In the interview broadcast on the "Face the Nation" program, the Prime Minister again explained the reasons for the Israeli air attack on the nuclear plant near Baghdad, denied any linkage between the timing of the operation and the forthcoming national elections in Israel, and spoke of the future of his country and American relations. Text:
Q: Prime Minister Begin - if Israel can have an atom bomb, why can't Iraq?
A: You ask me about an Israeli atomic bomb? Israel will never be the first to introduce atomic weapons into the Middle East. We are prepared to sign the N.P.T. if our neighbors sign a peace treaty with us. As long as there is no peace treaty, there is no point to a non-proliferation treaty.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, I want a follow-up on some of the considerations that went into your decision to make the strike against Iraq. It has been called the first major military attack on a nuclear site. Are you at all concerned that in any way you have opened precedent for other nations to make similar attacks?
A: No, not at all, but first of all, we had to think of the security of our people and - may I put it very simply: security of our children. We had all the available information - absolutely sure, that Saddam Hussein, the tyrant of Iraq has an ambition to develop an atomic bomb, and in that reactor Osiraq near Baghdad, an atomic bomb is being developed. That was absolutely sure information from the best and most reliable sources possible. Lately we got the following additional information: That reactor will be operational or, as the experts call it, "hot", either in the beginning of July or in the beginning of September. So we didn't have much time we didn't have any time to lose - because, let us assume in the beginning of September: How could we have known that it won't be in July? We're not there every day, we had our sources of information, in fact - but we cannot say. That would have been a horrible risk. Why? Because if the reactor becomes operational, in other words "hot", then its bombing, or its opening, would be the greatest risk to the population of Baghdad, because if the "hot" reactor is bombed, and becomes "open", then a wave of radioactive poison goes out and covers the sky over Baghdad, and may kill or inflict horrible wounds on hundreds of thousands of people. Men, women and children. Under such circumstances I for one would never have suggested to bomb that reactor. And I am sure none of my colleagues would have ever accepted or supported such a proposal. Then - we are lost. Because then we would have been passive, we couldn't do anything, and in two, or three at the most four years, Mr. Saddam Hussein would have his three or four Hiroshima-type bombs. As you know, in Hiroshima, there were two hundred thousand casualties, in killed and wound - the wounds were very horrible. And they are being inherited by the future generations. Three bombs could inflict 600,000 casualties - a fifth of our people in American terms proportionally it would 44 million people. Would the United States have stood for that? What was your question, I couldn't hear you...
Q: Are you saying really that you are not at all concerned that has far reaching implications in turn on the actions of other countries if Israel goes without being punished at all...
A: What implications? Should we have waited because of that consideration you put now to me until the reactor is hot, we cannot do anything, and the bombs fall on our heads? No, every country will decide for itself. And there are the great powers, so now I feel a free man, you know - I feel like a man who has left prison. I go out, I see our children - they will live. For two years I lived with the horrible thought that, may be, if we are too late with that operation, the children who are now five, six years old, then they will be ten - the radioactivity will come over their little heads. That was the most horrible period in my life, I must tell you in complete candour.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister - where do you go now? You've knocked out one reactor in Iraq. Other countries in the region may develop nuclear power, nuclear weapons - is there any end to this, as you see it, what is the end?
A: What countries? Iraq cannot rebuild its reactor soon, it will take at least three, perhaps five years. I hope that Mr. Francois Mitterrand, in contradiction to Mr. Giscard D'Estaing will not provide Iraq with his scientists and with enriched uranium so that source of help for Iraq will disappear. I hope Italy will learn its lesson, and they'll also stop sending scientists and providing them with the materials to build the centrifuge, to create plutonium out of enriched uranium. The difference is that for a Hiroshima-type bomb you need 20 kg of enriched uranium - but you need only seven kilograms of plutonium, to build a twenty, up to thirty kilo atomic bomb, that is even larger than the Hiroshima-type. Now if the Iraqis should rebuild, let me say in five years, their reactor, and try to produce atomic bombs - I will not then be prime minister - I don't know whether III be alive. But I am absolutely sure that, based on the precedent we created, any prime minister of any government of Israel will destroy that reactor before it is operational. Not exactly by planes there are many routes, many ways to go.
Q: This is not the first time that an attempt has been made to destroy the Iraqi reactor. Just a little more than three years ago, parts of the reactor were sabotaged while' they were still in a warehouse in France, near Toulon. It has been widely assumed that this was an Israeli operation, which sabotaged the reactor in France. Now that the reactor has been destroyed, now that it is a hole in the ground near Baghdad, can you tell us, Mr. Prime Minister, whether or not the operation in Toulon three years ago was an Israeli operation?
