Upon his return from the United States, Mr. Begin made a lengthy statement to the press, in which he gave additional details of his meetings with the President, Secretary of State, the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. He reiterated Israel's agreement to a multinational force with U.S. participation, for a political solution of the conflict and the removal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. He accused the U.S. media of bias and distortion, and gave a number of examples. Text follows:
Gentlemen, in New York I met with leaders of American Jewry three times. I can repeat in Israel what I said in the U.S., and that is: never was the large Jewish community in America so united around the State of Israel, Operation "Peace for the Galilee" and the government's policy as it is united these days.
Before my departure for Washington, I had the opportunity on the television program "Face the Nation" to explain to millions of U.S. citizens the correct developments and the true facts with regard to Operation "Peace for the Galilee". I think that this explanation was not in vain.
In Washington itself, it is obvious that at the heart of my discussions was my meeting with the President of the United States and his advisors, which lasted approximately three hours. At the outset of his remarks, the President said that he expected that the problem between us and Lebanon and the terrorist organizations operating from there would be solved by diplomatic means. I explained the developments to him. As a result of the talk that lasted for nearly an hour, with the participation of our excellent Ambassador, Professor Moshe Arens, and the Ambassador of the United States in Israel, Mr. Sam Lewis, I explained the developments to the President, and I think that he understood. And the proof is his statement to the press saying that on two matters of principle, there is full understanding between the President of the United States and myself, between America and Israel. One: All foreign forces must be removed from Lebanon, and the emphasis is on the word "all". In order not to leave any doubt, the reference is to the Syrian army, to the armed terrorist organization, and also to Israel's forces. And 1, in my answer, could not only identify with this statement of the President of the United States, but I also emphasized that we do not want to be in Lebanon one extra day. There are now tens of thousands of worried families in Israel, day and night; we want our sons to return to their parents, their wives and their children. And therefore we want to get our soldiers out of Lebanon as fast as possible. But what is the meaning of these words "as fast as possible", under the present circumstances? After it is guaranteed, by means of special arrangements, that never will the era of bloodshed for the population of Israel in general, and for the population of the Galilee in particular, return. This goal can be achieved by means of the establishment of a multi-national force. We expressed opposition to expanding the authority or power of UNIFIL, since we have come to learn that a force that is under the auspices of the United Nations cannot be objective. The majority in the U.N. General Assembly is definitely anti-Israel, and the majority of the members of the Security Council do not even maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. There is no difficulty for the automatic majority in the two main institutions of the United Nations Organization to attain a majority against Israel. And therefore we insisted on a multi-national force. As far as U.S. participation in this force is concerned, we asked nothing. We expressed our opinion that the participation of a U.S. unit in this multi-national force is desirable; but if the government of the United States decides otherwise, it is possible - and necessary - to establish a multi-national force comprised of units of other nations; and it will guarantee the welfare of the Galilee for 40 kilometers. As for the decision of the United States regarding its participation in the multi-national force, I was told explicitly and officially that the President has not rejected this idea, but neither has he decided to agree to it. The matter is under advisement.
Afterwards, I held two very important meetings with the Secretary of State. In both of them there was revealed profound understanding on the part of the Secretary of State for Israel's position, for the role it plays in the free world, and for its needs.
I had meetings with the two major committees of the Congress. The meeting with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives was most warm. It is true that in this meeting as well I was asked some worrying questions; and I have no complaints about them, principally because of the bias of the communications media in various areas of the world, including the United States of America. And I will give two examples. The Arab organization in the United States reported that 600,000 Lebanese were rendered homeless; the number I got from the Minister of Defense was 20,000 - and I noted that this was also a large number, we didn't want this at all - but why must it be multiplied by thirty? Or, a report that 4,000 civilians were killed in Sidon. The number given me by the Minister of Defense over the phone was... 400. This is also a large number, from a humane standpoint; but why should it be multiplied tenfold? Finally, the most outstanding for example: we sat in the meeting room of the American administration. The Secretary of State received a report and read it: The Soviet embassy in Beirut was damaged during exchanges of artillery fire between us and the terrorist organization. And the embassy, according to "Agence France Presse" is declaring that it suffered a lot of wounded. Immediately after the end of the conversation, I contacted my friend the Minister of Defense, and he explained to me that it never happened, nothing even similar happened. We didn't hit the Soviet Embassy at all. And we are situated between 6-7 kilometers from there. Afterwards, I read in one of the most important papers in the United States that an important journalist from Europe visited the garden of the Soviet embassy in Beirut and found no signs of damage. But someone found it necessary to spread the rumor alleging that we hit the Soviet embassy. And we do not want to provoke the Soviet Union or any other country, as we explained in the answer to the verbal letter that was neither addressed nor signed and was transmitted to us on the eve of my departure to the United States.
