From JCPA:
THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
FIRST KNESSET 1949-1951
Annexation of the West Bank by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Sitting 135 -- 3 May 1950
Introduction
In December 1948, at a conference which took place in Jericho,
a group of hand-picked leaders of Palestinian Arabs resolved to ask King
Abdullah of Transjordan to incorporate the Arab parts of Palestine into his
kingdom. The General Armistice Agreement of 3 April 1949 constituted de facto
recognition of that incorporation; however, it was specifically designed as a
military agreement which did not prejudice the political positions of the
contracting parties.
On 25 April 1949 the king officially changed the name of his
kingdom, henceforth to be known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Almost one
year later, having secured the support of Great Britain (albeit qualified--Great
Britain did not recognize the incorporation of East Jerusalem, maintaining that
it ought to be part of a corpus separatum, an international enclave), King
Abdullah went one step further. On 24 April 1950 the Jordan House of Deputies
and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a resolution declaring
"complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union in one
state...at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Hussain, on a basis of
constitutional representative government and equality of the rights and duties
of all citizens."
Almost a week later the Knesset devoted a sitting to a debate
of the subject.
Sitting 135 of the First Knesset
3 May 1950 (16 Iyar 5710)
...The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: Mr. Speaker, I have
asked for the floor now not in order to address the issue, but solely to clarify
the parliamentary status of the debate, which has been described as strange and
unprecedented.
It is strange to condemn an institution as young as this
Knesset for departing from precedent....I would like to point out that as far as
other parliaments are concerned it is quite customary that when the Opposition
demands a debate on a specific topic its leaders open the debate, and the
Government steps in only when it sees fit to do so. This Government subscribes
to that view, and will continue to do so in the future....
If, however, it is claimed, as MK Bar-Yehuda has done, that the
Government has not reacted and has said nothing about the recent event, I must
point out that this is not so....The Government Spokesman issued the following
statement, in the Government's name: "The decision to annex the Arab areas west
of the River Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a unilateral step to
which Israel is not a party in any way. We are connected with the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan through the Armistice Agreement, which we will uphold
rigorously. This agreement does not include any final political settlement,
however, and no such settlement is possible without negotiations and a peace
treaty between the sides. It must be evident, therefore, that the question of
the status of the Arab areas west of the River Jordan remains open as far as we
are concerned." A few days later, when the associated British announcement was
made, the Government stated: "With regard to the annexation of the Arab areas
west of the River Jordan by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Government has
already announced that it regards the status of these areas as being open. The
Government notes the fact that the British government does not intend to
establish military bases in the areas west of the River Jordan during peacetime.
The content of the treaty between Britain and Transjordan regarding these areas
is surprising, and the Government of Israel maintains its reservations about the
status of these areas." At present the Government has nothing to add to these
statements. It is interested in hearing the views of the Opposition and of the
House, reserving the right to react to what is said at any stage of the
debate.
M. Begin (Herut): Distinguished Speaker, we accuse Mr.
Sharett and the Government...of having given Abdullah and the Bevin
government...the green light to go ahead and turn an act of conquest and plunder
into a recognized political act. Last year the first agreement with the British
protectorate in the eastern part of the Land of Israel, called "the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan" by the conquerors and our Govern-ment, was submitted to us.
We warned the Government then that by signing that agreement it was granting
threefold recognition to the enemy: first--recognizing the separation of the
eastern part of Transjordan; second--openly recognizing the annexation of parts
of the western Land of Israel by the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan";
third--implicitly recognizing the validity of the enslaving treaty which
Bri-tain ordered its vassal Abdullah to sign, enabling it to establish military
bases in the territory he had conquered.
The Government took no heed of our warning, assuring the nation
that the agreement was merely a first step and would eventually be followed by a
peace agreement....It must be admitted that since then the Government has done
its best, or its worst, to obtain a peace agreement with King Abdullah, and its
failure is not its fault....We ask what benefit would we derive from an
agreement of this kind?...Our institutions tried in the past to win Abdullah's
heart by offering him a bribe...but for more than fifty years this has not
succeeded....The Cabinet Secretary has revealed...that prior to the invasion by
the Arab armies Mrs. Golda Meyerson (Meir), disguised as an Arab woman, was sent
on a dangerous...mission to Transjordan. I must congratulate the lady on her
courage and her expertise in conspiracy, but the fact is that she did not
succeed. (From the floor: How do you know?) Jerusalem is the proof.
