Statement by Prime Minister Eshkol to the Knesset (November 11, 1968)

The winter session of the Knesset was opened with a review of the political and military situation by the Prime Minister. Mention was made of the growing wave of terrorist activities carried out by Palestinian organizations based, mostly, in Jordan and Lebanon. The Premier also described the evolution of Israel's policy since the Six Day War:

Mr. Speaker, Members of the Knesset:

A few months after the Six-Day War came to an end, I surveyed our position in this house. In those days, just a year ago, we were concerned, in the final analysis, with one subject alone: the struggle for peace. We have tried every way and resorted to every expedient in order to achieve peace. But we are still in the thick of the struggle.

Let me summarize again the basic principles of the Government's policy.

A real peace settlement signed by the parties constitutes the foundation for any settlement between ourselves and the neighbouring countries, and all the components of such a settlement, including agreed and secured boundaries, depend on peace. They can have no existence except with peace. Without it the cease-fire map remains in force.

Readiness for such a peace leads to direct negotiations and the conclusion of peace treaties between Israel and its neighbours, together and separately. The absence of readiness for direct contact is basically tantamount to non-recognition, and without recognition there is no peace.

Free passage for our ships in the Suez Canal and freedom to defend free passage in the Straits of Tiran are conditions for peace.

Peace will lead to regional cooperation and the solution of various problems, including the solution of the refugee problem in a regional and international framework.

Looking back, we can see that both the achievements of the Six-Day War and the principles of policy that we enunciated are still valid. Today, the achievements are still in our possession, we have not budged from the principles, and we have the strength to meet any trials that may be in store.

And let me add this: the Government, as it is, has not evaded any decision called for by the political situation, nor has it missed any opportunity that has emerged from the political situation. If the Government has not adopted more decisions than it has, and has not taken measures that may have seemed necessary to those who are not familiar with all the facts, it is because these were not justified by the political situation itself. I make this statement although various events and processes have taken place in the meantime. During the past seventeen months, the Government has preserved the achievements of victory without sacrificing the prospects of peace, and without neglecting to seek out and clarify every such prospect.

Despite the official cease-fire, our civilians and soldiers are still being killed and wounded, and only a short time ago the Minister of Defence gave the figures from this rostrum. Since then, the chain of violence has continued, two weeks ago, on 26 October, in the Canal area, and also in the Jordan Valley and elsewhere. The graves are still fresh. The families have only recently completed their week of mourning. Let us send them, on behalf of the entire House, an expression of our fraternity and sympathy in their grief.

No people can be indifferent to the shedding of the blood of its sons, but we know that there is something in our history and our character that makes us particularly sensitive to loss of life. It is not difficult to point to the roots of this characteristic, and it should not be regarded as weakness. This attitude to every individual Jew, to each soul in Israel, is one of the things that has made us what we are. But pain alone is a dubious political counsellor. Even while the pain is fresh, we must take a sober view of the reality. It is not the fact that we are stationed on the banks of the Canal and the Jordan that has caused so many casualties, but the uncompromising hostility of the Arab rulers. We have had grievous and painful losses all through the years. The fact that we hold secure lines, although it cannot prevent bloodshed, is a barrier against the danger to our very existence. That is the difference.

It is because we hold these positions that the Israel Defence Forces were able recently to carry out their foray to the Valley of the Nile and issue a grave warning: Israel shall not be alone in vulnerability. Only if there is quiet on this side of the border - of any border - will there be quiet on the other side as well.

And let me say this too: the number of killed and wounded among the Arabs is greater than the number of our own casualties. We regret the shedding of any man's blood. There would have been no need for any casualties at all if responsibility, sanity, and the will to peace had reigned in the neighbouring countries.

After their rout in war, our enemies pinned their faith on a war of subversion, which they hoped to turn into a so-called "people's war" - but they have not succeeded. Although there have been sporadic increases in the activities of the saboteurs, these operations have remained an irregular military instrument of the Arab States after their failure in face-to-face battle. The population of the areas under our control have not followed in the footsteps of those who openly hoped to use them as a base and a source of reinforcements for incessant attacks on us. We have taken measures to restrain hostile penetration into our territory. and these measures have borne fruit.

Jews and the million Arabs in the areas under our control have been enabled to make each other's acquaintance afresh. Both the local inhabitants and those who have visited them, from near and far, have come to know us as they have not known us for twenty years and more. I would say that the curtain of hostility and fear, which the Arab rulers established between ourselves and their peoples when they declared war on the resurgence of Israel, has, perhaps, been slightly lifted.

