THE PRESS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1988. U.S. and Israel

Press, 1 February 1988, Page 18

THE PRESS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1988. U.S. and Israel

No United States Administration can afford, for domestic political reasons, to be too critical of Israel. The Reagan Administration has recently gone further than most. Israel’s treatment of rioters in the West Bank and Gaza has been attacked by the United States. President Reagan is also showing considerable sympathy towards the views on how to solve the present dispute put forward by President Mubarak of Egypt who is visiting Washington. Probably most Americans want to support Israel, and that is a significant political factor in itself. Jewish American voters are, nevertheless, concentrating on some very important electorates which can help swing an election. Mostly they are supporters of the Democratic Party, although recently some have drifted the Republican way. The Republican Party does not want to throw away this new support by being seen to be unsympathetic to Israel. Still, Republicans are generally readier than are Democrats to criticise Israeli actions. The picture is complicated by the strong Israeli and Jewish lobbies within Congress and by the fact that, if. a member of Congress is considered not to be a supporter of Israel, election funds are likely to be withheld.

The reason why the Reagan Administration can be bolder than many earlier administrations is that a sense of disenchantment with the policies of the present Government in Israel is growing among Jewish Americans. This came into the open during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. But then there was restraint. Although the Jewish community in the United States vigorously debated the invasion, a reasonably united front in support of Israel

against others was forged. The disturbances in the West Bank and the Gaza. Strip, which became intense in early December, divided the American Jewish communities and there seemed to be less embarrassment about allowing the cracks to show. The United States Administration, members of Congress, and a reasonable number of the American public would like to get back to a position of support for Israel; but Israel’s actions are making that difficult to achieve. Nor can the impact of Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the United States presidential elections be ignored. The United States is no doubt pressing the Israeli Government to find a better way of handling the disturbances.

The United States has generally supported the principle of direct talks between Israel and its Arab neighbours. In the absence of that, the United States has apparently decided that an international conference should be held. In the past it has resolutely opposed such a conference, partly because the Soviet Union would become involved. Washington leaders now seem to believe that, if a conference is the only way to handle a worsening situation, a conference it must be, despite the presence of the Soviet Union.

The limits of American influence in Israel may be demonstrated over the idea of the conference because the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Shamir, has been resolutely opposed to one. Mr Shamir has been able, in the past, to appeal to Jewish supporters within the United States. He may find the appeal carries less weight than it has in the past.