Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
142191
label
Middle East -- Vice President Mondale's Speech - San Francisco, 6/17/77
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
142191
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Middle East -- Vice President Mondale's Speech - San Francisco, 6/17/77
citationUrl
collections
Office of the Chief of Staff Files
Hamilton Jordan's Confidential Files
subjects
Middle East
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Vice-Presidents
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
142191
coverageEndDate
day
17
logicalDate
1977-06-01
month
6
year
1977
coverageStartDate
day
17
logicalDate
1977-06-01
month
6
year
1977
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b76abb9f488e0c67
ocrText
Middle East - V.P. Mondale's Speech-SF, 6/17/77
Folder Citation: Collection: Office of the Chief of Staff Files; Series:
Hamilton Jordan's Confidential Files; Folder: Middle East - V.P.
Mondale's Speech-SF, 6/17/77; Container 35
To See Complete Finding Aid:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Chief_of St
aff.pdf
REMARKS OF
VICE PRESIDENT WALTER F. MONDALE
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
FOR RELEASE FRI., JUNE 17 AT 12:30 PM PDT
June 1977
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., June 17-- Here is the text of Vice
President Walter F. Mondale's speech to the World Affairs Council of
Northern California:
In the last several months, I've undertaken two extended
foreign trips on behalf of the President to Europe and Japan. The
more I travel, and the more nations I visit, the more I come to
believe that the peoples of the world are not really so different
that all of us dream the same dreams for our children and that
the real key to peace and cooperation in the world lies in better
understanding between people. Diplomats and heads of state and
elected officials must play a role, but we should never underestimate
the power of ideas and education and greater understanding to break
down the barriers of suspicion and fear that too often separate the
nations of the world.
Your programs in the school system, on television, the
lectures and seminars you hold, your conference for model UN students
are all an important part of that effort. And I'm particularly
pleased to see that you're joining together with a number of groups
involved in international relations in a new World Affairs Center here
in San Francisco and I wish you every success in that venture. And
SO the contributions of an organization such as yours towards
increased understanding in the world are really crucial, not only
to the foreign policy efforts of this nation, but to the search for
peace.
With the words of his Inaugural Address, President Carter
identified at the very outset of his Administration the guiding
spirit of this nation's foreign policy:
"Our nation can be strong abroad only if it
is strong at home, and we know that the best
way to enhance freedom in other lands is to
demonstrate here that our democratic system
is worthy of emulation. To be true to
ourselves, we must be true to others."
And, he elaborated on the basic premises of our relations
with other nations in his speech at Notre Dame this May:
-- Our policy must be rooted in our people's basic
commitment to human rights.
Our policy must be based on close cooperation with
the Western industrial democracies. With them
we share basic values; with them also we share a
recognition that global problems cannot be solved
without close cooperation among us. This was
the message the President had me take to Europe
and Japan in the first week of the Administration,
and this was the spirit which guided the President
and his colleagues at the London summit last month.
Our policy must seek to improve relations with the
Soviet Union and China. It must do so in a balanced
and reciprocal way, while we maintain a strong defense.
Our policy must recognize that the cleavage between
North and South is as important as between East and
West. We must reach out to the world's developing
nations, seeking to narrow the gap between rich
and poor.
MORE
- 2 -
-- Finally, our policy must provide incentives for all
nations to rise above ideology or narrow conceptions
of self-interest and work together to resolve regional
conflicts and to meet global problems that confront
all people.
As an Administration, we are only five months old. However,
these months have been a period of intense activity. We are committed
to shaping effective policies that truly reflect America's values
and objectives -- and we are committed to implementing policies with
other nations so as to shape a more peaceful and stable world.
One of our first tasks has been to ensure that our foreign
policy reflects the commitment to basic human rights that we as
Americans share. That commitment to the inherent dignity of the
individual is at the heart of the American tradition. From it flows
the democratic liberties that we cherish -- such as the right to
worship freely, freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and due
process of law. Those are the basic strengths of our nation.
We have survived as a free nation because we have remained
committed to the defense of fundamental moral values we cherish as
a people. And unless our foreign policy reflects those values it
will not earn the support of the American people. Without that
support, no foreign policy, no matter how brilliantly conceived, can
succeed.
