PRESIDENT
SHEINGOLD:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the Board, we welcome all of you here this evening. As you know, this is a great program for Sutton Place Synagogue and we're of course delighted to see the attendance here this evening.

One of the main objectives of Sutton Place Synagogue is to make an impact on the Jewish community of the metropolitan area by arranging many spiritual, educational and cultural programs to attract thousands of our people who come through our doors each week. And one of the most successful of all these programs these past eight years has been the Jewish Town Hall Series, which is sponsored by our trustees, the Gladstone Family in memory of Lucille Gladstone's beloved father, Abraham Meyer Greenstein. Tonight is the conclusion of this now very famous series of dialogues in which we have surprised many people with the outstanding personalities that have come here, and you have responded with many letters and telephone calls indicating your enjoyment and appreciation for us having them here. And we are sure that we will hear from many of you who are here this evening in the same manner.

I must say that I just spent fifteen or twenty minutes with Dr. Kissinger and I think he's going to surprise all of you. He's a very, very, lovely gentleman offstage and he promised me that he will continue that way on stage this evening. As all of you know, Dr. Henry Kissinger is a master strategist, a skilled mediator, a shuttle diplomat, heralded as one of the most

brilliant Secretaries of State in the history of the
United States serving under two presidents. And tonight
we are certainly indeed grateful that he is here with us
to be in dialogue with our spiritual leader,
Rabbi David B. Kahane. And as the evening goes on and
towards the end of the evening we hope we will have a
very, very pleasant surprise for all of you.

I just witnessed a very, very warm greeting that
only a Jewish mother and her son can have and I think as
I talk the goose pimples are probably running not only
through me but through every person that is sitting here.
For we have in our midst Mrs. Kissinger.

Now ladies and gentlemen, would you all please rise
and greet Dr. Henry Kissinger in dialogue with
Rabbi David B. Kahane.

RABBI KAHANE:

Once again, we welcome you all to Jewish Town Hall
which has become the leading forum in the city and
perhaps in the Jewish world whereby distinguished
personalities discuss crucial issues. Firstly, we want
to thank Kenneth and Lucille Gladstone who have endowed
this program in memory of Lucille's father. We want to
thank the police department for their kind cooperation in
accommodating the many thousands that are on the street.
I might indicate that we regret that we cannot
accommodate all, however, although it has been suggested
that we take our Town Hall perhaps to Madison Square
Garden, and I think this evening with the crowd even that
might be too small. I always did feel that the synagogue
is the loci, the centrality, and all Jewish life should

Page -3-

[L]

emanate from it.

This evening we have with us, Dr. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, winner of the Prize, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, master strategist, army veteran, academician, who presently holds the position of University Professor of Diplomacy at the School of Foreign Service, and counselor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University. The subtle wit and searing intellect continue to penetrate all the vital issues of our day. It was gratifying to hear from the scalpers that the most difficult ticket to obtain tonight is not for the Tyson-Spinks fight, but rather to be accommodated in the Sanctuary of Sutton Place Synagogue. And while many might be watching the Tyson and Spinks fight for the heavyweight world champion, I think we have chosen more wisely in listening to-what we all agree is a champion for the creation of a better world.

Dr. Kissinger, it was a long journey for the child born in Fürth, Germany, coming to America at the age of fourteen, to escape the fury of the Holocaust, getting a job squeezing the moisture from bristles for a shaving brush manufacturer at eleven dollars a week while going to high school and university. And finally becoming one of the giants of contemporary history. We all agree, one of the greatest Secretaries of State in the history of the United States, recipient of mankind's highest award, the Nobel Prize, and most of us feel that for the accident of birth, you would have been the President of

Page -4-

these United States.

Would you tell us what have been the major
influences in this great upward climb? What were the
turns in your journey towards international fame?

DR. KISSINGER:

Well, Rabbi Kahane, first of all let me thank you
for your very friendly introduction. Sometimes when I'm
introduced, the Chairman says that few people need an
introduction less but even fewer people enjoy an
introduction more, and especially when it contains as
many superlatives as the Rabbi quoted from the material
that my office sends out. Now, my mother is here in the
audience so I have to restrain my inventive capacities
because she'll probably get up here and correct me if I
stray from the path of exact truth. The fact is that it
never occurred to me that I'd become Secretary of State
when I came to this country, as the Rabbi pointed out. I
had to work in a shaving brush factory for eleven dollars
a week and my job consisted of squeezing acid out of the
bristles in the shaving brush so that for a while I even
had the outline of the shaving brush. I don't know what
a palm reader might have done with my hand. It is not
the intellectually most stimulating job that you can
imagine. At that time I think that my ambition was to
become an accountant and at the City College at night I
was studying that subject. Then I was drafted into the
army and afterwards went to Harvard and studied political
science.

But still, without any expectation of getting into
public life. Or any plan to get into public life. And I

[L.C.]

didn't have a plan and often people come to me and say
how do I get to be a high-ranking official? And in my
particular case what started me on the road was a total
accident. Arthur Schlessinger, Jr. was a close friend of
mine. I ran into him in Harvard Yard one day and he had
in his hand a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force,
about a debate that was at that time very acute about
massive retaliation versus another form of strategy. He
showed me that letter and asked me what I thought about
it. In those days I still had weekends free so I wrote
my views on the subject and sent them to Schlessinger.
He sent them to Hamilton Fisher Armstrong who was Editor
of Foreign Affairs and he published it as an article.
That's how I became a military expert. And Arthur, as
far as I'm concerned, is in the wrong political party.
And whenever he deplores my views I tell him he could
have easily have saved me from whatever plague awaits me
by not running into me in Harvard Yard.