When the invasion began Mr. Ben-Gurion made a supreme effort to
guarantee King Abdullah's friendship, praising him in public and saying: "I
believe in the peacable intentions of the wise ruler who seeks the welfare of
his people and his country."...But it was to no avail. As ordered by Glubb Pasha
and Clayton, Abdullah sent his Legion against us, destroying the Etzion Bloc,
attacking Jerusalem...and attempting to join up with the other Arab armies on
the coastal plain, thereby destroying our national endeavor and enabling Bevin
to..."rescue" those of us who remained and enclose us in a ghetto.
...Today Abdullah has no more than 15,000 soldiers, albeit
welltrained and armed, and no reserves....Even now the IDF could defeat them in
a head-on clash, so the possibility of a war on that front represents no threat
to us....But Abdullah may become stronger in the future...and may try once again
to destroy us. Would a slip of paper called a peace treaty stop him?...Recent
experience indicates that it would not....
Because of our past experience, the present situation and
future possibilities, we are all amazed by this headlong pursuit of a peace
treaty with a vassal state which controls part of our homeland....Even if this
peace treaty were to bring us some benefit, this would not justify our signing
it....
...But the peace treaty accords official recognition by us to
the severing of Transjordan. The eastern part of it was taken away from us at
the famous Cairo Conference of 1922, in which Churchill, who was Colonial
Secretary, Herbert Samuel, Viceroy of India, and Intelligence Officer Lawrence,
participated. Since then a great deal of water has flowed in our Jordan River.
Despite my searches, I have not found any document issued by a Jewish or Zionist
body recognizing the severing of Transjordan from our homeland. That area was
recognized as being part of our territory by more than forty nations, as well as
by you, when Britain agreed to it. We ask: does a nation exist by the charity of
others?
Until 1937 Mr. Ben-Gurion opposed the establishment of a Jewish
state, maintaining that it involved our ruling another nation. In 1937...Lord
Peel, Copeland and two other British Gentiles said that Palestine should be
partitioned and a Jewish state established in the smaller part. From then on
Ben-Gurion was an ardent supporter of a Jewish state....When Britain changed its
mind about the Jewish homeland on both banks of the Jordan...when one old desert
king was driven out by another, and one of his sons had to be compensated and
another base built, and the control of Transjordan with its 250,000 Beduin and
Circassians was handed over to a foreign ruler who had no connection with them,
our institutions were prepared to accept that too....Our entire future depends
on the territorial integrity of our historic homeland...and you are prepared to
legitimize the annexation of part of it, of Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem and
Shechem, by a British-controlled, foreign ruler.
...The mutual defense clause in the British-Transjordanian
friendship treaty of 15 March 1948...means that if the King of England is at war
in Hong Kong or Malaya he will ask King Abdullah to come and rescue him....And
vice versa....That is what your recognition of Britain's right to establish
bases in the western part of the Land of Israel means....
Why are you so eager to sign a peace treaty with
Abdullah?...Are you afraid of him and his 15,000 soldiers?...Or is one of the
ministers, who promised the people "peace" in the election campaign, eager to
keep his word? Do not worry, it would not be the first time you failed to keep
an election promise. In the past you asked us what right we had to act as we did
in order to drive out the British oppressor, and we answered "we were
chosen."...It was at a time when our people were being slaughtered in Europe,
and the oppressor closed our gates and would not allow Jews in....Revolutions do
not take place after orderly resolutions have been passed. The Declaration of
the Rights of Man was written after the Bastille was stormed; the American
Declaration of Independence was drawn up after the Boston Tea Party. A
revolution always erupts from the depths.
But today we will ask you that question. You have acknowledged
the legitimacy of handing over Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, the Cave of
Machpela, Rachel's Tomb, Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Gilead and Bashan to a
foreigner, an enemy, an oppressor. Who gave you this right? You were elected to
conduct the affairs of the country. The nation may reelect you or not....But
when were you authorized to hand over sites which have been historically
hallowed for 120 generations, and for which the blood of millions has been
shed?...
I would like to ask the religious Ministers and Knesset Members
if they have read the unfortunate memorandum which Mr. Sharett submitted to the
Conciliation Commission stating that Israel had no claim to the areas under the
control (not the illegal conquest, heaven forfend) of any Arab country. We were
told that not even the Government's statement on Independence Day was submitted
for your approval. I assume that you were unaware of this document too. But does
that mean that you should grant it your approval now?...You must choose between
the eternity of our attachment to the Land of Israel and your temporary
membership in a coalition government....
That is the situation in which the Government has placed us.