I believe we have restored that commitment to human rights.
I am proud that the United States today stands among those who
uphold human rights and human dignity in the world. I am proud that
no foreign leader today has any doubt that the United States condemns
torture, political imprisonment and repression by any government,
anywhere in the world. We believe that basic human rights transcend
ideology. We believe all nations, regardless of political system,
must respect those rights.
Just as respect for human rights is central to our foreign
policy values, so progress toward a just and lasting Middle East
settlement is essential to the prospect of a more peaceful world.
The President has asked me to describe what we are trying to do to
achieve peace in the Middle East. We want the American people to
have the fullest possible understanding of our approach, for your
support is crucial to its success.
President Carter has now met with the leaders of Egypt,
Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The President met with Prime
Minister Rabin of Israel and we hope that we will soon meet with the
new Prime Minister.
With the exception of the meeting with President Asad
which was held in Geneva, I have participated in all of them and
have sensed these leaders' great desire for peace, and their longing
for the benefits that peace can bring to nations too long mobilized
for war. Yet at the same time, we also found deep fears and
suspicion which must be overcome if peace is to be achieved in that
strategic and troubled region of the world.
MORE
-3-
A genuine and lasting peace in the Middle Tast is of essential
interest to all Americans. Conflict there carries the threat of a glo-
bal confrontation, and runs the risk of nuclear war. As we have seen,
war in the Middle Tast has profound economic consequences. It can,
and has, damaged the economies of the entire world. It has been a
tragedy for the nations of the region. Even short of war, continued
confrontation encouraces radicalization and instability.
Genuine peace is needed by all parties to the conflict. The Arab
nations need peace.
Israel, above all, has a profound interest in peace. There is no
question about that. For almost three decades, Israel has borne the
burden of constant war. "ore than half its entire budget is dedicated
to defense. Its citizens hear the highest average tax burden in the
world -- more than 60° of their income goes for taxes.
And vet, at the same time, this valiant nation has managed to
create a riracle in the desert. with incenuity, hard work and skill,
it has created a land that could he a model for economic development
and for political liberty to be erulated throughout the Middle East.
Democracy has thrived in Israel despite the kind of adversity that
has crushed freedom in ther lands.
And yet, what of the future? Is it a future in which Israel's
three million people tiv by force of arms alone to hold out against the
hostility and growing power of the Arab world? or can a process of
reconciliation be started a process in which peace protects
Israel's security, a. peace in which the urge for revenge and recrimina-
tion is replaced by mutual recognition and respect?
America has a special responsibility and a special opportunity to
help bring about this kind of peace. This comes about first of all
because of our unique and profound relationship with the state of
Israel since its creation more than a generation aco. Our sense of
shared values and purposes means that, for Americans, the question of
Israel's survival is not a political question but rather stands as a
moral imperative of our foreign policy.
And yet, our special relationship with Israel has not been
directed against any other country. "e have been able to enjoy the
friendship of much of the Arab world where we and close allies
have important interests.
It is precisely because of our close ties with both Israel and
her Arab neichbors that we are uniquely placed to promote the search
for peace, to work For an improved understanding of each side's
legitimate concerns, and to help them work out what we hope will be a
basis for necotiation leading to a final peace in the Middle Fast.
"hen this Administration entered office on January 20. we found
that the situation in the Middle Fast called for a new approach. The
step-by-step diplomacy of our predecessors had defused the immediate
tensions produced by the war in 1973. But it was also evident that
it would be increasingly difficult to achieve small diplomatic con-
cessions when the ultimate shape of a peace agreement remained obscure.
At the same time, it was unlikely that an agreement on a lasting peace
could be achieved at one stroke.
UTI Security Council Resolution 242, which is supported by all the
parties, provides a basis for the necotiations which are required if
there is to be a settlement. But Resolution 242 does not by itself
provide all that is required. "le, therefore, decided to work with the
parties concerned to outline the overall framework for an enduring
peace. Cur concept was to use this framework as the basis for a
phased negotiation and implerentation of specific steps toward peace.
