The foreign minister reiterated Mr. Begin's assertion that there was no American proposal to resolve the Lebanese crisis. He also denied the Christian Lebanese complicity in exacerbating the situation in that country. He explained Israel's goals in Lebanon - removal of the threat of a Syrian takeover of Lebanon, support for the Christians and prevention of terrorist acts against Israel. Mr. Shamir also explained his views on the state of relations between Israel and Western Europe. Excerpts:
Q: The Syrians have deployed missiles in the Lebanese Beka'a, thereby altering the strategic balance... - they have completed their take-over of Mt. Sannine and are continuing to bombard the Christians in Beirut and Zahleh. In contrast to this, Israel announced what it intended to do and then didn't go about doing it. Does this not reflect failure on Israel's part in its course of action until now?
A: No. Israel has not failed. All of the events taking place currently are only one stage in a constant, ongoing confrontation between ourselves and the Syrians on Lebanese territory. As you know, the supreme effort of the representative of the American President, Ambassador Philip Habib, is based on the principle of a return to the status quo ante: In other words, to the situation that existed before the outbreak of the current crisis. The state of affairs beforehand was not ideal. A state of peace did not prevail between Syria and Israel, but rather one of constant approaches to the brink of military conflict. From time to time there have been actual clashes, Syrian planes have been shot down, and there were unsuccessful Syrian attempts to bring down Israeli planes. Israel's struggle against a Syrian takeover of Lebanon continued in these conditions, on the brink of conflict, without this having led so far to a war between Syria and Israel. We hope that with the return to the status quo ante that war will not break out in the future either. Israel is not interested in making war and, according to the declarations of the Syrians, neither are they. The last word in this struggle has not yet been stated. Israel is zealously guarding her interests without entering into all-out war.
Q: The generally accepted assumption at present is that the Christians are to blame for the recent deterioration in the situation, and that they provoked the Syrians and not the opposite. Would it not be correct to state that the repeated Israeli declarations of Israel's sense of obligation towards the Christians stirred up their "Fighting Spirit", awakened false hopes that Israel would fight their war for them, and led to their provocation of the Syrians and to Israel's being dragged into a difficult and unnecessary struggle?
A: This is a superficial look at the situation in Lebanon. Israel has three goals in its continuing struggle with Lebanon: The prevention of a total Syrian takeover of Lebanon, the prevention of the liquidation of the Christian forces in Lebanon and continual strikes against the terrorists based in Lebanon. It is a fact known to all that the Lebanese Forces (as they call themselves) who currently make up the majority of the organized Christian forces in Lebanon maintain a relationship of friendship and cooperation with Israel. This force is preventing a Syrian takeover of Lebanon - while the forces under the command of Major Haddad are blocking a terrorist takeover of Southern Lebanon. In this way, a situation of common interests has been created between the Christians in the north and south and Israel. In its actions in Lebanon, Israel is not fighting in defense of foreign interests and elements. It is fighting its own war on the soil of Lebanon. It is defending its own security from within the "Land of the Cedars".
This is an important step in the process of Israel's becoming firmly entrenched in the region. Everything that takes place in the neighboring countries affects us and has an influence on our security and our future. If it is within our power to operate outside of the boundaries of Israel in order to keep potential dangers at a distance, this is a valuable achievement and not - as is being argued against us - a case of our involving ourselves in matters that do not concern us.
The Christians in Lebanon are fighting their war. Since there exists a mutuality of interests between them and ourselves, we are helping them. We are not dictating to them their course of action, nor are they dictating our to us. Each side is acting according to its own interests. It is ridiculous to think or to speak of Israel as misleading, feinting or warmongering. In Lebanon, a war is being conducted, and in war, situations change. There are ups and downs, There is no doubt that the situation of the Christians is better than it was a short time ago, thanks to the help provided by Israel. This is desirable to us as well. This helps us as well.
Q: Is it only a commonality of interests that is leading Israel to help the Christians? We don't have a moral obligation to them that goes beyond questions of interests?
A: There is also a moral aspect here, and, I would say, an ideological aspect: It has continually been the aim of the Pan-Arab forces in the Middle East to prevent the existence of all of the independent elements who are not Moslems or Arabs. Thus, they wiped out in the past the Assyrians in Iraq, thus they nearly eliminated the Kurds, and thus they are trying to wipe out the Christians in Lebanon. Israel, by the very fact of its independent existence in the Middle East, is concerned with the survival of different ethnic groups, different religions, and different national groups. It is natural that we should see ourselves as ideologically and morally committed to helping the non-Moslem forces who are fighting for their independent existence. All the more so when the matter conforms to our national interests.
Q: Does Israel's obligation towards the Christians apply equally with regard to the Christian enclaves in Southern Lebanon and to the Christian areas in the north, in Zahleh and in Beirut and in Jouniab, or is there a clear distinction between the various regions in terms of Israel's interests?
A: From a technical standpoint, the conditions are, of course, different. The southern sector of Lebanon borders on Israel. But essentially, it is all the same war. We are providing aid to Haddad because he is preventing a terrorist takeover of the region which borders on the north of Israel, and we are helping the Christians in the north because they are preventing Syria from taking control of Lebanon - control which would aggravate our military-security situation and bring the likelihood of war closer.
Q: Is it true that since the decision of the air force not to destroy the batteries of missiles in Lebanon because of weather conditions on 30 April, Israel has refrained from military action because of the urgent demands of the U.S.
A: There was no demand at all on the part of the United States. There was a request by the U.S. to allow it to bring about the return of the status quo ante through diplomatic means. At the same time, the U.S. recognized the total justice of our claim. We of course consented to the U.S.'s request because we preferred, as always, the paths of peace. We are continuing along this line.
