When Push Comes to Shove

By WALTER ISAACSON

COVER STORIES Israel flouts U.S. diplomacy with a ferrocious attack on Beirut

Ronald Reagan made a point of not smiling when he took his seat in the White House Cabinet Room across from Yitzhak Shamir. The studied gesture was designed to reinforce the stern words he coldly read to Israel's Foreign Minister. An Israeli attack against the Palestine Liberation Organization guerrillas in West Beirut ran the risk of threatening the special relationship between Washington and Jerusalem.

A cease-fire must be maintained. Reagan's grim warning: "When P.L.O. sniper fire is followed by 14 hours of Israeli bombardment, that is stretching the definition of defensive action too far." A day later the Israeli bombardment of West Beirut began. It lasted for 14 hours.

The barrage that shattered the ninth cease-fire was the most ferocious assault yet in Israel's nine-week-old invasion of Lebanon, just as the bombing and shelling that broke the eighth cease-fire three days earlier had eclipsed the previous battles Israeli tanks rolled into West Beirut in four columns, carefully splitting off strategic areas held by the Palestinians (see following story). Naval gunboats lobbed round after round into the business district, where fires raged out of control because of the lack of water and power. Artillery shells smashed once safe havens such as the American University Hospital, the Commodore Hotel and the Soviet and French embassies. As a finale, American-made jets swooped down to strike the staggered city while the Israelis solidified their new positions.

Once again Israel had unleashed its awesome arsenal in defiance of the close ally that supplied most of its weapons The blow came just when U.S. Special Envoy Philip Habib seemed on the verge of salvaging a diplomatic victory for the U.S. by negotiating a peaceful evacuation of the P.L.O. from Lebanon. As Israel's terrible swift sword sliced into West Beirut, in full video view of a war-weary world, the U.S. was reduced to muttering public protests.

Reagan has been one of the staunchest believers in America's bond with Israel, but his feelings of loyalty have been deeply affected by the continuing bloodshed in Lebanon. "I lost patience a long time ago," the President noted sharply to reporters on returning from Camp David the weekend before Israel's latest assault. More than anything else, the vivid television coverage of Israel's relentless pummeling of civilian areas has altered the President's thinking. Referring to one powerful image broadcast a week ago, an aide says: "That picture of the baby with arms burnt had more impact on him than 50 position papers." An Administration aide attaches even more importance to the President's gut-level reactions. "Reagan," he says, "gets 50% of his foreign policy from Dan Rather."

Reagan opened his meeting with Shamir last Monday by protesting the civilian suffering in Lebanon. "American public opinion has a short fuse on this situation," warned the President. By raising questions about whether this use of U.S. weapons constituted "defensive action," which is a condition of arms sales to Israel, Reagan implied that the flow of military hardware could be curtailed. But the White House took a softer line in a statement it issued describing the 20-minute meeting. "The world can no longer accept a situation of constantly escalating violence." Reagan's advisers calculated that private pressure, rather than public prodding, would be more effective (and less likely to backfire) in dealing with volatile Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

The strategy did not work. Reagan was called at 10:30 p.m. Tuesday by National Security Adviser William Clark, who told him that Israel had begun a major attack on West Beirut. At a Special Situation Group meeting the next morning headed by Vice President George Bush and at a subsequent National Security Council meeting chaired by Reagan, the Administration tried to thrash out a response. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger argued that subtlety had proved futile in dealing with Israel; sanctions were now necessary. George Shultz, who has kept a notably low profile since he took over as Secretary of State, expressed exasperation with the Israelis, but was reluctant to recommend harsh steps. "Shultz is playing it coy," says a White House official. "He doesn't want to go out on a limb by confirming the Israelis' worst suspicions of him."

Reagan adopted the view that challenging Israel too harshly would sacrifice what remains of America's influence over its prickly ally. "Our relationship is our strongest leverage," says an official. Severing this tenuous bond by cutting off weapons or recalling Habib "would give the Israelis a carte blanche to go into West Beirut," says one of Reagan's senior advisers. It was agreed, however, that the U.S. should vote for a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel if the measure could be modified to include references to the need for P.L.O. restraint, and if the mention of sanctions could be deleted. When the wording could not be suitably amended, Washington simply abstained, letting the resolution pass 14 to 0.

