Israel and Lebanon exchanged agenda proposals yesterday supporting sharply different priorities as talks got under way between the two countries with the United States sitting in as an active participant.
As expected, Israel proposed that normalization be the first item of discussion. The Lebanese stressed the withdrawal of Israeli forces from their country. The talks opened yesterday in Khalde, a seaside resort just south of Beirut. They resume tomorrow at Kiryat Shmona, an Israeli town on the Lebanese border and will alternate between the two sites thereafter.
Israeli sources said today that they did not expect the wrangling over the agenda to be ironed out at the next session. The outlook at present is for long and arduous talks. But Israeli officials appear optimistic that in the long run the talks will succeed.
HISTORIC ASPECTS
They are stressing the historic aspects of Israel sitting down with an Arab neighbor which transcends the immediate and short term differences. They see the talks with Lebanon as an important step toward Israel’s eventual integration into the region.
Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon have instructed the Israeli negotiating team to stand firm on the issue of normalization of relations with Lebanon as the key agenda item, though they may not insist that the term “normalization” must be employed. The Israeli team is headed by David Kimche, Director General of the Foreign Ministry. Shamir and Sharon are members of a senior ministerial supervisory committee on the policy-making level.
While there was no meeting of minds on the agenda, there was agreement between the two sides to proceed on parallel courses. Subcommittees are expected to be set up to deal with three issues that have been agreed to in principle as parts of the negotiations. They are a termination of the state of war; establishment of security zones; and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.
Antoine Fatale, head of the Lebanese delegation, argued yesterday that no state of war has existed between Israel and Lebanon since the 1949 armistice. Israel and Lebanon have, in fact never engaged in military hostilities. But Kimche insisted that the 1949 armistice was voided when Lebanon sided with Israel’s Arab foes in the 1967 Six-Day War and later signed the Cairo agreement which allowed the Palestine Liberation Organization to establish its “state within a state” on Lebanese soil.
The dispute however was legalistic. If a state of war does indeed exist, Israel can demand an agreement of non-belligerence with Lebanon. If there is no state of war, as Lebanon contends, there is no need for the Lebanese to sign such an agreement.
The Israelis seemed pleased that Fatale stressed that point however and would be satisfied if it was enshrined in a formal accord binding on both sides.
Israeli sources were clearly embarrassed when asked to explain what happened to Sharon’s vaunted agreement with the Lebanese on a “framework paper” that was to have served as the basis for an agenda. Sharon brought the document home from Beirut two weeks ago, hailing it as a “breakthrough.” It transpired later that no Lebanese official had signed it. The Lebanese with whom Sharon negotiated were never identified, though it was strongly hinted that they were very close associates of President Amin Gemayel.
But observers believe the Israelis may have underestimated the influence of Lebanon’s Moslem Premier, Shafik Wazzan and other Moslem circles who are less than eager to proceed toward normalization with Israel.
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.
