36 Address in the Knesset by Prime Minister Begin- 29 June 1982

Mr. Speaker, Gentlemen, Members of the Knesset:

The historian and prominent philosopher Thomas Carlyle, in his famous book, "The French Revolution," wrote: "...A lie cannot last for long." And he also wrote: "If you find a lie that depresses your spirit, remove it. Lies exist only in order to be removed. They wait; they cry out for removal. And furthermore, all lies have a heavenly judgment against them; and they progress, slowly but surely towards their inevitable end."

Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks, the world was flooded with the abomination of falsehood. Germans -destroyers and the children of destroyers - are saying that the renewed Jewish army is perpetrating Nazi acts. And other nations talk of genocide and slaughter - and by these nations I mean not only the east, but the west also. But I have no doubt that Carlyle's words will be fulfilled as far as these lies are concerned - and not necessarily slowly, but soon.

I will bring before the Knesset a document whose contents were known to only a very few - and they are perhaps not now living:

"Prime Minister,

The following seems a simple method of estimating what we could do by bombing Germany:

Careful analysis of the effects of raids on Birmingham, Hull and elsewhere have shown that, on the average, I ton of bombs dropped on a built-up area demolishes 20-40 dwellings and turns 100-200 people out of house and home.

We know from our experience that we can count on nearly 14 operational sorties per bomber produced. The average life of the bombers we are going to produce over the next 15 months will be about 3 tons. It follows that each of these bombers will in its lifetime drop about 40 tons of bombs. If these are dropped on built-up areas they will make 4,000-8,000 people homeless.

In 1938 over 22 million Germans lived in 58 towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, which with modern equipment should be easy to find and hit. Our forecast output of heavy bombers (including Wellingtons) between now and the middle of 1943 is about 10,000. If even half the total load of 10,000 bombers were dropped on the built-up areas of these 58 German towns, the great majority of their inhabitants (about one-third of the German population) would be turned out of house and home.

Investigation seems to show that having one's house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished. On the above figures we should be able to do ten times as much harm to each of the 58 principal German towns. There seems little doubt that this would break the spirit of the people.

Our calculation assumes, of course, that we really get one-half of our bombs into built-up areas. On the other hand, no account is taken of the large-promised American productions (6,000 heavy bombers in the period in question). Nor has regard been paid to the inevitable damage to factories, communications, etc., in these towns and the damage by fire, probably accentuated by break-down of public services.

(Signed) (Professor) Cherwell."

Sir Archibald Sinclair, leader of the Liberal Party, on the basis of this recommendation, wrote the Prime Minister the following recommendations:

"We must continue to get at least 13 or 14 sorties out of each bomber produced. To do so, we must keep down wastage, both "battle" and "accidents". We hope to do this. We must ensure that not less than half the bombs lifted from our bases reach the built-up areas of Germany. I think that the start that has been made in the recent attacks on the Ruhr, Cologne and Lubeck is a promising one, and we see no reason to doubt that within eighteen months, and with American help, the degree of destruction which Lord Cherwell suggests is possible, can in fact, be achieved."

Mr. Speaker, for forty years these documents were classified as top secret, and noted on top was "to be kept under lock and key". And I don't doubt there is anyone in this house, including myself, who has ever read these documents or even heard of their existence.

Pay attention, gentlemen, members of the Knesset: A prominent British scientist recommends, on the basis of statistical calculations, dropping bombs on 58 cities in order to render their populations homeless. It is typical that this British professor makes no mention at all of the number of persons killed. Apparently, if a Briton speaks of aerial bombardment of houses, of built-up areas, he is still incapable of writing that some of these people will be killed. He does not even mention the number of those killed.

From this rostrum, I would like to turn to Mr. Pym - his party was the leading party in the British Government at that time - and to Mr. Steel, leader of the Liberal Party which was a member of the National Coalition at that time, and to Mr. Healey, whose party was a member of the coalition headed by Mr. Churchill, and say to them, as a Jew, the following words: If you wish to attack Israel - attack it; if you wish to sling mud at the State of Israel - sling; but without hypocrisy. You will preach morals to us? With these documents?

Was one of our staff generals charged with computing how many people to make homeless by aerial bombardment? Did one of our professors sit with charts in order to show how to break a nation's morale in war? And I don't criticize your actions. The matter concerns Nazi Germany, which had to be destroyed, and there is no need for explanation; but after you made such computations, you will preach morals to us, to the Jewish people and the Israel Defense Forces, regarding civilian populations?