We are well aware that there is no immediate link of cause and effect between this new knowledge and a readiness to live together, but there is no doubt that such a knowledge is a condition for the readiness to live side by side, a necessary condition even if not a sufficient one. A hatred that has been intensively fostered for two decades will not disappear overnight. It is difficult to enforce good-neighbourliness and friendship, but everything that is possible must be done to bring this about. Every crack in the walls of hostility and fear of the unknown may help. Perhaps the policy that we have pursued in day-to-day life in the areas under our control is also contributing to that end.

And it must be noted that the armies of the neighbouring countries have grown stronger. The Soviet Union has been continuously rehabilitating the shattered Arab armies and even increasing their strength to a level significantly greater than it was before the Six-Day War. Let me give one conspicuous example: Egypt now has about one and a half times as many fighter bombers as it had in the Six-Day War.

Our strength, too, has grown in all arms.

Let me note, in particular, the absorption of the Skyhawks. And I should like to express my esteem and appreciation for the attitude of President Johnson, who showed, during the time I spent with him in Texas at the beginning of the year, an awareness and comprehension of the need to maintain the balance of forces in the Middle East which was expressed in our joint statement. I hope that the further step he has taken, in the direction of supplying supersonic aircraft, will bear fruit in the near future.

President Johnson has shown, in his basic attitude, not only an understanding of the political and security aspects of the problem. He has understood, as few of the world's leaders have done, the unique spiritual and historical character of the State of Israel. From this point of view, I am confident that the Jewish people will cherish him in its collective memory as it has cherished great men before him, in the United States and elsewhere, who have stood by us at historic hours of crisis and distress.

The election to the presidency of the United States was held last week, and I should like to repeat from this rostrum my congratulations to President-elect Richard Nixon. I have vivid memories of my meeting with him and remember the understanding and friendship to which he gave expression. I believe we can rely on his sincere desire to work for peace and security in our region and in the world at large. I believe it may be assumed that any American Administration will work for Israel's peace, security and prosperity. Such a policy is in line with what the United States is trying to do in the world as a whole. This is clear from statements by leading American personalities of all parties, circles and trends of thought. Concern for the peace of the region, the security of Israel, progress towards an agreed peace and the strengthening of Israel's defensive capacity - these are principles common to all.

Members of the Knesset:

Our power to repulse the enemy - and, if possible, to deter him - is the fundamental basis for the preservation of peace at this time. However, the experience of the Six-Day War has shown us that the concept of deterrence is a relative one. As you may remember, it was the general view in 1967 - not only here but among experts abroad - that no Egyptian assault was to be expected before 1970. Fortunately, we did not rely on this rosy forecast - if that is the right term - but we were prepared to repulse the assault and defeat the enemy.

That evaluation was proved wrong in the long run, mainly because it did not take into account the emotional force of self-persuasion, a force which operates beyond all rational limits among the Egyptians. This factor is still in operation today; it must be taken into account, especially in all matters connected with our level of preparedness and strength.

And now, Members of the Knesset, let me proceed to an evaluation of the position in the Middle East today.

Among the Arab countries, the pendulum of events may be said to swing between two limits. The one is characterized by perplexity and reconsideration of principles and policy. This attitude, though it is still far distant from ours, testifies to a spirit of enquiry and uncertainty. The other limit is that of extremist hostility, which regards war as the only solution.

Egypt is undoubtedly the central factor in regard to readiness or lack of readiness for peace. Egypt was routed here and in the Yemen, owing to the machinations of its leaders. Today, more than ever before, it depends on the generosity of other Arab countries and countries outside the Arab world for the maintenance of its economy and security. In the Arab world today, its general influence has been weakened. It is no longer enough for Nasser to want a summit conference to ensure that it will actually meet. But Egypt still determines the attitude of the Arab world to Israel, to such an extent that those forces in the Arab world which would like to see some change find themselves outside the pale. Jordan, too - even if we assume that it has a will of its own in this matter, or that there are forces in Jordan with a will of their own - is not free from pressure.

And Cairo, too, seems to swing between the two limits I have mentioned hostility and reconsideration of policy. There are extremists, both inside and outside the army, and there is an intelligentsia, which may be perplexed about itself and its future, as well as other circles which may perhaps be reluctant to see Egypt put its head between the jaws of a great Power.

