Likud and Labor Hold Sharply Divergent Views on Reagan’s Plan

The divergence of views between the Likud government and the Labor opposition over President Reagan’s proposals for a Palestinian settlement were sharply delineated by Labor Party chairman Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon in separate radio interviews over the weekend.

The gap is expected to be brought into stronger focus when the Knesset debates the issue on Wednesday, observers here said.

Peres declared that “It (the Reagan plan) includes many points which are very close to the basic concept of the Labor Alignment and I appreciate it.” Sharon, who recorded his interview immediately after U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger ended his visit to Israel, said the U.S. should withdraw the plan proposed by Reagan because it was unworkable and Israel not only would not accept it but would not even discuss it.

He expressed bitterness that the U.S. had discussed proposals which affect Israel’s vital security with other countries without even consulting with Israel. “This is not merely a matter of national pride but a matter which concerns the very future and security of Israel,” he said.

Peres said: “I believe the most important development in this plan is the fact that the Jordanians are apparently able to join in the negotiation and reopen the road for peace and settlement on our eastern frontier and the Palestinian issue.”

He observed that the plan was not a “dictat” or imposed solution. “It is a basis for negotiations,” Peres stressed. “I see in it a great deal of very positive points and I can see in it some points I can object to. And I think we should come in without any hysteria and talk it over and negotiate,” the Labor Party leader declared.

SEE ISRAEL PERSUADING THE U.S.

Sharon said the Cabinet had acted correctly in immediately rejecting Reagan’s proposals out of hand. “And America would have saved itself much embarrassment by consulting with us before publishing the plan,” he added.

He said he anticipated a confrontation with the U.S. on this matter but believed that, as in previous instances of disagreement between two traditional friends, Israel would in the end manage to persuade the U.S. of the justice of its cause.

Sharon continued to insist that Jordan was the Palestinian state and it was up to the Palestinians to decide whether they wanted King Hussein or someone else as their leader in Amman. He said Israel had proposed the only workable system for the West Bank and Gaza Strip by offering autonomy which would provide the inhabitants with almost complete control of their own lives. Moreover, Sharon said, Israel’s plan is in full accord with Camp David whereas Reagan’s proposals were “in complete contradiction to the Camp David accords.”

Sharon said Reagan’s proposals had not been discussed with Weinberger during his visit. He described the Defense Secretary’s stay here as “short but very successful.” In that connection, Sharon said: “We outlined to him Israel’s security problems and our responses to those problems. We made no requests but we told and showed him Israel’s technical responses to various problems. He saw for himself, from vantage points in Samaria and on the Golan Heights, the problem of the concentration of much of Israel’s population on the narrow coastal strip and the security importance of Jewish settlements.”

BASIS FOR DIALOGUE CITED

Peres said he did not think the Likud government should have rejected the Reagan proposals out of hand because they are a basis for dialogue and discussion with America and to argue about the points on which the U.S. and Israel do not see eye-to-eye or to offer a real alternative plan which might stand even a slight chance of acceptance by the other parties.

Peres said he did not know what the government’s plan actually was. “If it is complete annexation, that means complete isolation of Israel. It means the permanent continuation of belligerency and, even worse, in my eyes, it means turning Israel into a bi-national state and by doing so, putting a real end to a dream of the Jewish people and of the Zionist movement. What are we fighting for? To have a bi-national state? What is Mr. Begin suggesting? That is my question,” Peres said.

Sharon, referring to Lebanon’s problems, said that in any peace treaty with Lebanon full consideration should be paid and spelled out to Israel’s specific security and defense problems. He added that if a Lebanese government came Into being which did not conclude a peace treaty with Israel, Israel would have to ensure other arrangements for a security zone some 24-30 miles along its northern border. He said, however, this would not necessarily involve Israeli forces remaining in that zone.