The following address focussed attention on three major issues. Mr. Shamir took Egypt to task for maintaining a cold peace with Israel, insisting on the return of Taba as part of Sinai and allowing continuous attacks on Israel and its leaders in the Egyptian media. Turning to Lebanon, he said that the 17 May 1983 agreement and the recent decision of Israel to withdraw the IDF beyond the international border, should not be seen as a model for Israeli withdrawal in Judea and Samaria to the old lines. The problem on Israel's eastern border is "one of principle, and of the very existence of the Jewish state" He also addressed the serious economic situation of Israel and called for mobilization of Jewish support for Israel at this time. Text:
Mr. President, distinguished Rabbis, Ladies and Gentlemen,
From the published programme of your conference I learnt that you covered a wide range of subjects affecting the relationship between Israel and world Jewry; the status of religion in Israel; and our general economic, political, and security situation.
I am sure you were searching for the answer not only to the "Who Is A Jew?" question, but also to the question "where will our Jews be tomorrow?" At the moment we see only the tip of the iceberg of problems besetting the Jewish people. It is a glaring and sad paradox that, in this wonderful period in the long history of the Jewish people, when our physical existence is more secure than at any time in our living memory, we find less identification with our great values and national goals. All of us are deeply concerned over the rampant assimilation and intermarriage; and the indifference to Judaism of large sections of our people, especially of our youth.
We in Israel - which is the centre and focal point of Jewish life in the world today cannot accept this weakening of Jewish peoplehood, which is caused by various factors, particularly the failure or lack of Jewish education. Unfortunately, even in the best Jewish communities in Europe and America only a small percentage of Jewish children receive any kind of education. Nor is the home, in many cases, competent to fill the gap, to provide that education, background, and faith that preserved our people over the centuries. The latest statistics we have for the United States, based on a study by the Hebrew University, show that more than half the children of school-going age have no Jewish education at all. They learn nothing of our people's rich and glorious history, nor of our unique religion; nor do they learn the language of our people, the language of prayer that is also the national language in the reborn State of Israel.
Is it any wonder that, in such circumstances, young people, who are vulnerable to the attractions of other faiths, or to the temptation to disengage, simply opt out and free themselves of all ties and responsibilities?
I am sure that your spiritual and community leaders are as concerned as we are and are searching for ways and means to deal with this crisis which has now reached grave proportion. We, too, have not done enough and I believe that extraordinary measures must be taken both in Israel and in the Diaspora to stop the process. World Jewry needs, first and foremost, to find a united policy in the same way as we did nearly six months ago in order to meet our challenges. Jewish education in the diaspora is of the greatest importance and we must do our utmost to help.
It was the grave economic situation and other crucial problems that prompted me to initiate the moves for the formation of our government of national unity, which has brought Israel much appreciation in the world and enhanced our good name. It is regarded as a government of a special character; as a very interesting experiment in parliamentary procedure; as a unique development in political affairs. In fact, in my talks with the ministers of other countries, I have often been asked for details because some of them would like to adopt a similar pattern to resolve their own internal political deadlocks and problems. In essence, this unity government is a full partnership between the two major political blocs and real sharing of power between them. The secret of our successful negotiations at the time is -that we agreed to submerge our differences and to concentrate on those issues on which we are, more or less, united. Therefore, I can say that at present there are no major differences on basic policy between the Likud and Labour in regard to the steps that have to be taken to give fresh impetus to the economy, and certainly not in regard to Lebanon.
What differences exist on the subject of Lebanon are not political but tactical. No one among us opposes the principle of withdrawal of our army from Lebanon. We do have differences on the manner in which we are to leave Lebanon, and the type of security arrangements necessary to protect the Galilee in future.
My friends, the recent increase in the number of attacks against our forces is, in large measure, due to the competition between the various terrorist organizations to prove which is more active against the Israel forces, and which will take control of the areas that we evacuated. Nevertheless, having taking the decision to withdraw, the government of Israel has the responsibility to provide security for the Galilee, and to prevent the renewal of the terrorist threat. I want to believe that we shall find the answer to this problem.
Let me now turn to our relationship with Egypt. All of us in the government agree that the peace treaty between us and Egypt is the cornerstone of the peace process with all our neighbors. It is accepted also by the government of the United States that if this peace treaty with Egypt is maintained, preserved, and respected, it will increase the chances of peace with other Arab countries.
Therefore, it is a matter for profound regret that the government of Egypt behaves as though the peace treaty was only an instrument for them to get hold of the Sinai, and that having done so, they could disengage from any further efforts to advance the peace process.
The clearest example of this attitude of the Egyptians is the recall of their ambassador in October 1982. This step was taken as a reaction to the events in Sabra and Shatilla. At the time, the Egyptians said that they would not return him until arrangements would be made for our withdrawal from Lebanon. Soon, they added other conditions, namely, the need for negotiations to resolve the problems of Taba; and the need for progress towards the solution of the Palestine problem. All this is in conflict with the spirit of our peace treaty which impose obligations on us as well as on Egypt. We have fulfilled our undertaking to the letter, and we expect the Egyptians to do likewise. Their conditions for the return of their ambassador to Israel are quite unacceptable to us, and they should also be a matter of concern to the United States, which is a partner to the peace process. The ambassador has to be here not as a favor, but in accordance with the peace treaty, and no new developments or interpretations can alter that fact.
