Dear Menachem,
Following the abominable shooting of Ambassador Argov and the subsequent escalation of violence, I am sure you are aware of our efforts with the interested parties in Europe and the Middle East to urge that no actions be taken against Israel that could worsen the situation. As we continue our efforts, I hope you will…do what you can to avoid military steps that could lead to a widening of the conflict and even greater Israeli casualties.
[…]
I hope you will agree on the need to work together to bring about those conditions, which, over time, will recreate a stable and secure Lebanon, and ultimately lead to security on Israel’s northern border. I pray our efforts will succeed to ensure the situation does not go beyond the violence of recent hours. As you know, the security of Israel remains of the utmost concern to me. With warm regards,
Ronald Reagan
To which the prime minister replied:
Dear Mr. President, Dear Friend,
I thank you for your letter. Your words of sympathy, friendship and understanding touched me deeply. I am in permanent contact with the surgeon – a wonderful man – who operated on Ambassador Argov. His last call from London came yesterday evening; the good doctor informed me that he still could not make a definite prognosis. It seems already clear, however, that if the ambassador survives the assassination attempt, he will be left paralyzed. Nothing can be determined as yet about how his intellectual faculties will function.
For the last seventy-two hours, twenty-three of our towns, townships, and villages in Galilee have been under the constant shelling of Soviet-supplied heavy artillery and Katyusha rockets by the PLO terrorists. Tens of thousands of men, women, and children remain day and night in shelters. We have suffered casualties…. The purpose of the enemy is to kill – to kill Jews. Is there a nation in the world that would tolerate such a situation? Does not Article 51 of the UN Charter [the inherent right of self-defense] apply to us? Is the Jewish State an exception to all the rules applying to all other nations? The answer to these questions is enshrined in the questions themselves….
The army has been instructed to push back the terrorists to a distance of forty kilometers to the north, so that our citizens and their families can live peacefully and carry on their daily lives without the lurking permanent threat of sudden death.
I do hope, Mr. President, you will take into consideration the unique situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the repeated aggression against us perpetrated by a Soviet-promoted terrorist organization bent on shedding the blood of our people in our Land and abroad.
We shall do our sacred duty, so help us God.
Yours respectfully and sincerely,
Menachem
Just over a week later, while the war was raging as the IDF was advancing and occupying large swaths of Lebanese territory, the prime minister readied himself to travel to the United States. His purpose was to deliver an address at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly on international disarmament, and, more importantly, to meet with President Reagan in the hope of settling their sharp differences over the Lebanon war.
As I busied myself polishing the prime minister’s disarmament speech, he was becoming ever more embroiled in meetings with Defense Minister Ariel Sharon over the war in Lebanon. Clearly, it was not going according to plan. The Syrians had entered the fray, and the fighting was broadening into fierce encounters resulting in an ever-mounting number of casualties. Understandably, he was not happy when he was waylaid by a clutch of Israeli journalists waiting for him outside the airport VIP lounge as he was about to board his flight to the United States:
“Mr. Begin, in view of the fighting in Lebanon and the criticism in the world press about the alleged thousands of Lebanese casualties inflicted by the IDF, shouldn’t your U.S. visit be postponed?”
“No, it didn’t even occur to me to postpone it. I received an invitation to address the UN General Assembly on the disarmament issue, and I think this an excellent time for the prime minister of Israel to deliver such an address to such a forum. Moreover, the president of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan, has invited me to the White House. We have much to talk about and to clarify, not least the grossly exaggerated claims concerning Lebanese casualties. So, yes, this is a visit of high national importance.”
A second journalist stepped up. “Mr. Prime Minister, our forces are now in Beirut, and – ”
“Correction, our forces are not in Beirut, they are at the approaches to Beirut.”
“Sorry, at the approaches. This is far beyond the forty-kilometer security line which was the officially declared goal of Operation Peace for Galilee – to push the PLO weaponry beyond the range of our towns and villages along our northern border.”
“Correct. But this was a necessary maneuver to outflank the enemy. It is not a strategic goal.”
“But now that the enemy has been pushed northward, what do you intend to do with their bases and command centers in Beirut itself?”
Menachem Begin pondered for a moment, stared hard at his shoes, and not without self-consciousness, answered, “I would like to answer your question, since I don’t like evasion, but there is a matter of field security involved, and in a few days’ time you will find out.”
“How do you intend to respond to President Reagan’s general criticism of this war?” asked a third man.
“Well, it’s true, we have some differences in nuance, but there is also a basic agreement that the situation that existed in the past in Lebanon should not be restored. And now you will please excuse me, I have to address a UN disarmament conference on the eighteenth of June, and that is tomorrow, and I don’t want to keep the good passengers of El Al waiting. Thank you. Shalom.”
Menachem Begin’s decision to personally attend a conference in New York during wartime was not because of his esteem for the stature and integrity of the United Nations, dominated as it was by countries which could not tell right from wrong and which spent an inordinate amount of time castigating the Jewish State. As a student of history and an aficionado of Winston Churchill, he was familiar with the legendary war leader’s admonishment on the eve of the UN’s founding in 1946: “We must make sure that the UN’s work is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.”
