In a lengthy interview broadcast on Israel's Independence Day, Mr. Begin declared that Israel was demanding a return to the status quo, removal of SA-5 Syrian missiles from the Zahleh area, installed by the Syrians after the shooting down of their two helicopters and the continuation of Israel aerial reconnaissance flights over Lebanon. He also said that while Israel did not want war with Syria, she would defend her vital interests. He spoke at length about his feelings regarding French President Giscard D'Estaign and Germany's Chancellor Schmidt and the reasons for his personal attacks on them. Text:
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, happy Independence Day. What chances do you see for a resolution of the crisis on the northern border by peaceful means?
A: First of all, let me return your greetings. Happy Independence Day to you and your families. As you know, I will conclude this talk with greetings for a happy holiday for the nation. As for your question, I will say in all simplicity: There are possibilities that the problem will be resolved peacefully, or otherwise. This is the way things really are. The United States has been involved in efforts ever since we turned to it during the days of the terrible shelling of Zahleh, and the murder of dozens of men, women and children - both in the capital and in Zahleh - when we asked them to do something to stop the slaughter.
Since then, the U.S. has not stopped trying. These efforts have been absolutely global. The Americans appeal to every nation from which any kind of help can be hoped for. When I read the list I saw countries like Abu Dhabi. When I asked Ambassador Lewis if this is a world power you've asked for help from, he told me that it's not a power, but it has money. These days, that's an answer too. At least for Syria, perhaps. In short, they turned to everyone, and in the end, to the U.S.S.R. as well. These efforts deserve praise and appreciation. But until this very moment, they have come to nought. The efforts have yielded no results.
So I say - the U.S. is continuing its efforts. A miracle may happen. According to the facts at my disposal, it will take a miracle to resolve the problem with Syrian consent, whereby they would remove their SA-6 (surface to air) missiles and withdraw from Mount Sannine. But, according to our tradition, we do not rely on miracles - and in this case, we really don't. So, if this conflict is not resolved through the diplomatic efforts of the U.S. and many other countries, we will absolutely not be able to tolerate the stationing of these missiles on Lebanese territory, and we will do what we have to do.
Q: Are you saying, sir, that only a miracle will prevent a military confrontation between Israel and Syria?
A: No, I didn't say that. I was speaking about the missiles. The confrontation between Israel and Syria is as wide a concept as the Mediterranean. There's a difference between one spot alongside Zahleh, where three missile batteries are now located, and the conflict which stretches from Haifa to Gibraltar. You don't have to put words into my mouth. We certainly want to prevent a general conflagration with Syria, and I am certain we will do so.
. The reasons for this are simple. We don't want war with Syria, and I have the feeling that the Syrians have many reasons for not wanting war with us. They can get nothing from war but defeat. I say this simply, and I think that Mr. Assad knows it. It's true that he's playing games of prestige. Nowadays, he's even in a good mood from what we hear. And why is that? He says Sadat has betrayed the Arabs by making peace with Israel. Then Iraq is preoccupied with its war against Iran. Jordan sits on the sidelines. So, who fights for the so-called Palestinians? Who fights for the Arabs? Damascus. Ever since the nineteenth century, Damascus wanted to be the centre of the Arab movement. It always wanted to be at the centre of things. It's a mistaken impression, an optical illusion, but that's the personal feeling of Mr. Assad. As a result, he's feeling good, despite all the beatings he's taken. Here he is, fighting for the Arab issue, while all the others hang back. But should an all-out war erupt between Syria and us, he knows the balance of power. Therefore, since we don't want a war, we don't want war with Syria and the Syrians have clear-cut reasons not to want war with us, there is no need to talk of confrontation. There is no confrontation. But the question of the missiles is a separate and special one, one that has to be resolved. And it will be.
Q: In exchange for the withdrawal of the Syrian missiles, will Israel agree to reduce its aerial, military activity over Lebanon?
A: I heard that news item this morning. I've never heard anything so stupid. Such a possibility was never even mentioned. I have President Reagan's note, and there is not the slightest hint of such a thing in it. No one has talked about it, no one thinks about it. Why do we have to cut down our activity? Why, what are we doing in Lebanon? We fly over it. We must, in order to take photographs - for Lebanon is under Syrian Army occupation, and harbours a terrorist organization which plots to murder Jews every day, every hour of the day. Were we not to fly over, or should we not fly in the future, we won't know what they are conspiring to do to us. We would thereby be endangering our people - and we will never do that. We will protect our people like the apple of our eye. This has been our life-long mission. So what kind of exchange would that be? They must simply go back to the status quo ante, and in this we have the full understanding of the United States and so the Americans have said.
