DR. KISSINGER'S REMARKS AT PRESIDENTS CONFERENCE LUNCHEON
IN HONOR OF SIMCHA DINITZ - DECEMBER 18, 1978

SIMCHA, FRIENDS, I MUST SAY THAT ADJECTIVES AT THE END OF THE INTRODUCTION ARE A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF UNDERSTATEMENT. IT WOULD BE JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE INTRODUCTION THAT MY FATHER WOULD HAVE WANTED YOU TO GIVE.

SIMCHA AND I SPENT MANY YEARS IN CLOSE FRIENDSHIP AND CLOSE COOPERATION. FIRST, FOR A FLEETING MOMENT, I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD BE THE MAIN SPEAKER TODAY BUT HE KILLED THAT BY ARRIVING. THAT'S THE SORT OF FATE I HAD WITH HIM ALL ALONG.

BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, SOME YEARS AGO, AN ISRAELI JOURNALIST SAID SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE REALLY ONLY IN ISRAEL, ACCUSING THE ISRAELI AMBASSADOR OF HAVING TOO CLOSE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE THEN SECRETARY OF STATE. I AM PROUD OF IT. SIMCHA WAS A FRIEND WHEN

2.

I WAS IN OFFICE, WAS A FRIEND WHEN I WAS OUT OF OFFICE
AND WE'LL BE FRIENDS FOREVER. WE HAVE A CONCERN OF
A COMMON DESTINY.

I NEVER PRETENDED THAT THE FATE OF ISRAEL WAS NOT
A MATTER OF VERY PROFOUND WORRY TO SOMEBODY WHO LOST
THIRTEEN MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

SIMCHA AND I HAD TO DEAL WITH EACH OTHER AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF TWO SOVEREIGN STATES. WE ALSO HAD
TO DEAL WITH EACH OTHER AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A COMMUNITY
OF CONCERNS.

AFTER THE YOM KIPPUR WAR STARTED, WHEN THE FUTURE
OF ISRAEL HUNG IN THE BALANCE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY
TIMES A DAY SIMCHA AND I TALKED TO EACH OTHER. I KNOW
HE BEGAN TO BREAK ME DOWN BY CALLING ME AT 3 O'CLOCK

DR. KISSINGER'S REMARKS AT PRESIDENT CONFERENCE LUNCHEON
IN HONOR OF SIMCHA DINITZ - DECEMBER 18, 1978

3.

EVERY MORNING AND IT WENT ON FROM THERE.

THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DEBATES ABOUT WHO DID WHAT AT
WHAT POINT, SOME OF THEM A LITTLE STRANGE BECAUSE TO
MAKE A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN 48 HOURS
TO GET THE WHOLE AIRLIFT COMMAND OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DELIVER SUPPLIES IN A WAR IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS
NOT PARTICIPATING, IS A PECULIAR FORM OF DISCUSSION. THE
FACT IS THAT SIMCHA WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE WHO NEGOTIATED
THIS, WHO CALLED US CONSTANT TO OUR DUTIES. SIMCHA WAS
THE MAN WHO WAS THE FOCAL POINT FOR GOLDA DURING THAT
TERRIBLE CRISIS AND SIMCHA WAS THE MAN WITH WHOM WE
DISCUSSED THE PROSPECTS OF PEACE AFTER THE WORST DANGER
WAS OVER.

4.

NOBODY COULD YEARN FOR PEACE MORE THAN THE PEOPLE
OF ISRAEL. NOBODY COULD HAVE A GREATER COMMITMENT TO
LIVE FOR ONCE IN ACCEPTANCE AND FOR ONCE WITHOUT THE
FEAR OF CONSTANT AGGRESSION WHICH HAS BEEN THE DESTINY
OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. ON NO ISSUE HAVE I FOUND A
GREATER COMMITMENT AMONG ALL THE ISRAELI GROUPS THAT I
DEALT WITH.

WE ALWAYS ATTEMPTED TO WORK OUT A COMMON STRATEGY
AND, EXCEPT FOR ONE BRIEF INTERVAL, WE ALWAYS SUCCEEDED
IN HAVING A COMMON STRATEGY. WE ALWAYS THOUGHT, AND I
STILL BELIEVE, THAT ISRAEL IS A SPIRITUAL EVENT IN
ADDITION TO A PHYSICAL REALITY. IT WAS SUSTAINED BY
THE IDEALISM OF THOSE WHO ENTERED THE WILDERNESS, INSPIRED
BY FAITH, AND BUILT A NATION.

5.