Q: Was an American proposal for solving the crisis presented to Israel by Ambassador Habib?
A: There is no official American proposal. Philip Habib has various ideas by means of which he is trying to calm the situation and to return it to the state of affairs before the outbreak of the crisis. When he returns from his additional meetings in Beirut and Damascus, we will know if he has succeeded in making progress in this direction.
Q: Has Israel agreed to the suggestions and ideas of Philip Habib?
A: Yes. Most of the ideas which he expressed are acceptable to us. Of course, if the other side will accept Mr. Habib's ideas in principle, there will be a need to discuss the details.
Q: But has Israel given the envoy "a green light" to carry out his ideas?
A: Yes. His ideas are acceptable to us. But the problems are extremely complicated and we have not yet gone into the details.
Q: Since Israel responded to the U.S.'s urgent requests for an interim period for diplomatic efforts, and a postponement of military action as long as there was still a chance for a negotiated solution, is it logical to assume that Syria will agree to all the concessions which Israel is demanding from it while Israel is not willing to undertake any concession on her part in exchange?
A: We are not demanding any concession from Syria. Philip Habib's effort is based on the idea that we must return to the situation of several weeks ago in this region, before the outbreak of the crisis. Both parties had come to terms with the situation, and there had been no military flare-up. And so, neither of the sides is being asked for concessions. Rather they are being asked to erase from their memories the events of the past few weeks.
Q: What has Israel been asked to "erase", as you put it?
A: It is still premature at this stage to go into details...
Q: Will Israel accept restrictions on the aerial activity of its planes in northern Lebanon?
A: No. This is not a viable option for Israel, and it will not agree to this restriction.
Q: In other words, Israel will insist that its air force planes be permitted to fly in northern Lebanon as well?
A: We have not been asked to agree to such a restriction. The concept of status quo ante does not include any such limitation. The status quo continued for a long time, before the crisis erupted, and did not lead to a military flare-up. This is the idea now as well! To return to the state of affairs which is neither peace nor war, but which both parties can live with for a long time to come without conflagration. Even before the current crisis broke, Israeli Air Force planes flew over northern Lebanon. The meaning of a return to the status quo ante, to the previous state of affairs, is that they would be allowed to fly anywhere that they flew before the crisis.
... (in answer to another question - ed.) A sense of national solidarity is needed on Israel's vital security problems. On the essential issues, it is true that there is consensus and general national agreement between the major forces. Indeed, the head of the opposition, MK Shimon Peres, has stated that all diplomatic means must be exhausted, and that if these are unsuccessful, we must take other steps, primarily military measures. This expresses precisely the policy of the government.
. (in answer to another question - ed.) The Prime Minister did not reveal any military secrets. Everyone knows that weather conditions have an effect on the activities of the air force. What military secret did the Prime Minister reveal?
Q: Why did high-ranking former officials of the air force raise such a fuss?
A: Whoever wants to cast aspersions on someone raises a fuss. He who doesn't have this aim in mind knows that the Prime Minister did not reveal any military secrets.
Q: And when the Prime Minister promises a meeting of the Likud in Jerusalem that the residents of the Galilee region will suffer only a little longer and then afterwards there will not be one Katyusha left in Lebanon, doesn't this reveal a secret about Israel's intentions?
A: Certainly not. Is there a government of Israel that would agree to Katyusha attacks on the residents of the Galilee? Without a doubt it is the obligation of any government to prevent attacks on the citizens of Israel and that is exactly what the Prime Minister said...
Q: Ever since you took office as Minister for Foreign Affairs, you have worked diligently to improve Israel's relations with Europe, despite (all) the disagreements. Are harsh personal attacks on the President of France and the Chancellor of West Germany the way to achieve this (goal) or do the blunt remarks to the Dutch Foreign Minister (Van Der Klaauw, who was told "you shook Arafat's hand, one that is covered in the blood of Israeli children") perhaps contribute to the improvement of relations with Europe?
A: There has been a lot of exaggerating in the reporting of these things. Of course, we are interested in maintaining good relations with all the nations of the world, including the European countries. But when the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt makes a pronouncement that horrifies all of us, a vigorous Israeli response was called for. I do not think that the exchange of reactions will have significant influence on our relations with Europe. Giscard D'Estaign is no longer the President of France, and the Dutch Foreign Minister was not insulted or hurt at all by the Prime Minister's remarks. He himself said that he expected our reaction with regard to his meeting with Arafat. Mr. Van Klaauw visited Israel not as the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, but as the current chairman of the Common Market, and he tried to carry out the mission with which he was charged. He knew in advance Israel's attitude to what is called the European initiative, and when we took leave of one another at the airport in Lod, he reiterated that disagreements over the initiative would not adversely affect the good relations between Holland and Israel.
Q: Why don't you use strong language against other heads of state and their foreign ministers?
A: Every man has his own style. I expressed to the Dutch Foreign Minister my disapprobation of his meeting with Arafat and I and other Foreign Ministry personnel explained to him our opposition to the E.E.C.'s "Venice Declaration." We also reacted to Chancellor Schmidt's statement - but our Foreign Ministry, like other foreign ministries in the world, has its own way and style of expressing itself.
Q: Using more moderate language?
A: I frequently discuss Israel's policies and international relations with the Prime Minister, and generally we share the same opinions and views - otherwise, we wouldn't be able to work together. But naturally there can't be - nor does there have to be - absolute homogeneity in each and every nuance, and certainly not in style or mode of expression.