In the following televised address to the Moroccan people, the king attempted to explain the reasons for his meeting with Prime Minister Peres saying that contacts with Israel were not forbidden by the Fez resolutions. He felt that "it is not cowardly, quite the contrary, to seek to meet the adversary and know his intentions. However, it is cowardly, shameful and treasonable to lay down arms. " The full text of the speech follows:
In the name of God.
Blessings and greetings upon the messenger of God, his family and his companions.
Dear People,
As you know, we have just met for two days in Ifrane with the prime minister of the Israeli government. As soon as the news was known, the international news agencies informed us of the reactions, some of which were favourable and others hostile. Some of approved of our initiative and other criticized, even castigated it.
Before beginning my remarks, dear people, I want to emphasize how little I care about the criticism and the condemnation of some and the approval and blessings of others, because what interests me firstly, is your approval and your criticisms as well as the clearness of my conscience. It's only when my conscience is tranquil and I see, as always happens, that my people have understood me, that they approve of my line of conduct and approve of my steps, that I can apply myself to analysing the world reactions in a correct manner. Now you know that my conscience is yours and that my tranquility draws from your satisfaction.
So that you yourselves may judge if this was a good or a bad initiative, we are going to describe the history of the event, whose importance concern the present as well as the future.
I will not go looking into the distant past, dear people, at least not now - for this will be the object of the final part of my address.
There are two essential parts:
First of all, why this encounter?
Secondly, why did it take place at this moment?
For weeks and for months, I have been beset with thoughts. Until now, two important events have marked the recent history of the Arabs, since the grave setback undergone in 1967, this tragedy which made us lose the Sinai, the Golan, Gaza and the West Bank and - the summit of the disaster - holy Jerusalem. After that, the Arab unceasingly let forth groans, cries and lamentations until the day when, by the will of the Most High (Ramadan 1973) they, on the field of battle, demonstrated to the entire world and to their enemy that they are capable of striking blows, of awakening defiance, of struggling heroically, of dying a martyrs' death. God have mercy on our dead and our martyrs. After this event, the Arabs held two important meetings at Rabat and Fez.
In 1974, at Rabat, the conference of the Arab sovereigns and heads of state met and unanimously recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Among the Arabs, there were those who considered the consequences of this decision deplorable and others that greeted it gladly. Be that as it may, henceforth the Palestinian cause had a point of support, instead of remaining suspended between those in favour and those opposed, between fear and hope. The Palestinian people after that no longer had to wander in search of a representative a spokesman who would give voice to its claims and aspirations. Since that day, in effect, the Palestinian people has had a respected leadership recognized by most states of the world, with the status of observer at the United Nations, and a member of three large organizations: The League of Arab States the Islamic Conference and the non-aligned group.
With modesty, but not without a legitimate sense of pride - as it is recorded in the reports and the recordings of the meetings - I had already assumed, myself, your servant and your king, the primary role in bringing about the proclamation of the PLO as the responsible spokesman, the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinians.
Then were the two "Fez summits," first in 1981; there, because of the lack of representation of Arab states at the highest levels, we convinced our partners to adjourn the summit until 1982, hoping that a quorum would be reached not only in the number of states represented but in the quality of their representation. The All-Powerful wanted all the Arabs united at the highest level, constitutionally binding the states that were to adopt the Fez plan.
"...From a legal point of view, everything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted. Now, no one can say that the Fez resolutions forbid contacts with Israel, within the framework of the plan."
For the first time, thanks to the resolutions adopted at Fez, there is an elaborated Arab plan, studied and applicable, a plan free of demagoguery, of phraseology and of overstatement. For the first time, equally, there was an Arab consensus on a plan, which we successfully began to apply in the months after the conference.
The conference held in Fez in 1982, decided to form a committee, the Committee of Seven, and charged its members - Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the PLO - to undertake contacts with the great powers to convince them of the validity of the Fez plan and of the possibilities that it offered for a political analysis aimed at finding a definitive solution to the Arab-Israel conflict.