AND GOLDA, WHOM ALL OF US HERE HAD LOVED, NEVER TIRED OF TELLING ME, AS SHE MUST HAVE TOLD YOU, THAT IT IS THAT SPIRIT THAT MUST NEVER BE JEOPARDIZED.

IN THESE FIVE YEARS, NO MAN CONTRIBUTED MORE TO THE SURVIVAL OF ISRAEL AND NO ONE DID MORE TO HELP SHAPE A STRATEGY FOR PEACE AS MY FRIEND, SIMCHA. HE LEFT HIS MARK ON HIS PERIOD AND IN THE PROCESS, HE ALSO LEFT A FEW MARKS ON ME, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ON SOME OTHER OCCASION.

AND NOW, AGAIN, WE ARE FACING A PERIOD IN WHICH THE PROBLEM OF PEACE, AND OF WHAT SORT OF PEACE, IS ON THE AGENDA.

LET ME MAKE A FEW GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. NO PEOPLE CAN BE MORE DEDICATED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF PEACE THAN THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. BEING AT THE FUNERAL LAST WEEK,

AND HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO BOTH THE LEADERS
OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LEADERS OF THE OPPOSITION,

I HAVE NO QUESTION THAT IT IS TRUE.

SECONDLY, I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL
HAS DEMONSTRATED ITS COMMITMENT TO THIS PROPOSITION BY
MAKING CONCESSIONS THAT I WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED
INCONCEIVABLE TWO YEARS AGO. FRANKLY, I WOULD NOT HAVE
DARED TO ASK FOR THEM. THOSE CONCESSIONS, IN TERMS OF
BORDERS, IN TERMS OF AUTONOMY PLANS, GO TO EXTRAORDINARY
LENGTHS AND THEIR SPECIAL CHARACTER IS THAT THEY GIVE UP
SOMETHING TANGIBLE AND PERMANENT IN RETURN FOR SOMETHING
INTANGIBLE, MAINLY PROMISES, RECOGNIZATION AND NORMALIZA-
TIONS. THEY SURRENDERED SOMETHING IRREVOCABLE IN RETURN
FOR SOMETHING THAT CAN ALWAYS BE CHANGED.

7.

THERE IS THEREFORE INHERENT AN INEQUALITY IN THE BARGAINING POSITION OF THE TWO SIDES. NOW, NOBODY HAS EVER ACCUSED THE JEWISH PEOPLE OF BEING EASY TO GET ALONG WITH. BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE AROUND TODAY AFTER 2,000 YEARS OF PERSECUTION IF THEY WERE EASY TO GET ALONG WITH.

BUT, IF ONE LOOKS BEYOND THE RHETORIC AT THE REALITY, I THINK TRIBUTE MUST BE PAID TO THESE TREMENDOUS CONCESSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE LAST YEAR.

I ALSO HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR PRESIDENT SADAT. HE ALSO HAS MADE TREMENDOUS MOVES. BUT, IT IS NOT TO DEROGATE FROM HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SAY THAT ISRAEL HAS RESPONDED WITH A GREATNESS OF SPIRIT ON A SCALE THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED POSSIBLE DURING THE PERIOD

8.

THAT I WAS IN OFFICE.

NOW WE ARE NEARING THE END OF THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS. I BELIEVE WE ARE NEARING THE END OF THIS PROCESS BECAUSE BOTH SIDES HAVE GONE SO FAR THAT IT CANNOT REALLY FAIL. THIS BEING THE CASE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR US TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE UNITED STATES IS MORE INTERESTED IN A PEACE SETTLEMENT THAN THE PARTIES THEMSELVES. IT IS THE PARTIES WHO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS AND HAVING GONE THIS FAR, THEY WILL FIND A WAY.

SECONDLY, IT IS OF TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS FOR THE STATE OF ISRAEL THAT WHATEVER SETTLEMENT IS REACHED, APPEAR TO RESULT, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT RESULT, FROM THE FREE DECISIONS

DR. KISSINGER'S REMARKS AT PRESIDENTS CONFERENCE LUNCHEON
IN HONOR OF SIMCHA DINITZ - DECEMBER 18, 1972

[y]

9.

OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.

IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THERE IS NOT ONLY A CONFLICT BETWEEN ARABS AND ISRAELIS, THERE IS ALSO A CONFLICT BETWEEN MODERATES AND RADICALS. IT IS NOT IN THE AMERICAN INTEREST TO CREATE A PEACE ACCORDING TO OUR PRESCRIPTION AS THE RESULT WOULD BE A SHOCKINGNESS OF INCREASED DEMANDS, AND, PARADOXICALLY, WE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO BREAKING THE SPIRIT OF ISRAEL AND ESCALATING THE RADICAL DEMANDS, SO THAT FINALLY WE WOULD BE IN CONFLICT BOTH WITH ISRAEL AND THE ARABS. MODERATE ARABS HAVE THE SAME INTEREST THAT PEACE LOVING ISRAELIS MUST HAVE - THAT THE SETTLEMENT COME ABOUT NATURALLY AND SPONTANEOUSLY AS SOME- THING THAT EVERYBODY BELIEVES IN. I KNOW THAT THIS IS ACHIEVABLE WITH SOME PATIENCE AND WITH SOME FAITH.

Y

10.

THERE IS NO REASON AT THIS POINT FOR ANY DESPAIR.

THE LOGIC OF EVENTS WILL PRODUCE A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL. THE GREAT STEPS ALREADY TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF EGYPT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL CANNOT FAIL AT THIS LATE STAGE, BUT IT MUST ALSO BE ACHIEVED BY THE FREE WILL OF ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS.

I HAVE YET A THIRD CONCERN BECAUSE THESE NEGOTIATIONS THAT ARE NOW CONCLUDED ARE RELATIVELY SIMPLE. THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT WILL START SHORTLY AFTER ON THE WEST BANK ARE OF ENORMOUS COMPLEXITY AND, I MUST SAY, OF POTENTIALLY GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONDUCT THOSE NEGOTIATIONS IN TERMS OF A CONSTANT TEST OF STRENGTH. IT WILL LEAD TO DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE RETURN TO THE COMMON STRATEGY WHICH AT LEAST WAS A GUIDING PRINCIPAL

11.

OF OUR GOVERNMENT FOR A GREAT PART OF ISRAEL'S
EXISTENCE.

EVEN IF ONE FAILS OCCASIONALLY, ONE MUST BE
DEDICATED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THERE IS A COMMON
STRATEGY AND A COMMON PURPOSE AND NOT SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT
TO RECONCILE CONFLICTING NEGOTIATING POSITIONS WHICH
ARE ALWAYS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE PEOPLE
AND THE FUTURE OF AN AREA. IT ISN'T JUST THE INTERESTS
OF ISRAEL. IT IS ALSO THE INTERESTS OF AMERICA AND THE
INTERESTS OF ALL MODERATE PEOPLE AMONG THE ARAB NATIONS
THAT IS AT STAKE IN THIS PROCESS.

IF SIMCHA AND I WERE STILL DEALING WITH EACH OTHER
OFFICIALLY, WE WOULD TALK ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS IN THIS

Y

12.

SPIRIT AND A SOLUTION WOULD BE FOUND, JUST AS I KNOW
A SOLUTION CAN BE FOUND NOW IF WE GET THE DISPUTES OFF
THE FRONT PAGES AND SPEAK ABOUT THE REAL FEARS AND
CONCERNS AND THE REAL HOPES OF EVERYBODY.

FOR ME TO SEE SIMCHA AND VIVIAN LEAVE IS A PERSONALLY
SAD OCCASION. THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE IN EVERYONE'S LIFE
WHO GIVE ONE STRENGTH BY THEIR CONVICTION, BY THEIR
INTEGRITY AND BY THEIR DEDICATION.

AS ASAD ONCE SAID TO A JOURNALIST THAT THE THING
THAT BOTHERED HIM ABOUT ME WAS THAT I HAD A SORT OF A
PASSIONATE LOVE FOR GOLDA. HE HAPPENED TO BE RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ALSO, I HAVE A VERY DEEP FRIENDSHIP
AND AFFECTION FOR SIMCHA AND VIVIAN WHO REPRESENTED A
PEOPLE IN NEED AND A PEOPLE WHOSE FUTURE HAS ALWAYS
BEEN THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE AND

13.

OF PEACE IN THIS WORLD.

WASHINGTON, AND ALL OUR LIVES HERE, WILL NOT BE THE
SAME WITHOUT HIM. THE ONLY CONSOLATION I HAVE IS THAT
WE CAN NOW DEAL WITH EACH OTHER AND NOBODY CAN CLAIM
THAT THERE IS ANYTHING EITHER OF US CAN DO FOR THE
OTHER EXCEPT FRIENDSHIP.

CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF MAJOR AMERICAN JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS
HENRY KISSINGER
SIMCHA DINITZ

HENRY KISSINGER: Simcha, Vivian and friends, I must say that adjective at the end of the introduction was a classic example of understatement.