Q: In other words, the Americans have not asked for any quid-pro-quo from us?
A: No demands. Nothing. Someone produced this story out of thin air. Let him go on doing so.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, we have been very involved in the missile crisis in Lebanon of late. Looking back, wouldn't you say that the downing of the two helicopters gave the Syrians the excuse to station...
A: My friend, the attack on the helicopters saved the Christians of Northern Lebanon from collapse. The Christians of Lebanon were at the end of the line. This we have from the horse's mouth; we got it from a primary source. Had we not acted that day, who knows whether the Christians in Beirut and the north would have been a factor today. The fact that Assad brought in missiles after the downing of the two helicopters has nothing to do with the goal of the operation. What were the helicopters doing? They were going up to the mountain, killing the Christians and trying to take over the entire mountain. For the Syrians, this was a strategic goal of the first order. Whoever controls the mountain, controls Lebanon. This is something we simply cannot allow. Had we been able to down ten helicopters, we would have done so. But they stopped flying. It would not have been a good idea to go looking for them somewhere around Damascus, nor did we have any such intentions. Remember that this Israeli operation had outstanding results. We're not only happy about that - we're proud of it. We saved an entire community, numbering one million. Today it is a minority facing virtual extinction. Some of them would run away from the country, some would flee to the mountains, and the decisive majority would apparently surrender. At that point, the Syrians would take over all of Lebanon.
Q: Wouldn't it be possible to limit ourselves to the principle that we help the Christians to help themselves, that is to provide them....
A: No, it isn't. Obviously we have been helping the Christians all along to help themselves. But the moment came the Syrian army came down on them with heavy Soviet artillery having a range of 40 km. - among the heaviest in the world - and with tanks and missiles. Houses collapsed like a deck of cards, people were buried under the rubble. Why, this is horrible. And Sadat described the horror in his First of May speech, describing it exactly as it is. So the time came when we had to intervene in order to save the Christians. Yesterday I told my friends and my political adversaries in the Knesset Defence and Foreign Relations Committee: You should know that I believe that a Zionist (and I have been a Zionist for a long time - since the age of ten, when I joined "Hashomer Hatzair") is no stranger to anything humane. So we have been taught as far back as from Herzl. He gave the name "The World" to the main periodical of the Zionist Organization. And he wrote that should a Jewish state be established, it would help in the liberation of the blacks of Africa. What have we to do with the blacks of Africa, one might ask, especially in those days when France, England, Italy and Germany were still the Powers there? But that is the concept, the humane ideal.
If the Christians faced the threat of destruction, it was our moral duty to help them. Furthermore, and I don't at all want to deny this, this is explicitly a question of our own security. Should the Syrians take over Lebanon, we would be faced with a pincer movement by the Syrians, both from Syria proper and from the other side. The Galilee Panhandle would be under constant threat. Think of the dangers we would have to face. Then we would have to stop it - and we have stopped it. However, we have yet to resolve the problem of the missiles which constitute a potential threat to our flyovers - flyovers in the cause of peace. Flights which will enable us to know what's going on in our own back yard, so that we may protect our people. This problem has not yet been resolved, but it will be. I've already said so and I'm willing to say it a third time too.
Q: Mr. Begin, allow me to probe a little deeper. When you decided to go after the Syrian helicopters, did you consider the possibility that such a step would serve to escalate the situation and elicit a vigorous Syrian response?
