U.S. Making New Rules in Mideast Diplomacy : Foreign relations: The Administration is realigning its alliances in the gulf--some say at Israel’s expense.

When members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee met privately with Saudi Arabian Ambassador Bandar ibn Sultan the week before last, they thought they were in for a routine update on events in the Persian Gulf.

What the Saudi prince told them, however, was about a stunning development here in the nation’s capital: The Bush Administration had decided to sell Saudi Arabia more than $20 billion in advanced weapons--the biggest single arms transfer in history.

California Rep. Mel Levine, one of Israel’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill, was furious.

“I was shocked to hear it coming from his (Prince Bandar’s) lips before I heard it from the Administration,” said the Santa Monica Democrat.

“It told me that the Administration had had conversations with the Saudis that had gone far beyond where they should have gone without consultation with Congress,” he complained.

Levine’s chagrin was not merely over protocol. As the California lawmaker conceded later, he also was worried about another issue: The Persian Gulf crisis is realigning America’s historic relationships in the Middle East--potentially at the expense of Israel.

Despite the fact that congressional opposition forced the Administration to scale back the package late Friday, that reality remains apparent.

No other nation wields anywhere near the political clout in Washington that Israel has enjoyed. By comparison, lobbyists for Arab interests have been virtually invisible here in the capital.

But with Israel now essentially on the sidelines in the current crisis, the Administration is forging new ties in the region, amassing both political debts and new chips that can be cashed in later--on both sides.

Besides the arms sale to Saudi Arabia, the White House also has asked Congress to forgive Egypt’s $7-billion military debt--a move that officials here made clear was a reward for the leading role Cairo has played in marshaling Arab support for sending troops to Saudi Arabia.

Israel immediately asked that its own $4.5 billion in military debts to the United States be written off as well, but the White House so far has not responded. Officials said last week they were still considering the Israeli request.

Making such a gift to Egypt without providing similar benefits for Israel would mark a break from previous practice: Until now, Congress has held the amount of U.S. aid to Egypt to roughly two-thirds of what it allocates to Israel.

The formula is regarded as a reward for Cairo’s participation in the Camp David peace accord.

Congressional committees also are bracing for a deluge of new aid requests by other Arab countries that have participated in the gulf operation--often at great political and financial expense. Egypt and Turkey both are expected to receive large increases.

At the same time, analysts here say that Jordan, another historically close ally of the United States, seems likely to lose influence in Washington as the result of its role in the Persian Gulf conflict.

As late as last spring, Jordan was so well regarded on Capitol Hill that it was one of only four countries--along with Israel, Egypt and Cyprus--for which money was “earmarked” in the House foreign aid bill. The lawmakers gave Bush broad discretion in allocating other funds.

With a population that is 60% Palestinian and largely sympathetic to Iraq, Jordan’s King Hussein has been in a dangerous spot politically. His impoverished country also is in a severe economic crunch, because of the U.N. embargo against Iraq and the refugees now crowding its border areas.

But the fact that King Hussein initially tried to position himself as a mediator between the two sides raised a good deal of resentment among senior Administration officials, who had expected that he would be more clearly on the Western side.

To some analysts, it also has posed new questions about how far Washington can count on Jordan as an ally. “King Hussein and Jordan are going to come out of this badly damaged,” one lobbyist predicted.

To be sure, it could be several years before the shape of the new U.S. relationships in the Middle East becomes fully clear, and few expect any other country in the region to establish a hold as strong as Israel’s on this country’s loyalties and its sense of obligation.

Even so, “there’s a dramatic change already,” said James G. Abourezk, a former South Dakota senator who lobbies for Arab causes as chairman of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

While some lawmakers and Administration officials deny that this new coziness is coming at the expense of Israel, others say Israel’s stature will inevitably diminish as a result of the favors that Arab states have offered--and delivered--to help the U.S. effort in the gulf.

Particularly if the gulf crisis passes without war, “you will see Israel’s star very much on the wane” as the United States increases its reliance upon the Arab countries to protect its strategic interests in the Middle East, Abourezk said.

Just as alarming to Israel’s supporters is evidence that its public support in the United States is slipping.

In a nationwide survey released Tuesday by Times Mirror Co., the corporate parent of The Times, only 44% of the respondents rated Israel favorably, while 45% regarded it unfavorably.

The roughly even split marks a sharp decline from three years ago, when Israel received a 65% favorable rating, with only 27% of respondents listing themselves as unfavorable.

Nowhere is the political shift clearer than in the proposed sale of advanced jets, tanks and other weapons to the Saudis.

In 1981, when President Reagan proposed selling AWACS radar surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia, he sparked one of the bloodiest political battles of his first term. He won--only after placing his own personal prestige on the line.

So far, the opposition to President Bush’s plan to sell a far bigger and more sophisticated arms package has been surprisingly restrained.

Most of the debate centered on whether the Saudis should get the whole package now, or part now and part later. The White House agreed late Friday to split the package, seeking congressional approval now for the weapons most urgently needed by the Saudis and deferring the rest of the package until next year.

Some lawmakers also argue that any additional aid to the Saudis should be balanced by more for Israel.

Fred Dutton, a veteran lobbyist for the Saudis, characterized the protest against the sale as “standard boilerplate rhetoric from the past . . . from a smaller group than before.”

One of those most vocal critics has been Levine. “This is a very crazy notion,” he said. “Here we have sent troops to save the lives of the Saudi regime, and we feel that we owe them $20 billion in additional arms.”

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens, clearly alarmed at what his country fears is a pro-Arab tilt by the United States, told Defense Secretary Dick Cheney last week that Israel should get additional military aid beyond the $1.8 billion a year it now receives.

“A very large-scale sale of advanced equipment to the Saudis without adequate compensation for Israel could upset the military balance in the area, and that would be destabilizing,” Arens declared.