interview with Menachem Begin

This interview with Menachem Begin on the Sinai withdrawal reveals a lot.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1981-1982/122+Interview+with+Prime+Minister+Begin+on+IDF+Rad.htm?DisplayMode=print




122 Interview with Prime Minister Begin on IDF Radio- 27 April 1982
27 Apr 1982
VOLUME 7: 1981-1982


122. Interview with Prime Minister Begin on I.D.F. Radio, 27 April 1982.
Mr. Begin used the opportunity to discuss in detail the nature of the relationship between Israel and Egypt. He hoped that it would be much more than mere nonbelligerence, and that it will become peace between people rather than an agreement between governments. Text:
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, some senior cabinet ministers have recently termed the peace following the final withdrawal a "cold" peace, approximating a situation of non-belligerence. How do you see the- nature of peace in the second stage which the two countries entered?
A: My friend, my colleagues the ministers did not say what you reported to me they said. Some three weeks ago, they said things connected with violations by the Egyptians of the peace treaty conditions and the Camp David Agreements, and indeed there were violations and they created a serious crisis in the relations between us and Egypt on the eve of the withdrawal of our forces to the international border between Israel and Egypt. And we expressly notified the Egyptians and the Americans that if these violations are not corrected, we will consider postponing the withdrawal by a month at least - I said precisely till 25 May 1982. 14:00 hours Greenwich Mean Time. I believe that they knew our intention, but the truth is that all the violations were corrected and that's what we hoped for. We did not look for excuses not to carry out our international commitments or not to fulfil the conditions of the peace treaty on our part. If there had been reasons we would have drawn conclusions. If the reasons disappeared, we fulfilled our commitments. The violations Were noticed, we have a 150 kilometer demilitarized zone in Sinai. For us the soul of the peace treaty is our security. Since it is desert we can know of every movement and every change, and we do know them. We demanded of the Egyptians that they correct and they corrected. They removed all the additional units and this area remained completely demilitarized of the Egyptian army.
There was a second thing which we also viewed with great seriousness: That is the smuggling of weapons and explosives originating in Lebanon from El-Arish, and we caught more than 500 hand grenades. You can imagine how many people could have been killed or wounded by such a quantity of grenades. We also demanded of the Egyptians that they end this smuggling, and indeed, President Mubarak, in his letter to me of 16 April, made a commitment to prevent the smuggling and combat it, and he sent the chief of Egyptian military intelligence to us in order to discuss with our chief of intelligence practical steps to prevent the smuggling in the future. Of course, all this will be tested in the field, but the commitment was given.
Now, above all, the crisis broke out in recent weeks preceding 25 April in the area which I call political-moral. The Honorable Dr. Meguid, Egypt's Representatives to the U.N., first attacked Israel in a way which I would term most severe - I would even say with verbal violence - in the Security Council, when it discussed the complaints of two most righteous states of our times, Jordan and Syria. I commented on this in my letter of 26 March 1982, to President Mubarak, and told him that Dr. Meguid should not have made the speech he made. Our Ambassador gave me a report of the moment in which the President of Egypt read those words, and Mr. Mubarak did not have reservations about what I wrote. Afterwards this same Dr. Meguid goes to Kuwait to the Non-Aligned Nations Conference, 80 of them, most of the members of the U.N., and submits to them what is termed a "Program for Principles of Behavior", as Dr. Ghali told me, containing 11 points. In short, this is a plan for the destruction of Israel in stages, not immediately. Withdrawal to the lines of 4 June '67, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District, Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem, or at least part of it, the return of refugees from 1948 or compensations, depending on the refugees' choice. This is the destruction of our state. So I asked President Mubarak, are we to carry out the withdrawal on this basis? We are about to make the decisive and fateful step of returning to the Land of Israel from Sinai, and behold Dr. Meguid declares to the whole world, to 80 states -and even requests their assistance to implement - a plan which means the destruction of Israel. And in President Mubarak's letter sent to me on 16 April, he did not even mention the word autonomy, did not commit himself to keep the Camp David Agreement. So I told both the Americans and the Egyptians, under such conditions we may possibly consider delaying the withdrawal, at least for a month, until the distortions are corrected. The distortions were corrected. In a letter of 20 April President Mubarak makes a commitment to observe the Camp David Agreement, reiterates the important sections of this agreement regarding the autonomy - including the retention of an Israeli military force in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District - and promises to observe all the conditions in accordance with the peace treaty. The President of the United States, Mr. Reagan, wrote me a letter of great importance in terms of Israel's security, and the securing of its future - one of the most important letters, may I say, which was ever written by an American President to a Prime Minister of our country. Under these conditions we were able to meet our commitments, and the peace is certainly not "cold", and certainly not (merely) an abolition of the state of war. Today this is not so: We have a peace treaty. And I will give you the most salient example: We sail freely in the Suez Canal - not only merchant ships, but our warships also pass through the Canal, for the first time after 30 years ... Today