He flipped over the last card. “Our success in enhancing the U.S. strategic posture in the region and making strides in the peace process are also certainly in Israel’s interests. From time to time, I may take actions with which you do not agree. I don’t expect you to come out and approve them, but for heaven sakes” – this with uncommon intensity – “please don’t oppose us. I want again to stress my commitment to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge. Our ultimate purpose is to create more Egypts ready to make peace with Israel. And that’s about all what I wanted to say.” He pocketed his cards. “And now I would appreciate your comments.”
For a moment Menachem Begin seemed to hesitate between civility and anger, but then he opted for the former, and answered, “Mr. President, I have listened carefully and have remembered everything you have said, including all your criticisms. Of those you’ve made many, and I shall answer each one candidly, as befits good friends. But first I want to tell you about the weapons we found in Lebanon. We found ten times more Soviet weaponry than even we anticipated. Three days ago our forces discovered a PLO arms depot in Sidon which will require five hundred truckloads to remove. Imagine that: five hundred truckloads.”
His voice had dropped to an ominous rumble, but judging by Reagan’s expression, his words were having no effect. So he continued in an even deeper, darker pitch. “Mr. President, we now estimate that it will take ten huge Mack trucks running day and night for six weeks to transport all the Soviet arms and ammunition we’ve captured, to Israel. In fact, we now realize that Lebanon had been turned into a major Soviet base. It had become the principal center of Soviet activities in the Middle East. It was a formidable international terrorist center. We have the documents to prove it, and we shall be happy to share them with you. Furthermore, among the documents were specific orders to shell and bombard our civilian centers. That’s the kind of people we’re dealing with.”
“I will be glad to see the documents,” said Reagan, his voice neutral.
The prime minister knew that anything to do with the Soviets grabbed this president’s attention, so he pressed that angle further. “Mr. President, by our action we have not only set free our northern population from the constant threat of death, but have also rendered a great service to the United States and to the free world. We uprooted a Soviet base and the headquarters of an international terrorist organization in the heart of the Middle East.”
The president carefully studied his manicured nails, still seemingly unimpressed. When he finally looked up, he asked, “But what about Syria? Why did you have to engage Syria?”
“We did our level best, Mr. President, to keep our distance from the Syrian forces, but they insisted on joining the enemy. In air battles the likes of which have not been seen since World War Two, our Air Force downed one hundred Soviet-Syrian MIGs, without a single loss to ourselves. We also took out their Soviet-made SAM-6 missile batteries, employing a new technology which we ourselves developed and which we will be happy to share with you for the good of the free world.” And then, triumphantly, “Mr. President, in every single engagement, the quality of U.S. weaponry far exceeded that of the Soviets, adding greatly to the free world’s prestige.”
Still, no positive response. A crease of grief furrowed Mr. Begin’s brow when he softly and balefully said, “Of course, there were casualties. And you must believe me when I tell you that my heart aches for each casualty, and most of all for my own fellow countrymen. We’ve had two hundred and sixteen killed and one thousand wounded. For us, the Jewish people, who lost six million in the Holocaust, this is a heavy price.”
Begin searched Reagan’s eyes, as if pleading for understanding, but saw only an unfathomable remoteness. So he raised his voice a notch, and in a tone that was adamant yet still gentle, said, “Mr. President, there is something else on my mind that is deeply troubling me. I have been given to understand that you believe I misled you?”
The president looked the prime minister directly in the eye, and said, “Well, you did assure me in your letter of June sixth that your forces would not advance beyond a forty-kilometer line from your border. Yet in certain sectors they’ve gone far beyond that. They’ve almost reached Beirut.”
“The forty-kilometer limit of our advance was and remains our goal,” answered Begin intrepidly. “But we’ve had to go beyond it in a number of sectors in order to secure our objective. These are purely tactical measures, which any army would have to do to assure the security of the forty-kilometer zone which we have designated.” And then, with unrestrained earnestness: “Mr. President, I did not mislead you. I am an old man, and in all my life I have never knowingly misled anyone. I would surely not mislead the president of the most powerful nation on earth.”
Reagan nodded his understanding, encouraging Begin to spell out what hurt him the most in the inventory of complaints which had just been read out to him. “You asserted at the outset, Mr. President, that we massively invaded Lebanon. Now, for God’s sake” – Reagan cocked an eyebrow at the intensity of the other man’s umbrage – “we did not invade Lebanon. We were being attacked by bands operating across our border and we decided we had to defend ourselves. What would you have done if Russia was still occupying Alaska and was permitting armed bands to operate across your border? Did not the United States do exactly the same on at least two occasions, to defend itself across the Mexican border? Abraham Lincoln made a famous speech prior to the Mexican war, explaining why it was impossible to tolerate such incursions. And didn’t Woodrow Wilson do the same when armed Mexican bands crossed into Texas and General Pershing was sent after them? We behaved no differently. We defended ourselves from aggression that had been going on for months. When the murderers tried to assassinate our ambassador in London we could remain passive no longer. Ambassador Argov is dying, and if by any chance he survives, he will be paralyzed for life. So, how could we not have reacted?”
