President Reagan’s invitation to Israeli Premier Menachem Begin to have lunch at the White House June 21 may now turn out to be a threesome with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak joining in an informal summit. But whether or not Mubarak accepts the invitation, the June 21 meeting and talks possibly in New York the weekend before will mark the start of the Reagan Administration’s renewed effort to get the autonomy negotiations moving.
This “more active role” on autonomy, the Iraq-Iran war and the situation in Lebanon was the main stress of Secretary of State Alexander Haig’s speech on the Middle East in Chicago last week. The address, the first major speech on the Mideast by a top Reagan Administration official did not contain anything that Haig has not been saying for the past months. But it did show some sources of differences between Israel and the United States.
On autonomy, Haig reiterated that “The Camp David process, which is based firmly on United Nations (Security Council) Resolutions 242 and 338, remains the only practical route toward a more comprehensive Middle East peace between Israel and all of its neighbors including Jordan and Syria.”
Haig made an appeal for Jordan and the Palestinian Arabs to join the peace process. He again declared that “we shall neither recognize nor negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization until it accepts United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 and recognizes Israel’s right to live in peace.”
OPPOSES SETTLEMENT POLICY
The Secretary also warned that “The failure to negotiate an autonomy agreement and to negotiate one soon, will squander the best chance to act in the best interests of all parties. Inevitably such a failure will invite more dangerous alternatives.”
But Haig made it clear that the U.S. was opposed to Israel’s policy of increasing settlements in Judaea and Samaria saying it has “exacerbated” the “fears” of Palestinians that autonomy “is only a formula for an Israeli domination they resist and that they fear will lead to further radicalization of the entire region.”
Of course, Israel’s West Bank settlement policy and the various disputes between Egypt and Israel are not the only issues to be settled at the White House lunch. Before the autonomy negotiations can begin the dispute over their site has to be settled. Israel is insisting that while the talks can be held in any number of places, they also must be held in Jerusalem. Egypt has refused to meet in Jerusalem. State Department officials have been saying that the problem will be solved when Begin and Reagan get together.
DIFFER ON IRAN-IRAQ WAR
Meanwhile, the Iran-Iraq war has emerged as another major source of dispute between Israel and the U.S. as demonstrated by Defense Minister Ariel Sharon’s recent visit to Washington. Sharon made it clear on numerous occasions that Israel feared a new coalition that was emerging around Iraq. Sharon stressed that Iraq is implacably hostile to Israel and its victory in the war would endanger the Jewish State.
At the same time, Sharon believes Iran is “strategically … more important” to the West and there is need to gain influence with whatever forces come to power after the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
The U.S., on the other hand, is worried that an. Iranian victory, which now seems likely, would endanger the security of the Persian Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia. In his Chicago address, Haig stressed U.S. “neutrality” in the war. “Neutrality, however, does not mean that we are indifferent to the outcome,” he added. “We have friends and interests that are endangered by the continuation of hostilities. We are committed to defending our vital interests in the area. These interests, and the interests of the world are served by the territorial integrity and independence of all countries in the Persian Gulf.”
The Secretary also made it clear that it rejects Israel’s attempts to block the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and Jordan. “Though we shall take full account of local sensitivities, no country can be given a veto over the pursuit of our best interests or necessary cooperation with others.”
LEBANESE CRISIS
Haig also devoted a major part of his speech to Lebanon. Certainly Israel agrees with Haig’s hopes for “concerted action in support of both Lebanon’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and a strong central government capable of promoting a free, open, democratic and traditionally pluralistic society.”
But Israel believes to do this both the Syrian army and the PLO, which together control some 60 percent of Lebanon, have to be removed from that embattled country. This is what Israel would like to see accomplished from the latest trip to the area of Philip Habib, Reagan’s special envoy for the situation in Lebanon who is about to make his sixth trip to the area in little more than a year. Haig said in Chicago that Habib will discuss U.S. “ideas” for the restoration of Lebanon “with the cooperation of concerned states.”
But Israel has been concerned that the Habib missions up to now have just sought to continue the ceasefire across the Israeli-Lebanese border that Habib helped establish last July without doing anything about either Syria or the Palestinian terrorists. Israel has maintained the ceasefire despite PLO violations, but there is a strong feeling it could have wiped out the terrorist forces if it had not been restrained by the U.S.
So there will be plenty to chew over at the White House lunch. But we will have to wait to see how it is digested.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
