Throughout 1980 and 1981 the normalization process with Egypt was proceeding slowly, with both Israel and Egypt maintaining diplomatic relations, open borders, travel and trade and observation of the military clauses of the peace treaty. Yet Egypt remained cool to Israeli suggestions for additional steps in the direction of greater cooperation, and sought to limit contacts to the official level. President Sadat had, on many occasions, rejected Israel's position on Jerusalem and called for a speedy implementation of the autonomy clauses of the Camp David Framework Agreement. On the eve of the Sadat-Begin summit, whose announcement was kept secret for a long time, Premier Begin discussed some of the issues that he was planning to raise with President Sadat. Text:
Q: Mr. Begin, what will be the main subjects of your discussion on Thursday with President Sadat in Ophira?
A: We will have several subjects to discuss. First of all, the situation in Lebanon and the Syrian behavior; the Habib mission, and whatever both countries can do to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. Another subject, of course, will be our bilateral relations. We have a problem of the multi-national force. We have also problems of normalization, of the complete fulfillment of the conditions established in the peace treaty. So, we will have many topics to tackle - as I wrote to President Sadat - to consider, perhaps even to decide.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, do you think that President Sadat's comments about Jerusalem have cast a shadow on this summit?
A: They did. No doubt whatsoever. They took us completely by surprise. Not the contents, because this is the opinion of President Sadat. He's entitled to his opinion. We don't accept it and we told him so - that we shall under no circumstances accept such a proposal. But the timing of a call to the Islamic and the Arab representatives of the Second Arab League, which he, President Sadat, created, to liberate Jerusalem. Jerusalem doesn't need any liberation. It has been liberated, it is free and it is one. That indeed took us by surprise and it caused us pain, of course. We answered quietly, I think to the point; namely that this is our capital city, our eternal capital. This is Jerusalem, David's City - one and indivisible for all generations to come. And, of course, constitutionally, there is guaranteed free access to the holy shrines to members of all monotheistic religions. And so it was since the liberation and reunification of Jerusalem. We gave that quiet answer to the point because we are convinced that it is much better than to try to go into sharp polemics. On this issue everybody knows what our approach is and I may say here and now: There is no chance whatsoever that anybody in Israel will change his mind about Jerusalem. We have a complete national consensus - perhaps except the Communists - that Jerusalem is our capital, a united, reunited city, and united it will stay, and all the inhabitants will have equality of rights, For instance, if the Arab residents want to become citizens of Israel, we give them an option to become citizens of Israel. Then they vote for the Knesset. We are not going to force our citizenship upon them. But if voluntarily they will choose it, then they will vote in the Knesset. Now they vote in the municipality, and they vote very often. They vote also to the Histadrut elections, you know, thousands of them. It is their right. And Jerusalem is now a thriving city - a thriving 'capital - so it will stay. And no division of sovereignty whatsoever. All of Jerusalem is under Israel's sovereignty. This is the stand of the government, of Parliament, of the overwhelming majority of the people. A complete national consensus.
Q: Couldn't you interpret Mr. Sadat's remarks as simply suggesting that the Arab population be given a larger role, or a greater share, in the life of the city?
A: No, if President Sadat speaks about the liberation of Jerusalem, if he speaks openly, as he spoke to me, as he wrote to me, about Arab sovereignty over part of Jerusalem, then he means, as I told him clearly, redivision of the capital city.
That's absolutely impossible, out of the question. And President Sadat knows it very well. I told him even a story of our tradition about Rabbi Amnon from Mainz, concerning Jerusalem. He understood it very well. He even repeated it to Mr. Strauss when he was here as the Ambassador Extraordinary for the autonomy negotiations. He remembers the story very well. He knows that we are not going to budge concerning Jerusalem at any moment whatsoever. He may come to Jerusalem and pray, at the El Aksa Mosque, and so may King Khaled of Saudi Arabia come. But to Jerusalem, which is the capital of the Jewish State forever and ever.
Q: Turning north, Mr. Begin, what is the nature of Israel's commitment to the Lebanese Christians?