LAUGHTER

And it would be just the beginning of the intro-
duction that my father would have wanted you to give. Simcha
and I spent many years in close friendship and close coopera-
tion. Of course, for a fleeting moment, I thought I'd be
the main speaker today but he had to kill that by arriving.

CHUCKLING

And that's the sort of fate I had with him all along.
And in all seriousness, some years ago, an Israeli journalist
said that ..said something that's possible really only in
Israel, of accusing the Israeli Ambassador of having too
close a relationship with the then Secretary of State. I
am proud of it. Simcha was a friend when I was in office.
He was a friend when I'm out of office and we'll be friends
for ..forever.

We had a concern of a common destiny. I never
pretended that the fate of Israel was not a matter of
very profound worry to somebody who lost 13 members of his
family in concentration camps. Simcha and I had to deal
with each other as representatives of two sovereign states
but we also had to deal with each other as representatives
of a community of concerns, after the Yom Kippur War started,
when the future of Israel hung in the balance.

[Y]

-2-

I don't know how many times a day Simcha and I talked to each other. I know he began to break me down by calling me three o'clock every morning.

## CHUCKLING

And it went on from there. There have been many debates about who did what at what point. Some of them a little strange because to make a debate about whether it should have taken 48 hours to get the whole airlift command of the United States to deliver supplies in a war in which the United States was not participating is a peculiar form of discussion. The fact is Simcha was the representative who negotiated this, who recalled us constantly to our duties. Simcha was the man who was the focal point for Golda during that terrible crisis and Simcha was the man with whom we discussed the prospects of peace after the worst danger was over.

Nobody can yearn for peace more than the people of Israel. Nobody can have a greater commitment to live for once in acceptance and for once without the fear of constant aggression which has been the destiny of the State of Israel. On no issue have I found a greater commitment, among all the Israeli leaders that I dealt with. We always attempted to work out a common strategy and except for one brief interval we always succeeded in having a common strategy.

We always thought and I still believe that Israel is a spiritual event in addition to a physical reality. It was sustained by the idealism of those who entered a wilderness,

-3-

inspired by faith and built a nation. And Golda, whom all
of us here have loved, never tired of telling me as she must
have told you, that it is that spirit that must never be
jeopardized.

In these five years, no man contributed more
to the survival of Israel and no one did more to help shape
a strategy for peace as my friend, Simcha. He left his mark
on this period. In the process, he also left a few marks on
me.

## CHUCKLING

But we'll talk about that on some other occasion.
And now, again, we are facing a period in which the problem
of peace and of what sort of peace is on the agenda. Let me
make a few general observations.

I want to repeat, no people can be more dedicated
to the achievement of peace than the people of Israel. And
being at the funeral last week, and having the opportunity to
talk to both the leaders of the government and the leaders of
the opposition, I have no question that that is true. Secondly,
I believe that the government of Israel has demonstrated its
commitment to this proposition by making concessions that I
would have considered inconceivable two years ago. And that
frankly, I would not have dared to ask for.

Those concessions in terms of borders, in terms
of autonomy plans go to extraordinary lengths and their special
character is that they give up something tangible and permanent

-4-

in return for something intangible, namely, promises and recognition and normalization. They surrendered something irrevocable in return for something that can always be changed.

There is, therefore, inherent an inequality in the bargaining position of the two sides. Now, nobody has ever accused the Jewish people of being easy to get along with. But it wouldn't be around today after 2000 years of persecution if it were easy to get along with. But if one looks beyond the rhetoric at the reality, I think tribute must be paid to these tremendous concessions that have been made in the last year.

I have great respect also for President Sadat. And he also has made tremendous moves but it is not to derogate from his contribution to say that Israel has responded with a greatness of spirit and with...on a scale that during the period that I was in office I would have not believed possible.

Now, we are nearing the end of the negotiating process. I believe we are nearing the end of this process because both sides have gone so far that it cannot really fail. This being the case, there is no need for us to give the impression in the United States that we are more interested in a peace settlement than the parties themselves. It is the parties who have to live with the consequences of their actions. And having gone this far they will find a way of settling it.

