Behind the Headlines: Main Objective of Reagan’s Plan

President Reagan’s “American Peace Initiative” for the Middle East, which he unveiled in a nationally-televised speech last week, was squarely aimed at getting the Palestinians and the Arab states to join the autonomy talks which up to now included only Israel, Egypt and the United States.

To do this, the Administration was ready to risk Israel’s anger and rejection, which when it came, Administration spokesmen maintained did not surprise or disappoint them. The hope obviously is that Israel will go along if the Arab states agree to Reagan’s appeal to “accept the reality of Israel, and the reality that peace and justice are to be gained only through hard, fair, direct negotiations.”

Secretary of State George Shultz made this clear in his appearance on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation” yesterday. “I think it will make a critical difference whether or not King Hussein (of Jordan) and other Arabs respond favorably to the President’s initiative,” he said. “Then the prospect of peace with neighbors will become much more real.”

Shultz also ruled out any U.S. pressure on Israel such as withholding or cutting economic or military aid. “We don’t have any plans to try to maneuver people in a peace negotiations by talking about withholding aid, “he said. But, he noted “there is a tremendous pressure, not only on the Israelis, but also on the Arabs in the area” and “that pressure comes from the possibility of peace and what peace can mean in that region.”

IMMEDIATE TARGET OF REAGAN’S PLAN

The immediate target of Reagan’s “Fresh Start,” even more than the Palestinians, is Jordan. The President clearly went beyond anything the U.S. has publicly proposed before by suggesting an autonomy agreement that would provide “self-government by the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, in association with Jordan” as an incentive for Jordan to join the talks.

Shultz noted yesterday “that if King Hussein decides to come forward in these negotiations that will represent a general consensus on the part of Arab leaders that its time to do that and a good thing to do that.”

Premier Menachem Begin and his government have denounced the link to Jordan and other proposals in the Reagan initiative as violations of the Camp David agreements. Former President Carter has given his “hechsher” that the Reagan proposals do not violate the Camp David accords. The Reagan Administration went into office proposing the Jordanian option as the solution for the West Bank and Gaza. This has also been the view of Israel’s opposition Labor Party which has supported Reagan’s proposals.

Yet it is clear that the Jordan link to autonomy goes beyond Camp David. The agreement clearly states that the “final status” of the West Bank and Gaza are to be decided upon by negotiations which will begin within three years after the establishment of an autonomy agreement in the territories.

ARABS EYE STRICTURES AGAINST ISRAEL

From the Arab world words of approval so for have focussed on Reagan’s strictures against Israel — a freeze on Jewish settlements, opposition to Israeli annexation or sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli withdrawal from most of the occupied territory. The Arabs, of course, say they don’t like the President’s rejection of a Palestinian state.

But perhaps more important, what pleased the Arabs most is that they see the U.S. departing from its traditional role as “mediator” in the Arab-Israeli dispute. The Arabs, including the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, have always envisioned the U.S. role in Mideast negotiations as pressuring Israel to accept Arab demands.

ELEMENT MOST DISTURBING TO JEWISH LEADERS

It is this departure from the “critical” role as “honest broker” that was most disturbing to the dozen Jewish leaders, representing the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the National Jewish Republican Coalition, who met with Shultz last Thursday.

“It is critical to that mediation role that the U.S. not pre-ordain the ultimate results and thereby foreclose and limit the discussions that should be hammered out at the bargaining table,” Julius Berman, chairman of the President’s Conference, told reporters after the hour-and-a half meeting. Many of the same Jewish leaders met with Shultz a week earlier but Berman said at that time they had not been told of the President’s planned proposals.

Berman said that while Reagan’s “fresh start” had some constructive elements — a recommitment to the Camp David process, opposition to a Palestinian state, calling on the Arab states to recognize Israel — “on balance, in terms of moving forward, it is not constructive” because it moves the U.S. away from its role as mediator. Many other Jewish leaders, in statements following Reagan’s TV address, offered similar assessments.

