The events along the Israel-Lebanese border resulted in a serious strain on Israel-American relations. There was growing criticism of the Israeli policy in Lebanon in general and of Prime Minister Begin in particular in Washington. The criticism was somewhat tempered by Secretary of State Haig who emphasized the close relationship between Israel and the United States and Israel being an important strategic asset for the U. S. In this interview, Mr. Begin answered his critics and expressed his view on Lebanon, the Israeli raid on Iraq and the suspension of the shipment of F-16 planes to Israel. Text:
Q: Prime Minister Begin, first let me ask you about yesterday's bad news - the attack on the bus inside Israel. Do you consider this attack to be a violation of the cease-fire agreement?
A: Well, of course, any aggressive act against us by the so-called P.L.O. is an act of aggression. But we want the cessation of hostilities to last, so we do not immediately react. The whole situation we shall consider probably next week on the confidence of the majority of the Knesset. And then we shall make a tour d'horizon, especially in our Governmental Defense Council, which deals with these matters.
Q: Let me also ask you about the State Department's statement last night, condemning Israel for engaging in this dogfight with a Syrian Mig-25. What explanation do you have for that?
A: I don't think that Israel was condemned in that statement by the spokesman of the State Department. I heard it very well. It was a very unfortunate statement - not because of any words of condemnation, which do not exist -perhaps my friend Uri was mistaken. The State Department expressed regrets because of what happened, etc. But especially, and I'm glad I have the opportunity to say so through your journal to the American people, especially it was most unfortunate because of such an expression that "We hope it will not be repeated again". This is, may I say, too regrettable for words. As far as Israel, a sovereign country, is concerned, we have a full agreement with the United States government about the reconnaissance overflights and the United States government knows very well that after the cessation of hostilities, we continue with those reconnaissance flights, and they are not included in the concept of expression "Hostile Acts". And then came the Syrian planes during taking those photos, during that peaceful reconnaissance flight, and tried to interfere and shoot down one, or more of our planes. So, our planes shot down a MIG-25 which tried to prevent us from carrying out a peaceful mission to which the United States government gave its full agreement. So how can the State Department spokesman allow himself to say "We hope it will not be repeated". What will not be repeated? If he referred to the attempt by the Syrians to interfere with those overflights, then it's all right. But I think that he referred to the fact that the MIG-25, one of the planes which tried to interfere, was shot down. This may be repeated, I would like to tell him. We will continue with our peaceful missions of overflights to take photos and to learn where the bases of the so-called P.L.O. are in Lebanon. As one of the American representatives told me during the negotiations: "No nation," I quote, "No nation will agree to blind itself." So we are a nation, and we are not going to agree to blind ourselves. So one of the next few days, supposing that we are going to carry out an overflight in Lebanon for the peaceful purpose of taking photos and will try to interfere or prevent us from doing so, then I suppose another MIG may fall down, although a spokesman of Syria said that they'll shoot down our planes. But yesterday I declared at the International Conference of Jurists, that if so the Syrian representative said, he should remember that it is easier said than done. At exactly the very same time when I made that statement that MIG-25, which is a very good plane, one of the best planes in the world, instead of shooting down one of our planes, was itself shot down. So, that point is a very sore one, and I hope it was a slip of the tongue by the spokesman of the State Department. I prefer to assume so. I'm sure it's not a policy of the Government of the United States, because the government of the United States knows very well and agrees fully that the reconnaissance flights of the Israeli Air Force over Lebanon will continue. We are on this in full understanding.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, after the Israeli raid on the Iraqi reactor, you said, in what many felt were personal terms, about the responsibility that you felt to Israel, to the next generation, to spare them the threat of this ultimate holocaust, before you left the political stage in Israel. Do you feel that same way about the problem of P.L.O. terrorism and its threat to Israel?
