76 Reply in the Knesset by Prime Minister Peres to the political debate- 10 June 1985

1. Talks between Israeli, American, Jordanian, Egyptian and Palestinian representatives who were not PLO members.

2. Creation of an Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian working group to propose an agenda for a conference with American participation.

3. The support of the other permanent members of the Security Council for a conference would be elicited.

4. "Appointment of authentic Palestinian representatives from the territories who will represent the inhabitants and will be acceptable to all parties" .

5. The convening within three months of a conference in a site either in the Middle East, Europe or the United States.

In the following reply, Mr. Peres argued mainly with the opposition parties to the left and right of the National Unity Government. Text:

Prime Minister Peres: Mr. Speaker, distinguished Knesset, the debate in the Knesset, in my opinion, today proved that both the radical left and the radical right essentially are unprepared for or are not enabling real peace negotiations. MK Victor Shem-Tov proposed to us that we conduct negotiations...

Shulamit Aloni (Citizens Rights and Peace Party): Why "radical" left?

Peres: I didn't say all of them. MK Victor Shem-Tov essentially proposed conducting negotiations with our hands up; MK Geula Cohen proposes conducting negotiations with eyes down - one must look only at the ground, nothing else exists. I don't accept either. But before I analyze MK Victor Shem-Tov's position, I want to take issue with several of his introductory remarks.

He said: When a chance for a political move emerges, the government is silent. More than that - it goes down to the shelters. Since I know MK Victor Shem-Tov to be a very fair person, I want to quote remarks he made in January on another subject: "With its establishment, the government raised hopes that it would be able to make a difficult decision, and bring the IDF home. And what has turned out? It's turned out that this government not only is not the only hope but is the main obstacle to withdrawing the IDF from Lebanon." That was in January of this year.

Further: "The Likud doesn't have the courage to say to the nation that this war was an appalling failure. The Alignment doesn't have the courage to decide to return the IDF to the international border, because it's clear that this would probably topple the government coalition."

MK Victor Shem-Tov, all told, six months have gone by, the IDF is home today, without courage...

Victor Shem-Tov (Mapam): That's a lot of time, sir.

Peres: We were in the Alignment together, and we decided.

Shem-Tov: We said that when you leave Lebanon, well give you our blessing.

Peres: You simply missed -an opportunity to give us your blessing. But you said, did you not, that they're afraid -the Likud is afraid, the Alignment is afraid, only you're not afraid. Here, look, those big cowards, those who prefer the government... but are we in the shelters? I want to understand, the entire network of relations we have now with Egypt, is this the result of paralysis? Is it the fruit of fear? Changing the policy in the settlements in Judea and Samaria - is that the result of paralysis? Is it the result of fear, the result of speeches?

Now I turn to the main subject: I want to ask you, my good friend Victor Shem-Tov - can I whisper - no one will hear - to the PLO that it mustn't perpetrate terrorism? Must I say only that it should recognize me? And if I say: Don't kill women and children, am I a rejectionist? Is that the sole condition? It will recognize me as I am and I will recognize it as it is? We can't ask it to change? Why?

Shem-Tov: Are you acquainted with the Shem-Tov-Yariv formula?

Peres: Shem-Tov-Yariv says mutual recognition, Shem-Tov-Yariv does not, unfortunately, relate to the issue of terrorism. I opposed the Shem-Tov-Yariv formula then, and I haven't changed my mind. Nothing will help. Is it permissible to say to the PLO: "No to terrorism?" Now, according to you and to MK Sarid, you're saying: There's been a change. Maybe there has been a change. What is the change? That the PLO doesn't advocate a Palestinian state but rather a confederation. Very nice. That the PLO is prepared to accept 242 so that America will recognize it, not us. It's not interested in us. Who brought this change? Why, both of you were prepared for us to recognize a PLO which was demanding a Palestinian state. I want to understand, why did the PLO change its stand? Because of its willingness? Because of your willingness, or because there was pressure on it to change? And who pressed? Hussein, who is unnecessary, pressed. But - and here I want to tell the truth and you won't escape it - okay, we recognize the PLO, then what? I have to ask this question of myself, not of you: Do we proceed to a Palestinian state, do we proceed to dividing Jerusalem, yes or no? If we say that I'm a rejectionist, you are either rejectionists or nothingnists. Because you want to reject a stage of a Palestinian state, so I hope, or a stage of dividing Jerusalem. You want to postpone the rejection. What is the difference between us? What is the difference between us, I want to understand. Or maybe there's no rejecting, everything's open, whatever Arafat says, I have to say yes.