And then it is surprised that we are isolated....Does it think that the world is
blind? That it fails to see that we are willing to accept the annexation of
four-fifths of our homeland by Abdullah...and the reestablishment of British
bases?...You are going towards bondage...and further isolation....
You should read the article in the Times agreeing with
the "de jure" recognition of Israel, but warning that "Israel's territorial
ambitions" should not be tolerated. You will yet be asked to abandon not only
what you have relinquished but the territory we hold....Mr. Sharett, you have
received a letter from the State Department demanding that compensation be paid
for the areas we liberated and which were not included in Israel as defined by
the U.N. resolution of November 29. You replied that there is no one to give
compensation to since there are only invading armies in Palestine. Now there is
someone to give it to....You have recognized the annexation....That kingdom has
been recognized by Britain and America, and other countries will follow; then
the demands will start, whether for Haifa, the southern Negev or other
areas.
I would like to announce, on behalf of my party, that I do not
think that this problem can be resolved anymore by a show of hands. I wish to
state that...we do not accept the Israel Government's recognition of what has
happened in the eastern and western parts of Transjordan. In civilized countries
what one government decides is generally binding on others....But this signature
is not binding upon us, it is the signature of this Government alone....The
entire Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and we will not recognize
the right of Abdullah or Britain to govern one inch of our homeland.
...Z. Abrahamowitz (Mapai): If an independent Arab state
were to be established now we would be facing the front of the Arab League and
its pressure in the U.N. to push us back to the borders of November 1947,
against which we would have fought....But even a purely political dispute would
have caused a rift between us and the U.N. If an Arab state were established I
believe that this would temporarily strengthen the Arab League, which is
generally regarded as being anti-Soviet and anti-Israel. The U.S.S.R.'s retreat
from the demand to internationalize Jerusalem may be partly due to the fact that
it has realized this.
But we must take the longer view. We are interested in the
stability of the Middle East....At the moment Iraq wants to take over Syria,
Syria wants to take over Lebanon, Transjordan wants to take over Syria, and
Egypt apparently wants to take them all over....If another "independent" Arab
state were to arise and wish to take over Israel, and all the Arab countries
wanted to take the new state over, would that add to peace and stability in the
Middle East?
Distinguished Knesset, if the status quo no longer exists, if
we must oppose a new Arab state, only the third possibility--war--remains....In
Tel Aviv, where he spoke with less restraint than here, MK Begin referred not
only to the Triangle but also to the Bashan and Amman. His concern for security
is shared by all the Opposition parties when it comes to the application of the
British-Transjordanian treaty to the annexed territory. We are all anxious, and
have been for some time, because that treaty has existed for some time....But I
claim that there is something new in it now, namely, that it strengthens the
tendency for British military participation in the annexed area, and also that
England has announced that the treaty will be held in abeyance during
peacetime.
M. Begin (Herut): Do you believe that assurance?
Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): I cannot guarantee that any
assurance will be kept, the debate is not about who trusts England more or less,
however, but about how we should act in the circumstances.
Mr. Begin said what he did relying on historical reasons, which
I do not accept. During the course of the history of the Jewish people in Israel
the borders have changed....We do not have to achieve in two years what the
Jewish nation was unable to do for two thousand.
M. Begin (Herut): Do we have to give it up?
Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): Two and a half years ago the
public in Israel and the Zionist Organization held different views about
partition. Some people opposed an Arab state on principle, some wanted a Jewish
state...in all western Palestine, and some wanted a Jewish state on both banks
of the Jordan. But the World Zionist Organization...decided, taking the
historical circumstances into account, to accept a Jewish state in western
Palestine. The Government of Israel and the IDF also decided, expanding Israel's
borders through conquest....What representative body has authorized you to speak
about your political borders, Mr. Begin...?
E. Raziel-Na'or (Herut): They shouldn't be blocked!
Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): In his speech in Tel Aviv Mr.
Begin also made use of sentimental reasons, claiming "Rachel weeps for her
sons," and mentioning Rachel's Tomb. I draw your attention to the thousands of
graves of the nation's best sons who fell in Israel's war and the mothers who
weep for them. Who wants a war of expansion? The workers? The landlords? Mothers
and fathers? The youngsters? The IDF? On no account!
N. Yellin-Mor (Fighters): You are mocking the IDF.
Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): A war of expansion now would
also endanger our national existence. You should say quite clearly: "We oppose x
and y, and propose war." And if you do not say that to us in the Knesset, how
can you appear in Israel's public squares and incite the nation to war?
E. Raziel-Na'or (Herut): There we said that we don't
want war.
Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): There you said: "The Hashemite
kingdom shall be destroyed by the sword."
Y. Bader (Herut): You'll have war when they want it.
Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): We do not ignore the fact that
the annexation was a unilateral step...that the British-Transjordanian treaty
has been extended to the annexed territory and that Britain's statement contains
reservations about Israel's borders. All that is worrying. Those points are
included in the Government's statement. The Knesset must authorize the
Government to deal with the situation on the basis of two clear elements:
rejection of the alternative of an independent Arab state, and adherence to the
aspiration for peace.
Y. Harari (Progressives): Every now and again, when this
debate is held in the Knesset, one gets the impression that there are ardent
patriots on one side and stubborn defeatists on the other. This debate has been
conducted, in my view, for the last thirteen years, since 1937, when Zionist
policy was obliged to decide whether to agree to an independent Jewish state in
part of Palestine.
MK Begin has told us of the qualms of conscience he and his
friends experienced when they did what they did. I can say that my conscience
bothered me...when I decided in favor of partition....It is far easier to
address meetings, or even this Knesset, about Israel's historic borders than to
explain to the nation that we should set our sights lower and accept imperfect
borders....
I doubt whether it has often happened...that a political plan
has been as successful...as that of those who advocated partition. We would
never have achieved the decision of November 29 had we not agreed, unwillingly
but perceptively, to a Jewish state in part of Palestine. None of the facts and
operations by which MK Begin and his associates think they brought about the
state would have helped had it not been for the official Zionist plan,
authorized by the Zionist Congress.
M. Begin (Herut): The last Congress rejected that plan
utterly. It forbade you to go to London.
The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: It did not reject it,
that is not true!
Y. Harari (Progressives): We all want a great many
things, but one has to know how and when to accept facts, and not to miss
opportunities. The fact that Israel agreed to the partition borders does not
mean that Rachel's Tomb has ceased to be a national monument for us, the Cave of
Machpelah will always be the site where our forefathers are buried, Jericho will
still be the town whose walls fell at the sound of the trumpets and the
historical borders in the Bible will never change. But this did not prevent us
agreeing to the possible borders at the appropriate moment. Did we fight less
for the areas which were not within the partition borders of 29 November 1947?
Did we not do everything possible at the right moment, in the war, to conquer
them?
H. Landau (Herut): Of course you didn't.
Y. Harari (Progressives): Only you did!
H. Landau (Herut): The Gentiles stopped and our
Government surrendered.
Y. Harari (Progressives): One also has to know when to
stop during a ceasefire.
Y. Bader (Herut): One also has to know when not to
stop.
Y. Harari (Progressives): Correct, and that's what we
did, at the right moments. Are our borders today those we fixed of our own free
will, or are they the outcome of various conditions and circumstances, both
military and political, as well as of political resolutions passed in an
international forum?
Those areas are not in our possession as the result of
circumstances which were beyond our control. One does not choose one's enemies,
or even the regimes in hostile countries, nor does one sign armistice agreements
with allies....We cannot prevent Lebanon giving bases to America if the
Christians there prevail over the Moslems. We could not prevent any Arab country
giving bases to the devil himself unless we conquered those areas. If that's
what you want, then say so in the Knesset. Only MK Yellin-Mor has consistently
demanded that we fight for those areas....
The complaint Mapam proposes we submit to the Security Council
is not clear to me either. The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan is not a member of
the U.N....Should we complain against England for making an agreement with the
Hashemite kingdom; for recognizing us "de jure"; or because it has announced
that it will not establish bases in peacetime?...And whence this sudden,
exaggerated trust in the decisions of the Security Council?
Because time is pressing...I will merely add...that the
U.S.S.R.'s announcement is surprising. I never know when to take what the Maki
MKs say seriously and when they are merely following the dictates of
opportunism. Out of compassion for dumb animals I will drop the subject. But I
would like to ask Mapam, which has often said that any contact with the
government of Transjordan makes the U.S.S.R. our enemy--
I. Ben-Aharon (Mapam): We never said that....That's not
true.
Y. Harari (Progressives): You have said it not only from
this podium but also in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
You...are always asking why we should negotiate with a vassal
of England and of imperialism and thereby arouse the enmity of the U.S.S.R.
I. Ben-Aharon (Mapam): I repeat that that is untrue.
Y. Harari (Progressives): Those things are in the
record, in black on white, and can be found there. I would like to recommend
that this Knesset resolve that Israel and its Government should continue with
its foreign policy of attempting to protect our interests...without being
concerned with what impression this makes on either East or West. Only by being
consistent will we gain the support of both East and West and become a strong
state which is generally respected.