A: Well, I spoke not only about the future generation. I spoke about this generation in connection with the atomic bomb-producing plant in Iraq. We have children and as an observer you must understand my friend, although we waged for the last thirty-two years, five wars, which caused all of us very great casualties. As far as we are concerned, graver than to other nations because of the Holocaust. However, the children were saved because our army defended them and won the day. Now we have a million children in this country and the Iraqis planned to have an atomic bomb and may I say, appeared to go full swing against Tel Aviv or against any other concentration of the Israeli civilian population. In two or the latest three years - in other words, children who are now seven years old - will be then nine years old. But still they would be children. And an atomic bomb would kill the children of this generation - not only the future generation. And that was my main concern and worry for many months, since I got the reliable information and the most reliable information that Mr. Saddam Hussein wants an atomic bomb and makes the preparations to have it very soon. Therefore, our main worry was about what is going to happen to our children - naturally. And we had to destroy the reactor before it destroys our children.
Q: Do you feel the same way about the P.L.0....
A: As far as the P.L.O. - so-called P.L.O., may I say. You said P.L.O. - it's your right. My language is so-called P.L.O. - not because of the "P" and not because of the "0". They may stay. Because of the "L". What kind of liberation is it to try to destroy a people. And all the time to turn the weapons against civilian population as yesterday, you could have seen with your own eyes, were you at Ma'aleh Hahamisha. Just shooting into a bus. And indeed a child of ten years old was severely wounded. So, the organization is bent on the destruction of Israel. They had to cease hostilities because they were very hard hit by our defence forces - very hard. And of course we had to defend our civilian population. People say that we bombed Beirut. That is one of the, may I say, great distortions of truth of our era. I know who bombed and almost destroyed Beirut. The answer is the Syrian occupation army and the very same P.L.O., so-called, because they used to bombard Beirut houses, men, women and children, for days and nights on end, with heavy guns and tanks. And if you go to Beirut you will see it is a ghost city. The same happened to another very large city in Lebanon - Zahleh - in which more than 700 people were killed and thousands wounded. The only hospital was destroyed. There was no water, and there was no bread, and there was no plasma, and the Syrians continued to bombard it, to shell it with heavy artillery. But I don't remember any reaction by the American media. And I don't remember even articles in the press about these atrocities. So, coming back to Beirut, we didn't attack Beirut - we wouldn't because there are civilians. This government, more than any other, in Israel and outside, brought into practice the principle - don't hurt civilians. For years we kept that principle. This time as well. But we had to attack the headquarters of the various organizations and points of the so-called P.L.O., and they placed themselves probably intentionally - near or within the civilian population, enjoying therefore complete immunity, which gives them the possibility to issue orders to those who are in the south: attack with a gun - 130 mm. range 27 km. supplied to you by the Soviet Union - Kiryat Shmoneh, Nahariya, Misgav Am, another kibbutz, etc. All the katyusha missiles - a deadly weapon - on one truck, forty missiles. By one push of the button, all the forty missiles are launched. And then they destroy houses, they kill people on the way. One day they caused three deaths and twenty-five people wounded in Nahariya, Kiryat Shemona and other townships. To us Jews, a massacre. All the wounded men could have been killed. Others could have been killed. The intention was to cause scores of casualties in dead and in wounded. And that was the direct order of those headquarters, placed in Beirut. So, I would like to say, not in order to make your readers sentimental, but because of the human side of the problem which interests your newspaper, as I understand - and every newspaper in America. And also the media. Why wasn't it shown or written about, I don't know. Amongst the three people who got killed by the katyushas in Nahariya was a man aged sixty-eight. Yes. He lived for several years in Auschwitz, if I may say so. And then he survived Auschwitz and he came to this land, or he came back to the land of his forefathers. And here, thirty-six years after the end of the war, and after he survived Auschwitz, a Soviet supplied katyusha, supplied to a neo-Nazi organization, which kills a Jew because he's a Jew - it got him. So, in defence of our people, we attacked also the headquarters in Beirut. I can say, immediately, without any hesitation, all my colleagues and I do regret the civilian casualties. We say so in public. We are not afraid of any comments to say so - whatever they are. However, it was an absolute necessity from the point of view of defending our people. As I said, those headquarters, with their most modern electronic communication instruments gave those orders. We caused them great damage. I have the list of the headquarters of the various organizations. They, of course, play a game and say that they were not hurt at all. But they are capable of inventing a battle between Israeli tanks and many tanks being ablaze. There was no tank battle in Lebanon. Well, so they issue such communiques. But we know we caused them very grave damage. And so, this is not a matter of the future generations or of this generation - it is just a matter of our people in all the generations. We will defend our people. We have to. It's our duty, and this is exactly what we did. In other words, both the destruction of the atomic-bomb producing plant, Osiraq, near Baghdad, and our operations in Lebanon, including the command posts of the various organizations, components of the so-called P.L.O. are all acts of legitimate national self-defence. We just defend ourselves against most horrible aggression, turned all the time against the civilian population - never again a military installation. And it went on and on and on...
