Mr. Sharon summed up the events of the past two days, explaining that Israel used the opportunity of Syria breaking the cease fire to capture the Aley-Bahamdoun sector, which is "of exceptional importance to us, seeing that whoever actually controls this strategic point controls Lebanon. " The Defense Minister also revealed that Israel offered the P.L.O. a safe conduct from Beirut in an organized manner, under Red Cross supervision, to another Arab country. He admitted that while Syria broke the cease fire in the Beirut area, Israel reacted in a different sector. Asked whether the government decided not to enter Beirut and stated: "I do not know at this moment what we are going to do in Beirut. Text:
Q: Mr. Sharon, ten days ago, in this very studio, you said that the war was in fact over. Today, almost three weeks after the war began, it continues, with heavy losses, and the end is nowhere in sight. People are asking, until when? Why?
A: First of all, I want to say that today we are close to a let-up on the front, to attaining the goals we set ourselves. The first and most important goal, the elimination of the P.L.O., the elimination of the terrorist force in Lebanon. We are closer than ever today to a political settlement, to achieving our aims - which, as I said, are: first of all, the elimination of the P.L.O.; the second objective that Israel insists upon is the removal of the Syrian army, which was the one to give protection, and I should say, their massive support allowed the terrorist organizations to organize; and I might say, we may even arrive - if we show patience and keep cool heads - we might reach a peace agreement with another Arab state, in the north.
Q: The question arises, Mr. Sharon, whether it is at all possible to eliminate the P.L.O., to break it totally from the military standpoint. Will it not spring up again, more extreme than it ever was?
A: It is possible to deal the P.L.O. a mortal blow. Also, there is a difference between the P.L.O. operating in an Arab state - although we would rather it did not exist anywhere - but there is a difference between its operating within a state, even an Arab state, and its operating where there was no state. In effect, in a sort of pirate state, without law, without government, where it does whatever it pleases.
Q: But the P.L.O. will still be able to continue to come and strike at the Mahane Yehuda market, or the Carmel market, or at our Ambassadors in Europe or in the U.S....
A: I believe that if we continue pursuing our goals, its capacity will be greatly reduced. And furthermore, we never granted the P.L.O. immunity. When we set out with the objective of creating a 45-km security strip, and the political settlement which we aspire to - and, in my opinion, the chances of reaching this today are very much nearer than in the past, much nearer, despite the escalation which took place - in doing so we retained the freedom to act against the terrorist organizations should they dare to raise their heads up again and attack us. What tied our hands was that at every action we took, every attempt to prevent their buildup, the terrorist organizations' build-up, we suffered heavy shelling on concentrations of civilian population. This problem, we have solved.
Q: When you say a political settlement, you are, of course, referring to a political settlement with Lebanon, maybe even a peace treaty with Lebanon. Do you believe it possible to reach any sort of arrangement with Lebanon without Syria, without explicit Syrian approval?
A: I think that everything depends today to a great degree on how much patience and cool-headedness we show. Losses are something painful to all of us. Pain, incomparably painful. And I want to say that the attempt in recent days to present things as if there were those who are alarmed at the losses and those who are not alarmed at the losses, I think, is one of the gravest of matters. I want to tell you something: I've just arrived directly from the front line. I have come from a place where bitter battles were fought, from the Bahamdoun-Aley sector. This is a place that was of exceptional importance to us, seeing that whoever actually controls this strategic point controls Lebanon. Until today, the Syrians had been in control. The Syrians broke the cease-fire. We took advantage of this opportunity that the Syrians violated the cease-fire, and we took control of the area. I visited there; I spoke with soldiers. I met there soldiers from the Golani Brigade, which is one
of the (unintelligible - ed.), one of the brigades which was active and scored possibly more achievements than any other brigade on the front. I stood with the soldiers. Their faces were covered with soot, their eyes were red, after difficult battles; smoke still rose all about there. A pile of newspapers arrived. I heard a soldier say to his companions: "The poison just came in." One has to understand.
