Mr. Speaker, distinguished
members of the house, two and a half months have passed since I reviewed the
foreign affairs situation here, focusing on [- - -] the dangerous shift which
has taken place in Israel's security position following the Czech-Egyptian arms
deal. During this time [- - -] our concern for the future has grown, and we
have sought ceaselessly to increase our defensive ability. [- - -]
The Government has made a concerted effort to attract
world attention and arouse international public opinion to the threat to
Israel's security. We have tried in particular to make the Great Powers aware
of the responsibility they bear in view of this undermining of the balance of
power in the Middle East. [- - -]
I note with satisfaction that our call aroused a response
from free public opinion all over the world. If public opinion could solve the
serious problem we face, I think we could rely on it to support us. [- - -]
Needless to say, however, the solution still rests with several governments,
whose practical policies are what determine the fate of the balance of power
between Israel and its neighbors at the moment.
Our appeal to the powers included the principal
representatives of all the four governments which met at the Geneva Conference
at the end of October, three of which had met previously in Paris. [- - -] I
regarded my meeting with the Soviet Foreign Minister as being of special
importance. We consider the USSR to be the main factor in causing the current
crisis. We also had severe criticism of the British government, which sold
Egypt arms it had refused to sell us, thereby disturbing the military balance
between us and Egypt even before the Czech transaction. But that other deal,
which we had every reason to believe was made in accordance with policy determined
in Moscow, gave Egypt, which threatens aggression, tremendous military
superiority over Israel, which is on the defensive, confronting our country
with a danger unlike any we have known since the War of Independence.
I tried to make Mr. Molotov see the USSR's responsibility
arising from that association. I stressed the discrepancy between massive
military support for a country in a state of war with its neighbor, thereby
infringing on the principles of the UN Charter [- - -] and the policy of peace
and the reduction of international tension which the USSR advocates in the
world arena. [- - -] The answers I received were not satisfactory.
Although we think that the serious discussions between us
and the USSR, undertaken in Jerusalem and Moscow and continued in Geneva, has
not yet ended, something has cast a dark shadow over our relations with the
Soviet government. We recently heard a definition of Israel's policy from the
lofty podium of the Supreme Soviet the like of which we have never heard from
the official representative of any country which maintains diplomatic relations
with us.
The official version reads: "The activities of the
State of Israel which since its establishment has threatened its neighbors and
conducted a policy of hostility towards them, should be condemned." There
seem to be people and parties for whom historical facts are merely clay in the
potter's hand, taking on different shapes as the needs of the hour dictate.
That declaration about Israel's supposedly hostile attitude towards its
neighbors aroused not only deep regret, grievous injury and bitter scorn among
the people of Israel, but also astonishment and indignation in the hearts of
those throughout the world who seek the truth. The world well remembers what
happened in the first days of Israel's existence and what has happened between
then and today. It also remembers what the distinguished representatives of the
USSR said in public then. [- - -]
[- - -] On May 18, 1948 the USSR delegate to the Security
Council, Mr. Gromyko, said: "Everyone knows that military actions are
currently taking place in Palestine because of the battles between the Arabs
and the Jews following the entry into Palestine of the regular armies of
several Arab countries...."
A few days later Mr. Gromyko said: "The USSR
delegation does not understand the attitude taken by the Arab countries
regarding Palestine, particularly in view of the fact that those countries sent
their armies into Palestine and are taking military action there which is
intended to repress the national liberation movement in Palestine."
[- - -] There are many more examples I could give, but I
do not wish to bore the house. [- - -] There is just one passage I would like
to quote, since it is particularly relevant for our situation today. On July 14,
1948 Mr. Gromyko addressed the Security Council and said: "The Arab
countries have no reason to regard the establishment of an independent Jewish
state in Israel as something which threatens them. Seven hundred thousand or
one million Jews cannot represent a danger for 26 million Arabs. A Jewish state
cannot threaten the Arab East." [- - -]
In the meeting held on December 2, 1948 Mr. Jacob Malik
said in the Security Council, in connection with Israel's attempts to be
accepted as a member of the UN: "That country has already proved that it
fulfills the conditions laid down in Article IV of the Charter. Ever since it
came into existence it has stated its desire to live in peace and maintain
peaceful relations with all its neighbors and all the nations of the world. It
is not its fault if this call goes unanswered by its neighbors." [- - -]
Those statements were made during the early days of
Israel's existence. [- - - ] They give a more accurate picture of who
threatened whom in the Middle East than the declaration we heard from the
Supreme Soviet recently. [- - -]
The same endeavor to distort the facts to fit the needs
of the hour characterizes [- - -] the attempt to define Israel as a state which
is exploited by "imperialistic powers" to serve as "a weapon
against the Arab peoples." [- - -] Israel's essential independence needs
no imprimatur from anyone. Israel arose and exists as the product of the free
will of the Jewish people, as being necessary for its life, existence and
future and as the bearer of its mission and its destiny. Anyone who is unable
to see the miracle of the spiritual freedom and political independence embodied
in Israel's existence every day proves himself to be unable to grasp one of the
most wonderful events in human history: the Jewish people's return to its land.
