U.S.-Israeli Love Feast

Since Lebanon and Israel signed their agreement for the withdrawal of Israeli troops last May 17, nothing much has changed on the ground in the Middle East.

But you would never know this from the reaction and the rhetoric now going on in Washington.

Back in Lebanon, the Israeli army which invaded the country just over a year ago is still there. This is the same army whose leaders rejected the appeals from President Reagan last August to stop bombing and strafing urban areas, and who later broke their promise to the U. S. not to invade West Beirut.

On the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel continues to impose Israeli rule, after having annexed the area in defiance of a United Nations resolution supported by the Reagan Administration which called on Israel to "rescind" its annexation immediately.

On the West Bank, the Israeli authorities keep establishing more and more settlements, despite President Reagan's pleas for a "freeze" that would permit negotiations to proceed on the "Reagan Plan" —a set of proposals which Israel has rejected from the beginning.

In Washington, however, such issues seem to have been put aside by the Administration while it devotes itself to a virtually unprecedented outpouring of gratitude to Israel for its decision to sign the withdrawal agreement—one which would in any case leave Israel in effective control of South Lebanon (see The Washington Report of May 30, 1983, p. 2) and would not come into effect until Syria and the PLO also agree to leave.

At the head of the congratulatory parade for Israel has been Mr. Reagan himself, who among other things has:

Lifted a suspension on the sale to Israel of 75 F-16 aircraft.
Invited Prime Minister Begin to visit Washington in July.
Told delegates to a B'nai B'rith convention that "as long as I am president, the United States will be a rock of support" for Israel, and "committed to maintaining Israel's qualitative edge in the military balance of power."
Abandoned, in addressing a convention of Jewish American editors, his position that Israeli construction of settlements on the West Bank is an obstacle" to peace.
Raised the level of aid to Israel that can be expected for the coming year—by informing Congress that the Administration "will not oppose" Congressional moves to increase aid beyond what the Administration has already asked for.

Other top Administration leaders have also got into the act. Prominent among them is Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who until very recently had held a reputation among Israelis for being their principal antagonist within the upper echelons of the Administration, and was held mainly responsible for having suspended, 18 months ago, a U.S.-Israeli "memorandum of understanding" that was to provide for strategic cooperation among the two countries. But in a turnabout on June 14, Mr. Weinberger announced that a revival of the memorandum "could take place at virtually any time, depending on the wishes of the Israeli government." The memorandum calls for joint U.S.-Israeli naval and air exercises, cooperation in military research and development, and the provision of Israeli medical facilities to U.S. personnel in a crisis, among other things.

Most surprising of all to many observers has been Mr. Weinberger's recent courting of Jewish groups, and some of the things he has told them. For example, in an interview with The Long Island Jewish World, he said that Americans "could and should learn from the Israelis, who have always understood that they best preserve peace and freedom by remaining vigilant—even when others call them inflexible." It was not long ago that Mr. Weinberger himself seemed to be among that group. On another occasion, at a meeting of the American Jewish Committee, Mr. Weinberger stressed that the U.S. could never "abandon Israel," because other countries in the region "could conclude that we in the United States are unreliable."

Wooing Jewish Groups

Vice-President George Bush and White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker have also been refurbishing political links with Jewish groups in recent days. Secretary of State George Shultz, who has commented on the significant "contribution to peace" made by Israel, has tended to be busy focusing on other global problems since the signing, but Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, attending the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, deplored "distorted and vulgar calumnies" against Israel, and when asked whether the U.S. would "stand with Israel" in the event that "Syria and Israel go to war," answered with a single word: "Yes."

What is causing all this, anyway? The short answer is that the U.S. presidential campaign is already underway, and the conventional wisdom still exists among politicians that it is not good politics to criticize Israel. But the problem was a bit more complicated.

In the days before the signing of the Lebanon agreement, it was very difficult for the Administration to find any credible reason for giving Israel a pat on the back. Just about everything Israel was doing—including its harrassment of U.S. marines—was providing much more cause for concern than for congratulations. The Administration was almost desperate for an excuse—any excuse—to start being nice to Israel and turn the heat against Syria, the PLO and the Soviet Union, which are much more popular targets among American voters. So when the Lebanon-Israel agreement was finally signed, you could hear the sighs of relief reverberating all the way down Pennsylvania Avenue.