A major impedinent to this approach lay in the fact that the
positions of all sides were frozen. The words and phrases used by
the parties had become encrusted with the fallout of countless
diplomatic battles.
(Nore)
- 4 -
"e have tried to regain momentum in this process. "e have en-
couraged Arabs and Israelis to begin thinking again seriously about the
elements of peace and not to remain committed to particular words and
formulations.
To this end, the President has tried to describe our understanding
of what the key elements of an overall franework for an agreement might
be:
A cornitment to a genuine and lasting peace deronstrated
by concrete acts to normalize relations among the countries
of the area.
-- The establishment of borders for Israel which are recognized
by all and which can be kept secure.
-- A fair solution to the problem of the Palestinians.
The President has set forth these elements not to dictate a peace
or to impose our views but to stimulate fresh thought.
President Carter has gone further than any of his predecessors
to stress with Arab leaders the essential point that peace must mean
more than merely an end to hostilities, stating as he did in Clinton,
Massachusetts last March
the first prereguisite of a lasting peace is the recogni-
tion of Israel by her neighbors- Israel's right to exist. Israel's
right to exist pernanently; Israel's richt to exist in peace.
That means that over a period of months or years that the
borders between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, Israel
and Jordan, Israel and [gypt must be opened up to travel to
tourism, to cultural exchange, to trade, so that no matter who
the leaders might be in those countries the people them-
selves will have formed a mutual understanding and compre-
hension and a sense of a common purpose to avoid the rere-
titious wars and deaths that have affected that region SO
long. That is the first prerequisite of peace.
Me have found that the Arab leaders did not insist that this kind
of peace is something that only future generations could consider.
Some leaders, such as King Fussein. during his visit to Washington,
have made clear their commitment to a just and lasting peace -- one
which would enable all the people in the Middle Tast to divert their
energies and resources to build and attain a better future.
So vie believe that we have made some progress in getting Arab
leaders to recognize Israel's right to exist and to recognize --
however reluctantly -- that this commitment is essential to a genuine
peace. That peace must be structured in such a way that it can survive
even if some leaders were to nurture aims to destroy Israel. Still,
we have a long way to go- the Arabs have been insistent that Israel
withdraw from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war. "e have
made clear our view that Israel should not be asked to withdraw unless
it can secure in return real peace from its neighbors.
The question of withdrawal is, in essence, the question of hor..
ders. For peace to be enduring, borders must be inviolable. Nations
must feel secure behind their borders. Borders must be recognized by
all.
A crucial dilemma has been how to provide borders that are both
secure and acceptable to all. It is understandable that Israel, having
fought a war in every decade since its birth, wants borders that can
be defended as easily as possible. But no borders will be secure if
neighboring countries do not accept them.
(Nore)
- 5 -
The problem is that borders that might afford Israel the maxi-
mum security in military terms would not be accepted as legitimate
by Israel's neighbors. Borders that Israel's neichbors would recognize,
Israel has not been willing to accept as forming an adequate line of
defense.
For this reason, the President has tried to separate the two
issues. On the one hand, there nust be recognized borders. But,
in addition, there could be separate lines of defense or other rea-
sures that could enhance Israel's security. The arrangements in the
Sinai and in the Golan Heights provide models of how Israel's security
might be enhanced until confidence in a lasting peace can he fully
developed.
(More)
- 6 -
We would urge all the parties to think realistically
about security arrangements to reduce the fear of surprise attach,
to make acts of aggression difficult if not impossible, and to
limit the military forces that would confront one another in
sensitive areas.
This approach recognizes the fact that there is a
profound asymmetry in what the two sides in the iddle East are
seeking. On the one hand, a principal Arab concern is to regain
lost territory. On the other, Israel wishes peace, and
recognition. Territory is tangible, and once ceded difficult to
regain short of war. Peace, on the other hand, can be ephemeral.
Peaceful intentions can change overnight, unless a solid
foundation of cooperation and a firm pattern of reinforcing
relationships can be established to ensure that all have a stake
in continuing tranquility.
We believe that separating the imperatives of security
from the requirement of recognized borders is an important
advance toward reconciling the differences between the two sides.