A: Well, I think it's a moral commitment of the highest grade. We undertook not to let the Christians in Lebanon be destroyed. We did not promise the Christians, for instance, in the north of Lebanon, to send our army and throw out the Syrians. The Syrian army is an occupation army. It should leave Lebanon. Ultimately it will. But we didn't take upon ourselves to push the Syrians back into Syria. That's not our job and not our duty, and we said so openly to the Christians, to our friends in northern Lebanon. We cannot fight if they want, for instance, a Christian state. I don't know whether they do want - but I give you an example - an independent Christian state. Then we will never promise that we are going to fight their battle for independence. We fought our own battle for independence. We took a great risk in 1948, proclaiming our independence. We didn't have proper arms. Our enemies had tanks and heavy guns, and in the first few days we had only light arms the Haganah, the Irgun, the Lehi - few and light arms. The heaviest was the Bren gun, and all in all we had two guns which we moved from the north to the south. They shot in the north and they were brought to the south and vice versa. In those days nobody knew about it, but now it can be disclosed. Ultimately, in the first few days and weeks, there came from abroad arms and then we were better equipped, and then we repelled the enemy. But we did it ourselves. We didn't ask anybody to fight our battles. And so we told the Christians clearly. You mustn't, you cannot, you shouldn't rely on any foreign army to fight a battle for your independence. That, any nation must do by itself and for itself. We made clear our commitment. However, I say again, we will not allow to destroy, to annihilate the Christians, If such a -danger arises, then we will rush to their assistance, to their rescue. Meantime, we of course help them through giving them arms, good arms. They have arms to defend themselves with. We didn't have arms, but the Christians in Lebanon have good arms to defend themselves and they do defend themselves. They are valiant fighters, by the by. And they can withstand pressure from the Syrian army. But of course there is a limit to it. What are the Syrians? They are a regular army with divisions, tanks, heavy guns, planes, helicopters, etc. and the Christians are partisans. They have good weapons - some of the best we produce. But still they are partisans. Therefore, ultimately in such a contest the Christians must fall. However, I believe that through our action we already saved them, and then we shall be on our guard. We will not allow their physical destruction - this is what I want to repeat and make clear to the world. The world is indifferent. The world does not help the Christians. Although there are so many Christian nations, nobody came to their rescue not even France, which used the Maronites in the nineteenth century, in the era of colonialism, for their own purposes. They left them in the lurch - didn't give them one cartridge. Neither did other nations. But we did help them, and we are going to help them and we are not going to acquiesce in an attempt to destroy them physically.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, could you tell us how, when, where, Israel's position was made clear to the Christians of Lebanon?
A: All the time. Since I became Prime Minister I met with Christian delegations quite a number of times, and we repeated that stand I already made clear to you: What we can do, what we shall do, what we shan't. Clearly. Everybody on the other side in Lebanon understands our point of view.
Q: Have these meetings included participants who came from northern Lebanon?
A: Yes. Delegations representing the northern Lebanese Christians came to see me and my colleagues. We used usually to meet with the Foreign Minister, the Minister for Defence, the Chief of Staff and others. And we had very serious talks about the situation of course.
Q: If Israel's policy help the Christians of Lebanon survive, do you think that Israel will get something tangible in return in the political sense?
A: We don't ask for anything. We didn't ask. You should know that we supplied them with arms which cost a lot of money. We didn't get even one penny. and we are not a rich country.
Q: Not even a peace treaty if there is a ...
A: A peace treaty is a different story. A peace treaty I'm ready to sign today with President Sarkis, whoever represents Lebanon. I'm ready to sign with him a peace treaty. We don't have claims on any inch of territory of Lebanon. I am prepared today, together with you, to go to Beirut - or perhaps expect the arrival of Mr. Sarkis, and sign a peace treaty. If there should be a Christian-Lebanese state, and we shall sign another peace treaty, it will be signed in time. We are not for the partition of Lebanon. I would like you to know that we are for the territorial integrity of Lebanon. Lebanon is a very small country and partition is no solution. It is no solution in Ireland, it wasn't a solution in Palestine, it is no solution until this very day in India. And it wouldn't be a solution in Lebanon. We are not for partition. But ultimately nations should decide their own fate. It is not for us to decide anybody else's future. They should take the decisions. Theoretically, should they, for instance, one day decide that they want a Christian state, and that Christian state will ask us for a peace treaty, a treaty of friendship, of mutual help - I shall say "Avec Plaisir", as some of the Lebanese say. Of course we shall do it. In no time. But we don't talk about so-called compensation for our help. We do it as human beings. I think it should be so understandable. Why always look for compensation. Those people faced the danger of complete annihilation several times. They were at the precipice, just on the brink of the pit. We saved them, and we are going to save them in the future. This is the commitment. We are very proud that the Jewish people in our time, after the Holocaust, can save another people.
