On 12 July Mr. Begin met again with Ambassador Habib and drew his attention to the fact that "the crisis cannot go on indefinitely, and therefore it is a matter of urgency. " On 13 July there was a meeting with the State Department Councillor Robert McFarlane dealing with the American suspension of the delivery of F-16 aircraft to Israel. It was agreed that resumption of the delivery would take place on 17 July. Mr. Begin discussed the content of both meetings and answered questions. Excerpts:
... Yesterday night, I met with a distinguished visitor from the United States, Mr. Philip Habib, the emissary of the President, with the task to solve the crisis in the relations between the Syrian and Israel, concerning the missiles which Syria put into Bekaa, within the territory of Lebanon. I did not make any so-called deadlines during our conversation, but as it was my duty to do, I drew the attention of Mr. Habib that this crisis cannot go on indefinitely, and therefore it is a matter of urgency. Mr. Habib understood me quite well because we are already after three months since the crisis started in April, and we are now nearly half of July. Today, Mr. Philip Habib left for Saudi Arabia, his itinerary after his visit to Saudi Arabia, which may last two or three days, is not known to me. He may come back to Jerusalem to give me the details of his conversations with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, or he may go either to Beirut or Damascus, and then come to Jerusalem. It is up to him. So I cannot tell you where he will go from Saudi Arabia, and in what order. I wish success to Mr. Philip Habib, and let us all hope and pray that thanks to his efforts and his labors - he is doing his best, with great ability and brilliancy - the crisis will be solved peacefully. Today in the morning, I met another distinguished guest of the United States, Mr. McFarlane, the Counsel of the State Department, and we had even a longer talk. Nearly for three hours. That talk, directly or indirectly, is connected with the suspension of the four F-16 airplanes which were supposed to land in Israel two weeks ago, and did not come - although they should, by the contract that was signed by the United States government already be in Israel. The conversation was very detailed, very friendly, with mutual understanding, but we shall continue tonight at my residence at eight o'clock, and let us express the hope that we shall find an agreement which we may either publish or perhaps not publish. But this is the reason, as I had other things to do, why we couldn't continue longer our conversation, and we decided to meet again at eight o'clock in the evening and try to reach an agreement between Mr. McFarlane and myself, or in other words, between the Governments of the United States and Israel.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, does Mr. McFarlane have the authority to conclude an agreement with you tonight, or does he have to go through the State Department?
A: I don't know - the word "agreement" is actually only a technical expression, it doesn't mean an agreement between those two states. We have to put beside and behind us the problem which arose as a result of our operation near Baghdad, in which we destroyed, as we believed, an atomic-bomb producing plant. And therefore, in our opinion, it was an act of supreme, legitimate, national self-defense. It was not even a question of territory; it was a question of our survival. But in the wake of that operation, the U.S. government, to our great astonishment, suspended the supply of four F-16 planes which were already contracted between the two governments. Now, as I heard from Mr. McFarlane, and also from another very distinguished American citizen, the President wants to put it behind. We also want to put it behind. So we have to reach ... a certain understanding which will make it possible to put it behind. We talked for nearly three hours, and we are going to meet again. Well, I suppose logically you can understand that during our talk in the morning, we did not yet reach the point at which we can say, both of us, there is now complete understanding and the matter is resolved. This is the reason why we are going to meet tonight.
Q: Is Israel willing to make any assurances to the United States ... for example that Israel would be willing to take U.S. interests into mind in making its decision?
A: The reply is completely negative. We always take into consideration American interests. We acted in exercising our right of legitimate self-defense, we did not have to apologize for anything in the world, if such demands have been, will be, put to us, then we shall state our position. We always take, I repeat again, the interests of the U.S., our friend and ally, into consideration. And if anybody should think, even should occur to him to think that one sovereign country should consult another sovereign country about specific military operations in order to defend its citizens, that would be absurd.
Q: Mr. Begin, did Mr. McFarlane mention any suggestion of linkage between the F-16 deliveries being resumed and Israel muting its opposition to the "AWACS" sales to Saudi Arabia?
A: No, we did not make such a suggestion, but we could have surmised that there is a connection between that exchange of view we had and the renewal of the supply. I only surmise, perhaps I am mistaken, I don't know. As far as the "AWACS" are concerned, we spoke about the problem, we stated our case. We oppose it. It is a mortal danger to Israel. Both the additional equipment to the F-15 and the supply of "AWACS" to Saudi Arabia will endanger utterly our national security. Because the F-15 with those additional containers would be able to reach Tel Aviv. Tel-Aviv... (includes) Bnei-Brak, Rehovot, Petah Tikva, Ramat Gan, Holon, Bat Yam, etc... More than a million people live there, and if the F-15, which is a tremendous plane, would reach that combination of cities, where more than a million people live, that would be a direct danger to our survival. And therefore we must oppose it, and we shall oppose it and as we stated time and again, we do not change our mind. As far as the legislative branch of the American government is concerned, in which there is now a majority of both houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, against that Saudi deal, that is a matter for the United States, we do not
interfere at all, but when we are asked about our opinion, it is our duty to state, it is a very serious, I would say, mortal, danger to Israel. And will create a great peril to our national security. The same concerns the "AWACS" planes because if the Saudis should get the "AWACS" planes and be under their control, then Israel will be transparent: All the air fields, all the roads, will be open to "AWACS" technology to take photos of them. They will know about every plane which either will take off or land. So therefore it is so grave a matter to us. And I said, I can repeat it if you want, after you have already in Saudi Arabia "AWACS" planes, but under complete American control, send another four "AWACS" planes under American complete control, please do so. We didn't object to those "AWACS" which General Jones sent to Saudi Arabia, but under complete American control, and we wouldn't to additional four "AWACS" planes. The question is whether it will be under Saudi control, and this is the intention. If it is under Saudi control, they will take photos of all Israel and they may give them to the Iraqis, they may give them to the Jordanians, and they may give them to any other enemy of Israel who proclaims his hostility, and therefore it is so dangerous. And Americans wouldn't be able to stop it, they wouldn't even know if those photos were given. The Saudis will have the photos of Israel. Then they are transparent to Iraq, to Jordan, perhaps even to Syria, so this is a very grave danger. Therefore this is our position, we oppose it, we shall oppose it.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, has the United States actually suggested that it have veto power or power of review over future Israeli military-operations?
A: Not at all. It wouldn't occur, to a very intelligent man like Mr. McFarlane, a real statesman, to make such a suggestion. Not at all.
The following is excerpted from the Hebrew: Q: What kind of joint agreement is being discussed ... ?
A: ... The agreement is necessary for the Americans, not for us, in order to end the suspension of the delivery of the four planes which I mentioned earlier ... We argued about this matter, and each side expressed his opinion. And I can say forthrightly, the fact that I do not now have an agreed text means that we have not yet reached an agreement.
Q: Is Israel a partner to the effort to find an overall solution to the problem in Lebanon, and will the removal of the missiles wait until such a solution is reached?
A: No - Israel can not interfere in Lebanon, because Lebanon must be an independent nation. We have no demands in Lebanon. We are ready to sign a peace treaty with Lebanon today ... but ... (Mr. Sarkis) is circumscribed by the Syrian occupation army. We don't interfere in this - if we are asked, we give our opinion. The main purpose of Mr. Habib's mission, from our point of view, is the removal of the missiles. You should know that the Americans are convinced, as we are, that the Syrian missiles...must be removed. But Mr. Habib and we want ... this crisis ... to be solved peacefully...