It is in this way that Israel could return to approximately the
borders that existed prior to the war of 1967, albeit with minor
modifications as negotiated among the parties, and yet retain
security lines or other arrangements that would ensure Israel's
safety as full confidence developed in a comprehensive peace.
Thus, with borders explicitly recognized and buttressed by security
measures, and with the process of peace unfolding, Israel's
security would be greater than it is today.
A further major issue is that of the future of the
Palestinian people. It has been the source of continuing tragedy
in the Middle East. There are two prerequisites for a lasting
peace in this regard. First, there must be a demonstrated
willingness on the part of the Palestinians to live in peace
alongside Israel. Second, the Palestinians must be given a
stake in peace so that they will turn away from the violence of
the past and toward a future in which they can express their
legitimate political aspirations peacefully.
Thus, if the Palestinians are willing to exist in peace
and are prepared to demonstrate that willingness, by recognizing
Israel's right to exist in peace, the President has made clear
that, in the context of a peace settlement we believe the
Palestinians should be given a chance to shed their status as
homeless refugees and to partake fully of the benefits of peace in
the Middle East, including the possibility of some arrangement
for a Palestinian homeland or entity -- preferably in
association with Jordan.
How this would be accomplished and the exact character
of such an entity is, of course, something that would have to be
decided by the parties themselves in the course of negotiation.
However, the President has suggested that the viability of this
concept and the security of the region might be enhanced if this
involved an association with Jordan. But I emphasize that the
specifics are for the parties themselves to decide.
This leads me to a further crucial aspect of our
approach -- the necessity of direct negotiations among the parties
concerned. We cannot conceive of genuine peace existing between
countries who will not talk to one another. If they are prepared
for peace, the first proof is a willingness to negotiate their
differences.
This is why we believe it is so important to proceed
with the holding of a Geneva Conference this year. That
conference provides the forum for these nations to begin the
working out of these problems together directly face-to-face. We
have a continuing objective to convene such a conference before
the end of this year.
(MORE)
- 7 -
Underlying this entire effort to promote the process
of negotiation is our determination to maintain the military
security of Israel. There must be no question in anyone's mind
that the United States will do what is necessary to ensure the
adequacy of Israel's military posture and its capacity for self-
defense.
We recognize that America has a special responsibility
in this regard. In fact, in promulgating our overall policy to
curb the international traffic in arms, the President specfically
directed the government that we will honor our historic
responsibilities to assure the security of the state of Israel.
Let there be no doubt about this commitment by this Administration.
We do not intend to use our military aid as pressure on
Israel. If we have differences over military aid -- and we may
have some -- it will be on military grounds or economic grounds,
but not political grounds. If we have differences over
diplomatic strategy -- and that could happen -- we will work this
out on a political level. We will not alter our commitment to
Israel's military security.
Let me conclude by saying that we hope the concepts I
have been discussing there today -- concepts which the President
has advanced at talks with Israeli and Arab leaders -- will
stimulate them to develop ideas of their own. We realize that
peace cannot be imposed from the outside and we do not intend to
present the parties with a plan or a timetable or a map. Peace
can only come from a genuine recognition by all parties that their
interests are served by reconciliation and not by war, by faith
in the future rather than bitterness over the past.
America can try to help establish the basis of trust
necessary for peace. We can try to improve the atmosphere for
communication. We can offer ideas, but we cannot, in the end,
determine whether peace or war is the fate of the Middle East.
That can only be decided by Israel and her Arab neighbors.
We believe that both sides want peace. As the President
has said, "this may be the most propitious time for a genuine
settlement since the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict
almost 30 years ago. To let this opportunity pass could mean
a disaster not only for the Middle East, but perhaps for the
international political and economic order as well."
As we TO foreward in our mediating role, we will have to
expect from time to time to have differences with both sides.
But these will be differences as to tactics. Our overall
objectives will be those that we believe are now shared by all
sides: a permanent and enduring peace in the Middle East.
This is obviously a diffucult task and there is always
the possibility of failure. But it is an historic responsibility
that requires the fullest possible support of the American people.
I believe we have this support. And as we RO through
the difficult days ahead, this support will sustain us. It will
provide the strength we need to encourage all parties to put aside
their fears and put trust in their hopes for a genuine and lasting
'liddle East peace.