But after that I started writing on contemporary
things but I chose the way to get into the Nixon
entourage by supporting Nelson Rockefeller in three
presidential campaigns. Now Nelson Rockefeller, by
today's standards, was hopelessly naive about becoming
president. He suffered from the delusion that you become
president by having the best program. So he spent months
and years working on a program while others were chasing
delegates. So we never made it together and I had never
met Nixon when he invited me to become his Security
Advisor. I was shaking hands with him once for two

Page -6-

[L.C]

minutes at a cocktail party and he in turn was so afraid
of being rejected that while he talked to me in some
elliptic manner, I didn't understand that he had offered
me a job. So three days later we had to start all over
again. So this shows that you cannot exactly plan, at
least I didn't exactly plan to get there.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, we vividly recall your participation
with former President Richard Nixon during the seventies
in Summit meetings with Soviet leadership. What geo-
political changes have been wrought during the past
decade and what bearing does a rejuvenated Soviet
leadership have for Soviet-American relations? How would
you compare the recent Summit meetings between
President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev to the past ones
and do you think any advances were made or any vital
hopes were dashed at the last Summit meeting?

DR. KISSINGER:

Well, the approach of the Nixon administration,
President Nixon and myself as his associate, was
different from the contemporary approach. We thought
that foreign policy in the end had to be conducted on a
cold-blooded assessment of the national interest. We
felt that America had suffered through much of the post-
war period from isolations between extremes of euphoria
and extremes of belligerence. And we thought that the
question of war and peace could not be decided or
determined by abstract slogans of one group being for
peace and one group being for something else but could
only be determined in relation to complete, specific
negotiations. In that sense, I must say, our approach

Page -7-

was not typically American and was a tradition that was
placed more on the way history teaches that statesmanship
has been conducted.

The approach of the current Summit was much more
personal, more geared to individuals. President Reagan
seems to believe that Gorbachev is a personal friend of
his. Hmmm. Mr. Nixon did not have the belief that very
many people were personal friends of his. And so he did
not succumb to that temptation.

Much of American thought of which the current
Summit is a good example seems to think that foreign
policy is about conversion. That on some magic day, some
Soviet leader will come along who will be like a regular
mid-western American. And that then the question of
peace will be solved. So I believe that the recent
Summit was much more euphoric, much less precise, and in
a way much less conclusive than I would have liked and
then would permit a judgment on whether progress is
really taking place.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, the news media tells us that
tomorrow begins an extraordinary conference of the Soviet
party with five thousand delegates from all over the
Soviet Union, the first such conference since 1941. The
agenda is to discuss new ideas on economic policies,
electoral changes, civil liberties and Glasnost. You
have written, and I quote, "Even Glasnosts, which are
intrinsically appealing to the West, should not alter how
we conduct our relations with the Soviet Union."

My question is, what do you believe are the

[c]

guidelines necessary to establish Glasnost as a true
change in Soviet thinking, or is it only a tactic by
Mr. Gorbachev to solidify his position?

DR. KISSINGER:

I think it's in part a tactic and its in part real,
but what we have to decide in this country is the
relevance of what Gorbachev is doing for the peace of the
world and for the United States. Americans have the
attitude that all foreigners are either misunderstood
Americans or regular fellows. I have a friend who is of
the view that there is no such thing as an English
accent. That the English put this on to intimidate
Americans. That if you can only catch an Englishman
unaware like waking him up at four in the morning, he
will speak like any other normal human being.

That is very much the attitude towards the Soviet
Union. We have to remember a number of things. One, the
Soviet Union has been a Communist state for nearly 80
years. And the Soviet Union is the heir of a Russian
empire that has existed for over 300 years. And it's
quite different in its basic convictions and approach
from Western societies and especially from the United
States.

But first, let's take the leadership group. The
question is, is Gorbachev sincere? Of course he's
sincere in what he's trying to do. But what is it that
he is trying to do? All of his life he has been a
functionary in the Communist Party. He has never had
another job except functionary in the Communist Party.
He rose to the top in a co-opting organization which has

Page -9-

a very tough competition. In that organization, nobody
has ever retired with honor. In fact, nobody has ever
retired. They have all died in office, except one, who
was purged and became a non-person. Nobody has ever
survived his own death. At this moment they are busily
wrecking the reputation of Brezhnev, to a tomb they
behaved with exquisite obsequiousness, when he was in
office. Therefore, a man who enters such a career must
have an extraordinary sense for power. And that must
override all other considerations. Now, is it possible
that a Cardinal of the Church turns against Catholicism?
It's possible, but I don't remember that it has ever
happened.

It is possible that a leader of the Communist Party
turns against Communism? Yes, it's possible, but not
probable. All of the incentives and the rewards of the
system are skewered towards the Communist Party. Now he
deserves credit for understanding that the Communist
system cannot work as it is. It cannot work because it
has two problems: the political structure isn't working
and the economic structure isn't working. Otherwise,
they're in reasonably good shape.

The political structure isn't working for the
reasons I've already given. Where there is no rotation
in office, where people can only be removed by coup-like
procedures. Every dynasty begins with a purge and ends
with stagnation. There's no exception to the rule and
we're going through the purge period now. Thirteen of
the sixteen people who have voted Gorbachev into office

Page -10-

have already been purged including two that he brought
into the leadership group of the Politburo. So now they
are trying to set up a rotation in office and other
things that are normal, not to speak in democratic
governments, that are normal in modern corporations.
Secondly, the economic situation is a nightmare, in any
Communist state. Because when every article in commerce
moves by allocation, when everything is done on the basis
of a central plan, all normal incentives disappear.