Reagan, in his speech last week, noted that while as mediator the U.S. sought to avoid public comments, “it has become evident to me that some clearer sense of America’s position is necessary to encourage wider support for the peace process.”

While the Israeli Cabinet last Thursday rejected most of the President’s proposals, including some that were not in his speech but were outlined in a letter to Begin, it seemed most angered by his call for a freeze on Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The Israeli Cabinet yesterday announced the establishment of seven new settlements but denied this was a reaction to Reagan’s address.

The Reagan Administration has never accepted the Carter Administration’s claim that the settlements were illegal, but have maintained they were not helpful to the peace process. Reagan said that “immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any. other action, could create the confidence, needed for wider participation in these talks.”

But Berman, talking to reporters last week, called the settlement issue an “irrelevancy,” He said approval of the settlements was not a precondition for the Palestinians and Arab states to join the negotiations and they could always bring it up at the bargaining table.

CONCERN FOR PLIGHT OF PALESTINIANS

The President’s television address must also be viewed as the outgrowth of an Administration decision that he must show concern for the plight of the Palestinians in the wake of the evacuation of the Palestine Liberation Organization terrorists from West Beirut. The U.S. has been trying to distance itself from Israel since the start of Israel’s “Peace for Galilee” operation last June because of the belief in the Arab world that Washington not only concurred with the Israeli action but aided it.

The President made a strong appeal to the Palestinians in his speech. “The departure of the Palestinians from Beirut dramatizes more than ever the homelessness of the Palestinian people,” he said. “Palestinians feel strongly that their cause is more than a question of refugees… I agree.”

At the same time, he urged the Palestinian people “to accept the reality of Israel and the reality that peace and justice are to be gained only through hard, fair, direct negotiations.”

The PLO was not mentioned by Reagan in his speech except to note that their evacuation from Beirut had been completed. Shultz again stressed yesterday that the U.S. will not deal with it until the PLO recognizes Israel’s right to exist and accepts United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.

But he also pointed out that the events in Lebanon have shown that terror and violence “do not work” in helping the Palestinian cause. “I would hope that the leaders of the PLO and everyone in the area will start looking at the peace initiatives and the peace process rather than the violence and the war process,” Shultz said.

U.S. CONCERN FOR ISRAEL’S SECURITY

Throughout his speech, Reagan stressed the continuing concern of the U.S. for Israel’s security. “The United States will oppose any proposal from any party and at any point in the negotiating process that threatens the security of Israel,” he declared.

While calling for Israeli withdrawal from the territories, Reagan stressed that how much territory will have to be given up, in the U.S. view, “will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return.” At the same time, he stressed that Israel will not be asked to go back to the pre-1967 situation in which much of its territory was only 10 miles wide and most of its population was in the range of hostile artillery.

This statement was added to the speech at the last minute. Shultz said yesterday that Reagan and his advisors wanted to underscore U.S. concern for Israel’s security. He said Israel as a small country was justifiably concerned about its security and must be guaranteed secure and defensible borders.

With the Begin government rejecting the Reagan initiative and the Labor opposition approving it, some observers here saw the Administration in a Machiavellian effort aimed at bringing the Begin government down. This was vigorously denied by Shultz in his television appearance yesterday. “The construction of the government of Israel and who is to represent the people of Israel is the business of the people of Israel,” he said. “We do not have any views about that.”

THE NEXT STEP

The next step, however, may be in the area of public opinion both in Israel and the U.S. State Department spokesman John Hughes noted last week that the Administration was pleased that the President’s proposals had been greeted approvingly in editorials in major American newspapers. Congress returns from its Labor Day break tomorrow and the Reagan proposals will get a full airing in both the Senate and House.

There are signs that Israel may be painted as intransigent. But what happens may depend more on what the Arabs do. If the Arab governments, particularly Jordan, show they are willing to accept Israel and sit down at the negotiating table, then the President’s initiative may indeed be a “fresh start.” If not, prospects for the autonomy negotiations are dimmer than ever.

The first sign will come this week at the Arab League meeting which began today in Fez, Morocco.