A: I must correct you. I was indeed involved in the decision, but it was made, as is the usual case with us, by the Ministerial Defence Committee, the committee authorized by the government to make decisions. We do not make individual decisions. Sometimes I must, when there is no choice, or time. In such cases, I am authorized to do so and give the order to the Chief-of-Staff. I'll give you an example. One day, about two weeks ago, we received a report that there were two boats on the Lebanese coast, manned by Arafat's terrorists, ready to shove off at any moment for Israel's shores. The terrorists were to seize hostages. I ordered the Chief-of-Staff to destroy them, and couldn't consult with anyone because a moment's delay might have cost the lives of some of our people. So I made the decision by myself. Of course, when it comes to the secret services, the responsibility is mine alone. I must not consult anyone. But not when it comes to political-military decisions. Today, we also have a Ministerial Defence Committee. Sometimes we meet three or four times a week, aside from the weekly Cabinet session. I wanted the public to know this,
I, of course, took part in the decision which was made, along with my colleagues. You ask whether we thought things wouldn't escalate. We did take the dangers into account. What a question. There are dangers in every operation; but you know that our history has shown that the danger is greater when you sit back and do nothing, while security is made by getting up and doing something. We got up and did something, and I'm certain that we acted wisely and prevented far greater danger. In life, and particularly in our region, one cannot do anything, cannot solve any problem, without taking risks. We may have to do the same in the future, but one must act wisely. Some people call this tactics; that word means nothing to me. One must simply act wisely, and I hope we have done so.
Q: Sir, have you taken into account that Syria is a Soviet client? What role is the U.S.S.R. taking in the resolution of the present crisis?
A: Of course it's a Soviet client-state. There are 2,600 Russian-built tanks in Syria (including T-72s, the world's best tank - even better than Mr. Schmidt's Leopards), and another 1,000 tanks stored there by the Russians themselves, a characteristic Soviet move. For too long, the U.S. looked on passively at developments in the Middle East. There are close to 7,000 Soviet experts, including officers and technicians. The rest are K.G.B. officers - simply spies. So Syria is a client-state of the U.S.S.R. without a doubt. I can state that Syria serves as a Russian base in the Middle East. On this, too, we are in agreement with the Americans. Today, the U.S. no longer believes what it did a year or two ago, that is, that the Syrians are fulfilling a positive role, a stabilizing role, in Lebanon. On the contrary.
Q: Not even regarding the present crisis?
A: Regarding this crisis, Secretary of State Haig made the harshest possible statement, though it may not have equalled my response to the foolish statements of Mr. Schmidt. Nonetheless, it was very tough: "A brutal assault, contrary to international conduct," etc.
Q: According to the information we have, is the Soviet Union playing a restraining and moderating role with regard to Syria, or is there full understanding between the two?
A: No, the answer is negative. The Russian position is very tough, just as is that of the Syrians. The Russians have said that the Syrians are behaving perfectly okay; they blame us for everything. In their Propaganda, they talk about the Israelis and the Americans, using the term American-Zionist Imperialism. Once upon a time, they would accuse their own people of espionage, claiming that so-and-so was a Japanese-British-American spy. This kind of spying has tentacles all over the world. But such was the fashion since Stalin's day, so let it be. No, they're not helping. But aside from this official position, they do say unofficially that they are ready to help, to restore quiet. It's a double game - one we know. There is nothing new in it.
Q: To conclude this portion of the interview, Mr. Begin, we can understand from what you've said that there is a conflict over a very concrete matter - the missiles. And you don't expect an out-and-out war between Israel and Syria over this matter.
A: It's you that has said this.
Q: Sir, you mentioned Chancellor Schmidt a few moments ago. You attacked him and President Giscard D'Estaign of France personally and very harshly. Aren't you concerned that these statements - which are justified in their own right and needed to be made, you said yesterday - could lead to a split, to a dead end in our relations with Europe, with important countries in Europe?
A: Listen, my friend, I have never been so pleased as I was this morning, after what I said was published in France and Germany - and raised a little storm. Very pleased. Should I have responded that way? What did I do? Did I, out of the blue, sally forth to attack Mr. Schmidt or Mr. Giscard D'Estaign? Mr. Schmidt went to Saudi Arabia and made a statement there which gave a start to every Jew. Even to Mr. Peres, who considered it proper to criticize me for what I said about Mr. Schmidt. Every Jew. The man allowed himself, after his visit to Saudi Arabia, to say that the German people had a problem with, for example, the Dutch, the Danish and a few other countries. The Jewish people don't exist for them. He has no reckoning to make with the Jewish nation - no moral obligation. The Dutch, the Danes - the impression he makes, etc. etc. And we are to be found in the "etc., etc." Was there ever anything so disgusting? That a German, the German chief of state, deals in -such a way with what the Germans did to us? And afterwards he says that Saudi Arabia is an ally of Germany, the most important one after the United States and the European Community or NATO. Well, this is also a scandal. After all, a Socialist leader talks about a country rotten to a core. One very bright American statesman said that Saudi Arabia is not a country at all - it's a family. Four thousand princes and princesses suck the blood of this nation - and there is a great deal of blood. They have 130 billion dollars stashed away in American banks and tens of billions of dollars in British ones.
