PRIME MINISTER
EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
BEN-GURION CENTENARY
MELBOURNE,-8 NOVEMBER 1987
Tonight brings to a close a year's celebration in Australia
of the hundredth anniversary of the birth of David
Ben-Gurion a man through whose vision the state of Israel
was born, through whose efforts the Jewish people throughout
the world were united in a common cause, and through whose
ideals the world was given a society of enduring commitment
to the free and egalitarian principles of democracy.
David Ben-Gurion personified the traditions, the
aspirations, and the achievements of the Jewish people.
Indeed as the founder of the modern state of Israel he can
claim to have brought those traditions and aspirations to
their just and logical fulfillment in the achievement of
nationhood and independence for the Jewish people.
The letter from Shimon Peres that has just been read
provides eloquent testimony of the achievement and legacy of
David Ben-Gurion.
Ben-Gurion was born in the Diaspora in Plonsk in northern
Poland. From an early age he became imbued with the spirit
of Zionism. He went to Palestine as a pioneer in 1906 and
his whole life thereafter was spent in the struggle of the
Zionist cause as it sought to establish a Jewish national
homeland there.
He served for 14 years as secretary of the Confederation of
Labour, the Histadrut. Under his guidance it became not
only a trade union repres~ enting the interests of workers but
also a means of mobilising all pioneers, farmers and workers
in the endeavour to create and foster a Jewish statet
And I know from my personal contacts with the Histadrut,
built up over a number of visits to Israel, what an
impressive and effective organisation it is in the
achievement of those goals.
All Australians can identify with the work Ben-Gurion and
his fellows faced in successfully challenging the deserts to
bloom; and I mention in passing the appropriateness of the
inauguration of gardens his honour, having had the pleasure
of opening one such garden in Perth and, together with 0 () 23,33
mmmmmsvn WMR
President Herzog, another at the National Jewish Memorial
Centre in Canberra.
David Ben-Gurion worked all his life for the Israeli working
class. He was a great socialist, a man of great vision, an
inspiring leader for Labour Parties every where.
After Ben-Gurion proclaimed the independence of the State of
Israel on 14 May, 1948, he became its first Prime Minister,
and his inspired leadership over 15 years guided the new
nation through many of its early trials.
But David Ben-Gurion also knew that more . than physical
labour was needed to recreate the Jewish homeland and more
even than the idealism of Zionism.
What was also needed, regrettably, was the capacity to
defend itself. So he became not only the first Prime
Minister of the new nation but also its first Defence
Minister. And in the forty years since that proclamation, he and his
successors as Prime Minister and Defence Minister have had
to call on Israel's armed forces to defend the very
existence of the nation.
When I made my first visit to Israel in 1971 two years
before Ben-Gurion's death nothing could have been more
apparent than that Israel was then a country surrounded by
nations committed to its destruction. Israel's very
survival was in question.
Now, as a result of the brilliance and courage the Israeli
people exhibited in fighting for their collective survival,
the security of their nation is assured.
Throughout the whole cycle of the establishment and
entrenchment of the Israeli nation, one theme emerges as a
constant. It is a theme with which Ben-Gurion was familiar:
political courage.
I mean courage to take the risks inherent in the huge human
drama of Zionism; courage to fight when necessary a need
made all the more stark by the horror of the Holocaust; and
of complete relevance to today's Israel courage to know
when negotiation, not confrontation, is the right course.
Earlier this year I had the pleasure of making an official
visit to Israel, Jordan and Egypt which alflowed me at first
hand to gain-an up-to-date perspective of the current
position in the Middle East.
The Arab-Israeli dispute has resulted in four wars between
Israel and its neighbours since the Second World War. If it
is left unresolved, the dispute still has potential to
involve the rest of the world should the region become a
stage for conflict between the super powers. 00236S4
Yet it is my judgement, developed before my visit and'
strongly confirmed by it, that the leaders of Israel and of
two of the main Arab S * tates that are party to the dispute
Jordan and Egypt are committed to the achievement of peace
in the region.
I don't mean just the achievement of a formal peace which
would bring an end to the fighting. I mean, more
importantly, that they are committed to a constructive peace
which would advance the economic and social wellbeing, as
well as the political freedoms, of all the peoples in the
region.
There is no simple panacea or ready formula that can be
applied to resolve a conflict that goes back more than
years. But I believe some necessary elements are within
reach, which suggests strongly that the path to peace could
be opened up by courageous leaders.
I have already referred to the most important of these
elements. First, I believe, that the question facing Israel
is no longer the question of whether it has the capacity to
survive. Its survival is assured thanks in part to the
risks Israel was forced to take in fighting the wars of
1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.