J. Burg (Religious Front): Distinguished Knesset...As a believing Jew, I must confess that I cannot grasp the
great sacrifice of six million Jews which our nation lost in the war. I find
some small consolation in the fact that this tiny corner is left to us, and we
can build it....I think that the task of our generation is to build, and refrain
from doing anything--as long as there is no provocation--which could impede this
task.
I very much regret the fact that we are obliged to discuss
annexation here rather than the agreed basis for a political settlement in the
region, at least as regards our closest neighbor. But if the Arab world that
opposes us is divided, and if some understanding can be reached, even if only
temporary, with part of that Arab world, it should be done. Because it is our
duty to preserve every drop of Jewish blood that remains.
The previous speaker said that a decision in principle was made
in the past about partition, not only in the Knesset but even before the
establishment of the state, and without it neither the Knesset nor the state
would have come into existence....Consequently, I maintain, we may have to take
a course which is not pleasant for us....We have also heard MK Begin talk about
the religious parties, and I do not know whether he was praising or condemning
us. He claimed that we have abandoned the concept of the Divine promise. We have
not relinquished the view that God will keep His promise.
I. Ben-Aharon (Mapam): To what do you adhere
meanwhile?
J. Burg (Religious Front): We adhere to the commandments
which you wish to neglect.
E. Preminger (Mapam): And force others to adhere to
them!
J. Burg (Religious Front): ...There is really no point
answering such remarks. Our scriptures tell us what will happen to the
generation before the Messiah. They mention suffering--which we have undergone
in large quantities....They mention poverty--towards which our Minister of
Finance is helping us. They also state that we must build in Israel. We must
live according to moral precepts--which we are trying to do. That is why I
disagree with the argument that we have abandoned the concept of the Divine
promise. He who attempts to live in accordance with God's holy law will, I hope,
deserve to see the Divine promise fulfilled.
...The Jews who still believe in God and His promises continued
to believe in all of Jerusalem, Rachel's Tomb, Hebron and the whole country when
they were in the...diaspora, and still do so today, living in those parts of
Israel which are ours.
...I think that the Government's representative spoke clearly.
The annexation is a unilateral act...to which we do not agree. I think it is
harmful if the Opposition in this House pretends that we did agree to it.
E. Preminger (Mapam): Do you want bilateral
annexation?
J. Burg (Religious Front): I oppose barren
argumentativeness!...Jewish history did not begin yesterday and does not end
today. The history of Israel depends not on unilateral declarations, but on
Divine decrees. I think that it is our task, in our situation, to find the path
which is not always readily apparent but leads from the Divine intention to the
exigencies of the moment. I think that the entire House should take care in
posing questions and in weakening the position of the Government on an issue
which is vital for us.
...
The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: The genuine excitement
expressed here regarding the annexation is worthy of attention....It is shared
by the general population, and I hope that those involved will take it into
account. The State of Israel cannot be indifferent to the fate of an area with
whose history it is so closely bound up and whose regime and military status is
likely to have so direct an influence on its security. The Government has
declared...that as far as it is concerned the issue remains open, because
without our assent and cooperation, which have not yet been given, no regime can
regard itself as being stable and sure there. We seek stability, security and
peace, both for ourselves and for the entire region, but these will be attained
only through cooperating with us.
...Not all the excitement expressed here can be regarded as
genuine, however. When MK Begin deliberately distorts the Government's position,
representing it as having agreed to the annexation, he ignores the fact that he
is thereby destroying the building which he is supposedly seeking to erect. But
he does not really want to build anything; all he seeks is to destroy the
Government's standing, and he has failed in that too....He has merely reiterated
his bombastic and empty phrases about both banks of the Jordan, the Bashan and
the Golan Heights.
M. Begin (Herut): There was a time when the Jewish state
was a bombastic phrase too, as far as you were concerned.
The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: In fact, if one
listens to him...he has made his own words meaningless. His contention is that
we decided matters long ago...by signing an Armistice Agreement with Jordan. If
that is the case, what is the point of this very much overdue debate? It has
already been said that this policy, which led to our signing armistice
agreements with all the neighboring Arab countries...has gained the support of
the entire nation. In accordance with his party's tradition of distorting facts,
MK Begin also twisted what I said in the election campaign which preceded the
establishment of this Knesset. I never took it upon myself...to guarantee the
voters peace, but I said...that if my party were elected to office we would
aspire towards peace....I do not know what MK Begin promised in that election
campaign. I must confess that I did not interest myself in his speeches. But
whether he called for war or merely negated peace, the election results
indicated something. The party which I have the honor of representing and which
is a partner in the Government has 48 representatives in the Knesset, being 3.5
as many as Mr. Begin's party. This policy is no mere party matter, it is agreed
by all the participants in the Government....There are historical reasons for
the fact that this alliance of parties received the majority of votes in the
elections...and is united in adhering to a certain policy.
