(00:00:00) The time now is ten minutes past noon, you're listening to midday on NPR and coming up in about five minutes. We'll be hearing a speech by Abba eban. Former Israeli ambassador to the u.s. In the United Nations is topic is Roadblocks to peace in the Middle East ordered an Olsen is standing by at Northrop Auditorium at the University of Minnesota. So let's go back to him and turn the broadcast over to (00:00:22) him Daniel. All right. Thank you Stephen. And by my side is Professor Martin Sampson associate professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. And the two of us had a chance to sit in on the press conference at Ambassador even had beforehand and I came in late to Professor Sampson has joined us at our table here because he has a special interest in the Mideast he served in the Peace Corps as a volunteer for a few years in an Arab Nation. He was a student in Beirut before at a time. He points out when it was safe to be a student in Beirut now Professor Sampson here is this figure Ambassador, even who is a Founder as you put it and but a figure in semi-retirement apparently in Israel. Why is that? This is I think one of the extraordinary personalities of Israeli politics, he was around at the very beginning of the state served in a number of roles as an emissary of the state of Israel the 1950s and was one of the major parties people in the galaxy of the Labour party or more specifically the multi-party this past summer the party's convention to put together its list decided not to include him on the list. I think they're a number of reasons for that. He is a voice of moderation is that one of the reasons voice of moderation of voice of articulate voice of what had been the dominant part of the Israeli political Spectrum until the latter part of the 1970s our perspective that was very much opposed to much of the outlook for instance of the current prime minister of Israel. I imagine there are a number of his fans who would think that his voice is much needed now in the current debate surrounding Middle Eastern issues and yet apparently he has no role. Well, I think if you agree with what he's saying then of course, you're very Port of of his voice being included I think at the moment is I read it one of his perspectives is that the late 1980s are a time of great military strength for the state of Israel that Israel on did not worry in the short run about its military security and that secondly it should use that security to probe whatever it is that seems to be going on in the past year in the PLO. And in the Palestinian movement, I'd add a third part and in other words if there is a bluff to call the bluff if there is something there to nurture that to explore it and find out what it is. I'd add a third point I think to his Outlook that ABBA eban is amongst those who feel that the retention of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is a detriment to Israeli society that will have a very negative impact on the cohesion of Israeli politics and society and I suppose we need to understand that where he's coming from his point of view is he's a diplomat that's his training. That's his life's work. So naturally he's going to Quite a different point of view than a Shamir or others right or somewhat, but but I think that's true at the same time. I think he is a very articulate example of someone who does not see how retention of the occupied territories can be squared with a continuation of Israel as a democratic State and also has the Jewish tank do we know if the nation of Israel is using even in any fashion at all is he is he a participant in any kind of ongoing process regarding negotiations in the Middle East or is he now very much an observer? I don't know the answer to that. Although La cude party is the dominant Force now in the governing Coalition in Israel. He was a member of but of the knesset and they chose not to put them up for re-election apparently and that must reflect some of the political feeling in the country. Well his party though has been on the decline. It had dominated Israeli politics from 1948 to 1977 loses the 77 election. It has not prevailed in a subsequent election. Ministership for 10 of the past 12 years has been held by the other major party and the Labour party is I think very much in the process of reorganizing itself at the press conference just about 20 minutes ago Ambassador even said a number of things which are quite fun and entertaining he has a commanding this sense of History. He said at one point in diplomacy. He said the by word is to Never Say Never And then he took his audience of reporters and other folks there at the press conference on it World Tour naming leaders who had said we will never talk with so and so and then of course he Illustrated how in a few years they ended up talking and eating their words with particular people it is want to talk to and now we have this sense that the United States is taking these incremental steps in the approach to Middle East peace even said at the press conference, it's time for big steps from major goals to be Seth. What do you think of that? Well, I think the Never Say Never pertains specifically to the PLO and I think I'll buy Yvonne is not somebody that would have Discussions if in fact circumstances develop such that there are reasons for being optimistic about that possibility and here now is the introducer to the (00:05:10) introducer the introducer to the introducer happens to be the chairman of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents David levithan who is just putting his glasses on and stepping to the podium here at the stage Northrop Auditorium at the University (00:05:23) morning. I'm David levitoff chairman of the Board of Regents of the university and it's my honor on behalf of the University of Minnesota and it's Hubert Humphrey Institute of public affairs to welcome you to this 24th lecture in our ongoing distinguished Carlson lecture series I like as well to express our deep appreciation to Kurt Carlson. whose family is here and it was the most generous friend that this university has had since establishing this lecture series Kurt has gone on to had the most successful fundraising campaign in the history of American higher education and effort which of course was spearheaded by his own extraordinary gift and which has left the university with more than a hundred and twenty-five new chairs, but we have focused so much recently on that recent success that I think it's fortunate today that we can be reminded of Kurt's first great gift to us, which is this lecture series if Kurt had done nothing other than this he would rank as one of our greatest benefactors for this ongoing lecture Series so perfectly compatible with the spirit and the mission of a great University brings to the stage on an ongoing basis the most distinguished and thoughtful players in the drama of public life and permits us not only to hear them but to question them and to focus in a unique and valuable way on the great issues and And questions of our time the glittering list of names of the past speakers on the Carlson lectures series is I would suggest to you unmatched in diversity significance and Excellence. But if any name can add luster to that list it is that of today's speaker ABBA eban is always spoken of as one of the world's great speakers that description is certainly true is anyone here who has ever heard him will attest but in a sense to call him merely a great speaker does not go far enough a voice. However, stirring is not a disembodied construct. The reason ABBA eban is a great speaker is that he is a great thinker as well. His are not merely 'but Oracle skills. They are the product of the most careful thought and the most rigorous intellectual and moral honesty and they are the result of passion and commitment without which intellect itself cannot be fulfilled. So let us welcome. This great