These people are fighting on the front. If people want to attack the government, that is legitimate. People want to attack me personally, that is also legitimate. But don't do it at the expense of the real war against the P.L.O.
Q: It seems to me, Mr. Sharon, that even the government's most virulent critics always took the trouble to stress and note that the I.D.F. fought its war in an exceptional and brilliant manner, but some said...
Interruption by Sharon: I want to tell you. When a soldier is at the front, when he stands on the firing line, in some of the most difficult battles the I.D.F. has ever faced - and I want to say that the Syrians are fighting, they fought you must understand; to this day, over 500 Syrian tanks and around 100 tanks belonging to the terrorists have been destroyed in battle. These are very hard battles, under very difficult conditions. When a soldier is at the front line, and from day to day, every day, the alleged dissentions stream in to him, I believe that in this way we are harming not the government, nor myself personally - we are harming the goal we set ourselves. We set ourselves one goal, and that is the elimination of the P.L.O. or dealing it a fatal blow, in such a way that we will be able to live in peace and security in the State of Israel. And today, in my opinion, we are not far from achieving this. Furthermore, I also think, also think that when the fighting subsides - my estimation is that the fighting will subside -I think that we will face a quieter period, the beginning of a political solution.- I want to tell you something: Two days ago, the terrorist organization - actually their leaders - not directly, I cannot say through which intermediary - the discussion took place in Beirut two day ago with me, in the early morning hours - the terrorists came up with a proposal. They said: we will cease fire, on condition that the heads of the terrorist organizations are allowed to leave Beirut. I say, what does this prove? It proves, as by a thousand testimonies, that they are in a desperate situation. We have to show patience.
Q: Why were we not generous, why did we not accept this proposal, and let them escape, and maybe we would have reached an arrangement...
A: We offered them a very generous proposal. We offered the terrorists the possibility to leave Beirut - all of them, not only their leaders. Because what would it mean if their leaders were to leave? Their leaders would leave, that is to say, they would go to another country, and immediately put the forces they would leave behind them into operation. We presented them with a very generous offer. We offered them their lives. We offered them the possibility of leaving in organized convoys, under Red Cross supervision, to another Arab state. And I want to say that I heard a certain commentator say that there might have been political options, other options, excluding the latest operations...
Q: You are referring to Major-General Gavish, who said it might perhaps have been possible to achieve our aims...
A: I would rather not mention names. I want to say that we did not have a situation like this until today. From today, in my opinion, our control of the Bahamdoun-Aley area - which is the most important strategic area - gives us, in my opinion, the possibility of choosing whatever option we will want. And I think that the problem which is still before us is a difficult one, and it is a good thing that today we have the possibility to choose. What this demands from us, what it demands is composure. It demands that we understand that it is impossible, following the course we undertook, not to display the same amount of patience and coolness that the I.D.F. soldiers displayed on the battlefield. Let those on the home front, the press, the party workers, show such composure - let them hold their fire until the fire up there ceases. And I want to reassure the party functionaries, I believe that it will happen very soon. And give us the chance to reap the political security fruits, for which we went to war. And I wish to repeat: in my opinion, today, despite the escalation, we are closer to this than on any other day of the war.
Q: Ten days ago you also promised that the end of the war was near; I hope that it won't take another ten days.
A: I would like to say that if you ask me if we will have to keep forces in Lebanon ten more days, I can already tell you, we will have to maintain forces there much longer than ten days. If you ask me...
A: Ten months?
Q: I would not say so. We would like it to be for as short a period as possible. But if you ask me if I expect the fighting to subside, I think that a reduction in the fighting is imminent, a let-up, and this is the result of a distinct change of our situation in the field. And one thing must be remembered. The same question is always raised - who broke the cease-fire? I also hear these things. And today I spoke with some soldiers and a soldier said to me: We opened fire. I explained to that soldier that opening fire, or breaking a cease-fire, cannot be measured by the sector you see before you. Generally-speaking, Israel proposed a cease-fire and totally halted fire two weeks ago at 12.00. The terrorists reopened fire and the Syrians, in those places where there were terrorists, reopened fire. They must have had a reason, for it to happen in the Beirut area - because in the Beirut area, they wanted to reestablish a continuous line from the Syrian army to Beirut. Whoever sits in Beirut will determine, in the end, yes, the policies of the Lebanese government, which we all hope will be established. Therefore, I would say that the situation is as follows: The Syrians broke the cease-fire. We, it is true, did not react exactly at the location where they violated it. We reacted where we felt it was important for us to achieve the objective that would give the State of Israel the best possibilities to reach the political-security settlement for which we went to war. And that is the elimination of the P.L.O. in Lebanon as a continuously threatening element to Israel.