This policy led to the establishment of the state, and sustains
it still today, despite the immense difficulties. If we have been asked from
this podium: "Who authorized you?" Our reply is: The nation! First and foremost,
the Jewish nation, which approved the path its representatives had taken in
attaining a Jewish state in our time, if not in the whole country then at least
in part of it, in as large a part as possible, and as quickly as
possible....
MK Begin was guilty of another distortion when he said that the
last Zionist Congress forbade us to agree to partition. Quite the contrary. An
attempt was made by parties and persons to pass such a resolution, but it
failed....The Zionist Executive agreed by a large majority to a policy of
compromise in order to attain...international assent to the establishment of a
Jewish state in part of Palestine. The entire nation endorsed this policy...and
worked together to achieve it....The gates of heaven opened and the moment came
when we could attain what generations had dreamt of and died for. The entire
nation endorsed our achievement unconditionally, celebrating our great victory
of 29 November 1947...both those who had supported our policy and those who had
opposed it....
...And what would have happened if...the Arab country which was
supposed to be established in the rest of Palestine, linked to Israel by
economic ties, had been created...and had then allied itself with one of the
neighboring Arab states...or with one of the Powers, against Israel's will? We
are confronted by a problem of that kind today, but our position is far better,
since we have control of 80 percent of our territory, the ports of Haifa and
Jaffa, roads, railways and Lod airport, and our sovereign-ty is no longer
threatened by the economic alliance with the Arab coun-try...although 20 percent
of our territory has been annexed by the neigh-boring Arab country....
We have said that we are ready to make peace with all our
neighbors, preferring separate negotiations with each one of them, and that we
accept the armistice lines as a basis for peace and a final territorial
settlement. We adhere to this policy, always having been ready to consider
mutual border adjustments.
MK Begin has asked why we are so hasty in our pursuit of peace,
and with Transjordan of all countries. I do not know whether peace with
Transjordan will be first, or whether there will be peace at all, or when. We
are not competing in prophecy. Our task is to determine policy, i.e., not to
guess what will be but to assess what we should do, and what will happen
tomorrow and the day after....What I do know is that we are surrounded by
enemies today, and that we can bear this situation, and have no need to break
out of it at all costs....If we are attacked we will be able to fight back, and
our successes in the second round of fighting may even be greater than they were
in the first....But our prime concern is to avoid a confrontation of that kind.
We are interested in peace and stability, for we have historic tasks to fulfill
and we must invest all our efforts in them....Even if peace is attained
tomorrow...we will continue to be on our guard, but we will know that there has
been a change. If we can only breach the ring of enemies around us we must do
so.
Why do you mock the armistice agreements as mere pieces of
paper?...Do those signatures have any value or not?
Y. Bader (Herut): Abdullah's signature has no value.
The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: You don't know what
you're talking about. And that is not the only subject on which you talk
nonsense....Anyone who says such things is undermining the...security of
Israel.
M. Begin (Herut): They're threatening another round
despite the signatures...as is the Chief of Staff....
The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: Am I proposing that we
disband the army? We must make every effort to breach the wall surrounding us,
but that does not mean that we should disarm ourselves. If this were all
pointless would there be such a fuss in the Arab camp about whether to make
peace with Israel or not, separately or together?
MK Begin took a sentence out of its context in a Foreign
Ministry memorandum, and accused us of relinquishing all territorial claims on
Transjordan. We have said that we accept the armistice lines as a basis for a
settlement and do not demand territory, but if MK Begin tries to represent this
as our abandonment of our rights to our holy places, this is nonsense. We have
never abandoned them, and we have said as much, and no side doubts that we
adhere to our claim to our share and our rights in the Old City of Jerusalem. If
MK Begin wishes to go out into the streets with the demand for the Temple Mount,
he is welcome to do so. Many people are strolling through the streets this
afternoon, and he can harangue them to his heart's content. I suggest that my
colleagues and the other members of the House rely on the man in the street.
Mr. Sapir claimed that the Foreign Ministry failed once again
to foresee what would happen.