It has been said that the Soviet system operates by
two social contrasts: managers don't manage and workers
don't work. And the reason for it is a manager is not an
entrepreneur. A manager is a politician whose skill
consists in setting a quota by negotiation with the
ministries, and with the central planning organization;
that all three of them are sure he can meet, because all
three of them will be in horrible trouble if he doesn't
meet it. Nobody cares what the consumer wants. Nobody
is interested in quality because whatever is produced is
going to be distributed. In fact, to innovate throws off
the whole plan so that there is no incentive for
innovation. All the European manufacturers that move
factories to the Soviet Union found that the productivity
of Soviet workers was about a fifth of that of their home
countries. Now that is a fundamental problem and it will
doom the Soviet Union to become the most developed of the
under-developed countries if they keep going like this.

And that is what Gorbachev is trying to fix. And
for that he deserves a lot of credit. Now, can he

Page -11-

succeed? I have the most serious doubts. Unlike the
Chinese, the Soviet Union is not culturally homogeneous.
Unlike the Chinese, there is no entrepreneurial group
left. Decentralization in the Soviet Union leads
immediately to national problems as we've seen in Armenia
and the Baltic provinces. So he's got a huge domestic
problem.

Now how about foreign policy? What does it mean
for foreign policy? That is a fundamental issue.
America is not a reform school for the whole world. Our
job is not to reform the world, our job is to reform the
peace. If you look at the Russian empire, and the Czars
and Commissars, they have expanded for 400 years in all
directions. In the seventeenth century they made a
treaty with Poland to defeat the Swedes and the Turks.
That accomplished they made a treaty with Prussia and
Austria to divide up Poland. And ever since then they
have been progressing more and more towards India,
towards the Pacific and towards the center of Europe.
That has been a fundamental feature of Russian imperial
policy.

And therefore, even if Communism should be
modified, which I don't believe is all that simple, there
still remains the problem of Russia as a great power
pressing on all of its neighbors. I don't believe it's
all that simple to modify Communism, as some of our
newspapers imply, because if the Communists are
specialists in anything, it's not in running an economy,
it is in seizing and holding power. To believe that this

Page -12-

group will simply wither away and disappear is, in my view, an illusion. But even if it should happen, what is highly foreseeable in the next five to ten years, is turmoil in Eastern Europe, and maybe even turmoil inside the Soviet Union. If this process should continue. That is the threat to peace, not all these abstruse calculations about nuclear weapons which nobody understands and which really become a very esoteric subject.

Sooner or later, we will have to judge Gorbachev's intentions by whether he is willing to separate the domination of other countries from normal security concerns. Whether he's willing to let Eastern Europe become like Finland, for example, or matters of this kind. Otherwise, I believe that we cannot judge simply on the basis of demonstrations in the Soviet Union.

And we have to remember another thing, and particularly a Jewish group will understand it, the Russian Orthodox Church is not a liberal institution. The Russian Orthodox Church has been an instrument of state power and an instrument of the repression of all other religions, of the Ukrainian Catholics, of the Jews, of any other religion that exists in Russia. So if they are given more power, it doesn't mean Russia is becoming freer, it means that Gorbachev is smart enough to harness a group that has always been an instrument of authoritarian power to himself. So my view at this point is agnostic. I want to see concrete, precise, political adjustments.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, world Jewry will forever be grateful
to you for your efforts in easing the plight of the Jews
behind the iron curtain. During the period that you were
in office, the flow of immigration increased from about
400 people per year to 45,000 people per year within a
four-year period. During your tenure it was made clear
to the Soviet Union that we would pay seriously attention
to the problem of Russian Jewry.

My question is, do President Reagan's recent
statements at the Summit, his talk to the dissidents,
pressure from American Jewry, Solidarity Day gatherings,
have any impact on Soviet policy?

DR. KISSINGER:

I agree with President Reagan's statements at the
Summit with respect to human rights, his report of the
Dissidents, and encouragement of immigration. And of
course everybody is affected by his own experiences. In
the seventies, with a different Soviet leadership, it
proved most effective to proceed by quiet diplomacy. In
fact, most people did not know there was an increase in
Jewish immigration. When the Nixon administration came
into office about 400-500 Jews left a year. We took it
up very quietly with the Soviets. We told them that we
would not make a public issue out of it but we would
notice it and take it into consideration if they acted on
it. And as you pointed out, at its high point 45,000
Jews left in 1972 and 1973. Then it became a matter of
public controversy, then relations with the Soviet Union
declined, and a number of other things happened.

At this point I think that the Reagan

administration is doing what can be done but we have a
long way to go to get back to where we were. I frankly
thought it was a mistake to make it at the time to pass
the Jackson Amendment. I thought it was unwise. I think
now it would be a mistake to revoke it until we had
substantive assurances that its purposes had been
achieved.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, we would all agree with the view
publicly expressed on national television by former
President Nixon and reaffirmed in an article by
A.M. Rosenthal, in which they said that you,
Dr. Kissinger, should become involved in the Middle East
stalemate. You are the best negotiator. You are
respected by all the major parties as much as any man can
be in that part of the world, and that you more than any
other individual can break the logjam in that volatile
area. We are therefore most gratified to be the
beneficiaries of your insights on the perplexing Mid-East
problems.

The first question on the Mid-East, the question of
the international conference. There were sharp
differences of opinion between our previous speakers at
the Jewish Town Hall Dialogue. Ambassador Eban expressed
from this very podium his support for the international
conference. He said "Israel has asked to take a risk for
war, why not take a risk for peace?" On the other hand,
Dr. Kirkpatrick from this platform again said, "Bringing
China, Britain, France and the Soviet Union to the
conference will only isolate Israel." You have said, and

I quote, "Such a conference is inherently a one-sided
negotiating framework."

