The Lebanese crisis brought to the Middle East Ambassador Philip Habib, who was appointed by President Reagan as his special envoy in an effort to resolve the crisis. He met with the Prime Minister who made the following remarks at the conclusion of the meeting and answered newsmen's questions.
Ladies and gentlemen of the press, we had another meeting with Mr. Habib and his advisors. As usual it was a pleasure to talk to Mr. Habib. He didn't have much today to report to us, because he spent last night in Jerusalem, in our country and what I can tell you is that the efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis, which exists in the Middle East, will continue.
Now usually journalists are very curious to know whether the man who talks to him is optimistic or pessimistic, and as I always tell, I am always optimistic. However, I can't tell you whether there will be a positive result of these talks especially in the wake of a statement made by President Assad in Damascus to a press conference. Inter alia he said he didn't get from Mr. Habib any American proposals. He got only Israeli demands. First of all, I would like to say that it is not an exact statement, to put it mildly, because the fact is that Mr. Habib brought American proposals to Mr. Assad, as I know of them. But the statement should be considered very extremist: It doesn't bring good will to solve the problem by peaceful means. However, we shall again enable Mr. Habib to continue with his efforts, and then we shall see whether there is a positive result or there isn't. The statement by President Assad doesn't create the proper atmosphere. But perhaps Mr. Habib, with his great intelligence and ability will overcome this difficulty."
(In his opening statement in Hebrew, Mr. Begin termed his talks with Mr. Habib "good, important and friendly." Mr. Begin continued: "...since I have never misled you, and will never mislead you, I can tell you personally that today it is not clear whether there will be positive results ... Mr. Habib is staying in Israel for the present... 'We will discuss the situation on Sunday at the usual weekly cabinet meeting.")
Q: Would you say that the statement attributed to President Assad overshadows your report of the cabinet's decision which you were expected to render?
A: No, it doesn't overshadow anything, because we know the situation, it only creates a certain situation. The report of Mr. Habib was very intelligent, very detailed. We talked for some hour and three quarters. He took an hour and a half I only responded in fifteen minutes because I had to go to our war invalids ... There is no overshadowing whatsoever.
Q: What is the next step in the diplomatic process?
A: Well, Mr. Habib may go to Beirut and Damascus during the next few days, but I cannot give you an assurance that he will - he may. And we shall see what he will do. Nothing is being asked of the Israelis. I, in the morning, already issued a complete denial of some press sensation news that the negotiations is being conducted to reach an agreement and part of which will be either the stoppage or the limitation of our overflights in Lebanon. I would like to tell you there is not any truth in that misleading statement. Never (we) had a proposal from anybody, including the Americans, that we should agree to stop or to limit our overflights, which are so vital to our national security because of the activities, the murderous activities of the so-called P.L.O. We must know what's going on there, because this is the only way to defend our people.
Q: Has Israel accepted Habib's proposals?
A: Israel doesn't have to accept anything. What we said all the time is that the status quo ante must be restored, and this is exactly what Mr. Habib said to the Syrians and to everybody else. The status quo ante must be restored, this was our original demand, on this I said we have an absolute consensus with the United States.
Q: Is there nothing in the American proposals that requires anything of Israel?
A: Nothing at all. Status quo ante. We don't have to do anything to restore the status quo ante, only the Syrians can restore it. We didn't change it, only they changed it, by the missiles and by the conquest of part of the Sannine Mountain, and by isolating Zahleh.
Q: What were the decisions taken today by the cabinet?
A: That I will tell you, but today there were none taken so I don't have anything to tell you. The proper authorities convened, but the proper authorities didn't yet take the appropriate decisions.
Q: If Israel doesn't have to do anything and Syria apparently refuses to do anything, where are we in regard to the diplomatic process? Are we near the end?
A: My friend, when negotiations are taking place there are differences of opinion. Now there are differences of opinion and therefore Mr. Habib tries somehow to find a solution, God bless him, let him succeed. As I told you in the beginning, we cannot say now that those efforts will bear fruit. We cannot.
Q: Is Israel willing to carry on indefinitely with the diplomatic process as long as Mr. Habib wishes to do so?
A: My dear friend, is my life indefinite? Limited, this is life. Everything is limited. No, there is no time limit whatsoever. But you asked me about an indefinite period, that's different.
Q: How would you characterize the role of Saudi Arabia in all this, against what you said the other day about the Saudis. Are they being helpful despite your negative opinions?
A: Yes, I don't change my mind, and I do not withdraw one word I said about the Saudi Arabian regime. But you have to be truthful. For the last twenty-four they tried to help.
Q: How, Mr. Prime Minister?
A: Well, by making several proposals, by certain statements in private they made. Many ways.