In any case, there is no change for the better in the attitude of the Egyptian ruler witness not only the deliberate artillery attack along the Canal but also his declared aims.

In view of deliberately ambiguous statements made by Egyptian spokesmen outside Egypt, it is worth recalling what Nasser himself has said.

On 14 September, Nasser spoke of the "liberation of the land" as a sacred duty and a major aim. He called for action to this end by all ways and means, and the mobilization of all possible power.

On 23 July, Nasser explained the concept of "the liberation of the land," and added the expression "the achievement of victory", emphasizing that all military strength should be concentrated for this purpose. He reiterated the principle that "what was taken by force will not be restored except by force" - as if it had been anyone else but he who kindled the conflagration in the Middle East.

Nasser again emphasized the "no"s of Khartoum: no negotiations, no peace, no recognition - and added a third "no": "No deals will be made at the expense of the Palestinian territories and the Palestinian people." In summing up, he declared that he regarded the fact that peace had not been achieved as a defeat for Israel and a victory for himself.

Two conclusions follow inevitably from these statements:

According to these statements, Egypt will only be satisfied by a new assault against the very existence of Israel. In the Arab political lexicon there has never been a partial interpretation of the term "Palestine". If Nasser aims at the status quo ante, it is not the status quo ante the 5th of June 1967 that he means. He is aiming, it appears, at the status quo ante the 2nd November 1917. And it is not lacking in significance that there is so much incitement around this date, 2nd November 1917, by all the media of communications. This is one conclusion.

And the second conclusion is this: so long as Egypt treats the various terrorist organizations as pampered children and regards peace as an Israeli aim - Heaven forfend - its support for the Security Council's peace resolution can only be regarded as hypocrisy. I must warn that this attitude of Egypt's is liable - not certain but liable - to bring about a grave crisis.

To sum up: aggression on the borders, the attempt to arouse and incite the Arab population of Palestine, and the political campaign which the Arabs are waging, whether in the UN or in their contacts in various capitals - all these are only different manifestations of a combined offensive of aggression. There is ostensibly reasonable talk in the United Nations, and at the same time, fire and death are unleashed on and across the borders in order afterwards to blame Israel's defensive measures for the absence of peace. And, as in the case of the refugees, the Egyptiap ruler now pursues his designs at the expense of the unfortunate Palestinian Arabs.

And look at the pass to which he has brought his country. He has transformed Egypt into a military paupers' camp. He has serious dangers in the present and in the future.

Yesterday I read with interest another interview with the Egyptian President, which contained an expression of the will to peace. This statement is incompatible with previous statements which he has recently made, and which I have quoted here. When I consider this statement, I cannot help recollecting a story stained with blood and packed with hostility: the story of Israeli-Egyptian relations since Nasser came to power.

Nasser enforced a blockade in the Straits of Tiran until it was broken in 1956. Eleven years later, despite all that had been said and decided in the family of nations, despite the stationing - with his consent - of a UN force to protect free passage, the President of Egypt came forward on 23 May 1967 and blocked the Straits of Tiran again, expelling the UN force from its positions, while despatching a powerful military force into Sinai right up to Israel's borders.

But that was not all. He and his senior army commanders proclaimed in terms which admit of no ambiguity that this concentration was designed for one end alone: the obliteration of the very name of Israel from the roll of the family of nations.

After his defeat on the battlefield, the President of Egypt summoned an Arab summit conference at Khartoum, where he initiated the resolution of the "no's" which I have mentioned. Since then, as we have seen, to add additional emphasis to the "no's", he has given his patronage to bands of murderers, and opened fire with his own arms as well at sea, on land, and in the air - deliberately and flagrantly violating the cease-fire.

During the past year and a half he has not taught his people peace. Day after day, he has incited them to hostility and war. He has re-equipped his army with highly modern aggressive weapons and rejected every international proposal for disarmament or limitations of armaments under reciprocal supervision.

Throughout these years, while he has been doing all these things and increasing the local and international tension in the region, he has never ceased to speak soothing words to foreigners.

Nevertheless since we want peace and are always seeking every ray of light that emerges from the darkness, I ask today, in the hearing of the entire world and the peoples of the Middle East: "Mr. President: If you really want peace, you will find us ready for it with all our hearts, at any moment. If you are prepared for it, will you come forward and summon up the courage to draw the simple and natural conclusion? Will you announce that you are ready for talks with us to conclude a treaty of peace, without presenting delaying and obstructive conditions?"

We await a reply.