Secondly, it is of tremendous importance for the United States as well as for the State of Israel, that whatever settlement is reached, appears to result and in fact results

-5-

from the free decision of the parties involved. In the Middle
East, there is not only a conflict between Arabs and Israelis,
there's also a conflict between moderates and radicals. It is
not in the American interest to create the impression that
Israel is just an appendage of our decision-making process be-
cause if Israel can be demonstrated to act only or exclusively
according to our prescriptions, the result will be that the
shopping list of demands will increase and paradoxically, we
will both contribute to breaking the spirit of Israel, and es-
calate the radical demands so that finally we will be in con-
flict both with Israel and the Arabs. So that the moderate
Arabs have the same interest that peace-loving Israelis must
have that the settlement come about naturally and spontaneously as
something that everybody believes in. And I know this is achiev-
able with some patience, and with some faith.

And so there is no reason at this point for any
despair. The logic of events will produce a settlement between
Egypt and Israel. The great steps already taken by the President
of Egypt and the government of Israel cannot fail at this late
stage but it must also be achieved by the free will of all of
the participants.

And I have yet a third concern because these nego-
tiations that are now concluded are relatively simple. The ones
that will start shortly after on the West Bank are of enormous
complexity. And I must say, of potentially grave consequences
for the future of Israel. We cannot afford to conduct those
negotiations in terms of a constant test of strength. It will

YI

-6-

lead to dangerous consequences. It is imperative that we return
to the common strategy which at least was the guiding principle
of our government for the greatest part of Israel's existence.
Even if one fails occasionally but at least one must be dedicated
to the proposition that there is a common strategy and a common
purpose and not simply an attempt to reconcile conflicting nego-
tiating positions which are only the tip of the iceberg. We
are talking here about the future of a people and the future of
any area. It isn't just the interests of Israel. It is also the
interest of American and the interest of all moderate people
among the Arab nations, that is at stake in this process.

If Simcha and I were still dealing with each other
officially we would talk about these problems, in this spirit,
privately. And a solution would be found. Just as I know a
solution can be found now if we get the disputes off the front
pages and speak about the real fears and the real concerns and
the real hopes of everybody.

For me, to see Simcha and Vivian leave is a per-
sonally very sad occasion. There are a few people in everybody's
life who give one strength by their convictions and by their
integrity and by their dedication. President Assad once said
to a journalist, that the thing that bothered him about me
was that I had a sort of a passionate love for Golda. And he
happened to be right.

But I'd like to say also I have a very deep friend-
ship and affection for Simcha and Vivian who represented a
people in need and a people whose future has always been the

-7-

touchstone of the possibility of justice and of peace in this
world. Washington and all our lives here will not be the same
without them. And the only consolation I have is that we can
now deal with each other and nobody can claim that there is
anything either of us can do for the other except friendship.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

VOICE: The final part of the introduction of our honored guest today will be carried on by another former chairman of the Conference of Presidents, Rabbi Israel Miller, who was Chairman of the Conference at a very critical time in recent history, led two of the....

APPLAUSE

SIMCHA DINITZ: Mr. Chairman, past chairmen, of the Presidents Conference, Dr. Kissinger, distinguished leaders and friends of the Jewish community, Dr. Kissinger complained that his introduction was not large enough. Mine was none at all.

LAUGHTER

So even on my last day, he always tops me.

I come before you today with mixed feelings, not mixed feelings about coming here. Next to the Embassy of Israel, that has been my home. I always felt when I came to this room and talked to these people that I spoke not only to friends and to Jews but people who are deeply in love and committed to the country in which they live, and greatly concerned to the point of identity of history and destiny with

-8-

[y]

the country which I represent.

I don't know if you know how much strength,
comfort and vigor you have given me through these meetings,
to conduct my daily affairs in Washington. And therefore I
want for this to thank you. It is the simplest word in the
English language, maybe the most meaningful one. I have been
said farewell and goodbye by many organizations and by scores
of communities. I have bade farewell to the President in the
White House and the Vice-President in Washington and Dr. Kissinger
in New York, on many, many occasions.

And I've said on these occasions that maybe my
unique role different than any other Israeli Ambassador who
have served so far in Washington was that I have survived not
only three American presidents but three Israeli Prime Ministers
which is not easier. And now I see that I've also survived
four presidents of the Presidents Conference,

## CHUCKLING

..which probably is the biggest challenge of all.
But I want to take this opportunity to take, to thank Jack Stein,
who has ushered me into this relationship with the organized
Jewish community, to thank Izzy Miller, who have added, as a
rabbi the spiritual dimension to the relationship between Israel
and the Jewish community; to thank my dear friend, Alex Schindler,
not
who has/left, I know, because he said he would be standing on
the way...on the door, for boldly and courageously standing

[Y]

-9-

for Israel at difficult times during change of administrations,
providing the necessary continuity of support for Israel, as
a country, as a people, as a society, regardless of political
shades and parties.