[- - -] This distortion of the facts about Israel and
this slandering of its reputation [- - -] heighten our apprehensions regarding
the new Soviet policy which is reflected in the arms deal with Egypt. We will do
our utmost to persuade the USSR of the truth [- - -] but it is better for us to
view the situation dispassionately and clearly. No distortion can alter the
fact of the Arab aggression in the past and the present or obscure the danger
of its revival in the near future.
Our demand for the arms needed for self-defense and,
first and foremost, to deter those who would attack us, becomes more urgent
from day to day. This demand was the focal point of our talks with the representatives
of the Western powers. The British government, which gave preferential
treatment to Egypt over us as far as [- - -] arms were concerned even before
the Czech deal, did not consider it necessary to adjust the balance afterwards
either. Certain Western European countries showed some signs of being willing
to help us, but they are subject to the discipline of NATO [- - -] or feel they
must coordinate their policy with the USA. Our principal demand is directed at
the American government [- - -] which has not yet made its final decision. [- -
-]
We categorically reject the contention voiced in various
capitals that supplying arms to Israel means a new arms race. [- - -] We were
the first to speak out against an arms race in the Middle East and for
investing the maximum resources in economic development and social
rehabilitation. But preventing an arms race requires mutuality. [- - -]
Depriving Israel of arms in the present situation does not mean preventing an
arms race, it means abandoning a small, besieged country to the aggressive urges
of its neighbors, who are many times stronger than it.
The American public supports Israel and its claims. [- -
-] Special mention should be made of the deep understanding of Israel's
problems and the display of support for it [- - -] by members of all the
parties in the debate held three weeks ago in the British parliament. This
lively public support [- - -] is valuable both morally and politically. [- - -]
Israel will be ready to repel any attack [- - -] but will
not act aggressively against anyone. Israel will conduct its struggle against
hostile associations by political, not military, means. If we struck Syria
recently that was in order to repel and paralyze its continuous erosion of our
security, the integrity of our territory and our freedom of action within it,
and not for any other purpose.
While increasing our military strength, we will continue
to strive for peace, but we will not buy peace at the price of concessions
which restrict the state’s ability to live and arouse the desire of others to
trespass and destroy.
There is a serious debate between us and the U.S.
government regarding the possibility of a settlement between us and the Arab
countries. [- - -] The various Western powers hold different opinions on that
subject, and in our view Great Britain cannot be an intermediary since its
government has taken a stand regarding the settlement, stating publicly that it
should be based on a compromise between the UN resolution of 1947 and the
existing situation. [- - -]
The UN resolution of November 29 1947 was a crucial
historical decision for us. But as far as international law and practical
policy are concerned, that resolution, like any other passed by the Assembly,
is a weighty recommendation from the UN to the parties involved as to how to
resolve a problem which has arisen. That recommendation was made against a
certain factual background and was intended to be implemented at that time,
maintaining the unity of all its parts and with the cooperation of all three
parties concerned—the Jews, the Arabs and the British authorities. [- - -] The
recommendation was overthrown, in effect, by the lack of cooperation on the
part of England and by the bloody war declared on Israel by the Arabs of
Palestine and the neighboring countries. History has passed over the resolution
of 1947 and continued on its way. The practical and political background to the
problem has changed and the situation cannot be restored to what it was. The
State of Israel was refined and crystallized in the crucible of the War of
Independence. Its situation and size today are the basis for its national
authority and international standing.
