Hi Tom,

Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom
Reagan was not the "leash" that pulled the IDF out of Beirut, though we did push for that.á Sharon's leadership ultimately pulled him back after he made the unilateral decision to go in.á
Excerpt from the diplomatic cable sent to P.M. Begin August 12, following the phone call from Pres. Reagan:

"...Israeli air strikes and other military moves have stopped progress in negotiations. I find this incomprehensible and unacceptable.
...I cannot stress enough to you how seriously I regard this situation. Ambassador habib must be enabled to fulfil these last steps in his mision. The cease-fire must be kept. Our entire future relations are at stake if this continues.
...Israeli military actions of the past several hours have made further alteration of that package impossible. If so, or for any other reason, the package must stand as it is, we will look to Israel to accept it fully without further discussion, so that the agony of Beirut may be ended"

[ emphasis mine]

Schultz, George P. Turmoil and Triumph, Page 70.

The former SecState goes on to write:

" Begin called President Reagan back within several minutes. ' I have just talked with the minister of defense and the chief of staff. Now there is no firing at all' he told the president."

Very tough language to use with an ally, essentially an ultimatum, yes ?
That there were factors internal to Israeli decision-making at play then in Lebanon, I do not doubt but the pressure here put on Begin was extraordinairy - if you proceed then you jeopardize American support for the state of Israel. Hence my use of the term " leash".

Alternatively, we could say U.S. support is a " safety-net". Regardless, it changes Israel's defense posture from the extreme dynamic that prevailed at the time of the Six Day War.

I agree with you on Israel's settlement policy BTW - a generally counterproductive effort on Israel's part with the exception, perhaps, of solidifying their hold on Jerusalem, nothing of strategic value has been added.