Q: When we talk about Lebanon, though, we're talking about a sizeable presence of Palestinian Arabs. Those of them who belong to the Palestine Liberation Organization have come under frequent bombardment by Israel Airforce jets. As Defence Minister, as well as Prime Minister, can you authorize these missions, knowing that aerial bombardment can cost the lives of innocent civilians as well?
A: No, I never do so. To the contrary. Whenever I get the plan from the general staff, the first question is: Where are the civilians, if that place of the terrorists is far or close to civilians. If it is close, I don't accept the proposal - and I ask to bring another plan. If it is far - go ahead. We are taking out the bases of the terrorists, of the P.L.O. killers. This is our duty, not only our right. Otherwise, what will happen? They will come to our country and kill our men, women and children. And then we shall go out to retaliate. We do we have of that retaliation? What's the point of retaliation? Can we take revenge? We don't want revenge. It is foolish to take revenge. So what we do is to carry out preventive attacks - indeed attacks. Preventive. So that they cannot come and carry out incursions into our country and kill our people. That is the whole idea. And it is very efficient. It has been proved efficient. Namely, for the last year and more, since Misgav Am, there was no incursion into our country from Lebanon. Not one, for a whole year - because of that method we now use, that strategy we now use. We hit them in their bases and they are in disarray. They don't know from where the attack will come - from the air, from the land, from the sea, etc. This is exactly what we have to do. But we don't want any civilian casualties. I would like to say with complete sincerity. In war, it sometimes does happen that civilians suffer and we regret it very much. It's only by accident. Nobody should teach us a lesson. Everybody should remember his own war. How many civilians got killed or hurt during. this war-like operation?
In the two world wars, in between the world wars, etc. Nobody should teach us a lesson in ethics. Our ethics are: don't hurt civilians - men, women and children. They are out of war. Out of bounds of fighting, completely. Sometimes an accident may happen. Then we regret and we say so, openly. Because this also educates the fighter. He knows that this is what we do not want to happen. That is the first question I used to ask and I do ask. The second question is: Where are the Syrians? Because I don't want to attack the Syrians. We don't want war with the Syrians. What we have to do in order to defend our country now is to hit the terrorists, the P.L.O. men. Now the Libyans joined them so the Libyans also got hurt. And that is properly done. It should be so. But we do our best and utmost to avoid civilian casualties. This is our ethics from the underground, my friend. We did so always, for the last thirty-five years.
Q: Why is it that you decided to strike those Libyan troops just now, a day after the departure of Mr. Habib from the Middle East?
A: It doesn't have anything in connection with Mr. Habib. Mr. Habib heard from me at least four or perhaps six times that we are going to hit the terrorists - your mission is about the Syrian-Israeli crisis. And he accepted it, he admitted it. There is no novelty for him that we attacked the terrorists. We knew about it in advance. Not that he gave me a so-called green light. First of all, I would never ask him to give me a green light. I don't need it. We are an independent country and 1, as Prime Minister, have to defend my people. This is my sworn duty. And I will. But, of course, asking or getting a green light from the United States would be shifting responsibility. And therefore, I never expected a green light from America. On the other hand, I explained to Mr. Habib why we have to hit terrorists. And he knew about it in advance. And also Secretary Haig knew about it because Mr. Habib reported our talks to him. Now why we hit the Libyans now, that is a different question. That's a question of those who decide about Israel's strategy. We thought that this is the proper time to teach them a lesson. So, we taught them a lesson.
Q: What about the assassination just this morning in Brussels of the local P.L.O. representative, Mr. Naim Hader, who was apparently gunned down with five bullets that killed him. What is your reaction to this?
A: I hear it for the first time. I never heard about it. I didn't listen to the radio. I was busy here with my work. I don't know anything about it. It's not my problem at all.
Q: You don't think that one who engages in pro-P.L.O. activity or who represents...
