The article below is adapted from an address
delivered by Israel’s ForeignMinister. Abba Eban, at the Stephen S. Wise Award
Dinner of the American Jewish Congress held october 17th. Mr. Eban was cited “for
distinguished achievement in advancing the dignity, freedom and security of the
jewish people.”
Why have I received your approuval? The reason is
that I have had, for many years, a story to tell and have told it everywhere in
Israel’s name and in yours. It is a story the like of which has never been
heard before – the story of the jewish people in this unforgettable generation.
The story opens on a note of agony, an agony so sharp
that all recovery from it seemed inconceivable. For when Stephen Wise and his
associates organised the life of the american jewish community, in the Second
World War and in its aftermath, they faced such a volume of anguish and
humiliation as no family of the humanrace had ever been called upon to endure.
They stood before the stark horror of massacre and martyrdom in Europe. They
were called upon to convey to mankind that out of the darkest depths of man’s
divided nature there had sprung this catastrophe which left sixmillions of our
people slaughtered in Europe.
But the next act in the History is one of transition,
of Israel’s emergence into the international community. The people that had
seemed to be battered beyond any capacity to show its vitality again, had
emerged into its greatest era of identity and independence. The History of the
jewish people in this generation will forever be dominated by this unparalleled
transition from agony to triumph, from tragedy to consolation. The american
jewish community has been not only a spectator, but a partner and an architect
of this transition. Its organised institutions, with the American Jewish
Congress as the very earliest link in the chain of development, have understood
that devotion, Patriotism must be organised if they are to become effective in
the life of our times.
We find the three major centers of jewish identity in
full momentum. We find Israel embarking on the second generation of its
independent life, solidly entrenched within its reigon, demonstrating its
capacity to withstand the hostile forces which have implacably assailed its
interests. We find american jews taking part both in the emergence of the
United States to preeminence and responsibility in humandestiny and in the
forefront of the processes which has brought Israel back into the community of
nations.
We also find great stirrings in the third most
populous center of jewish life. We find soviet jews throwing off the inhibitors
and complexes of intimidation and proudly proclaiming their right and their
unquenchable aspiraiton to join themselves with the main currents of jewish
History. And we find the international echo to their cry for liberation
becoming more audible than ever before. We find that the gates, although still
shut too tight, are beginning to reveal a breach through which thousands have
come out this year in order to join in the challenges of israeli life.
This, then, is the story of recuperation. What an
immense dignity there is in this story, both in the suffering and in the
deliverance.
I expect that what you want me to talk about is the
israeli part of this story. Soon the twentyfifth anniversary will be celebrated
and many will go back in Memory to the small beginnings out of which out
society arose: that little community of 650.000, in some sense an elite
community born out of the Democracy and the social Idealism of Europe. It has
increased by more than 400% within the life of a single generaiton, a rate of
unprecedented growth in History.
What are our fortunes in the next stage of challenge?
The year that has passed since you last made your awards has been a year of
affirmative development. It has for the first time in many months been a year
of ceasefire. It has been a year in which we have not had, day by day, to fear
a clash of arms which would involve the prospect of global escalation, for
across one of the ceasefire lines, at the Suez Canal, the confrontation is not
regional or provincial; it is between Israel and the armed presence of one of
the major nuclearpowers. The soviet forces irresponsibly introduced into the
Middle East have the intention and the effect of converting a regional tension
into the possibility of global menace to all mankind. Israel forces the soviet
forces on the Suez Canal, unaccompanied by any other military presence but,
nevertheless, strong with the recent infusion of military aid from the United
States, which has also undertaken commitments to the middle eastern equilibrium
and to Israel’s security.
The past year has also seen the decline of extremist
Radicalism. Do we not all remember how we were told last year that the
terrorist groups and the air pirates were the revolutionary wave of the future,
that they were irresistible, that they would soon take command of Jordan, that
they would soon control all arab Governments until there would not be any
possibility of arab decision from the intimidation of a doctrine so frenzied
and extreme as to rule out any possibility of conciliation in the Middle East?
Well, they are resistible, they have been resisted.