The question now facing Israel is whether it can take
similar risks in entering negotiations, on the basis of its
assured survival, to achieve lasting peace.
And second, there may never again be a situation in which
Israel has, in King Hussein and President Mubarak, two
leaders who are unequivocally and sincerely committed to an
end of the fighting and tensions and to the creation of a
constructive peace in the region.
Accordingly the convening of an international peace
conference stands as a constructive possibility which must
be addressed if a settlement of the Middle East's problems
is to be found. Such a conference should not impose
solutions on the parties but would provide a framework
within which discussions between the parties could take
place. The actual mechanics of holding the conference whether for
example, the conference is attended by the five permanent
nations of the UN Security Council or held under the joint
auspices of the United States and Soviet Union are less
important than that the conference genuinely seek achieve
the desired result of peace.
The question of the PLO's involvement in a conference would
have to be determined in the process of discussions between
the parties.
The capacity of the PLO to play a role would depend on their
preparedness to accept Israel's right to exist and to
translate their tacit acceptance that Israel is going to
continue permanently to bepart of the map of the Middle
East into a formal statement of that position.
This would require, first, that the PLO shall in fact accept
and recognise UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
This would lead, second, to recognition of Israel's right to
exist within secure and internationally recognised
boundaries. And, third, they should repudiate the strategy
of terror and accept the process of negotiation.
If these three things were done, there would be in my
judgement an obligation upon Israel to reciprocate
contemporaneously by recognising the fact of the PLO's
representative capacity and its entitlement to participation
in the process of negotiation.
It is no secret that there is division within the Israeli
Government over the future course of events, and, in
particular, over the merit of an international conference.
Australia is not of course a party principal to the Middle
East dispute, but within our capacity, we stand ready to
help if that is the wish of the countries most directly
involved. Let me repeat that it is a sine qua non of Australian
involvement in peace effects in the IMiddle East that our
purpose is to achieve the necessary conditions by which
Israel can be totally secure and that peace is constructive
and hence lasting.
Ben Gurion spoke often of the common interests of Israel and
the Arab world, of the Middle East's potential to become the
world's richest garden, of how by standing together in
friendship and good will the countries of the middle East
could aspire to an independence and economic
self-sufficiency never achieved in all its history. In his
memoirs written in 1970, he said:
" Our desire for peace is constant we are prepared to
envisage important concessions in the name of a true
negotiation with the nations that surround us.
Certainly we stand ready to mobilise all the energy and
skills we have been forced to develop and invest in
defence, for the far more fruitful purpose of materially
aiding our neighbours to attain levels of peaceful
development
Today, the same challenge faces the Stater of Israel. Let us
hope that the vision of Ben Gurion inspires her leaders to
accept that challenge.
I do not underestimate for a minute the difficulty of the
course I am recommending.
But let me put to you the factor which compelled my
conclusion that Israel must take the path of negotiations.. 0 0 4_ 31 6G
It revolves around the simple and inexorable arithmetic of
demography.
The population of Israel, including the occupied
territories, consists roughly of 3 million Jews and 2
million Arabs. Of those 2 million Arabs, some 1.3 million
live in the occupied territories.
The population projections between 1985 and 2015 are for a
population growth among the Arab residents of some 2.7 per
cent and among the Jewish population of about 1.3 per cent.
What we must understand therefore is that by the turn of the
century the Jews could be a minority in their own land.
In such an outcome, Jews would then have to make the choice
between remaining a Jewish State or a democratic state.
That choice is unpalatable indeed it is unacceptable. It
is certainly not the choice that the founders of the State
of Israel including David Ben-Gurion dreamed of, or died
for. But unless the process of negotiation is pursued and
embraced, it is the choice that will face the next
generation of Israeli leaders.
Ladies and gentlemen
As many of you will know, I will be making an official visit
to the Soviet Union later this month, accompanied by my
Foreign Minister Bill Hayden and a delegation of Australian
businessmen. It is a very timely visit for many reasons, not least that
it will immediately precede the summit meeting between
Secretary-General Gorbachev and President Reagan, at which
the INF treaty is to be signed.
we can all, I believe, take deep satisfaction at this
manifestation by the superpowers of their intention and
capacity to work together constructively in their mutual
interest to the advancement of the safety and security of us
all. In particular, the signing of the INF treaty is very welcome
since it will be the first time the superpowers have agreed
to reduce, as opposed to slow the rate of growth of, their
nuclear arsenals.
In my talks with the Russian leadership I will be taking
every opportunity to advance the cause of further arms
control negotiations with the United States.
