Focus on Issues View That Israel and the U.S. Are at Loggerheads is Challenged

The common perception since the start of Israel’s “Peace for Galilee operation last June is that Israel and the United States are at loggerheads and are drawing apart. This is a view that has been encouraged by the statements of some Israeli and American officials and of course, the press.

But at a panel discussion on “U.S. Influence in a Changing Middle East” during the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) recent Public Policy Week, this view was challenged by Robert Tucker, a professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington.

Noting that the Reagan Administration has taken a basically passive attitude toward the actions of the government of Israeli Premier Menachem Begin, Tucker said that Israel has not been perceived in Washington as pursuing policies which are seen as “fatal to American interests.” But, he added, “when that point comes, and particularly if it involves oil, you will see very different behavior on the part of any government, any government, in Washington.”

U.S. POSITION HAS IMPROVED IN THE MIDEAST

Tucker noted that while Israel is both an asset and a liability to the U.S., it has been mostly an asset. He stressed that when the war in Lebanon ended “the American position in the Mideast was a good deal stronger than it had been before.”

A “lack of congruence” between Israel and the U.S. would “become very apparent,” Tucker argued, if King Hussein of Jordan “shows up at that famous negotiating table” as President Reagan has urged in his September I peace initiative and if the Begin government then maintains its “intransigent opposition” to the Reagan proposals. This “could have very serious consequences,” Tucker warned, adding, “before that occurs the argument is largely in the abstract.”

Tucker also did not appear to he too much concerned about Israel’s refusal to heed Reagan’s plea for a freeze on the establishment of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. He said that while the Arab states attach significance to the Palestinian issue they did not see it as “that significant” that they would endanger American and European interests in the Persian Gulf.

On this point, there was sharp disagreement from Tucker’s colleague at SAIS, Fouad Ajami, who is director of Middle East studies at the school. While saying that he agreed that the Arabs do not care about the Palestinians, Ajami said they do care about having their weakness “put on display.” He said that if this continues it could threaten U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf.

NEED TO DEAL WITH CONSTITUENCIES

The panel discussion was based on a paper by Judith Kipper and Harold Saunders, AEL resident fellows. Sounders, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs in the Carter Administration, in outlining the paper stressed the need for the U.S. not only to deal with Mideast governments but also to take into account the various groups within a country which that country’s government has to satisfy. “Insensitivity to the constituencies upon which governments depend can undercut them and damage U.S. interests,” he warned.

Several persons present suggested that this view might encourage interference in the internal affair of other countries. Saunders rejected this. He said that in dealing with democracies like Israel, any thing the U.S. does tend to create an internal debate as is occurring now with Reagan’s peace initiative. But he said all governments have constituencies and this should be taken into account as a “fact of life.” He stressed that the U.S. must be able to understand what a government is able to do before it is asked to do something.