Making Invasion Pay

Humphrey, the man who likes to come to our office and pick our brains on the Middle East, strolled in the other day for the first time in several weeks.

Q Hi! Long time no talk.

A So talk, Humph.

Q Do you always have to be so grumpy? I came to hear you talk—especially about those Syrians. Why aren't they

A You mean you really want to hear about the bad guys?

Q Of course I do! They're the ones who are wrecking everything, and

A Cripes, this guy kills me.

Q What was that? I hate it when you mumble

A Uh—I said your view of the situation hardly thrills me. Surely you haven't forgotten about the Israeli invasion.

Q No, I haven't. But remember that the Israelis have now agreed to leave Lebanon, while the Syrians are refusing to go. It's as simple as that.

A I'm afraid it's not simple at all, Humph. Firstly, as I think you must already know, the Syrians did not invade Lebanon but were invited in by the Lebanese government in 1976 to help put an end to the civil war. So they look upon themselves, quite correctly, as having a lot more right to be in Lebanon than the Israelis have. Secondly, the Syrians could not possibly have refused to leave the country, because they've never been asked to—not yet, anyway.

Q What are you talking about? For the last couple of weeks the Syrians have been screaming their heads off that they're not going to

A Right. But what they've been saying is that they're not going to leave Lebanon as long as the Israelis have a deal with Lebanon which allows them to retain effective control over the south. It's true that the Syrians had said earlier that they would leave if Israel did, but they don't think that the Lebanon-Israel withdrawal agreement provides for a really complete withdrawal and they think it also infringes Lebanon's independence in other ways.

Q Do you believe that?

A Well, I'm not saying that the Syrians wouldn't have reason to be tempted to stay in Lebanon, but if the Israelis really got out it might be better for Syria to

Q No, I mean do you believe that the Israeli-Lebanon withdrawal agreement does not provide for complete withdrawal by the Israelis?

A Have you read the text carefully, Humph?

Q Er, not exactly, but

A Well, I have, and the way I read it, it permits a small but permanent Israeli military presence in a southern "security zone"—for all practical purposes, anyway.

Q Ha! That's what you say

A So how would you figure it? The agreement says that joint Israeli-Lebanese patrols will be carried out 24 hours per day, operating out of two headquarters units in the zone, which will be staffed 24 hours per day. So whether the Israeli soldiers base themselves in Lebanon or not, there won't be a moment when some of them are not operating on Lebanese soil.

Q Yeah, but won't the Lebanese be in charge of the patrols?

A Only technically. To begin with, the Israelis will have a veto power in the committee that is in charge of all security operations in the zone. But the agreement also says that the Lebanese officer who is in command of a patrol should not take any action without considering "the joint nature of the teams." This is just an open invitation for the senior Israeli officer to take over. Can anyone really believe that the Israelis, who invaded Lebanon at the cost of 500 Israeli and thousands and thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese lives, are going to sit back and let a Lebanese lieutenant call the tune when it comes to chasing after Palestinian guerrillas?

Q No, but

A There's another point, too. In the southern security zone, which stretches from the Mediterranean to the Syrian border and from the Israeli border up to a line beyond the Litani River, the Lebanese army can be represented only by what is called, in the agreement, a "territorial brigade." The soldiers in this brigade cannot come from other parts of Lebanon. The brigade is to be composed of members of local militia, such as the one belonging to Major Haddad, and of other soldiers recruited locally. Practically all of these people have either been working for the Israelis for years—as in the case of the Haddad militia—or have been selected and trained as Israeli proxies during the year in which Israel has been occupying South Lebanon.

Q What's Major Haddad going to be doing?

A The Israelis wanted him to command the territorial brigade—but the Lebanese would only agree to his being deputy commander and head of intelligence for the south. He's not mentioned in the agreement, and his final status will be worked out separately between the Lebanese and the Israelis, who are still trying to make him commander. But even as deputy commander he'll probably be running the show.

Q For goshsakes, what gives you the right to say that?

