Reprinted from David Henderson’s substack, I Blog To Differ.
On November 20, 2024, Senator Jon Ossoff, one of the two Democratic U.S. senators from Georgia, spoke in the Senate to remind us of President Reagan’s call to Menachem Begin in 1982. In both cases, the Israeli government was taking aggressive measures against innocent people in Lebanon.
Here’s the link to Ossoff’s speech and here’s the transcript of his speech. (Thanks to Eric Garris, managing editor of Antiwar.com, for painstakingly transcribing the speech from the Congressional Record.)
Senator Ossoff:
Mr. President, in 1982, as Israeli forces pursued the PLO deep into Lebanon, President Reagan was angered by what he viewed as excessive civilian casualties resulting from the Israeli bombardment of Beirut.
Concerned by the suffering of innocent civilians and its impact on American diplomacy, not only did President Reagan personally call Israeli Prime Minister Begin and demand a halt to the bombing – and the bombing reportedly stopped within hours – but the American President then blocked the provision of cluster munitions to Israel out of concern that their use by the IDF was killing too many innocent people.
President Reagan imposed conditions on the provision of U.S. arms, using leverage to influence the conduct of an ally. He took those steps to protect innocent life and to defend what he perceived to be America’s interests. And Israel, faced by President Reagan’s ultimatum, adjusted its policy to accommodate America’s demands.
The United States remained Israel’s closest ally, and the world kept turning.
This story is not a perfect mirror image for the agonizing situation we face today and have faced since the despicable Hamas attacks of October 7. Today, Israel faces a multifront assault by Iran and its proxies while the war in Gaza has devastated the territory’s civilian population.
But I tell this story, Mr. President, to remind my colleagues that in the pursuit of America’s national interests, to use the leverage that comes with the provision of arms, as President Reagan did in 1982, is not just sometimes necessary; it is expected and appropriate. The United States is and will remain Israel’s closest ally. Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad.
But no foreign government is simply entitled as a matter of right to American weapons with no strings attached. No foreign government, no matter how close an ally, gets everything it wants whenever it wants, to use however it wants. It is entirely appropriate for the United States to insist that foreign powers use American weapons consistent with our interests, our values, and our laws.
And to insist otherwise weakens American foreign policy and undermines our ability to protect the interests of the American people. And to impose conditions on the provision of certain weapons to an ally when necessary is not a betrayal of that alliance. It is the pursuit of our national interest. Again, President Reagan understood that in 1982.
So let’s apply the principle to the present moment. In November of last year, I addressed the Senate on the war in Gaza in the aftermath of the October 7 attack, affirming Israel’s right to defend itself, to wage war against and defeat its enemies. And I affirmed, as I do again today, America’s enduring support for our ally.
I also urged that Israel respect American requests to reduce unnecessary civilian casualties in Gaza, to provide safe passage for food and essential medical supplies, to clearly define Israeli objectives, to present a credible plan for Gaza’s future governance, and to prevent atrocities by Israeli extremists in the West Bank.
These requests of the Israeli political leadership have been made not just by me and many others in the Senate but repeatedly by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President over the past year.
That Israel take these reasonable and necessary steps has been and remains in America’s national interests. No one in this body or the American government has suggested that Israel lay down its arms and be overrun or that Israel does not have a right and, indeed, an obligation to defeat its enemies and defend its people. Rather, the United States has insisted that Israel’s conduct of the war respect our interests and our values – the interests and values of Israel’s closest ally.
And yet, for the most part, this insistence has been ignored. The United States has been ignored, in part, because the Israeli Prime Minister is beholden to cabinet ministers, in [Finance Minister] Mr. Smotrich and [Minister of National Security] Ben-Gvir, who insist there be no deviation from policies that are gratuitously brutal, even over American objections. We should be disgusted by the spectacle of Israeli extremists running amuck in the West Bank, sometimes with the protection of Israeli security forces, shooting and maiming goat herders and olive farmers and burning and seizing their land.
And the American people are rightly horrified by the lack of sufficient concern for innocent Palestinian life that has left so many children unnecessarily dead in Gaza, without limbs, or riddled with shrapnel.
