The Prime Ministers: An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership (71 page)

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.

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 minister, 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.”

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
MIG
s, 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 Sidon, 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