They have been resisted firstly in Israel, they have been resisted in Jordan,
they have declined in Lebanon, and with this decline there has come a
diminution of resonance. Their voices are less heard. I doubt whether Mr.
Arafat, the leader of the Fatah, would even qualify for a front cover in Time
Magazine this year, because nothing in contemporary Culture fails like failure.
There have been other evidences of progress. Across
the open bridges of the Jordan 110.000 arabs from countries allegedly at war
with Israel have come into the constructive contact of daily humanCommerce.
This does not solve the basic problem of their civic and national identity, but
the hundreds of thousands of humancontacts between israelis and arabs from
hostile lands is an enormous investment in the Peace of the future, a
convincing proof that israelis and arabs are not incompatible when they meet on
the normal humanlevels of mutual interests and reciprocal recognition.
These are important gains. And yet, consoling as they
are, they do not, of course, comfort us for the lack of Peace. The attainment
of Peace must remain in the center of Israel’s aspirations. This is the case,
whatever the prospects of its attainment, for if Israel is to be a jewish
State, it cannot remove the vision of Peace either from its heart or from its
vocabulary. The jewish mind has never conceived a more dynamic concept than the
concept of men beating their swords into plowshares, the vision of a family of
nations joined together in a convenant of Justice and Peace.
Peace, however, unlike security and unlike
development, does not depend upon Israel’s will alone. And nobody can imagine
that the recent statements of arab policies indicate that Peace is yet central
in their minds. The last expression of arab policy comes in a joint communique
signed in Moscow. The soviet-egyptian statement of last week, like all its
predecessors, is notable for its total exclusion of three central ideas. It
excludes any advice by the Soviet Union to Egypt to establish Peace with
Israel. There is no suggestion that the issues of boundaries and withdrawal be
decided by negotiation and agreement. And there is no effort to break out of
deadlock into a new vision and a new hope by embarking on a rational
negotiating procedure.
At the root of the deadlock, then, there lies the
arab illusion that time works inevitably against Israel’s security and that in
the course of years our nation, under the burdens created by the absence of
Peace, will be strangled by the hostility surrounding it. Now this is an empty
dream. Israel would prefer to flourish in Peace, but it is capable of
flourishing in any case. Of course we would prefer a Peace negotiation
tomorrow, even to the prospect of an indefinite continuation of the present
situation. But if an authentic and sincere Peace is denied us by the policies
or circumstances of our region we may still hope to grow within the attempted
siege.
That is the story of the past four years of a great
vitality bursting into Reality, even under the pressure of hostility. Four
years after the War of 1967, Israel is larger in its population – 250.000 jews
more than in 1967. Four years after the summer war, Israel is more productive
in its Economy, far stronger in its military capacity and equipment, broader in
the scope of its international connexions, more exposed to massive pilgrimage
and tourism, more versatile in its economic and cultural links, and more
confident in its general destiny than it was four years ago. If Israel was
expected by its neighbours and adversaries to dwindle and languish, we have not
been faithful to that scenario – we have not dwindled, we have not languished;
we have endured and we have even flourished.
That is why I believe that the great dialogue between
Israel and its friends on the effects of Time upon History should not lead us
to panicstricken conclusions. If I am asked whether Time works against us, or
for us, my answer is that Time does not do anything at all. It is what men do
with Time that is decisive, and if Time is used, not in passive Fatalism but in
the strong mobilisation of creative forces, then Time, even in the absence of
Peace, can bring about every year the spectacle of an Israel, stronger, more
solid and more stable than before.
That is why I believe that the arab States and the
Soviet Union will not be able indefinitely to refuse any response to the
diverse Peace options which Israel’s policy leaves open to them.
I have, as you know, been making a policy statement
at the UN on Israel’s approach to the question of Peace and taking up with U.S.
leaders the prospect of a first stage in the unfolding of a new peaceful
pattern. We offer, in the first place, an arrangement for the Suez Canal. It is
there that the conflict is global and not merely regional. Therefore, if we
wish to defuse the conflict, it is there that the process should logically
begin. We, therefore, offer an agreement which would separate the forces, which
would give Egypt immense maritime advantages, which would give Egypt great
civilian opportunities. Our only conditions are that these concessions be not
exploited to the detriment of our physical security and our politicalrights.