[- - -] To the best of our knowledge, the US government
does not regard the resolution of 1947 as the point of departure for a
settlement. [- - -] Like the British Prime Minister, however, Mr. Dulles
appears to favor a compromise between the opposing claims. [- - -] We have
explained to both those governments that this formula could mislead many and
serve as a cover for injustice. The Arabs are being asked to give up some of
their arbitrary demands, [- - -] while we are being asked to give up some of
our property. [- - -] We have made it clear [- - -] that under no circumstances
will Israel forego part of its territory unilaterally or allow refugees back
into its midst.
We made it evident that we are not prepared to give up
any part of the southern Negev, whether settled or not, fertile or desert, and
that Israel will not abandon its control of Eilat and its approaches. [- - -]
[- - -] The tension between us and Egypt following the
Czech arms deal and the danger of explosion it creates has impelled the powers
to endeavor more vigorously to arrange a settlement [- - -] possibly because of
their mistaken assumption that our present dangerous situation will make us
more ready to relinquish our claims. [- - -]
Efforts have been made to brand us as constituting a
barrier to peace [- - -] and this has impelled us to produce our own proposal
for a peace settlement, which we submitted to the U.S. government. [- - -] This
plan contains the basic ideas we have put forward from time to time in the
spheres of economics, transport and development projects on a mutual basis and
within the framework of peaceful relations between us and the Arabs. Most of
those proposals are based on the natural rules which are accepted throughout
the civilized world between neighboring countries which have peaceful and
friendly relations. One of them, which concerns the payment of compensation for
ahandoned Arab property, derives from the special circumstances of Israel's
relations with its neighbors and does not constitute a reaffirmation of any
previous commitment. The proposal also included our readiness, which we have
stated many times in the past, to discuss mutual border adjustments to the
benefit of both sides, within the framework of an overall agreement. We have
made a clear distinction between border adjustments and territorial
concessions.
By submitting that plan we hoped to shift the focal point
away from the negative and unrealistic demands of the Arab countnies to the
positive and practical background of relations between countries, guaranteeing
their common interests and mutual benefit. [- - -] The plan is not advanced by
us as a precondition for negotiations for a settlement. It gives some
conception of the proposals we intend to bring to the conference table, if such
a thing should ever come to pass. We are
prepared to enter into direct negotiations with the other side without any
precondition.
It is, of course, doubtful whether all this talk of
negotiations and a settlement have any basis in the existing reality of Egypt's
attitude or Israel's relations with any other Arab country. We must be on our
guard for any tactic or deception by the other side in which a Great Power
could be an unwitting partner. We must beware especially of any talk or attempt
to present the chance of any progress towards peace [- - -] as justifying the
withholding of arms from us.
With all our doubt and caution regarding treachery and
deception, it is our bound duty not to miss any chance which could open the way
to a settlement. Let one hand grasp the spear and the other be extended in
peace. [- - -] Only a firm peace between the nations of the Middle East will
assure their genuine independence and will put their relations with the Great
Powers on the right footing. Only a true and stable peace will enable those
nations to devote themselves to the huge, mutual effort of construction and
development. ]- - -]
But until peace comes, and for the sake of peace, it is
incumbent upon us to be ready for a defensive war. This does not mean that we
can stop the work of development, investment and the absorption of immigrants.
Quite the contrary. [- - -] The impetus of building is the breath of life for
this country. Immigration and tourism are like blood transfusions for us. [- -
-] Let the Jews of the diaspora, who have ever been unfailing in their support
for us, come and see that life in Israel is continuing normally, that the
populace is quiet, but ready. [- - -]
At this time we must tighten our links with those
countries which have friendly relations with us, and do all we can to establish
such relations with other countries. [- - -] We must increase our readiness to
repel any attack while being prepared to consider any possibility of a fair
settlement, build up our might while taking constant heed of our international
position. War is not necessary, it is possible. This possibility must guide all
our independent efforts and our demands for help, so that we may be prepared
for it and, above all, prevent it.
SOURCES: Sitting 50 of the Third Knesset. The above text is based mainly on
excerpts translated in Major Knesset
Debates, 1948-1981, ed. Netanel Lorch, (Lanham / New York / London:
University Press of America / Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1993), III:
882-87, and on some translated extracts in David Ben-Gurion, Israel: A Personal History, 465-68. The
Hebrew is in Divrei Haknesset,
XIX, pp.671-81.