J. Sapir (General Zionists): I only said that it had
erred in assessing the forces involved.
The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: Well, you said that it
had failed to foresee what would happen by erring in its assessment of the
forces involved. He said that we failed to envisage the internationalization of
Jerusalem, and now we have failed again, and this is a surprise. I don't know if
it is a surprise.
E. Raziel-Na'or (Herut): That means that it was agreed
in advance.
The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: I'm coming to that. I
said that we had announced our readiness to reach an agreement on the basis of
the armistice lines. I also said that as long as there is no agreement the
question is open...and the other side must be aware of that....
MK Sapir recommends that we conduct an information campaign on
this matter at the U.N. He has presumably thought about what he said and his
proposal is undoubtedly based on a perceptive assessment of future developments.
MK Bar-Yehuda accused us of...having brought the British Empire back...and MK
Begin correctly pointed out that the British-Jordanian treaty includes a clause
whereby each side can invite the other into its territory....The treaty was
signed on 15 March 1948, namely, two years and two months ago, and we have been
living under that threat all this time....The neighboring country could have
invited the British forces into its territory, but it did not....We have been
informed that it has no intention of doing so. But its right still exists....The
British government also issued a statement to the effect that it would not
hasten to place troops here....
I do not see why some people have seen fit to treat this matter
as if the end of the world were approaching....We are certainly not happy about
it....Despite the assurances we have received on the subject from the British
government, it requires us to be on our guard, as does that government's policy
about the supply of arms to certain Middle Eastern countries and its attitude
to...separate peace agreements. Some of our recent contacts with the British
government have been of a positive nature. This is the case with the agreement
to settle outstanding economic differences...and the "de jure" recognition of
Israel....We have drawn the attention of our public and the world to aspects of
policy which cause us concern...and which we regard as being detrimental to
peace and stability in the Middle East, and to say that we acquiesced willingly
is a stupid distortion....
Our policy remains what it was, namely, to do what we can to
breach the wall surrounding us and to set the Middle East on a path of peace
rather than war. There is no guarantee that this will be attained, nor will we
attempt to guess when this will come about. Till then we will have to remain
fully on our guard. All our enemies and opponents should be aware of this, but
it must be evident what our policy is. We must decide what our aim is and go
towards it with open eyes.
N. Yellin-Mor (Fighters): Distinguished Knesset, Those
who oppose Abdullah's act of plunder on the basis of the principle of the
integrity of the homeland...can be accused by those who acquiesce in it of
making a great deal of fuss over...a lost cause.
I admit that there is some logic in that, but I would like to
make it clear here...that a new generation is growing up in Israel for which the
River Jordan is not the eastern border of the homeland, and for which Abdullah's
temporary conquests are meaningless....That generation foresees a future
homeland in its expanded, natural borders. There, and there alone, will the
millions of scattered Jews be gathered together and enabled to flourish
spiritually and materially, culturally and economically. Any fact which opposes
this view will not last long.
Thus, this debate is not about whether Abdullah, who was
expelled from the Arabian desert by Ibn-Saud, is entitled to rule over more or
less of our homeland. There is no place for a debate of that kind on historical
grounds or on principle. All Abdullah's territory, on both the east and the west
banks of the Jordan, is plundered.
The debate is, essentially, only about the attitude of the
Government of Israel to Abdullah's rule...and its refusal to work for the
liberation of the homeland....The annexation did not come as a surprise.
Everyone knew that Abdullah wanted it...including Israel's leaders, who were
suffering from their customary myopia. The function of any foreign policy is to
prevent neighbors from expanding territorially...and threatening one's own
country.
It could, therefore, have been supposed that the Government of
Israel, being aware of Abdullah's intentions, would have issued a warning, or
warnings, saying that any attempt at annexation would be regarded as a hostile
act....But our Foreign Ministry did nothing!...And it is obvious that Abdullah
knew that no reaction would be forthcoming from Israel....
The inaction of our leaders at this time is comparable to that
of those who went to Munich....The only possible explanation must lie in the
ongoing love affair between the erstwhile, British-protected Emir and the Jewish
Agency, even though the adoration of the latter does not seem to be
reciprocated....There can be no other reason for the incessant pursuit of
Abdullah, since it is known that peace with him of necessity involves foregoing
peace with our other neighbors, with whom peace is more valuable, as well as
abandoning our claim to most of our homeland....His entire kingdom has been
obtained by plunder....
The Foreign Ministry has tried to auction off "peace with
Israel," but there are no buyers....I doubt whether those who fell so that the
state might be established wanted their blood to be sold thus....
