The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; 7016; Israeli Raids: Problems for United States

(Tease)

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: President Reagan`s special envoy. Philip Habib. visits Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in search of a cease-fire as Israeli attacks on Palestinians continue, and the frustration in Washington mounts.

{Titles}

MacNEIL: Good evening. Israeli planes raided Palestinian positions in Lebanon for the twelfth day today, and the Reagan administration began sounding exasperated with Prime Minister Begin. The air raids were reported to have set a large oil refinery ablaze and killed approximately 20 people. Across Israel`s northern border Palestinian guerrillas traded artillery fire with Israel. Prime Minister Begin toured Israeli border towns hit by the Soviet-made rockets, and promised to end the Palestinian attacks. But the Palestinians boasted to Reuters News Agency that they were winning because their arms supplies were still getting through. The Reagan administration continued urging a cease-fire. Special Envoy Philip Habib ended talks in Lebanon and flew to Saudi Arabia to find additional Support for a way of ending the lighting. Whether he succeeds or not, it`s clear that Israel`s campaign against the PLO guerrillas has created great political difficulties for Washington, and presented President Reagan with his first major foreign policy test. Tonight. Israel`s purpose, and the dilemma it creates for Washington. Jim Lehrer is off; Charlayne Hunter- Gault is in Washington. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, what started out as a fairly muted Washington reaction to the Israeli raids is now starting to build into a crescendo of criticism, much of it from Republicans. On Sunday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Charles Percy and three fellow Republicans called on the administration to withhold delivery of the F-I6 fighter planes. Senator Percy complained that Israel was undercutting U.S. support. But the strongest words so far came today from members of the Reagan administration. Deputy Secretary of State William Clarke said the administration felt disappointment and some embarrassment over the Lebanese attacks that followed so closely on the heels of consultations in Israel with state department counselor Robert McFarlane. Secretary Clarke said that Mr. Begin has unquestionably made it difficult for the administration to aid Israel. On today`s edition of ABC`s "Good Morning America", Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was asked if the administration was concerned about Mr. Begin`s apparent disregard for American interests in the Middle East since his reelection.

Secretary CASPAR WEINBERGER: I think that his course cannot really be described as moderate at this point, and it is essential that there be some moderation and some general realization of how volatile the region is, and how quickly individual acts of violence or individual acts of aggression or of retaliation or whatever can lead to something much more -- much more violent.

DAVID HARTMAN, Good Morning America Host: Is the administration applying any pressures on Mr. Begin right now? What`s really being said to him right now about the situation?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well. I think the advantages of a cease-fire are being pointed out to him by our extremely capable ambassador. Mr. Habib, and Mr. Habib has been absolutely tireless in his efforts, and came very close as a matter of fact to securing a very reasonable peace -- set of peace terms -- with respect to the removal of missiles by Syria just about the time the latest bombing -- first the Iraqi reactor was bombed, and then he was starting to make very good progress, assisted by Saudi Arabia and other countries of the moderate Arab nations, with respect to the situation again, and -- this thing [earphone] keeps popping out here. And then Beirut was bombed. So each of these things has set the whole course back of securing a cease-fire and peace -- has set it back quite a ways, but we`re very hopeful now that we can arrange one. And I would be personally somewhat optimistic that Mr. Habib will succeed.

MacNEIL: To explain what Prime Minister Begin`s motives are in launching this campaign, and to react to the mounting criticism in the United States, we have Israel`s ambassador to the United Nations, Yehuda Blum. Ambassador Blum, first of all. what is the purpose of these Israeli attacks?

YEHUDA BLUM: To destroy the infrastructure that the PLO has been building up in recent months with the help of the Soviet Union through Libya and Syria, and also some Eastern bloc countries, and for the first time now, the PLO has been receiving from its arms suppliers Soviet-made -- Soviet- manufactured -- weapons, military hardware of the most sophisticated kind, including tanks, rockets, rocket-launchers, surface-to-air missiles that come complete with Libyan crews. So a very serious threat has been posed to civilians of Israel, especially in the northern part of the country, and it is -- we are determined to see to it that the PLO does not get a chance to hit Israeli villages, kibbutzim, towns of the northern part of the country, the way they did in Kiriat-shmona and Maalot and Naharia in the past. We don`t want to sit with folded arms until children are murdered, and women can`t go anymore safely into the marketplaces.

