Anyone who listened carefully to Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir during his two-day visit to Washington last week should not have been surprised when Israel fightened the military pressure on the Palestine Liberation Organization terrorists in west Beirut.
Shamir, in every public appearance, stressed that Israel is not convinced that the PLO is ready to leave Lebanon and that it will not do so until the terrorist organization is convinced that it has only once choice, negotiate a withdrawal “or by other means.”
Although he never spelled out what “other means” meant, Israel’s Ambassador Moshe Arens made it clear when he told a television interviewer that the PLO will agree to leave Lebanon by diplomatic efforts “only under direct and imminent threat of military action.”
A QUESTION OF TIRNING
The Reagan Administration seems to accept this view although it apparently feels that at present the military action should be held up because of the belief that President Reagan’s special envoy, Philip Habib, is close to reaching an agreement for the PLO’s departure.
After Administration officials briefed Jewish leaders at the State Department last Thursday, Julius Berman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, said the Administration understands the Israeli position although it has not known before hand or approved of any Israeli action connected with the “Peace for Galilee” campaign.
Both Israel and the U.S. “realize that without military pressure there will be no diplomatic solution,” Berman said. “Otherwise there is no incentive for the PLO to leave Lebanon.” But, he added, “as to the specific military pressure and the timing of this there is obviously a difference of opinion.”
The timing is not now, Vice President George Bush mode it clear to reporters as he left the meeting with the Jewish leaders. He stressed the PLO “must withdraw promptly,” adding that it is “our view that this should happen with no more loss of innocent human life.”
EXAGGERATED MEDIA PRESENTATION
It is the tragic death toll among civilians in Lebanon–albeit exaggerated by the media–that is the crux of the present difficulties between Israel and the U.S. As Shamir-and other Israelis have pointed out, Israel took extreme precautions to protect civilians at the cost of casualties to its own soldiers. Civilian casual ties were impossible to prevent especially as the PLO stationed its forces right in the center of populated areas.
Yet, while this is true, as well as the argument that in all wars innocent civilians are killed and injured, it has almost no impact against the effect of the nightly television pictures of the dead and wounded, especially children. its effect has not only been felt in the U.S., but in Israel itself.
Shamir took note of this when he told the Overseas Writers Club last week that the effect of television is another reason why Israel wants to reach a “solution as quickly as possible.”
The Reagan Administration apparently also feels it has to respond to the impact of the television pictures from Beirut. Reagan, the former actor, put on a stellar performance last Sunday when, returning to the White House from Camp David he looked stem and told reporters, “I lost patience a long time ago.” His remarks were interpreted as referring to Israel’s bombardment of west Beirut, although he could also have been talking about the PLO.
Reagan was also reported as planning to be “firm” when he met with Shamir the next day. This attitude seemed to be confirmed during the picture-taking session after Shamir arrived at the White House when the Americans were reported to have acted very coldly toward the Israelis.
The New York Times ran a front page picture on Tuesday showing Reagan and his advisers sitting across the Cabinet table from the Israelis. This was contrasted by a picture from an earlier Shamir visit in which the Foreign Minister and the President sat side-by-side in arm chairs.
ELEMENTS OF GROWING ESTRANGEMENT
A further contribution to this picture of growing estrangement was the White House statement issued immediately after the Shamir meeting in which the President was quoted as calling for “a complete end by all parties to the hostilities in and around Beirut” and as declaring “the world can no longer accept a situation of constantly escalating violence.”
After the Israeli forces moved forward in west Beirut Wednesday, the President sent Israeli Premier Menachem Begin a message stressing “the absolute necessity of reestablishing and maintaining a strict cease-fire in place.” At the same time, Reagan, through other governments, expressed his “strong conviction that the PLO must not delay further its withdrawal from Lebanon.”
On Wednesday, the Administration also denied it was considering sanctions against Israel although the letter to Begin may have threatened them implicitly, if not explicity. Berman said the Jewish leaders were told that as of Thursday morning, the President had not considered sanctions. Since then there have been hints that it is being talked about, if not by Reagan, then by some of his advisors.
Throughout his stay in Washington, Shamir-stressed that while “there are some difficulties” between Israel and the U.S., they have “identical goals” in Lebanon. Berman also pointed to these common goals which he said were to have the PLO leave and the Lebanese government regain full sovereignty over that country.
THE FEAR IN ISRAEL
But the fear in Israel, as well as in the American, Jewish community, is that the PLO will interpret the differences between the U.S. and Israel as a signal that if they continue to stall, they can prevent their being forced out of Lebanon.
The Reagan Administration has been attempting to distance itself from Israel over the last week, in part, to prove to the Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, that it is not in cahoots with Israel.
But if this results in the PLO remaining in Beirut, the Administration could be held responsible for a situation in which all the terrible loss of lives has been in vain and the chances that the Israeli operation has given the U.S. for restoring Lebanese sovereignty, finding a solution to the Palestinian problem and establishing a real Middle East peace will be lost.
JERUSALEM (JTA)–The price of food has climbed steeply. The massive price hike Thursday of 15 to 36 percent was caused by further cuts in government subsidies, as part of its effort to finance the war in Lebanon.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
