The Defense Minister again had to deal with growing criticism in Israel of the scope of the war, as fighting continued in Beirut and the P.L.0. showed no signs of surrendering there, or of offering a plan for their evacuation. Mr. Sharon revealed that it was clear from the start that there would be a Syrian intervention, and the issue was not how to prevent it but rather how to limit it. The limiting of the fighting between Israeli and Syrian forces to Lebanese territory was seen by Sharon as an important achievement. He commented that "an opening has now been created for a new political situation in Lebanon... " and further stated that the fighting in Beirut was between the P.L.0. and other forces. He also denied the possibility that the presence of Israeli tanks in Beirut could influence the Lebanese government decisions. The Defense Minister spoke at length about the planning of the war, which had been going on for months - before he became Defense Minister and that in fact it was inevitable. Text:
1. Dov Goldstein, Maariv:
Q: In spite of all your explanations, there are still charges against you that you dragged the Government into the war, to a much greater extent than planned and far from the original intentions of the Government. How do you react to this strong criticism?
A: My only reaction is: The facts and the truth contradict and refute the accusation. All the decisions were taken by the Government... For a long time, many months, the necessity was clear that Israel must act against concentrations of terrorists, who established in Lebanon a huge, mighty infrastructure for use against only one nation, only against us.
Many months before the start of the operation, the Government heard detailed analyses on the diplomatic and military considerations involved in the actions in Lebanon. I was the Minister who emphasized again and again during all those months that a military action in Lebanon would be many-faceted and complex and that there was no possibility of taking care of one part of the problem - the terrorists, for example - without dealing with another element and without taking into account its involvement in the war - the Syrians, for example. More than once I was the Minister who prevented the Government from taking action at an earlier stage, by bringing before the Ministers the whole, complete picture, which proved that there was no way to take care of one part of the problem without looking at all the factors: The terrorists, the Syrians (among whose positions in the eastern sector were found artillery nests and the terrorists' Katyushas), the flimsy and unstable political structure in Lebanon, the deep divisions among the different ethnic groups, the fact that Lebanon has been conquered by the Syrians, the Soviet problem and the American problem -all these comprised a complex and complicated situation. By giving the complete picture, on all its complexities and complications, I prevented - more than once - military action in reaction to terrorist actions, until suitable military and diplomatic conditions could come about.
Q: Did you foresee a certain military intervention by the Syrians and did you report this to the Government Ministers?
A: I argued from the beginning, in all the stages, in all the discussions, that, it was not possible that there would not be Syrian intervention, since throughout the whole eastern sector, opposite the Galilee panhandle, the terrorists' artillery was scattered in and among Syria positions. The question was not whether there would be Syrian intervention, which we wanted to avoid at any price and we made very great efforts to avoid... but how to insure that their interference would be limited to the Lebanese theatre...
Q: When did the Cabinet decide to go beyond a 40-km line?
A: Whoever saw the accumulations of arms of the terrorist organizations, the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of weapons, the large amounts of explosive materials, the most modern Soviet launching equipment -must now turn aside all final doubts: The terrorists enjoyed the active support of the Soviet Union, and the P.L.O. was the active arm of the Soviet Union for terror; and therefore, whoever saw all this, what would they advise us to do? Leave these accumulations in Damour and other places? Say to the terrorists: Please, move to Damour, rearm yourselves - and there they will be promised immunity by the Israeli Government? Like that? Is that logical? Is that serious? Does anyone in Israel have the right to promise immunity to terrorists, anywhere in the world?
Israel didn't deviate from the original plan according to which we wanted a security belt of 45 km, in order to prevent the deployment of cannons against our northern settlements. This is an important goal in itself - but did we ever say at any stage, that this was the only purpose, and that there would be no other purpose besides to this military operation? We didn't say, and this wasn't the only purpose. The Cabinet's instructions to the I.D.F. also directed them specifically to destroy the command and the infrastructure of the terrorists. These instructions did not bind the army's hands.
Q: What are the achievements which the military operation has chalked up so far?
A: We have destroyed the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations in southern and central Lebanon, and we caused them great damage from which they will not recover for a long time...
The second goal, achieved: A security belt which we need along the northern border. All of this security belt is in our hands - from the slopes of the Hermon in the east to the sea in the west.
