"We Will Do What We Please"

By William E. Smith

MIDDLE EAST

Amid scowls between Israel and the U.S., a smile for the Soviets

During a session of the Israeli-Lebanese troop-withdrawal talks in the northern Israeli town of Qiryat Shemona last week, the chief Israeli military delegate, Major General Avraham Tamir, suddenly turned to top U.S. Negotiator Morris Draper, who is attending the negotiating sessions. Looking Draper straight in the eye, the General said in a loud and angry voice, "Nobody is going to influence us on matters of our defense. We will do what we please."

The incident dramatized the uneasy relations between the U.S. and Israel as Washington presses the Israelis to withdraw from Lebanon. Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon added a new element of tension to the situation when he declared last week in a newspaper interview that the Soviet Union and Israel should enter into negotiations. "Come, let us meet," Sharon was quoted by the newspaper Ma'ariv as saying to the Soviets. "[We] have something to talk about." The remark was nonsense, since the Soviet Union and Israel have very little to talk about at the moment. But as Sharon no doubt intended, it annoyed the U.S. As usual, no one knew for sure whether the Defense Minister was speaking for Prime Minister Menachem Begin or merely for himself, as the rogue elephant of Israeli politics.

In this atmosphere of rising mistrust, there have been several disputes between U.S. Marines, on duty near Beirut as part of the multinational peace-keeping force, and the occupying Israeli soldiers. Last month small units of Israeli troops occasionally asked to pass through Marine checkpoints, in violation of the agreement that brought in the multinational force last year. The incidents have been relatively unimportant, but they emphasize the risks inherent in a failure to bring the Israeli occupation of Lebanon to a swift conclusion.

There was a grim reminder last week of other risks, those that go with the lingering Syrian and Palestinian presence in divided Lebanon. A car packed with explosives blew up in front of a Palestine Liberation Organization command center 30 miles east of Beirut in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley, killing at least 32 Syrians and Palestinians. An anti-P.L.O. group calling itself the Front to Liberate Lebanon from Foreigners claimed responsibility for the attack.

Israel is insisting that it will not withdraw its 30,000 troops until Lebanon has concluded a formal agreement to bring about normal relations and set up security arrangements between the two countries. The U.S. agrees with Lebanese President Amin Gemayel that such a move could offend Muslim factions in the war-torn country and in the Arab states whose support Lebanon badly needs, notably Syria and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the U.S. has opposed Israel's request for at least three early-warning stations in southern Lebanon, to be manned by some 750 Israeli troops. Special Envoy Philip Habib is said to have told the Israelis that the proposed stations would make a "mockery" of the Lebanese demand for a complete withdrawal of Israeli, Syrian and Palestinian forces.

The negotiations toward that end remain "hopelessly deadlocked," in the words of Lebanese Delegate Antoine Fattal. The U.S., admitted State Department Spokesman John Hughes, was "extremely concerned" about the situation. Special Envoy Habib returned to Washington last week from his latest trip to Israel and Lebanon, having scored a perfect zero this time in his efforts to get the talks moving. Said a senior Administration official: "The fact is that foreign forces are in Lebanon, and we don't have a plan at hand to get them out." Inevitably, the deadlock leads to increased pressure on the fragile Gemayel government and to a new round of recriminations between the U.S. and Israel. Last week officials confirmed that President Ronald Reagan had suggested a postponement of Begin's trip to Washington, originally scheduled for mid-February, until such time as a troop withdrawal agreement has been achieved The Israelis contend that an agreement with Lebanon must involve both an assurance of security along their northern border and future friendly relations with their northern neighbor. In Washington however, there is a rising suspicion that Israel is purposely stalling on a withdrawal to deal a deathblow to Reagan's peace plan calling for future links between the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. The U.S. still expects that King Hussein of Jordan will return to Washington in March for his second visit within three months, and announce his readiness to participate in the peace process along with Israel, Egypt and the U.S. But his willingness to do so will depend on the decision of the P.L.O. to allow him to negotiate with its approval. And that, to bring the dilemma full circle, will depend in large part on the progress of the negotiations to get the Israelis and other foreign forces out of Lebanon.

TIME has learned that some frantic diplomacy has been going on since Hussein's last visit to Washington in December. In a letter to the Jordanian ruler, the Administration promised to make a "major effort" to secure an Israeli freeze on West Bank settlements and an agreement on an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon before full-scale negotiations on the future of the West Bank and Gaza. The U.S. suggested that if Hussein and the Palestinians would state their willingness to enter the negotiations, the Administration would demand a halt in West Bank settlements so that the talks might begin.

