one person -reject this manifestation of racial hatred, racist incitement, which is diametrically opposed to the spirit of our nation.
I want to say to MK Nasser A-Din, that his remarks concerning Druze [I.D.F.] veterans were to the point; there must indeed be an improvement of their situation at the end of their service, and a strengthening of their willingness -which exists to a significant degree -- to serve in the I.D.F.; a balanced level of relations with them must be achieved.
I will not argue with MK Tewfiq Toubi on policy matters... Do you know what the difference is between us? I am sometimes accused of changing my mind. You are never accused of that. This is a terrible deficiency. For situations change, the world changes - only your views do not change. And you must examine [each] issue. I say this with all due respect, not in derision... you now have a competitor... in the form of MK Miari - supporting the P.L.O. [if] it's not Miari, it's Assad. He grabbed half of the P.L.O. Speaking of the P.L.O. - to which P.L.O. are you referring today? In Tunisia or in Syria? How do you choose between the two?
Mr. Toubi: The P.L.O. remains the P.L.O., under the leadership of Arafat.
Peres: Are you willing to bring confirmation from the P.L.O. leadership in Syria for these words of yours?
Toubi: The whole world recognizes this.
Peres: The problem is, when you say the whole world, it represents a very limited geography. And this geography is the result of ideology, not of the map of the world. Who is the whole world in your eyes? It is only a small part of the world. For this reason I suggest to you, that if you want a debate, we shall conduct one.
Toubi: The P.L.O. is recognized by more [elements] than Israel.
Peres: Yes, and look at the P.L.O.'s situation. Everyone recognizes it, but no one knows where it is.
... We haven't accepted the Likud plan regarding Judea and Samaria, and the Likud hasn't accepted the Alignment plan regarding Judea and Samaria. We searched for a modus vivendi in Judea and Samaria so that no one will be able to claim that he is dominating his colleague. And in the case of disagreement, we established a system of discussion which essentially must end in persuading, not in the majority deciding. There's no other way. The Alignment stands firm on no establishment of settlements in densely-populated Arab areas, not because these places aren't dear to us - they are very dear to us - but because we, in our opinion, don't want to turn Israel into a bi-national state. You can agree or disagree. The Likud holds an opposing view. Regarding the past - o.k., we don't have any intention of removing settlements; we also agreed to develop them, when the government decides on the scope of the development. And so there is no mistake, there are differences of opinion on the scope of development; there is no sense in covering this up. We will bring this before the inner cabinet, in which both parties are equally represented; we will try to persuade one another. No one has any guarantee that his opinion will be the one to be accepted.
We also decided to handle the disputed matter of the new settlements by means of discussion and mutual persuasion. None among us can claim that his opinion or that of his colleague was accepted ahead of time. I don't want to cover up anything. We agreed on joint areas of activity, we agreed not to agree on disputed areas, and even so, to act together and to maintain the continuing option of discussion and persuasion without domination.
In my opinion, fundamentally, politics isn't a show but a decision. It isn't a declaration, it's a realization; and if for this reason they call us "doers," fine. What is politics without implementation? It's almost poetry. The well-known French poet Paul Valery one said: What is the difference between prose and poetry, between prose and verse? He says: Prose is like walking. Verse is like dance. In walking you start in one place and you have to end up in another; in dance you turn around on the stage all the time. It's pleasant, but it doesn't lead anywhere. And for this reason in policy one must decide; and when you lack all the powers to decide, choose' a frontal approach. We chose three, in my opinion: The Lebanese front, the economic and social front, and, in my opinion, the peace front as well, since even when there is disagreement between the Likud and ourselves, and between ourselves and the Likud, it is easier to reach these goals.
Toubi: Do you have anything to offer the Arab population?
Peres: To the Arab population, MK Toubi, we will contribute no less than you. You have to understand this. You don't have to be a Communist, but rather it's enough to be a Jew in order to (interrupted-ed.) - you should have heard Rabbi Peretz today on this subject. The voice of Torah and the voice of equality; the voice of respect [is] in the [government's] basic policy guidelines as well. You spoke, for instance, of the fate of the Waqf. In the unity government's basic policy guidelines there is an examination of the [matter of] religious trusts, there is reference to finding places of employment for Arab intellectuals, There is production, master plans for Arab settlements. What do you really think, that the Arabs here will be second-class citizens? We have a common Jewish-Arab problem: And that is that in a situation of hostility it's impossible to conscript Arabs as Jews are conscripted; and this definitely causes a problem. This isn't the Israeli Arabs' fault, it's the fault of the Arabs living around us; but it creates an atmosphere of caution and occasionally of reservation, which is difficult for us as well. We would like to see the Israeli Arabs as citizens like every other citizen in the country, to see their villages decent and flourishing. What do you really think, that this is only lip service? This how we were educated, every Jew, perhaps with certain exceptions.
... In concluding my remarks I want to say: I know that the attempt we are making is a new and bold one. I know that it has already begun to produce one result: A silent hope in the hearts of many citizens that it may truly be possible to argue in the context of unity, to act despite the differences of opinion, to harness ourselves together for the sake of the nation when this harnessing is necessary. No one can guarantee that we shall overcome all the difficulties; but who says that only a pessimistic prophet is a prophet? We have also seen that the prophesying power of people who believe is not inferior to that of those who despair and belittle.
I ask the members of the Knesset to give this government backing and grant it confidence.