John Hennedy once described the formula for peace not
only in the "liddle East but throughout the world, and I would
like to close with his words.
"If we all can persevere, if we in every land
and every office can look beyond our own shores
and ambitions, then surely the age will dawn in
which the strong are just and the weak secure
and the peace preserved."
######
FILE
REMARKS OF
VICE PRESIDENT WALTER F. MONDALE
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
JUNE 17, 1977
Introduction
Thank you, Clark Maser (President of the World Affairs
Council) for that kind introduction. It's a pleasure to join
Mayor George Moscone, and the officers and members of the World
Affairs Council of Northern California.
In the last several months, I've undertaken two extended
foreign trips on behalf of the President to Europe and Japan.
The more I travel, and the more nations I visit, the more I
come to believe that the peoples of the world are not really
so different
that all of us dream the same dreams for our
children
and that the real key to peace and cooperation in
the world lies in better understanding between people. Diplomats
and heads of state and elected officials must play a role,
but we should never underestimate the power of ideas and
education and greater understanding to break down the barriers
of suspicion and fear that too often separate the nations of
the world.
Your programs in the school system, on television, the
lectures and seminars you hold, your conference for model UN
students are all an important part of that effort. And I'm
particularly pleased to see that you're joining together
with a number of groups involved in international relations
in a new World Affairs Center here in San Francisco and I
wish you every success in that venture. And so the con-
tributions of an organization such as yours towards increased
understanding in the world are really crucial, not only
to the foreign policy efforts of this nation, but to the search
for peace.
-2-
With the words of his Inaugural Address, President
Carter identified at the very outset of his Administration
the guiding spirit of this nation's foreign policy:
"Our nation can be strong abroad only if
it is strong at home, and we know that the
best way to enhance freedom in other lands
is to demonstrate here that our democratic
system is worthy of emulation. To be true
to ourselves, we must be true to others."
And, he elaborated on the basic premises of our
relations with other nations in his speech at Notre Dame
this May:
-- Our policy must be rooted in our people's basic
commitment to human rights.
-- Our policy must be based on close cooperation
with the Western industrial democracies. With
them we share basic values; with them also we
share a recognition that global problems cannot
be solved without close cooperation among us.
This was the message the President had me take
to Europe and Japan in the first week of the Admin-
istration, and this was the spirit which guided
the President and his colleagues at the London
summit last month.
-- Our policy must seek to improve relations with the
Soviet Union and China. It must do so in a balanced
and reciprocal way, while we maintain a strong defense.
-3-
-- Our policy must recognize that the cleavage between
North and South is as important as between East and
West. We must reach out to the world's developing
nations, seeking to narrow the gap between rich
and poor.
-- Finally, our policy must provide incentives for all
nations to rise above ideology or narrow conceptions
of self-interest and work together to resolve
regional conflicts and to meet global problems that
confront all people.
As an Administration, we are only five months old,
However, these months have been a period of intense activity.
We are committed to shaping effective policies that truly
reflect America's values and objectives - and we are com-
mitted to implementing policies with other nations so as to
shape a more peaceful and stable world.
Respect for Human Rights
One of our first tasks has been to ensure that our
foreign policy reflects the commitment to basic human rights
that we as Americans share. That commitment to the inherent
dignity of the individual is at the heart of the American
tradition. From it flows the democratic liberties that we
cherish -- such as the right to worship freely, freedom of
speech, of the press, of assembly, and due process of law.
Those are the basic strengths of our nation.
-4-
We have survived as a free nation because we have
remained committed to the defense of fundamental moral
values we cherish as a people. And unless our foreign
policy reflects those values it will not earn the support
of the American people. Without that support, no foreign
policy, no matter how brilliantly conceived, can succeed.
I believe we have restored that commitment to human
rights. I am proud that the United States today stands among
those who uphold human rights and human dignity in the world.
I am proud that no foreign leader today has any doubt that
the United States condemns torture, political imprisonment
and repression by any government, anywhere in the world.
We believe that basic human rights transcend ideology. We
believe all nations, regardless of political system, must
respect those rights.