The official American reaction to the Israeli assault was contained in a private letter from Reagan to Begin. "Dear Mr. Prime Minister," it began. It was the first letter Reagan has not addressed "Dear Menachem" since the two men met last September. The President reminded Begin that U.S. weapons could only be used for defensive purposes. But a warning about possible sanctions that was included in an early draft was left out, partly at the behest of America's Ambassador to Israel, Samuel Lewis, who argued that even raising the issue would infuriate the Begin government. Reagan's accompanying public statement was, once again, even more muted. Said he: "I have expressed to the government of Israel the absolute necessity of re-establishing and maintaining a strict cease-fire in place." On the other hand, he noted his "strong conviction that the P.L.O. must not delay further its withdrawal from Lebanon."

Begin forcefully let his feelings be known the same day. He met with a visiting delegation of 190 American members of the United Jewish Appeal. Rarely had he ever appeared so angry in public. Referring to a report that originated in the Middle East Policy Survey, a Washington newsletter, he quoted Illinois Senator Charles Percy as advising Reagan to bring Israel to its knees. (Percy denies that he made such a remark, and others who were at the meeting in question back him up.) Standing in the Knesset building before tapestries by Marc Chagall that depict historical Jewish scenes, Begin declared, "Nobody, nobody is going to bring Israel to her knees. You must have forgotten that Jews do not kneel but to God." He added, "Nobody is going to preach to us humanitarianism." As for the problem of getting the P.L.O. to leave Beirut, he vowed: "If they do not go, well, we shall have to solve that problem. The P.L.O. will not stay in Beirut or Lebanon. No sir. Out of the question."

The intensity of Begin's feeling was also evident in a letter he sent to Reagan on the day before the Beirut invasion. After thanking the President for sending him greetings on his 69th birthday, Begin said, "I feel as a Prime Minister empowered to instruct a valiant army facing 'Berlin' where, amongst innocent civilians, Hitler and his henchmen hide in a bunker deep beneath the surface."

The U.S. stepped up pressure on Israel later in the week by requesting that it pull its forces back from West Beirut to the positions occupied at the beginning of the week. There was not much hope that Israel would comply. Washington, however, did veto a Soviet resolution at the United Nations calling for a worldwide arms embargo against Israel.

From the American perspective, Israel's assault on West Beirut came at a most inopportune moment. Habib appeared to have worked out a complex agreement that would have provided for the evacuation of the P.L.O. from Lebanon. That the Israelis seemed willing to jeopardize the Habib mission indicated to some dispirited American analysts that Jerusalem might actually prefer a bloody showdown to a diplomatic settlement that would preserve and possibly enhance the P.L.O.'s political status. Asked one U.S. official: "How can Begin bear to see [P.L.O. Leader Yasser] Arafat two months from now in Cairo, his apparatus intact, Mubarak as his ally, Saudi money behind him, and ready to talk to Reagan?"

Israeli officials deny any desire to scuttle Habib's mission. Begin and others in his government say that Israel shares the goal of negotiating a peaceful exit of the trapped Palestinians. The concern felt in Washington about deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations was not shared in Jerusalem. Any disagreement between the two countries, Israel feels, is over tactics rather than aims. Increased military pressure, the Israelis argue, will help force a settlement. Said Shamir while in Washington: "We believe the P.L.O. will not leave Lebanon unless they are convinced that they have only one choice."

Washington, on the other hand, feels that the continuous shellings threaten to crumble hopes for a settlement. Early last week Habib sent a blistering cable to the State Department asserting that his mission was being undermined by Israeli military outbursts. Reagan made the point to Shamir at their meeting. "One reason Habib can't make any progress on the negotiations is because he has to deal with cease-fire violations so often."