Over the years, no nation had been more pecked in that cockpit than Israel, which was precisely why Begin relished this opportunity to preach to that body about how the prophets of Israel had been the first to envision a world where nations would hang up their shields. What he had prepared for delivery was not oratory, but a homily based on the Book of Isaiah.
As he approached the dais, the representatives of the Arab and communist countries predictably walked out. However, the array of prime ministers, foreign ministers, ambassadors and other dignitaries who remained seated in the vast hall of the General Assembly numbered more than the count of those who often stayed to hear him in the Knesset, so he felt satisfied with that.
Holding his text close to his face, the prime minister read:
“Two ancient universal prophets in Israel, Yeshayahu ben Amotz and Micha Hamorashti, brought forth similar, although not identical, visions of complete disarmament and eternal peace. The vision of Isaiah is older. I shall, therefore, quote from chapter two of the book of his prophecies, which reads: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s House shall be established on the top of the mountains and shall be exalted over the hills…. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go to the mountain of the Lord…. For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem…. And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
Staring fixedly at the
United Nations secretary-general, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar of Peru, Begin mused, “Mr. Secretary-General, is not Isaiah here predicting a remarkable vision of world disarmament and universal peace, millennia before disarmament conferences were ever thought of?”
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar drew his lips in thoughtfully, and nodded a vague assent.
“Moreover, this universal peace – when shall it come into being?”
The prime minister scanned the representatives of the nations, adjusted his spectacles, and again peered closely at his prepared text, as though studying a museum manuscript. “Honorable delegates, please note that in the original Hebrew it is written, ‘vehaya b’acharit hayamim,’ which in classic English translation is generally rendered as ‘in the last days,’ or ‘in the end of days.’”
His audience strained to follow his interpretation, which he proceeded to amplify. “Would this phrase not imply that we will have to wait until the last days – or the end of days – in order to merit universal peace and the tranquility of disarmament? Yet it is widely preached that with the coming of the last days – or the end of days – ice shall cover the earth and volcanic lava the continents. Well, then” – there was a sudden wryness in his tone – “where is the blessed peace? Where is the solace? Where is the succor? What consolation does Isaiah’s vision bring to suffering mankind if in the last days – or the end of days – ice and lava shall cover the earth? Where is the cure for humanity’s afflictions?”
A buzz of bafflement droned around the great hall, but it faded when the speaker declared with a sudden vibrancy, “Fellow delegates, Hebrew synonyms are rich and its homonyms are resonant. But they often suffer in translation. However, to those familiar with the original language of the Bible they are poetry.”
Smiling faintly with the satisfaction of knowing that he alone in that mammoth chamber commanded the knowledge of the original language, the language of the Bible, he postulated, “In Hebrew, we would translate, ‘in the last days,’ or ‘in the end of days’ as, B’ACHARON hayamim,’ However, Isaiah does not use those words, but an entirely different phrase: ‘B’ACHARIT hayamim.’ And though ‘b’acharon’ and ‘b’acharit’ are phonetically similar, their meanings are entirely different. ‘Acharit hayamim’ does not mean ‘the last days’ or ‘the end of days.’ On the contrary! The key word, ‘acharit,’ is a synonym for a bright future. It means ‘tikva,’ – hope, as we find in Jeremiah chapter twenty-nine, verse eleven: ‘latet lachem acharit v’tikva’ – ‘to give to you a future and a hope,’ or, ‘to give you a hopeful future.’ ‘Acharit’ can also mean progeny, as we find in Ezekiel chapter twenty-three, verse twenty-five – and in progeny, too, there is future. Hence, ‘b’acharit hayamim’ really means the days of hope, of future, of redemption, when mankind shall enjoy the full blessings of eternal peace for all generations to come. Such is the true vision of the prophet Isaiah.”
Rising to his full height, in a tone that evoked high purpose, pride, conviction, and a Jewish sense of mission, Menachem Begin declared, “Nearly three millennia have passed since Isaiah’s immortal words were uttered – ‘vehaya b’acharit hayamim.’ Thousands of wars have devastated lands and destroyed countless millions of people. Whole nations have been on the brink of extermination, as manifested in the Holocaust of my people. Plowshares have been beaten into swords, pruning-hooks into spears. What then of the prophet’s vision? Shall we, mankind, despair?”
Sitting there among the delegates, I looked around to gauge how they were taking this lesson on disarmament. The Chinese ambassador seemed sphinx-like in his inscrutability, while the Japanese representative simply looked like a tired bureaucrat. There were the bourgeois features of the Frenchman, and the unsure look of the Indian. The English delegate looked aloof; the Italian perplexed; the Austrian indifferent. I couldn’t read the expression of the Egyptian – the only Arab to remain in the chamber – but I was heartened by the firm and encouraging gaze of the American delegate.