“Yes, but in the process you’ve inflicted enormous civilian casualties.”
The prime minister’s face blanched, and a tremulous timbre entered his voice. “Not so, sir. When Ambassador Argov was shot we very carefully selected two purely military targets in Beirut – a sports stadium which the terrorists had turned into an arms depot, and a terrorist training base. Our forces exercised extreme caution not to hit civilians, and not one was hurt.”
“But the perception here among our public is that you bombed Beirut after the shooting of the ambassador, and that the PLO shelled you in retaliation. These are the public perceptions we have to deal with.”
“Those allegations are completely outrageous lies and exaggerations. We did not bomb Beirut. We very carefully struck two military targets in retaliation to the shelling of our civilian centers and to the shooting of our ambassador.”
“That’s as may be, but unfortunately this is not the perception among our public. Our people and the world saw the television news of damaged buildings in Beirut, and interpreted your action differently.”
“Mr. President” – Begin was truly irate now – “after we struck those military targets, the PLO bombed our towns for three days without interruption. We had to act. Our people in the north have been hostages to the PLO for far too long. Whenever the murderers carried out terrorist attacks we could not retaliate without them bombarding our civilian centers in return. So our army just had to go in, clear them out, and resolve the problem once and for all.”
“Well, I have to say again, the perception of your actions in Lebanon accent the human tragedy for innocent people.”
“That perception is unfair. The media is biased against us, and the casualty figures have been grossly exaggerated. The PLO has widely circulated a figure that six hundred thousand people have been rendered homeless by our action in southern Lebanon. That is impossible. There are not six hundred thousand people in southern Lebanon. The actual figure is about twenty thousand. That, surely, is bad enough without multiplying it thirty times over. There were about four hundred killed in Sid
on, not four thousand as was widely publicized. Even four hundred deaths are surely awful, but the stories circulated are ten times higher. Why accept as fact these false allegations against us?”
Photograph credit: Ya’acov Sa’ar & Israel Government Press Office
Prime Minister Begin with President Reagan and their respective advisers during a working session in the White House Cabinet Room, 21 June 1982
Photograph credit: Ya’acov Sa’ar & Israel Government Press Office
Prime Minister Begin and President Reagan in animated discussion in White House garden, 21 June 1982
For anyone who has ever questioned the veracity of media reporting on matters to do with the Israel-Arab conflict in wartime, this contentious exchange between Reagan and Begin is, surely, instructive. Here was an American president shaping policy on the basis of perception, and not upon facts on the ground as the prime minister knew them to be. The president’s perception was fed, first and foremost, by the voracious impatience – indeed tyranny – of a twenty-four-hour media cycle that is ravenous for news but is often out of sync with the incessantly changing military reality on the ground. Here was proof, if any was needed, that in a transparent real-time wartime information environment, rebuttal is persuasive only if done with instant and accurate information – an exercise in which Israel has been out-foxed time and time again.
On this occasion, at least, Begin did seemingly succeed in persuading the president that the truth did not tally with the news reports, for as Reagan rose to his feet, he said, “It’s time we join our colleagues in the Cabinet Room, and I would like them to hear what you’ve just told me, so I suggest we start with that.”94
As they walked into the Cabinet Room where their senior advisers were waiting, Menachem Begin had the sense that he had reestablished a measure of rapport with the president which, surely, would help foster their dialogue in the months ahead. It certainly helped when, after the usual pleasantries and photo-op, the president asked Begin, using his first name for the first time on the trip, “Menakem, please repeat for my colleagues what you just told me concerning the bombing of the sports stadium and PLO training base in Beirut.”
The prime minister readily responded.
After he made his point, Secretary of State Alexander Haig remarked, “The latest wire service reports from Beirut say that shelling is continuing, and that the Soviet Embassy has reportedly been hit by artillery fire, inflicting casualties.”
“That report is only from one source,” said the head of Israel’s military intelligence, General Sagui, who was a member of the premier’s entourage. “It has not been corroborated, so I suggest we refrain from commenting on it until it is confirmed one way or another.”
Begin added, “There has been firing on both sides, and perhaps a Palestinian shell hit the Soviet Embassy. We certainly have no interest in interfering with Soviet diplomats in Beirut.” (Later reports would support his claim.)
“Would not the bulk of the Palestinians prefer to stay in Lebanon as part of Lebanese society and under Lebanese authority?” asked the president, of no one in particular.
“According to our information,” answered Haig, “the Lebanese President, Elias Sarkis, has said the Palestinians could remain, but only as non-voting residents.”
“And what’s your view, Menakem?” asked Reagan.
“I think that for the sake of the future of Lebanon, a portion of the Palestinians should leave. After all, Libya and Iraq are almost empty countries, and perhaps they could take them in. One thing is for sure, if the PLO is disarmed and allowed to stay in Lebanon, they will re-arm in no time. It is impossible to stop Soviet gun-running. No central Lebanese authority is strong enough to do that. They have to go.”
