Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.
VOLUME 7: 1981-1982
In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement in response to the punitive measures threatened by the US against Israel.
It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public.
Text:
Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has “punished” Israel.
On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor “Osirak” near Baghdad. I don’t want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.
Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us - and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.
Not long after, in a defensive act - after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.
You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase “body-count”. We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable - as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.
We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.
Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.
A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the “Golan Heights Law.”
Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.
What kind of expression is this - “punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?
Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with “punishments”. He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.
You have no right to “punish” Israel - and I protest at the very use of this term.
You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.
You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.
I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No “sword of Damocles” is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.
The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America - and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.
We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections - and threaten us that if we don’t consent you will suspend the memorandum.
You have imposed upon us financial punishments - and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.
This is therefore a violation of the President’s word. Is it customary? Is it proper?
You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do - to “hit us in our pocket”?
In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us “terrorists” - and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: “This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket” - and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.
To hit us in the pocket - this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.
First, the slogan was sounded “Begin or Reagan?” - and that meant that whoever opposes the deal is supporting a foreign prime minister and is not loyal to the President of the United States. And thus Senators like Jackson, Kennedy, Packwood and of course Boschwitz are not loyal citizens.
Then the slogan was sounded “We should not let the Jews determine the foreign policy of the United States.” What was the meaning of this slogan? The Greek minority in the U.S. did much to determine the Senate decision to withhold weapons from Turkey after it invaded Cyprus. No one will frighten the great and free Jewish community of the U.S., no one will succeed in cowing them with anti-Semitic propaganda. They will stand by our side. This is the land of their forefathers - and they have a right and a duty to support it.
Some say we must “rescind” the law passed by the Knesset. “To rescind” is a concept from the days of the Inquisition. Our forefathers went to the stake rather than “rescind” their faith.
We are not going to the stake. Thank God. We have enough strength to defend our independence and to defend our rights.
If it were up to me (alone) I would say we should not rescind the law. But as far as I can judge there is in fact no one on earth who can persuade the Knesset to rescind the law which it passed by a two-thirds majority.
Mr. Weinberger - and later Mr. Haig - said that the law adversely affects UN Resolution 242. Whoever says that has either not read the Resolution or has forgotten it, or has not understood it.
The essence of the Resolution is negotiation to determine agreed and recognized borders. Syria has announced that it will not conduct negotiations with us, that it does not and will not recognize us - and thus removed from Resolution 242 its essence. How, therefore, could we adversely affect 242?
As regards the future, please be kind enough to inform the Secretary of, State that the Golan Heights Law will remain valid. There is no force on earth that can bring about its rescission.
As for the contention that we surprised you, the truth is that we did not want to embarrass you. We knew your difficulties. You come to Riyadh and Damascus. It was President Reagan who said that Mr. Begin was right - that had Israel told the U.S. about the law (in advance) the U.S. would have said no. We did not want you to say no - and then go ahead and apply Israeli law to the Golan Heights.
Our intention was not to embarrass you.
As regards Lebanon, I have asked that the Secretary of State be informed that we will not attack, but if we are attacked, we will counterattack.
See this and more at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label Golan Heights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Golan Heights. Show all posts
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Why Does Syria Want the Golan back from Israel?
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The Israeli army conquered the Western slopes of the Golan Heights on the last day of the 1967 war, at the insistence of the resident’s council of Israel’s Upper Galilee region, after Syrian artillery attacks from the Golan had made the lives of the residents of the Galilee impossible. This is because Syria views the Upper Galilee region as belonging to Syria.
Syria has never given up its commitement to conquering the Galilee and annexing it, which provides Israel with a concrete reason why it is not willing to budge from the Golan Heights.
Now there is a new reason why Syria wants the Golan Heights in its hands.
Syria can no longer conceal the massive transfer it is carrying out, after a U.N. report two weeks ago exposed it. The Syrian government uprooted more than 300,000 of its citizens from their dwellings in eastern Syria and moved them to new cities, without any means of survival. The reason: a policy of forced agriculture in the country’s eastern sector, including forced farming of water-hungry crops like cotton and wheat that brought about a total drying up of wells and famine.
According to intelligence analyst Guy Bichor, “Now everyone knows why Syria is so hard-pressed to get its hands on our Sea of Galilee: in order to suck it dry by piping its waters to no-longer-inhabitable areas in the eastern part of the country.”
According to Mr. Bichor, Syria also defers to Turkey in hopes that it will raise the water quotas from the Euphrates. The Syrian plan is to gain control of the Sea of Galilee to solve its water problems.