speaker who is more than a great speaker this voice who is mind and soul as well to do so properly. It is now my pleasure to invite Dean Edwards shoe dean of the Hubert Humphrey Institute of public affairs to introduce formally our most distinguished speaker, dr. Shoe. (00:08:21) Thank you chairman leopard or thank you. Good afternoon. Let me add my welcome to that of David Labrador who is Chairman of our Board of Regents? We're pleased that so many have come out for this important occasion, and I would emphasize that in addition to the usual broadcast of the Carlson lectures. Today. We are being broadcast simultaneously to our four coordinate campuses and to the Minneapolis Community College. Two distinct honor to introduce our Carlson lecture today. We're fortunate to have one of the great leaders of the world with us. And I have today to make an especially good introduction. last evening, I introduced him as a person who needed no introduction and then left it at that (00:09:19) our speaker reminded our small group (00:09:22) that he was accustomed to being introduced as somebody who needed no introduction, but then a 25 minute introduction usually follow now I won't take 25 minutes, but there are some things to be said to point up but an extraordinary person ABBA eban is when Ambassador even published his books the new diplomacy and Heritage civilization and the Jews no fewer than 10 reviewers in major newspapers across the world described him as quote the greatest living Master of the English language. That was based on his written works on another occasion someone noted and I quote it was his passionate and elegant eloquence which paved the way for the new born Jewish State's acceptance into the family of Nations and epitomized as well the pride that its rebirth evoked in millions in the quote. Let me repeat the key works (00:10:33) his passionate (00:10:34) and elegant eloquence. He is indeed passionate elegant and eloquent in his locution. Our speaker served as a major in the British army during World War 2 assigned to Jerusalem to train Jewish volunteers for Dangerous missions in Europe and the Middle East after the war he served with the Jewish agency (00:10:59) acting as its liaison officer (00:11:01) with the United Nations special Commission on Palestine and later is a member of the UN delegation. And after Israel declared its independence in May 1948. He was appointed its ambassador to the UN a post he held until 1959 now from 1950 to 1959. Mr. Eben held do a post since he was also ambassador to the United States. He has been a member of the knesset Israel's parliament and he has been minister of education and culture Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister and most recently chair of the knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence committee. His career has included far more than these political and diplomatic roles. However important as they are for example, he was the second President of the Weitzman Institute of science. During his Reign The Institute emerged on to the international scene as a highly respected institution. He's been a visiting professor at Columbia University. A member of The Institute for advanced studies at Princeton University and vice president of the UN conference on science and technology in advancement of new States. He's a (00:12:19) fellow of the World Academy (00:12:21) of Arts and Science and its us counterpart and has received numerous honorary degrees from us universities. He's the author of nine books. One of which Heritage civilization in the Jews was the basis of the PBS series. He hosted in 1984. He is currently in this country to update that series as this introduction suggest Ambassador evens contributions to society are varied and prodigious one wonders what he does in his spare time. The Ambassador has agreed to address us today on the topic roadblocks to peace in the Middle East. Let's give him a Minnesota (00:13:08) welcome. (00:13:29) I'm very grateful to you mister levitoff and Dean shrew for the warmth and sincerity of you're welcome. Let me assure you that it does me no harm at all to hear my qualities described with objective restraint. Chairman's introductions are a special and autonomous form of literary expression. If the objective is to reconcile courtesy with truth if possible with some bias in favor of courtesy and this has been generously accomplished this afternoon. I certainly emerge in better spirits than after the first occasion on which I was ever presented to an audience in the United States on that occasion the chairman apologizing for the brevity of his discourse said as your chairman, I don't have to make a long and boring speech because we've invited our by even here. (00:14:28) for that (00:14:29) purpose and even that memory had receded into Oblivion when I renounced my two embassies nine years later in the United States and the United Nations by that time, of course, the introductions were becoming much more effusive. And the last chairman who sped me on my homework Journey said ABBA eban is well-known throughout the entire civilized world and also here in the Bronx. I'm not going to say here in Minneapolis because this is not my first visit and if my intention has any weight not the last and my association with the Hubert Humphrey over the formative years of Israel's struggle is one of the warmest of my political memories Hubert was a very easy man to talk to because you didn't have to do very much of the talking (00:15:28) yourself. (00:15:31) But it was always with astonishment that when checking afterwards I discovered he that he really had done all his homework on all the diverse and variegated subjects on which he spoke but behind the authority of knowledge there lay that deep and moving and touching capacity for friendship, which I believe illuminated the lives of all who made contact with him. My second tribute of gratitude goes out to all of you for converging here in such large numbers today by this you give expression to these special concern with which the American people follows the fortunes of the Middle East in this formative and turbulent hour. But for the dramatic events of the last year and a half, the people of Israel would have spent most of last year in celebrating the 40th anniversary of our independence. Those of you who were in our country during that period will testify that there was not a festive or an ecstatic atmosphere. Israel celebrated in a very reflective mood Like many new societies we were caught up in the inevitable contrast. between the past dreams and the present realities between the utopian perfection in the name of which we announced our emergence on the international stage and the harsh realities brought about by the inevitable conflicts of interest in our in our region. In order to capture the imagination of the world it was necessary as I can personally testify to indulge in a utopian rhetoric we could do this because they were so little on the ground which could refute what we were saying. It was a young society and therefore much more concerned with the future. Than with past memory or with present reality and we made very strong commitments to ourselves and to the world. What did we not invoke? We invoked the most ancient spiritual memories of mankind. We invoked prophecy. We invoked the claims of our martyrdom and our anguish. But you'll notice that the only troubled about Utopia is that it doesn't exist. And all those who have made literary attempts at portraying the ideal Society have taken the precaution of putting their Utopia on a desert island or on the peak of some inaccessible mounting. And thereby to inherit the two qualities which are necessary for Utopia. No Boundaries and no Neighbors And therefore a total freedom for a society to draw its future in terms of its own image Plato's Republic has no foreign policy. Well Israel has boundaries and and it has Neighbors. Therefore it has never been free to indulge. Its own soaring Ambitions. It has been subjected to the compromises and the dilemmas. Of which the International System is an Inseparable part. I've never had any problem with your Christian doctrine which tells you that you must love your neighbors and love your enemies. That's quite logical because they're usually the same people (00:19:27) the (00:19:31) and yet I believe Israel was entitled to celebrate those 40 years when everything is said and done and written Israel is a triumphant celebration of resilience and vitality. It is about everything else a drama of growth the growth of a people. 