I want to tell MK Matti Peled, there's no point in arguing with you. Because you won't change the PLO, the PLO will change you. You were ready to support the PLO before the change took place that you say occurred, before Jordan changed its position. Why should I argue with them? Obviously, there's no chance you'll change the PLO. The PLO will say "boom," you will say "boom." Do you have any influence? What, Israel isn't allowed to argue? Where is such a thing heard, in what rules of negotiations? I'm not allowed to put forward my own proposal? Arafat gets up - and I say: Yes, Yes. Yossi Sarid's philosophy. Hussein says something, I say: Yes. I'm not allowed to ask? I can't propose an alternative? I want to understand. Does this bury peace? I want to understand, is it forbidden to tell the Soviet Union that it should establish relations with Israel?

Shem-Tov: You're arguing with us today the way [former prime minister] Begin argued with you.

Peres: Fine, I'm allowed. I want to tell you what pains me most. The Arabs' opinion of our stands is better than your opinion. The Arabs' opinion of my response is better than your opinion. From this house we hear all the time: There's no difference, you're all one big batch: Sharon, you, Golda, Ben-Gurion, none of you are worth anything. Only Yossi Sarid is worth something, the others are nothing, there's no difference, there's no argument, you are Sharon's successor, and Sharon was Begin's successor, and Begin was Dayan's, and Dayan was Golda's, and Golda was Ben-Gurion's.

I'm allowed to argue -because I kept my word. I said there would be a withdrawal from Lebanon - and there was. You ask what differences there are, the Likud yielded on Judea and Samaria, and so did we. I don't say it's not so. It's not the same thing. And that's the truth. You ask what differences there are, the Likud wants Camp David to be a pre-condition to negotiations with Jordan. We don't. Although we have undertaken, and I will stand by this undertaking, I don't hide it, that if we meet with Jordan we will propose the autonomy plan in the first stage.

Yossi [MK Sarid], you may be very intelligent, but you don't have the intelligence to make up a majority. You need a majority, too. To make peace you need one little detail, you need a government. With all due respect to speeches, speeches aren't enough, you have to form a government, and a government costs compromises, I don't deny it.

I said that we would progress in relations with Egypt - and we are progressing. I said that we would invite Jordan and the Palestinians - and we are inviting them. If any changes have occurred in Hussein's stand and the Palestinians' stand, it's because of our stands, not because of your stand, otherwise they wouldn't have changed.

MK Shem-Tov rightfully said - MK Matti Peled later repeated it - that perhaps Hussein's appearance before the PNC had its effect. Although what did Hussein say? Hussein said to the PLO: Gentlemen, don't think that the whole world is waiting for you and that time is working in our favor. He set a condition, which he has backed off; he said: I'm with you only if you go on the basis of 242 and 338. Why is Hussein allowed to set such a condition? Why can't I set such a condition? I don't understand, do I have to [reply] like this: Yes sir, yes sir, yes sir to everything they say? Otherwise I'm rejectionist, otherwise you'll change the whole history - and III settle accounts with you regarding the history.

Now I want to ask something concerning the Soviet Union. Why can't Israel tell the Soviet Union: Renew diplomatic relations. Why is this rejections? I want to understand. Why can't we tell the Soviet Union: Open the gates. Why is that opposition to peace?

Now I want to say to MK Victor Shem-Tov: Did any of us rule out Bethlehem mayor Elias Freij? Is he not a representative of the Palestinians? Did any of us rule out former Gaza mayor Rashad a-Shawwa? Did any of us rule out Nablus notable Hikhmat Masri? Yes, I shook the hand of former Hebron mayor Fahd Kawassmeh. I knew his views. So long as he wasn't in the organization that advocated the murder of women and children, I shook his hand. Let him think what he likes, I didn't ask for any censorship of his thoughts. And former Nablus mayor Bassem Shaka'a, and former Tulkarm mayor Muhammad Milhem, to a certain limit - and that limit is violence. It's permissible to oppose violence. Opposition to violence is not rejection of peace.