This is that wretched country about which Zaki Yamani tells us jokes about camels and mice. No wonder. He drives a Cadillac, but his mind still belongs to the 16th century. Saudi Arabia. That's why all his comparisons have to do with camels and mice. So for the Chancellor of Germany to say that this country is the most important one after America and Europe, and not to mention what the Germans did to us, other than to include us in the "etc., etc.", after mentioning some other countries. And afterwards to say that a Palestinian state must be established - for that is the meaning of self-determination - and to say that we must negotiate with the organization known as the P.L.O., those murderers (my bones shudder at the very mention of the term, because of the letter "L" for liberation). So what did I do? I responded. And I responded mainly to one thing.
Look, my friend. For generations, Israel's enemies said that the Jews were greedy. I never forgave any Gentile who said such a thing. For I remember my father, may he rest in peace. He was killed by the Germans. Was he avaricious? I remember all the Jews among whom I lived - innocent people, craftsmen, carpenters, tailors and shoemakers. They earned their bread by the sweat of their brow. Draymen, wagon owners. So, to talk about the Jewish people as avaricious was the greatest of insults. Now, what has happened. As I said, what does Mr. Schmidt do? Does he go to Saudi Arabia to kiss some princess? Had he done such a thing, heaven forbid, perhaps they would have killed her along with him. He goes to Saudi Arabia to make deals. O.K., so he goes without his Leopard. But he has other weapons. I'II sell you weapons and you sell me oil. So who's the greedy one. I don't say he's out for his own personal gain. I don't know him personally, But from a national point of view, this is avariciousness of the worst kind.
And Mr. Giscard D'Estaign, as is known, has no principles whatsoever. Only to sell weapons to the Arabs and buy oil from them. I know this from first-hand sources. He's ready to sell every kind of weapon, including the most lethal, to Iraq and Libya - after the over-running of Chad. And all of this just to get oil, nothing else matters to him.
Q: You know, sir, that Mr. Giscard D'Estaign is now running for re-election.
A: What of it? I am running for election too.
Q: Would you say that it is in our interest that this unprincipled man no longer continue to be President of France?
A: I do not intervene in elections. Today I heard one of the speakers in the German Parliament expressing his opinion that he hoped that there would be a new Government in Israel after the elections. This could be called intervention in the elections, in domestic affairs. What business is it of his what Government exists in Israel? I'm not interfering. I would say the same thing whether it were four months, six months, or four days before the elections. What, must I consider the date? But I said this at the Herut Central Committee with the full awareness that it was absolute truth. And I had to say it. And so, an uproar broke out. So what? That's politics. And if they respond to my reaction that too has to be accepted. In political life, you have to dish out and also be ready to take it.
Q: In other words, in Europe everything is, basically, lost. The two largest states have very defined interests.
A: What conclusion you are always in the habit of making? I am saying that it is necessary to get the missiles removed and you say, if so, confrontation with Syria. Europe is lost - which Europe is lost? Who told you such a thing? We have wonderful friends in France, too. I don't want to talk about Germany. To tell you the truth, I have perhaps a special attitude concerning what the Germans did to our people, and this is not just a personal or subjective thing. I know how my mother, my father, my brother and two cousins - one four years old, one five years old went to their deaths. My father, together with 500 Jews walked ahead of them. He was the secretary of the Community in Brest. He sang "Hatikva" with them, they sang- "I believe". The Germans pushed them into the river, opened fire with machine guns from both sides, and the river became red with blood. The water turned to blood. That's how they died. That's how my father died. My mother was an old woman, sick in the hospital. They summoned her and all the sick women in the hospital and slaughtered them. Perhaps others have no such experiences. I don't deny it. I live with this, and will live with it until the day I die. What they did to our people. What they did to our people. I have never forgiven the German people as a whole. I will never forgive them, because they bear collective responsibility. As long as Hitler brought victories, they hailed him! Later, when the decline began, they turned their backs a bit. I do not want to shake the hand of a German who participated in the war. I am now Prime Minister. I fulfil my official role. When Mr. Genscher, the Foreign Minister, came to me, I received him and talked with him, of course not in German. He spoke English and I spoke with him in English. I would not have spoken German with him. And if Mr. Schmidt had come to Israel, I would have met with him. Why? That is part of my official duties. But personally? I will tell you a story. Once when I was in Rome with my wife we went to visit the Vatican Library. We both studied Latin, so we read the ancient Bible in Latin - all the books that were there. Some couple approached us and asked (we were speaking Hebrew, of course) what language we were speaking. We said to them, "We are speaking Hebrew," "Oh, you are from Israel?" "We are from Israel." "Oh, we like you so much. We respect you so much." So, I asked, "Where are you from?" "We are from Germany." Then I asked him, "How old are you?" "45 years old." "45 years old? Then in the Second World War you were about 20, 25 years old." I didn't say anything, I started to back off, plain and simple. Perhaps he took part in the murder of my father or of our little children. (When I speak of my father I am speaking of all the fathers, about my mother, of all the mothers. About my two little cousins, of all the children in Israel.) Such a horror has not happened since God created men and men created Satan. Among a civilized people who produced Goethe and Schiller...