Q: I want to ask you about the U.S. and U.S.-Israeli relations. This game is being played out now with the F-16's which I'm sure bothers you a great deal. Is there a point at which Israel would become so fed up that it would say -keep your F-16s, we don't need them. We'll build our Lavie plane. We're not going to play the game any more. Could you do that?
A: Well, I will say first of all something - but only one or two sentences about the so-called suspension. In simple words, a breach of contract. That's all I want to say. These are not planes promised to us. They were signed up in a contract. And they should have been supplied in the terms which were also agreed. Four, six, again four - also F-15s provided when we signed the agreement with the United States. That is a breach of contract and from this point of view it's an American problem - not an Israeli problem. I suppose that in the United States, as in Israel, and as in any free country, the great rule - international law and relations between countries - is to carry out agreements. More I won't say. I never complained about it to anybody. And you may ask the Secretary of State, or Mr. Philip Habib, or anybody else who wrote to me or visited me. The Secretary of State - no, when the Secretary of State was here, there was no suspension yet. The President didn't get any word, although we write to each other -any word of complaint. Why is it so? Because I think that as far as the suspension itself is concerned, it's not a matter for Israel - it's an American problem. Breaches of signed agreement. The world is watching. America has got friends and needs friends. There is need for confidence, absolute confidence, in carrying out your agreements. So, that is the end of my remarks about this issue of the suspension. As far as arms are concerned, we do our best to produce our own arms. Very sophisticated arms as well, my friend. I don't want to make a secret of them. We produce some of the most sophisticated arms in the world, now, although we are a very small country. But we have very good scientists, and we have very skilled labour - in other words, good brains and good hands. And this is a very fine combination for developing high technology. And we did. However, there are still some items which we ourselves do not produce and we need really the help of the United States. I would like to stress here that we get that help - I got it, I hope we shall get it, and we are very grateful for it - but nobody should think that this is a one-way road. America helps us if we help America. I would like you to inform your readers with emphasis, that we contribute very much to the national security of the United States.
Q: What are some of the ways?
A: Well, I can't go into any details of this issue. I assure you so it is and those in a position to know in America, know it very well. And in our private conversations, they accept this definition of mine: it's two-way traffic, not one-way traffic. We help each other. And if we could develop all our weapons, we surely would do it, and perhaps in the future it will be so. But not in the ... let me say, very close to this day. We will make efforts to produce our own arms. In the near future we shall need certain items - we shall need the help of our friends, and this is always natural, because for the first time both the President and the Secretary of State have used the words, "Friend and Ally." The Secretary of State said when he was in Jerusalem, "We are in permanent alliance." So isn't it natural that an ally helps an ally? He gets help, and he also gives help, as we do. He isn't to be pictured as being on the receiving line. He takes and he gives. It's mutual.
Q: Prime Minister, I'd like to ask you about Saudi Arabia. There appear to be some in the new administration who view Saudi Arabia as a potential ally, with some of the same importance to the U.S. as Israel. The Israeli analysts that I talk to think that this is fundamentally mistaken in conception: That Saudi Arabia isn't a reliable ally, and that this policy is crazy. I assume that you believe that too. If you could talk for a moment about the role Saudi Arabia is playing in U.S. diplomacy and the risks you see in that for the U.S.
