False Optimism

Disagreement over an agenda

There was a time, in the early fall, when U.S. officials believed they could persuade Israel, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization to withdraw their armies from Lebanon by the end of 1982. It did not work out that way. When direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel finally began last week, some diplomats in the Middle East predicted that the talks would last two months. Others speculated that the process could easily take a year.

At last week's sessions, which alternated between Khalde, a Lebanese seaside resort south of Beirut, and the Israeli border community of Qiryat Shemona, the two sides found little to agree on. The head of the Lebanese delegation, Antoine Fattal, declared that Lebanon had never wanted to be a source of hostile action against Israel and was neither "responsible nor accountable" for the longtime presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization within its borders. David Kimche, director-general of Israel's Foreign Ministry and head of his country's delegation, replied that Lebanon's signing of the 1969 Cairo Agreement, which allowed the P.L.O. to establish its rule in Southern Lebanon and the refugee camps, had been a violation of the 1949 armistice between the two countries. Kimche also reminded the Lebanese that their government had supported Egypt, Syria and Jordan during the Six-Day War of 1967.

More important than their differing interpretations of recent history was the fact that the Lebanese and the Israelis disagreed over an agenda for the current negotiations. The Israelis believed that the talks should be wide-ranging, leading to normal relations between the two countries. Israel is reportedly seeking the right to maintain early-warning stations and to conduct air and naval surveillance in Lebanon. It is also asking for a commitment that the P.L.O. will withdraw its remaining forces and free all Israeli prisoners of war before a simultaneous withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian troops from Lebanon takes place.

The Lebanese, on the other hand, want to talk mainly about a speedy and complete withdrawal of all foreign troops. Newly elected President Amin Gemayel is concerned that the continuing presence of foreign troops will undermine his attempt to restore the government's authority over the country. The Lebanese are also aware of the feelings of their powerful Arab friends, and with reason. Saudi Arabia has threatened to withhold urgently needed reconstruction funds for Lebanon if Gemayel's government concludes an agreement that deals with topics other than an Israeli withdrawal.

U.S. Special Envoy Morris Draper, who is also taking part in the talks, declared last week that the U.S. supported Israel's "legitimate security interests" as well as Lebanon's "sovereignty and independence." But Washington generally favors the Lebanese position. The Reagan Administration fears that wide-ranging discussions would merely prolong the crisis in Lebanon and would prevent the U.S. from making any headway on President Reagan's Sept. 1 peace plan, which calls for a future association between Jordan and the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Even if Israel and Lebanon reach an agreement on troop withdrawals, Syrian President Hafez Assad will still have to go along with it. Assad has reportedly made up his mind to remove his 30,000 troops from Lebanon when the Israeli forces are withdrawn. But any Israeli efforts to gain a permanent military foothold in Lebanon could lead to a similar demand by the Syrians, and thus to further delays. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.