Your servant had the honour of presiding over this committee. Under my direction, this committee went to Washington, and my brother, His Majesty the King Hussein, took the delegation of the "Seven" to London, Paris, Moscow and Peking.
The paragraph in the Fez resolutions had indicated the countries which we were to visit or contact in order to learn about their positions and explain ours. But as you know, dear people, from the legal point of view, everything that is not expressly forbidden, is permitted. Now, one can say that the Fez resolutions forbid contacts with Israel, within the framework of the plan. The committee made its contacts as assigned by the conference. The conference, at no moment, excluded our contact with any state, provided that they were within the framework of the Fez propositions.
I do not hide from you, dear people, that the Committee of Seven did positive work. But some obstacles, I won't describe their origins, prevented us not only from pursuing our task, but also from drawing up our final account of the mission and presenting it to the Arab sovereigns and heads of states. This still causes sorrow, and I as the president of the committee tell you, that until now, certain circumstances and maneuvers have prevented the Committee of Seven from even drawing up a summary report to the Arab states summit, which would enable it to know which countries are sympathetic to our cause and which countries are not.
Since then, dear People, I no longer have a clear conscience: even through our country is situated 6,000 kilometres from the battlefield. Morocco is, first and foremost, an integral part of its Arab homeland and of its Arab family. Every time one of the refugee camps in Lebanon suffered, we felt their affliction in Morocco. Every time an attack was launched on Lebanese sovereignty, the Morrocans showed their disapproval.
I never stop asking myself, shall we sit idly by? Have we no mission and responsibility within the framework of the Fez decisions to work for peace in the region and break the impasse?
I believe that you, my dear people, know we as I know you, and you know that for four years I never stopped making these allusive declarations. In the beginning. I said that if a senior Israeli official wants to come and meet with me, then a visit to Morocco for tourism and vacation is forbidden, just as I am forbidden to take such a trip in Israel. The journalist asked me a second time, and I answered him that I am prepared to meet the Israeli prime minister if he brings a reasonable plan with him that conform with the Fez summit resolutions.
The third time was before the emergency Arab summit in Casablanca, when I was asked if I would be prepared to meet the Israeli prime minister I answered: Before the meeting it is preferable that he send me a letter through the Secretary General of the United Nations.
The last sign and hint from me was during an interview I gave in Marrakesh with Jean Daniel of Le Nouvel Observateur. I said that I am surprised that, until now, no Arab leader has met with an Israeli official, because we are not fighting a phantom or an illusory enemy, but rather we are fighting a real enemy who is occupying our territories and whose arrogance is constantly increasing, and who pretends to ignore that it is living on occupied territory, and that it is building on that land as if it had inherited it from its ancestors.
I said: hasn't the time come for an Arab leader to meet an Israeli leader in order to learn about his position directly and not through mediators with all due respect and appreciation for mediators, be they North Americans, Europeans, Latin Americans of Soviets. After all, I believe there is nothing better than direct dialogue. I had hoped that following this declaration there would be some reaction from some Arab states, at least. But I have neither seen nor heard any criticism or reaction.
I believed four years ago, when I told you this and clarified all of these fine points, that you had knowledge and understanding, and indeed you did understand since you are intelligent people, while certain people did not understand anything of the first hints nor understand anything of the first hints nor the second, nor even the third ones.
Perhaps, I can say to myself, they would finally have understood after taking note of the fourth declaration. Whether or not they did understand, it seems that their sentiment was: "Wait, let's leave that aside."
What is important is that Mr. Shimon Peres asked me that we meet, and my answer was that we would only be able to meet on the basis of legitimacy, a framework taking into account two considerations: the general and the particular.
In what concerns the general, I can only hold discussions with you within the framework of the Fez plan. Concerning the particular, I believe that I have authority without receiving a mandate from anyone to discuss this subject with you, because I am still serving as chairman of the Arab summit conference sessions.
His answer was: "I will talk to you within the framework of the Fez plan, but this will not prevent me from submitting my proposals to you. "I said: good. As long as I would talk with him in the framework of the Fez resolutions, and as long as I believe that I have the authority, then the conversation can commence.