This I say both to you [MK Tawfiq Toubi] and to MK Zayyad. Do you know who opposes an international conference? The Soviet Union. First of all let me pass onto you the latest information. You should be aware of the situation, not 1, for me it is enough to think. You should know that the Soviet Union sent a message to Jordan saying that it's opposed to the five permanent security council members, it agrees to only two - Itself and the U.S. - 'what are all these little ones butting in for, two superpowers is enough.'

MK Tawfiq Toubi (DEPE): That was according to Security Council Resolution 338.

Peres: Hussein agreed to Resolutions 242 and 338 from day one. And today I repeat, even though I didn't hear him, that I very much enjoyed the remarks of MK Meir Shitrit. I have said a thousand times that Hussein has been invited here with all of his views and stands; if he doesn't want, I'm ready to go to Amman - I've said this a thousand times -to sit with him and the Palestinians. I have some thoughts about how it would be possible to bring together a JordanianPalestinian delegation with an Israeli delegation, not according to what you say and not according to what someone else says. You describe everything as blocked up and shut tight. I don't feel the need to make it public at this moment. If I do, it will stir opposition.

Michael Eitan (Likud): Why do you have to go to Amman to meet with Freij? He lives not far from here. What's the logic?

Peres: MK Eitan, III speak about your logic, in a few minutes III get to your logic. I just want to tell you that we have two problems: One problem is peace with a state called Jordan; the second problem is solving the Palestinian problem. There is a country called the Kingdom of Jordan, it has a capital, and I am ready to go to its capital. I say this with all seriousness and respect. But before anyone gets on the bus, I have to say immediately that I accept everything he says even before I know what he says, while I'm not allowed to utter a word? And if I do utter a word, how do you say, "yes-and-no"? What does that mean, "yes-and-no?" I too represent a state which has legitimate interests, which has aspirations, so Hussein is allowed to propose a plan and I'm not? What kind of business is that?

There are two million Arabs. Even Menachem Begin says we have to find a solution. He proposes self-administration. I would also agree to self-administration. Is anyone ignoring this question? Do we have only territories? What kind of an example is this for the youth and the people? Are there people who want territories and others who don't want territories; those who want a Jewish state and those who endanger it, in my opinion, by adding two million Arabs to it. What worries me about MK Geula Cohen is that she always things in terms of the past. In 37 years we've had five terrible difficult wars. Another five wars? Will they be a repetition of themselves?

I also want to say to MK Michael Eitan: You ask what we are lacking with Jordan today. We are lacking peace. Jordan is situated alongside Israel, along Israel's breadth, and Israel has no breadth. Jordan twice joined wars against us. If, God forbid, another war break out, it's possible it will be of all the Arab nations. Why is it forbidden to try to forge an Arab majority against war? Do I have to perpetuate the Arab majority in favor of war? Can we have discussions with each nation separately? What is the comparison? Let's say there are bad relations between Jordan and Syria. Until now, Jordan hasn't attacked Syria and Syria hasn't attacked Jordan. There are bad relations. You know, better bad relations without war than a good war without relations at all.

I want to say to MK Tewfik Zayyad: You say that the PLO is the representative of the Palestinian people. In everything? I want to ask you: Is it its representative in murdering children? In murdering women? I want to understand. Its representative in everything?

We want to conduct serious negotiations with Jordan. We want to conduct serious negotiations to solve the Palestinian problem. Negotiations, not dictates, neither ours or theirs. I want to say that I strive for peace and I shall pursue peace. I will strive for a peace that will not harm the State of Israel. We're allowed to stick to our stand, and not everyone who says Arafat is right or Hussein is right, is for peace more than I am. I don't accept that. Hussein is allowed to think what he thinks, Arafat is allowed to think what he thinks, and I'm also allowed to think what I think. And for that we need negotiations, and there won't be dictates, neither from within nor from without.

Regarding self-determination for the Palestinians, I want to say that the U.S. rejects the right of self-determination for the Palestinians. The Americans proposed a formula. The formula says that the Palestinians will participate in the determination of their own future. It's possible there are Jews for whom this formula is unacceptable. Sadat and Egypt accepted it, and it was included in the Camp David Agreement. Why is something permitted Sadat, forbidden me? I want to understand. Jordan rejects a Palestinian state. Why is what is permitted Hussein, forbidden me?