“Certainly not,” thundered Begin, in answer to his own question, his voice sonorous and trembling. “To us, the Jews, so often the victims of man’s inhumanity to man, Isaiah’s words resonate as if they were spoken but yesterday. They declare: Never despair! His vision is like a lode star. It is distant yet bright. It shows us the way. And, indeed, one day in the bright future, ‘b’acharit hayamim,’ universal peace shall surely come to pass. So, yes, let us strive on. Let us have faith.”
With that, the prime minister moved on to his political remarks, expanding with concrete proposals for a global nuclear non-aggression pact, the establishment of nuclear-free zones, and the extension of strategic arms limitation treaties. These proposals he wound up with the words, “Fellow delegates: There is one question we have to ask ourselves: whatever our animosities, our recriminations, and our states of war, can we nations still talk to one another? Israel’s answer is a resounding, ‘YES! WE MUST! WE CAN!’”
Thumping the lectern, he plunged into the story of how he and President Sadat of Egypt, enemies for decades, had finally made peace. “So, yes, we can do it. And yes, there shall surely come a time in the bright future – vehaya b’acharit hayamim – when our children and our children’s children will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
When he descended the rostrum, the delegate of some obscure Pacific archipelago rushed over to shake him by the hand, while in the public gallery one could tell by the pockets of applause where, exactly, Jews were sitting.
And then he flew on to Washington.
Chapter 53
“I Did Not Mislead You”
Mr. Prime Minister, I have a speech that I feel I must make to you, and since I want to be quite sure not to leave anything out I have made some notes for myself.”
It was 21 June 1982, and the speaker was President Ronald Reagan. He held in his hand a pack of cue cards which instructed him to begin by saying, “Welcome, Mr. Prime Minister.”
None of us on the Begin team scoffed any longer at this strange cue card practice of Reagan’s. Between this meeting and the last, the prime minister had come to realize that this president’s forte lay in knowing how to delegate authority, and in trusting his intuition over his brain power. Hence, when it came to the one-on-ones of the sort now taking place in the Oval Office, he preferred to go strictly by a preprepared script, which on that day he read in the same laconic tone one might use to discuss balmy weather, although there were definite signs of dark gray storm clouds approaching. So Begin leaned forward, fingers clenched, waiting for the storm clouds to burst.
“While I am delighted to see you again,” said the president, “I wish very much the circumstances could be different. Events have occurred such that we are now forced to focus our attention on the grave risks and opportunities that your operation in Lebanon has created. When I learned, on the morning of June the sixth, that Israel’s forces had launched a massive invasion into a country whose territorial integrity we are pledged to respect, I was genuinely shocked. In the past I tried to make clear that I shared your concern for the implications of the situation in Lebanon for your security, but repeatedly I have expressed the view that diplomatic solutions were the best way to proceed.”
Begin gazed at Reagan earnestly, intent on absorbing his every word, while the latter paused to switch a card:
“I wrote to you immediately upon hearing of the hideous attack on Ambassador Argov in London. There can be no rational excuse for such terrorism, and I’ve been praying with you for his recovery. But Israel has lost ground to a great extent among our people as a result of your action. They cannot believe that this vile terrorist attack, nor even the accumulation of losses that Israel has suffered from the PLO terrorist activity since last summer, justified the death and destruction that the IDF has brought to so many people over the past two weeks.”
“Death and destruction?” interrupted the prime mini
ster, his expression pained. “You make it sound – ”
“Obviously, what is done is done,” continued Reagan, unyielding. “But I am determined to salvage from this tragedy a new Lebanon, one which will no longer constitute a threat to Israel and which can become a partner in the peace process. I know that these are also primary objectives of yours. This crisis is an opportunity to rid Lebanon of foreign military forces for the first time in many years, particularly the Syrian forces and the armed Palestinian elements. Palestinian fighting units must certainly be disarmed and/or evacuated. Those Palestinians remaining in Lebanon will have to live as peaceful residents, responsive to the authority of the central government.”
Begin pinched his lower lip with his teeth and gently nodded his head, as if to say, ‘Halaveye! ’ (Yiddish for ‘If only that was possible!’)
The president again switched cards, and droned on, “In keeping with the objective you stated to me in your letter of June the sixth, you must move your forces back to a distance of forty kilometers from your northern border. We can then discuss a realistic time table for the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces and the introduction of a peacekeeping force to maintain the situation until Lebanon is stable. There will also have to be a realistic timetable for the withdrawal of Syrian forces. And as I have stated many times,” – he again paused to swap a card – “you must have enough confidence in us that we can pursue our broader objectives in the Middle East.”
And then, resolutely, “Mr. Prime Minister, your actions in Lebanon have seriously undermined our relationship with those Arab governments whose cooperation is essential to protect the Middle East from external threats, and to counter the forces of Soviet-sponsored radicalism and Islamic fundamentalism now growing within the region. These governments want to see Israel punished. U.S. influence in the Arab world, and our ability to achieve our strategic objectives, have been seriously damaged. I am determined to maintain our relationships with our Arab friends.”
The Prime Ministers: An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership Page 66