TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/092391/0923000.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 8.1 KB | 163 lines

                                                                                WORLD, Page 30

MIDDLE EAST

No Give and Take


Washington and Jerusalem find themselves at loggerheads over aid,
even as a denouement to the hostage drama appears to be at hand

By JILL SMOLOWE -- Reported by Lisa Beyer/Jerusalem, Dan
Goodgame/Washington and Lara Marlowe/Beirut


    On the face of it, the request seemed reasonable enough
-- especially since the friend doing the asking was also the
friend destined to be doing the giving. But last week when
President Bush, anxious to keep the Middle East peace process
on track, asked Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to delay
his request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help with the
settlement of Soviet Jewish emigres, Shamir responded with a
belligerent no. Americans, Shamir insisted, "are obliged, from
a moral point of view, to give Israel this aid." Moreover, he
lectured, "humanitarian aid" should not be mixed up with
political considerations.

    Morality lectures from Shamir, Bush did not need. And when
the pro-Israeli lobbyists subsequently stepped up their efforts
to secure quick passage of the loan guarantees on Capitol Hill,
an irate Bush summoned his aides, saying, "I want to talk to the
American people." Last Thursday afternoon Bush stepped into the
White House press room, the stony fighter-pilot look in his eyes
not unlike the determination he exhibited the morning after Iraq
invaded Kuwait. In plain language he threatened to veto any
congressional loan bill that might emerge before the prospective
Middle East peace conference, which he hopes to get off the
ground next month. Pounding the lectern, he warned that a
divisive congressional debate over the guarantees "could well
destroy our ability to bring one or more of the parties" to the
Middle East peace table. "Too much is at stake to let domestic
politics take precedence over peace," Bush declared.

    It was the most fractious moment in U.S.-Israeli relations
since Ronald Reagan tried in vain to stop Israel's advance on
Beirut in 1982. Bush's decision to abandon quiet diplomacy and
publicly flag his determination to push the Shamir government
toward a peaceful resolution of its conflict with its Arab
neighbors left Israel stunned -- but largely unrepentant. After
days of bellicose statements from Shamir hinting that he would
rather see the peace conference founder than withdraw his
request for loan guarantees, Israel offered one carrot. "Israel
is not seeking a confrontation with the U.S., its ally," said
Foreign Minister David Levy, whose views do not always reflect
Shamir's. Yet Israeli officials continued to balk at Bush's
linkage between the guarantees and the peace conference. "Our
request for guarantees," Levy said, "is not a provocation
against anyone, nor a hindrance to the advancement of the peace
process."

    The very public -- and very ugly -- spat left the historic
affinity between Jerusalem and Washington more strained than
ever. Israel, which has traditionally relied on a sympathetic
U.S. Congress to circumvent setbacks with the Oval Office, has
brushed up against a stern challenger in Bush. With the cold war
ended, Israel no longer enjoys standing as Washington's
"unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the Mediterranean. Indeed, the
Bush Administration believes the biggest threat to U.S.
interests in the region stems from the Arab-Israeli conflict,
which gives Muslim fundamentalists a stick with which to beat
their moderate, pro-U.S. governments. Moreover, Bush, who has
a 70% approval rating, knows that unquestioning popular support
at home for economic aid to Israel has weakened for three
reasons: America's own pressing economic needs; mounting
skepticism about Israel's ability to spend the money prudently,
given its inefficient, centralized economy; and the callousness
of the Shamir government toward Palestinian rights.

    Bush's harsh message came at a particularly awkward
moment. Just a day earlier, Israel had released 51 Lebanese
prisoners and the bodies of nine others, reviving hope for a
comprehensive hostage solution that would lead to the release
of the 10 Westerners still missing in Lebanon -- among them,
five Americans. But if Israeli officials hoped this timely
gesture might lower the heat emanating from the Oval Office,
they were sorely disappointed. To remind Israel of its debt to
the U.S., and maybe even to diminish the importance of the
relative power Israel now wields over the fate of the five
American hostages, Bush said, "Just months ago, American men and
women in uniform risked their lives to defend Israelis in the
face of Iraqi Scud missiles."

    But Shamir cannot afford to worry about a collision with
the U.S. Administration when his own political future is so
shaky. Shamir has staked his reputation on a concise formula:
no land for peace. He has no sympathy for Bush's concern that
an aid package to Israel at this time would be interpreted by
Arabs as a tacit endorsement of Jerusalem's policy of building
Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Quite the
contrary, Shamir fears that if he capitulates to Bush and
freezes construction of the Jewish settlements, the move might
signal that a question mark hangs over the future of the West
Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem -- and as a result, his government
might fall.

    Shamir also confronts an economic morass that does not
permit him to ease up on his request for loan guarantees. Since
mid-1989, 300,000 Soviet Jews have emigrated to Israel, and it
is estimated that the number may top 1 million by 1995. Israel,
which had a population of 4.5 million before the influx began,
lacks the resources to absorb so many. Health care, schools and
infrastructural needs are all suffering; early this year
unemployment hit a record high of 10.8%. Moreover, the tide of
immigrants improves the demographic position for Israel's Jews,
many of whom feared until recently that they would be
outnumbered within the next 25 years by Arabs living in Israel
and the occupied territories.

    If Shamir is not overstating Israel's great need, Bush is
not overstating the potentially catastrophic effect of an
extension of unconditional loan guarantees on the peace process.
Arabs are convinced that any such guarantees will go toward the
settling of Soviet Jews in the occupied territories, whether
they are applied directly to that purpose or simply free up
other Israeli funds for settlement construction. Syria's
President Hafez Assad might refuse to attend the peace
conference, taking Jordan and the Palestinians with him. "This
is a classic lose-lose proposition," says a senior
Administration official. "If the bill provides for guarantees
without conditions, we lose the Arabs. If it provides for
guarantees with conditions, we lose the Israelis."

    Loan guarantees could also upset the hostage negotiations
at a delicate moment. In 1990 kidnappers threatened to harm
American hostages if the immigration of Soviet Jews to Israel
continued. A favorable vote on Capitol Hill could unravel months
of careful diplomacy by U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de
Cuellar. Last week the prospects for an end to the
seven-year-old hostage insanity looked more promising than ever.
In exchange for the release of 51 prisoners and nine bodies,
Israel received firm confirmation from the pro-Iranian Hizballah
of the death of one of its seven missing servicemen and
inconclusive evidence of the death of another. Through a
separate channel, Israel also secured the remains of a soldier
in exchange for allowing a deported Palestinian militant to
return to the West Bank.

    The flurry of activity produced other promising signs.
Encouraging communiques issued by two groups of kidnappers
confirmed for the first time since his abduction in May 1989
that Briton Jack Mann is still alive. Reuters quoted an
unidentified official in Beirut as saying an American and a
Briton, possibly envoy Terry Waite, would be released "for
certain" within a week. That sounded as though the end game may
now be under way in earnest. But nothing on the Middle East
chessboard is for certain.