If Israel were to cede the Golan Heights and its vast water supply to Syria, it is likely Syrian President Bashar Assad would populate the Golan with over one million Syrians.
Concerns remain, however, that Syria would again transform the Golan into a forward base from where it would once again fire missiles on Israel’s Upper Galilee region, since Syria views the Upper Galilee as Syrian territory.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
JERUSALEM - The Israeli army conquered the Western slopes of the Golan Heights on the last day of the 1967 war, at the insistence of the resident’s council of Israel’s Upper Galilee region, after Syrian artillery attacks from the Golan had made the lives of the residents of the Galilee impossible. This is because Syria views the Upper Galilee region as belonging to Syria.
Syria has never given up its commitement to conquering the Galilee and annexing it, which provides Israel with a concrete reason why it is not willing to budge from the Golan Heights.
Now there is a new reason why Syria wants the Golan Heights in its hands.
Syria can no longer conceal the massive transfer it is carrying out, after a U.N. report two weeks ago exposed it. The Syrian government uprooted more than 300,000 of its citizens from their dwellings in eastern Syria and moved them to new cities, without any means of survival. The reason: a policy of forced agriculture in the country’s eastern sector, including forced farming of water-hungry crops like cotton and wheat that brought about a total drying up of wells and famine.
According to intelligence analyst Guy Bichor, “Now everyone knows why Syria is so hard-pressed to get its hands on our Sea of Galilee: in order to suck it dry by piping its waters to no-longer-inhabitable areas in the eastern part of the country.”
According to Mr. Bichor, Syria also defers to Turkey in hopes that it will raise the water quotas from the Euphrates. The Syrian plan is to gain control of the Sea of Galilee to solve its water problems.
If Israel were to cede the Golan Heights and its vast water supply to Syria, it is likely Syrian President Bashar Assad would populate the Golan with over one million Syrians.
Concerns remain, however, that Syria would again transform the Golan into a forward base from where it would once again fire missiles on Israel’s Upper Galilee region, since Syria views the Upper Galilee as Syrian territory.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Philadelphia Bulletin: 'The Bulletin' Puts The Tough Questions To Obama's Middle East Gurus
by David Bedein
During the week before the Pennsylvania primary, The Bulletin met with Sen. Barack Obama's middle east advisers in Washington, Howard Guttman and former Californian Congressman Mel Levine, along with another Obama Middle East aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.
These are the questions The Bulletin posed to Mr. Obama's Middle East advisers and the responses that they provided:
1. How would a President Obama relate to the security threat posed by Saudi Arabia? [Declassified security reports confirm that Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups defined by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations, while Saudi Arabia maintains an active state of war against the state of Israel since 1948.]
None of Mr. Obama's advisers could answer this question.
2. Does Mr. Obama support President Bush's policy of arming the Saudis? [The Bush administration offers major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite its pro-terror posture]
Neither Guttman nor Levine could tell The Bulletin whether or not Mr. Obama supports the Bush arms sales to Saudi Arabia. They checked with Mr. Obama and could not get an answer.
3. Would a President Obama support the idea that Palestinian refugees should reside in UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return," instead of being provided with decent living conditions?
While each of Mr. Obama's advisers emphasized that the candidate opposed the Palestinian "right of return," none of them could find out what Mr. Obama's position is concerning continuing American government funding for the UNRWA agency, which fuels the right of return.
4. Would a President Obama continue Mr. Bush's policy to arm the Fatah organization, since the armed forces of the Fatah are defined by American law as an illegal terrorist organization?
The Obama advisor who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that Mr. Obama wants to continue the policy of developing Fatah as a moderate entity.
5. Would a President Obama ask for a change in the proposed constitution of the Palestinian Fatah state, which is based on the Islamic sharia law, and not allow for juridical status for any religion other than Islam?
All three Obama advisers promised to check this out with the senator. None of them could provide an answer.
6. Would a President Obama restrain Israel from counterattacking in Gaza to put an end to the daily missile attacks from Gaza, as the Bush administration has done?
Mr. Obama's advisers responded that "Israel has a right to defend itself."
7. Would a President Obama recognize that Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza are a direct result of their use of human shields?
Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Sen. Obama regards the operations of terrorist organizations as intolerable."
8. Would a President Obama allow such a policy to continue where the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to harbor terrorists suspected of murder and refuses to hand them over for trial, as the Clinton and Bush administrations have done?
Mr. Obama's advisers were more emphatic on this point, stating that Mr. Obama's policy would "oppose all attempts to harbor terrorists by the Palestinian Authority."
