State Dep’t Insists That Israel ‘may’ Have Violated Arms Accord with U.S. During Its Incursion in So

The State Department continued to maintain today that Israel “may have” violated its 1952 agreement with the United States limiting the use of American arms when it invaded south Lebanon last month to attack Palestinian terrorist strongholds. Department spokesman Tom Reston told reporters, “There was a review which has now been completed of whether the Israelis were using American weapons” in Lebanon and “Our review leads us to conclude that a violation may have occurred.”

Reston was replying to questions concerning Secretary of State Cyrus Vance’s letter last night to House Speaker Thomas O’Neill (D. Mass.) stating that the Israeli military operations in Lebanon which began March 15 “involved use of defense articles furnished to Israel by the United States under the foreign military sales program.”

Vance said in the letter that “In the circumstances, I must report that a violation of the 1952 Agreement may have occurred by reason of the Israeli operations in Lebanon.” He added however that because of “ongoing efforts to restore momentum to the vital peace negotiations and Israel’s assurances that it intends to withdraw from Lebanon, I am not recommending to the President any further action,” meaning, apparently, punitive measures against Israel.

CITES SERIOUS, COMPLEX QUESTIONS

Reston pointed out that Vance was required to report to Congress on the use of American weapons by Israel pursuant to Section 3-C of the Arms Export Control Act. “We believe that there were serious questions as to the compatibility of the Israeli operations with the U.S. -Israeli Agreement limitations because of the circumstances, scale and duration of those operations,” Reston said.

He noted that the use of the words “may have” in Vance’s letter was in compliance with statutory language.

“This language comes from the wording of the statute,” Reston said. “While there are complex questions as to when a state may use armed forces in the territory of a neighboring state which is not controlling the activities of hostile groups located there, this is our review of the circumstances of the Israeli operations and that is the reason that a report under Section 3-C was called for. Our review leads us to conclude that a violation may have occurred. The statute gives the permission to take discretionary action. But, as the (Vance) letter states, we are recommending no action.”

The 1952 agreement restricts the use of American weapons by Israel “solely to maintain its internal security, its legitimate self-defense, or to permit it to participate in the defense of the area of which it is a part or in United Nations collective security arrangements and measures, and that it will not undertake any act of aggression against any other state.” Israel maintains that its incursion into Lebanon was an act of legitimate self-defense.

DISCUSSING WITH ISRAELIS

Vance said in his letter to O’Naill, “We have discussed with senior officials of the Israeli government these operations and the use of U.S. origin equipment in them. The Israeli government has said that it intends to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 425, which among other things, calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. We are actively engaged in discussing with officials of the Israeli government the date for the completion of such withdrawal.”

Reston reiterated this today. “We are discussing (with the Israelis) what they plan to do. We are, of course, supporting the language of the (Security Council) resolution. We have no judgement on what might be considered an appropriate time for them to leave southern Lebanon,” he said.

PROBING ISRAELI CHARGES ABOUT SAUDIA

In a related matter, Reston said the Pentagon and the Saudi Arabian government are investigating Israeli charges that arms captured from Palestinian terrorists in their March II assault on Israel were American-made and supplied to the terrorists by Saudi Arabia.

“We have received a report from the Israeli military listing certain small arms and munitions of apparent U.S. origin which the Israelis believe may have been transferred by the Saudis to the Palestine Liberation Organization,” Reston said.

“We have already determined that most of the items identified to us by the Israelis have not been supplied to Saudi Arabia and we have so informed the Israelis. We have no evidence that the Saudis have transferred U.S. origin military material to the Palestinians, but, as we have said, our current investigation is continuing.”

NO ACTION AGAINST PLO OFFICES

Asked whether the U.S. can do nothing to close the PLO information office in New York, as requested by Israel after the March II terrorist attack, Reston replied: “Under our law a foreign organization can register with the Justice Department its intention to open such an office and it can operate such an office as long as it observes our laws and makes periodic reports of its activities and financial disbursements. Our view has been that as long as it complies with all relevant laws and is staffed by people who entered the U.S. legally, it can remain in operation.”