A: I give many talks about Saudi Arabia and I use sharp words about it. I don't hesitate to repeat them. Because from that country came the call for "Jihad" or Holy War against Israel. That means they are trying to destroy Israel, should that Holy War succeed. Saudi Arabia gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the terrorist P.L.O. and although Saudi Arabia is afraid of the Soviet Union and communism like Beelzebub (Satan) is afraid of holy water, they support the P.L.O. which is an agent of the Soviet Union. In Damascus a few months ago, the Fatah conference decided, I quote, "We are an ally of the socialist countries headed by the Soviet Union." This is a famous international phrase, how to become an agent of the Soviet Union -"an ally of the Socialist countries headed by the Soviet Union". And now Mr. Arafat is probably going to Moscow to ask for more weapons against Israel. It is known to the world that the so-called P.L.O. is absolutely connected with Moscow and its members are being trained in the Soviet Union. We have certificates, in English and in Russian, given to men who finished military school. We have it, in our hands. So, Saudi Arabia still supports that organization, although they are afraid of communism and aren't allies at all of the Soviet Union. It's entangled, but this is reality.
Then, Saudi Arabia doesn't have a proper army to defend itself. Senator Jackson rightly asks "How many divisions do they have?" It's not a new question, as you remember from the Second World War and the Pope. But he asked the proper question. They have a militia. But they don't have a proper army.
The danger to Saudi Arabia is rather from within. As a very close observer - an Arab statesman - told me last year, one of the princes - there are a few thousands princes and princesses, less one, who was beheaded because of adultery (that is the great progress by the most democratic country in the Middle East) but still, there are several thousand princes and princesses, and one of the princes got one check of two billion dollars. For a plot of land, which probably he bought with a few hundreds dollars, or a few thousand, and then oil was discovered. He got one check, two billion dollars. Will you, my friend, ever count two billion dollars if you live to be 120 years? As we say by our tradition. Two billion dollars. And another check was seven billion dollars, which was distributed among all the princes. They are a lot, but still, if you get seven billion dollars for distribution, I wasn't good at school at mathematics, but I still think every one of them got a few million dollars. I think that's probably right. I can't make the division you know.
This is a country corrupt in its soul. In its body politics. It is absolutely corrupt, and it is an implacable enemy of Israel. It calls for Jihad. This is Saudi Arabia. And giving them AWACS, and the additional offensive items for the F-15s is a "direct and present danger" to Israel, to use Brandeis's famous expression. With those offensive paraphernalia which they should get from the United States, the containers, the sidewinder missiles, the F-15s can reach Tel Aviv mainly from Tobuk. Have you heard about Tobuk? That is a military town build by the Saudis. It's just a jump to Israeli territory. The F-15 uses very much its oil (fuel) and therefore the distance isn't so long. But with additional containers they can reach Tel Aviv and fly back to Tobuk. Imagine bombs over Tel Aviv. We could shoot down many of them, but some of them probably would have thrown their bombs on Tel Aviv and caused havoc to us. And it may happen. Of course it may happen. Either by the Saudis directly, or perhaps they will put those planes at the disposal of another enemy.
Q: The Saudis, as you say, are the principal financial support of the P.L.O. today. Yet Israel, to my knowledge, doesn't do anything except talk critically about Saudi Arabia.
A: Oh yes. It's not always paid attention to, but ... yes, please.
Q: Could it happen that if the P.L.O. resumes its war of attrition and Israeli civilians are dying, that Israel would consider a move against the country that backs the P.L.O. financially?
A: You will understand that in this office I cannot discuss with you strategic plans of any kind in the future. Whenever anything happens, we consult each other - this is the rule in a democratic country. We have a government, we have a defense council, a small committee, out of the government, which takes the main tactical decisions. Strategic decisions are taken by the cabinet. But we have such a defense council which takes tactical decisions. We shall decide what we have to do. That I cannot discuss. I cannot make it public at all. But I am speaking again about Saudi Arabia. I just wonder why there is this great psychological dependence in some circles in the U.S. vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia. Because they have oil. But they cannot drink that oil. They have to sell it. And the U.S. is one of the most important buyers of that oil. And today there are many alternatives, especially for the United States: Mexico, Canada. There is the problem of money. I know that great sums of money are involved here, in the relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States. But if that experience should decide policies regarding the fate of nations, I wouldn't believe that the American people would stand for it.
