For Arabs:

In a meeting with Secretary of State George Shultz in early September, six of the most prominent Arab-American organizations in the U.S. expressed their views on President Reagan's proposal for peace in the Middle East. While all of the groups approved the President's call for an Israeli freeze on settlements and his opposition to Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, some of them were more critical than others in assessing the overall plan.

Attending the meeting were representatives from the American Federation of Ramallah; the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC); the Association of Arab-American University Graduates (AAUG); the National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA); the Palestine Arab Fund and the Palestine Congress of North America. All the organizations are based in this greater Washington area except AAUG, which is located in Belmont, Massachusetts.

NAAA—the only registered lobbying organization on behalf of Arab-Americans—described the President's speech as "a positive step" and one which reflected the Administration's recognition of the "centrality" of the Palestinian problem to peace in the Middle East. But it added in a statement that the President "has to go a step further" and begin a dialogue with the PLO. NAAA is attempting to make its views known to members of Congress through personal visits and through the distribution of memoranda to Congressional offices.

Taking a more negative stand toward the plan are the Anti-Discrimination Committee and the AAUG. ADC's Executive Director, Dr. James Zogby, said in a statement that the President's peace initiative lacked "realism" and that "calling the Lebanon massacre an opportunity for peace smacks of a whitewash." Both ADC and AAUG criticized the President's plan for not endorsing the idea of a Palestinian state and recognizing the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

For Israel:

For the first time within the memory of many observers, some American Jewish organizations have been taking a clearly different position from that of the Israeli Government on a major Middle East policy issue.

Since President Reagan on September 1 made his Middle East peace proposal, which was angrily rejected in toto by the Begin Government, three major American Jewish groups—the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B'nai B'rith International, and the American Jewish Committee—have given the President's proposal their qualified support.

The reactions of the American Jewish groups indicated that they had been thrown into some confusion by the announcement of the plan. Thomas Dine, AIPAC's Executive Director, first reacted almost as negatively as Mr. Begin, saying: "We (AIPAC) oppose any attempt to dictate the outcome before negotiations begin. This proposal undermines Camp David, which intentionally left the outcome open to negotiation." Later, however, he amended his assessment by saying: "I see a lot of value in it." He added that he was particularly pleased "because part of the effort is to bring Jordan into the peace process."

B'nai B'rith, in the meantime, issued a declaration calling the proposal "worthy of consideration" and saying that it gives "fresh momentum to the search for Middle East peace." It did not endorse the entire plan., however. Maynard Wishner, President of the American Jewish Committee, said in a speech September 9 that Reagan's plan is "a reasonable approach to be dealt with on its merits."

Among those which took a stance closer to the Begin government position was the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, an umbrella group which represents 36 national Jewish organizations. Julius Berman, who heads the Conference, said in a statement that his organization welcomed Mr. Reagan's efforts to revive the peace talks. But in a letter to the President, Mr. Berman roundly criticized the plan, saying it "does violence to the spirit of Camp David because it substitutes a specific American plan for the free give-and-take that is essential if the parties to the dispute are to resolve their differences.