‘Israel Must Feel Isolated’ : Action May Mean ‘Whole New Ballgame’ in Mideast

The stunning U.S. decision to open a dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization has broad implications not only for the 40-year quest for peace in the Middle East but for the atmosphere and traditional political equations throughout the region.

That was the almost unanimous view Wednesday night of U.S. officials and Middle East analysts.

One ranking Administration official was quick to express the underlying caution felt by many experts: “This is a breakthrough in the peace process, no doubt about it. But let’s be careful about our expectations. This is only one step of many. There’s still a helluva long way to go.”

Yet State Department officials, many of whom stayed late in their offices to hear the press conference of Secretary of State George P. Shultz, generally expressed optimism about the decision to reverse a 13-year stalemate between the United States and the PLO. And they agreed that the move would have serious consequences almost everywhere.

First and perhaps foremost, although Shultz emphasized repeatedly that the move in no way affects this country’s “strong relationship” with Israel, a State Department official conceded, “Israel must feel very isolated right now.”

“It’s the first time there has been a clear delineation between the United States and Israel on the PLO and, more importantly, on the peace process,” said a leading State Department envoy.

“Everyone has always believed that Israel had carte blanche to do or say whatever it wanted and the United States would stand behind it. But Israel’s moral high ground was, in effect, stolen from underneath it,” he said.

“Historically, the PLO has done poorly at understanding the peace process. All of a sudden, key Palestinians are saying there must be peace. That’s been increasingly attractive to the Europeans and other U.S. allies. Now that the PLO has met U.S. terms, it’s also attractive to the United States.”

Recognizing the unsettling impact of the move on Israel, State Department diplomats in Washington and Israel worked late into the evening trying to reassure Israeli officials. But, one U.S. source said: “They can’t help but believe that it’s a whole new ballgame.”

Stanley Sheinbaum, the Los Angeles economist and publisher who was part of the delegation of prominent American Jews who met with PLO leader Yasser Arafat last week in Stockholm, noted that the speech by U.S. envoy Vernon A. Walters at the U.N. conference in Geneva on Wednesday would serve as another blow to Israel.

“The Walters speech today advising Israel that it will have to give up the territories was even more startling than the State Department’s agreement to talk to the PLO. That was in many ways a more important signal of what is to come,” Sheinbaum said. “Israel will now have to shift gears.”

But just what any such shift should consist of, and how it should be done, is likely to lead to divisions among the already divided Israelis, according to Geoffrey Kemp, National Security Council director of Middle East affairs between 1981 and 1985 and an adviser to the George Bush presidential campaign.

Israeli Split Possible

“There won’t be a consensus within Israel on how to respond,” Kemp said. “There may well be a split within Israel between parties and within parties.

“A lot of members within the Labor Party are likely to say that this is not an issue to go to the wall with the U.S. They may argue that for pragmatic reasons, Israel’s response for the moment should be low key,” he added.

“But there is likely to be a debate within Likud. (Prime Minister Yitzhak) Shamir is going to be under pressure to try to change the Administration’s mind. Any incident on the West Bank will be used as a reason to say that the PLO is not holding to its pledge.”

The pronouncement also comes at a difficult time for Israel’s internal situation. Shamir so far has been unable to form a coalition government with either the religious parties, which increased their parliamentary strength in the recent elections, or with the Labor Party, its former coalition partner.

State Department sources predict that the U.S. decision is almost certain to become an issue in deliberations over Israel’s next government.

Beyond Israel, the second area of impact will be in the Arab world. “This is a big boost for the moderates throughout the Middle East. It shows that moderation and diplomacy work,” one U.S. official declared.

The hands of Jordan and Egypt, which have attempted to mediate a compromise between the United States and the PLO, are likely to be strengthened, while hard-line states such as Syria and Libya may find themselves outside the mainstream.

“As a front-line state, Syria particularly is going to have to reassess where it’s going or it’ll be isolated,” a State Department official said.

Syria has been the chief supporter of the small but active factions that broke with the PLO in the aftermath of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Although there have been several efforts to reconcile Arafat and Syrian President Hafez Assad, all have ended in even deeper divisions.

Assad has argued against negotiations with Israel that do not take into account the strategic parity between the Arab world in general and Israel.

“The Lion of Damascus,” as Assad is nicknamed, has charged in the past that peace efforts by Jordan’s King Hussein amounted to sellouts to Israel and Washington.

He has also held out for talks that take into account the Golan Heights, former Syrian territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war and formally annexed by Israel in 1981.

“Moderates clearly are now on the ascendancy,” a U.S. source said. “Assad may feel as cornered as Israel does at the moment, if he wants in on some of the action.”

Although both Syria and Libya may try to play the role of spoiler, as they have in the past, both may have to recognize that the new U.S. position will gain wide approval from the vast majority of Arab states. Some State Department sources predicted that eventually Syria, in particular, may feel it has no option but to play along with the U.S. move.

U.S. Credibility With Arabs

At the same time, American credibility in the Arab world in general is likely to gain new standing. After its withdrawal of peacekeeping troops and envoys from Lebanon in 1984 and the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986-87, Washington had to fight to regain its longstanding lead over the Soviet Union in the region.

Moscow has sounded increasingly pragmatic under Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev. Indeed, U.S. sources believe that Moscow was a major influence on Arafat’s decision to take the leap.

The U.S. decision to deploy ships in the Persian Gulf last year, and now the initiative with the PLO, are almost certain to provide Washington with greater clout in the Arab world than at any point since 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower intervened in the Suez Canal crisis.

The third area of impact is likely to be on the pattern of violence in the long-volatile region. But heightened prospects for negotiations that might resolve the world’s most consistently troublesome hot spot have led to fears about new prospects for terrorism among radical Palestinian groups.

“I think it’s an invitation for radical terrorism,” Kemp said.