“That might well be true,” conceded Reagan, “but surely you will agree that there can be no full answer to the Middle East problem until this Palestinian refugee situation is resolved.”
“I agree, and it is doable,” said Begin. “It is a humanitarian problem, and if only the Arabs had the will they could resolve it in short order. After all, that is how the refugee problems in Europe were resolved after World War Two. That’s how the refugee issue was handled between Pakistan and India. That’s how the refugee problem between Greece and Turkey was tackled. And that’s how we tackled our own refugee problem. Israel took in and resettled some eight hundred thousand Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries. But the Arabs keep their refugees in permanent camps and reject any suggestion of resettlement because, for them, their refugees are a weapon against us.”
The president, wanting to move on, glanced at a cue card and read, “Cap, will you say a few words about our military strategy for the Middle East generally.”
“Certainly, Mr. President,” said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and he proceeded to explain to the prime minister and to the rest of us seated around the burnished oak conference table how America was trying to woo strategic Arab countries, some fabulously oil-rich, away from the Soviet influence.
“The U.S. is determined to pursue, as a strategic goal, an ability to protect Middle East oil countries,” he said in his clipped, rapid speech. “This is a matter of acute national interest, because were these oil fields to fall to the East, the West would have a hard time surviving.”
Smelling a rat, Begin looked hard at the defense secretary and the defense secretary looked back hard at him.
“The Soviets will soon need to import energy from the Arabs, and they may not choose to do so by conventional means,” Weinberger went on. “So we have to be ready for any contingency. To secure these areas we have talked to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Oman, primarily. Thus far we have naval rights in Oman and bases in Egypt. We are striving to promote relations with other Arab countries, but they are reluctant to associate with us. For example, we have talked to Jordan and urged them to buy U.S. weapons, but instead King Hussein has turned to the Soviets for weaponry. This means no control by us over the supply, the number, or the use of such weaponry. I can’t overstate how important it is for us to win over the Arabs, but it is terribly hard to carry out our policy of military supply, because the Arabs do not perceive us as a reliable supplier.”
Weinberger sounded like he was making a diagnosis, but to Begin it came across as an existential threat. A low buzz of disaffection started in our ranks. Begin was twisting his lips in a way that as much as said, “How callous and voracious and shortsighted can a man be?” This sentiment entered his voice when he said contemptuously, “Mr. President, I absolutely differ with this presentation. Don’t arm Jordan! Jordan is linked militarily with Iraq, and Iraq with the Soviet Union. Even as I speak, Soviet ships are docked in Akaba port unloading weapons for Iraq.”
Sympathetically, yet firmly, Reagan responded, “But how long can Israel exist as an armed camp in a hostile world, Menakem? As I’ve said before, we have to create more Egypts. So yes, we are seeking to encourage Jordan to follow Sadat’s path. But to influence King Hussein in that direction we must raise his confidence in us by agreeing to sell him arms. We would never sell arms to Jordan and then simply stand back when they use them. In this matter Israel must trust us. I’ve had a very good meeting with King Hussein, and I have the confidence to say to you, Menakem, that the U.S. will proceed in asking Jordan to express its willingness to deal with Israel, just as Egypt did. We believe that Jordan is prepared to be brought into the picture. Jordan bought Soviet weapons because the weapons we sold them in the past were so restricted in how they could use them as to be almost useless to them. On the other hand, we know that the king is very unhappy with the purchases he made from the Soviet Union. He wants ours. We would never try selling arms to Syria, for example, but only to those regimes which show signs of responsibility. And, believe me, we would not deal on trust alone, but would insist on assurances. We are using good judgment, Menakem.”
As he was talking, Begin was shaking his head.
“I see you disagree,” said the president. “So tell me,
what are the alternatives? How can you live everlastingly surrounded by hostile neighbors, with your economy forever stretched to the limit, and your standard of living constantly drained? This is no future! So yes, we have made overtures to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.”
Begin was about to answer, but the president preempted him. “Just let me finish this thought. We intend to provide military equipment to those Arab nations who have come to rely on us, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, for the means to defend themselves. I believe that in so doing, Arab confidence in us is strengthened, our strategic position in the region is improved, and thereby we encourage these Arab nations to take risks for peace. And now let me hear your response.”
Begin took aim and fired his salvo. “Mr. President, it is my responsibility to tell you that arming Jordan will pose a mortal threat to our survival. Yours is a mighty country, ours is Lilliputian. Does Jordan’s goodwill really depend on airplanes? Of course, we trust the United States, but Jordan has never kept its promises. Supply Jordan with weaponry, and in minutes it could hit Israel’s centers of population. Of course it’s important to try to influence King Hussein to join the peace process. I am ready to receive him in Jerusalem at any time, or let him invite me to Amman. But for the United States to arm him, in addition to Saudi Arabia, and the others – they, with their unprecedented wealth – could bankrupt us merely by our trying to keep up.”
The Prime Ministers: An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership Page 67