By what line of reasoning do you differ with
Ambassador Eban, and are the critics of the conference
correct when they call it an act of suicide?

DR. KISSINGER:

Well, if you had Jean Kirkpatrick here followed by
me you had every point of view from A to B. I agree with
Jean Kirkpatrick. Abba Eban is an old friend of mine.
We worked closely together in many negotiations, but I
cannot share his view. And I'm allergic, frankly, to
phrases 'we took risks for war and we must take risks for
peace'. We took risks for war--we didn't have any
choice. It was imposed on us. This one, the
international peace conference, we do not have to take.
And it seems to me a dangerous risk and somebody has to
explain the benefits against the cause. Now the argument
that is made for a peace conference is that Hussein needs
the cover of a peace conference. And that then the peace
conference will meet for two or three days after which
Israel and Jordan will go off by themselves and settle
the issues in what are called 'direct negotiations of a
bi-lateral nature'. That absolutely cannot happen.

If the permanent members of the Security Council,
and all the Arab states, and the PLO in some fashion, as
is being discussed, or even without the PLO, are
assembled, who is going to end the conference in two or
three days? And who is going to say that all they can
discuss is that Israel and Jordan should go off by
themselves and that all they will do is to bless Israel's

Page -16-

and Jordan's bi-lateral talks. That is an illusion. It
is impossible.

Once the Soviet Union is at a conference, it will
appear as the lawyer for the radical Arabs. And there is
no other role it has. If Hussein cannot negotiate with
Israel without a conference, he surely cannot make
concessions without the blessings of the conference. And
therefore, it is inevitable that the substance of the
negotiations between Israel and Jordan will be brought
back to the conference. And at that conference Israel
will be totally isolated perhaps with the support of the
United States but with nobody else. So therefore, the
inevitable, the best outcome of a conference is a demand
for the 67 borders, and some new status for at least the
old city of Jerusalem. That's the minimum that can
happen and that, I believe, no Israeli government can
accept or, if it accepted it, I do not believe that the
state of Israel can survive. And therefore, I do not see
any point in going to a conference in which there is even
one chance in three that such an outcome will happen.

And I think the chance is much greater so if Israel
wants to negotiate, and I favor negotiation, then it must
come to some understanding with the United States as to
the limits of concessions that will be asked of it,
beyond which the United States will not exercise pressure
on it. If Israel does not have that substantive
assurance, no procedural gimmick can possibly save it.
And an international conference will be a device in which
it will be driven step by step, from one concession to

Page -17-

another. And when one deals with a country with a very
narrow margin of survival, in which the morale of the
population is one of the chief elements of its future,
this constant pressure and this endless demand for ever
new concessions, may break the spirit and certainly will
generate proposals that are simply not sustainable.

And I think an international conference would be a
disaster and no Israeli government should go to it unless
is has substantive assurances from the United States as
to the exact substantive limits of concessions that will
be asked.

RABBI KAHANE: Dr. Kissinger, you just stated and you did write in a recent article, "If most professional diplomats," I'm quoting you, "could have their way they would internationalize at least the old city of Jerusalem, if not the whole city." Jerusalem has come again to the forefront this past week when a presidential candidate proposed the transfer of the American Embassy to Jerusalem. From this very platform again, Dr. Eli Wiesel and Ambassador Netanyahu said Israel can never negotiate on Jerusalem. Somehow the feeling is that if all other problems were solved Jerusalem would be insoluble. Can you envision any withdrawal or any compromise on Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem?

DR. KISSINGER: No I can't. I think that, first of all, I think it is important to keep in mind that I actually read most of the speeches that were made at the Arab Summit about three weeks ago.... the Summit in Algiers. I was in Morocco at the time so I got the text in the Moroccan

Page -18-

(c) 1973

newspapers. Every one of the moderate speakers. Not one
of the moderate speakers who said there should be peace
ever defined what the frontiers should be. They never
even said the 67 frontiers. They said on the basis of
relevant U.N. resolutions, which is as likely to mean the
47 frontiers, if it means any frontiers. All of them
came out for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its
capital. And all of them demanded the right of
Palestinians to return to their homeland.

And this is another reason, incidentally, why I
don't want an international conference. Now I don't
believe that it is possible to divide Jerusalem again.
At the end of a long process if there were a peace
settlement, I could imagine, as I've said here already
three years ago when I was here last, that Israel would
grant a special status to the Moslem holy places in a
unified city with special rights of access. Something
like that... that I can imagine. But dividing the
sovereignty of Jerusalem would be source of endless
dispute.

And let me make another point here, I don't really
think and I think that it is important to say the truth,
I don't really think that a peace settlement in the
traditional sense is possible at this time. I do not
believe it is achievable to negotiate something at the
end of which one can say, everybody will live in harmony.
Whatever is negotiated now, if one could achieve a
negotiation on the West Bank, that brings the relative
tranquility that was achieved in 1974 on the Golan

Page -19-

Heights in a so-called military arrangement, and which
has held now for 14 years. I think that is a better
approach than to pretend that there is a permanent
solution possible when passions are what they are,
demands are so irreconcilable and when these phrases of
territory for peace will have the practical consequences
of leading to the gradual disintegration of the Jewish
State.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, with regards to the recent uprisings
in Israel, in last week's New York Times there was a lead
article called *Bitinwah, How Will He Play in the U.S.?
*
The reporter tells us that Defense Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, who is at this very moment in the United
States, is strongly supported in Israel for the methods
that he is utilizing based on government policy to quell
the uprising, but yet the reporter claims that his
methods are regarded less favorably within American
circles. Do you agree with the methods utilized by the
Defense Minister? How would you deal with the
disturbances, particularly the recent firebombings? What
approach would you suggest and why?