Q: Just to return briefly to my question, the Saudis should not assume that they can bankroll the P.L.O. forever with impunity, without running any risk of some day the Israelis deciding enough is enough. Hmm ... ?
A: You give me advice?
Q: I am not giving you advice. This is an important question.
A: There is nothing wrong for you to give me advice. Yours is the advice. Mine is the responsibility. So we should leave out questions of our strategy towards one country or another country. We know what's going on in Saudi Arabia, we have good information about Saudi Arabia. We know that country very well.
Q: And you will not rule out the possibility that some day you might have to do something? That's the question I am asking.
A: You have to answer the question, and I don't have to answer the question. I can evade an answer. That's my perfect right.
But I will not evade. When we are sitting here, at this very moment - ten to ten, Thursday 30 July - a month after the elections- so when we sit here at ten to ten, 30th of July, we do not plan any military acts against Saudi Arabia. Now I gave you an answer.
Q: That's an answer.
A: Isn't that simple.
Q: Members of your government talk from time to time about there already being a Palestinian state - called Jordan. And I've heard people say, "We should have let Hussein fall in 1970." Do you believe that someday the Hashemite Government will be replaced by a Palestinian Government, and would that be a sane solution to all these problems?
A: Why should I believe in it? That will be an implacable enemy of Israel. Why should I believe in it? Yes, I know that several of my colleagues believe as you have quoted them. That is their perfect right. I will tell you what I believe. I want peace with Jordan, and with all our neighbours. And I believe that when peace is achieved, we can cooperate. One day, perhaps it is a vision - but we have proved that sometimes visions are actually a corridor to reality - a kind of confederation between Israel and Jordan, through peaceful means, through agreement and permanent cooperation. For instance, trucks from Judea and Samaria go to Transjordan, and even they reach Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with products. Why shouldn't there be a movement to the west? We will be prepared when peace is achieved and we decided upon cooperation to give the King of Jordan a free port in Ashdod or Haifa. He has only an outlet to the Red Sea from Aqaba, but he doesn't have any outlet to the Mediterranean, to Europe. Of course, he can go through the Suez Canal, but it is a long way. He can have a short cut to Ashdod or Haifa. We can give him a free port and send his products to Europe. It's very important to him economically. I believe in this vision of cooperation. Why should I assume that a man of the terrorist P.L.O. should become the ruler of Transjordan? That is no vision. That is a danger.
Q: Some Israeli critics in the opposition have argued that your endorsement of the Habib cease-fire is tantamount to recognition of the P.L.O. What is your view of that and would your government ever consider dealing with the P.L.O. directly?
A: It is the right of the opposition to say anything, including foolish things. But this is absolutely foolish. We issued a statement you can read it, that we didn't empower anybody to negotiate with the P.L.O. and Mr. Habib didn't exchange a word with the P.L.O. as he promised me. He gave me such a promise: "I will not talk to the P.L.O. because it is the American policy not to negotiate with the P.L.O." The famous two conditions. There was such an agreement by Mr. Rabin, may he live long, and the late Mr. Allon, that as long as the P.L.O. doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist and 242, the U.S. won't recognize the P.L.O. He (Habib) told me, "I am prevented from talking to the P.L.O." and he didn't. I know he didn't. He was in Beirut, and he was in Saudi Arabia.
