Contrasting Accounts Given of Pentagon Views of Israel, Mideast

Contrasting accounts are being told of Defense Secretary Harold Brown’s views towards Israel’s usefulness in the Pentagon’s strategy and his outlook for an American military presence in the Middle East. The varied accounts followed a luncheon meeting at the Pentagon Dec. 14 with Brown and 15 representatives of Jewish communal organizations in their personal capacities. The discussion was not off the record although private along with the usual leakage is occurring.

A similar meeting with Brown was held 18 months ago and some comparisons with the recent session were pointed out by participants. The major-difference is that in this instance the Iranian-American crisis and its implications for the U.S. and Israel pervaded the talk.

Among those who had attended both were Rabbi Alexander Schinaler, Max Kampelman, Richard Maass, Morris Amitay, Hyman Bookbinder Irwin Field, Richard Shifier, Ben Epstein, Frank Lautenberg, Paul Berger and Alfred Moses.

ONE ACCOUNT OF MEETING

one generalized account of Brown’s presentations was on the following lines: Iran is falling apart and a leftist regime may take over with ominous significance for the oil sheikhdoms and Arab governments friendly to the U.S. In these circumstances, the U.S. must proceed with new urgency for a solution to the Palestine problem because as long as this problem percolates “moderate” Arabs are in danger.

The U.S., according to this account, can’t use Israel’s Sinai bases which are to be turned over to Egypt in 1981 because that move would jeopardize President Anwar Sadat’s safety. Neither can the U.S. consider Israel as a strategic asset except in the most dire circumstances. The impression Brown gave was that Israel must adapt itself to President Carter’s formula because in essence the U.S. support of Israel is fundamentally moral, not strategic.

When apprised of this account, some other participants expressed surprise. One found it “an unjustified, alarmist reaction” and that “an alarmist position is not warranted. There isn’t the slightest basis for it.” Brown did not show any reluctance, another group said, to assert Israel’s importance to the U.S., a position he did not take 18 months ago.

ANOTHER VERSION OFFERED

Those participant’s account, also generalized, differed in many respects from the one they criticized. They stressed Brown said there is no question Israel is a strategic asset to the U.S. They quoted him as saying “we start from that premise” that Israel is “a great strategic asset.” While 18 months ago, Brown would not concede Israel’s strategic importance, he now sees Israel differently.

Sadat, Brown reportedly said, is unwilling to grant base rights in the Sinai to any foreign power. Saudi Arabia requires a settlement of the Palestinian question. However, Brown did not imply failure thus for to involve the Palestinian Arabs in the peace process is Israel’s fault. In this context, he pointed to Jordan’s refusal to enter the autonomy talks with the U.S., Egypt and Israel.

When the two accounts were broached to another source, he responded that both accounts could be drown from the discussion. Brown did speak out on the need to solve the Palestinian issue that troubles Saudi Arabia particularly. When asked about Israel’s strategic place, Brown said “grudgingly” that Israel has some strategic value. This source observed Brown is “not a great believer” in Israel’s strategic usefulness.

The source added the Carter Administration is facing “a helluva lot of criticism” on its Middle East policy and it is wondering what to do. The Defense Department’s current mission in Saudi Arabia (and three other countries) is to ask the Saudis “what do you went us to do.” Summing up, the source said “keep in mind that Brown called this meeting. You figure it out from there.”