And the answer given to Britain from this rostrum - and the answer that will be given to every other nation without exception is: - No one anywhere in the world will preach morals to our people regarding humanity. There has never been an army in the world that acted with the humanity shown by the I.D.F. in Operation Peace for Galilee. If a pilot sees a crowd near the target which he is assigned to hit, he does not bomb it. And all the Cabinet Ministers and army commanders listening to me will testify that when the maps were brought and the commanders showed the Cabinet a plan for a justified, necessary action, in response to the despicable murder of men, women, and children, was not the first question which I asked the commander: Where are the civilians? And if the answer was: Too close to the target, the map was removed from the table. Only when the answer was there is no danger of hitting civilians -and all the Cabinet members, without exception, are sitting here, and they will testify - [only] then did we approve the action. And this was the first question asked by the Defense Minister and by every Minister who participated in the discussion - where are the civilians?

A week ago I spoke with the President of the United States... and he had hard words for me: You have lost support among the American people. And he explained to me why. Following the assassination attempt on our good Ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov - we are all praying for his well-being and recovery; but I spoke with the surgeon a few days ago, and he told me that the condition of the wounded man is still very critical - the President of the United States said to me, following the assassination attempt on your Ambassador in London you acted in Lebanon and caused the death of many civilians. I told him - Mr. President, first of all, with all due respect, I must tell you that we have not lost any support among the American people, and I have evidence of this. Secondly, we chose two military targets with strict selectivity: The sports stadium in Beirut, which the terrorists had converted into a huge arms depot, and the terrorists' training camp; there are no civilians in the area, and none were killed. The President of the United States said to me, if so, then your problem is not the facts, but their perception. I told him, I agree, sir; and that is why I am explaining the facts to you. After the discussion, which lasted almost an hour in the Oval Office, we moved to the meeting room of the American administration, and I explained to the President's advisor what I had to explain. At the conclusion of my remarks, the President said to me: but Mr. Prime Minister, you forgot something, and I would like you to tell those around the table what you told me about the terrorist organizations' military targets. I complied with his request. In other words, the President of the United States understood.

I also told the President that we had not lost any support among the American people. I had proof, telegrams not only from Jews but also from Christians representing millions of American citizens. But this morning the Harris Poll, one of the famous polls, came out, regarding our operation to ensure peace for the Galilee, peace for Israel and peace for Lebanon. 57% for the operation, 32% against. 68% admire the Israel Defense Forces. 35% say it performed an act of territorial expansion. 73% say that the organization called the P.L.O. is hostile. 79% say that the State of Israel is an ally and faithful friend of the United States. We did not lose any support. These are some of the finest numbers we have ever achieved in public opinion polls in the United States. And the poll was conducted at the height of the operation, just a week ago. That's the situation abroad. The lie does not hold up.

The Israeli army did not go to Lebanon in order to conquer territory, or to subjugate a people, or to remain in a foreign country, but for an aim which has not been surpassed in nobility in any war in human history, not even liberation. And is there no more lofty aim than the liberation of a homeland? Not even this, I expressly say so. Only one aim -to ensure that men, women and children will be able to live their lives and that no terrorists will be able to say as he said on television. He was asked: did you kill children? And he answered: yes. Question: Why did you do so? And the answer: Because they will grow up. The interviewer couldn't control himself. Such an answer has never been heard. And he asked the terrorist: Are you a man or an animal? Listen, gentlemen: children should be killed lest they grow up - they shouldn't be allowed to live in order to grow up.

That is that organization which profanes the word liberation and liberty. Despicable - there has not been one more contemptible than it from the days of the Nazis to this very day. That is how it is brought up. 12-13 year old children were recruited to this organization. I'll read you the list of countries from which these children were recruited: from Egypt, 48 children aged 12-13; Lebanon, 10; France, 2; Norway, 2; Canada, 1; Austria, 1. All in all we have today 66 children aged 12-13 who held submachine guns in their hands. Was there ever such an anti-human phenomenon in human history?

Mr. Speaker, we are still in a military battle, we are in a diplomatic battle, and above all there is today a battle over the truth. We will win it. From experience I say that we will win it. But I do not remember a period when the whole world was overwhelmed with such a lie as it has been in these days, regarding one of the most noble campaigns ever waged in the history of humanity - to ensure peace for citizens, for human beings.

