Israel Is Not A Banana Republic - Begin’s Rebuttal Of Reagan, State Dept., on “Punishing” Israel

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

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel's Security Cabinet Expresses Doubts about Peace

by David Bedein

Begin May Be Man to Watch in New Group

Benjamin Begin, son of late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, could be the man to watch in Israel’s newly formed security cabinet.

Although he lacks a political portfolio, his importance surpasses other members of the cabinet, which also includes: Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a former Israel prime minister; Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman; Strategic Affairs Minister Bugi Yaalon; and Intelligence Affairs Minister Dan Meridor.

Mr. Begin has a history of opposing, giving concessions to the Palestinians. He resigned from the previous Netanyahu government in January 1997 after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu relinquished Israeli control over Hebron.

He left Likud following the conclusion of the Wye River Memorandums in October 1998, which called for the redeployment of Israeli forces. This effectively ended Mr. Netanyahu’s last government. Mr. Begin also opposed what he saw as former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s corruption and disloyalty from early on.

During a Knesset discussion last Wednesday on Jerusalem Day, Mr. Begin quoted extensively from remarks made by Abbas Zaki, a Palestinian Authority leader, on May 7.

In those comments, Mr. Zaki said: “The Jews view Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as their historic dream. After they evacuate those lands, they will get out of Jerusalem. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. Then they will move forward.”

Mr. Begin used these comments to remind the Israeli public of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) plan of destroying Israel through diplomatic, as well as military means, over the course of several phases.

The other members of the security cabinet share Mr. Begin’s skepticism about the Palestinians.

Mr. Barak has long since lost faith in negotiations with the Palestinians. Mr. Lieberman opposes any form of withdrawal and has often said that the negotiations with the Palestinians have no chance of moving forward.

Mr. Yaalon, who served as the Israeli army chief of staff from 2001-2005, is probably the most severe in his position toward the Palestinians. He has written a recent book, not yet translated into English, where he openly states he does not believe in any peace plan. He writes that peace likely might only be possible three or four generations from now.

The strategic affairs minister believes that the process has to begin from the bottom, step by step, but only on the economic and municipal level, nothing on the national level.

In his book, Mr. Yaalon writes the Palestinian Authority must pass an unlimited number of tests before any progress can be made. They include altering Palestinian school curriculums calling for Israel’s destruction and its existence as a Jewish state.

Mr. Meridor, who was actively involved in the failed negotiations with the Palestinians at Camp David under the aegis of former President Bill Clinton in the summer of 2000, has often expressed how surprised he was with the seriousness of the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” to Arab villages that were lost in 1948, which have since been replaced by Israeli towns, collective farms and woodlands.

View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Jerusalem Day Becomes 'Stand Up to Obama Day'

by David Bedein

Thursday marked Jerusalem Day in Israel. This was the day on the Hebrew calendar marking the 42nd anniversary of the Israeli defeat of an attack by the Jordanian Arab Legion against Jerusalem during the Six-Day War.

The battle unexpectedly gave Israel control over all of Jerusalem and united the holy city under Israeli rule. During 19 years of Arab rule over the Old City of Jerusalem, all Jewish synagogues and seminaries in the Old City were burned, and no Jew was allowed to enter the Old City.

The speeches by Israeli leaders on this year’s Jerusalem Day ceremonies were aimed both at the people of Israel and at the president of the United States.

These speeches were prompted by the publication of an Obama Middle East plan, which would force Israel to relinquish control of Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority and cede sovereignty over the Old City to the U.N.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his first speech since his return from his meeting with President Barack Obama in the White House. He addressed the nation on all Israeli electronic media to give the “assurance that Jerusalem will not be divided” and that “Jerusalem is not on the negotiating table.”

Israeli President Shimon Peres delivered a strong speech on Ammuition Hill, on the spot of one of the bloody battles in Jerusalem. He reminded the world that only Israeli rule has given “freedom of access of all religions, and that this is why Jerusalem’s sovereignty would remain in Jewish hands.”

Appearing at a leading Jewish seminary in Jerusalem, Israeli Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, addressing the president with a message from the people of Israel, gave a direct message for Mr. Obama: “The president of the United States must know that Jerusalem belongs to the people of Israel.”

Senior Israeli government minister Benjamin Begin, son of the legendary late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, spoke at a Jerusalem Day rally and stressed the historical right of the Jewish people to Jerusalem.

In his prepared remarks, Mr. Begin criticized “foreign leaders” who demand the people of Israel relinquish their rights in Jerusalem and other portions of the land of Israel, when “these leaders know full well from the experience of the past 15 years that no peace settlement will come out of any of this.”

See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News