The third goal: We Prevented the Syrians from entering Beirut... we are preventing the revival of the terrorist infrastructure.
A fourth achievement: Even though we didn't want this, and we made this clear many times, we have greatly damaged the Syrian army...
The fifth achievement: We have in our hands a diplomatic bargaining card for the formulation of new conditions in Lebanon, so that that country will not be used as an international base for the terrorists. An opening has now been created for a new political situation in Lebanon...
Q: Why is there still fighting in Beirut?
A: First of all, I suggest that you do not pay attention to reports that don't come from our sources. You should listen to announcements of the I.D.F. spokesman. In Beirut, thousands of terrorists are bottled up, including their leaders. Their situation is very grave. They are calling to the Arab world for help. For their part, they must constantly announce that the war is continuing. The fact is - they are shelling and firing. These are forces which have suffered a very heavy blow, but they are still there. Other groups in Lebanon also announce that the war is continuing, but they are not interested in presenting to the whole world that they are the ones fighting the terrorists.
We are not fighting in Beirut. Our forces are not intervening in the battles. In Beirut, battles are taking place between the terrorists and other forces. After many years of cruel suppression - and only now do we fully realize the extent of the cruelty of the Syrians and the terrorists against the residents of Lebanon - have several groups raised their heads and are trying for once and for all to get rid of the terrorists who brought a holocaust on them and on their land.
Q: In your evaluations before the operation in Lebanon, was the heavy cost in lives of Israeli soldiers forecast?
A: The I.D.F. has never engaged in evaluating the number of deaths expected in any war. Evaluations such as those have never been carried out by the military echelon and have never been brought before the political echelon. An I.D.F. commander has never said: "I promise that there won't be casualties." In war there are casualties; there is no other army in the world whose entire command structure is so sensitive on the subject of casualties and pays so much attention to the reduction of the numbers of casualties as the I.D.F. We are hurt by the pain of the victims more than any nation in the world....
But I don't hesitate to say that our security and survival bears a high price. We have been paying this price for a hundred years already. What was the alternative? That the terror should continue? That the Galilee settlements should be shelled? That our diplomats in the world's capitals and Jews everywhere will be victims exposed to the threat of the terrorists?... Sacrifice in vain we are prepared for, but victims who fall in a war of defense - no?... Is this how we will be able to live and survive here?
Q: If Syria stands firm in its refusal to evacuate its forces from Lebanon, will the I.D.F. not leave Lebanon and not evacuate its positions, even if there is willingness to establish a multi-national force, which would prevent the terrorists from infiltrating the wide security belt?
A: This is not negotiations with the Syrians, because the Syrians are not the rulers of Lebanon. They are occupiers. This is negotiations with the Government of Lebanon, and I hope that there will be a strong and responsible Government in Lebanon, with whom we will, eventually sign a peace treaty. This kind of Government in Lebanon is our partner in negotiations. One of our conditions for diplomatic negotiations is that all foreign forces leave Lebanon. This includes the different terrorist organizations, the occupying Syrian army, and while there is no comparison - also the I.D.F.
2. Yeshayahu Ben Porat, Yediot Aharonot
Q: When did you begin to consider plans for the operation in Lebanon?
A: I have been concerned by the problem of terror, its direct implications in the form of victims, and the dangers it posed to peace in the area, for a long time, long before I was appointed Defense Minister. Before my appointment, of course, I was not involved in operational projects, but I dealt with this matter extensively. You must know that I worked on the issue of terror for many years, in the fifties and in the early seventies. I have been involved in this question and troubled by it throughout the years.
In recent years, Lebanon became the center of international terrorism, with the backing of the Soviet Union. In fact, terror in Lebanon progressively evolved into a Soviet infrastructure in the heart of our area - that is to say, a broadening of the infrastructure under Soviet control, through the use of sabotage. And this, as a matter of fact, is the only means the Soviets are capable of using these days. I tried to find a solution to this problem of terror in Lebanon.
Q: But since when have you been examining and working on the operative plan?
A: Since I took office.
Q: If I am not mistaken, you were out of the country when the Cabinet decided, exactly two weeks ago, to bomb certain targets in Beirut, following the attempt on our Ambassador in London's life. Is that true?
A: It is. I was not in the country. But I was - and am - in agreement with the decision the Cabinet reached in my absence.
