U.S., Israel Role in Mideast

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick in her article (Editorial Pages, Sept. 22), “Is There a New Arafat? Don’t Bet On It,” expresses several misconceptions about peace in the Middle East.

She says, “No start has been made in implementing Resolutions 242 and 338 because Israel’s neighbors--Jordan, Syria and Lebanon--have refused to negotiate with Israel, even though they know they could regain lost territories by doing so.”

It is the declared policy of the Likud Party not to exchange land that was part of ancient Israel for peace. The leader of the Likud, Yitzhak Shamir, is slated to regain the prime ministership next year.

The Israeli Labor Party under Prime Minister Shimon Peres had declared a willingness to exchange some--but not all--of the occupied lands for peace, but Peres has not made any formal proposals.

Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin did exchange the Sinai for a peace treaty with Egypt. But the Sinai is not considered to be a part of ancient Israel. If the Sinai had been a part of the ancient Israelite Kingdom then Begin never would have returned the Sinai to Egypt; his party would never have allowed it.

Kirkpatrick knows this and, yet, proceeds to imply that Israel would return Hebron to Arab control.

Will Israel agree to return Hebron, on Syria’s Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed in violation of U.N. 242? Unlikely.

If the United States is pressuring the Palestine Liberation Organization and Arab countries to accept Israel’s right to exist vis-a-vis U.N. Resolution 242, then we should pressure Israel to adhere in spirit and letter to the resolution, which it publicly accepts.

ARCH MILLER

Desert Hot Springs