Last time he didn't go to Damascus, probably because - I don't know the real reason, he didn't tell me and I didn't ask him, it's not my business - because of the very hostile atmosphere which was created in Damascus personally against Mr. Habib. There were very sharp, inciting articles against him. They called him names, etc. Anyhow, he didn't go to Damascus. He went to Beirut. There he talked to Sarkis, and we agreed to that. And he went to Saudi Arabia, against which we didn't object. If he wants to go to Saudi Arabia, let him go. But there were no negotiations with the P.L.O. We didn't sign any agreement with the P.L.O. We don't recognize the so-called P.L.O. It's a terrorist, neo-Nazi organization bent on the destruction of Israel. They will never achieve their design, and it is good that there is now no bloodshed. We don't want bloodshed. If they won't hurt us, we will not fire upon anybody in Lebanon. This is what we said. This is, I suppose, for the better. But that saying you quoted to me was just foolish. Should one of my colleagues in Parliament raise it, I will explain to Parliament what we did, and the word foolish is quite a parliamentary expression. So I may use it.
Q: Final question: Do you trust President Sadat enough to believe that Egypt and Israel will be as close friends after next April as they appear to be now. In other words, isn't it possible that once he gets his land back, he could appear very different?
A: We signed a peace treaty. Some people - cynics - call it a piece of paper. But I am an old man, my friend - an old Jew, 68 years old - and I worked for my people more than 50 years, and in those 50 years I learned from experience that cynicism isn't to be equated with wisdom. In my opinion to the contrary.
It is cynical to say that a peace treaty is a piece of paper that can be torn to shreds. It cannot. It is a very serious document, and there are inherent guarantees, either by the objective situation, because two-thirds of Sinai is demilitarized, and there aren't going to be Egyptian troops in that part of Sinai (in the other third there are limitations to keeping forces, and that wasn't the case in the past, in '56 and '57, when there was a withdrawal from Sinai after Suez and the Egyptian army came back to Sinai, and it was remilitarized). Now it is demilitarized, so there are inherent guarantees.
Then there is the multi-national force, including an American unit, which is again one of the inherent guarantees for freedom of navigation in the Tiran Straits, because you do not throw out an American military unit, a battalion is not a great military force, but you don't throw it out, so I believe.
Then there is another guarantee: Does the state of Israel disappear after the 26th of April 1982, or any component of the State of Israel?
As far as President Sadat is concerned, yes I do believe he wants peace. As I want peace with Egypt, he wants peace with Israel. I do believe so. I know him quite well. We are friends. We met quite often. We exchanged messages, oral and in writing. And he wants peace.
I wouldn't say so about all his advisors. There are some advisors who until this very day actually oppose the peace treaty and the Camp David Agreements. And this is the second school of thought in Egypt. But still the ruler of Egypt - the real ruler - is President Sadat. And therefore, he overruled quite a number of times his advisors, as I know from my own experience.
Now you ask me what will be the far future. President Sadat is as mortal as I am. We, both of us, one day will disappear from the scene. And then maybe the other ruler will change his mind. That may happen. But that may happen everywhere. Everywhere. So I consider the peace treaty to be a very serious and very great achievement. Good for Israel and for Egypt, for the Middle East, and for the world at large. After 32 years of a state of war, activated in five wars, in which thousands of people died, for the first time in that generation, we signed a peace treaty - not an interim agreement, not a cease-fire, not an armistice, not a truce - but a treaty of peace.
If you read "Lauterpacht-Oppenheim", the famous book on international law, you will find the following sentence: The ordinary way to end a war is through a peace treaty. There are also extraordinary ways. For instance, Germany, until now, did not sign a peace treaty with Russia, with Britain, with France. They live in peaceful relations. But the ordinary way is to sign a peace treaty. And the first article of that peace treaty we insisted to write it in, because it is the model of a peace treaty the Egyptians were not so willing to write it at the time, but then they agreed - is "the state of war between Egypt and Israel terminated." For the first time after 33 years of war you terminate the state of war. It is a great event.
We gave sacrifices of course. Very great sacrifices. But in my opinion, we should have done so. I believe so today as I believed two and a half years ago. As far as the 26th of April is concerned, it's not far away my friend, so why should I make prophecies? We shall see. Maybe that still I will be Prime Minister until then, and you will come again to me and ask me the question. Come in May and then you will ask me a question.