New Friends Upset a Special Relation

In his personal search for a new Middle East peace formula, President Carter has met with former Israeli Premier Yitzhak Rabin, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, Jordan's King Hussein and, last week in Geneva, Syria's President Hafez Assad. Carter's diplomatic approach, reinforced by heavy doses of his down-home charm, has drawn mixed reviews. The Arabs love it. The Israelis are almost as suspicious of Carter as they were of Henry Kissinger.

Carter's meeting with Assad last week was euphoric. Unlike Hussein and Sadat, the Syrian President had turned down Carter's invitation to make a political hadj to Washington. So Carter took a day off from the London summit to confer with Assad in Geneva. The President effusively described the Syrian as "great," "brilliant" and one of his "favorite leaders"--even though the two were meeting for the first time.

As both sides had anticipated, no breakthroughs were made at Geneva. Repeating his statement to a Clinton, Mass., town meeting in March, however, Carter declared that "there must be a resolution of the Palestine problem and a homeland for the Palestinians." Assad agrees with other Arab leaders that the creation of a Palestinian state is required for peace. In Jeddah, meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Fahd--who will visit Washington next week--suggested to newsmen that the Palestine Liberation Organization would be willing to recognize Israel's right to exist in return for a Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. U.S. diplomats, however, doubted that P.L.O. Leader Yasser Arafat and his followers were ready to make such a commitment right now.

Following the Carter-Assad talks, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance briefed Israeli Foreign Minister Yigal Allon in London. Allon expressed dismay at "the accumulating effect of various expressions by American leaders." Vance assured Allon that the U.S. was not planning to impose a solution on the Middle East, but merely wanted to "help facilitate" the process of peacemaking. Allon was not mollified. The Israelis fear that the President already has a peace plan clearly in mind--and that it calls for Israeli withdrawal from virtually all the occupied territory.

Israeli diplomats, reports TIME Jerusalem Bureau Chief Donald Neff, are convinced from statements by Carter and Vance that a U.S. position is emerging, and that it contains these five points:

1) Palestinian recognition of Israel and Israeli support for a Palestinian state; this would break a procedural block and allow a separate Palestinian delegation at renewed Geneva talks.

2) A Palestinian homeland, to satisfy one of three elements that Carter considers essential to a settlement.

3) Israeli withdrawal to roughly the 1967 boundaries, with security lines beyond its legal frontiers. This would satisfy Carter's second essential element for peace: the return of occupied territory.

4) Eventual normalization of travel, trade and other relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors to meet the President's third condition, an atmosphere of peace.

5) Major movement toward a settlement this year.

U.S. diplomats insist that there is no specific Carter plan, although the Israeli outline is generally correct. From Jerusalem's viewpoint, the scenario has several flaws. First of all, Israel sees no profit in recognizing the P.L.O. or being recognized by it. Second, Israel will under no circumstances recognize an independent state on the West Bank, although it would accept some kind of Palestinian homeland federated with Jordan. Third, Israel considers Jerusalem nonnegotiable, and will never return to the "indefensible" 1967 borders along the Golan Heights and in Sinai. Says a spokesman: "There must be no difference between our political borders and our defensible borders."

Above all, Israel is worried about returning to Geneva before the time is ripe, on the ground that rising expectations followed by dramatic failure could lead to war. Although the government denies it, Israel would also like more time to create "new facts." Since the Six-Day War, the country has been establishing permanent Israeli settlements on occupied Arab land as the perimeters of a future boundary that would be permanently defensible. Last week, even as peace discussions proceeded, the government announced plans for another 100 such settlements. Because it takes time to establish these "new facts," Israel's Geneva strategy now is to stall.

Allies in Congress. Israel also relies on longtime congressional friends to forestall Administration pressures. As part of a worldwide cutback on arms exports, the White House wants to limit sales and co-production rights to its treaty allies, including NATO nations, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Initially, there were rumors that the White House proposal would exclude Israel, even though it is one of the largest arms recipients. The Israelis were miffed, suspecting the start of an Administration pressure campaign. "We can understand why NATO should be favored," complained one member of the Israeli government. "But New Zealand and Australia? My God, they're not exactly in our league."

Minnesota Democrat Hubert Humphrey and New Jersey Republican Clifford Case sponsored a Senate measure urging "sympathetic consideration" for Israeli co-production of the F16. New York Republican Jacob Javits and Idaho Democrat Frank Church introduced another, restating U.S. pledges to maintain Israel's military strength. The White House, worried by the possibility of a rash of similar resolutions in behalf of other nations, hastily sought a compromise. The Humphrey-Case measure was withdrawn, the Javits-Church toned down. Carter in return stoutly declared at a White House press conference that Israel was entitled to arms because of its "special relation" with the U.S., which, he added, would continue as long as he was President.

Edginess over Jerusalem's relations with Washington may affect this week's Israeli election. In an eleven-week campaign characterized by dreary mudslinging, none of the three major contenders has enticed voters with an attractive image. Labor, headed by the likely winner, Acting Premier Shimon Peres, was hurt by strikes, inflation and recurring scandals. After a brisk start, the new Democratic Movement for Change, led by Yigael Yadin, appears too elitist to many voters. The right-wing opposition Likud, whose ailing leader is onetime anti-British Terrorist Menachem Begin, was accused of maintaining an illegal bank account abroad--the issue that forced Rabin to step down last month. Last week all campaigning was halted as the country mourned for 54 soldiers who were killed when their helicopter crashed during maneuvers on the West Bank. It was the worst military crash in Israel's history.

Final pre-election polls showed that Peres and his party were being hurt by a widespread feeling that Labor is too susceptible to U.S. pressure. The polls showed that Likud may win 39 seats in the new parliament (the same as in the old one); Labor, however, may drop from 51 seats to 41, while Yadin's new party could get twelve to 14 seats. If these projections hold, Peres almost certainly will have to form a unity government of all parties, or at least a coalition with the Likud, whose blunt campaign slogan is to give "not one inch" of the occupied territories, A squabbling, hang-tough government headed by the hawkish Peres would not be a promising participant in any negotiations. Said an Egyptian diplomat: "If their government is a weak coalition, forget about Geneva and peace for this year."

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