MacNEIL: How long will the Israeli attacks continue?

Amb. BLUM: Well, you see, our purpose is to see a free and independent Lebanon restored to its sovereignty within its internationally recognized boundaries, and of the local authority of its government. For the past decade, the authority of the Lebanese government has been systematically eroded and undermined, first by the terrorist PLO, and subsequently, as a result of the civil war, by the Syrian army of occupation. The Syrians used the pretext of the civil war to invade Lebanon and one-third of the Syrian army is now stationed on Lebanese soil. The Syrians and the PLO virtually control the bulk of the country, and the writ of the government of Lebanon doesn`t run very much beyond Beirut.

MacNEIL: So the purpose is not only to destroy the Palestinian infrastructure; it is also to restore Lebanon to its rightful government?

Amb. BLUM: No. The purpose -- the immediate purpose -- is to destroy that terrorist infrastructure, which constitutes a threat to the lives and safety of Israel`s citizens, especially in the northern part of the country. But a solution to the problem of Lebanon we can envisage only in these terms, of the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and the local authority of the Lebanese government. That`s the only solution -- the removal of foreign elements; the Syrian army of occupation, and of the terrorist PLO from Lebanese soil.

MacNEIL: What is the Israeli response, or why has there been no Israeli -- formal Israeli -- response to the calls by the White House and by the United Nations Security Council for a cease-fire?

Amb. BLUM: Prime Minister Begin yesterday formally announced, after his meeting with Ambassador Habib, that we support his efforts to bring about restoration of peace -- peaceful relations -- between Israel and Lebanon. This is our purpose. There is virtually convergence of interests between Israel and Lebanon. I`m not talking about an identity of interests, but a convergence of interests. Both the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel seek a free and independent and sovereign Lebanon. "Cease-fire" is a term that we use in relations with other sovereign, independent states. The terrorist PLO, through its barbarous acts and its behavior -- uncivilized behavior -- in violation of the norms of civilized conduct has put itself beyond the pale of human civilization, and should be treated accordingly.

MacNEIL: What is your reaction to the crescendo -- as Charlayne put it -- of criticism that is growing in Washington and coming out of the administration today? There were references to the fact that these actions by Prime Minister Begin have embarrassed and disappointed the Reagan administration.

Amb. BLUM: I believe that it`s perhaps a little bit improper for me to take issue with officials of the United States government. I`m a foreign ambassador, accredited here in New York, and it wouldn`t be proper for me to go beyond saying that I believe that, with all due respect. Secretary Weinberger was not correct in his statement. When it comes to matters of national self-defense each country, in the final analysis, has to take a decision for itself and by itself. Naturally, as a friend and ally of the United States, we are mindful of the interests of this country, and we take them into account and into consideration in our decisions. But in the final analysis, when it comes to national self-preservation and national self- defense, the decision has to be an Israeli decision.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Israel`s use of U.S.-supplied planes in its raid on Lebanon has stirred anti-American hostility throughout the Arab world. For some further insight into those reactions, we go to Donald McHenry, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador McHenry, currently a professor at Georgetown University here in Washington, is just back from a trip to the Middle East. Ambassador McHenry, why is the Reagan administration so embarrassed by all of the Israeli behavior?

DONALD McHENRY: Well, I think that the real problem which they have, Charlayne, right now is that they are trying very hard through Ambassador Habib`s mission to quiet down the situation in the Middle East. And these - - the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear installation and the disproportionate scale of these bombings -- the bombing of civilian populations, and then today the bombing of an oil refinery -- that these are far out of scale, and, as Mr. Weinberger has indicated, make it almost impossible to reach any kind of settlement.