DR. KISSINGER:

I have nothing to suggest. I'm no expert on how to
put down civil uprisings. I would make a few general
comments. One, what exactly is Israel supposed to do?
What is it supposed to do in the face of civil uprising?
What choice does it have except to try to put them down?

I have favored negotiations with the Arabs all of
my political life. So I'm perfectly in favor of a
negotiation. But I do not see what can be done except to

Page -20-

attempt to put it out. Now what the best method is to
put down the civil uprising, we here in this country are
in no position to say. I said at a temple in Beverly
Hills to the divided joy of my listeners, that Israel
does not exist for the edification of American Jewish
intellectuals. And there are many things that I see on
television that don't make me enthusiastic, but I don't
know what choice they have. And also, one has to
recognize that television captures one moment. It
doesn't capture the provocation, and it doesn't tell you
how widespread the particular incident is that it is
reporting. Is it one incident or are there a thousand
going on simultaneously?

It is very difficult to judge so I think that yes,
I favor a negotiation, not in the framework of an
international conference, but in the framework of
American mediation, or of direct talks, one or the other.
But with respect to the uprisings, I think on the method
of combating the uprisings, I think some restraint on the
part of the Jewish community might well be indicated.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, at the Summit meeting in Algiers
which you just spoke about, a statement was distributed,
and excerpts reprinted in the Obit page of the New York
Times by Assam Abu Sharif in which he speaks of solving
the problem by talking directly with Israel. Five
Palestinian guerilla organizations have called him a
traitor and demanded that he be brought to trial before a
Palestinian court.

You have said, quote, "The PLO is a group whose

Page -21-

program foresees the destruction of Israel." The PLO carried out terrorist raids for three years before Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank. His program calls for a secular state, a euphemism for the annihilation of Israel.

Do you believe that this statement of Assam Abu Sharif indicates in any way a change of policy on the part of the PLO? Can Israel ever negotiate with the PLO directly? At an international conference can any territorial settlement in the West Bank allow the PLO to govern?

DR. KISSINGER:

If one looks at the history of the PLO one has to remember that it was founded in 1964 while Israel was within the 1967 wars. That it is annually celebrating raids that took place on Israel before the 1967 war. I'm frequently criticized because of an agreement that was made while I was in office between Israel and the United States; that the United States would not negotiate with the PLO unless the PLO recognized Resolutions 242 and 338. Now that is always considered a very honourable condition. If you think about it, it is a minimum condition. All Resolution 242 requires is that they accept the principle of a just and lasting peace within secure and recognized borders. They don't even have to say what these borders are, they just have to say that Israel is entitled to some borders that are recognized and secure. They have never accepted that, not even cynically so that the question of whether they are sincere or not hasn't even arisen up to now. Even the

Page -22-

most moderate PLO spokesman like this Professor from
Johns Hopkins University, if you analyze carefully what
he says, he never specifies a particular frontier. It is
always within the context of a secular state which means
the freedom of return of all of the Palestinians, which
means in turn the swamping of the Jewish population and
in the end, the destruction of Israel.

So therefore, in its present form, the minimum that
the PLO would have to do is to put before its congress
some proposition of co-existence with Israel within some
borders that are secure. They have never done it. They
will never do it. At least not in their present
competition. There may be individuals who are prepared
to talk. One of them was assassinated in Lisbon a few
years ago.

I believe that the issue of who governs on the West
Bank cannot be determined at the same time with the issue
of what territories, if any, Israel is going to give up
on the West Bank. I think there must be an extended
interim period in which one can test the actual
intentions of the leadership that emerges in performance.
Once the PLO is recognized as a political entity, it will
have the status of a state and the pressures will
endlessly continue.

I was involved for years in negotiations with the
Vietnamese and I kept hearing statements like this of how
eager they were to have a compromise, how stupid we were
in not trusting them, and how ridiculous it was to speak
of an open-ended desire to destroy their opponent. Well,

our worst nightmares turned out to be correct and I think
when the fate of a nation is involved, one cannot gamble
like this. Or, I do not favor negotiation with the PLO
and I've stated so publicly before all audiences. I have
not a different position for Jewish audiences.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, American Jewry was deeply disturbed
to read last Thursday that democratic parties in seven
states have in their platforms called for a policy of
self-determination for the Palestinian people. Some
state conventions are urging the creation of a separate
Palestinian state, and are pursuing efforts to make this
part of the national democratic platform.

Do such views reflect the mainstream of the
democratic party? Does this position have the potential
of re-opening the Black-Jew antagonisms that surrounded
Reverend Jackson's 1984 candidacy? Do you agree with the
political analyst who said, "Such a platform would see
the American Jew leaving the democratic party in
multitudes and voting for George Bush."? Would the
republican party include such a policy in its platform?

DR. KISSINGER:

Well, there are two aspects. One, what will be in
the platform and secondly, what do significant elements
of the political spectrum actually believe. I believe
that the democratic leadership will be too prudent to
include such a plan in the democratic platform because
they know what the consequences would be in terms of the
electoral appeal. I do believe that view is becoming more
widespread and more I think in the democratic than in the
republican party, but I would be dishonest if I told you

Page -24-

that it didn't exist also in the republican party. I
think in the democratic party... I don't know any
organized groups in the republican party that advocate
it, and I can find organized groups in the democratic
party that make it an article of principle. Now I must
tell you also frankly that one of the reasons that this
attitude is gaining momentum is because of the divisions
within Israel itself. And one thing that should happen
this year is that after the Israeli election there is
greater unity in Israel and that Israel will speak with
one voice.