The Middle East
Just as respect for human rights is central to our
foreign policy values, so progress toward a just and lasting
Middle East settlement is essential to the prospect of a more
peaceful world. The President has asked me here today to
describe what we are trying to do to achieve peace in the
Middle East. We want the American people to have the
fullest possible understanding of our approach, for your
support is crucial to its success.
-5-
President Carter has now met with the leaders of Egypt,
Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The President met with
Prime Minister Rabin of Israel and we hope that we will soon
meet with the new Prime Minister -- Mr. Begin.
With the exception of the meeting with President Asad
which was held in Geneva, I have participated in all of them
and have sensed these leaders' great desire for peace, and
their longing for the benefits that peace can bring to
nations too long mobilized for war. Yet at the same time,
we also found deep fears and suspicion which will have to be
overcome if peace is to be achieved in that strategic and
troubled region of the world.
The Need for Peace
A genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East is an
essential interest to all Americans. Conflict there carries
the threat of a global confrontation, and runs the risk of
nuclear war. As we have seen, war in the Middle East can
have profound economic consequences. Even short of war,
it continues confrontation and encourages radicalization and
instability. It can, and has, transformed the economies of
the entire world. It has been a tragedy for the nations of
the region.
Genuine peace is needed by all the parties to the
conflict.
-6-
Israel, above all, has a profound interest in peace.
There is no question about that. For almost three decades,
Israel has borne the burden of constant war. More than
half its entire budget is dedicated to defense. Its
citizens bear the highest average tax burden in the world --
more than 60% of their income goes for taxes.
And yet, at the same time, this valiant nation has
managed to create a miracle in the desert. With ingenuity,
hard work and skill, it has created a land that could be a
model for economic development and for political liberty to
be emulated throughout the Middle East. Democracy has
thrived in Israel despite the kind of adversity that has
crushed freedom in other lands.
And yet, what of the future? Is it a future in which
Israel's valiant three million people try by force of arms
alone to hold out against the implacable hostility and
growing power of more than 150 million Arabs? Or can a
process of reconciliation be started -- a process in which
peace rather than the threat of war protects Israel's
security, a peace in which the urge for revenge and
recrimination is replaced by mutual recognition and respect.
-7-
America's Role
America has a special responsibility and a special
opportunity to bring about this kind of peace. This comes
about first of all because of our unique and profound
relationship with the state of Israel since its creation
more than a generation ago. Our sense of shared values
and purposes means that, for Americans, the question of
Israel's survival is not a political question but rather
stands as a moral imperative of our foreign policy.
And yet, our special relationship with Israel has not
been directed against any other country. We have been able
to enjoy the friendship of much of the Arab world where we
and our close allies have important interests.
It is precisely because of our close ties with both
Israel and her Arab neighbors that we are uniquely placed
to promote the search for peace, to work for an improved
understanding of each side's legitimate concerns, and to
help them work out what we hope will be a basis for
negotiation leading to a final peace in the Middle East.
The U.S. Approach
When this Administration entered office on January 20,
we found that the situation in the Middle East called for
a new approach. The step-by-step diplomacy of our
-8-
predecessors had defused the immediate tensions produced by
the war in 1973. But it was also evident that it would be
increasingly difficult to achieve small diplomatic concessions
when the ultimate shape of a peace agreement remained obscure.
At the same time, It was unlikely that an agreement on a
lasting peace could be achieved at one stroke.
We, therefore, decided to work with the parties concerned
to outline the overall framework for an enduring peace. Our
concept was to use this framework as the basis for a phased
negotiation and implementation of specific steps toward
peace.
A major impediment to this approach lay in the fact
that the positions of both sides were frozen. The words
and phrases used by both sides had become encrusted with
the fallout of countless diplomatic battles.
We have tried to regain momentum in this process,
We have encouraged Arabs and Israelis to begin thinking again
seriously about the elements of peace and not to remain
committed to particular words and formulations.
To this end, the President has tried to describe our
understanding of what the key elements of an overall frame-
work for an agreement might be:
-9-
the establishment of borders for Israel which are
recognized by all and which can be kept secure,
a fair solution to the problem of the Palestinians.
The President has set forth these elements not
to dictate a peace or to impose our views but to
stimulate fresh thought.