So the man who is Chief of State of this country (Germany) would tell us what Saudi Arabia is like - the country that has declared Jihad. He won't take this into account when he speaks to them and to us? He won't say, we have obligations to the Jewish State? He won't say that? But he could say that my stubbornness is like a Greek tragedy, in other words, our fate is sealed. Why? Because I do not agree to partition Jerusalem? Because I do not want to hand over Judea, and Samaria to Arafat? So that he should murder our children from the cities of Samaria? This is one of the scandals of our times. There are still some meek Jews who still tremble at their knees because their Prime Minister may perhaps utter an overly harsh word about Chancellor Schmidt, who remained faithful to Hitler until the last moment in the Second World War. He was an officer in his army.
Q: Mr. Begin, the question is whether personal attacks on heads of state are the correct answer in international relations. I recall, with your permission, the example that you raised when the Egyptian newspapers slandered you personally. You said that you did not stand on the honor of Menachem Begin, the individual, but you could not accept slander against a Head of State, which is similar to an attack against the whole people, against the country itself.
A: What, did I attack Mr. Schmidt in a personal fashion? I talked about what happened with the German people and with us, and what he is saying now. I said something about his characteristics? I compared him to Shylock, like they compared me in Egypt? He did not deserve to be compared to Shylock by me. Shylock was a very proud Jew. If you read "The Merchant of Venice" carefully, then you will know that the interpretation of the character of Shylock is mistaken. A very proud Jew. What did I say about him? I did not say he was avaricious. I said that he conducts a policy of avarice. How did I attack him? Afterwards I said, right, I know who sat in a certain room when they showed how they hung with piano wire the generals who tried to assassinate Hitler. He was invited to that spectacle.
Q: Was Chancellor Schmidt a Nazi?
A: I don't know if he was a member of the Nazi Party, but he was a good officer, a good fighter in the German Army until he was taken prisoner by the British. He never broke his oath of loyalty to his fuhrer, Adolph Hitler. And he fought on the eastern front. I don't know what he did with the Jews on the eastern front. No one can know. The Jews were mainly liquidated on the eastern front. I don't know if he was in Brest, in Lithuania. I don't know, I can't know. I only know that he was in that army that received an order ... that when the "Einsatzgruppen" come to liquidate the Jews, the army does not kill the Jews directly, but it surrounds the city completely and maintains order until the "Einsatzgruppen" finish their work.
Q: According to what you've said, you did not get weak in the knees like those Jews you mentioned, in view of the criticism your remarks have aroused in Germany. Do you not fear that your harsh attacks on the two leaders will erode and cause serious difficulties for Israel's relations with Europe?
A: I do not fear anything, my friend. And if there will be an instance where another man says exactly the same things, I must defend my people, and not Mr. Schmidt. And I do not have to defend the Jewish people, its honor and its future against cowardice on the part of certain Jews - and what Mr. Schmidt said is connected to our future, and not our past. He links up with the "Ahad" state, he says to the Saudi Arabians: go ahead, help the P.L.O. The Saudi Arabians have given hundreds of millions of dollars to that organization of assassins. And he encourages the Saudi Arabians to do this. He says that the Arabs must be given a Palestinian state, state no. 22... This is an expression of incalculable animosity toward the State of Israel. It is liable to endanger the future of the State of Israel. But he won't succeed ....