Then he said to me, "I would prefer that we meet in America during your visit there." My answer was that the meeting must have a Moroccan character, and not be subordinated to the influence of anyone. I don't want any umbrella of a great power. This meeting must take place freely and be an expression of full and complete sovereignty.
Because of the importance of the matter, and also for reasons of health, I preferred to pass up the trip to America. This meeting, essentially exploratory, would be much more important for the destiny of the Arab nation than my trip, despite the fact that Morocco must defend her particular interests, and the duty of the King of Morocco must be to assume that defence.
Initially, my conscience told me that I must first of all go out and defend my nation's interests. But I said to myself, if I would go (to America) and then meet him (Peres), people would say, "You went to receive instructions before you met him in Morocco."
I thus resolved to take a few days of rest prescribed by my doctors before taking action and would thus be able to bear my responsibility 100 per cent before history today, before history near and far, and bear it personally.
I did not notify a single Arab head of state about this, and you should know my dear People, that I told you what my late father told me: "Remember this essential point in your political education. Never lie to your people, because this is a very intelligent people, which will discover your lies immediately, and will not forgive you, and your credibility will be affected."
I say to you, dear people, that I did not share my intentions with any of the states which form the Arab League, nor, with any state, be it European, African, Asiatic, North American or Latin American. Even more, I received a message from President Reagan, saying in substance. "I have learned (I understand the "leak" came from the other side) that you are going to meet Prime Minister Peres, I suggest that your meetings take place here, so that I can give the meeting the full support of the United States of America."
My reaction to this offer, you already know. I did not go to the United States, because I thought that if I were to succeed, it would be the gain of the entire world, but in case of failure, I alone would bear the burden and responsibility.
Dear people, I met Mr. Shimon Peres, we conferred with the framework of the Fez plan. I met him because no decision of the League of Arab States, since it has existed, has forbidden an Arab leader from meeting with an Israeli leader. As for myself, I did not choose the formula of secret negotiations which some are fond of - those who now raise their voices in criticism while forgetting how much they had rejoiced at the mere idea of receiving Shimon Peres, while he had not wanted to be hosted by them. As for them, they indeed were afraid of meeting him publicly.
For two days, Peres visited Morocco without being followed by police or by escorts. The reasonableness of Moroccans, their serenity, their sense of responsibility, the education that they received over 14 centuries - I am proud to say it - meant that no one took the smallest opportunity to make light of the visit of Shimon Peres, because Moroccans know that, in certain affairs, the results are what count. My people you waited to know what would come of this encounter.
Well, here is the report. By speaking to you, I also speak to all those who wanted to impress us by their sectarianism. Perhaps you will say: but why didn't we commit ourselves to such talks some months earlier, or for some other reason, delay meeting until later?
Well, there are two reasons: the Arab position at this juncture, and Israel's circumstances. Let's look into the past. When we were in exile, when the martyrs fell and the patrols suffered in prisons, we remained with our ears cocked, day and might, for information about the probable (French government). We calculated the potential votes which would bring victory to Edgar Faure, or keep Joseph Laniel in power.
We asked questions about whether Guy Mollet would lose. We were certainly better informed than the French regarding the names of their senators and deputies.
Dear People, this was the education we received from the period of our colonial trial. We are not the type of people who know nothing and learning nothing from events and their causes...
Putting the subject in the Israeli context, I think that we must expect, in the next four months, profound changes. Shimon Peres will be replaced in power by the Likud, and extreme right-wing group. Now the alert individual must take into account both his situation and that of his adversary.
Having said this in the Israeli context, there is, dear people, another grave and inescapable fact: for approximately the last two years, we have heard nothing about the Palestinian plight. Instead, all of our worries and our energies had been poured into the inter-Arab disputes, into the Iraq-Irani war. I say to myself. We Arabs have arrived at a rare degree of irresponsibility. Marginal problems are the subject of conversation: such as the Iraqi-Syrian split, the Iraqi-Libyan split, Syro-Jordanian dissension and the PLO's differences with a number of countries - Syria, Libya and, now, Jordan. The Arabs and the Moslems fall victim to this dissension. Certain Arab states, forgetting the inter-Arab defence pact, support the Iranians. Marginal problems have made us lose our vision of the essential problem. I believe that in taking my initiative, I will have moved this problem to the forefront.
