December 30, 1996
The new government of Israel will continue with the peace process and will honor agreements which its predecessor signed.
The redeployment in Hebron is part of those agreements.
It is very likely that there were some in this House who thought or hoped that words were one thing, and actions another. A responsible government which notifies parliament of its basic guidelines undertakes to act according to that notification.
This is elementary responsibility in the procedures of a country's ruling administration, and in the responsibility a government takes upon itself in the affairs of the State. Accordingly we are proceeding along this path, a difficult path.
The affairs of the State require us to act according to the government's basic guidelines, in accordance with the statement the Prime Minister made to the Knesset, and we are acting thus.
I have said that it is a difficult path: there will be ups and downs. The other side harbors dreams and aspirations in its heart. We carry with us the injunction in this campaign for peace and implementing these agreements, both in what the agreement requires and in what we are obligated to maintain and perform for the preservation of Israel's vital interests, including the existence of the Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District, and the unity and continued unification and existence of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish People and the capital of the State of Israel.
We are acting according to these principles, while standing firm on security, on the obligation of the other side to carry out its part reciprocally, in order to prevent a danger that would threaten or harm Israelis and threaten the entire peace process.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard such descriptions in these days that someone not living here might imagine a situation in which time stopped still and we are back in 1929 [the Arab massacre of Jews in Hebron]. All of us bear in our hearts that wound of the events in Hebron.
But that is not the situation today! We are not impotent nor lacking in defense. We are sovereign and masters of our security. There are the Israel Defense Forces. And the security systems are in charge of security. Accordingly, I do not accept this comparison in any way or manner. It is impossible to wipe out our memories, but it is not possible to live as though we are helpless and impotent.
Are we leaving Hebron? Are we abandoning Jews? Fleeing? Fearing? Absolutely not!
We are carrying out the agreement. And I want to say this with my hand on my heart. Perhaps someone will explain to me: could it be otherwise without this agreement and implementing the full autonomy we have previously undertaken, with a strong police force?
Now it may be that from your point of view, Knesset Member Ze'evi, there is altogether no need to go into any process, nor autonomy, nor anything. To stand frozen, on guard with our weapons, not to search for any way -- and to say "We stand here, without us nothing will move, and we shall not do anything, and our situation will be good!" Would that it were thus...
I would have liked to have been a partner to such a wish.
But reality is not like this; nothing can stay static unless we have decided to altogether abandon the hope for peace.
I have asked myself: since the situation is thus, and the government must act, a government by virtue of its responsibility must adopt decisions. It cannot say "I am not part of what is happening. I do not need security. I do not need to carry out anything. 'A people that shall dwell on its own and disregard the Gentiles'." But a government cannot act according to this conception. Its responsibility impels it to carry out agreements while insisting on the important main points in it, the national and security aspects.
Let us surmise a scenario: that we did not proceed to honor agreements, abandoned the peace process, marked time, and waited to see what would happen. Would the situation then have been better from a security standpoint? I think not, and I think I have some knowledge. I do not have your experience, but I have experience in Israeli governments, and I know about matters.
Would the security situation then have been better? Anyone who deals with these issues at this time, will tell you: No! The situation could have been much graver. Non-implementation of agreements, no progress, standing ready with our weapons, alone, in a bloodbath, and then to sit and search for a way how to get out of this situation: I am not a gambler and not ready, as long as I am in the government, to take such a total gamble.
I know what could happen and the danger of such a total gamble; it is very likely that this course would have been imposed on us. We are working, and considering, and we must prevent such a situation.
Mr. Speaker, let us suppose we were not carrying out [our obligations] and the situation in Hebron would continue without our doing anything, without advancing, without honoring the agreement. Would the situation of the Jews in Hebron be better? I have a very big, an immense, question mark regarding this, regarding their safety.
We know what would have happened had the Palestinian population of 120,000, waiting for, and believing in, the implementation of the agreement, reached the conclusion that Israel was not intending to carry out the agreement.
You are an experienced man: you know what would have happened. True, they would not have been able to overcome us, that's true. They could not defeat our army, that's true. We would have taken measures. But measures that would have left not only deep wounds which would have wiped out any prospect of peace tomorrow, but horrifying pictures in the whole world; the justice of our cause would have been wiped out in the face of those photographs; would that then have been better? These are the questions the government pondered -- and it was not easy.
I know what members of the government and those sitting on these benches in this House are feeling. I know. But there is one factor which must be decided by us and is being awaited: that is to render an accounting. This is a government, it cannot say "I'm not here." It cannot say I have a wish and therefore neither agreements nor the situation interest me. It must give answers: answers to its people; answers to the public; answers for the sake of answering. Saying toward what it is striving, where it intends to lead this ship of state.
It cannot say the ship will sail on by itself, because there is no government. A government must take decisions and it faces obligations and commitments. It cannot dither.
I do not love Hebron less than you do; nor more than you. The veteran members of this House know I built everything that was built in Hebron and with faith and priority rehabilitated the plan I presented to the government, a plan named for me, for building in Hebron. I am not abandoning Hebron -- nor am I abandoning the Israelis in Hebron, nor the sites built and renovated in Hebron, nor our citizens in Hebron. And the Israel Defense Forces are there and will be there, and their safety is in the army's hands.
If this government neglects the security of Jews -- I repeat -- we are not talking about the state budget, about something prosaic; if anyone thinks the government of which he is a member is endangering the lives of Jews, it is forbidden for him to stay in the government for even a day. He should work to overthrow it. That is what I believe.
I do not believe this is so; I believe we are in control of things, of the safety of Israelis, of the buildings, of the holy sites in our hands. There is the authority of the Defense Forces. Must we be blinded by light, blame ourselves, think of an impossible mission?
What would I do with the 120,000, or the 130,000, or the 150,000 -- what would I do? I bear the responsibility. Should we convert them to Judaism? Annex them? Crush them? Is that desirable? Is it possible? I ask myself also: is it human? No!
And since the situation is like this, we are guiding events in such a way that in a certain area Jews can live in safety and the Arabs can conduct their Palestinian affairs.
Mr. Speaker, this government, in spite of all the difficulties, -- and it is being attacked from the Right and the Left -- is determined to proceed on the path where all prospects are being examined. There is no guarantee. No one knows what the morrow will bring. There are things the Palestinian Authority must carry out, and we are talking of its ability to do so. We expect to see the proof of important cooperation. It must not be sneered at. Sometimes it is even essential to need it; we must demand of them to stay loyal to their commitments.
For our part, out of the same realization of existence, what is said from this forum by the Prime Minister, we shall continue along this path. Would that no landmines will lie on the way and we can eliminate the dangers and return to the belief that this decision will advance the people of Israel while maintaining our vital national interests and security, and we shall be able to proclaim the good news of peace.
I cannot engage in prophecy: it is possible to articulate policy. It is possible to explain wishes, to point out the dangers. That is what a government in Israel is elected to do.