Q: As part of a public campaign against you it was reported as coming from an anonymous Minister that the Cabinet was told at the beginning of the war that it would be over within 24, 36, or, at most, 48 hours. Is this true?
A: When we presented our schedule for the operation, we told the Cabinet that we would be beyond the range of the weapons that endangered our northern settlements by the time 24 hours had passed; and that is what happened. We were past Sidon in 24 hours. Except for one sector, the sector where the Syrian forces were stationed, where it was specifically stated in the Cabinet decision that we would not attack the Syrians unless they attacked us. And indeed we made every effort to avoid confrontation with the Syrians. We did not reach that sector within the 24-hour limit. As you know, we spared no effort to convince the Syrians that they must expel the Palestinians from their area in the eastern sector. We could not meet our timetable because of this problem with the Syrians. At any rate, the entire Cabinet was involved in every step. Had the Cabinet wanted to, it could have halted the course of the war any day.
Q: In Beirut, in the course of your surprise visit, you spoke with Lebanese Christian officials and officers...
A: I was very warmly received in Beirut. It was not a planned meeting. I arrived there in the course of visiting our forces, who were at that point busy fortifying the roadblocks around Beirut. You should know that this is neither a blockade nor a siege. All peaceful persons are allowed through, and civilian traffic passes freely. The road-blocks we have set up on the main axes leading to Beirut are meant to prevent additional terrorists from entering the area, or leaders of the terrorist organizations from fleeing. They are also intended to keep the Syrians from reentering Beirut. Because it is under Syrian protection that the terrorist organizations set themselves up, act and consolidate their positions. And our purpose was and remains to eradicate this plague at its source. On the way to Beirut, I met some Christian fighters, who greeted me with hugs and kisses. They were slightly surprised at the sight of a Defense Minister appearing in an armored personnel carrier wearing a helmet, carrying a sub-machine gun, and wearing a flak jacket. Later when I went on into Beirut totally by chance I bumped into the Mayor of one of Beirut's eastern suburbs - it might be best not to disclose his name - and a group of senior police officers. The meeting was absolutely coincidental, but friendly.
Q: Does not the very fact that our tanks are so close to the center of the Lebanese Government necessarily have an influence on them, represent an actual threat?
A: Where do you get that idea from? On the contrary, they are reacting with incredible enthusiasm. When I went by there, crowds of people surged into the streets, called out cries of joy and shook hands with our soldiers. Not out of fear, not out of terror. I would also like to point out that I went through dozens of villages and towns where not even one building was touched, because our soldiers made the greatest effort not to harm the population. Every officer who set out on the road was equipped with a map on which every place where there are terrorists was precisely indicated - and the same for the villages where there are no terrorists, with strict orders not to touch them. In some cases bitter battles were fought with terrorists, or with Syrians who rushed to their assistance, hundreds of meters from these villages, and the villages were absolutely untouched.
Q: Throughout the world, and in Israel also, people are still wondering how an operation meant to clean out an area of 40 kilometers ended up at the gates of Beirut?
A: First of all, if we are talking about 45 kilometers, draw a line from Metullah; it will go up to a few kilometers north of Sidon. If you measure the distance from there to Rosh Hanikra, you will find that it is 70 kilometers. You have to measure from the furthest point there is.
Q: The world is dismayed, and rightly so, at the growing number of civilian victims. At the destruction of towns...
A: We made efforts that no army in the world would have made. We did not touch a building unless someone opened fire from it. We called out to the residents of Tyre, Sidon and Beirut. We dropped leaflets for them, and gave them warning. We suggested that they evacuate, and that no evil would befall them. But some things cannot be avoided when you are inside a city. In Sidon, there were 7,000 terrorists. Could we not have entered Sidon? In any case, we paid a very heavy price in this war: Most of our casualties are the result of our prudence and restraint, in our attempt not to harm civilians. But there is a certain limit to everything. This is a tragedy, in every war: The harm that befalls innocent civilians. We had no intentions to do so.
Q: Among the prisoners, there are 12-year old children. The world does not understand what happened here?
A: Listen: We found in their headquarters documents containing specific orders to conscript children aged 12 and up. Orders to all the forces. These documents date from before the war - to enlist from age 12 up. This was the order they gave! The order also says not to enlist under the age of 12. We were not the ones who, by putting them in refugee camps, in prison camps, turned them into terrorists. Those children were terrorists...