I said clear things today, and in my summation I want to reiterate: I speak in the name of a government in which there are two parties, and they do not agree on everything. But they've agreed to what I'm about to say. They agreed that first of all we must expedite the peace process in the Middle East and open a new page. And we are acting in all directions, in the direction of Egypt, in the direction of Jordan, in the direction of the Palestinians. We said that we want to and are ready to meet with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. True, our intention at the first meeting that will take place will be to put forward the Camp David Autonomy Plan. But we have explicitly agreed not to make the Camp David Agreement a condition.

What's the debate now? There are two debates, and I want to analyze them. The debate is whether there's any point to a meeting between a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation with the U.S. before us, or whether the meeting should be with us.

I want to remind the Knesset members, for those who have forgotten: Why was Jordan well-received in America now, while previously it was not? The answer, in my opinion, is simple. It's not because there are two sets of ears, and two voices, but because the last time Jordan came to America, the king demanded that America give an advance commitment regarding the outcome of the negotiations, or at least regarding the American stand in the negotiations. This time he did not demand this. Why didn't the American agree? Because we were against. Why did Hussein progress? Because he understood that we can't accept this, that our position is logical. Why can't we go on to say: Americans - fine, Egypt - fine, Jordan - fine, Palestinians - fine? We don't agree, and justifiably, that America should commit itself regarding one side, without us, before us? In what way is this a betrayal of peace? Why is a sovereign state which seeks peace forbidden to say this? What sin and what crime is it?

The second controversial issue is the make-up of the delegation. I won't go into petty details here, nor does that interest me. Under the Camp David Accord, either the Jordanian or the Egyptian delegation can include Palestinians from the territories - or in Hebrew: From Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza district - or others as mutually agreed. That's the formula. I don't have to look for other formulas every day. If I thought in my heart that there was no choice, or that there were no Palestinians, or that there are Palestinians that are only second or third rate, I would say: Let's look for a way out. What can I do when I'm convinced that there are authentic, serious Palestinians whose views may also be radical, but whose hands are not stained with the blood of the past, or with the blood of the present. I don't even discuss the biographies of the people, I discuss their politics. It's very unfortunate that sometimes we sit with those who have killed our people. Sadat also took part in a war against us. I'm talking about today, not yesterday. There are such Palestinians and such a delegation can be formed, and such negotiations can be commenced. I want to understand, why am I not allowed to say this in a message? Can I only say yes? And I also made proposals. I want to understand, why is Israel not allowed to express an opinion. And if I express an opinion, am I rejecting peace? I want to say something else. I definitely think, as regards priorities, that first we must conclude negotiations with Egypt, because we are saying to the Arabs: If your claim is correct that you want land for peace, in Egypt's case, all the land was given and we didn't get all the peace. We must also convince people at home.

I also want to say why I'm not ready for the Arabs to dictate terms to us before the negotiations, and why I think that we shouldn't dictate terms to them. Whoever looks objectively at the negotiations in Sinai, has to admit that the results of these negotiations included clauses which weren't foreseen at the outset. For example, the demilitarization of Sinai. True, we returned all of Sinai. But it is also true that there is a demilitarization agreement. It's true, too, that our planes have permission to fly [certain] air routes and our ships have permission to ply [certain] sea routes. The solution was a little different. In general, when one sits down to the negotiating table, it's not the case that side A accepts side B's stand, or side B accepts that of side A. What happens in successful negotiations is that there is a solution C, which neither A nor B proposed. At this stage, the main effort is to arrive at negotiations and discussion. I didn't present any conditions, nor will I accept any. Hussein made proposals - fine. We are also allowed to make proposals. And that's no betrayal, either of peace or of the homeland, as some here seek to describe it. An attempt to make peace is not a betrayal of the homeland, and an attempt to represent Israel's interest is not a betrayal of peace. It's neither of these, and I'm being very clear.

I am seeking peace with all my heart because I see the future and I see the technology and I also see the past.

We left Lebanon according to the plan we agreed upon. We opened negotiations with Egypt, even though none of us hear anything. I hope that we will also open negotiations with Jordan. And whoever asks that we respect the Palestinians must ask the Palestinians to respect us, to respect our lives as well, and not just our honor, and not to kill women and children.

And despite all the skepticism and despite all the fears and anxieties, we will make a serious, honest and honorable effort to bring peace to this region.