Israel’s Overriding Goal in Lebanon Described As Ensuring Permanent Security of Galilee

A senior defense source stated yesterday that Israel’s overriding goal in Lebanon is to ensure the permanent security of Galilee. All other objectives, including the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, shoring up the government of President Amin Gemayel, and even the May 17, 1983 agreement between Israel and Lebanon are subordinate to that objective and are means to achieve it, not ends in themselves.

The source mode those points repeatedly in conversation with reporters here during which he discussed Israel’s position should the Reagan Administration decide to withdraw the U.S. marines from Beirut or if the entire multinational force was pulled out.

He suggested that this was more than a remote possibility and disclosed that Israel has been urging the Lebanese government to deploy its army in areas of Beirut not presently under its control. If the government does not soon utilize its army more energetically, the Americans will not stay in Beirut much longer and the outlook for the Gemayel regime will be bleak, he said.

On the other hand, successful control of Beirut by the Lebanese army would enable the U.S. Administration to justify and defend the continued presence of the marines, the source said. Failure by the Lebanese army or further serious casualties to the marines, would result in President Reagan calling them home, he warned.

THREE TARGETS CITED

The source said the Lebanese army had three other targets: control of the Shouf mountains which Israel evacuated last September and are now held by Druze hostile to the Beirut government; control of the road from Beirut to the Israeli lines at Sidon; and control of south Lebanon which is presently in the hands of the Israel Defense Force.

The source could “not be too optimistic” about the Lebanese army’s prospects of achieving those targets. And while Washington was gratified by the U.S. Navy’s key role in stopping Syrian-backed forces at Suk el-Gharb, and blocking their advance toward Beirut, there was mounting pressure in the U.S. –even in quarters not opposed in principle to the American military role in Lebanon — to end the marine presence in their vulnerable positions, the source said.

Asked how Israel would react to being “left alone” in Lebanon, the source recalled that the multinational force was not introduced at Israel’s request. On the contrary, there was much initial friction between the IDF and the marines, he said. it was only more recently that “a change” occurred in Washington where the interests of the IDF and the MNF were perceived to overlap.

Israel’s “main and sole” criterion for bringing the IDF home Is the security of Galilee, the source said. Its demand for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and to shore up the central government were Intended to facilitate that primary goal and were not ends in themselves as far as Israel is concerned, he said.

Similarly, the May 17 agreement was “a political instrument” aimed at furthering the primary goal. It served the Lebanese government well to withstand pressure from the Syrians, the source noted. But he implied that Israel would not insist on implementation of “every jot and tittle” of the agreement if it could ensure security arrangements in south Lebanon, thereby facilitating the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

The source said Israel was “working on” building a local force based on Shiite militiamen to take over security tasks in south Lebanon. There are problems, he indicated, and no wide-ranging agreements have been reached yet. Some of the south Lebanese Druze are interested In Israel’s offer which, basically, was to equip their militias and aid them in return for their keeping the Palestine Liberation Organization out of the area. But others among the Druze are Influenced by their more radical and religiously extremist brethren living in the Baalbek area under Syrian domination, he said,