The Definition of Peace
President Carter has gone further than any of his
predecessors to stress with Arab leaders the essential
point that peace must mean more than merely an end to
hostilities, stating as he did in Clinton, Massachusetts,
last March:
11
the first prerequisite of a lasting peace is
the recognition of Israel by her neighbors;
Israel's right to exist; Israel's right to exist
permanently, Israel's right to exist in peace.
That means that over a period of months or years
that the borders between Israel and Syria,
Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Jordan, Israel
and Egypt must be opened up to travel, to
tourism, to cultural exchange, to trade, so
that no matter who the leaders might be in
those countries the people themselves will
have formed a mutual understanding and
-10-
comprehension and a sense of a common purpose
to avoid the repetitious wars and deaths that
have affected that region so long. That is
the first prerequisite of peace. "
We have found that the Arab leaders did not reject this
concept out of hand. Nor did they insist that this kind
of peace is something that only future generations could
consider. Some leaders, such as King Hussein, during his
visit to Washington, have made clear their commitment
to a "just and lasting peace -- one which would enable all
the people in the Middle East to divert their energies and
resources to build and attain a better future."
So we believe that we have made some progress in
getting Arab leaders to recognize Israel's right to exist
and to recognize -- however reluctantly -- that this
commitment is essential to a genuine peace. Still, we have
a long way to go; the Arabs have been insistent that Israel
withdraw from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war,
We have made clear our view that Israel should not be asked
to withdraw unless it can secure in return real peace from
its neighbors.
Borders
The question of withdrawal is, in essense, the question
of borders. For peace to be enduring, borders must be
-11-
inviolable. Nations must feel secure behind their borders.
Borders must be recognized by all.
A crucial dilemma has been how to provide borders that
are both secure and acceptable to all. It is understandable
that Israel, having fought a war in every decade since its
birth, wants borders that can be defended as easily as
possible. But no border will be secure if other countries
do not accept them.
The paradox is that borders that might afford Israel
the maximum security in military terms would not be
accepted as legitimate by Israel's neighbors. Borders
that Israel's neighbors would recognize, Israel has not
been willing to accept as forming an adequate line of
defense.
For this reason, the President has tried to separate
the two issues. On the one hand, there must be recognized
borders. But, in addition, there could be separate lines
of defense or other arrangements that could enhance Israel's
security. The existing arrangements in the Sinai and in the
Golan Heights may provide an example of the kind of measures
that will help ensure Israel's security until confidence
in a lasting peace can be fully developed.
-12-
We would urge all the parties to think realistically
about security arrangements to reduce the fear of surprise
attack, to make acts of aggression difficult if not
impossible, to limit the military forces that would confront
one another in sensitive areas.
This approach recognizes the fact that there is a profound
asymmetry in what the two sides in the Middle East are seeking.
On the one hand, the Arabs are concerned regaining lost
territory. On the other, Israel wishes peace, and recognition.
Territory is tangible, and once ceded difficult to regain
short of war. Peace, on the other hand, can be ephemeral.
Peaceful intentions can change overnight, unless a solid
foundation of cooperation and a firm pattern of reinforcing
relationships can be established to ensure that all have a
stake in continuing tranquility.
We believe that separating the imperatives of security
from the requirement of recognized borders is an important
advance toward reconciling the differences between the two
sides. It is in this way that Israel could return to
approximately the borders that existed prior to the war
of 1967, albeit with minor modifications as negotiated
among the parties, and yet retain lines of defense that would
ensure Israel's security even more firmly than they do today --
-13-
they would be buttressed by comprehensive peace. Thus,
with borders explicitely recognized and secured by advance
defense lines, and with the process of peace unfolding,
Israel's security would be greater than it is today.
The Palestinian Issue
A further major issue is that of the future of the
Palestinian people. It has been the source of continuing
tragedy in the Middle East. There are two prerequisites
for a lasting peace in this regard. First, there must be a
demonstrated willingness on the part of the Palestinians to
live in peace alongside Israel. Second, the Palestinians
must be given a stake in peace in turning away from terror
to express their political aspirations.