Such a settlement would not be the last word. It would accelerate and inspire
progress towards further agreements and thus towards an overall settlement.
I, therefore, note that despite all the conflicts and
differences and reservations, the Governments of Israel and Egypt are agreed
that there should be further exploration of this prospect, and they both invite
the United States to use its good offices to explore it. Therefore, we at least
have a common objective and common modalities. Let there be intensified
perseverance in the pursuit of a beginning which, if it is secured, would give
an air of confidence and momentum to the Peacemaking efforts.
We would also be willing to hold detailed and
concrete negotiations on an overall settlement. In discussions of secure
boundaries, we would propose such modification of previous lines as is
necessary for stable security and the avoidance of new Wars. I would plead with
you never to be apologetic for a single moment about the fact that boundaries
of Peace may be different from armistice lines. The object of statemanship is
not to reconstruct the explosive dangers from which we emerged, but to build a
new and more stable territorial and security structure in the Middle East.
Those who question the right of Israel to negotiate
its boundaries are guilty of an alarming inconsistency. A few weeks ago, I
entered the debating hall of the UN General Assembly to hear Mr. Gromyko with
his usual vehemence express the following views: “One must take account of
postwar Realities. One cannot reconstruct the vulnerabilities which countries
endured before fighting. Nations which had been living under explosive threat
for years cannot be asked to go back to the territories and conditions which
symbolised that threat. They must have a new security system to be built by
negotiation.”
I thought that we had made a very sudden breakthrough
in Soviet policy, until I realised that he was speaking of the european security
system. He was explaining why the Soviet Union had changed its boundaries quite
properly in order to avoid the terror and the vulnerability of Nazism. It
explained why the Soviet Union required secure and recognised boundaries with
Finland and with Japan, because Leningrad could not be within 38 miles of the
ferocious descendants of the vikings. It explained why the polish boundary
couldn’t be the same as before the war because the object was to avoid wars and
not simply to reconstruct the conditions for their explosion. He was explaining
why, of course, you couldn’t bring back into Czechoslovakia the hundreds of
thousands of sudeten german refugees who by their return would make the life of
that State untenable.
It is only when we come to the Middle East that such
considerations are deliberately overlooked. It is ridiculous to praise a
european security system based on new negotiated agreements while condemning
the Middle East for the explosive configurations which helped to make War
inevitable. Israel does not have a policy of expansion or annexation, but it
does have a policy of not reconstituting the kinds of conditions which, in June
1967 and the late days of May and early June, gave the world the horrifying
spectacle of a nation on the verge of possible destruction.
Do not forget that four and onequarter years ago the
prospect of Israel’s destruction was being seriously considered across the
world. Therefore, it isn’t our policy again to stand under the threat of syrian
guns, again to have Israel’s waterways potentially blocked, and thus War
invited by hostile forces, to have cities, especially the most unified and
unifying of all cities, divided in sacrilegious separation. Of course, we must
do better than this.
Israel’s policy in the coming months is therefore to
be devoted to clear objectives: The consolidation of a ceasefire; the
exploration of a Suez Canal agreement which would improve the prospect of an
overall Peacesettlement; the maintenance of a balance of strength, especially
in the air.
The period between 1970 and 1971 was unexampled in
Israel’s History in this regard. Israel had never received such a massive
infusion of physical strength as that which poured into its veins and arteries
between the summer of 1970 and the summer of 1971 through the assistance of the
United States. But the essence of a salutary policy is in its continuity.
Nobody who follows governmental and parliamentary expressions in this country
can fail to see that the necessity of strengthening Israel’s balance of power
has made great strides in opinion. This is the crux. With a weak Israel, the
arab nations will never make Peace. With a strong Israel, they will eventually
reconcile themselves, perhaps in the first case through reluctant
inexorability, and later, in a more affirmative understanding of what can be
gained by a peaceful order of relations in the Middle East.
