A Sign of Harder Times to Come? : Deportation Protest Has Israel Worried About Post-Shultz Era

Secretary of State George Shultz takes a badly needed vacation and there’s a mini-crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations. He will be back in Washington in the coming days and the commotion will subside.

But what will happen next year when Shultz is (presumably) no longer around to protect Israel? That question is being asked by very worried Israeli officials in the aftermath of the latest rift between Washington and Jerusalem.

Last Monday, John Whitehead, the acting secretary, called to the State Department the deputy chief of mission in the Israeli Embassy, Oded Eran. Whitehead bluntly complained about Israel’s longstanding policy of deporting Palestinian trouble-makers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Whitehead warned that continued expulsions could damage U.S.-Israeli relations.

Shultz had authorized the general thrust of Whitehead’s message. But Whitehead, backed by career Middle East specialists at the State Department, apparently went beyond what Shultz had in mind. “Whitehead delivered the message very differently than Shultz would have,” said one pro-Israeli observer in Washington.

There was an uproar in Israel when Whitehead’s tough “talking points” were immediately leaked to the Israeli press. Publicly, Israeli leaders rejected the U.S. complaint. How could they do otherwise without losing face in the midst of Israel’s own election campaign?

Privately, however, they may take another look at the deportation policy. Top U.S. officials fully expect Israel to attempt to go forward with the pending expulsion orders for 25 more Palestinian activists. But they express hope that Israel will then dramatically, if quietly, curtail the practice.

They predict that Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, seen in Washington as the architect of the deportation policy, will scale back the policy to avoid any serious deterioration in the American-Israeli relationship. Rabin, in the past, has generally been sensitive to Washington’s concerns.

U.S. officials say that they were surprised by the unusually complete disclosure in Israel of what was supposed to be a confidential U.S.-Israeli diplomatic exchange. “It did not contribute to our having an intelligent discussion on the matter,” said an American official. “We certainly didn’t mean for it to explode.”

Regarding Whitehead’s threat, U.S. officials explain that the deportations have been undermining Israel’s generally positive image in Congress and among the public at large. “A reduced level of support for Israel,” said one American official, “will automatically weaken the U.S.-Israeli relationship. That is what Whitehead was driving at. Israel should be more sensitive to its image in America. Deportations sap away at America’s good will. We’re concerned about that.”

State Department officials cite numerous complaints that they have received from members of Congress and private citizens about Israel’s policies. They deny that they have drawn up any sanctions against Israel if the deportations continue. They confirm, however, that defending Israel on this issue at the U. N. Security Council will become more difficult.

The Americans insist that their opposition to the deportations stems not only from the legal factors. The United States--unlike Israel--sees deportations as violations of the Geneva conventions governing military occupations. They believe that the expulsions simply poison the political atmosphere in the peace process. “Israel is pushing away the people with whom it might have to talk one of these days,” oneU.S. official commented. He noted that most of those Palestinians deported since the start of the uprising last December have been “leaders, people who wield some influence.”

The flap over deportations almost certainly portends more of the same next year--irrespective of a Bush or Dukakis victory. Historically, the first years of new Administrations in Washington have almost always been difficult for Israel. Next year should be no exception.

Israel, facing an enormous challenge from the continuing Palestinian uprising on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has some measure of political protection from Washington this year. But after the U.S. election, that could quickly evaporate, especially if the next secretary of state is less supportive of Israel than Shultz--as will almost certainly be the case.

James Baker as secretary of state under George Bush or Lee Hamilton as secretary of state under Michael Dukakis--or other names often mentioned in both parties--can be expected to be considerably more even-handed than Shultz in their approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Despite the continuing chorus of pro-Israeli campaign rhetoric, Israeli officials are very nervous.

They also recognize that a decision by the Palestine Liberation Organization to finally utter the magic words recognizing Israel’s right to exist would trigger U.S. recognition of the PLO and a diplomatic nightmare for Israel.

Both Labor and Likud party leaders in recent years have repeatedly made the point in private conversations that Shultz has been the most pro-Israeli secretary of state in history. Ironically, these same Israelis were nervous about Shultz when he succeeded Alexander Haig in 1982. Shultz, after all, was coming from Bechtel, the San Francisco-based engineering and construction firm with huge contracts in Saudi Arabia and none in Israel.

But Shultz has been a very welcome surprise to Israel and its supporters. With President Reagan’s blessing, he has been outspoken in strengthening and institutionalizing U.S.-Israeli strategic, economic and political ties. He has had an enormous impact on the State Department’s bureaucracy. Israel will miss him next year.