A: This is your assumption. I cannot say anything about it. If you have such good connections with the "Mossad", ask them.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister - even those who accept your reasoning on the raid, wonder why it was done at a time when it would embarrass so directly Mr. Sadat, particularly since Mr. Sadat has gone out on a limb for peace in the Middle East at a time when he seemed to be repairing somewhat his own relationship with the other Arab countries?
A: What embarrassment? I sent my friend General Sharon to see Sadat. He went there because of our cooperation in agriculture, and before he went there I asked him: ... Arik, you talk with President Sadat. There are many problems to deal with, first of all Lebanon, the Syrian crisis. There are also bilateral problems, the multi-national force, the negotiations in Jerusalem, etc. - and tell him that I would like to see him, just to talk about these problems. He did, and reported to me that Sadat agreed immediately. And then I called him - it was a Thursday - and as we call each other by our private names, I asked him, Anwar, can you see me between the first and the tenth of June? And I made a concrete suggestion: Thursday, 10 o'clock at Ophira. He immediately agreed. Then, as it was an international talk, as usual it was cut off. Then President Sadat got in touch with me again. He wanted to be sure, and asked: Menachem, did we speak about Thursday, 10 o'clock in Sharm a-Sheikh, as he calls the place. I said: Yes, exactly. Then we talked. Did you expect me to tell him that military secret, absolute secret on which the lives of our pilots depended? Did anybody hear from me about it? My wife, my son - anybody in the world? Except those who had the right to know? Doesn't President Sadat have his strategic secrets? Does he tell me them? Do I demand of him to tell me ... and we finished our talks in a most friendly atmosphere - I knew that on Sunday there was going to be that operation. I couldn't tell him anything. Then I said, to free President Sadat of any responsibility, I said: I didn't even tell him one word about it.
Q: Has he said anything to you since - and are you still invited to Alexandria next month?
A: He invited me to Alexandria, yes... between the first and the fifteenth of July, after the elections.
Q: You know that's still on?
A: I beg your pardon?
Q: You know that's still on, since the strike, that's been reconfirmed?
A: After the elections, first of all. The elections on the 30th of June. We shall see then who is going to form a new government. If I will form a new government I will gladly go to Alexandria and have another talk with him. If Mr. Peres is elected, Mr. Peres will go. In a democracy, everybody believes in his victory. But, victory is in the poll, not an opinion poll, but the real poll.
Q: Could we go back to Israel-American relations for a moment and ask you about the criticisms you made of Secretary of Defense Weinberger for allegedly recommending a cutoff of aid to Israel? There's been quite some criticism back at you from Washington apparently, and some unhappiness that you have interjected yourself into what apparently was an internal disagreement within the American cabinet.
A: No I did not. I will tell you something: I don't retract even one word I said at Petah Tikva, in the face, in the presence of 20,000 people. But I don't want to go into that polemic any more, its enough what I said. And everything I said is true. That's enough and we deal with actual problems. I never intended to attack Mr. Weinberger personally, it was a political issue. I don't want to repeat the statement I made. I don't want to add to it, I don't intend to detract from it.
Q: Do you have any broader views on American-Israeli relations now?
A: Of course, I have, very broad views, as broad as America itself is, between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. We're friends and allies. I will always quote that expression by the Secretary of State, we are in a permanent alliance. President Reagan is one of the most friendly presidents in the United States ever, except the day when President Truman recognized the State of Israel and President Nixon decided about the air-lift. We have never had a more friendly president in the White House. Except for those two days - as for all the days. I know it very well. And the Administration in general is very friendly towards Israel. But now, the relations are not as they used to be. Namely: Israel is not on the receiving line. Israel is an ally. A strong ally, a faithful ally of the United States of America, of the free world. And so the Secretary of State says and so the President says time and again. This is exactly what the foundations of the relations between our two countries should be.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, one question which is being asked in the United States and in Israel is not so much why did Israel destroy the Iraqi reactor - but why did you announce it? American officials have said: why didn't they just do it and we could have applauded quietly on the sidelines. But by announcing it, by boasting about it, it put us in a terribly difficult position. Without the announcement, there would have been no strain in relations, there would have been no postponement of arms delivery - did you consider this?
