The I.D.F. was engaged, since 19 June, in an effort to broaden the corridor it held near Beirut. The I.D.F. planners felt that if the need would arise to break into Beirut, the Syrian army would have to be pushed further from the Aley range.
In the interview, Mr. Shamir enumerated the areas of agreement between the United States and Israel on the eve of the meeting in Washington between Prime Minister Begin and President Reagan. He also said that the I.D.F. withdrawal from Lebanon was now linked to the establishment of a strong Lebanese government. Text:
Q: Mr. Minister, two weeks ago, "Operation Peace for Galilee" began. Can you say today that the operation is over?
A: Militarily, the operation is over. Diplomatically, there are still talks and discussions, and we hope it will end soon.
Q: The Government was briefed today on political contacts within and without the region. Have the efforts so far achieved anything toward a political solution to the Lebanese problem?
A: The discussions are continuing with Lebanon and with the United States, but I wouldn't say that the aim of the operation is to solve the problem in Lebanon. Of course there is a connection between the direct aims of "Operation Peace for Galilee," which were, in the main, insurance of the security of the residents of northern Israel. There is also a connection between these aims and the situation in Lebanon - between the need to establish in Lebanon a stable government that will govern and cooperate with a force which will be established, whose job it will be to prevent the return of the terrorists to those places from which they would again be able to attack Israel.
Q: Mr. Shamir, you just said that militarily, the operation is over. But we still hear every day that there are exchanges of fire in the Beirut area, and from time to time the American envoy requests a cease-fire, or an extension for a few hours. How can it be explained that in a cease-fire there are still exchanges of fire?
A: There's a cease-fire as far as we are concerned; we stopped firing, of our own free will, but when we are shot at, we must respond.
Q: Today it was reported that while diplomatic contacts continued, the Syrians moved new forces to the Beka'a Valley region, and that they are raising the level of their defense agreement with the Soviet Union to that of a strategic agreement. Is this not a sort of red light which indicates the possibility of a superpower conflict in our region?
A: All these rumors should be treated with doubt. We don't believe that we are facing involvements on such a scale, but of course we must be alert and on guard.
Q: Everyone is awaiting the results of of the meeting between the Prime Minister and the United States President. Could you say to what degree there is agreement between Israel and the United States regarding future moves, and especially regarding American participation in a multi-national force in Lebanon?
A: We agreed, in principle, regarding the problems which led to this operation. There is agreement that there can be no return to the previous situation - to what is called the status quo ante. There is agreement that there is no place in Lebanon for foreign forces. Lebanon must be ruled by a Lebanese government which will govern the area and prevent the phenomena which created the circumstances leading to "Operation Peace for Galilee." But there are also various details which must be worked out, such as the proposal to set up a multi-national force providing for the existence of a certain territorial area which no longer could become a base for attacks. For this there must be United States agreement.
Q: According to reports, Mr. Habib is trying to reach an agreement, one of whose elements would be the disarming of the terrorist organizations and the conversion of the P.L.O. into a political movement. If the P.L.O. would agree though there are not many signs that it will - would Israel be prepared to see the P.L.O. as a political factor?
A: We cannot react now to all kinds of opinions expressed in the various talks conducted by the different elements. But it should not be forgotten, even for a minute, that the terrorist organizations are the ones who created this situation. They created the tragic situation in Lebanon, which lasted seven years; they previously caused the tragic situation of the Palestinian Arabs; they caused the tragic situation in Jordan before they were evicted from there. From Jordan they went to Lebanon where they created the Lebanese tragedy. Now a solution must be found to end this tragedy and to prevent the conversion of Israel into a second Lebanon...
Q: Egypt was one of the countries which reacted most vehemently to the Israeli action in Lebanon. What is our reaction to this?
A: We always were concerned about certain ties between Egypt and the terror organizations. If you remember, even prior to the conclusion of our withdrawal from Sinai, we warned Egypt against such ties. Then we were told that these ties were political; there are talks, but there are not operative links. We hope that that's how it will continue. Clearly there are disagreements between us and Egypt over what is called the "Palestinian problem" and its solution. What is happening now Egypt's intervention, its involvement - stems from those disagreements. To the extent that these do not interfere with our peace relations, they can be viewed as a result of the situation.
Q: Regarding a possible political solution in Lebanon: Israel more than once expressed its position that it would not withdraw from Lebanon if a strong Lebanese government were not created and if no multi-national force were established to ensure quiet in Lebanon, - The question is, if the achievement of these aims takes a long time, does this mean that the I.D.F. would have to stay in Lebanon for an extended period of time?
A: We never said that we wouldn't withdraw from Lebanon unless an independent government was established there, etc. We said we would not withdraw until we ensure that conditions were created preventing the return of the terrorists to attack Israel, period. There is a connection between these things and the establishment of a Lebanese government. Since, when there will be a stable and strong Lebanese government, it would prevent the return of the terrorists to these areas, and would govern its territory. The establishment of a multi-national force also would be impossible without the participation and agreement of the Lebanese government. But this is certainly not a condition for our withdrawal. We hope we won't have to stay there for a long time. We have no desire to stay in Lebanon, but the work must be done.
Q: How will recent events in Lebanon affect the autonomy talks, Jordan's position, and the position of the residents of Judea and Samaria?
A: We hope that the terrorist organizations will lose their dominant positions among the Palestinian Arab public. To the extent that their control of this public is weakened, it will be much easier to renew the autonomy talks, make progress in this direction and reach results.
Q: So you expect that there will be a change toward moderation in the position of certain elements who, until now, opposed the autonomy negotiations?
A: It's not a matter of moderation. We always said that the very domination of the extreme elements among the Palestinian Arabs has prevented progress towards a peaceful solution. The opportunity will be given to moderate elements to have their say, and then I am sure the way to peace will be much more possible, much more open.
Q: During the first days of fighting in Lebanon, the cabinet was convened every day. There were claims that the Government was asked to approve moves which had already been carried out. Was this indeed the case, and is this not a danger to the democratic decision-making process?
A: There is not a grain of truth in this. The very frequent meetings of the Cabinet prove that the government controlled the situation. It was briefed and took decisions on every move. It continues to do so.