After what was said yesterday I must correct several
distortions and errors. A silly falsehood has emerged in the local press, and
especially in the foreign press, to the effect that the Prime Minister proposed
the post of [Mapai] Party Secretary to the Foreign Minister in order to
eliminate him from the Government. On the basis of this fabrication the foreign
press has built several castles in the air. I consider it my obligation to
state categorically that I have never proposed the post of Party Secretary to
the Foreign Minister. The first I heard of it was from Sharett himself at the
first meeting of the party's Committee of Nine, which has also been subjected
lately to wide publicity by the press. After examining and considering this
proposal I decided against it, and when members subsequently brought it up I
rejected it categorically.
It was said yesterday that the Prime Minister had more say
in foreign policy than the Foreign Minister did. Now it is true, and I think it
should be, that between one meeting and the next the Foreign Minister generally
consulted with the Prime Minister on foreign affairs. On the other hand, it is completely
untrue that in such matters the Prime Minister took any step whatsoever without
the Foreign Minister and his office or without his knowledge. I wish to say to
the Knesset and to the nation that foreign policy is at all times the
responsibility of the entire Government, not only for formal reasons of
collective responsibility but for practical reasons as well. There is no problem
to which the Cabinet has devoted so much debate, and taken decisions week after
week, as in the case of foreign policy. If this policy has been good, the
credit must be shared by the entire Cabinet, and if bad, the entire Cabinet is
equally to blame. Hence, as one of the members of the Cabinet, it is with great
satisfaction that I take full responsibility for Sharett's foreign policy.
In every Government that has arisen in Israel, and I have
had the privilege of being in all of them, there have been differences of
opinion. There are Knesset members here who were in the Cabinet, left it, and
later returned. There are those who have remained all through; and others who
have been members now and then. They know that the Cabinet has never had
"one language and many utterances," not only because it is a coalition
Government and must of necessity embrace differences of opinion, but because it
is a democratic rather than a totalitarian Government. Even if it were made up
of a single party, and that party were the one to which I have the honor of
belonging, it would still embrace differences of opinion because it is a
democratic party. Many issues, indeed, from the time of the Provisional
Government until the present have been decided not unanimously but by majority
opinion, and so I am certain it will be in the future as well.
I will not undertake to state whether all these decisions
have been good or bad. There were times when I was in the majority and times
when I was in the minority, and naturally, like any Cabinet member, I may be
permitted to assume that I was right in both cases. Still, I feel it is proper
especially in matters of vital importance, when members find themselves in a
minority – as I was more than once in the Provisional Government – that they
refrain from bringing on crises or resigning. If they did, the country would
face a new crisis every week and soon would be in chaos. Those members who have
found themselves in the minority and nevertheless submitted to majority rule
deserve to be commended.
In my brief remarks yesterday I did not conceal the fact
that though I have had differences of opinion with Moshe Sharett, and not only
with him but with members to whom I have been even closer ideologically, I
believe that at no time did these differences impair our friendship. But
perhaps I did not fully express my esteem for Moshe Sharett yesterday, even if
I differ in several respects with his position and views. If there is anyone of
a fascist or totalitarian hue who is unable to understand or believe this, I
will not force him.
Yesterday Sharett explained that when I was charged with the
formation of a Government after the last elections, he asked me not to include him
but I insisted. Now I did this not only despite our differences of opinion but
to a large extent because of them. Like many other members, I cannot work only
with "yes men." I am not one who thinks he is incapable of making
mistakes and I like my opinions and views checked against those of colleagues
whose outlook is different. Yet this was not the only reason I urged Sharett to
join the Government, and why I was grateful to him for doing so.
Yet with the deterioration of our security and the
increasing hazards of our foreign policy – which I will touch on later – I concluded
that the national interest now requires as much coordination as is humanly
possible between the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Defense, as well as
new leadership in the Foreign Ministry . This is not because I feel that we
should depart from the Basic Policy outlined by all those who participate in
the Cabinet and who devoted much time to its formulation; nor do I feel that we
should alter the defense and foreign policy, which was outlined in my speech of
November 2, when I presented this Government to the Knesset, and which was
delivered with the consent of all members of the Government.
I do feel, however, that at this difficult time it is essential
that we have maximum coordination between these two ministries, Foreign
Affairs and Defense, which deal in effect with one and the same thing, since
any affairs of the Foreign Ministry that are not related to security are at
this time of little importance. While in normal times foreign policy does not
focus solely on defense problems, the present case is different. While differences
of opinion on these questions are usually beneficial, it is essential that
harmony now prevail between the two ministries.
This is why my colleague Sharett told you yesterday that he
felt compelled to leave the Government. Though personally, as a friend of long
standing, I regret it, from the point of view of the national welfare I
consider it for the good of the State. At this time there is need for a change
of personnel. I do not believe that the country depends on one man alone. Three
years ago when I felt the need for rest from the psychological tension of more
than twenty years' duration (and what twenty years they were!) I, too, permitted
myself to retire from the Government. I was certain no harm would come to the
country from my departure and that it would even help to educate the nation. I
think the same holds true for security and foreign affairs.
SOURCE: David Ben-Gurion, Israel: A Personal History, translated
by Nechemia Meyers and Uzy Nystar (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1971),
491-92.