Bill Hayden and I will also be pushing very strongly an
issue of even greater significance to this audience, namely,
the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate. 0023637
Since we came to office, the Government has made clear to
the Soviet Union its concern about human rights there,
including the question of the rights of Soviet Jews.
Bill Hayden did this directly in Moscow in 1984. Both Bill
Hayden and I have raised the issue with Soviet
representatives in Canberra on a number of occasions.
I spoke with Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze about our
concerns on this during his March visit. Mr Shevardnadze
gave me his assurance that he would look into the cases
which we had passed to the Soviets.
And the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Joan Child,
presented a list of refuseniks to the Chairman of the
Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet on 4 July
1986. The latest figures to hand show that 782 Soviet Jews were
granted exit permission in August 1987, bringing the total
for the year to 4681.
Jewish emigration since April has averaged about 800 per
month. This is a welcome advance on the total of 914 for all of
1986, but less than the 2000 per month allowed to leave
during the 1970s.
There has been, happily, movement in regard both to
refuseniks on the Speaker's list and to family reunion.
All in all, we welcome the progress which has been made, and
the more open-minded attitude being shown by the Soviet
authorities, for example in* recently facilitating a visit to
Moscow by Mr Isi Liebler of your community, a gesture which
I believe is significant.
But there is ' clearly a. great deal more to be done in this
area and I am looking forward to my visit to Leningrad and
Moscow to advance this cause.
Ladies and gentlemen
I am grateful for your generous invitation to me to deliver
this address in honour of David Ben-Gurion.
There is an integrity, clarity and decency about him, which
continues to cast a wholesome reflection on humanity in
general and on Israel in particular.
This makes it all the more regrettable and remarkable that
perversions of the truth persist into our day. we have
recently seen the discreditable ideas of Mr David Irving
receive far more attention here and abroad than they could
conceivably deserve. 0 0 23 68
7
And we still encounter too frequently the obnoxious equation
of Zionism with racism which was asserted by the United
Nations itself, through its 1975 Resolution 3379.
It is my very great pleasure however that the Australian
Parliament last October passed a motion, unanimously, which
seeks to overturn the perverted logic of that UN Resolution.
I took even greater pleasure and pride in the fact that last
month on the first anniversary of the Australian
Parliament's decision, the US Senate passed a motion in
identical terms to our Australian motion. The motion was
referred to in debate in the US Senate as " the Australian
Resolution." By the terms of the resolutions, Australia and the United
States now stand together committed to lending support to
efforts to overthrow the UN Resolution. 3.
If this effort allows us to look with clearer eyes at the
original notion of Zionism as it was conceived of by the
pioneers of Sen-Gurion's generation, then so much the
better. Israel, as I have said, faces profound choices about its
future. The deliberation on these issues by the current
generation of leaders may well be aided by reference to the
thoughts of their predecessors.
So let me close with two quotations from David Ben-Gurion.
They are not too lengthy and I believe they are of direct
relevance to the issues I have raised this evening.
In these words, from an interview of 1965, Ben-Gurion
described the goals which he wanted to fulfill as Prime
Minister of the State of Israel.
Minise, yg wasfte crton ofc as modeoit
oriysel, m golon before Ireto ofc as Prmeoit
which could become, in the language of the Biblical
prophets, a light unto the nations' I wanted the new V~'
Israel to be a democratic society; to be idealistic;
~ to follow the injunction of helping thy neighbour; to
work hard in pioneering the desert spaces and rebuilding
our long neglected land; for all to work in harmony
with each other without the one being exploit(! d by the
other; to give homogeneity to the diverse immigrant
groups to whom we opened our gates on the very first day
of our State; to raise the educational, social and
economic levels of those who came from primitive lands
to a standard of equality with the veteran settlers; to
harness the boons of modern scientific discovery to the
ancient moral teachings of our forebears. These were my
goals, and the goals of my colleagues."
And to conclude, let me quote again from Ben-Gurion's
memoirs of 1970:
8
" What is Israel? It is two things: an Ark and a
Covenant; in other words a refuge and a dynamic. I
think the dynamic, the Covenant, takes precedence over
the concept of refuge.
the State of Israel will not be tested by its
strength of economy alone but by its spirit. We have
inherited a great heritage, and it is binding. We have
revolted against all regimes, religions, laws which
the powers of the world have attempted to impose on us
( The State of Israel) will be tested by the moral
image it will lend its citizens, by the human values
which will determine its international and external
relations, by its faithfulness, in deed and work, to the
supreme command of Judaism: " Though shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." S00370