In our opinion the Egyptians have exaggerated the Taba question out of all proportion. The whole area under dispute is about 1,000 square meters. The Egyptians claim that Taba is part of Sinai, while we have evidence to the effect that it is on our side of the border. And so we must work towards an acceptable technical solution. But it is quite wrong for Egypt - after receiving all of Sinai, which is 60,000 square kilometers - to make a principal issue of 1,000 square meters.
We are particularly perturbed over the displays of intensive hostility in the Egyptian media. This continues every day. There are very bitter anti-Israel articles, and even anti-semitic attacks in the press. This hostile propaganda is also a violation of the peace treaty. It should be the purpose of President Mubarak and the government of Egypt to foster the spirit of peace and not to encourage hostility. Whenever we lodge complaints we are told that the Egyptian media is free, and that the government cannot interfere.
The Egyptian charge d'affairs in our country is able to appear on television and radio, and to give interviews to the press whenever he wishes to do so, and his views are published far and wide. Yet, it is almost impossible for our ambassador in Egypt to get equal treatment. He has no access to this so-called free media in Egypt, which, as we know, is very much under the influence of the government.
Our government remains faithful to the Camp David accords, and believes it is the only viable framework for resolving the problems on our eastern border with Jordan. At the time of the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Menachem Begin called on King Hussein to enter into negotiations with us. He received no answer from the king. Nor did he respond to my invitations to meet us at the negotiating table. When Prime Minister Peres renewed the call recently, there was still no answer. Apparently, Hussein wants to enjoy the best of all worlds. He wants to maintain good relations with the PLO and with the Arab countries that support the PLO, and, at the same time, he wants to have all the territory of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. And now he wants the PLO terrorists to be his partners in any negotiating process. I have to tell him, for his own sake, that any intimacy with the PLO is a danger to the whole region. The PLO is not a force for peace. It is the exact opposite. Its philosophy and programme are directed towards conflict, domination, and destruction.
No government of Israel will conduct negotiations with the terrorists, and no government of Israel will agree to the establishment of a second Arab Palestinian state in our region. In accordance with the basic guidelines of our government of national unity we shall continue to develop Jewish towns and villages in all parts of Eretz Israel, including Judea and Samaria. It is inconceivable to us that there will be portions of the land closed to Jews. This is a matter of principle, and of great importance to our security.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken. Our government of national unity was created when it became evident that there were no differences between us in regard to the economy and Lebanon. But Arab governments - and also some western governments - believed that they would be able to exploit the differences between Labour and Likud on the subject of the borders of Eretz Israel; that this would cause the break-up of our government, or create a crisis that would apply pressure on us in regard to Judea and Samaria.
Therefore, I consider it my duty to say to all who think along these lines that they are making a big mistake. Lebanon is not Eretz Israel, and there is no chance whatsoever that we would even consider relinquishing control over Judea and Samaria.
I would like to remind you that it was a Likud government which signed the original agreement with Lebanon on May 17, 1983, for our withdrawal on the basis of sound security arrangements. The agreement was torpedoed by the Syrians. But the arrangements that were made in Lebanon, then and now, cannot be taken as a precedent for the return to the border of 1967 with Jordan. Here the problem is one of principle, and of the very existence of the Jewish state.
And therefore, I am able to say that there is today a basic understanding in the unity government on Judea and Samaria. Our policy is based on our faith in the Camp David Accords as the instruments to provide the comprehensive answer to the problems on the eastern border, and also for the Palestinian Arabs. This is also our answer to the recent Arab manoeuvres and the new formulas, which, as everyone now knows, don't offer peace, but are intended to deceive and mislead.
The commitment to Camp David and our readiness to negotiate with Jordan without prior conditions enables the government of Israel to stand united against these latest Arab manoeuvres and future pressures and threats.
Lastly, my friends, a few words about our economic problems, which are linked to various international political developments. We are now in the final stages of negotiating the Free Trade Area Agreement with the United States, which, when it comes into effect, will give a major boost to our export industry. We are also dealing actively with developments in the European Common Market, which is a major area for our agricultural products. We are worried that the imminent entry of Spain and Portugal into the market could have a negative bearing on the status of our products in Europe. We have already had discussions, with most governments in Europe, and, in a few days, I shall go there again to hold further talks, in the hope that a formula will be found to protect our exports to the European market.
I hope you will agree that despite our many difficulties, our position generally is solid and encouraging. We are free and strong; our country is secure. We hope to overcome the problems in our economy, which is basically sound. Our international standing is good, mainly because our positions are understood, and even those who don't accept them - respect them.
My friends, in our time the words "Am Yisrael Chai!" have new meaning, and it is a breathtaking reality. We are more than simply alive. We have our national home, whose gates are open day and night to any member of the Jewish people who may wish to return - as in the case of the Ethiopian community. But the land calls the Jews. living in the free world as well. We need you. There are not enough of you in the country, and we know that you could make a great contribution. The 160,000 Jews who came here from Russia added much to the strength and vitality of the State of Israel. There is no doubt that if an equal number were to come here in a short time from the free world, they would contribute no less, and our position would be very different. I hope it will still come about in the near future, and that large numbers will join us in the great drama of building the state and strengthening the nation.
We have to mobilize and utilize the spiritual quality and values of all the Jewish people; their creative genius, their economic, industrial, and professional skills, to put us firmly on the road to economic independence, just as our struggles and sacrifices of the past gave us our political independence and our military security.