HUNTER-GAULT: Jordanian Crown Prince Hassan was quoted today as saying that many in the Arab world see tacit U.S. approval of Israeli actions in all of this. How widespread is that attitude in the Arab world?

Amb. McHENRY: Well, Prince Hassan stated that to me when I saw him, as did King Hussein of Jordan, and I think this was also a general view which I heard in Kuwait. I think there is the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that Israel would not be in a position to continue the kinds of actions which they have carried out if it did not have somehow the tacit approval of the United States. Now. of course, we know -- as Ambassador Blum just indicated -- that in the final analysis every country acts in terms of its own interest. The question which I think the Arabs are asking is, at what point does the United States assert its interest in its relations with Israel?

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what message do you think the suspension or holding up of the F-16 fighter planes -- what message does that send to the Arab world?

Amb. McHENRY: Well, I think nothing so far. Their initial reaction was that this was a wrist-slapping, and that these were being held up for just a few days. And in fact all of the talk coming from backgrounders in Washington was that these were being held up for a brief period of time, but that it was a foregone conclusion that they were going to be delivered. The further holding up of the delivery of these planes may serve in some way to assure the Arab countries that the United States is serious in sending a message to Mr. Begin. I think that`s the person who needs to get the message -- not Israel, but Mr. Begin. But there is still the talk that as soon as it`s no longer embarrassing the planes will go anyway, and I think the Israelis are confident that they will get the planes.

HUNTER-GAULT: What do the Arabs think the U.S. should do?

Amb. McHENRY: I don`t think they have a clear indication of what they ought to do, and f think that you would get several views from the various groups of Arabs. The view would change as you went from King Hussein to the Saudis or, on the other extreme, the Libyans. But I think that there is a general view among those who count themselves as moderates and who have tried to work with the United States that the time has come for the United States to be more assertive in trying to resolve the Palestinian aspect of this question, just as we have for some time been assertive in trying to protect Israel and Israel`s rights.

HUNTER-GAULT: Just very briefly, does Ambassador Habib`s mission retain any credibility in the Arab world?

Amb. McHENRY: It didn`t have much all along. Ambassador Habib is a very, very respected individual, so personally he is a man who is greatly respected throughout the-Arab world, as I think he is also respected in Israel. But this series of raids will make it very, very difficult. I think his task -- after the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor -- -was made more difficult, and I suspect that he has an almost impossible task in his approach to the Saudis, who have, after all, been very cooperative.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, we`ll come back. Robin?

MacNEIL: The Israeli raids may be straining the usually unshakeable support for Israel in the United States Congress. One Congressman who strongly supports the Israeli cause is Stephen Solarz, a New York Democrat and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, what have these raids done to your personal support for Israel?

Rep. STEPHEN SOLARZ: Well, I continue to support Israel, Robin, very strongly as I always have, primarily because I believe that Israel is our only genuinely democratic ally in the Middle East, and also because I think it`s a significant strategic asset for our country as well.

MacNEIL: But as a supporter of Israel, are you disappointed and embarrassed, as the Reagan administration says it is?

Rep. SOLARZ: I suppose I feel a little bit the way Golda Meir, a former prime minister of Israel felt when she once remarked that, "We may some day forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we`ll never forgive them for making us kill their children."

MacNEIL: The former Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, was quoted in an interview today as saying the high number of civilian casualties in the Israeli raid on Beirut took away the moral force of Israel`s case in this incident.

Rep. SOLARZ: Well, I think that clearly the unwanted deaths of civilians and collateral damage is something which is always regrettable, and I regret it. But I must also say that I think that what happened in Beirut has to be seen and understood in the context of a continuing war in which the Palestinians, for years now, have been launching incessant raids against Israeli settlements in the northern part of the country; in which they have attempted in Munich to murder Israeli athletes -- 12 of whom lost their lives; in the Lud airport massacre, where many other Israelis were killed as well; and where they have been using, unfortunately, Lebanese territory in order to arm themselves for continuing attacks against Israeli settlements and cities.