Thus, if the Palestinians are willing to exist in
peace and are prepared to demonstrate that willingness,
the President has made clear that, in the context of a peace
settlement, we believe the Palestinians should be given a
chance to shed their status as homeless refugees and to
partake fully of the benefits of peace in the Middle East,
including the possibility of some sort of geographic or
political entity of their own.
How this would be accomplished and the exact character
of such an entity is, of course, something that would have
-14-
to be decided by the parties themselves in the course of
negotiation. For example, President Carter has suggested
that the viability of this concept and the security of
the region would be enhanced if this involved an association
with Jordan. But I emphasize that the specifics are for
the parties themselves to decide.
Face-to-Face Negotiations in Geneva
This leads me to a further crucial aspect of our
approach -- the essentiality of direct negotiations among
the parties concerned. One cannot conceive of genuine
peace existing between countries who will not talk to one
another. If they are prepared for peace, the first proof
is a willingness to negotiate their differences.
This is why we believe it is so important to proceed
with the holding of a Geneva Conference this year. That
conference provides the forum for these nations to begin
the working out of these problems together directly face-to-
face. We have a continuing objective to convene such a
conference before the end of this year.
Support for Israel's Security
Underlying this entire effort to promote the process
of negotiation is our determination to maintain the military
security of Israel. There must be no question in anyone's
mind that the United States will do what is necessary to
-15-
ensure the adequacy of Israel's military posture and its
capacity for self-defense.
We recognize that America has a special responsibility
in this regard. In fact, in promulgating our overall policy
to curb the international traffic in arms, the President
specifically directed the government that we will honor
our historic responsibilities to assure the security of
the state of Israel.
We do not intend to use our military aid as pressure
on Israel. If we have differences over military aid -- and
we have had some -- it will be on military or economic, but
not political grounds. If we have differences over
diplomatic strategy -- and that could happen -- we will work
this out on a political level. We will not alter our
commitment to Israel's military security.
To this end, and as part of our continuing program
of military assistance and cooperation, the President has
just approved the sale of 700 armored personnel carriers
for the Israeli defense force and 200 TOW inti-tank guided
missile launchers. There are, in additions, a number of
other possible areas of cooperation which the United States
will consider undertaking in order to assure the unquestioned
survival and security of Israel.
-16-
Resolution 242, which has the support of all the parties,
provides a basis for the negotiations which are required if
there is to be a settlement. But Resolution 242 does not by
itself provide all that is required. We hope the concepts
we have advanced -- concepts which are consistent with 242 --
will stimulate the parties to develop ideas of their own.
We realize that peace cannot be imposed from outside and we do
not intend to present the parties with a plan or a timetable
or a map. Peace can only come from a genuine recognition by
all parties that their interests are served by reconciliation
and not by war, by faith in the future rather than bitterness
over the past.
America can try to help establish the basis of trust
necessary for peace. We can try to improve the atmosphere
for communication. We can offer ideas, but we cannot, in
the end, determine whether peace or war is the fate of the
Middle East. That can only be decided by Israel and her
Arab neighbors.
We believe that both sides want peace. As the President
has said, "this may be the most propitious time for a genuine
settlement since the beginning of the Arab- [sraeli conflict
almost 30 years ago. To let this opportunity pass could
mean a disaster not only for the Middle East, but perhaps
for the international political and economic order as well." "
-17-
As we go forward in our mediating role, we will have to
expect from time to time to have differences with both sides.
But these will be differences as to tactics. Our overall
objectives will be those that we believe are now shared by
all sides: a permanent and enduring peace in the Middle East.
This is not an enviable task; it is one that is fraught
with the possibility of failure. It is an historic respon-
sibility that requires the fullest possible support of the
American people.
I believe we have this support. And as we go through
the difficult days ahead, this support will sustain us. It
will provide the strength we need to encourage all parties
to put aside their fears and put trust in their hopes for a
genuine and lasting Middle East peace.
I think John Kennedy once described the formula for
peace not only in the Middle East but throughout the world,
and I would like to close with his words.
"If we all can persevere, if we in avery land
and every office can look beyond our own shores
and ambitions, then surely the age will dawn in
which the strong are just and the weak secure
and the peace preserved. "
Thank you.