And to thank Ted Mann..although we did not have
too large or too long a period to work together, but the lack
of time was compensated by the intensity of the contact. And
I know that the Presidents Conference is in good hands of vigor-
ous leadership, of wisdom and maybe more important than anything
else, of courage, courage to speak..to speak one's own mind
when it is popular and when it is not popular.

And above all, I want to thank Yehuda who has
survived many more presidents of the Presidents Conference than
I did and in his own way, provided the continuity of this im-
portant body in doing an effective work in behalf of cementing
the relations between Israel and the United States. Thus, I
humbly believe, making both communities stronger.

My friends, I was touched by the things that were
said. I even believe that some of them were meant. But I would
like to say a few words about a dear friend, Dr. Kissinger...the
relations of which caused trouble for both of us.

I never doubted Dr. Kissinger's motives or methods.
Even when I doubted his tactics. We had many arguments, many
more than the few that have been publicized. But we always
had a common strategy. We knew where we were going. We knew
what we wanted to achieve. There was never a fleeting moment

-10-

that I thought that Secretary Kissinger would knowingly or
willingly do something to hurt Israel...her capacity to survive
her ability to defend herself and her place, a proud place in
the society of nations.

And once you start from this premise, surely
you have arguments, surely you have to quarrel sometimes with
each other. I think that we have said to each other one time
that obviously the United States and Israel can't agree 100%
because if they did, the United States would have been right
100% and no country is right 100%. He also told me once that
if we always agreed, one of our governments would be obsolete,
and it won't be the United States of America.

So even for our arguments, we have had our own
rationale and our own justification. But I say this especially
today because I believe it is extremely important to examine
and to test whether differences of opinion when they occur are
overt tactical methods of how to achieve that wider objective
or are they differences of opinion that spell a different ob-
jective. I do not doubt that the United States of America
and what we have been accustomed to call the special relation-
ship between the United States of America and Israel is a two-
way street. Not only Israel would be different if God forbid
this relationship will ever end.

But I humbly believe that the United States
would be a different United States of America if there wouldn't
have been this special relationship between the people and the

-11-

country of the United States and that of Israel. But it is
important and extremely important to repeat that relationship
does not rest solely on the moral imperative. It does not
derive itself solely from a community of interests of past history,
of religious identity, of spiritual values, of democratic assets,
important as they are. This special relationship also rests
on the community of interests in the strategic field. We are
both in the same camp fighting totalitarianism and dark forces.
And unless the America people are told this by their president,
then in time Israel will become a moral..but a moral burden
rather than strategic and political asset.

And therefore with all the statements of identity,
of history and community, of moral values, we must see to it
that we are recognized also as partners, especially in these
days when it's becoming clearer and clearer again that the
only solid, stable, reliable trustworthy permanent ally that
the United States of America has in this part of the world is
the State of Israel.

APPLAUSE

And if..and if this truism is correct, then my
friends it is..should be, ought to be the interest of this ad-
ministration as it was of past administrations and as it ought
to be of future administrations, to see to it that this ally
is not truncated, it's not emasculated,/is not weakened so
that it can perform the job as a vanguard of democracy in that
part of the world.

And the weakening of the State of Israel can occur

-12-

out of two propositions. Either by weakening Israel physically by withholding economic and military aid or by breaking the spirit of Israel through political criticism and through intimidations and recriminations. Because an Israel with a broken spirit is Israel that cannot live beyond its meager physical dimensions.

And therefore, my friends, when some of you asked me on various occasions throughout the years of our association whether the United States will take sanctions against Israel and withhold military or economic aid, I say to you this is unlikely. The greater danger that we must watch is that Israel should not be weakened by unjust recrimination against her because that puts her in the map of the United States, nay in the map of the world and in the map of the Middle East as an object of criticism and someone, somewhere might misread these differences of opinion and interpret it as if there was a weakening of this link of special relationship between the United States and Israel.

And if this is going to be interpreted such, in such a way, by friend or foes alike, starting from other superpowers to the people in our area, to the great people in the United States of America, then Israel is bleeding and injured not less than if economic or military aid is being withheld from her. My friends, this was a general statement with particular implications.

What we are undergoing these days, and I must speak candidly and frankly as I always spoke to you, not out

-13-

of malicious intention but what we are undergoing today is
unjust, unwarranted criticism against the policy and the posi-
tion of the people of Israel.