MacNEIL: So, do you think this campaign of raids over the last two weeks is justified, and that their scale is justified?

Rep. SOLARZ: Well, I think that what the Israelis were attempting to do in the attack against Beirut was to strike at the heart and the head of the PLO operation against their civilian settlements in the northern part of the country. I regret, as I think the Israelis regret, the fact that so many civilians lost their lives in the main attack against Beirut. I understand that to some extent this was due to the fact that two of the bombs that were used in the operation malfunctioned. But I think that the Palestinians have to recognize that so long as they continue their war of unlimited terror against the civilian population of Israel that the Israelis will strike back, not only at their military emplacements, but also at their operational headquarters. I think there`s a significant difference between the kind of attacks the PLO have been launching, directed exclusively against civilian targets in Israel, and an Israeli attack which was primarily aimed at the operational headquarters of a terrorist outfit which is bent on the continued murder of Israeli civilians.

MacNEIL: Do you think any of your Democratic colleagues in the House are going to -- any of their support for Israel is going to be eroded by this? That they`re being made uneasy by this particular episode?

Rep. SOLARZ: I don`t think that the raid against Beirut has engendered much additional support for Israel, and I think quite clearly that there are members of Congress who are deeply disturbed by the loss of life involved here. But insofar as its operational and political consequences are concerned, it seems to me that with respect, for example, to the proposed sale of the AWACS to Saudi Arabia, that the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress will be able to distinguish between these two very different situations. And I think the fact that so far, 53 members of the Senate have already gone on record in opposition to the sale of the AWACs and well over 218 members of the House of Representatives have gone on record in opposition to it as well -- many of whom, by the way, signed on to these respective letters and resolutions after the Israeli attack against the nuclear reactor in Iraq -- indicates that there will not be a significant or sustained erosion of support for continued American military assistance to Israel, or of opposition to the sale of our most sophisticated and deadly military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Char^ne9

HUNTER-GAULT: Now for the views of a Congressman who thinks the Palestine Liberation Organization should be included in Middle East peace negotiations -- a position thus far opposed by both the United States and Israel. He is Paul Findley, Republican of Illinois. Congressman Findley is the senior minority member of the House subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East. Congressman Findley, has the United States` response to the Israeli raids thus far been appropriate in your view?

Rep. PAUL FINDLEY: Well, it`s been a beginning. It`s been an essential first step because it would have been, I think, unconscionable for us to have shipped the planes. But not shipping the planes is no answer to the problem. The fundamental problem is the conflict between the Palestinian people, represented by the PLO, and the attitude of the administration of Prime Minister Begin. Until we get to the heart of that problem, while a cease-fire is desirable, while I contend that our government has enough leverage on Israel to bring about a cease-fire, and also to bring about the cooperation of the PLO through our good offices with Saudi Arabia. I`m sure we can bring about a cease-fire if we have the will. But that isn`t going to solve the problem. I think it`s essential that the United States provide leadership, not just to bring about a cease-fire, but to bring the Palestinian people into the negotiating process, to speak up for the goal of self-determination for the people living within the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and to take the lead in the next stage of the Camp David process. Since the autonomy talks began as a result of the Camp David agreement the positions of the Arab states and Israel have hardened. They`re further apart than ever, and mainly because there has been no effective leadership on the part of the United States to bring about a reconciliation of the forces, to bring the Palestinian people into the negotiating process. So I think the essential step we must take now is to use the force of our prestige with Israel and with the Arab states to bring about a cease-fire, but at the same time announce our determination to take the lead to bring about self-determination for the people living within West Bank and Gaza.