As I said on the floor last year, no one should be naive to the inherent risk to civilians that comes with warfare in a place like Gaza against an enemy like Hamas. Tragically, horribly, fighting terrorists in a dense urban environment makes civilian casualties inevitable. And yet the evidence that force has repeatedly been applied with reckless disregard for the innocent is too credible for us to ignore. We are talking about precious, innocent children and other innocent civilians who might otherwise be alive or without grievous wounds today.
And, Mr. President, these things aren’t just horrific; they are inconsistent with America’s national security interests. Yet we seem to have forgotten that we have the power to influence our ally’s conduct and that we can do so without betraying our ally. It is often said that our efforts to influence close allies are best done in private and, where possible, done gently, and I agree. But in this case, that has not been sufficient nor have heartfelt public statements and harshly worded letters been effective.
So what would President Reagan do? Judging by his actions 40 years ago, I think he would judiciously use the power that comes with our provision of weapons in order to shape Israel’s conduct.
Some have taken to the floor tonight to argue that holding up two or three arms sales today would have been an abandonment of our ally, leaving Israel naked and undefended in the face of Iranian aggression. And that’s nonsense.
The question on the floor today was not whether to shut off military support for Israel. The resolutions we debated accounted for less than 5 percent of American arms that will likely flow to Israel over the next 3 years, and most of the shipments debated will not even arrive until 2026 or 2027. Bipartisan American support for Israel’s nonnegotiable right to exist and to defend itself is rock solid.
Had these resolutions passed, however, perhaps Israeli politicians would have received the necessary message that has so far been disregarded, which is, yes, defend yourself, yes, defeat your enemies, but have mercy for the innocent, restrain your own extremists, and respect the interests of the United States.
The realization that every shipment is not simply available on an unlimited basis with no strings attached might have resulted in changes to Israeli policy that would reduce civilian suffering and support America’s regional and global interests, as he believed it would when President Reagan used American power in 1982.
I remain steadfastly committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance. And I also believe we must be willing to say no, even to our closest friends, when we believe it is in America’s national interest.
When Eric told me about the speech, I told him that I had read this story in Revolution, Martin Anderson’s book about Ronald Reagan’s time in the White House. I painstakingly copied the relevant paragraphs from Marty’s book. I should add something I had not noted when I read the book earlier: Marty’s telling of the story is all from Michael Deaver’s co-authored 1988 book, Behind the Scenes. Deaver, as you’ll see, is one of the two key players in the drama. Marty clearly took Deaver’s word for it, as I am doing here.
Here’s the excerpt from Revolution:
One morning in 1982 Michael Deaver, the deputy chief of staff, opened the door that led from his office into the Oval Office and walked in on President Reagan unannounced. Deaver was very troubled. The war in Lebanon was escalating. In June 1982 the Israelis moved across the border to attack the PLO. Soon their tanks and ships and planes were shelling and bombing the PLO strongholds in Beirut. Many people were being killed and wounded, and the casualties upset Deaver.
“Mr. President, I have to leave.”
The president was startled.
“What do you mean?”
“I can’t be part of this anymore,” replied Deaver, “the bombings, the killing of children. It’s wrong. And you’re the one person on the face of the earth right now who can stop it. All you have to do is tell Begin you want it stopped.”
Reagan started at Deaver with a look, as Deaver later described it, of “My God, what have we done?” and then asked his secretary to get Menachem Begin, the prime minister of Israel, on the phone.
George Shultz then joined Deaver and the president, and endorsed the idea of Reagan intervening with Israel. When the call to Israel came through, Reagan told Begin bluntly that the shelling and bombing of Beirut had to stop. Reagan’s last words were, “It has gone too far. You must stop it.”
In twenty minutes [DRH note: Ossoff had said within hours; he was right] Begin called back and said it was done. The shelling and bombing was stopped. Reagan was somewhat incredulous and said, “I didn’t know I had that kind of power.”
Notice something interesting. Reagan told Begin to stop. Ossoff is asking the Senate to hold up some arms sales. In a sense, Ossoff’s “ask” is more modest than Reagan’s “tell.”
Copyright © 2024 by David R. Henderson.