600,000 in those embattled years when our very survival stood on the precipice of Extinction. And now three and a half million Jews in a country of more than four and a quarter million citizens, perhaps the highest rate of demographic growth in any modern state. The growth of any of an economy which had nothing to offer to the world markets in those days. But which in the last recorded year 1988 exported goods and services in the extent of 12 and a half billion dollars in the world markets. Perhaps the highest rate surprisingly of exportable surplus of any modern state. The growth of a society more accurately saving a society from The Perils of Anarchy which seemed to threaten Us in the light of the bewildering variety of tongues and Origins and backgrounds and experiences and temperaments out of which our immigrant flow had come. There are sometimes some evidences of Anarchy in Israel's life, especially when you investigate our parliamentary politics. But underneath all the tumult of Divergence diversity contention. There is an underlying coherence and solidarity especially when our people comes face-to-face with adversity and danger do not be disconcerted by the intensity of our debate or the variety of our views diversity and debate are not a burden to be reluctantly born. They are the saving grace and the crowning Glory of a free and open Society. I say this because many of Israel's friends in the world, especially in the Jewish communities are with all my affection for them impossible people. They say to me two things first, isn't it? Wonderful that Israel is a democracy and second. How come that all Israelis are not United in unanimous on all the intricate problems that confront them. Well, we're not unanimous because we are a democracy. We seek out decisions not through the blind acceptance of official Dogma but through the interaction. of contradictory and alternative choices the growth also of a culture the more precisely the Revival of Mankind's oldest culture. The only people whose continuous intellectual and spiritual experience extends over the whole of time from the dim roots of man's past. To The Shining possibilities of his future from ancient prophecy to modern science. The only people whose experiences comprehended the entire range of man's intellectual Adventure without any interruption. the growth of security of a people which tasted the taste of Joy the joy of birth and the fear of death at one and the same time Which face the possibility of elimination from the very hour of its emergence and which now possesses a capacity of Defence and deterrence and if necessary reprisal which make it unique in the history of mankind. I don't say that Israel is the greatest of all the military Powers, although I've never claimed that modesty is the most spectacular of all the Israeli virtues. But it is certainly the strongest small nation in the history of mankind because never has a nation of that those dimensions. Concentrated in its hands the such a capacity for protection. Therefore one of the paradoxes of Israel's life after these 40 years is the extraordinary disparity between the reality of our power and the psychology of our vulnerability. And the idea that your lives if we are close to our enemies, they are also very close to answer the Carlson lecture series never seems to cross the Israeli mind. Whereas in fact their vulnerability is much more patents than ours. You cannot blame Israel if it has a somewhat abnormal sensitivity about security. The only people that has lost six million of its Kinsmen in an orgy of violence. The only state in the International Community that hasn't known a single month of Peace in all the years of its National Revival. How can such a people and such a state not have an abnormally sensitive reaction to any proposals or prospects which have bearing upon physical security. For most of life to be a Jew in to be alive was an almost impossible contradiction and now having emerged into the Sovereign Community past memories are much more influential in our security policy than the strength and power of our present condition. And how can we omit from this short list of Israel's accomplishments? the great human achievement bringing hundreds of thousands of our Kinsmen from the depths of weakness and despair into the emergence of a new life and a new hope Israel is a great and Noble Adventure. I could in fact spend our Brief Encounter today doing nothing, but declaim the rhetoric of self-congratulation. Some of Israel friends in the world believe that we ask nothing of them. except uncritical adulation What I call the Jewish Mothers syndrome. The implication that The Offspring is totally free from any limitation or defect. Well, the Jewish mother approached us have emotional satisfactions, but it has intellectual dangers chief of which is the danger less. The recipient of the praise should come to believe everything that is said on his behalf. And thereby to become virtually unfit for any fruitful human contact. I had a Jewish mother who used to say and believe that I had achieved the highest peaks of intellectual and moral perfection and the fact that that's more or less true in my particular case does not validate it as a general principle. Forgive me there 4578 you today, not only with our accomplishments and successes achievements, but also with our dilemmas our crises and the special anguish of this particular time. For the fact is that Israel faces its fifth decade in unanticipated growth of material power demographic power economic technological sociological military. But in deep confusion about its structure and values. first the confusion of structure This arises of course from the circumstances which brought us since 1967. Into a structural condition without precedent in the modern world there. We are the state of Israel this intensely Democratic populist juridically rigorous. Hebrew Jewish Zionist State and carrying with it a capsule which is none of these things the West Bank and Gaza and its populations where there isn't any democracy or any accepted legal culture. or any degree of consent or of Harmony We're not for a single minute in the 24 hours of the day. Do the Palestine Arabs under military control and the population of Israel experienced a single common thought sentiment emotion memory. Hope aspiration. There isn't any country on the face of the inhabited Globe, which is marked by such a sharp discontinuity. As that which is involved from the transition from the state of Israel to the West Bank and Gaza. Nothing that is cherished in one place has any meaning in the other? And therefore the fact of their Union in conditions of coercion represents not simply a problem for the International Community about the deep and poignant issue of domestic concern. disharmony and disquiet now it isn't simply because we are Jews and they are Muslims over because we are it's Raley's and they are Arabs about this condition of Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza has such a dislocated implications. It would happen anywhere else at a seminar in Holland a few months ago. I asked my hosts in order to illustrate the Dilemma whether in order to gain more territory Holland and heaven knows they needed Israel science with population