I spoke at the Knesset with the Prime Minister of Portugal. He came to me with his colleague representing the Socialist International. Before the discussion, they brought Mr. Brandt's declaration in the name of the Socialist International. I read it and my sight goes dark. The Socialist International condemns Israel for its invasion of Lebanon. I turn to Mr. Suarez and ask: For what are you condemning us? What injustice have we done? What invasion? You invade another country in order to occupy territory, to subjugate it. We entered Lebanon because from there came those who murdered the bus passengers on the coastal highway - 38 men, women and children; from there came those who took out a father and his little six-year-old daughter, cracked her brain and killed the father; from there came those who made 22 14-year-old male and female pupils lie on the floor and opened fire on them from machine guns; from there came the most vicious shelling on 23 settlements in the Galilee - Kiryat Shemonah, Nahariyah, Dan, Dafna, Metullah, Kfar Giladi, Avivim, Misgav Am, and more. They came from there.

We went in there to disarm them, to push them away, to remove our settlements from the range of their satanic fire. Why do you condemn us?

The Portuguese Prime Minister is a very polite man; he listened, and at the end I said to him: Mr. Prime Minister, I actually am not asking that the Socialist International support me; I ask that it support Shimon Peres. He promised me: he did not promise to support Shimon Peres, he promised me to inform the Socialist International of my remarks. Let's hope.

But this is a battle over the truth, and we will conduct it with all our moral strength. We never wanted to harm civilians. We never wanted to harm noncombatants. We never wanted this whole war. We only know and will remember this: The shedding of Jewish blood with supreme efforts to put an end to it will not occur again in our cruel world. We will not wait for any assistance from any state. We will decide, act. Thank God we have a generation of fighters which Israel has not had since the days of the Maccabees. They know the job. A humane army.

Just this morning I heard from the father-in-law of a tank company commander who came home and related: We were ordered to go and announce - be careful, civilians, do not harm them. And if one of the company commanders says so, it means they all received instructions to say so.

We know the history of wars. We will continue in this battle till we are victorious. We will not let the lie dominate, not in Europe, not in America, neither in the east nor in the west.

So much for without. There is also within. But I have considered. I have a full page to read to the members of the Knesset. I forego reading it.

I have reason, since at home as well there are attempts to preach morality to this assembly. No need. He is not boasting. We are not superior to you, and not inferior to you in morality, in humanity. That is why I will forego reading it.

I would just like to say to my good friend, Motta. I maintained your honor and did not allow you to be harmed when you were chief of staff. That is why you completed your term to its last day. I will not read these remarks because in my opinion, if they were read in public, they would have hurt you and our people. A hint is enough. So please, no moralizing.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Thatcher goes to war 8,000 miles from British shores and bases herself on Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. And we go out to defend a few kilometers from our border, and we have no right to base ourselves on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the inherent right of self-defense?

During the last three weeks I received two letters from Moscow through the Finnish Embassy, and both referred to the Soviet embassy in Beirut. I replied. As the letters were written, I replied. But they were not addressed, not signed, but the answer was not provocative. We have no interest in provoking the Soviet Union. We have fundamental differences between us regarding our way of life, but it is a great power, we don't want to provoke it. We did not hit the Soviet Embassy, not before the first letter and not before the second letter. We will not hit it, we will not hit any embassy. Everything was by mistake, and thus we explained quietly to the Soviet Union.

But we also explained this to them: Since the days of Litvinov the Soviet Union presents every U.N. Assembly with a definition of aggression, and one of the paragraphs in this definition is the existence of armed bands which attack a state from a neighboring state's territory. This the Russians call indirect aggression, but aggression. So then, there were armed bands on Lebanese soil for eight full years, and from Lebanese territory they set out to attack another state. In other words, they conducted aggression, according to the classic Soviet definition. This we had to explain.

But Andrei Gromyko met some ten days ago with Alexander Haig, and they spoke for five hours. The former Secretary of State told me what Gromyko told him: the situation in the Middle East is dangerous, the Middle East is an area near our southern border, and we have the full right to see to it that there be peace there. O.K. gentlemen, the distance as the crow flies from Odessa to Beirut is 1,600 kilometers - this is called near the border. But if the State of Israel is attacked from a distance of 10 kilometers, it is forbidden for a small nation under attack to try and fight and disarm the armed bands, which according to the Soviet definition cause aggression, if they attack the nation from there. Here is international terror... maybe something of it will reach the ears of the Soviet citizens, perhaps, but it has to be said.

