Code Words from an Oracle

The Middle East has its own special catch-22: it is abristle with political code words that sound innocent but mean something else. Jimmy Carter has been tossing out these words with frightening freedom--frightening at least to some of the Middle East leaders and most professional diplomats. As ambiguous as any oracle. Carter has bestowed some of these loaded words on just about every aggrieved party in the Arab-Israeli conflict; but for the moment at least, the Israelis seem to be getting the worst of it. After Carter had announced himself in favor of a Palestinian "homeland," there were widespread suspicions that the President might be laying the groundwork for a subtle shift in American policy--not really away from Israel, but perhaps a bit more toward the Arabs.

Initially, the Arabs were stunned when Carter endorsed "defensible borders" for Israel (code word for no return to the 1967 frontiers). In a welcoming address to the Palestine National Council in Cairo, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat seemed to be taking a slap at Carter when he declared that "it is inadmissible to speak about 'secure boundaries' [for Israel]. We will never yield one inch of our land."

Minor Alterations. But privately the Arabs were so pleased with the overall tenor of Carter's remarks that they tried to conceal some of their pleasure, lest they give away a bargaining advantage. Declared one Egyptian official: "They told us he had no experience in foreign affairs, but these statements show that, at least on the Middle East, he has studied hard or has excellent advisers."

Carter's clarifying statement that in a settlement Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders with only "minor alterations" (a favorite Arab code word) of the frontiers was almost more than Cairo had dared hope for. Although the Egyptians insist upon regaining all of Sinai, they believe that some modifications along the border between the West Bank and Israel are necessary where villages were divided by the 1949 armistice lines.

The Syrian press also criticized Carter's talk of defensible borders as a pro-Israeli position, but welcomed the President's suggestion that a settlement would have to include Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and make some provision for the Palestinians. At first, the Palestinians were bitterly disappointed by Carter's insistence that the U.S. would not negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization until it recognizes Israel's right to exist. Said Kamal, a political officer of the P.L.O., warned: "You Americans must want all the Palestinians to become extremists."

But then Carter came up with another code word--this one dear to Palestinian hearts. Speaking at the town-hall meeting in Clinton, Mass., the President observed that "there has to be a homeland provided for Palestinian refugees, who have suffered for many, many years."

The U.S. has long supported a "ministate" for the Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza, linked as an entity with Jordan. But it was the first time an American President had ever publicly used the word "homeland"--which normally would signify that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to Palestine. Said P.L.O. Leader Yasser Arafat of Carter's remark: "It is a progressive step because it means he has finally put his hand on the heart of the problem of the Middle East crisis. It helps the whole situation." The next night, a P.L.O. observer, Hasan Rahman, was invited to the United Nations reception for the President; the two men shook hands.

The reaction in Israel was shock, dismay and anger. "We can explain that Carter is inexperienced, that he is making blunders, that he doesn't really know the nuances," groaned an official after Carter's visit to Clinton. "But my God, we can't do it every day. He's causing a hell of a lot of confusion." Said another government source: "It's bad enough that he had to use the [homeland] term, but he had to use it on a day when the P.L.O. in Cairo was telling the world that it would not live in peace with Israel. What is anyone to think?"

Suspicion persisted in Israel that Carter had been influenced by a 1975 Brookings Institution report containing a blueprint for a Middle East settlement. One of the scholars who helped frame the document was Zbigniew Brzezinski, now Carter's National Security Adviser. Among other proposals, the report called for Israel's withdrawal "by agreed stages" to the 1967 borders and "Palestinian self-determination," either in an independent state or in a "political entity" federated with Jordan.

Last Candle. The Carter statements did not help Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in his party's uphill re-election campaign. Rabin was still smarting from his trip to Washington the week before, when Carter unleashed his surprise remarks on the Middle East at his press conference--without prior consultation with the Israeli Prime Minister. Sneered one Rabin aide: "So with one hand Carter gave Israel 'defensible borders,' and with the other he gave the Arabs return of all their land except for 'minor adjustments.' " The reaction of the Rabin entourage was exemplified by the Prime Minister's wife Lea, who broke into tears when she heard the details of the Carter press conference. "This killed Yitzhak's whole trip!" she cried. "It will ruin his chances to remain in office."

Those chances were also not improved by a story in Ha 'aretz last week reporting that Mrs. Rabin had kept a secret bank account in Washington for the past four years. There was only about $2,000 in the account. But it is illegal for Israelis to keep money abroad without special permission--which Mrs. Rabin did not have. The disclosure came amid burgeoning charges of corruption in the Labor Party, and revived old (but unproved) rumors that Rabin had enriched himself while Ambassador to the U.S. by charging up to $3,000 to attend bar mitzvahs and weddings. Groaned one party leader: "This last candle will cost us another two seats."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.