Behind the Headlines the Sweet Smell of Success

A new stage in the relationship between Israel and the United States, “an unwritten alliance,” was established last week during the meetings between President Carter and Premier Menachem Begin of Israel. In addition, a deep and genuine friendship and respect was welded between the two chief executives that went beyond surface appearances.

This assessment was offered here by a senior Israeli source during a 90-minute question and answer working breakfast with a select number of newspaper, television, radio and magazine editors, including the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, last Friday.

The source stressed several times that the optimism exuded by Begin about future U.S. Israel relations and the possibility of moving toward a Geneva peace conference was not the result of euphoria on the Premier’s part, following his round of talks with Carter nor from the need to score propaganda points either in Israel or the Arab world.

GENUINE ACCOMPLISHMENTS CITED

Begin’s optimism, the source said, was based on genuine accomplishments and the very real “good feelings” that were established between Carter and Begin during their five hours of talks last Tuesday and Wednesday. Carter, the source noted, felt warmly disposed toward Begin after reading his book, “The Revolt,” which details the events in the life of the former Irgun leader from the time of his imprisonment in a Soviet labor camp in Siberia in 1940 to the birth of the Jewish State.

Begin and Carter, the source noted, related to each other in “complete candor” and parted “in great understanding”. Carter, Carter impressed Begin “as a man with heart, a good heart” and Begin came away feeling that Carter was a person of “extraordinary intelligence, capability, with a keen, quick grasp of essentials and able to make far-reaching decision”.

The two discussed all the substantial issues affecting steps toward a peace conference and eventual peace, including the West Bank and the Palestinian issue. “They reached a measure of agreement but differences remain,” the source observed. “Differences cannot be fully resolved in two days. But they agreed to express differences amicably”.

STRESSES ROLE OF RECIPROCITY

The source observed that the friendship between Israel and the U.S. is now rooted not only in the friendship between the President and the Premier but what he termed Israel’s contribution to United States national security. The source said Begin had given Carter information pertaining to Soviet weaponry which was gleaned

The source stressed that the policy of the Israeli government under Begin, unlike that under the Labor Party, is not to continue to rely on the U.S. as a big brother helping its small sibling. What Begin established in his meetings with Carter, the source explained, could be termed an “unwritten alliance, bilateral help, reciprocity”. Underscoring this point, he stated, “Reciprocity is the key element between Israel and the United States. Israel does not want unilateral help given by a powerful nation to a small one. Israel wants mutuality.”

Pursuing the basis for Begin’s optimism, one editor asked how this was possible since neither Israel nor the Arab have basically changed their views on substantial issues. The source noted some moves recently taken by Egypt to help improve the atmosphere as a further basis for optimism.

One example cited was Egypt’s move earlier this month to withdraw some 4000 troops from Sinai placed there in excess of the number agreed to in the Sinai accord. Although this followed Israel’s complaints to the United Nations Emergency Force, Egypt pulled back these additional forces “without any condition,” he said. Another example was Egypt returning, with full military honors, the remains of 19 Israeli soldiers who had been killed in the Yom Kippur War, also “without any conditions. In both cases, Egypt did not ask what it would receive in return,” the source said.

MEANING OF NO PRE-CONDITIONS

Asked what Israel meant by going to the Geneva talks without “pre-conditions” and whether this includes discussing the future of the West Bank and Jerusalem, the source affirmed that Israel wants to go to Geneva “with a clean state. Everything will be brought to Geneva, including Jerusalem”.

Israel, he said, wants direct negotiations with its neighbors; it does not want to come to Geneva with commitments that it must discuss specific issues because the Arab governments insist that these are the issues to be discussed. “This is a pre-condition.” he said. “Israel’s view is that there be no prior commitment on what to discuss. It is not permissible, as far as Israel is concerned, for the Arabs to ask the United States to pressure us to accept their demands before we sit down to talk.”

For example, he said, if Israel should say to President Anwar Sadat of Egypt that he must accept Israel’s position on Jerusalem before the conference begins, that is a pre-condition. “Israel, of course, has a position on Jerusalem, but Israel will not present that position as a condition for discussion. In fact, Begin has asked for a political truce until the Geneva conference is reconvened.”

What if the Geneva talks fail? he was asked. Wouldn’t the frustration arising from that lead to war on the part of the Arabs? The source responded by noting, “War depends on whether the Arabs want to go to war. One session of Geneva will not lead to war if it isn’t successful. If one session doesn’t work there can be other sessions.” What is required, the source said, is patience, and Israel has patience. “The very wish to negotiate, to sit around the same table, to see each other may dispel misunderstanding on both sides,” he said. “What is needed is neither shooting nor shouting.”

GENEVA TALKS AND THE PLO

Would Israel accept a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization as part of an Arab delegation?. The source replied that it depended on whether that person was known by Israel to be a PLO member. There would be no objection to a Palestinian Arab being a member of the Jordanian delegation because Jordan is a “legitimate” country with which to discuss peace. But if the person was a well-known PLO member, Israel would oppose him “because the PLO stands for Israel’s destruction”.

However, he observed in what appeared to be a measure of flexible diplomacy, “if there is a member of the PLO in the delegation who is not known by Israel to be a member well, his pockets will not be searched to see if he has PLO credentials”.

Digressing from the Mideast situation, the source was asked to assess the impact on Israel of Soviet Jewish emigrants who once they reach Vienna opt to go to countries other than Israel, and that of yerida, emigration by Israelis.

SOVIET JEWISH DROP-OUTS, YORDIM

On the issue of Soviet Jews who “drop out” in Vienna the source said this is “a very serious problem”. He said it was morally wrong for a Soviet Jew to ask for a visa to go to Israel then, arriving in Vienna, decide instead to go to the U.S. “At this time, however, we cannot refuse to help them,” he stated. “They are free people and can go anywhere once they leave (the USSR). But if they really want to go to the U.S. they should ask for visas to go to the U.S. But having asked for visas to go to Israel, they should come to Israel. Otherwise they are using Israel and that is unfair to Israel and unfair to the Russians themselves.” He said a way should be found to talk to prospective Soviet Jewish emigrants in the Soviet Union about this problem before they leave. But he did not elaborate on how this should be done.

On the issue of yordim, the source said an appeal should be made to them to return. It is wrong to call them names, as some members of the previous Labor government did, he said. “This will not help them to return. We need to understand why they left and how to bring them back. We have to tell them there is work to be done in Israel and that they are needed.”