Mr. Speaker, what did we find in Lebanon? A. arms. I want the Knesset to know. We have an excellent intelligence service. I'm an anti-chauvinist, I will never say that we have something which is the best in the world, no. We have weaknesses, we make mistakes. But our intelligence is one of the best in the world, not the best. It erred. It erred ten times over regarding the amount of arms we found in Lebanon. Near Sidon we found an arms depot five days ago; 500 trucks will be needed to remove it. In order to transfer all the arms and ammunition we found from Lebanon to our country, Big Macks - those huge trucks - will have to travel day and night for six weeks. It's fantastic. The officers do not believe their eyes: thousands of R.P.G. shells, thousands of Katyushas, the arms are for thousands of soldiers, perhaps for hundreds of thousands.

We realized that perhaps we entered Lebanon at the last minute. These weapons were not even intended solely for terrorists. This is a well-known method of the Soviet union. Today there are two thousand Soviet tanks in Libya, which are not intended for the Libyan army, but for the Soviet army. There are 1,000 such tanks in Syria. The Americans call this "pre-positioning". But there is Russian "pre-positioning" in the Middle East. The Americans are meanwhile talking about "pre-positioning". Apparently Lebanon was some kind of center for a huge international intrigue, unknown, directed against Israel, Jordan, perhaps also Saudi Arabia, perhaps also the Gulf States, by an organization which is known as a servant of the Soviet Union. It says so specifically. We found this out.

And regarding the members: Listen well, gentlemen, where that terrorist organization gets its training: in the Soviet Union, in China, in East Germany, in South Yemen, in North Yemen, in India, in Pakistan, and more.

We are now holding 5,700 prisoners. Where do they come from? 416 from Syria, 30 from Iraq, 55 from Jordan, 62 from Egypt, 4 from Morocco, 5 from Tunis, 5 from Algeria, 3 from Libya, 26 from Turkey, 58 from Pakistan, 9 from Somalia, 380 from Bangladesh, 72 from Yemen, 3 from Niger, 23 from Ceylon Sri Lanka, I from Brazil, I from Canada, I from Nigeria, 45 from India, 8 from Iran, 2 from Saudi Arabia, I from Abu Dhabi, 3 from Kuwait, 4 from Mali, 5 from Sudan, 3 from Mauritania. What kind of terrorist organization is this? There was never such a thing, certainly not in our generation, nor in previous generations. What do the Bangladesh people have against us? What do the Ceylonese want from us? We drink their tea. Why did they come to kill Jews? Here is what we found in Lebanon.

We found something else. The cities, which were beautiful, populated by civilized people - destroyed to their foundations, not by the Israeli Air Force, but by that terrorist organization which drove out their residents by force and turned the homes into arms storehouses. Now thousands upon thousands are streaming from the north to the south, precisely to the area where the I.D.F. is present. Charles Wilson from Texas, a member of the American House of Representatives, has only 400 Jewish voters in his district. One cannot say that he said what he said in order to be elected to Congress; there are not many Jews in his district. Yet he said: I saw with my own eyes, I heard with my own ears, not only Christians, but also Muslims saying: it's good that the I.D.F. came, it liberated us from awful terror.

After that experience I can say that the organization called the P.L.O. brought Lebanon murder and rape, and the I.D.F., to make no comparison, brought Lebanon freedom and human dignity.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will explain what happened from the day we resolved on Operation "Peace for the Galilee" till today, and I will also respond to certain questions by Knesset members. On Saturday, 6 June at , 11 p.m., the Cabinet

.had a discussion with

decided on Operation "Peace for Galilee". The next day I all the opposition factions. 1, of course, began with the Alignment. I apologized to my friends, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Haim Bar-Lev and Victor ShemTov that the battle was beginning at that moment. It was supposed to start at 12 noon, but just at the last minute, the army asked to move it up by an hour, of course a clearly military consideration. I hope they accepted my apology. I did not want to present them with an accomplished fact. I could not have notified them beforehand, since the Cabinet had not yet made a decision. I only had the chance to start consulting the Parliamentary factions on Sunday and indeed, I said the following: We want to remove the terrorists so that our settlements in the Galilee will not be in the range of their fire - 40 kms. When we achieve this goal, we will view the operation as complete, and the diplomatic battle will begin. And thus our army went to war. It fulfilled everything it had promised, and even reached the targets faster.

On Tuesday, I appeared before the Knesset, I explained the operation, and the Knesset united on the no-confidence motion against the "Hadash" faction. We stood together, shoulder to shoulder, and welcomed the national unity, the finest and best hour of our lives.

On Thursday morning at 2.00 a.m. I received an urgent letter from the President of the United States, which I will read (reads the letter - ed.).

Such a letter from the President of the United States is no small matter. First of all he asserts that the hostilities are intensifying and that there is even danger of Soviet intervention. Then he hints at the consequences, which may be serious for relations between us, relations which are precious to him and to me - there had to be consultation.

As I said, I received this letter at 2 a.m., and I called a cabinet meeting for 4 a.m. Everyone came and we consulted. What was the order of that night? We were then with our army at a point in Lebanon 18 kilometers from Metulla; and at this point, facing us, was the enemy - that is, the terrorists, aided by the Syrians, within Syrian lines. In other words: with a Katyusha whose range is 21.6 kms or heavier - 35 kms. or with a 120 mm. cannon whose range is 27 kms or with a 180 mm. cannon whose range is 43 kms., it is possible to hit the whole Galilee panhandle. True, Nahariyah was already secure, since the Katyushas were fired at it from Tyre, which was already in our hands, and people already walked in the streets in Nahariyah. But if we had stopped the operation at that point, 18 kms. from our northern border, what good would we have done? Kiryat Shemonah would have gotten Katyushas, Metulla, Kfar Giladi, and more.

That is why we could not accept the demand of the President of the United States. But it had to be explained to him why we cannot meet his request. Therefore, on that Thursday I sent a letter back to the President of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan, which said (editor's note: translated from the Hebrew rendering): "Thank you for your letter of 9 June, which arrived at 2 a.m. I immediately convened a Cabinet session. The earliest hour possible was 4 a.m. I will pass on this letter (that is, my reply) to Ambassador Lewis without delay, after the end of the Cabinet deliberations.

"Mr. President, we agree to the idea of a cease-fire. In fact, we proposed it in our talks with your personal envoy, Mr. Philip Habib. I met with him in the Knesset on Tuesday 8 June in the afternoon, and I made the following four proposals to him, so they would be presented to President Assad: A. We don't want any fighting at all with the Syrian army; B. If the Syrian forces don't attack us, or don't try to attack us, no Syrian soldier will get hurt; C. Over the last three days, the Syrian army has advanced a number of kilometers southward and westward. These soldiers must withdraw eastward and northward. P.L.O. members in the eastern sector who are under the control and supervision of the Syrian army must withdraw 25 kilometers northward, so that the civilian population in the area called the "Galilee Panhandle", including Kiryat Shemonah, Metullah and so forth, will finally be out of range of their rockets and artillery.

"Our friend Philip Habib agreed to present these demands to President Assad. At 4 a.m. I got the particulars of the Habib-Assad conversation from Ambassador Lewis, according to which Assad in fact did not agree to the idea of such a cease-fire, nor did he agree to the above-mentioned withdrawal of the Syrian army or of the P.L.O. Instead, he demanded the withdrawal of Israeli forces, or, as he calls it, "disengagement." So as we see, President Assad in fact rejected your request.

Insofar as this concerns us, we are ready for an immediate cease-fire following a resumption of the status quo ante, with regard to the Syrian army's position and that of the P.L.O. army and their guns, out of the range of the Galilee and its inhabitants.

Early in the morning, prior to writing this letter to you, we learned that Syrian S.A.M. missiles supplied by the Soviets had been moved up from Syria into Lebanon so as to replace those what we had managed to destroy in a special effort, accompanied by one of the fiercest air battles we have ever won. These S.A.M. missiles cannot, of course, be re-deployed in the Beka'a so as to threaten our army and airforce.

To sum up, Mr. President, dear friend, you must realize that there is no reason whatsoever for the friendly relations which we have built between us and our countries - and which we treasure - to be portrayed in this manner, which is so vital to the free world and to the effort to defeat the plague of terrorism. The friendship and cooperation between us can and must be deepened."

After this exchange of letters it was clear that if we reached our objectives, we would end the fighting. This happened the next day, Friday, at 12 noon. At that time the Government of Israel unilaterally declared a cease-fire as of Friday at 12 noon, without any negotiations, without an agreement. The Defense Minister - whom certain people take pleasure in slandering - was the one who said to me: Even if the shooting goes on for a few hours, we won't fire back; because we know from the histories of cease-fires that there's a kind of inertia, and a cease-fire doesn't immediately take effect when declared. There's still shooting here and there. We want a total cease-fire; so even if they shoot we will stay silent. And so we were silent. After a few hours the Syrians stopped firing on all fronts where they face our soldiers. The terrorists announced they would go on fighting, go on shooting. But the main thing was that not only did they shoot at us - we could have put up with a few more hours of shooting - but they put out an announcement that they would go on fighting us and shooting at our soldiers.

I would like to ask those Knesset members who are pondering the question - what happened to the 45 km line? The army reached it, so why is the war still going on? For heaven's sake, why injure ourselves in the ears of the world, the cultured world, the enlightened world which does not seek our ill? Why present such odd questions? We ceased fire unilaterally. We didn't ask, or wait for a reply. The enemy went on fighting. What should our army have done? What would any other army have done? We said in our resolutions that we would not fire unless fired upon. This was meant for the terrorists. We didn't want to mention any names. We said two things regarding the Syrians: A. If they attacked us, responsibility for the grave consequences would be on the Syrian government, and B. If they tried to reintroduce surface-to-air missiles, we would attack them.

There were three clauses that applied to all combatants, terrorists and Syrians alike. Cease firing; we have ceased. They didn't do it. They went on fighting, went on trying to kill our soldiers. What should we have done, we the Cabinet? What should the soldiers have done? The answer is clear.

So the war went on, and afterwards the Syrians intervened further, and started shooting, again. The terrorists were at their side; maybe they were trying to prove to the Arab world that they are defending what is dubbed the Palestinian revolution.

So things developed. But what self-accusation are you casting on the Israeli people and its army? And in order to justify these groundless accusations, an attempt is being made to differentiate between the Cabinet and the army. With all due respect, how can you do this? Yitzhak, my dear friend and adversary, did not you yourself say that the Cabinet is the supreme commander of the army? It is written down in the Basic Law for the Army. How can you make a distinction? Did I ever do that? It wasn't you who made this attempt, but the attempt was made. Did I ever make such a distinction? On the contrary - during the tremendous, marvelous Entebbe operation, I came to the Knesset - and there are Knesset members here who remember - did I try to make a distinction? Shimon, you were then Minister of Defense; did I not praise you from this rostrum - and I was then leader of the opposition - for the decision you took to send our soldiers to Entebbe and risk their lives? Motta Gur was then Chief of Staff-, and I said, "All honor to the Chief of Staff." He had a great responsibility, even if he was at the military level. The decision was taken at the political level, but the Chief of Staff isn't a man whose opinion isn't asked in such campaigns. His opinion is asked, he is consulted. It should be so.

Finally, I said - though I was opposition leader and had no experience in this - the Prime Minister of a democratic country always has one bit more of responsibility. So I turned to you, Knesset Member Rabin, and I said: All honor to you, Mr. Prime Minister. Did I or didn't I say that?

I don't ask that you say such things to me. Who am 1, what am I? An old Jew, who in a little while will leave the stage. But before that, I will stop limping so as to be able to leave [walking] straight. I'm not asking you to say such things to me. But to draw distinctions between the Cabinet and the army? What is this? Does the army operate on its own understanding? Woe to us if the army were to do so.

It is said: The army is okay, all honor to the I.D.F.; we are criticizing the political echelon. What, don't you read "Al Hamishmar," Yitzhak? You should read "Al Hamishmar" everyday as I do. Then you'd known that I'm quoting now: All honor to the army, to the I.D.F., wonderful. But the political echelon, oh boy. What has the political echelon done to you? It stopped the firing on Friday at 12 noon. The enemy didn't let the firing stop, but went on fighting. So the political echelon gave an order to go on fighting the enemy, and thus we got to where we are; so what?

Yes, I announced that we don't want to go to Beirut, not only west Beirut, but also not east Beirut. We don't want to go into Beirut at all. That's what I said. The Cabinet up to now has not resolved to enter Beirut. But for goodness' sake, you've all got experience. I turn to you as one friend to another, as one Jew to another - when we were hundreds of kilometers, scores of kilometers from Beirut and we weren't thinking of entering it, I think it was politically desirable to say so. But as a consequence of what developed as I have described it to you, which was dictated by necessity, we are now near Beirut, and the terrorists are trapped. So must we say to them explicitly that no way, and so on? Is that logical? Am I telling you we've decided to go in? I won't tell you that. That must be decided explicitly. We want to remove them, and I will talk about that afterwards. But what sense is there in an announcement that under no circumstances will we go into Beirut? If we tell them that under no circumstances will we have to enter Beirut, then why shouldn't they stay there?

That's the difference between the beginning, when we were extremely far away from Beirut, and afterwards, when as a result of the fighting, we are at the gates of Beirut, with the terrorists in the city - 6,000, 7,000 terrorists sitting there with guns, with tanks (not so many any more), machine guns, submachine guns. I think it's unhealthy to say [we absolutely won't enter Beirut] so I haven't said it and haven't committed myself. I don't want to commit myself to anything. Common sense must dictate to all of us what Motta Gur would surely call "tactics". Tactics must be decided on. Strategy was decided on a long time ago, but tactics have to be decided on.

I'm not complaining. You want to criticize, so criticize. I believe in a free parliament. But what is there to attack the political echelon for, when I described the facts to you with the documents as I read them to you?

We want the terrorists to leave Beirut and Lebanon. And I want to tell the Knesset Members - they will leave Beirut and Lebanon. Nothing can help them; they'll leave.

Now I would like to explain what we are willing [to do]. Let it be known that we don't want to humiliate the terrorists. In fact they deserve neither compassion nor respectful treatment; there's no doubt about it, they are base murderers. Especially the one with the hairy face: he's base, a child-murderer. But they're human beings too. Even criminals are human beings; and a human being, every human being, must be respected. So we don't want to humiliate them, and therefore we haven't said they must surrender to us. We propose that the Lebanese army go into west Beirut. Why not? It is, after all, the army of Lebanon. Lebanon is a country that everyone thinks should be independent. It has a capital that everyone agrees is Beirut. Part of Beirut is occupied by a foreign force. So the Lebanese army should go into west Beirut. The terrorists will hand over their arms to them, and then well let them go, via one of three routes: either the Beirut-Damascus highway - and in the 20 km. strip that we control we will let them pass peacefully, without injury, we will see to that - or they can go north toward Lebanese Tripoli, and from there to Syria; or they can leave by sea. Let them choose which way.

Yesterday we were asked whether we would be willing to let the terrorists keep their personal weapons. In the Middle Ages, Mr. Speaker, one's personal weapon was a sword; and a knight who wished to safeguard his honor would always make his surrender conditional on his sword remaining at his side. Today, the sword is called a Kalashnikov. I want to say from this rostrum that we are willing to let the terrorists leave with their Kalashnikovs at their sides. We aren't afraid of their Kalashnikov. Let them go where they will; well let them keep their personal weapons. We won't humiliate them. But they're going to leave Beirut, and they're going to leave Lebanon. On no condition will we let them stay in Beirut. I want the Knesset members to know this: On no condition. They also have no right to present us with conditions. There he is, sitting in a bunker and trying to present us with conditions, that we should withdraw 5 km., 10 km. There he sits in a bunker, hearing the roar of gunfire, and he's saying "withdraw", this victor. It isn't reasonable. But I think well get them out without using force. I hope so.

Gentlemen, if we nonetheless can set all the conditions - after all the effort we've invested, after all the sacrifices we've made, would you let 7,000 murderers armed with tanks, guns, heavy machine guns and all the other instruments of destruction remain in Lebanese territory? One of these days well leave Lebanon; we haven't any doubt on that score. What will they do then? They'll come south; they'll recruit another few thousand 12 year old, 16 year olds, and certainly 18 year old children; and once again the north of Israel will be in danger. Does anyone imagine that any government in the world would agree to this? Friends, if we were to trade places, would you agree to this? Under such conditions? I'm not talking theory, about what was two weeks ago. I'm talking about now. Look, they're sitting there, entrenched, armed - and we're going to leave them there?

I therefore want to say: We don't want to humiliate them. If they want to leave with their personal weapons - let them. Well let them go unharmed. But they must go, all of them. It was proposed that their commanders should go and the soldiers stay. This is nonsense. What does it mean, that their commanders should go? Before they would go, they would leave other commanders, as is customary. So they'd be a little different, but they'd be commanders. Then once again 7,000 would turn into 14,000 and Russia would supply arms, and everything would start all over again. Who even entertains such a possibility? Is there one thinking, feeling Jew who would permit such a thing?

I therefore declare: from here I first ask of the civilians, as our planes are dropping the leaflets: leave, leave, save yourselves. We don't want to harm any of you. On foot, by car, leave west Beirut. Afterwards, I turn to all the other elements as well: Why prolong this suffering? You have no choice besides the honorable one we are giving you. Leave.

What do I predict then? Some say that the Lebanese argue. Well, don't Jews argue? We all argue a bit. So what? They'll come to an agreement among themselves. There will be a Lebanese government which will set up an army; the U.S. will help equip the army with modern arms, and we, too, will help if asked; and then well sit down with the Lebanese government, and well sign a peace treaty with it, which will be the second peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation.

This is what we want, gentlemen. We don't want even a square millimeter of Lebanese soil. Lebanon isn't the Land of Israel. From ancient time until the end of all generations, it hasn't been the Land of Israel. We want to renew the alliance with Lebanon, as it was in ancient time between Israel and Judah and Lebanon. We will renew it. But first of all we must get rid of this scourge that isn't written in the Torah, these terrorists whom I don't even want to described by their correct name.

We have the capacity to do this. I only ask that no one do anything either by word or deed that might lessen the chance a bit. A little patience, gentlemen. Another day, or two and we will get them out, they'll leave.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big campaign. First of all, people forgot to say today - though I have no complaints - that the main objective has been achieved: peace has been guaranteed for the Galilee, gentlemen. Knesset Member Naim, it is my pleasure to tell you that there will be no more Katyushas over your settlement, nor in Kiryat Shemonah or in Nahariyah. A year ago I spent seven days in Nahariyah. I invite all the Knesset members and the entire Israeli people (or a good part of it) to spend their summer vacations in Nahariyah. A marvelous, clean sea, excellent hotels. Why travel abroad? And we'll save dollars. Mr. Meshel doesn't go along with announcement? I'm sure he agrees with me 100%. Why waste dollars abroad? Please, go to Nahariyah. There won't be any Katyushas. When I was there, they were still sitting in shelters. Yes, I saw the shelters. They're repaired them, [but] oh boy, it's hard to breathe in them in the summertime.

So, no more Katyushas, not in Nahariyah, not in Kiryat Shemonah, not in Kfar Giladi, not in Metullah. No more. Peace for the Galilee has been assured for good. There will be no more Katyushas, no more shellings, no more attacks on the Galilee settlements. That's the achievement. Happy are we who have attained it.

We have also destroyed the missiles. Here you mocked me - I once said: Philip Habib, if you don't remove them, we'll remove them. He in fact didn't remove them, and you had a whole year to poke fun. All right, so you had your fill of mockery, okay. But the missiles are gone. I can't give you [details] as to how we got rid of them, but I just want to say thanks to Jewish heroism and to Jewish brains, we got rid of the missiles. I remember - I was a cabinet member then - how it hurt, nearly every day one of our planes fell, sometimes two. Today that's not possible any more, because of the invention of the Jewish mind. This, too, is an achievement.

We destroyed 500 Syrian and terrorist tanks. Is this a small thing in your eyes? Again I tell you, as I turned to Assad then, so I say today: We didn't want to fight them [the Syrians] at all, but they attacked us, so what choice did we have? And our "Merkava" destroyed 9 T-72 tanks, about which there was a myth in NATO that it cannot be hit. This is also an achievement. So these achievements of our army should be valued and we have not reason to quarrel.

As we stood together in the military campaign, let us stand together in the diplomatic campaign as well. It will not be easy, but we still have today one important diplomatic achievement, as compared to what happened, for example, after the Sinai campaign: The United States is not supporting those who are pressuring us. Europe is trying to exert pressure, as well as others; The United States is not. It cast a veto, not against a communist state, but against a NATO state, against France. I thanked the President of the United States for this decision of his. There is reason to be grateful for such a decision. So this is a very fundamental change. But apparently we must stand together, we have yet to achieve everything. National unity need not be disrupted, and I really want to thank MK Peres and also MK Rabin for the fine things they said regarding national unity, which is a necessity. And when we have disagreements, well quarrel. What's a parliament for? But now national unity is most important.

Mr. Speaker, the Jewish people can exist, with God's help, only by the readiness to sacrifice on the part of our finest sons, only through willingness for self-sacrifice. If not for this, we would not have achieved independence, we would not have maintained it. Today, too, we paid a price, woe is me. I needn't add a word. And we are unable to console the families who have lost their dear ones; only God can comfort them, and will comfort them.

We pray for the quick and complete recovery and healing of all the wounded. I visited them. I came to comfort them and they comforted me. I left filled with feelings which have no expression in human language. A wounded, hurting man told me: Just one thing - be strong and of good courage.

This is the stuff our sons are made of. Let us be proud of them, all of us together. You educated these sons in the kibbutzim, I am proud of them; we educated them in the movements, you be proud of them. Underground, covertly, openly, all of us together, we took different paths. That is how God decreed - but all for one common goal. Maybe that is the way history decreed: That everyone will do his part in his area, and there is no need for one to attack the other for what he did or didn't do. Perhaps because he did one thing, he didn't do the other. And this is the common dream of everyone. That is how the nation should act as a fateful moment, when its fighters are risking their lives.

In other words, Mr. Speaker: happy is the nation who has such an army. Happy is the army commanded by a leader such as Raful, and happy is the country whose Defense Minister is Ariel Sharon. I say this with all my heart and with all my power of belief. Together we will stand and together we will overcome and ensure peace for our people and country. And to our sons after us we will leave a rule, a great rule: He who comes to destroy you, disarm him in advance.