9. Would a President Obama condition future U.S. assistance on human rights and civil liberties reform in the PA, since the PA operates with no system of civil liberties or human rights?
In another emphatic statement, each of Mr. Obama's advisers stated that a President Obama would insist on the implementation of a policy that would stand up for human rights and civil liberties in the Palestinian Authority.
10. Would a President Obama ignore the plight of Christians who are persecuted in the PA, or would he champion the cause of the Christians to practice their religion freely in the PA, since the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem has refused to render assistance to Christians who are persecuted by the PA?
Mr. Obama's advisers promised an answer to The Bulletin with an answer to this question but did not do so.
11. What would the policy of a President Obama be to Syria in regard to Syria's continuing to host and support a plethora of terror groups?
All three of Obama's advisers indicated that they would review new directives to the Syrian government in this regard.
12. Would a President Obama support an effort to destroy the Syrian source of lethal narcotics in the Bekka Valley, since Syria continues to orchestrate the export of lethal narcotics to the world?
Mr. Obama's advisers could not answer this question.
13. Would a President Obama support an effort to force Israel to withdraw from Golan, since the Golan Heights was used by Syria between 1949 and 1967 to attack Israeli communities in Galilee?
All three of Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Obama does not believe in pressuring Israel" on any matter related to Syria.
14. Which Middle East road map would a President Obama endorse: the road map of April 30, 2003, or that of May 25, 2003? [The second road map contains the reservations of Israel, which include detailed Israeli directives to disband terror groups as a precondition to continued negotiations.]
Mr. Obama's three advisers referred this policy question to a top adviser to Mr. Obama. However, they would not give an answer to this question to The Bulletin.
15. Would a President Obama continue the Clinton/Bush policy of ignoring the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never ratified the Oslo Accord and never canceled the PLO charter? [The Clinton and Bush administrations overlooked the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo Accord "declaration of principles," which required the PLO and Fatah to recognize Israel, denounce terror and cancel the PLO/Fatah charter, which calls for Israel's obliteration. It will be recalled that the PLO signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993, and would not ratify these accords when the PLO executive convened on Oct. 6, 1993, in Tunis and would not cancel the PLO charter when the PNC convened on April 24, 1996.]
Mr. Obama's advisers concurred that a President Obama would insist on a formal PLO ratification of the Oslo Accords and cancellation of the PLO covenant.
16. Would a President Obama issue a directive that any aid to the PA require a cessation of calls to terrorism by the official Arabic language outlets of the PA? [The Clinton and Bush administration consistently ignored the message communicated by the newly constituted PA in the Arabic language, which has communicated a language of war on Israel since the inception of the PA in 1993.]
Mr. Obama's advisers said that Mr. Obama would institute "a policy of no tolerance of incitement."
17. Would a President Obama call for a cancellation of the PA educational curriculum, which inculcates the next generation to continue a war to liberate all of Palestine, which can be seen at www.edume.org?
Mr. Obama's advisers indicated that Mr. Obama would see this as part of a "policy of no tolerance for incitement."
18. Would a President Obama insist on future Israeli withdrawals, since the Gaza withdrawal indicates that Palestinians will use areas under their control to launch missile attacks against Israel?
The Obama adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that the "Gaza and Lebanon precedent should be taken into consideration," considering the fact that Israel is ready for compromise.
During the week before the Pennsylvania primary, The Bulletin met with Sen. Barack Obama's middle east advisers in Washington, Howard Guttman and former Californian Congressman Mel Levine, along with another Obama Middle East aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.
These are the questions The Bulletin posed to Mr. Obama's Middle East advisers and the responses that they provided:
1. How would a President Obama relate to the security threat posed by Saudi Arabia? [Declassified security reports confirm that Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups defined by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations, while Saudi Arabia maintains an active state of war against the state of Israel since 1948.]
None of Mr. Obama's advisers could answer this question.
2. Does Mr. Obama support President Bush's policy of arming the Saudis? [The Bush administration offers major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite its pro-terror posture]
Neither Guttman nor Levine could tell The Bulletin whether or not Mr. Obama supports the Bush arms sales to Saudi Arabia. They checked with Mr. Obama and could not get an answer.
3. Would a President Obama support the idea that Palestinian refugees should reside in UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return," instead of being provided with decent living conditions?
While each of Mr. Obama's advisers emphasized that the candidate opposed the Palestinian "right of return," none of them could find out what Mr. Obama's position is concerning continuing American government funding for the UNRWA agency, which fuels the right of return.