Members of the Knesset:

I have already drawn attention to the actions of the Soviet Union in reinforcing the military strength of the Arab countries. However - whether in the desire to strengthen regimes sympathetic to the Soviet Union, or because of global considerations - the Russians are also taking other measures and implicating themselves more and more in the affairs of the region. These measures may or may not strengthen the regimes whose prestige Moscow would like to enhance, and improve the status of the Soviet Union. But they are certainly liable to lead to a deterioration of the position in the region.

I do not want to discuss this grave prospect at great length. But I feel it my duty to say this, insofar as concerns the people of Israel:

This people will fight if it is attacked. It will not remain isolated. The The conscience of the nations, of millions of friends throughout the world, will not permit it.

Members of the Knesset:

While we must maintain our preparedness and enhance our strength in all respects, military, economic and social, we shall persevere with our energetic political efforts in our struggle for peace. As in the past, this effort will have pride of place in our activities. This means that peace alone can change the present situation, a peace that fundamentally transforms our relationships and is the fruit of mutual respect, of dialogue and discussion between the two parties, a peace that determines the relations between the two parties as is customary among civilized nations.

Talk of peace, of readiness for peace, of the abandonment of belligerency, is not compatible with continuous violations of the cease-fire. I must make it clear that there has actually been no real cease-fire, although the form of belligerency has altered. We must make it clear, to ourselves and others, that States which foment acts of violence, which encourage sabotage and permit aggressors to exploit their territories as bases for assaults and stations from which fire is directed against us, are not entitled to give any one the impression that they are bent on true peace and the implementation of an international decision which calls for peace.

By our firm stand, and our incessant political and information efforts, we have created an atmosphere which has frustrated the efforts of the Arab States and their allies to undermine Israel's position and principles and defeat its aspirations. The work of the Foreign Minister and other diplomatic representatives at the UN and in world capitals, as well as those in charge of our information services throughout the world, have not been in vain.

Sometimes, the work is not easy. We were cheered when we faced grave dangers and we stood alone; now, after we have defeated our enemies, we are offered advice which is not compatible with the maintenance of our future security, with vital security borders, or with a regime of true peace.

Is it indeed only when we are in dire straits that we can find understanding for the hope of the Jewish People, that hope which is rooted in the undeniable historic bond between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel?

Anyone who advises us to accept less than a complete, recognized, stable and permanent peace on both sides, anyone who offers us less than true security, less than an incontrovertible expression of our historic ties, advises us, in effect, to return to the chaos of 1967.

The struggle for true peace is also the basis of our attitude to Dr. Jarring's mission.

We support this mission, first of all, as a matter of principle. Dr. Jarring is working on the basis of a Security Council Resolution for the establishment of a durable peace. We welcome anyone who seeks the way to such a peace. We say this despite our knowledge that Dr. Jarring has not yet succeeded in bringing about negotiations between the parties.

So far, the Arab States have not even sent us, through him, a clarification of the simple question: Do you want peace or do you not? And what is the nature of peace? All our questions have met with a dusty answer. And it is our basic principle that the peace which is needed is an agreed peace, and not a peace enforced from without.

Members of the Knesset:

Neither the prophets of Israel in days of old nor the Jewish National Movement and the Return to Zion in our own times have distinguished between national and human ideals. From the broader point of view, this applies not only to those trends of the Jewish Renaissance Movement which expressively inscribed universal human ideals on their banner; it is true of the entire Movement. We were not false to ourselves, nor were we paying lip service to anyone, when we proclaimed the vision of peace and progress for the entire area, for all its peoples, as an intrinsic part of our national ideal. Today, even more than ever, we are confident that this region is capable of achieving a decent subsistence and being a source of progress to all its inhabitants.

If we added up the national resources and energies that are being squandered by all these peoples because of blind hatred on the one side and the imperative in need for self-defence on the other, if we consider for a moment what could have been done with these resources and energies to deliver men from poverty, to restore to this world's crossroads its central spiritual position - the sum-total would transcend the wildest limits of fancy. For us, peace is a fundamental aspiration - on that score, I would not differ from the evaluation of our enemies. The real tragedy lies in the fact that they are so hide-bound by their ideas that they have no lot or part in it.

This country aims at cooperation, at the advancement of nations near and far along the road to development towards emergence from medieval darkness into the modern world, but all this is nothing at all compared with what we could do together if peace liberated the capacity and resources which we are prevented today from employing for these ends.