A: My friend, I never heard his name. I don't know who he is. But the terrorists kill each other all the time. I wouldn't wonder if one terrorist organization sent an emissary to kill that man - I don't even remember his name. I don't know anything about it.
Q: Yet books have been written - fiction, novels, and thrillers - about Mossad Israeli intelligence agents, who supposedly go...
A: Ali, you like to read fiction - go ahead and read it.
Q: Is there any basis for that kind of ...
A: If it is fiction, how can I tell you? I don't write fiction. I write history and I read history.
Q: Well, turning to an event that certainly will go down in history - the presence of Syrian missile batteries on Lebanese soil, the problem that Philip Habib has been trying to deal with. Can you see a solution on the horizon?
A: For the time being, all the efforts of Mr. Habib, my dear friend, who is a brilliant man, did not bear fruit. He made brilliant moves and he made terrific efforts, especially in his state of health - he's not too well as you know. He's got the same trouble as I did - a heart attack. But I feel fine and he feels fine. And God bless him with good health and let him continue his efforts. But here are no results. The Syrians don't move one inch. They say that they will not remove the missiles from Lebanon. And Mr. Habib told them: status quo ante means, first of all, removal of the missiles from Lebanon, removal also of the additional missiles from the Lebanese-Syrian border, and a commitment not to use the remaining missiles - those that were (stationed) before the crisis - against Israeli planes. All this was said by Mr. Habib to Mr. Assad - not by Israel. This is Mr. Habib's interpretation-through-interpretation of the concept of status quo ante which must be restored. On this we have a complete consensus with the United States of America. But there's no movement and the Syrians very arrogantly said that they are not going to move even one missile from Lebanon. So, for the time being the crisis is on. And I don't know when Mr. Habib will come. Yesterday I learned that he will not arrive here this week. But he may arrive at the beginning or the middle of next week. He will be welcome here, but I will again ask him: My friend, Philip, how long is it going to last? We cannot wait for an indefinite period. How long is it going to last? It should be a serious negotiation. A serious negotiation should bring results. I agree with President Reagan that Mr. Habib fulfilled a very important role in creating an atmosphere of negotiations, of talks, although they are indirect. The Syrians don't talk to us. They talk to Mr. Habib - you know, like children when they get angry with each other, talking through another child. So they behave and the Saudis also don't talk to us directly. It's all indirectly. But how long can it go on?
Q: And if there is no specific proposal that you can accept, are you going to take unilateral action?
A: I didn't fix any date for Mr. Habib's mission. I can only say that if it will become clear that all the diplomatic efforts were useless, and he will reach that conclusion, I will reach the conclusion and my colleagues will reach the same conclusion - then, as my colleague, the opposition leader Mr. Peres said - then there won't be any other option than to use military means. We can destroy those missiles in two hours, my friend. Not to leave even one of them. We didn't do it because we want to give a chance to find a peaceful solution. And the Syrians, may I tell you - there's no boasting - cannot prevent us from destroying their missiles. But we want a peaceful solution. Therefore we wait patiently - another day. Another week. Of course, there's a limit to such patience. There must be a limit to such patience.
Q: If we go back to basic problems in the Middle East - I don't recall if you included it in the agenda with President Sadat, but there has been a proposal for autonomy that would be offered to the Palestinian Arabs.
A: It's an agreement of Camp David, my friend. It is written in the Camp David Agreement.
Q: Can you indicate reason for expecting headway toward an accommodation which the Palestinian Arabs themselves would accept?
A: Well, I think we suggested to them - it was our idea, neither an Egyptian nor an American idea - full autonomy, a historic change. Namely they will choose - elect by secret ballot, democratically - their own administrative council, which will have wide powers to deal with the daily affairs - let me say, in transport, in finance, in communications, in education, etc., etc. We will not interfere whatsoever. Only we reserve security because otherwise the terrorists of the P.L.O. will take over and then we shall have permanent bloodshed. And then, if that administrative council is elected, established and inaugurated, we will withdraw our military government from Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. There is really a historic change and they should accept it. It's a solution of the problem of the Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. Well, of course, we can only suggest - we cannot force anybody to accept it. We hope that one day they will. Look how patient we are with the Lebanese problem. Why shouldn't we be patient with our own problem? We are patient.