of 14 million, but if they had to incorporate four and a half million Germans against their will Therefore to be exercising jurisdiction over 37 percent of their population without any element of consent or of national affinity and harmony. Of course, they recoiled in horror from such a prospect how far back would you have to go in European history to understand that this was a prescription for suicide? That I had a visit from my friendly foreign minister of Denmark. And he reminded me that there was a place called schleswig-holstein which is now a province of the Federal Republic of Germany. But which was for long periods governed by Denmark. And after the second world war the Victorious allies wanted to reward a Denmark for its Fidelity to freedom and Justice a Fidelity of which the Jewish people were the main beneficiaries. And they wanted to restore schleswig-holstein to the Danish Crown but the cautious Scandinavians ask themselves. What happens there now? Well, they were told you would have to be in a condition in which they would be two and a quarter million Germans about 36 percent of your population who wouldn't desire to be under your rule. No, thank you very much was the lucid and cautious answer. Because they understood that the security of a country is not solely or mainly a function of its territorial configuration. It is above every everything else a consequence of its internal coherence and unity and social harmony the desire and consent of the vast majority of a population to live with other parts of the population in respect of the same flag of the same tongue and the same past experience in the same memory a nation said a great French historian is a soul a spiritual principle. A common memory of the past the common. Hope of the future. To have done great things together to want to do them. Again. That is the source of the authentic identity of a Nation. But why should we have to go so far afield to understand the impossibility of maintaining over a long period a society that is not based on consent. I use that word in obedient to the great Jeffersonian declaration the most important political words that exist in the English language governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I did the West Bank and Gaza. There isn't even the fraction of 1% of consent. For the permanent maintenance of Israeli rule, not only because of the asperities of which they are the victims, but because of the principle which denies that particular Union any of those conditions of stability, which have ever kept estate together across the border we see the agony of Lebanon. Well, there was once the great vision of a Christian Lebanon A great vision because it was based on the hope that all the three major spiritual civilizations in the Middle East would be represented by sovereign states Judaism in Israel Christianity in Lebanon Islam in the surrounding Islamic States. But that Vision was destroyed by the Lebanese Christians themselves. When under the influence of the tutelary power of France. They expanded their territory. And they called it Greater Lebanon the girl Devon and they were rejoiced in the new expansive their space. But they failed to be aware that in expanding their territory. They had Incorporated over 1 million Syrian Muslims against their will and therefore their state was condemned to incoherence and domestic violence because it was not based on consent. And then the Lebanese Christians began counting themselves every year. We are 60% 5853 o49 4842 and now Christian Lebanon is dead because they prefer territorial expansion to national identity and coherence. Their Vision has been lost in Lebanon will be everything except a Christian state. It will be either and the king or a Shiite Muslim Republic. My friends my experience teaches me that men and Nations sometimes behave wisely. Once they have exhausted all the other alternatives. When our first of the president the great high in vitamin was elected to his high office for some reasons that I've never understood the people and government of Burma became ecstatically excited the Jewish people returning to political history, and they wanted to restore honor the Israeli president with a gift and the gift was to be an Indian Elephant weighing many tons and president Weitzman ask me. He's very young and Junior associate To draft a courteous letter saying that in his native Village in Russia. There used to be a proverb amongst the Jewish Farmers never accept a present that eats. (00:35:56) So the (00:36:00) so when when somebody offers you more territory find out what it is what it erodes of your National cohesion your internal Harmony. Your image your Regional relations and your International friendships as well. Well, that's the greatest you and the events of the last year have brought it to a point where there has to be a decision. You can always of course evade the decision by pretending that there is National Unity. There isn't National Unity this issue Cuts Like a scar across our political life. You can always use words to pretend that you agree when you don't I call that consensus. consensus means that everybody says collectively what nobody believes individually The problem now therefore it's not how to express are not exist in harmony, but how to reach a decision. Like the great decision which the founding fathers of our state for decades ago had the genius to embrace when they understood that in order to make this Sensational breakthrough into International life. They had to adopt the rhetoric of compromise. And to understand the basic fact about our land that it is a land. of two faiths and of two tongues and of two Nations and of two peoples of two passions of two memories of to aspirations and of to National identities, And therefore any coercive unit restructure that forces one to live under the rule of the other must be morally fragile and intellectually grotesque. There isn't such a thing anywhere in the world. And because it is this Duality which is intrinsic to our land that the solution must be what I call a partition solution you can argue about the way the degree but we must share territory and we must share sovereignty. Because history and experience have separated us. Above everything else. We are a land of two histories. One history took its Origins at the dawn of civilization with the inalienable right of the Jewish people to see that land as its Homeland but there's another history which arose in the seventh century and which is now 13 centuries old namely the arrival of the Arab Muslims from the hedges and since then their continuous residence and construction of their community and therefore any political solution to be viable to be non-explosive. You must inherently be one which shares Sovereign sovereignty and shares territory. Now, that's very relevant to the 40th anniversary. Because the Great Wheel of History comes back again to its point of origin. What was our position then we were a minority 600,000 Jews in the Palestine of 2 million and we claimed statehood. When does a minority become a state? When does an international organization ratify the right of secession for a minority its right to establish its own flag and its own name. It hadn't happened before. It hasn't happened since it's very unlikely to happen again. In other words the Jewish people for a brief Shining Moment. Was the object of a special Grace and Indulgence from the world community? Perhaps because of guilt at the enormity. Of our suffering perhaps because of memory of what the Jewish people had meant in these spiritual history of mankind, whatever the reason we established this breakthrough this Sensational International decision to encourage the Jewish people despite Regional hostility to establish its state without this we would not have become a state then and wouldn't be a state today. But there's a price to everything. And just because of that breakthrough Israel enters International life in a contractual mood. We claimed and received the indispensable authority to establish our state. And that decision both inspired and fortified our Victory on the battlefield. But in return in return we promised that we wouldn't claim a hundred percent of the territory and a hundred percent of the sovereignty. We said that we would share territory and would share sovereignty. And I bear witness has the last participant in that Central drama that if we had claimed a hundred percent of the territory or a hundred percent of the sovereignty. The number of countries that would have given us their support and their vote would have been zero. And the world Community would have organized itself successfully to prevent our emergence. So now we Face the problem of historic relativity. Now as a result of their suffering their failure the defeat of the militant Onslaught the neighboring people says it wants to share. Is this an appropriate problem for us to say very interesting. We just want a hundred percent. And that's why the present condition in which Israel does exercise a hundred percent of the sovereignty and the hundred percent of the territory. Together with all the abrasiveness of methods by which this is perpetuated is Israel's Central crisis. It's the source not only of our regional and international tensions. It is the source also of our lack of internal Harmony and it is on this that the Israeli people is now revolving. It's thought Along with a crisis of structure that comes a crisis of values because in order to achieve or to maintain that kind of jurisdiction. You cannot do things which are visually aesthetic. Or which evoke any kind of Pride or satisfaction the television camera tells stories and this of course is the enormous transformation of modern international politics. It isn't any longer a matter for the mandarins and foreign. Ministries all for the elites or even for the academicians alone. It is now a popular reflection since war is everybody's tragedy piece is everybody's business. And therefore whatever else is thought about the future. We must take our journey from the central starting point. The status quo is the worst of all possible options. And I would say that the Israeli people also is divided on this question between those who do not want the status quo because they object to it in model principle and in terms of Jewish experience and those who do want the status quo, but who know in their hearts that it's not possible. Those who believe that the present condition can exist without explosion are becoming progressively Less in the International Community. They are 0 there is not one single state in the International Community which believes in the permanent legitimacy of the present condition what then are the prospects for changing it the Israeli problem arises from the fact that the present condition was created and not by Israel, but paradoxically by its neighbors The drama doesn't open with Israel refusing to share territory and share sovereignty. We offered to share territory and sovereignty but then the Palestinian movement demanded a hundred percent of the territory in the sovereignty for itself. They have learned the hard way that in the Middle East as perhaps everywhere else those who ask for All or Nothing a much more likely to get nothing then to get all. Obviously they have never missed a chance of losing an opportunity. But what happens when now under the impact of the Dilemma there is a growth of pragmatism and realism which brings them to the suggestion of sharing that is the central Israeli crisis. Perhaps we were justifiably Intoxicated by the success of our fight against aggression of the great and glorious victories in the Six-Day War. We failed to notice that that was not a victory that changed the balance of power because our adversaries emerged in the Arab world intact in the regime's in the preponderance of their territory their population, the multiplicity of their sovereignties their commander of the international voting systems their mineral wealth their monetary power and is still there for had the capacity of refusal the fact that we didn't need them to ensure our security didn't mean to say that we didn't need them to have peace. We could impose our security upon them. There was no other course but peace cannot be imposed and perhaps the glory and suddenness of our Victory elevated our minds are but you don't have the cross in lecture series. I've never had a problem with the other Christian doctrine that the meek shall inherit the earth. But my question is whether having inherited it they will continue to be meek. So here then is the problem of the emotional psychological problem and yet I must tell you that despite all the external evidence. There is reason that 1989 maybe the year of change the situation on the ground is static. But opinion is on the move. It's on the Move in the United States and in the Palestine Community and in Israel and even in the Soviet Union. The United States has emerged from Total passivity into a willingness cautious in my own modest opinion exaggeratedly cautious. The disposition to give its good offices to examine at least a step by step approach. I'm not a great enthusiastic of this rhetoric about modest steps. I think sometimes there is room for large strides and wide visions and sometimes the change of administration's is the occasion for this. I would much have preferred an attempt to seize the future Horizon and to present a total blueprint for the Arab Jordanian Palestinian and Israeli Nations living within an agreed context. I'm not a believer in transitory arrangements so long as the matter is unsettled. Both parties will maneuver to influence the final settlement to their advantage, but at least the United States is prepared to offer a measure of mediation. And in our region we have to be thankful for small mercies and in that case, it might be better not to call them small. There is movement. Of course in the Palestine Community symbolized by a dramatic and tangental change of rhetoric and divide geology. The dynamic was created to its credit by the United States. When in December last year it decided to enter a dialogue with a Palestine Liberation Organization. I said at the time that the decision of the United States of secretary Schultz sustained by the new Administration to open that dialogue once a service to the Middle East and to Israel. Enter the international interest. You cannot influence a problem without having contact with all its Central actors. And although I admire the general approach of those of my parliamentary colleagues who say that we are prepared to negotiate with Palestinian Representatives provided that we can decide who they are. That's a little too attractive to be true in international life. The one thing you cannot do is to have any control over the identity of your negotiating partner. It would be very luxurious. If we were able to appoint the Israeli delegation and then to appoint the Palestinian delegation. Nobody in international history has ever succeeded in this. The first the British didn't want to negotiate with the Indian congress party over the mau mau terrorists of Kenyatta. Or with makarios in Cyprus. The United States didn't want to shake hands with the Chinese Republic at a meeting in Geneva. Didn't want to recognize the Chinese Republic for many years after its permanence was manifest. The Soviet Union has performed the intense Folly of breaking relations with Israel and thereby excluding itself from any control over the Middle East and Future. I hope that the we will not follow these rituals of self-exclusion by declining to understand that we must have discourse with our enemies not because they are amiable or pleasant but on the contrary because they are abrasive and unpleasant diplomacy has nothing whatever to do with Amy ability diplomacy is not theology. It does not promised salvation. And it's challenge does not lie in celebrating friendships, but in coming to terms with those whom you have no reason whatever to love or to admire. And certainly there is enough evidence of change in the Palestine Community to justify an exploration of its methods and especially in the light of the fact that it isn't rhetoric alone because the Israeli Ministry of Defense, which is usually a bulwark of skepticism. has announced its finding that since December last there has been a total cessation of violence or planning of Violence by those parts or groups in the PLO who accept the jurisdiction of Yasser Arafat, it would be better to have a total cessation of violence, but if you can get a total cessation And 90% of cessation isn't a bad idea. Especially if we are the people who live under the permanent threat. movement also in Israel When you have a poll in which 54% of the Israeli people is willing to make some sharing of territory and 58% are prepared to negotiate or to hold dialogue with the PLO. If there is no other course in which the major university think-tank announces that there isn't any other recourse except that organization and when the chief of military intelligence states to our own cabinet that there isn't any other way of negotiating except with those whom the Palestinians will appoint and that their movement has undergone a tangential change of away from fantasy of Israel's destruction towards the reality of Israel's permanence. Change also in the Soviet Union without whose Association it is doubtful. If a settlement can be brought to fruition. All the great occasions in Israel's history nearly. All of them have been marked by Soviet American cooperation. They cooperated in the great partition resolution. The first recognition of the Jewish people's right to establish a state they cooperated in the Armistice agreement. They jointly presented Israel's candidacy for membership in the United Nations and in all the specialized agencies, they cooperated in all the cease-fires. They are Partners in resolution 242, which is really the blueprint for the basic conditions of peaceful coexistence. They cooperated in resolution 338 the first statement for a negotiated settlement. They were joint chairman at the Geneva peace conference. They are therefore responsible for the disengagement agreements conducted as the Kissinger shuttle in 1974. Well, if that is the case why despair of the future and if I believe that there can be a convergence of American and Soviet influence in favor of responsible developments in the Middle East it is because of the broader International context and the skeptic Skeptics should ask themselves. These questions did the Skeptics believe two years ago that they would now be Soviet officers in Oklahoma and Nebraska examining the American nuclear deterrent today one believed that they would now be American officers visiting Soviet basis to watch the actual dismantling of intermediate ballistic missiles. Did we expect that? The Iraqi Iranian War would grind to a halt under United Nations influence the did we believe in Soviet American cooperation in the evacuation of Cuban mercenaries from Angola. Did we believe that they would both preside over the end of the namibian crisis the emergence of the people of Namibia from their previous subjection do they believe that they would now be a great Prospect of alleviating the tragedy in kampuchea. There is a new spirit a new wind that is blowing in the world and the world in which the two superpowers are cooperating on so many Regional issues should not be a world in which the only place in which they do not cooperate should be the land from which the message of peace first went forth to succeeding Generations. of mankind and therefore an optimist For the simple reason that I find the alternatives to optimism so depressing. But also because there is evidence of a new despair across the world about the viability of military Solutions. At a seminar over which I presided in Jerusalem a few weeks ago an imminent Soviet representative said that his country has learned something about the impossibility of coercive jurisdiction, and that that is the lesson that Afghanistan. And I was consoled in human terms by the thought of every country seems to have to go through the experience of a failure of military power. And if the Soviet Union has its Afghanistan and the United States has its Vietnam and France has its Algeria and Britain has its Suez and Israel has its Lebanese War then we should all have been inoculated against folly. By the very experience of self-inflicted irrationality. Before I believe that the the road is objectively open and perhaps we might begin to understand the Paradox of the Modern Age. The more the Power becomes vast the less is it usable? And the more impressive it is in size. The less relevant. It is in conciliation and perhaps all of us should by now have learned. We should have learned after the 67 War perhaps America Britain France the Soviet Union should have learnt without experience. Watch the great Churchill once said about when he warned against the fierce, but fading glare of military success. The fierce but failing layer of military success or what Genius of language there is in that phrase. And how Fierce 10 that success be in yet, how swiftly does it fade? So this is going to be a great year for good or for ill and that is hope for good. At least there is a modest mediatory process which has started out his didn't lie on the road and all that we in Israel can ask for is the solidarity of our friends. And what are my credentials for seeking that solidarity except that which we have accomplished in these 40 years. We haven't disappointed all your hopes. The state that we have built the society that we have fashioned the Landscapes that we have quickened into life the freedom that we have defended the graves that we have Doug. The tears that we have shed because of them for passions that have been roused the inexpressible hopes that have been kindled all these are part of the memory of these 40 years. And now those years are over. Over and yet in a sense and ending and forever alive for as those decades sink down beneath the horizon. They leave behind a Twilight streaked with Everlasting fire that will live on and on deep in the mind and heart of our nation so long as any memory of the past and yours those 40 years with their Joys and sorrows. They're unendurable pathos discard and Racket Splendor have entered our nation's memory until the end of time. This then is our message to those who have sustained us do not abandon us in the middle of the road stand with us steadfast in purpose constant in resolved. Until the obstacles are surmounted and the task is done. (00:59:50) That's her Abba eban speaking for the most part without notes this Carlson lecture 5 from the University of Minnesota and parts of Auditorium and the Minneapolis campus now stepping through the microphone Edward shoe the dean of every Institute respond to (01:00:10) questions, which we have collected from the audience. Mr. Ambassador. I'm going to give you a real tough one in the beginning. Well, you get warmed up the question is what do you do in your spare (01:00:21) time? (01:00:24) I mean my spare time I give lectures like these. Question is I think you've already answered this but what about that like to make a statement first I was asked if I objected to questions I said I didn't object to questions. I now find that you want answers as well. So nobody warned me about that, but I'm very very happy question is is there going to be an independent Palestinian state in the next 10 to 15 years. If so, will it be able to live at peace with Israel? I think that's a central question because that is the demand of the atom world. And at the moment, this does not evoke a response. Not only from Israel, but from the United States. But I believe it would be wise to keep the structural problem open. The prior question is not whether they'll be a Palestine state, but will Israel relinquish control of large parts of the West Bank and Gaza? If we do make that decision, which I think is inevitable because the alternative of maintaining this jurisdiction is simply to wait the explosion. It's an explosive Tranquility. It's the only situation in the international World which is not supported by a single state and which is also rejected by at least the million Israelis who voted for the termination of that military or military rule that the Palestinians have behaved in such a way as to evoke justifiable skepticism about their intention is therefore for them to prove. both in argument and inaction the fact that such a mini state would not be dangerous to Israel's security the reasons for believing that it wouldn't be dangerous are as follows first. It would be very small. Secondly, it will be very weak. Those who speak about the destruction of Israel have to indulge in impossible scenarios in which the PLO with its eight thousand armed men armed with bottles and with stones and with a few Rusty machine guns can Prevail against Israel with its 4000 tanks more than the Soviets had at Stalingrad with its 700 missile bearing aircraft and quoting the military balance report of the Tel Aviv University of strategic centers with its endless artillery and and electronics. Certainly more aircraft than the few to whom the many out so much. And with a 500,000 mobilizer will Manpower how they're going to be destroyed by the PLO is like asking how the Soviet Union could be destroyed by Luxembourg. In other words, we should take more account of the vulnerability of our neighbors and less account of their intentions. Because if your enemy is malicious, but also impotent then you can live with his malice. But if in addition to being malicious he is also preponderantly powerful. That's a very serious issue. And therefore my feeling is the best solution would be not a totally separate independent state but I have argued and will argue for what I've called the community solution namely the three nations Jordanian Israeli and Palestinian can be United in a system such as what we then call the Benelux model the three small countries Belgium Netherlands and Luxembourg. Which in the 1940s. created the idea of sovereignty limited and restrained by integration and by a common security and foreign policy this decision by the three became the decision of the six and the nine and now the 12 And now the 12 states of the European Community which have behind them a much more bloodthirsty record of antagonism and human anguish. Even then the arab-israeli conflict have formed that kind of system where yes, they are, of course independent. They cannot do what they like. They cannot maintain alliances against each other. They must concert their armament and their military policies. They adopt free in their economic policies. They must integrate their policies. They must keep their Frontiers open access ability. I really suggest that since that is the only example in history. In which sovereignty is at the one of the same time limited and yet not abolished transcended and yet still respected. I believe there should be a community of states of the Middle East with the three nations joined together in that system of what I would call him restrained sovereignty and in other words these matters ought to be examined and that's the value of a negotiating process and I would hope that the United States would not simply say they're against a Palestine state in all conditions. It depends on the nature of the policy the size the strength of the state and upon the structural context in which it exists. I would rather United States would be silent. If it says that the occupation is not possible. They want to change the status quo. I don't think it should then rule out any of the other options unconditionally. Second question with the requirement by mr. Arafat and the PLO that elections on the Westbank be held under un auspices and after occupation has ceased is it reasonable to think there will be elections. I think after. Occupation that's East. I don't think that's reasonable or realistic. For example, some Israeli leaders have said we will have elections after the uprising ceases completely that's also attractive and not very likely because the uprising is a consequence of the occupation and therefore to say we'd like the occupation. But if you don't mind we'd like it to be peaceful. I think that's that would be very grateful that it's not very it's not very likely and therefore on the other side to say that they must be Israeli withdrawal, but that's what the negotiation is about and therefore but the request I believe for third-party supervision is a valid request. I believe that most of the world including the United States would support it. There's a total absence of trust. And what there is behind the proposal is the Assumption which I'm afraid is a correct assumption that even to have an election let alone a negotiation even the election of negotiators would require a substantial change in the military Administration. If you have an election, then all the voters must be free to say what they want. But today the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza are not free to say what they want supposing they say they want the Plo Koon be jailed for saying that supposedly want to put up a flag. Then the they can be there's proceedings against them. They can be attacked for saying that in other words when the Prime Minister Shamir says elections question is whether he and others understand the implications. You cannot have an election unless you have the primary condition that people must be free to say what they say even if what they say is it's very pleasing to the governed. Because if you have an election in which you're only allowed to say what is pleasing to the government you might as well not have an election at all. So I would say that I wouldn't make too many conditions like the end of the intifada or the withdrawal of Israeli troops, but certainly a permission and international supervision to have the kind of election which hasn't been had so far and I believe that would be a reasonable test of the sincerity of the parties. Mr. Ambassador. Sometimes we have loaded questions and I think the next one is foreign ambassador. I think mr. Shamir Shamir, maybe the biggest roadblock to piece this person says he talks about peace but his actions move in the opposite direction. Please comment. I would I think of it instead of invective and criticism I could give you a critical Gallery about very many actors in this drama. I would say that since there is now an Acceptance in principle. Let's see where it goes because whether that is a just and rational Vision can be put to the test of action within a few weeks. The first test. Is that which I have referred to if mr. Shamir accepts the normal conditions which surround an election that might be an indication of incipient realism. And as I've said that sometimes people do become rational and they've exhausted all the other Alternatives and the fact is that you can only appeal in You might say well he offered this Alpha out of self-interest. That doesn't worry me at all because Arafat made it makes his speeches out of self-interest. My experience tells me that all governments take their decisions in the name of self-interest and then explain their decisions in the name of self-sacrificial moral purity. So it seems to me that we ought to leave him to answer that question within the next few weeks and not for me to make character sketches. Now. I am writing a book of character sketches and I am as this chairman said during another television series therefore many politicians in the Middle East. Should be sleeping less peacefully than they are (01:10:29) ha ha ha, but at the (01:10:31) moment, I would say that I wouldn't accept that definition unless we see that it's Vindicated in reality and the Vince since it's going to come to a test very quickly. I would give a credit or some degree of credibility to the other. Possibility that out of a view of Israeli self-interest there is going to be a more flexible attitude on his part and on the part of others. That was the hope at any rate of the United States government in its encounters last week. Ambassador going to shift ground a little bit question is why are the Soviet Jews recently released choosing to await admittance to u.s. Rather than go to Israel. I think as an Israeli, and there's a Zionist. I regret their choice, but I didn't see any way of not respecting their choice. I do not accept the view that was put by high officials of the Israeli government of the state department last year asking the state department the United States. to limit or to eliminate the entry of Jews into the United States in the hope that they would take Israel. I don't quite see how the United States or American Jews can possibly accept that proposition how American Jews can say the Soviet Jews we intend to live in America, but you've got to go to Israel. American Jews who remember the arrival of their fathers at Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. I don't believe they can possibly take that view. And when one of these really diplomats said that Israel wants every door except Israel to be closed when he said this to mr. Schultz. And that because Israel has this great romance this great memory The Saga of receiving refugees sacred Schultz said that we might be surprised to learn that the United States thinks that it has a great romance and a great Saga and no small measure of success in the acceptance of refugees. So they'll have to take their choice the fact is and this is one of the problems of our structure in the early years. The Soviet Jews were attracted by Israel today. They are not magnetically attracted and there's no doubt in my mind that one of the factors in causing them to take other options is what I've called this structural Paradox of Israel the this business of Being seemingly committed to a jurisdiction which can only be applied by methods of physical coercion and they come from a society in which they've had enough of that. I think that's one of the reasons why the achievement of a solution by consent would make Israel more attractive to immigrants from the Soviet Union and from other countries, but since that isn't happening We must draw another lesson, which is relevant to what I've said in my lecture if the Jews of the world have said that they want Israel to exist, but they wanted to be small. I'm afraid that's the consequence of their decision American Jews have never been less inclined to separate themselves from their part in the American drama. That's true of the Jews of Western Europe as well. They never felt safer more confident. All right, if they've decided where to be small when are three and a half million Jews? That's that's the situation but then we must say. All right. We're who are we then three and a half million? We have New Zealand. We are Denmark. Very respectable thing to be but if we are New Zealand or Denmark, we can't behave like the Roman Empire. and try to rule in time at least and if we Norway New Zealand Denmark been we can't behave like through the of the British Empire at the Zenith with the gunboats and a quarter of the world. And if we're a small nation state then we cannot behave like a superpower extending its influence over vast hemisphere as we ought to know what we are and that means we are much more compelled by our smallness. To reach compromises with our neighbors and not to believe that we could remain a lonely embattled isolated besieged country. It makes the need to make compromises for peace. Even more exigence than they might otherwise have been. Go to put two together here first. I'd like to ask you about the rise of fundamentalism within Israel in among Arabs. How can their influence be lessened or their voices be modified? So that peace can be achieved second question. Will the ultra conservative element in Israel? Just as much of a hindrance to peace as the PLO. The the only way to limit fundamentalism is to rejected resisted. First of all not to go along with it and not to do what they want. In the Jewish context this means to actually to refuse the attempt to impose a rigorous dogmatic Orthodoxy upon what is fundamentally a secular liberal Community not go along with that first time in Jewish history. We have a small part of the Jewish world that is say the rigorously Orthodox part saying to other Jews who Express their spirituality in other methods in other Frameworks anchor reform conservative saying throughout the Jews. Your synagogues are not synagogues. Your rabbis are not rabbis. Your marriages are not marriages your divorces cannot divorce as your conversions are not conversions sort of expelling them from their Jewish pride and identity. Well, that's unacceptable and we must resist it and I'm happy to say that so far. in our Parliament we've resisted it would be tragic. If we were to humiliate the majority of Jews in favor of the pressure of a minority on the Muslim side. It plays a part in Israel. But frankly these essays about fundamentalism Muslim fundamentalism in Gaza. Do not impress me because supposing that the Arabs in Gaza. We're not Muslim fundamentalists supposing that they were Dutch Calvinists or Norwegian Lutheran's or Battalion Catholics. But of Zionist Jews, are you going to tell me they wouldn't be throwing stones if they were living in those conditions of an external jurisdiction with lack of freedom to demonstrate its their condition and not their ideology which drives them and finally, I think the best hope for the failure of fundamentalism Islam is the fact that it's a failure after all Iran is a failure Khomeini has a failure. a country which despite its repressive regime It was the fifth or the sixth most powerful in the world. Tremendous resources is now impoverished isolated. totally lugubriously miserable and other Arab countries are looking at this and saying themselves that isn't a very good idea to emulate. And therefore you'll find that there's a great hostility to Humane ISM in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia and in most other countries of the Arab world, I believe after Pakistan's brief flirtation. With fundamentalism, you'll find under the Bhutto regime the attempt to go back to what I would call centrality in other words. I do believe that the victory of fundamentalism is is inevitable. Thank you. Mr. Ambassador that has to be our last question. Let's give him a big round of (01:18:51) applause. Ambassador Ava even completing the question and answer session moderated by Edward shoe the dean of the Humphrey Institute of public affairs and that concludes our coverage of the comments by Ambassador Abba eban at the Carlson lecture series thanks to technical director. It's got rich water for taking care (01:19:11) of the microphones. Also special thanks to Our Guest Martin Samson professor of political science from the University of Minnesota for his introductory comments for our lady radio listening audience and now reporting live from the Northrop Auditorium at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. I'm Dan Olsen. Thank you Daniel. The time now is twenty nine and a half minutes past one o'clock tomorrow one. Midday tune in Governor Rudy perpich will answer listener questions on the state of Minnesota's environment over the noon hour tomorrow one. Midday this portion of Monday's midday was made possible by a Cooperative power providing electricity for Seventeen member cooperatives serving West Central and Southern Minnesota. This is Minnesota Public Radio a member supported broadcast service.