Remember when Israel rejected the Rogers Plan of 1969

Israel Foreign Ministry

A number of meetings of the Cabinet were devoted to the change of the American Government’s policy. Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin was asked to return home for consultations. At the conclusion of the Cabinet session on 22 December, the following statement explained the reasons for Israel‘s rejection of the Rogers Plan:

At the Cabinet’s special session, the Foreign Minister reviewed the talks he had with the Secretary of State and other representatives of the U.S. Government. Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Yitzhak Rabin , reported on the latest developments in the policy of the U.S. concerning Middle East questions.

The Cabinet discussed the disquieting initiatives of the US Government within the sphere of the Four-Power talks. The Cabinet views with gravity the latest step of the US Government in submitting its proposals regarding the conflict between Israel and Egypt and Jordan.

The Cabinet rejects these American proposals, in that they:

Prejudice the chances of establishing peace;

Disregard the essential need to determine secure and agreed borders through the signing of peace treaties by direct negotiation;

Affect Israel’s sovereign rights and security in the drafting of the resolutions concerning refugees and the status of Jerusalem, and contain no actual obligation of the Arab States to put a stop to the hostile activities of the sabotage and terror organizations.

If these proposals were to be carried out, Israel’s security and peace would be in very grave danger. Israel will not be sacrificed by any Power policy, and will reject any attempt to impose a forced solution upon it.

In the 1967 war Israel stood alone, confronting vast forces desiring its destruction. Ever since then, Israel has not ceased proposing to the Arab Governments the opening of negotiations for the establishment of peace. And the Arab Governments consistently refuse to make peace, continue with their aggression and declare that they are making ready for a new all-out war.

The proposals submitted by the U.S. cannot but be construed by the aggressive Arab rulers as an attempt to appease them, at Israel’s expense.

During all the years of its existence, Israel has adhered to a policy of peace with its neighbours. Upon the conclusion of the Six-Day War, the Government reiterated its declaration of striving for lasting peace to be accomplished through the signing of peace treaties after direct negotiation conducted by any party and in the course of which every party would have the right to make its proposals. Secure, agreed and recognized borders would be determined in these peace treaties.

This policy is in line with the law of the nations and accepted international rules on transition from war to peace. The Government will stand by its responsibility to maintain the security, safety and rights of the people of Israel in its own Land.

January 12, 2023 | 3 Comments »

Leave a Reply

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. Rabbi Kahane was a very good, matter of fact speaker, and everything he said made absolute sense., I had the privilege of hearing him many years ago, in Israel.

  2. Rabbi Kahane was brilliant beyond words. When he pleaded to Israel to say “no” now, he meant not only to the Roger’s Plan but also to Res 242 itself. Yes it was a UNSC Resolution but Israel had the right to reject it out of hand.. Correct me if I am wrong in this, it wasn’t until the Oslo Accords that Israel committed itself to it and demanded the PLO do likewise.

    The Rogers Plan underscored that the starting point of rights was the 1949 ceasefire when it called the lands “occupied Arab land”. This makes obsolete San Remo and the Mandate and Sec 80 of the UN Charter..

    By rejecting Oslo, Israel would also be rejecting Res 242 and the land for peace deal. It is not too late.

    The fact that Israel is still making claims on parts of Area C and perhaps all of it is remarkable. In doing so it is defying the land for peace deal. Ultimately Res 242 won’t determine what the borders will be, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will., by accepting the Jordan Option whereby Area A is federated with Jordan and Israel gets to keep the rest.

    Trump also broke with the State Department and the land for peace deal when he recognized Israel’s extension of sovereignty to the Golan Heights. He did so even after Israel’s capitulation to Res 242. in the Oslo Accords.

  3. “Israel, US and the Stinking Fish – 1976

    “KAHANE” MAGAZINE September 1976

    Israel, US and the Stinking Fish
    Rabbi Meir Kahane

    Many times I have spoken of the Talmudic parable of the king, his servant, and the fish. Never was it more apt. [Events of today between Bibi and Obama.]

    Once there was a king who sent his servant to buy a fish. The servant returned with a fish that stank. In fury the king gave the servant a choice of three punishments: “Eat the fish, get whipped for the fish, or pay for the fish.” In common with most people, the servant chose not to reach into his pocket and he decided to eat the stinking fish but after two bites the stench made him give up and he decided to get whipped for it. The pain of the lashes, however, made him stop that, too, and he cried out, “I will pay for the fish!”

    And so the fool ate the fish, got whipped for the fish and, in the end, had to pay for it, anyhow. Those in Israel and without, who refuse to understand that nothing will deter America from demanding that Israel make the maximum concessions, play the same fool. Those who do not understand that there is nothing that Israel can possible do, that there are no compromises it can make, that there is nothing short of full retreat to the 1967 borders that will satisfy the United States-are the same fools as the servant who ate, got whipped and in the end had to pay anyhow,

    Their refusal to make the difficult choice of telling the Americans “no”, now, at this moment, will see them making the retreats they hope will avert American anger; it will see this effort fail even as the frontier moves from its present lines within the Arab heartland to new ones close to the Jewish cities; and most important, the Americans will make the same demands they always have envisioned since the days of the Roger Plan-total Israeli withdrawal. And since this is a thing that not even the most dovish of Israelis will agree to, the result will be an ultimate Israeli firm “no”, an ultimate American anger of the kind all men of “new initiative” propose to avert today by compromise, and exactly the same conditions of confrontation that would come anyhow if the Israelis said their “no” today. There would be one great difference, however, a “no” today will bring the crisis while Israel stands poised near the Arab capitols. A “no” tomorrow, after all the hapless and confused compromises and “initiatives,” will bring the same crisis near Tel Aviv, Beersheva and Netanya.

    This is what happens when foolish and confused Israelis, by refusing to pay the price of saying “no” to the stinking fish of pressure, attempt to eat it, submit to getting beaten over it and then learn to their dismay that there is no escape from the difficult decision that they should have made in the first place.

    Let the Israeli government, its men of “new initiative” and the Jewish leaders in America understand several basic axioms:

    1) America is committed to the Roger Plan and the world’s interpretation of Security Council Resolution 242, i.e. Israeli withdrawal from all (but insignificant) parts of the lands of 1967. This includes the Golan Heights, Gaza, the entire West bank and the entire Sinai as well as changing Jerusalem’s present Jewish sovereignty status.

    2) American interests lie, in the minds of most officials in Washington, with Arab oil, the huge potential Arab market and with supplanting Soviet influence with American. This means, at best, an “even-handed” policy rather than a pro-Israeli one.

    3) America is moving steadily to recognition of the “Palestinians” as a people and of whomever they decide to have as their leaders. Those leaders are clearly the PLO and already the move to “moderate” the PLO, “public-relations-wise” is underway so that Washington can more easily pressure Israel into recognizing them.

    4) The Ford-Kissinger administration is determined to prevent stagnation and will pressure Israel into concession after concession.

    5) No administration will go to war for Israel and no administration will continue the present aid level no matter what Israel does or concedes. The frantic search for human allies will end as unsuccessfully as those Jews in the past who forgot what faith in the Jewish G-d was and who turned to Egypt or Assyria or other “allies” for help, only to learn to their dismay that the allies betrayed them.

    Stinking fish are not made to be eaten or to get whipped or. One must have the courage to look at the truth and pay the bitter price of honesty. America is tired of the Israeli nuisance and wishes it would eat the fish already. The time to loudly proclaim “no” is now.”

    R. Meir Kahane

    https://barbaraginsberg-kahane.blogspot.com/2012/12/israel-us-and-stinking-fish-1976.html