Mutual fertilization in economic and spiritual life, in science and thought, are within our grasp if only the countries around us could find the inner moral strength to accept our presence here and step out on the road to peace.

There is no reason in the world why we could not establish here an area of tranquillity, an area of open frontiers and fruitful cooperation. There is no reason, but there are emotions and obstacles that bloc, the road to peace for the neighbouring governments and peoples. Even more than we, it is they who pay the full price for this situation - in human suffering, in social and cultural backwardness, in the distress of the refugees.

This area is rich enough in soil, water and natural resources to provide them with a decent and creative life. For twenty years the Arab rulers have used the refugees as a political and military weapon, at the expense of their physical and spiritual deterioration.

In a common international and regional effort, the problem could be solved and these people made happy. If only the strength to do this would arise in the Middle East and the world at large, our share in the effort would not be lacking. There would be no substantial contribution to this end in the proposal that we should set up a model undertaking - which would, in any case, be like a drop in the ocean. Our capacities in settlement are sufficiently well-known. It is not a model that is lacking but peace, mutual respect and a great effort of regional and world cooperation.

Members of the Knesset:

These conclusions that I have presented to you so far are not meant to imply that we should relax into inactivity. Our finest ideals will be in vain unless we summon up the strength to do our duty, unless we are strong enough to give full significance to the achievements we have been granted so far.

Our chief joy, and our care as well, must be dhttp://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Statement%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Eshkol%20to%20the%20Knesse.aspxevoted to Jerusalem, our eternal capital. The development and the peopling of Jerusalem are targets of the first importance for the people and the State of Israel and for the Government. I hope that by this time we have overcome the preliminary difficulties and that the work will now go full steam ahead.

The development of Jerusalem depends to a great extent on immigration. That, of course, is the decisive factor for all our future. In fact, it may be said that everything, including security, depends on it.

All our efforts should be dedicated to increasing immigration, and we must not rest on our laurels, although in the past year, and especially in recent months, there has been an improvement in this respect.

We have established a Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, but the main signficance of this step is not merely organizational. It means, first of all, the possibility of realigning all the country's economical and organizational resources for this purpose. It also means the liberation of all the resources of the Zionist Organization, in men and means, for the tasks of immigration and the first steps in absorption.

Side by side with immigration, I would draw attention to settlement on the land, in various forms, in various areas. The subject is familiar, and there is no need to go into it.

A great effort and a great challenge await our youth who are growing up in Israel. But in order to step up the momentum, we need closer ties between the State of Israel and the Jewish People everywhere. As I have stated before, we are in danger of having it said of us that this generation has built a State and lost a people.

Jewish solidarity, which is being built around the State, is the main force in our days to protect Jewish youth from assimilation. There is a tremendous awakening among Jewish youth, which is flowing to our shores through national channels. Let us hope that this Jewish solidarity will be recognized as a national and human challenge to that youth.

Much has been done in the recent past to strengthen the ties between Israel and the Diaspora. Following on last year's economic conference, I called a follow-up meeting of Jewish representatives last week. We shall soon convene in Jerusalem a Jewish conference to discuss the totality of the ties between the various parts of our people, with settlement in Israel as the central tie. Jews overseas have responded to the call with material aid for thoroughgoing cooperation in the economy.

We must not, of course, rely on the Diaspora alone. We are also called upon for a supreme effort in the economic as in other fields, to enhance the strength which, in the last analysis, is the foundation for all our capacity, in the absorption of the immigrants, in natural increase, and in security. We must work together, save more, and moderate our demands for individual comfort, in order to enhance, the strength of the country so that we may have less need to rely on donations and loans. Security and settlement requirements have created a picture of economic boom. We must utilize this situation in order to achieve more easily the targets we tried to attain at a higher price in the days of the recession: greater efficiency, expansion of profitable exports, guidance of manpower to places where it is needed, and reduction of dependence on imports.

Members of the Knesset:

I believe we are justified in looking to the future without fear and without illusions. There are both political and security trials in store, and the latter may be more serious than any we have known for a year and a half. No one can prophesy with any accuracy, but it would be folly not to take that possibility into account. In our political activities and in our defensive readiness, we are struggling for peace for ourselves and for our children after us, for the State of Israel, for the Middle East and the world at large.

In the defence of our security, our rights and our aspirations, we shall need all the energy at our command, all the sobriety, the responsibility and the solidarity that we can summon up in the State and in our people. By virtue of that struggle, we shall achieve redemption and peace.

Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs