When the Foreign Minister arrived in Washington, he told senior American officials that the Beirut area was on the whole quiet and that the I.D.F. was not initiating any action. Secretary Shultz informed him that fighting in the Lebanese capital was continuing and asked if Israel was planning to enter west Beirut. On 2 August he met with President Reagan who demanded an end to the Israeli military action, which was endangering the Habib effort which the U.S. thought was about to succeed He insisted that diplomacy be given an added chance to bring about the P.L.O. removal from Beirut. During the early days of August the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister were convinced that the pressure on Beirut must be kept up, since Habib was unable to deliver a definite P.L.O. acceptance of the withdrawal plan. Following is an interview with Foreign Minister Shamir, broadcast on U.S. television.
Mr. Shamir: I don't think we have to withdraw during their removal from Beirut. Of course, we will leave Beirut, as we will leave all of Lebanon. But it depends on a certain timetable. It depends on the moment the Syrians will also leave Lebanon. Then we have to agree on all that.
Q: But it seems such a sticking point, just the timing of the withdrawal the P.L.O. saying that Israel is simply trying to humiliate them and that's the one thing they will resist.
A: It's not true, you know we have agreed that the P.L.O. can take their personal arms when they leave Beirut and Lebanon - and we agreed to it because we didn't want to humiliate them.
Q: Would your country, Mr. Minister, will Israel settle for anything less than the entire P.L.O. military and political leadership leaving west Beirut and leaving Lebanon. Will your country settle for less than that?
A: Without doubt. It's our demand, and I think it's a necessity for Lebanon. And it is urged by the Lebanese government.
Q: How would you characterize President Reagan's attitude toward your country and to you yesterday in your conversation?
A: Well, we have no doubt about the friendly attitude of President Reagan towards our country. And we understand the interest of the United States to remove the P.L.O. from Beirut and Lebanon by peaceful means. We share their, this interest, but the question is if the P.L.O. on their side are ready to do so.
Q: What about the reports that there is a growing difference in emphasis between the U.S. and Israel, with the U.S. especially concerned about Israel's heavy shelling and air attacks?
A: Well, the United States would be happy if there will be a stable cease-fire, and we also want to have a cease-fire. We have been the first to proclaim a one-sided cease-fire, but the cease-fire is all the time violated by the P.L.O. and we have no other choice than to respond.
Q: There were reports this morning, Mr. Minister, that President Reagan - and we're quoting this morning - sternly warned Israel yesterday about the escalating violence. Did he give you - the President - any special warnings or ultimatums yesterday?
A: I cannot say it was an ultimatum. He expressed the view and the interests of the United States, to have a diplomatic solution in Beirut, and we understand it very well, and we would prefer such a solution if it will be possible.