Q: Mr. Sharon, would you be willing to promise that the I.D.F. will not enter west Beirut? Will we be able to continue to encircle Beirut, with the U.S. and maybe the entire world, western world against it?
A: I would prefer not to touch here on what measures we will take in Beirut. I stressed before, that contrary to the opinion of a certain commentator that options existed, there were no other options. Today, in my opinion, various possibilities have opened up in this respect. This is, I would say, a very difficult topic, on which the government must come to a decision. But this is a government which has already made very difficult decisions. It made the decision for peace; it made the decision on the atomic reactor in Baghdad ...
Q: It also decided not to enter west Beirut ...
A: It also decided... I would suggest that on this topic - after all, you are not always exactly aware of what the Cabinet has decided. The Cabinet is a thinking body. Conditions, situations, circumstances change. It would be a terrible thing for us if the government had come to a decision, say, five years ago, when it first took power and had not come to another decision since then. In what kind of situation would we find ourselves now? What I mean to say is, I do not know at this moment what we are going to do in Beirut. Beirut is surrounded - I can state most clearly that Beirut today is surrounded in such a manner that, unlike the situation until yesterday, the siege can no longer be penetrated. It absolutely cannot be done. And in my opinion, we definitely have the possibility today to resort to more than one way of bringing terror to a point where we will feel free of it for the longest time; and this is actually what we have been aiming at.
Q: Finally, Mr. Sharon, the war that began as "Operation Peace for the Galilee" in fact became possibly the "Peace for Lebanon Operation." It keeps widening. And it may be that around a war which began practically with an overall national consensus, differences, fears, doubts are beginning to appear... are you also worried by these doubts?
A: The war which began under the slogan "Peace for Galilee" goes on fulfilling its mission of bringing peace to the Galilee. The name "Peace for the Galilee" never gave immunity to the terrorists and never will give them immunity. Anyone who thinks that a terrorist operating from any place whatsoever, against a settlement which is not in the Galilee, will have immunity, will be immune - in no way...
Interviewer interrupts: That is to say that in theory, we can now strike beyond Beirut, maybe northwards?
Sharon: We have no... I know the... I know this question. I know it, we all know it. We set ourselves clear objectives. Even the Beirut-Damascus road, which we have reached, was also the result of a Cabinet decision, after we tried to avoid a Syrian war. Unfortunately, we did not succeed. But we are now in a situation, today we have reached a situation - today, after the conclusion of those battles in which armoured and paratrooper units took part, and I have made special mention of the Golani Brigade, because I think that they performed exceptionally well - today, we have reached a point where we have various possibilities as to how to act against the remaining center in Beirut. We have a number of options. But this will have to be decided by the Cabinet. Under no circumstances would I say that the "Peace for Galilee" operation has become Operation "Peace for Lebanon". But I would also define things. I would say that here is more than a touch of hypocrisy, to come and say that "what happens in Lebanon is not our concern." Is it not our concern if, let us say, there will be a government in Lebanon that will want Syrians in Beirut, or a government that will not want Syrians in Beirut? Is it not our concern that there should be a government that will not want terrorists in Lebanon or if there is a government that will want to have terrorists in Lebanon - does this not concern us? I would say that we are limited in our capacity of involvement in this question, because the Lebanese problem is a complex one. But to come and claim that we have no interest in this? In my opinion, the purpose is Peace for Israel and the People of Israel. Peace in Lebanon would have direct consequences on the peace and security of the people of Israel.