HUNTER-GAULT: In your view, do the Arabs believe that the United States has veto power over Israeli -- you mentioned leverage, but do --

Rep. FINDLEY: I`m sure they do. And back in 1978 and 1979 President Carter demonstrated that he could deliver an ultimatum to Prime Minister Begin and get Begin to cooperate. He did it first in order to get some remaining military equipment out of the Litani area in southern Lebanon in 1978, and the equipment immediately was withdrawn. In 1979, in the wake of intensive air bombardment of Lebanon, President Carter again gave Prime Minister Begin an ultimatum. He said that he would risk the continued U.S. support of Israel in a military sense if he did not stop the raids, and the raids stopped. And they stayed stopped for more than years. So we do have the leverage with which to bring about the cooperation of Prime Minister Begin.

HUNTER-GAULT: Just very briefly, let me ask you this. You heard what Congressman Solarz said about support in Congress. Is it your sense that Israeli behavior in these raids has contributed to a significant loss of support?

Rep. FINDLEY: It has indeed. I`ve had Jewish members of Congress come to me and tell me that they are deeply distressed by this new turn of events. Several members have joined me today in appealing to all of our colleagues to write to President Reagan to urge him to take a strong leadership position. I think my good friend Steve Solarz is the first member of Congress that I`ve heard trying to justify and defend the attacks on Beirut. I`ve heard another member decry the fact that President Reagan had not shipped the fighter planes, but Steve is alone in his defense of that action, so far as I`m aware.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Congressman Solarz. are you alone in that?

Rep. SOLARZ: I don`t think so at all, Robin. I think that the overwhelming majority of the members of the House and the Senate recognize that it is in the interest of our country to continue providing military assistance to Israel, given the fact that the Arabs continue to purchase arms from literally every country in the world that manufactures them while the United States is the only country that`s been willing to sell arms to Israel. If we were to refrain from providing Israel with the arms it needs for its own defense, it would in my judgment, and I think the judgment of most of my colleagues, be a formula for war rather than for peace because once the Arabs come to the conclusion that they can hope to defeat Israel militarily, the prospects for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, such as they are, would go down the diplomatic drain.

MacNEIL: Congressman Findley?

Rep. FINDLEY: I don`t know of any member of Congress who has turned his back on Israel. I have not. I consider myself a strong supporter of the state of Israel. But a lot of us are turning our backs on the policies of Prime Minister Begin. It`s his actions, his policies, that we resent, we regret, not only because of the interests of the United States, but because we feel that his actions are complicating the future of the state of Israel. Sometimes the best thing we can do for a friend is to save that friend from its own folly.

MacNEIL: Can I just go to Ambassador Blum? You`ve heard what Congressman Findley says, that a lot of people who support Israel`s future and everything feel that Mr. Begin is an impediment and a complication to that future.

Amb. BLUM: Well, let me respond to that briefly by reminding Congressman Findley of the fact that Israel is a democracy, and Prime Minister Begin is the democratically elected prime minister of the country who in the recent elections came out as the representative, the leader of the strongest party in the Knesset. So this attempt to differentiate between my -- the government of Israel and the people of Israel is somewhat misplaced, as it would be misplaced in this country in differentiating between the people of the United States and the administration of the United States. In a democracy, the administration represents the people, and to that extent I think I would remind Congressman Findley of the fallacy of his argument. I quite agree with him that the so-called Palestinian aspect of the Arab- Israel conflict ought to be addressed, and together with the United Stales and Egypt, who are committed to pursuing the path of peace -- a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem through the Camp David agreement. The PLO isn`t mentioned there and it`s deliberately excluded from Camp David. There`s a distinction between the Palestinian Arabs and the PLO. The PLO is a group of 15,000 or so armed terrorists and should not be confounded with the Palestinian Arabs as such. That is my other remark. The third remark -- I associate myself with what Congressman Solarz had to say about the civilian victims in Beirut and elsewhere. Nobody regrets the loss of civilian lives more than we do, irrespective of whether those civilians happen to be Arabs or Jews on our side of the border or across the border.

MacNEIL: We have to end it there, Ambassador Blum. I`m sorry. Thank you very much for joining us in Washington, Ambassador McHenry, and Congressman Solarz. Congressman Findley. Ambassador Blum. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That`s all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.