One cannot ask Americans to support Israel when any
American can choose among a smokers board of Israeli
proposals when you can have Eban here and Netanyahu here
telling you exactly the opposite thing. And it isn't so
much as what they tell you it's when they go out into the
country and defend their point of view. I think it is a
growing attitude. I think it is difficult for the
average American to understand why a Palestinian cannot
remain in whatever boundaries it is given. Palestinians
must try to bring pressure on both Jordan and Israel
because there just isn't enough territory to fulfil their
aspirations on even all of the West Bank and Gaza. And
even moderates that might exist today will not last very
long in the turmoil that will follow the creation of such
a state. That is very difficult for people to
understand.

When I was Secretary of State, I favored that
Israel return Jericho to Jordan because I wanted to draw

[LC]

Jordan across the river and make it the principal spokesman for the Palestinians. And I didn't succeed. And I didn't make a huge issue of it. And I thought that a big mistake had been made. And I still think that a big mistake was made. But then once I drove from Jerusalem to Jericho, I mean I drove to Jordan but I had to go through Jericho, and on a map it looks quite far away, but when you drive it, it's about 25 minutes. And then you suddenly realize that it's closer to Jerusalem than Yonkers is to New York, so that there are certain experiments that look very impressive at a distance of 4,000 miles that look much different in a very narrow confine. So, in short, I believe a Palestinian state under the present circumstances is going to be the seat of endless upheavals. I think the pressure for it in this country is going to grow, and it requires, above all, a clear-cut position of an Israeli government supported by its friends to counteract.

RABBI KAHANE:

Dr. Kissinger, during the past week the Waldheim issue resulting from a visit to him by Pope John Paul II, has once again come to the forefront. We are aware that President Waldheim was barred by the Justice Department from entering the United States as a private citizen.

Many are asking, as did Ambassador Kirkpatrick, again, from this podium, how did Mr. Waldheim, whose record was known, after the war, to intelligence specialists in Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, France, get away with it for so many years? There are those who feel, let bygones be bygones,

Page -26-

and why re-hash the past, which might have serious
international implications.

Dr. Kissinger, you were born in Germany. You were
part of the liberation forces which entered the
concentration camps. You have said that 13 members of
your family died in the concentration camps. How
important is it to remember and to pursue all matters
regarding the Holocaust to its ultimate ends?

DR. KISSINGER:

Well, there are two separate questions. One, how
important is it to remember the Holocaust. The second is
what was known about Waldheim at the United Nations. I
think that it is essential to remember what happened
during the Holocaust to recall people to the barbarism
that may be inherent in the modern state. I have helped
raise funds for the various Holocaust museums and spoken
at their functions so I think that there is no question
that that is a necessity.

Now, how much was known about Waldheim? Strangely
enough, he was made Secretary General of the United
Nations when I was National Security Advisor and he was
re-elected in 1976 when I was Secretary of State. We
knew nothing about it, or, if anyone knew about it, they
didn't tell us. In 1971 we supported a man called
Max Jacobson who happened to be Jewish. That was not the
reason that he was supported. He was a thin man of
outstanding quality and the Soviets vetoed him for
whatever reasons. And then there was some third-world
candidate that we didn't want and Waldheim appeared and
we were neither for him nor against him. We took him as

[LC]

the lesser of the two remaining evils but nobody pointed out any of the facts that have now appeared. In 1976 there was a third-world candidate that we were determined to prevent from coming into office, and so we supported Waldheim again. Again we didn't know what has since appeared in the records. In 1981, in the Reagan administration, Waldheim was up for re-election and we voted for him 20 times and the Chinese vetoed him because maybe they knew something, and thought he was too friendly to the Soviets.

At any rate, we did not know any of those facts when I was in government, in fact, we knew so little about it. I knew so little about it. He had told me repeatedly, volunteered it. I don't dare to ask Austrians what they did during the war. So he volunteered repeatedly to me that he had left the German army in 1941 and studied at the University of Vienna... volunteered it.

He was then publishing his memoirs, I don't know when, 1982, 1983, somewhere in there, a year before he ran for president. And he asked me to appear with him at some German book fair where the book was being presented. And frankly, I was within a hair of doing it and then cancelled it not because I had any knowledge of his activities, but because I did not want to get myself involved in the Austrian presidential campaign by looking as if I were endorsing one of the two candidates who were going to run the following year.

I just tell you this as an indication of how little

Page -28-

we in the government know. The Yugoslavs knew, the
Soviets knew, and they didn't do anything. Why they
didn't do anything I must tell you in my own observation
of Waldheim, I never found him particularly partial to
the Soviets. But he may have loaded up the Secretary
with people that were beyond our reach or beyond what a
Secretary of State would pay attention to. He was
usually obsequious and obliging but he's certainly not
one of the heroes of the contemporary period. He's an
opportunist and a liar.

RABBI KAHANE:

Before we continue with what I think might be some
of the most significant questions, there is an
announcement to be made by our distinguished president,
Mr. Jack Sheingold.

PRESIDENT
SHEINGOLD:

Now ladies and gentlemen, it is a tradition in
Judaism that when we come to an end of a cycle that we
are ready for the next and new beginning. The reading of
the Torah is completed at the Festival of Simhat Torah,
then we start all over again. This evening we conclude
the eighth year of our famous Jewish Town Hall. This as
you all know as the very, very impressive dialogues
program. And we will now begin a year of celebrations, a
year of diverse programs, and many exciting functions,
here at Sutton Place Synagogue, which ushers in the 36th
anniversary of the affiliation of Rabbi David B. Kahane
with this Synagogue.