APPLAUSE

What we were presented with on the 11th of November was a draft treaty, negotiated between us and the Egyptians. And endorsed by the United States of American, a draft treaty that came before our cabinet where we had serious reservations about some key phrases there. And yet, in a courageous act, in a courageous act which did not lack internal criticism in Israel, the government has decided to approve the treaty in total...that treaty submitted by the United States draft, SOUNDS LIKE on all its annexes(?) with all its interpretations for the sake of two goals, to achieve peace and to work together with our greatest friend, the United States of America.

But Egypt did not do the same. Egypt decided to hike the price and let's call a spade a spade, and send one emissary after another to the United States government, demanding to introduce changes after they were agreed and after the Israeli cabinet had already voted to approve the text, changes that in my opinion changed materially the meaning of the treaty on some of its key provisions.

Secretary Vance went to the Middle East in order to try to bridge the gap, a noble undertaking with / great and total and complete cooperation of the State of Israel. We have accepted American partnership in these negotiations willingly.

Y

-14-

We have not been the ones who invented the term, full partner, but we welcomed it, because we can have no better partner in the international arena than the United States of America.

And Secretary Vance discussed some proposals and some suggestions that were presented by the Egyptians. That was on the 12th of December and on that day, a very distinguished Senator of the United States Senate spoke and said, that unless Israel does this or that, or refrains from doing this or that, then the Senate of the United States or the Congress of the United States would withhold aid from Israel. My friends, the issue is not important. But Israel cannot be spoken to like this. We are not a vassal country. We get aid from the United States. We give back to the United States in return, strategic value. We are not a dependent of the United States and the United States would lose its interest in Israel if Israel became a satellite of the United States of America.

And no one should speak to Israel in threatening terms even if he is not a member of the Executive Branch. Because that falls into the category, my friends, not of withholding aid, military or political, or economic, that falls into the second category of intimidating the spirit of Israel. And on the 13th, the following day, before the Secretary even arrived in Israel, we heard on the highest authority from Washington that the Egyptians were generous in their proposal, that the United States almost sponsored these proposals. And I was in Jerusalem then, sitting with the Prime Minister and the

-15-

Foreign Minister and we didn't know what these proposals were.
This is not a way that a full partner treats the parties to
the conference and to the conflict.

And when Secretary Vance came and presented us
with the Egyptian suggestions, he has indicated to us that the
United States sees no problem with these suggestions. If I
was in a more humorous mood I would remind you of the Jewish
story about the man who complained to the doctor that his
back hurt and his side hurts and his shoulder hurts and the
doctors says..."Oh, this doesn't bother me."

He said to him, "Doctor, if it had hurt you, it
wouldn't have bothered me either."

CHUCKLING

And just as we were beginning to discuss these
proposals and the Prime Minister in order to save time did
not want to wait until the regular cabinet meeting on Sunday,
but called a special meeting on Friday. And Friday, nine o'clock
the government was supposed to meet and consider these proposals.
Difficult as they were, we did not want to say to Secretary
Vance a flat no before we have a full possibility to air
these suggestions. As Secretary Kissinger knows, we are
operating in a process of democracy which sometimes drove him
up the wall, but we have this process as you have in the United
States. And the treaty of Panama was not decided solely by
the Executive Branch. If I am not mistaken there were some

-16-

discussions in the Congress of the United States, some alterna-
tions and some rebuffs and some going backs and forth. And this
is about an island, a country which is..which is removed from
you, which the treaty with all its importance did not affect
your vital interests of survival. And here we had the Prime
Minister calling a special meeting on Friday morning at nine
o'clock and at seven o'clock in the morning, two hours before
the government started, we heard the voice from Washington saying
it's up to Israel now. Egypt has done it's best. And peace will
depend on the action of the Israeli cabinet.

My friends, it is not only incorrect statement
but may I humbly say, not very statesmanlike either. And in
fact, produces exactly the opposite of what it intends to
produce.

APPLAUSE

Because it is no secret that on this or other
issues there are different opinions and difference of opinion
in Israel. It's no secret before you that we don't see on
every paragraph and every letter eye to eye from the extreme
right to the extreme left in the Israeli Parliament. And thank
God we don't. But when a government of a people for that matter,
have to weigh matters of life and death and at the same time
from across the ocean, they are being threatened or intimidated
or an ultimatum is given them, then no matter how small the
people are, no matter how weak we are in terms of global con-
sideration, we are just as proud as the biggest and the mightiest
nation in the world.