Q: Are you suggesting that the American position and the Israeli position are absolutely identical in every respect?
A: That is impossible. They are completely identical as far as the demand to restore the status quo ante is concerned. We have the same position, namely: The status quo ante must be restored.
Q: Does the status quo ante include Israeli overflights over eastern Lebanon?
A: Of course, we've carried out those overflights for the last five years ... they're absolutely necessary for our national security. There are thousands of the so-called P.L.O. men who every night, every day, every hour, plan to come and kill our people. Therefore we must know what's going on on the ground and therefore the overflights are carried out for the last five years. There wouldn't be any change.
Q: Does that include the Bekaa Valley?
A: Every place in Lebanon.
Q: What about such flights that would include attacks on Syrian helicopters?
A: We don't attack Syrian troops at all. As far as the helicopters were concerned, it was a unique action to save the Christians from the danger of being overwhelmed completely and perhaps destroyed, and in that we succeeded. But we don't attack the Syrians.
Q: That happened after the status quo ante...
A: Oh, after, after ....
Q: ... Then a restriction on Israeli attacks on the Syrian forces might be part of the bargaining process right now? Is that correct?
A: No, that is impossible, because there have never been Israeli attacks on Syrian forces. I told you what was the specific issue, that once we attacked a Syrian unit and immediately we explained to them that it was done by chance, and they accepted our explanation until this very day. Indeed we didn't intend to do so.
Q: What about the helicopters, Mr. Prime Minister?
A: Not the helicopters. A different operation ... what I want to tell you now is maybe a scoop for you. There was a day in which completely by accident our boys attacked a Syrian unit and then we, at our initiative, explained to the Syrians indirectly that we didn't mean to do so and that we stand by the principle that we will not attack the Syrians and they accepted the explanation - completely. No recriminations whatsoever...
Q: Is the return to the status quo ante, then, only part of the negotiations? Is there more to these contacts than just the return to the status quo ante?
A: The problem now in Lebanon and as far as Syria is concerned is the restoration of the status quo ante and this I told you already: On this we are in complete agreement with the United States.
Q: ... Could it be that because of inter-Arab politics, of which I'm sure you are very familiar, President Assad simply cannot be seen to be making an agreement with Israel or reaching an understanding that would in some way affect his military deployment in the Middle East.
A: The Russians have a word .. the word is "polo-zhenya." So you want to go into the Syrian "polo-zhenya" and understand them, etc. I don't share your point of view - we don't ask the Syrians to make a direct agreement with us. The agreement they will make, they can make with the Saudis, with the Americans, with anybody else, with themselves, as they wish. What is important to us are practical results, in others words, restoration of the status quo ante, and we don't ask them to sign with us an agreement. What I ask from them from time to time is to negotiate a peace treaty with us, but President Assad refuses. What can we do? We cannot force him to come to Jerusalem or to accept my presence in Damascus. I would be prepared to go to Damascus, although it's not so safe a place lately, but I would.
Q: Would you say from the reports you had yesterday, and in light of Assad's declaration today, that there has been a turn for the worse?
A: I am not sure if there was a different situation yesterday. Assad, for example, in his talks with Philip Habib was quiet a lot: he didn't say negative things, and he didn't say positive things... Perhaps this is a good sign, perhaps not. What is clear to me is that the announcement cannot inspire us with the optimism that a peaceful solution is very near. Perhaps it will come. But we have to be patient. And our scenario for you is this: we will hold a cabinet meeting on Sunday. I promise you that after that meeting I will give you an announcement, not the Cabinet Secretary. This is a promise.
Q: In case Syria remains adamant in not accepting the proposals and not replying favorably to Mr. Habib's proposals, would you ask the cabinet to continue with the diplomatic efforts?
A: We will continue with the diplomatic efforts as long as there is the slightest hope that they will lead to a peaceful solution.
Q: Despite Saudi Arabia's hostile attitude toward Israel, you explain that they are helping us?
A: No, I think that they do not always have to look at the Israeli Problem, perhaps they see the Syrian problem. We are not a problem these days. Somebody else has a problem. We are patient, cautious, balanced. We are not running after anything ... Of course we do have a problem to decide on. But the problem may well be that of other countries.
Q: Will you be meeting Mr. Habib before Sunday?
A: No other meetings have been scheduled. But we will remain in telephone contact. If something happens, then certainly we will meet once again.
Q: Does the Israeli request to return the situation in Lebanon to the status quo ante still stand, or has any change occurred?
A: No change, either on the part of Israel or on the part of the U.S. as to the necessity to return the situation to what it was before, or as intellectuals say in Latin - the status quo ante - on this matter we have full agreement between the U.S. and the Israeli government.