All of you are surely aware of the multitude of
services and programs that Sutton Place Synagogue offers
to its members and to the Jewish community and for all

age groups from toddlers up to senior citizen programs.
None of these could have been made possible without the
creativity and the persuasiveness of our beloved
Rabbi David B. Kahane. His sincerity and his dedication
and his concern for Sutton Place Synagogue, for the
congregants and for the Jewish community at large is par
excellence. His hours of services on these premises and
his hours outside for Shiva calls, for lectures, for sick
visitations, for condolences, for weddings, funerals,
unveilings, and so on, is unending. He personally
reaches thousands of our Jewish brothers and sisters each
year. He has made his name and accomplishments known
throughout the country, and he has placed the name of
Sutton Place Synagogue in the forefront of conservative
Judaism, and throughout the world. One cannot believe
the number of letters and compliments that are received
by the Rabbi from people who have heard him or who have
been touched by him.

This past year a special committee was formed to
implement an agreement between Sutton Place Synagogue and
Rabbi David B. Kahane which would give him freedom of
mind for his lifetime and assure him and his lovely wife,
Betty, and his wonderful children, the economic security
which they rightfully deserve. We are all extremely
joyful that after many months of research and
professional consultations we have concluded this
agreement to the satisfaction of all parties. And it was
enthusiastically approved by the Board of Trustees on
June 15, 1988.

Page -30-

This historic resolution of the Board coincides
with Rabbi Kahane's 36 years of constant devotion and
efforts for the progress and growth of Sutton Place
Synagogue. Let us all applaud this momentous occasion.
And let us all join together to wish the Rabbi and his
family many years of good health, happiness, and a
multitude of his heavenly blessing. And in further
recognition of Rabbi Kahane's dedication and devotion to
the Jewish community, a proclamation has been issued by
the City of New York, which is to be presented by our own
member and Councilman, Honorable Robert Dreyfus.

Rabbi Kahane, President Sheingold, Dr. Kissinger,
ladies and gentlemen, I would like to present this
proclamation from the Council of the City of New York, to
your beloved Rabbi, and only read two or three of its
provisions.

Naturally you know, that if the proclamation paper
had been longer, we could have filled every space with a
testimony of his accomplishments and the love that he has
known in this community. Let me present this to you and
let me just read a couple of its provisions.

As Sutton Place Synagogue has gained the respect
and admiration of New York's secular leaders by its
commitment to civic improvement, now therefore be it
resolved that the Council of the City of New York, does
hereby salute Rabbi David B. Kahane for his 36 years of
unparalleled leadership and vision, for his contributions
to enrich cultural and religious diversity of New York
City, and for his outstanding work on behalf of

MR. DREYFUS:

international peace and brotherhood.

RABBI KAHANE: Thank you.

PRESIDENT
SHEINGOLD:

And now we want to present our beloved Cantor who
will lead us all in prayer.

RABBI KAHANE:

Obviously this is not the time to respond to what
is a very moving experience in my life. As we know, 36
has great moment in our tradition, it is twice Chai. And
although very often when I introduce myself to people and
say I'm Rabbi Kahane, some of them respond, well, Rabbi,
what kind of job is that for a Jewish boy?

I'm very proud to be a Rabbi. I regard it as a
sacred calling. I regard it as spiritually rewarding.
And surely, among its great rewards, is to have the
opportunity to make the friendship of such a towering
giant as Dr. Kissinger. I'm particularly gratified you
share in this moment and our question now is, you have
had the opportunity to meet some of the greatest giants
in contemporary life.

Might you give us your evaluation firstly, of
President Nixon, whom you called a very considerable
president, presently the author of a best seller. How
would you judge his place in history? What is your
appraisal of Israeli leader Golda Meir, Prime Minister
Shamir, Arab leader Sadat, Soviet leaders Gromyko and
Gorbachev?

MR. KISSINGER:

Well, we'll get to the next question at midnight.
But first of all, let me add my own congratulations to
the feelings expressed by your congregation. Now, you
want Nixon, Golda Meir, Sadat, Gromyko and who else?

RABBI KAHANE: Gromyko, Sadat, let's limit it to those four.
Gromyko, whom you know for many years, and Sadat.

MR. KISSINGER: Okay, Nixon. I worked closely with Nixon for five
and one-half years and I've been in contact with him ever
since. I think that history will record his achievements
in the fields that I know best, namely foreign policy,
and the national strategy as quite extraordinary. He
knew a great deal about foreign policy when he came into
office. He had thought about it a lot. He was very
courageous in making very difficult decisions. He did
not believe, not being fully convinced of the permanent
good will of Americans. He was not about to trust any
foreigners. So he was not given to looking for solutions
in personal charm or personal relationships. A careful
analyst and I think a man who will go down, with all the
mistakes he made, having brought about a fundamental
change in American foreign policy, and to whose basic
approach in foreign policy, I think we will have to
return if we're going to avoid these constant isolations
that I mentioned before between euphoria and
belligerence.

Golda Meir, well, I liked her very much. She had
an ability to come on television as everybody's favorite
aunt, which was a terrible misunderstanding of her
personality. My wife used to say that some of the great
theatrical performances she ever saw were Golda Meir and
I negotiating in her kitchen. She was a strong woman.
She knew that she represented a country with a narrow
margin of survival. She knew that if she yielded too

[LJ]

easily it might create temptations to ask for constant concessions. And she had no intention of yielding very easily. If you could convince Golda that something was in the interest of Israel, and in the interest of world peace, she would fight for it with the same voracity with which she defended her position normally. When I had my troubles with some members of the Jewish community, somebody came to her and said what I don't like about Kissinger is that he thinks he's an American first, Secretary of State, second, and a Jew, third. She said "That doesn't bother me, I read from right to left." I thought she was a great leader in a very difficult period, and in addition to that I had tremendous personal affection for her.