A Humph, I hope you don't really mean that. But in case you're suggesting I might be wrong on this point—really, Humph!—I'd like to read to you from a clip that I have right here. It's from a story written by David Shipler, the Jerusalem correspondent of The New York Times, who is regarded in Israel as very clued-in and also very fair. He suggests that once Major Haddad became even the deputy commander, he "would open the door to extensive, clandestine Israeli involvement in the region, as he did along a narrow border zone he controlled for years. Through the Major, Israel itself could effectively command the southern brigade, creating favorable conditions for the operations of its intelligence agents and elite antiterrorist units."

He then goes on to say that the withdrawal agreement "appears to be less a ceiling on the Israeli role than a foundation for its day-to-day evolution into a close Israeli-Lebanese military and-intelligence partnership. Presumably, Lebanon will send to the south a brigade commander who shares Israel's desire to keep the PLO out and who will therefore welcome quiet Israeli help in doing so." So if you don't believe me, maybe you'd be ready to believe him.

Q Cheez, it's hard enough arguing with you, without also having to argue with a guy who isn't even here

A Now let's talk about how the agreement also infringes on Lebanon's independence in other ways. Would you believe that it puts limitations on the types and numbers of weapons that the Lebanese can bring into their security zone-that is, that they can keep on their own territory?

Q Yeah, yeah, but it's a security zone after all

A Would you believe that Lebanon, according to the agreement, is not allowed to deploy any high-altitude air defense missiles anywhere on its territory, even outside of the security zone?

A Now who's mumbling?

Q Still, you've got to admit that the Israelis made quite a sacrifice when they agreed to get out of Lebanon withoutgetting a real. peace treaty. –

A I don't think I will ever quite figure you out, Humphrey. You think a country that invades another country and kills a lot of its people has the right to be given whatever it wants? And that if it doesn't get it all, we should feel sorry for it? Anyhow, even if you do feel this way

Q Now wait a minute

A You've got nothing to worry about. Whatever the Israelis, Lebanese and Americans say, the agreement comes pretty darn close to being a peace treaty. After a preamble full of pretty "where-ases," it says in Article One that the parties agree to respect the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of each other, that they consider their existing international boundary as inviolable, and that the state of war between Lebanon and Israel—they're talking about the one that has existed officially, if not always in fact, since 1948—no longer exists.

That's pretty good, for starters. The agreement then calls for "liaison offices"—read that as "embryo embassies"—in each others' countries, and provides that within six months after troop withdrawal they will negotiate agreements to normalize the movement of goods and people across the borders.

Q Yeah, I guess that's quite a lot

A But even so, they're getting a lot more.

Q What?

A Sure, thanks to Uncle Sam. Let's see, we've announced that they're going to get their F-16s

Q But weren't those held up only because the Israelis invaded Lebanon?

A Yep, but we've told them they're going to get 'em for sure, even though the Israelis haven't left Lebanon yet. We've also told them they could have parts and technology for that super-plane, the Lavi, that they want to build. Of course, we didn't link this offer to a withdrawal—but Secretary Shultz just happened to mention that we would be happy to do this in the same letter that he wrote to Defense Minister Arens asking him how the withdrawal negotiations were going.

Q Is that all?

A Not by any means. I think the greatest benefit the Israelis have reaped from the agreement is that the Administration has begun talking about them as though they've done everyone a great favor by agreeing to go. Officials speak of a coming "new era" of warmth and good will in U.S.-Israel relations, and most of the media has been following along, adopting the same mood. Israel, the line goes, has done all that could be expected of it in the peacemaking process. Its unprovoked attack on Lebanon is no longer considered relevant. Its right to make its withdrawal hinge on whether or not the Syrians withdraw is taken for granted. All the attention is now being focused on the Syrians, as though all the things now wrong in Lebanon were somehow their fault. All in all, Israel's Invasion of Lebanon has really paid off for them.

Q Anyway, how is this any of Syria's business?

A Anytime Israel invades an Arab country and its patron, the U.S., allows it to gain benefits from the invasion, the Syrians ought to have a right to worry. It makes them think it could happen to them—as it already has in the past.

Q Yeah. But remember the Israelis are helping us out there. keeping the region free of the Soviets, and

A What? This man is crazy!

Q There you go mumbling again. What did you say?

A I said I think your view of that is somewhat hazy. We can talk about it next time.

Q Okay. I'll go now. Hope to see you soon.

A Not too soon, I hope.

Q What?