4. Would a President Obama continue Mr. Bush's policy to arm the Fatah organization, since the armed forces of the Fatah are defined by American law as an illegal terrorist organization?
The Obama advisor who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that Mr. Obama wants to continue the policy of developing Fatah as a moderate entity.
5. Would a President Obama ask for a change in the proposed constitution of the Palestinian Fatah state, which is based on the Islamic sharia law, and not allow for juridical status for any religion other than Islam?
All three Obama advisers promised to check this out with the senator. None of them could provide an answer.
6. Would a President Obama restrain Israel from counterattacking in Gaza to put an end to the daily missile attacks from Gaza, as the Bush administration has done?
Mr. Obama's advisers responded that "Israel has a right to defend itself."
7. Would a President Obama recognize that Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza are a direct result of their use of human shields?
Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Sen. Obama regards the operations of terrorist organizations as intolerable."
8. Would a President Obama allow such a policy to continue where the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to harbor terrorists suspected of murder and refuses to hand them over for trial, as the Clinton and Bush administrations have done?
Mr. Obama's advisers were more emphatic on this point, stating that Mr. Obama's policy would "oppose all attempts to harbor terrorists by the Palestinian Authority."
9. Would a President Obama condition future U.S. assistance on human rights and civil liberties reform in the PA, since the PA operates with no system of civil liberties or human rights?
In another emphatic statement, each of Mr. Obama's advisers stated that a President Obama would insist on the implementation of a policy that would stand up for human rights and civil liberties in the Palestinian Authority.
10. Would a President Obama ignore the plight of Christians who are persecuted in the PA, or would he champion the cause of the Christians to practice their religion freely in the PA, since the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem has refused to render assistance to Christians who are persecuted by the PA?
Mr. Obama's advisers promised an answer to The Bulletin with an answer to this question but did not do so.
11. What would the policy of a President Obama be to Syria in regard to Syria's continuing to host and support a plethora of terror groups?
All three of Obama's advisers indicated that they would review new directives to the Syrian government in this regard.
12. Would a President Obama support an effort to destroy the Syrian source of lethal narcotics in the Bekka Valley, since Syria continues to orchestrate the export of lethal narcotics to the world?
Mr. Obama's advisers could not answer this question.
13. Would a President Obama support an effort to force Israel to withdraw from Golan, since the Golan Heights was used by Syria between 1949 and 1967 to attack Israeli communities in Galilee?
All three of Mr. Obama's advisers answered that "Obama does not believe in pressuring Israel" on any matter related to Syria.
14. Which Middle East road map would a President Obama endorse: the road map of April 30, 2003, or that of May 25, 2003? [The second road map contains the reservations of Israel, which include detailed Israeli directives to disband terror groups as a precondition to continued negotiations.]
Mr. Obama's three advisers referred this policy question to a top adviser to Mr. Obama. However, they would not give an answer to this question to The Bulletin.
15. Would a President Obama continue the Clinton/Bush policy of ignoring the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never ratified the Oslo Accord and never canceled the PLO charter? [The Clinton and Bush administrations overlooked the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo Accord "declaration of principles," which required the PLO and Fatah to recognize Israel, denounce terror and cancel the PLO/Fatah charter, which calls for Israel's obliteration. It will be recalled that the PLO signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993, and would not ratify these accords when the PLO executive convened on Oct. 6, 1993, in Tunis and would not cancel the PLO charter when the PNC convened on April 24, 1996.]
Mr. Obama's advisers concurred that a President Obama would insist on a formal PLO ratification of the Oslo Accords and cancellation of the PLO covenant.
16. Would a President Obama issue a directive that any aid to the PA require a cessation of calls to terrorism by the official Arabic language outlets of the PA? [The Clinton and Bush administration consistently ignored the message communicated by the newly constituted PA in the Arabic language, which has communicated a language of war on Israel since the inception of the PA in 1993.]
Mr. Obama's advisers said that Mr. Obama would institute "a policy of no tolerance of incitement."
17. Would a President Obama call for a cancellation of the PA educational curriculum, which inculcates the next generation to continue a war to liberate all of Palestine, which can be seen at www.edume.org?
Mr. Obama's advisers indicated that Mr. Obama would see this as part of a "policy of no tolerance for incitement."
18. Would a President Obama insist on future Israeli withdrawals, since the Gaza withdrawal indicates that Palestinians will use areas under their control to launch missile attacks against Israel?
The Obama adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity answered that the "Gaza and Lebanon precedent should be taken into consideration," considering the fact that Israel is ready for compromise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
