NEW SOUTH WALES-ZIONIST COUNCIL.
CELEBRATIONS OF ISRAEL's 25TH ANNIVERSARY
ADDRESS'BY THE PRIME MINISTER.-MR E. G. WHITLAM
SYDNEY TOWN HALL 6 MAY 1973.
THE REQUIREMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY DO
NOT ALWAYS PERMIT THE FULL EXPRESSION OF A NATION'IS DEEPER
FEELINGS ABOUT INTERNAT. IONAL AFFAIRS.". FOR EXAMPLE, THE.
POLICY ON THE MIDDLE EAST DISPUTE OF THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTMY
OWN AND ALL THOSE WHO PRECEDED IT IN THE LAST TWO DECADESHAS
BEEN OFFICIALLY EXPRESSED IN THESE TERMS:-
" AUSTRALIA'S POLICY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EAST DISPUTE
IS ONE OF NEUTRALITY AND OF SYMPATHETIC INTEREST
IN A SETTLEMENT. AUSTRALIA HAS MAINTAINED FRIENDLY
RELATIONS WITH BOTH SI-DES BECAUSE WE HAVE NO MAJOR
ROLE IN THE AREA AND HAVE AVOIDED ACCORDINGLY
STRIKING A PARTISAN ATTITUDE."
Now, WHILE THESE HAVE BEEN THE BROAD GUIDELINES FOR
SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS AND WOULD BE A FAIR ENOUGH EXPRESSION
OF AVERAGE AUSTRA LIAN OPINION, I CANNOT. IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD
BE REGARDED BY ZIONISTS OR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY GENERALLY AS
THE DEFINITIVE VIEW ON THE MATTER. AND THE FACT IS, OF COURSE,
THAT WHILE SUCCESSIVE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS.-MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY
ON THE DISPUTE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN NEUTRAL AND ARE NOT NEUTRAL
ON BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE DISPUTE. WE ARE NOT NEUTRAL ON THE
QUESTION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ISRAEL; THE SOVEREIG NTY OF ISRAEL
IS NOT NEGOTIABLE. THE RIGHTS OF JEWS TO GO TO THE NATIONAL
. HOMELANDA ND TO LIVE THERE IN FREEDOM AND PEACE ARE NOT TO BE
DENIED. THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO DEFEND HER BORDERS AND PRESERVE
INTACT THE GREAT DEMOCRACY WHICH FLOURISHES THERE IS NOT A MATTER
ON WHICH THIS OR ANY AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT HAS EVER BEEN NEUTRAL.
WE NOT ONLY ACCEPT ISRAEL's MORAL RIGHTS IN ALL THESE MATTERS BUT
ACCEPT OUR OWN MORAL RESPONSIBILITY As EUROPEANS AND AS
BELLIGERENTS IN THE WAR AGAINST FASCISM AND PERSECUTION TO
UPHOLD THOSE RIGHTS. AND THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY THE
PARTY OF HERBERT VERE EVATT FREELY ACKNOWLEDGES ITS SPE CIAL
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND ITS INTIMATEASSOCIATION WITH THE
GOVERNMENT AND +' EOPLE OF ISRAEL. THERE ARE OTHER MATTERS ON
WHICH WE CANNOT BE NEUTRAL. WE CANNOT, FOR INSTANCE, BE
NEUTRAL TOWARDS THE WORLD-WIDE PATTERN OF TERROR AND REPRISAL
THAT HAS DEVELOPED FROM THE MIDDLE EAST DISPUTE AND FROM WHICH
CITIZENS OF ISRAEL, INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN HAVE BEEN
AMONGST THE CHIEF VICTIMS.
IT IS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THESE ATTITUDES THAT
IWISH TO PUT AUSTRALIA'S RECENT STAND IN THE SECURITY ' COUNC IL,.
A STAND WHICH HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD IN SOME QUARTERS. -ON 21
APRIL AUSTRALIA VOTED IN-THE SECURITY COUNCIL WITH BRITAIN,
INDIA, INDONESIA, FRANCE, AUSTRIA, YUGOSLAVIA, SUDAN, KENYAf
PANAMA AND PERU CONDEMNING THE RAID BY ISRAELI FORCES INTO
LEBANON ON 10 APRIL. NO MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL VOTED AGAINST
THE MOTION BUT THE UNITED STATES, THE SOVIET UNION, CHINA AND
GUINEA ABSTAINED. OUR ACTUAL VOTE TELLS ONLY A VERY SMALL
PART OF THE ACTIVITIES ON THIS MATTER TAKEN BY THE AUSTRALIAN
GOVERNMENT AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES IN NEW YORK. ON 13 APRILTHREE
DAYS AFTER THE RAID -ISENT THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES TO
OUR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL:
3.