Sadat. Frankly when I first heard of Sadat after he succeeded Nassir I thought he was a character out of "Aida". He kept making threats that nobody thought he would carry out and once he sent an emissary to me to start some negotiation and that emissary concluded his presentation by saying if these talks succeed, President Sadat will invite you to Cairo. And I wrote a note to one of my associates which said, "I wonder what the second prize is."

So, on the other hand... But once I got to know him, I realized that he was a very special, a very extraordinary man. It took great courage to start that war. But it took great wisdom to understand that it had to lead to peace. I sent him a message on the second day of the war in which I said, 'You can make war with

Page -34-

Russian weapons but to make peace you'll need the United
States and I hope you'll remember that as this evolves
because we will be supporting Israel.' It would have
been easy to unleash the mobs against America all over
the Middle East. He never did that.

He made a number of settlements which are historic.
He made them with enormous courage and I was present on
one occasion when the issue was how many tanks Egypt
could put across the Suez Canal after the first
disengagement agreement. And there was never any danger
that the first offer from Israel would be excessive. So
they came forward with some ridiculous number and the
Egyptian Chief of Staff, a war minister, burst into tears
of rage and said he'd never sign such a humiliating
document. Sadat took me into another room and we spoke
for a few minutes. He came back and he said, 'Henry will
try to get me some more tanks, and you will sign it, no
matter how many there are. I'll accept the number and
I'll rely on him.' I got him some more. When I came
back he said, 'Now you go back to Golda and tell her I
won't put any tanks across the canal. It was a question
of principle and I want to create an atmosphere of
peace.'

My last conversation with Sadat, he was in
Washington, in August, a month before he was
assassinated, and we flew on his plane from Washington to
New York. He was planning the final return of the Sinai
which was to take place the following April. And he said
you really ought to come to Cairo for that event, it will

be such a great day. And then he said, 'No, don't go to
Cairo, it will be too wounding for Israel, too hurtful to
Israel, it will not be a day that they will find
particularly joyful. What you should do is come three
months later, and we will go to Mount Sinai together, and
I'm planning on top of Mount Sinai to build a Mosque, a
Church, and a Synagogue, to show my dedication to peace.'
He may have started out cynically. And he was caught by
his own vision and I think that he was a very great man.

Gromyko. Well, I once said on television, 'God
will probably punish me but I rather like Gromyko.' The
day after that I had lunch with a Foreign Minister of
Saudi Arabia whose father was King, and had been
assassinated, and I said to him, 'You know, given my
background and given your father's known view about
people of my background, it was remarkable how
courteously he always treated me and how many acts of
friendship he showed me.' And the Prince-- the Foreign
Minister said, "God has already punished him, but he
genuinely liked you."

To go back to Gromyko. Gromyko was a professional.
He had been in government, he'd been Foreign Minister for
three decades and more. He was always carefully
prepared. He was extremely predictable which is not bad
when you're planning foreign policy. By Soviet standards
which are not excessively high, he was quite honorable.
If he had to break a promise it gave him visible pain.
And strangely enough he had a rather good sense of humor.
He was not a man of great vision but a man with whom

Page -36-

[L.C.]

unlimited subjects it was quite possible to come to an
understanding. And I must tell you he seemed to me to
know the limits of Soviet power and he did not engage in
some of the restless activity which can have the
practical consequence of undermining all international
stability in various parts of the world. I don't think
he was a great man... not at all a great man. He was a
solid professional whose weaknesses were the weaknesses
of the system and within that he was somebody I rather
liked.

RABBI KAHANE:

Will everyone kindly remain in their seats. I know
I speak for everyone here, Dr. Kissinger, in expressing
our gratitude and appreciation and we hope we'll have the
privilege once again in the future. This is the third in
this year's Jewish Town Hall Series, which, as we know,
is the concluding lecture. We want to thank the mass
media, the radio and TV, and particularly Alfred Goldberg
who so devotedly has arranged all the closed circuit and
the loud speakers for the thousands, I understand, that
are still in the street.

It is our practice to conclude by chanting the
prayer of our synagogue, "It is a tree of life." All
those who know Hebrew, would know that it actually is a
misnomer. The word chaim is plural, tree of many lives.
The Talmud tells us that most trees can only flourish in
a certain climate... warm, cold, winter, summer. The
tree is unique that it has many lives and can flourish
anywhere and everywhere.

When we started the Jewish Town Hall it was a

Page -37-

fantasy just a few years ago, a dream. Who would come
Monday night to a Synagogue for a lecture? It was said
this is Gold Coast America. I'm happy to relate that
this season we probably had close to 12-15,000 people
inside, outside, with closed circuit, at our series, we
have converted Gold Coast to God's Coast.

We want to thank our benefactors who made it all
possible, Kenneth and Lucille Gladstone, who will join us
on the pulpit for the concluding prayer. The Ark will be
opened by Dr. Kissinger and myself and I would want to
 invite a very special person on the pulpit here, a woman
of great piety. She is known for her religiosity, her
deep faith as was her late husband, ethics, morality are
all sacred to her. And I would just want to relate one
incident that happened just before we started when I said
to you Dr. Henry Kissinger, the greatest gift that you
could give your mother, Paula, is not the Hope Diamond,
but to invite her to the Synagogue and shep nachas from
her pride and joy. And of course, I immediately started
a family feud. The mother said I was right and
Dr. Kissinger said she probably wants the diamond.

The Cantor will now lead us in prayer. I will ask
Lucille and Kenneth to join us, and Paula Kissinger. The
congregation will rise. We will join with the Cantor and
we will remain in our seats until all those on the pulpit
will reach the rear of the Synagogue.