And we will also continue to expound our Peaceoptions
and to reinforce our international links. On this point, let me tell you that
there is no word that less befits Israel’s international situation than the
word “isolation.” The votes in multilateral agencies are a superficial and
sometimes frivolous index of international Realities. Do not believe the idea
of these parliamentary bodies expressing the conscience of the world.
The concrete Realities of a nation’s international
position are to be found in the range of its direct diplomatic relations, in
the scope of its Commerce, in its relationships with the main regional and
continental organisations, in its role in international development, in the
dimensions of its humanexchanges in pilgrimage, tourism, air and sea
Communication, and in its ability to awaken solidarities and sympathies when
its vital interests are at stake. In all these terms, Israel has a stronger
international position than four or even two years ago. Its flag flies on
embassies and delegations in 100 capitals. Its commerce takes it into the
markets of 110 countries. Its relationships with the European Economic
Community and the interamerican organisations is increasing. The demands upon
its manpower and Experience by other developing States are reaching
extraordinary proportions. The shopping list that was presented to me in a
recent visit to eight african States was almost embarassing.
Therefore, let us not believe in the legend of
attrition. Israel, of course, cannot live an isolated life. Sometimes I meet
the representatives of friendly island Republics who tell me that they have no
neighbours within 500 miles. They can see the wistful look of envy upon my
face. But that is not Israel’s destiny. All the movement of action and thought
and ideas flow across that crossroads where Israel stands. We must be united,
therefore, by thousands of links with the outside world in order to survive,
and these links are intact. This, too, is our vocation, to look after the
interests of the jewish people, to protect is legacy, and to guarantee its
future.
I can only tell you, in accepting this award, that it
has been a moving Experience to express the lesson of jewish History to the
world. Israel has meaning and authenticity only in the degree to which it
embodies the principles and traditions of jewish Humanism. Separate Israel from
the traditions of jewish Humanism, and it becomes simply another middle eastern
State. Israel’s links with world Jewry are much more important in the spiritual
and Moral sense than in the more familiar economic and financial aspects of our
relationship, for Israel’s society faces problems for which jewish solutions
must be found. By jewish solutions I mean solutions which reconcile high
principle with pragmatic Reality and with a lucid sense of balance.
We have not yet found the reconciliation that we need
between the claims of religious tradition and those of modern progress. We have
not yet found a point of harmony between our citizens from eastern and western
lands. We have still not overcome those tensions which arise in a developing
society between employers and Labour, and perhaps now that the impact of
external violence seems to be weaker we find all the discord and the dissent
rising to the surface. But these are the pains of youthful growth and not of
senile decadence. They are, above everything else, the index of our freedom.
But, of course, much in Israel is still imperfect,
lacking in outer form and inner harmony, but the total impression is one of
growth. Therefore, my main reflexion is that jewish History is an eternal
celebration of resilience. A nation that has lived with tragedy and with
triumph must come to terms with each, for the jewish doctrine of History places
man in command of destiny and not in subjection to a preordained fate.
According to our view of History, men are not the creatures of circumstances;
circumstances are the creatures of men. Israel and the jewish people,
therefore, are not yet affected by the nihilistic currents of contemporary
life. For us, and especially for the youth amongst us, the important thing
still is to build and not to destroy. In Israel, affirmation is still more
important than protest. If we hold these values intact then the next decade may
have no less nobility than the two that have gone before. But everything
depends upon the partnership that is symbolised in this room.
And this is Israel’s message to the American Jewish
Congress, and to the most powerful jewish community in the thousands of years
in jewish History: our burdens are heavy, we cannot bear them alone. We can by
our unaided effort ensure our security, but if you want us to go beyond this,
not to be a Sparta concerned only with physical defense, but also to be Israel
in the deepest term – that is to say, a society in full growth and development
and creativity – then you must join your efforts to ours. You have joined your
efforts to ours amidst all the triumphs and the ordeals and adversities of this
year. Do not abandon us. Do not leave us alone. Stand with us constant,
unflinching, indomitable, until the obstacles are surmounted and the task is
done.
No comments:
Post a Comment