FIRST, THAT ANY AUSTRALIAN STATEMENT SHOULD DEPLORE
VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM BY EITHER SIDE IN THE PRESENT
SITUATION; SECONDLY THAT WE SHOULD IN OUR STATEMENTS
AND ACTIVITIES SEEK TO MAINTAIN THE ESTABLISHED POLICY OF
NEUTRALITY AND EVENHANDEDNESS; THIRDLY THAT WE SHOULD
USE OUR EFFORTS TO ACHIEVEA RESOLUTION WHICH WOULD WIN
UNANIMOUS SUPPORT AND THAT WjOULD O-PERATE TO QUIETEN
RATHER THAN-FURTHER INFLAME THE SITUATION; AND FINALLY
THAT IF A RESOLUTION STRONGLY UNFAIR TO EITHER SIDE SHOULD
BE SUBMITTED, THE DELEGATION SHOULD USE ITS. DISCRETION TO
OPPOSE IT OR TO ABSTAIN.
ACCORDINGLY OUR DEELEGATION WORKED FOR A RESOLUTION WHICH, WHILE
CENSURING ISRAEL FOR ITS INTRUSION ON LEBANESE SOVEREIGNTY, TOOK
A BALANCED APPROACH TO THE WHOLE PATTERN OF VIOLENCE AND REPRISAL
IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BUT NONE OF THE DRAFT RESOLUTION'S OF THEIR.
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED PRIOR TO THE ANGLO-FRENCH DRAFT OF 21
APRIL.-WHICH WAS THE ONE UPON WHICH THE VOTE WAS TAKEN -WERE
ACCEPTABLE To AUSTRALIA.
SO IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THERE WERE TWO IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLES EXPRESSED BY OUR APPROACH THAT NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
MUST BE UPHELD AND THAT TERRORISM MUST BE OPPOSED. IN THE LONG
TERM, FOR THAT MATTER AT ANY TIME 7ISRAEL'IS OWIN INTERESTS AS
MUCH AS ANY OTHER NATION'S -ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE THAT THOSE
PRINCIPLES ARE UPHELD.
IN HIS STATEMENT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL ON 1.7 APRIL
OUR AMBASSADOR, SIR LAURENCE-MACINTYRE, EMPHASISED THE NEED TO
BREAK THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE. HE SAID, ON BEHALF OF AUSTRALIA:-
" IN AUSTRALIA'S VIEW THE FIRST AND, WE BELIEVE, THE MOST
POSITIVE AND HELPFUL STEP TOWARDS A JUST, SECURE AND
LASTING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST MIGHT BE TO BREAK THE
CYCLE OF AGGRESSION AND REPRISAL AND THUS TO TURN BACK
THE WAVE OF MURDEROUS VIOLENCE AND TERROR THAT HAS SPREAD
OUTWARDS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST ACROSS THE WORLD. IF WE
ARE RIGHT IN THIS BELIEF, THERE SEEMS TO BE LITTLE POINT
IN CONSIDERING THE LATEST ISRAELI ACT IN ISOLATION FROM
THE LAST OF'THE HORRIFYING MATRIX OF RECENT INTERNATIONAL
VIOLENCE-AND TERRORISM. WHETHER THE ACTIONS ENGAGED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL ARE TO BE REGARDED AS AN ACT
OF AGGRESSION OR RETALIATION, OR PRECAUTION OR SELF
DEFENCE, IT IS ONLY ONE OF A SUCCESSION OF ACTS OF VIOLENCE
IN RESPECT OF WHICH SOME OF ISRAEL'S NEIGHBOURIN GOVERNMENTS
CAN SCARCELY ESCAPE CHARGES OF COMPLICITY OR AT LEAST
ACQUIESCENCE. IT IS PART OF A VICIOUS CIRCLE AND CANNOT
BE SEPARATED FROM ITS SURROUNDING PATTERN OF VIOLENCE, IF
THIS COUNCIL IS TO GEN ERATE A NEW MOMENTUM IN ITS EFFORTS
TO BRING ABOUT A JUST, SECURE AND LASTING PEACE IN THE
MIDDLE EAST. IF THE UNITED NATIONS FAILS TO PUT AN ENDTO
THE FURTHER ESCALATION AND PROLIFERATION OF
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM IT IS, LIABLE TO HAVE MATTERS
TAKEN OUT OF ITS HANDS."
THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAD BEFORE IT A DRAFT-RESOLUTION
FROM LEBANON CALLING UPON ALL STATES TO REFRAIN FROM PROVIDING
ISRAEL WITH ANY ASSISTANCE WHICH WOULD FACILITATE MILITARY ATTACKS
AND THREATEN FURTHER SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION IF SUCH ATTACKS
WERE REPEATED. WE CONSIDERED THAT THESE ONE-SIDED TERMS WERE
UNACCEPTABLE AND FURTHER MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BY BRITAIN
STILL FAILED TO MAKE THE DRAFT SUFFICIENTLY FAIR TO ISRAEL TO
ATTRACT OUR SUPPORT.