an American battallion is stationed at Sharm-el-Sheikh. These are not U Thant's forces which were removed from the Tiran Straits overnight at the behest of President Nasser, and the Six Day War began. An American battallion is stationed there, and there is no one who will drive it out. This means that freedom of navigation in the Tiran Straits has actually been assured us for generations to come. Is this a "cold" peace? And all the normalization agreements. Only this morning we heard how every Israeli can reach southern Sinai with no difficulty whatsoever. So these are the conditions of two states who are living in peace. This is a revolutionary change, a fundamental change. My colleagues would have been correct if the violations of the peace treaty had not been rectified. but following their rectification, they also voted in favor of honoring our national commitment. And the peace is not cold, and there is no need to frighten the people of Israel. This is a fundamental, revolutionary and far-reaching change. We have breached the circle of hostility which surrounded us. We have signed a peace treaty with the largest and strongest Arab state ... Therefore, I think we can look to the future with good hope.
Q: Why was it necessary to demolish the buildings of the entire Yamit Salient and how was the decision to do so taken? A: How the decision was taken is not a matter for a radio conversation. There is a decision-making process. But I will simply say in one sentence: There were overriding security reasons. Of course, everyone would have preferred either leaving the houses standing up or transferring them to Israel for use, but under the circumstances it was impossible to do this, and there were overriding reasons of national security which created the necessity of carrying out the action which was certainly very painful. But sometimes there is no choice and the national leadership must take painful decisions.
Q: Sir, do you also include among these reasons that Israel preferred to avoid a situation in which a dense Egyptian population center would be created right on Israel's border.
A: If I mentioned security reasons, it means that I cannot detail them.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, do you today see a need for a government resolution, as proposed by Minister Hammer, that no Jewish settlements be dismantled as a result of any future diplomatic negotiations?
A: I have already recommended the acceptance of that resolution and I have also written the draft of that resolution. Next Sunday, at the Cabinet meeting, we will discuss (it). I hope that it will be accepted, and then on Monday we will initiate debate on a draft resolution of this kind. We will ask the Knesset's approval. This government does* not requite it. This Government will not dismantle settlements in Judea, Samaria, the Gaza District, and the Golan. But we want to guarantee the future. We want to give the settlers throughout the country confidence. What happened in the Yamit Salient was a one time thing, unique in our era. It will not happen again, and a resolution of this sort, approved by the Knesset, may not be necessary from a pragmatic point of view, but from a psychological standpoint I think it's healthy and desirable.
Q: Sir, you said in an interview with American television that if Egypt's commitments in the peace treaty are violated, Israel will respond immediately
A: "Swiftly", I said.
Q: Swiftly. Can you explain precisely what Israel will not agree to?
A: If my intentions are to be satisfactory, I cannot explain.
Q: Can you explain from the Egyptian side?
A: I can say this: We have means to respond to violations, very many of them.
And if, God forbid, there will be a violation - I hope there will not be - then we will choose the most appropriate one. But let it be known that we will by no means acquiesce in any violation of the conditions of the peace treaty, and our Egyptian and American friends know this. They have experienced our stand in the last three weeks and therefore there is good reason to assume that the peace treaty will be observed, with all its conditions and annexes.
Q: Two questions, if you will, regarding the situation in Lebanon. It seems that following an increase in tension after the airforce strike, the situation there has calmed down again. The terrorists have not opened fire again. We would like to ask you if this see-saw of alternating rise and fall of tension can continue for long without matters being decided?
A: It all depends on what happens on the other side of the border. If the terrorists and the Syrians won't attack us, then from our side there will be absolute quiet. If, God forbid, there will be any attacks, we will hit them. I expressly said this to the Americans. I not only notified the U.S. Ambassador of this, but also the Under-Secretary of State, who is the number two man in the State Department, and I asked him to report the contents of these statements of mine to the Secretary of State and the President. There will be no surprise. If they attack us, we will hit them much harder than we did on Wednesday of last week. Everyone knows this, but we prefer quiet. Now you see the situation. The situation is that the terrorist fear a further reaction by the State of Israel. They received a serious blow, but they did nothing, since they were told for a full night: Don't take any action. If you take action against the State of Israel, you will sustain an even more serious blow. And that had an effect on them. It cannot be known till when, but we are prepared: prepared to keep the peace if peace is kept by the other side. Prepared to hit them if they try to attack us.
Q: Sir, can Israel take 'such heavy action against the terrorists without leading to a wider confrontation, with Syria?
A: We don't want war with Syria. But if we must take action against the terrorists, then will we be intimidated by Syrian threats? This is inconceivable. And the Syrians will allow the terrorists to shed Jewish blood? No one considers this. But I believe that the Syrians will also be very careful. They know that Israel is very strong. Thank God, I can say this on the eve of Independence Day ... And this is known also to people outside of Israel.