A: How clever. How clever this idea is. I don't know who are the officials you talked to. Now listen. It was on the eve of Shavuot, Pentecost, when my friends - in other words, it was Sunday, the eve of our holiday. And I asked my friends to come to my home, to my residence, the official residence. My home is in Tel Aviv. It was just one hour for the holiday to come in, and the religious ministers were present. I came out from my library and said: My friends, at this very moment, our planes are flying towards Baghdad in order to attack and destroy the atomic-bomb producing reactor near Baghdad, Osiraq. Then, after an hour and twenty-five minutes, thank God for that moment, I could come out after my talk with the Chief of Staff and informed my friends: The target is destroyed, and all the boys are coming safely back home. That was a great moment in our lives. And then we started to think what to say to the world. So we dealt with this problem. We decided that we shall not be the first to announce it. Later we learned that the on the way the Jordanians recognized us. The Saudis recognized us. The Iraqis recognized us. The planes were our planes and had Israeli signs. No camouflage whatsoever. Then the following day we were still silent. Until I got the phone call from my military secretary who told me, just like this: that at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon the broadcasting corporation of Jordan announced that Israeli planes attacked vital objectives in Iraq. Every child could have understood what that communique meant. Then, and only then, I said: At three o'clock publish it on our radio. We didn't publish it first. If we hadn't published it, it would have come out like this: The Iraqis intended to publish it two hours later. Then we wouldn't have any option whatsoever. And then, what would they have said? Yes, they destroyed the reactor - but they don't have civil courage enough to say so to the world. They try to hide it. What kind of action what are we, thieves in the night? We went out to destroy this reactor because it was a mortal danger to our people and to our children. There was nothing to be ashamed of. Nothing to apologize for. We had to declare it - but especially after it was already published on Jordanian radio. And therefore it came out - but not at three o'clock, because there was some misunderstanding with the voice of the announcer: It came out at four o'clock. And since then, we announced it hour after hour - and the Iraqis announced it two hours later We didn't have to play along with it. As far as applauding quietly, I never heard of a quiet applause. When you applaud, everybody hears it.
Q: Our time is getting very short now. If we could move on to Mr. Habib's mission and Israel's intentions about the Syrian missiles. Do you plan to take them out? How long to you plan to give Mr. Habib?
A: You should ask Mr. Habib how long he is going around shuttling. He is now in Riyadh. And I learned from the American Ambassador that he pondered whether from Riyadh to go to Jerusalem or to Damascus. So I rather suggested to my friend Sam Lewis that Habib goes to Damascus first and then comes to us, because I want to know what is the result of his shuttling. So he will probably be here on Wednesday, and meantime, between Sunday and Wednesday, he will visit Damascus, and then III hear from him. I told him time and again: it cannot go on for an indefinite period. And then I hope I will hear. We gave him all the time. When President Sadat asked me also to prolong his time - we did. We don't want war with Syria. Syria is afraid to make war against us - and he should try to remove the missiles.
Q: Does he have at least through the elections?
A: This problem doesn't have anything to do with the elections, whatsoever why elections? Have missiles anything in common with elections? Where from comes this curious idea? Does a people have to defend itself or does it not? Should it defend itself, what does that have in common with a certain date when the people goes to the poll and elects its prime minister, its government? We gave him ample time, we didn't put a deadline. On Wednesday I hope to hear from him, and then we shall know.
Q: Your own chief of staff suggested that the operation against the Iraqi reactor might not have been possible, had the American AWACS planes already been delivered to Saudi Arabia. Do you believe, sir, that now, in the wake of the strike, and with the current tension between Jerusalem and Washington, that it is more likely that the AWACS sale will be passed by the American congress?
I A: First of all, I would like to tell you that our chief of staff knows exactly what he is saying. If he said so, then it is so. And why should it now really be put into realization? To make our position harsher? More dangerous to Israel's security. And we shall continue to oppose that deal, no doubt whatsoever. Even with greater vigor, because, as the chief of staff told you, with the AWACS in the hands of the Saudis - not the Americans - our pilots would have been detected in the beginning, and perhaps some S.A. missiles would have been put en route, and somebody would have shot down our pilots with the planes. What do you think? Would that have been an advisable development, a good development as far as Israel is concerned - or would it have been a tragedy?
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, could I return to the attack on the reactor for a moment and ask you for some details on the secret installation that you said, that you first said was 40 meters underground and then corrected that to 4 meters underground...
A: I made a mistake and admitted it without any hesitation...
Q: Could you tell us a little more about that installation, in the light of the fact that, as I understand, that General Ivri, the commander of the Air Force, indicated in a radio interview that he did not know about this, that he was not aware...
A: He didn't say he didn't know - he said he doesn't want to talk about it. What I want to assure you is that there was an underground installation. That's all I can say. I cannot give you more details. But because of a certain mistake, through reading I had to 'Correct it later. I said the cupola, the crown was 10 m. high and the underground was 4 meters deep, and therefore that zero wandered as I read it. I made that mistake, a very decent mistake and when I learned about it I immediately phoned the Reuters correspondent personally and told me him apologies...
A: Excuse me, it has just been reported on Israel radio that the United States knew about Iraqi intentions to build the bomb, and communicated that knowledge to you.
A: I -cannot accept such a statement, but we had all the information months ago. From the most reliable sources. What I can promise you is that if we meet in the U.S., in my room, I will show you that information.