[Y]

-17-

APPLAUSE

I say this my friends, believe me, with great pain.
In the five and a half years that I have served here, there was
nothing that was dearer to my heart than to guard and cultivate
and nourish and grow this unique relationship between the United
States and Israel. Not only because it is important to Israel,
not only because it is important to the United States but because
out of such community of interests, we can all expect a better
and a more decent world.

And it is not a great day of joy for me to leave
these shores when we are in dispute, with the policy of our
best friend. But I do not want to leave you with a feeling of
despair because I do not believe that this is an end of the
road. Not for the peace negotiations, and definitely not for
the relationship or the special relationship between our two
countries. The peace is going to be signed soon. Because the
stakes that are involved are higher and more important than
any temporary setback. Yes, we will have to see that the peace
that will be signed will be not only a peace treaty but a peace.
We will have to be very vigilant over the fact that that will
not be the peace of the graveyard. And we will not, I can
assure you, purchase a few years of temporary comfort for the
price of endangering succeeding generations.....

....having to face wars from borders less defensible
and from neighbors better equipped.

The comfortable life we will not make for ourselves
not only because we do not want to do it but because we are not

-18-

entitled to do it because in Israel we are but guardians of
that treasure called the revival of Jewish independence to
which you are all partners.

So you have just given us this task in Israel
to guard, to keep, to share but not to endanger. And anyone
who believes that we can suspend or mortgage the peace treaty
between Egypt and Israel and make it conditional on the desire
or lack of desire of those who oppose the very process of peace
is not only asking the impossible but honestly speaking is
talking in contradictory terms.

Yes, we know that Sadat has a great battle and
a great struggle with the Arab world. And there is tremendous
amount of sympathy that is being infused in him from various
corners including the highest corners in this land. But have
we ever stopped to ask ourselves what is his problem with
the Arab world about? It is simple, that they want to fight
and destroy Israel and he has chosen a different route.

And we have to be understanding and accommodating
and forgiving to a policy which still calls for the abolition
of Israel. And we have to make considerations that Sadat should
not be injured by those who say, yes, we want/to sign the treaty
maybe, provided you will join us in a war against Israel if it's
going to be another war against Israel and we, the rejectionists
will see to it that there will be a war against Israel.

And I humbly ask you as I asked the government to

-19-

which I was accredited until a few hours ago, as I asked my
Egyptian colleague, the Egyptian Ambassador in Washington, why
should Egypt put herself in such a straightjacket?

Why should Egypt weaken her freedom of choice
in case there is a conflict? Why should Egypt put herself to
the veto of the Palestinians or the adventurism of Assad? Or
to the fluctuation not only in oil prices but in politics of
that is
the Saudi kingdom? Is there any strategic interest/served
by Egypt, by putting the peace conditional at the whims of
those who object to it?

And I must say that I'm not a lawyer but with
all the legalisms that I hear back and forth, nobody was pre-
pared or able to give me an answer. Why should we endanger
Sadat for the price of appeasing those who object not only
to Israel, let me remind you, but to Camp David accords nego-
tiated under the tutelage of the United States of America.

So I say peace will come because the interests will
transcend the temporary difficulties. And the special relationship
between Israel and the United States will outlast the present
difficulty because there hasn't yet been born a force strong
enough to break these special ties that unite our two countries,
our two peoples, our two societies.

But in order to achieve this, we must not take it
for granted. We must work for it, the voices of moderation and
of wisdom and of statesmanship must be heard, must be heard to

-20-

echo the deep sentiment of this closeness of relationship; not to
negate it but to fortify it, to balance those special interest
groups and you are not a special interest group, but to balance
those special interest groups whether golden or liquid who have
other interests in pushing the United States in doing the
wrong thing at the wrong time with the wrong country, for the
wrong purpose.

And we can do it, because throughout the length
and breadth of this country, Jews and non-Jews, there is a
great echo of sympathy, of understanding, of love, of devotion,
of identity with a young struggling democracy in the Middle
East who did not want to die in war and doesn't want to be
abandoned in peace.

And you are part of this great community, the
majority of the American people. And you can assure that this
gifted, this unique treasure that our two societies hold will
endure forever, with a strong and proud America, with a strong
and democratic Israel, serving together the same purpose;
threatened by the same enemies, concerned with the same problems
and hoping for the same future, a future of freedom and dignity
to the nation, to the individual and to the people.

Thank you very much.

APPLAUSE

VOICE: Dr. Kissinger, thank you for honoring us
with your presence this afternoon. Vivian and Simcha, thank
you for honoring us with your presence for the last five and
a half years. These proceedings are concluded. Good afternoon.

END OF TAPE