In any case, the Arabs, one more time, are going to meet to debate it. Perhaps, this time they will put aside their differences and concentrate their forces to face the adversary. It's not so much the soil, even occupied, that preoccupies me. It is the man who must suffer occupation who is the object of my worries.
There is some inconsistency in our continuing to launch invectives at one another, while we would do better to think of the plight of the aged, the adults and the children who suffer servitude and oppression in the occupied territories. Territory is unchangeable, but man's essential character can be altered. If we recover the territory with its human inhabitants, what kind of individuals will we recover? What Arab, Moslem or Christian will we find on this shared soil?
They are all Arabs. The Arabs first of all were an ethnic group. And they, each in their turn, embraced Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They still are Arabs, Jews and Christian Arabs. An Arab is not necessarily a Moslem. Thus my question: in recovering the territories, in what state will we find its inhabitants, these Arabs of various confessions?
Arabs, enough "intoxication." Among you, there are those who have committed treason. They have betrayed the sacred cause in taking up arms against an Arab brother to defend a non-Arab.
I come to the third part of my address. You are waiting for news of my meeting with the Israeli prime minister. First of all , dear people, you know, but the others don't know and its worth noting, that someone who doesn't own a piece of property cannot offer it. I met Mr. Peres, certainly, but suppose that I had convinced him to return Gaza, the Golan, the West Bank of Jordan or Jerusalem, this could neither bind him nor me, since one cannot offer a property which one does not own. Secondly, I have no need to prove any Arabism and my attachment to the Arab cause.
Finally, it's known that the conversation could not take place except within the framework of the Fez plan. Oh, if only those who have set themselves up as our judges had had the patience to wait for this address before pronouncing their sentence!
Alas, their lack of restraint, their frivolity and their tendentious behaviour dictated otherwise. We have thus been judged and condemned. But gentlemen, to them I say: you are not well-placed to dictate the law. My roof is of steel and my home is of stone.
I asked Mr. Shimon Peres: What do you have to say about the PLO?
I don't recognize it (he said).
What? What are you going to do then? With whom are you going to initiate a dialogue, since you say that you want to resolve the Palestinian problem?
I ask you (Peres replied), with whom can we have a dialogue? Are they in Syria, in Jordan, in Tunisia...
Have you something to tell us regarding the occupied territories? You must withdraw completely. I have no such intention, Peres stated.
Well then, I had nothing more to say to him but:
Goodbye, I am not here with you to negotiate on these territories or to find out to what extent you are willing to withdraw and when you envision such a withdrawal. I am here to tell you: you must evacuate these territories.
Here are the Fez resolutions. You must talk with the PLO - the obligatory channel. Since you don't accept these two conditions, it is useless for us to continue this conversation. I can only say to you:
Goodbye. You are going to report to your government. And for my part, as an Arab leader, when the moment comes and they desire it, I will do the same regarding my brothers.
From the moment you make we aware of your refusal to evacuate the occupied territories, it is clear that all remarks regarding Jerusalem would be superfluous. I have nothing more to say.
Nothing more to say to a man who rejects the PLO as the sole, legitimate partner in dialogue, and refuses to withdraw from the territories, except "Goodbye".
Let everything revert to its previous state.
My brothers will be the judges of what is proper to do, now that they have grasped the tenor of the conversation.
I did not accept this meeting in order to negotiate or to decide on anything. In my mind, this was an exploratory effort. I personally think it cowardly to not want to listen to an adversary, an enemy. We have, dear people, been educated in courage. The newspapers have written: "The courageous action of Hassan II". This is true, of course, if one considers the sword more effective than the club. But my action, essentially, was not courageous, it merely was the fruit of our common civic education, of the training received from Mohammed V (Hassan's father) and our political leaders, the happy consequence of years of difficult trials. We have learned that it is necessary sometimes to sit at the negotiating table rather than demonstrate in the streets.