Thus have I proved, with just a few examples, how the media, and also one of the newspapers, are prejudiced against us and our action. And therefore, the President was able to tell me openly that our problem today is not one of facts, not of the reality, but what is perceived as a result of the reports of the media. But the President went out with me to the press and said that on the two principles I mentioned previously there is full understanding between the United States and Israel.
In sum, the meeting with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives was very good, very helpful, even warm.
In the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, there were senators who supported us with all their heart. One of them rose and did not hesitate to say that "I want to congratulate you, the Government of Israel, and the I.D.F. on your decisions and actions; this is the only way in which a free, independent Lebanon can be established, and peace for Israel guaranteed." There was also one of Lebanese origin, with all due respect, who spoke to the effect that we caused the deaths of men, women and children. And 1, of course, listened to him with great patience, with the respect that is due him as a United States senator. And afterwards I asked him several rhetorical questions: had he ever heard of the town of Damur, which had been populated by Christians when the terrorist organizations took it over and slaughtered the entire population? And now the I.D.F. will return it to the Christian population? He remained silent. I asked him another question: had he heard of the city of (Hamat, as it is called and now the Syrians call it) Hama? According to our information, Assad and his brother slaughtered 6,000 men, women and children there, and 2,000 disappeared. But according to the... the "London Observer", a very serious newspaper, 20,000 men, women and children were massacred there. Had he heard about this? Had he reacted to it? Neither to this did he have an answer.
After that a young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech - I must say that it's been a while since I've heard such a talented speaker - and he actually supported Operation "Peace for the Galilee". He even went further, and said that if someone from Canada were to infiltrate into the United States, and kill its citizens all of us (and thus he indicated a circle) would demand attacking them, and we wouldn't pay attention as to whether men, women or children were killed. That's what he said. I disassociated myself from these remarks. I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war. Sometimes, just as all the wars of the world have shown, sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians. We did not want to hurt civilians under any circumstances. Behold, the Minister of Defense is standing here, our Chief of Staff, army officers -they will all testify before you that the first question that we Cabinet ministers asked in regard to any plan is: Where are the civilians? And we never approved a plan knowing that civilians would be hurt directly or on purpose. Unintentionally, that can happen. It must not be denied.
And thus the argument went. But, as I said before, the same senator supported our operation in Lebanon - with all his heart, he said. What he doesn't like are our settlements in Judea and Samaria. I regret that I could not agree with him. He hinted - more than hinted - that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid. And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid. First of all, you should know that this is not a one-way street. You help us, and we are very grateful for your help; but this is a two-way street: We do a lot for you. And also in recent battles we did a lot for the United States; and I gave some examples, but this is not the place to go into them. Therefore, do not threaten us with cuts in aid, but take note: That if at any time you demand of us to yield on a principle in which we believe, while threatening to cut aid, we will not abandon the principle in which we believe - and propose cutting aid. The argument went approximately thus. True an argument I would call... "a-lively discussion" (said in English - ed.); I have no immediate translation now for this English expression that is used in Washington. But I am sure that this argument as well was very helpful.
So, dear friends, thank God, I have returned home. I know that exchanges of fire are still going on, and we have [some] wounded. We want to put an end to this whole chapter of bloodshed, to establish peace between ourselves and Lebanon, to get our soldiers out of Lebanon and to bring them home. And this we shall do when peace is assured the Galilee and the State of Israel.
Thank you very much for your attention.