Increasing talk of war in the Middle East

Press, 7 July 1977, Page 16

Increasing talk of war in the Middle East

By

RALPH JOSEPH

in Nicosia

Shortly after being appointed Defence Minister of Israel, the deputy leader of the Likud (Mr Ezer Weizmann), only half jokingly, told the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) that he had had “a few thinking nights, I wouldn’t say sleepless nights,” and then went on to add that if his mission was carried through “we will not win wars, but prevent them.”

This bit of rhetoric reflected the grim fears that have been on many minds in the region since the Likud bloc’s election victory in May. With possibilities of a “lightning strike” by either the Arabs or the Israelis, reports were that the forces of both sides had been put on alert. The Israelis announced that they were putting their forces through a “practice call-up,” carefully emphasing that this had-be-come an annual event since the October 1973 war and that “the enemy has been informed.”

The Egyptians were reportedly calling up their reserves in a more discreet manner, consistent with the shrewdness displayed by the Cairo leaders four years ago. ' Neither President Anwar Sadat nor other Egyptian officials made any public remarks indicating that the country was preparing for war, either in self-defence or otherwise, but the Israelis complained four times in the month after the Likud victory that Egyptian forces had

moved across the Suez Canal in numbers larger than those permitted under the Sinai accord of September, 1975, implying that SAM-7 missiles had also been moved. On what is called the “eastern and northern front.” the talk of war was much more frequent and open. King Hussein of Jordan several times warned that there was a danger that war was imminent. If fighting broke out, he believed, it would be on the Jordanian-Syrian-Lebanese front, and the south Lebanon fighting could provide the immediate spark for a bigger explosion.

The “Fatahland war” between Palestinian - Leftist Lebanese forces and the Right-wing Falangist alliance appeared to have become stalemated in the last few weeks. Neither side had made any territorial gains. But the artillery duels seemed to get fiercer by the day, with Israeli gunners continuing their bombardment of Palestinian-Leftist positions, and Israeli planes making frfcquent flights over them. As villagers fled in larger numbers amid burning wheatfields and olive groves, Israeli reports quoted “travellers” as saying Syrian troops had moved into south Lebanon disguised as Saiqa guerrillas. Hussein warned that the Israelis could be looking for an excuse to widen the conflict, with the object of changing the map of the region.

Against this unpromising background the Premier (Mr Begin) announced that he would be making a trip to Washington in the latter part of July to take up talks with President Carter from the point where the former Premier (Mr Rabin) left off. This would be followed by a trip to the area by the United States Secretary of State (Mr Vance) and a return visit, perhaps in August, by the Israeli Foreign Minister (Mr Dayan) to the United States.

What Mr Begin says to President Carter will be of immense interest to the Arabs, and they are likely to look forward to the second Vance trip to the area with more eagerness than they did the first, made in February, when the atmosphere was more propitious to peace. This is because of some ambiguity that has arisen about public statements Mr Begin has been making with regard to territorial concessions on the West Bank. The Arab leaders will want to. know from Mr Vance what Mr Begin has to say in private discussions. In his public statements Mr Begin has continued to take the hardest possible line, even refusing to call the West Bank of Jordan by that name, referring to it instead as “Judea and Samaria,” now his Government’s official name for the area. But observers who have spoken to him privately have come awav with the impression

that he was willing to talk about the West Bank in negotiations at Geneva, though he was unwilling to talk about in public just yet, or to “negotiate with the press” as one of them expressed it. Mr Dayan, however, has not been holding his cards quite as close to his chest. He has already told interviewers that the West Bank is open for negotiations.

Whether Israel w’ould accept total withdrawal is another matter. “I wouldn't accept it, just like some of our suggestions will probably be rejected by the Arabs.” Mr Dayan has been forthright on still another crucial matter: whether the new Israeli Government would accept participation by the Palestine Liberation Organisation at Geneva. “No,” he said. “The P.L.O. is not

allowed and entitled to be there.” But another unknown factor now is what the P.L.O.’s emotions would be about sitting down opposite Mr Begin and Mr Dayan — both former Jewish terrorists, blamed by the Palestinians for causing the deaths of large numbers of Palestinian non-combatants, including women and children, some 30 years ago.