Dear people, I ask you to draw a lesson from the event. It is not cowardly, quite the contrary, to seek to meet the adversary and to know his intentions. However, it is cowardly, shameful and treasonous to lay down arms. For the past 25 years, since I have been sovereign of this country, I saw in this affair, like each one of you, a state of "neither war no peace".
I am going to speak to you about the summit of 1965, held in Casablanca. The figures attending the verbal proceedings of the meeting included Abdel Nasser, Aref, the King Saud, Sallal of Yemen, Sadok Mokaddem of Tunisia, if my memory serves me true. This could best be corroborated by Mr. Amin Al-Hafez who was at the time president of the Syrian Republic. He, too, was a Baathist and has now taken refuge in Lebanon. Also with us was Hassan Reda, who represented the late (King) ldriss of Libya. Algeria was represented by Bouteflika or Boumedienne himself, I no longer remember. The meeting took place following the events of June 19, 1965, as a matter of fact.
Someone solicited my opinion, and I said, provoking an indescribable outcry among those present:
You don't have a choice: either you make war now even with clubs, you are 25 million and they (I was speaking of Israel) are only 2.5 million, at best...
Someone said to me: No, we cannot do it.
This was prior to the war in which they took the Sinai, Gaza, the West bank, the Golan and Jerusalem.
I continued: Well then, take another route: recognize Israel, accept it into the League of Arab States and it will be assimilated among 25 million souls.
My proposal was greeted with a tumultuous reaction. What was preventing the recognition of Israel which, at the time only constituted a minuscule territory?
The Israelis would have accepted such recognition with joy. Instead of such a measure, they had only the inflammatory proposals of a Shukeiry ("Throw them into the sea'). But finally, it is we who have been thrown out of our land, and who have been left to wander.
After this, some men dare to attack us. But they are so fickle, so irresponsible.,
We plan to address a message to each one of the Arab sovereigns and presidents to explain to them the reasons which prompted us to receive Shimon Peres, and to provide them with an account of his double negative response.
Before concluding, I would like to remind those who have forgotten that Morocco is a sovereign country which has the ability, and even the duty, to exercise its sovereignty freely, so that no one thinks her weak. The only limit to the free exercise of her sovereignty is her commitments. When one state subscribes to a commitment, it relinquishes, as a consequence, a portion of its sovereignty but only in the framework of that precise commitment. No one can dictate to me my associations. Even when I was young, my father, despite his sternness, left me free to meet whom I wanted. Likewise, for Morocco, I will not accept any sort of dictate.
I am firmly committed to the League of Arab States. Now, no decision of the League prohibits me from contacting whom I want. This is extremely important and must be taken into consideration.
Someone will say, perhaps: He did what Sadat did.
The situation, however, are not comparable. Sadat, whose territories were occupied, went with the goal to liberate them, which was accomplished.
Whether he was right or wrong, may divine mercy be on him, he concluded an accord and recovered territory. Thanks to God, in this incident, I do not have a territory to liberate. If that was the case, I would not have waited until now to liberate it.
In 1967, we experienced a setback. What man of courage accepts 20 years of occupation without liberating occupied territories? Such an attitude is conceivable only to the Mashreq (the Arab countries to the east of North Africa). I have often said to the Arabs of the east: You are listless. The Moroccans are courageous: They would not have been able to abandon their occupied territory for 20 years. If you want to receive lessons in patriotism and ethics, come to us. I don't accept, in return, that the people of the Mashreq give us lessons in patriotism.
What is important to me, dear people, is your critique of my actions or your satisfaction. If your conscience is at peace, mine will be fully at rest as well. As the Prophet said: One who struggles and succeeds is doubly rewarded by God. God will remunerate him only once if he struggles and is mistaken.
I beg the Most High to allow me the favour of the double reward, but if God only finds me worthy of one reward, I will accept it in all humility.
God says in the Koran: "Act. God, his messenger and the believers will see your deeds."
May Divine peace and mercy be upon you.