FOLLOWING SIR LAURENCV'S STATEMENT A NEW ANGLO-FRENCH
DRAFT WAS INTRODUCED ON 19 APRILI WE BELIEVED THAT THE CHANGES
WENT SOME DISTANCE AT LEAST TOWARDS INJECTING A MEASURE OF
BALANCE INTO THE RESOLUTION AND OUR REPRESENTATIVE BELIEVED THAT
ALTHOUGH THE NEXT TEXT WAS NOT ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY, AN
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE WAS POSSIBLE. IN EXPLANATION OF OUR VOTE
SIR LAURENCE SAID:-
" IN THE VIEW OF my GOVERNMENT A CONDEMNATORY JUDGEMENT
WHICH WOULD HAVE TREATED THE PARTICULAR ACT,
REPREHENSIBLE AS IT WAS, IN ISOLATION FROM THE REfST
OF THE PATTERN OF PROVOCATIVE VIOLENCE, TERROR AND
REPRISAL OF WHICH IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A PART, AND WHICH
IS ENCROACHING ON THE SAFETY OF LIFE EVERYWHERE, WOULD
HAVE AMOUNTED TO A DISTORTION BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
REALITIES OF THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND WOULD
SCARCELY BE LIKELY TO HELP TOWARDS A SETTLEMENT OF ITS
STUBBORN PROBLEMS.
6,
THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE GO SOME DISTANCE
AT LEAST TOWARDS INJECTING A MEASURE OF BALANCE INTO
THE RESOLUTION TO A POINT WHERE, EVEN THOUGH WE
STILL DO NOT REGARD IT AS ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY, WE
HAVE FELT ABLE TO SUPPORT IT,.
I THINK YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PATTERN OF EVENTS
AND THE STATEMENTS OF OUR AMBASSADOR THAT THE VOTE OF
21 APRIL CAN IN NO WAY BE REGARDED AS A BASIC CHANGE OF
ATTITUDE ON MY GOVERNMENT'S PART OR A BASIC DEPARTURE FROM THAT
OF PREVIOUS AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE DID
ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON A RESOLUTION ADOPTED 86-7 WITH
31 ABSTENTIONS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON 8 DECEMBER LAST AS
REPRESENTING A FURTHER ONE-SIDED CRITICISM OF ISRAEL IN TERMS SIMILP
TO THOSE USED IN RECENT YEARS, WE ABSTAINED IN 1971 ON A
RESOLUTION IN ALMOST IDENTICAL TERMS, ON THE OCCASION OF THE
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION WE BELIEVE THAT CONSISTENT ADHERENCE
TO THE TWO PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND OPPOSITION TO
TERRORISM DID REQUIRE SUPPORT FOR A RESOLUTION, IN ITSELF,
IN MANY WAYS, UNSATISFACTORY,
I AM NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TELLING ISRAEL WHAT
IS FOR HER OWN GOOD, I KNOW THAT SUCH ADVICE FROM'ME WOULD
BE GRATUITOUS AND SUPERFLUOUS, I CAN ONLYSPEAK ABOUT THE,
MOST USEFUL COURSE, FOR AUSTRALIA CANNOT TAKE THE SAME
PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS AS I THINK-ISRAEL TENDS
TO DO. IT IS TRUE THAT THE MIDDLE EAST HAS NOW BECOME THE
I7.
CENTRAL STAGE OF CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE TWO GREAT POWERS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION, AND IT IS TRUE THAT
IN SUCH CONFRONTATIONS THE UNITED NATIONS HAS IN THE PAST
PROVED INEFFECTUAL, EVEN IMPOTENT. THERE IS NO MORE CERTAIN
WAY TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE UNITED
NATIONS THAN THAT THE SMAL[ ER NATIONS OF PEACE AND FREEDOM
SHOULD DESPAIR ABSOLUTELY OF THAT , QNE WORLD BODY OF WHICH
THEY FORM A MAJORITY. THE GREATEST VICTIMS OF THE BREAKDOWN
THROUGH DESPAIR OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS WERE THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
NO NATION WOULD HAVE MORE TO LOSE THAN ISRAEL B9Y A BREAKDOWN OF
THE UNITED NATIONS.
WE HAVE AFFIRMED, AND ' WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE, THAT
THE BEST PROSPECT FOR AN ENDURING PEACE IN THE MIIDDLE EAST
WILL FLOW FROM AN AGREEMENT FREELY ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES. M'Y GOVERNMENT WILL WORK TO SECURE SUPPORTFOR
NEGOTIATIONS TOWARDS SUCH AN AGREEMENT, BOTH IN THE U..
AND IN ALL OUR DIPLOMATIC ENDEAVOURS.