...The Foreign Ministry's response was a shameful one...and
constitutes acceptance of daylight robbery...as well as tacit legitimization of
the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"...determining as its price negotiations and a
peace treaty....The religious parties appear to have subscribed to this
too....
The haste to make peace with Abdullah seems to have caused the
Government to take leave of its senses...but peace of this kind brings us ever
nearer to disaster....Abdullah has said that he intends to use Israel as a means
of getting to Damascus....There is no truth in the rumor that Israel's assent to
the situation is merely temporary, and that those areas will eventually be
redeemed. The Britain-Abdullah treaty enables British military bases to be
established there, and they will crush any attempt to liberate our lost
territory. Our experience of the past must teach us that Britain's assurance not
to establish bases there in peacetime will be abandoned at the appropriate
moment....But what is more significant is the implication that bases will be
established there in wartime.
...The danger cannot be exaggerated. Our country is at a focal
point for British imperialism, constituting a strategic area for delaying the
advance of the Soviet army in case of war. Britain would be interested in making
it a front then...and the entire country would become a battlefield....Accepting
the annexation is a big step in that direction. In these circumstances there can
be no alternative for the Government than to tell the Minister of Defense to
instruct the General Staff to complete the interrupted War of Independence.
I know that this resolution will not be passed here today, but
the situation will oblige us to follow that path eventually, whatever the
composition of the government. I pray that it will not be too late.
...
The Speaker, J. Sprinzak: I will allow resolutions to be
submitted.
J. Kusoy (Mapai): I submit the following resolution:
"The Knesset notes the Government's statement regarding the annexation, with its
attendant reservations."
H. Rubin (Mapam): On behalf of the Mapam faction I
submit the following resolution:
A. The Knesset regards the annexation of the territories on the West Bank as detrimental to:B. The Knesset declares that the state of Israel will not recognize or accept the annexation, and asks the Government to submit a complaint to the Security Council:
- The historical aspiration of the Jewish people to restore the integrity of the country.
C. The Knesset approves the Government's refusal to resume the negotiations for a peace treaty with Transjordan if the annexation is not annulled.
- Against the illegal act of annexation.
- Against the arbitrary extension of the British-Transjordanian treaty to part of Palestine.
J. Meridor (Herut): Distinguished Knesset, the faction
to which I have the honor of belonging does not think that the subject of this
evening's debate, the socalled annexation of part of our homeland by Abdullah,
is one on which a vote should be taken. We will not participate in the voting,
therefore.
On behalf of the Herut Movement founded by the IZL, I
declare:
In aspiring towards a political-territorial agreement with the area indirectly conquered by Britain in eastern Palestine known as the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" the Government has brought about the relinquishing of part of our homeland, the annexation of parts of western Palestine, effective recognition of Britain's right to establish and maintain military bases in our country on both banks of the Jordan and the total isolation of Israel in the international arena.We do not, and never will, recognize the plunder of part of our homeland by an enemy and an oppressor. The entire Land of Israel is ours. The Government's recognition of the illegal conquest, whe-ther through signing a peace treaty with the conquerors or in any other way, does not and will not commit the Jewish people and its youth.
M. Wilner (Maki): Maki's resolution is as follows:
- The Knesset resolves not to recognize and to oppose the annexation of the Arab parts of Palestine by the Transjordanian kingdom;
- The Knesset resolves to ask the Security Council to take steps against Britain and Transjordan for the illegal annexation of part of Palestine by Transjordan, constituting a British base;
- The Knesset resolves to support the struggle of the Arab masses in the rest of Palestine to establish a democratic, peace-loving, independent state which is friendly to Israel.
Furthermore, I would like this proposal to be put to the vote,
while at the same time our faction will vote for Mapam's proposal since it
contains two principles we share: opposition to the annexation and agreement in
principle to an independent Arab state.
J. Sapir (General Zionists): I would like to state,
though not to put to the vote, our refusal to recognize the annexation. We
authorize the Government to refrain from recognizing it.
The Speaker, J. Sprinzak: We will now vote on the
proposals.
The Vote
| Those in favor of MK J. Kusoy's proposal | 53 |
| Those in favor of MK H. Rubin's proposal | 16 |
| Those in favor of MK M. Wilner's proposal | 2 |
MK Kusoy's proposal: "The Knesset notes the Government's
statement regarding the annexation, with its attendant reservations," is
adopted.
The Knesset has heard and placed on record the Herut faction's
statement that it will not participate in the vote.