At the outset of the crisis, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig felt that Israel's invasion gave the unprecedented leverage with both the P.L.O. and moderate Arab nations. If the P.L.O. could be crippled as a military power, he reasoned, Saudi Arabia and Jordan might feel less inhibited in joining Egypt in the Camp David peace process. These heady ideas soon disappeared. Instead of seeking a general settlement of the Palestinian problem, Habib had to concentrate all ot his efforts on working out an evacuation plan for the trapped P.L.O.

Nonetheless, if the U.S. produces a peaceful resolution of the immediate crisis it will strengthen its position as the dominant superpower in the area. By week's end Habib seemed to have the negotiations back on track. Said one hopeful U.S. official: "What we had worked out by Tuesday is still there, and pointing toward a settlement."

If Habib's mission fails, it will be a serious blow to American prestige. Israeli attacks on West Beirut reinforced the impression that the U.S. is a helpless giant that can neither influence Israeli actions nor come to grips with events in the Middle East. Signs of U.S. ineffectualness in the current crisis have been conspicuous since the day in June when Reagan sent a well-publicized message from the Western economic summit meeting at Versailles urging Begin not to invade Lebanon. Begin sent his troops in the next day.

Thcse intimations of American weakness have already reverberated throughout the region. King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, the closest Arab ally of the U.S., called the State Department after the Israeli invasion and asked that Reagan "exercise a more potent role [and] shoulder his responsibility in full, for Arab patience has run out. In Kuwait, some members of parliament called for severance of diplomatic and economic ties with the U.S., including the imposition of an oil embargo. Tarik Aziz, a Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, told TIME:

"The indiscriminate killing in West Beirut is vivid evidence that neither of the two superpowers can step in. It is evidence of impotency in the face of Zionist aggression." In Cairo a foreign ministry official noted, "America is projecting an image of contusion, incoherence and weakness."

In Europe exasperation with U.S. floundering, combined with cynicism about Washington's possible complicity in Israel's wish to exterminate the P.L.O. has intensified complaints about the Administration's overall foreign policy. "Reagan has never proved himself convincing in threatening to punish Israel, said a French foreign ministry official.

But the most serious strains were between Washington and Jerusalem Some 40 American Jewish leaders met with Bush, Shultz and Weinberger at the State Department las week to assess the damage. The general tone was most reassuring," said one participant. "The officials issued a complete denial of even the consideration of sanctions against Israel." That assessment was disputed, however, by both White House and State Department aides. Officials who oppose curtailing aid and arms tear that Reagan may impose sanctions if he feels crossed by the Begin government just as he ignored advice not to place an embargo on equipment for the Soviet gas pipeline to Western Europe. Said one official at the State Department: "Just because it would be counterproductive diplomatically does not mean Reagan might not do it. Begin should remember the pipeline."

The U S.-Israeli tension was evident when Shamir went to Capitol Hill last week to testify. "We're all friends of Israel " Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts informed him, "but I've got to tell you, support here is seriously eroding." Such sentiments, lawmakers said were a reflection of discomfort with Israel around the country. Said Republican Senator Dave Durenberger of Minnesota: "I sure hear it back home, 'Stop fighting a war against little children.'" Congressman Dave Obey agrees. Says the Wisconsin Democrat: "People come up to me and say, 'Good God, what are you going to do to stop this business?'"

The stability of the Middle East and the credibility of American diplomacy hinge on whether words or rockets settle the status of the P.L.O. in West Beirut. For all the demands that the U.S rein in Israel, the Administration has neither the means nor the right to control its ally, or, for that matter, any other country. Israel is a sovereign and fiercely independent state whose aim is to defeat the P.L.O. terrorists who have been operating out of Lebanon. To a large extent the fate of America's Middle East policy is in the hands of two of the toughest and most single-minded menn in the world: Yasser Arafat and Menachem Begin.

-- By Walter Isaacson. Reported by Douglas Brew and Johanna McGeary/Washington

With reporting by Douglas Brew, Johanna McGeary

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