Behind the Headlines Arab Smoke-screens

The Arab world may be deliberately throwing up smoke-screens and sowing confusion. Or it simply may be unable to reach any degree of unity with respect to future peace negotiations with Israel. In any case, Israel’s leaders and political analysts are having a difficult time making sense of the bewildering array of contradictory statements that comprise the so-called Arab peace offensive.

For example: Last Friday, Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Ismail Fahmy, let it be known that his government would demand Israel’s withdrawal to the 1947 partition boundaries. On Sunday, Fahmy’s boss, President Anwar Sadat, told a New York Times interviewer that he was ready to give Israel any guarantees it wanted — provided that it withdrew first to the pre-June 1967 lines.

On Friday, Sheikh Mohammed Ali el-Jabarri, the former Mayor of Hebron, returned from a visit to Jordan claiming the right of the West Bank population to self-determination. The people of the West Bank, not the PLO must have “the first word to say” about their fate, he declared, speaking, presumably, with the blessings of Jordan’s King Hussein. But a day later, Hussein signed a joint declaration with Sadat favoring a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank.

These contradictions seem to bear out Israel’s long-standing belief that all Arab statements must be taken with a large grain of salt. But who expresses the Arabs true intentions? Sadat or his Foreign Minister? Jaabari, a retired politician who is a sentimental favorite but no longer a political influence in his home town or the Hashemite King who appears to have reversed himself and now supports the PLO?

TRYING TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK

Apparently the Arabs are trying to lay the groundwork for a joint stand when the time comes to reconvene the Geneva conference. Their efforts are expected to culminate in March when the Arab heads of state are scheduled to meet in Cairo to finalize their “understandings.” The recent meetings between Sadat, Hussein and President Hafez Assad of Syria appear to have resulted in a common position on the part of the three confrontation states. The next two months probably will be devoted to trying to extend the consensus to the more extreme Arab regimes of Iraq and Muamer Qaddafi of Libya.

But if the Arabs are joining forces to squeeze concessions out of Israel, it is hard to understand how they hope to achieve this by their current smokescreen tactics. And if they do adopt a united stand on the eve of a resumed Geneva conference, the conference may fail to materialize because Israel will not accept the terms demanded by the united Arab front.

Saturday’s joint communique by Sadat and Hussein indicates some of the difficulties that may arise. It speaks in favor of a separate Palestinian delegation at Geneva, a co-equal with the other Arab delegations and the “legitimate rights of the Palestinians, including the right to establish an independent political entity.” Israel is not likely to accept these terms. In fact, recent reports that such influential Americans as Prof. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who will be President Carter’s National Security Advisor in the new administration, now oppose a Palestinian state bolsters Israel’s opposition.

JORDAN’S ROLE PROBED

What needs examination is the new Jordanian support for a Palestinian entity. The Daily Telegraph of London reported today that Hussein would soon meet with PLO chieftain Yasir Arafat, their first meeting since Jordan destroyed the PLO presence within its borders in the bloody battles of September, 1970.

The Jordanian position is easier to understand in the context of internal Arab politics. Hussein is preparing the groundwork for greater involvement on the West Bank, not as an interested party but as a patriotic Arab leader carrying out the mandate given to him by the entire Arab community. The joint communique speaks of an “independent political entity” but also mentions Sadat’s recent proposal that a formal link should exist between Jordan and a future Palestinian state. Hussein, not surprisingly, welcomes the idea.

Although Arab ambiguity has created a dilemma for Israel, official reactions to the Hussein-Sadat communique were positive. Foreign Minister Yigal Allon told the Cabinet yesterday that Jordan was again given a role in the Palestinian issue, despite what Allon described as lip service to the 1974 Rabat summit meeting. Political analysts noted that although there was reference to a Palestinian state in the joint communique, there was no reference to the PLO as “the sole representative of the Palestinians,” a figure of speech contained in the Rabat resolutions.

“Anything that brings Jordan back into the Palestinian issue is positive since it is the Israeli position that the Palestinian question must be answered in the context of negotiations with Jordan.” political sources here said today. The Israeli view is that Jordan is enjoying a comeback in the Arab world. Sadat does not want to see Jordan totally in the Syrian camp nor does Hussein want to tie himself entirely to one camp.

Israel believes that a final settlement on the West Bank is possible only through negotiations with Jordan and regards the Sadat-Hussein communique as a step in that direction. On the other hand, the fact that the moderate Hussein officially endorses a separate Palestinian delegation to the Geneva talks is viewed with concern since Israel will not accept such a provision.

If this turns out to be part of the united Arab stance it may well become the main obstacle to reconvening the Geneva conference. It is expected to be the subject of talks between Middle East leaders and the new American administration.