In a second letter to Hussein, the Administration raised the possibility of providing some $2 billion in U.S. arms for Jordan, including the advanced F-16 jet fighters and Hawk mobile missiles that the country has long coveted. Once Jordan has joined the peace talks, the Administration said that it would ask Congress to approve the arms sale. That request would probably lead to a ferocious fight on Capitol Hill. But it might also induce Hussein to enter the negotiations.

From the Reagan Administration's point of view, the best news from the Middle East was the arrival in Washington of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. As expected, Mubarak urged Reagan to take a firmer hand with Israel. He said that he remained fully committed to his country's peace treaty with Israel, but added that he did not intend to send his ambassador back to Tel Aviv until there is an agreement on a withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon. Mubarak believes that Syria and the P.L.O. will be prepared to leave once Israel has accepted the terms of a withdrawal, and the U.S. tends to agree.

What happens next? Some observers thought it was time for U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz to make a trip to the Middle East. The New York Times, in an editorial, even called for a return to the fray of that master of shuttle diplomacy former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. For the moment, having refused to consider threatening the Israelis with a cutoff of U.S. economic aid, the Administration seemed to be assuming that Menachem Begin is so anxious to visit the U.S. that he can be induced to make some concessions on Lebanon. On the other hand, if his real strategy is to distract world attention from the West Bank as long as possible, then the postponement of his U.S. visit may not bother him at all. Says a U.S. expert on the Middle East: "The longer he lets the clock run in Lebanon, the harder it will be for the U.S. to breathe life into the larger peace process. And that is exactly what Begin wants."

Though Israel has been preoccupied for months with the effects of its war in Lebanon, a trial is currently being held in a military courtroom in Jaffa that reflects on the nature and morality of the nation's continuing occupation of the West Bank The Israeli Chief of Staff, Rafael Eitan, 54, a tough career soldier who is due to retire in April, emerged last week as a central figure in the testimony.

The case stems from accusations made last May by six Israeli reserve officers, all of them associated with the Peace Now movement. The officers charged that Prime Minister Begin's West Bank policies were resulting in widespread incidents of brutality by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian civilians. The allegation led to a military investigation and to the filing of charges against a major and seven enlisted men. One of the soldiers, a sergeant, was convicted three months ago of beating several West Bank university students last March in a military compound near Hebron. He had been accused of hanging some of the students by their arms from the crossbar of a soccer goal post, then kicking and punching them.

The incident had begun when a band of students at Hebron Islamic University, angry over the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, attacked two Israeli civilian officials. The army arrested scores of students and took them to the military compound. There, according to later testimony, the students were clubbed, beaten and kicked by the soldiers. Some were hospitalized, several with broken limbs.

The trial of the remaining defendants, including Major David Mofaz, deputy commander of the Judea district at the time, has been in progress since November and is expected to end Feb. 17. Mofaz and witnesses have testified that the military governor of the district, Lieut. Colonel Shalom Lugassi, to "enforce a curfew" in an Arab refugee camp, ordered his officers and men to shoot down alleyways, fire at the panels of solar heaters and break the wristwatches of Palestinian detainees. Mofaz is accused of assaulting some detainees and of failing to prevent the other defendants from doing so.

Mofaz told the court that according to another officer, the tough West Bank mea sures were sanctioned by Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. Mofaz's lawyer now has presented to the military court two memorandums that were written by Chief of Staff Eitan. Though the documents were not released by the court, a summary of their contents has been published in Israeli newspapers. In one memorandum, Eitan recommended expulsion from the West Bank for convicted demonstrators and stone throwers. He also called for "preventive arrests," harassment of suspected troublemakers, punishment for the parents of teen-age protesters and economic sanctions against villages where unrest occurred. He advocated the building of a "detention-exile camp" where suspects would be held during interrogation. He wrote that residents of Jewish settlements on the West Bank should carry arms and open fire when attacked, and that this policy "should be made clear and publicized among the Arab residents."

Eitan has insisted that his orders were all legal. He has also contended that during his five years as Chief of Staff, fewer Arabs were expelled from the West Bank and fewer Palestinian homes were destroyed by the Israeli forces as methods of maintaining order than in previous years.

However that may be, many Israelis are troubled by the implications of the trial. Lamenting that the Israeli Defense Forces were being used in the West Bank not to defeat an enemy army but to subdue civilians, the Jerusalem Post observed last week: "On such a mission, no army can long keep its virtues and its values intact." --By William E. Smith. Reported by Harry Kelly/Jerusalem and Johanna McGeary/ Washington

With reporting by Harry Kelly/Jerusalem and Johanna McGeary/ Washington This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.