Bombing Reverberates Through American Policy

When off-the-mark Israeli artillery shells pounded into a crowd of Lebanese refugees Thursday, the explosions jolted a U.S. Middle East policy that had stressed the reelection of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres above all other objectives.

On Friday, as repercussions from the shellfire reverberated, the Clinton administration voiced no condemnation of Israel, avoiding rhetoric that might add to the political problems faced by Peres, who is locked in a close contest in next month’s election.

Although Washington is officially neutral in the Israeli election, U.S. officials have made no secret of their preference for Peres, a staunch advocate of peace negotiations with Israel’s Arab adversaries. His challenger, opposition Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, has implied that he would go much slower in the peace process.

“The objective now is not to inflame the situation . . . further by condemning Israel or engaging in that sort of rhetoric,” State Department spokesman Glyn Davies said. “It just serves no purpose for any government spokesman or government official to get into any kind of a round of condemning Israel at this stage.”

In the past, the United States has criticized Israel for what U.S. officials considered military excesses. Although the criticism never seemed to last very long, it sometimes embarrassed the Israeli government.

Israel has said its shells hit the refugees by mistake Thursday.

From the start of Israel’s “Operation Grapes of Wrath” last week, U.S. officials refused to second-guess the Israeli response to Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement in southern Lebanon.

After Thursday’s Israeli shelling killed at least 75 Lebanese refugees, President Clinton expressed sympathy for the victims and called for a cease-fire. But he skirted direct criticism of Peres or of Israel.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who begins an emergency trip to the Middle East this weekend, and other U.S. diplomats will now try to reestablish Washington’s credentials as an impartial regional broker by appealing to Arab leaders who are smarting from what they view as Washington’s lopsided and uncritical support for Israel.

At least some of the Arab leaders Christopher will contact seem to share Washington’s hope that Peres will be reelected with a mandate to accelerate the peace process.

According to U.S. officials at The Hague, where Christopher met Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen before heading to the Middle East, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shareh and Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri gave assurances to the secretary of state in telephone conversations that they will help arrange a cease-fire.

Syria keeps more than 35,000 troops in Lebanon and controls supply routes from Iran to Hezbollah.

*

If the fighting across the Israeli-Lebanese border stops, it will remove a major obstacle to a resumption of the U.S.-brokered peace negotiations between Israel and its most implacable foe, Syria. But U.S. officials do not expect those talks to resume until after the Israeli election in any event.

Syrian President Hafez Assad has made it clear that his primary reason for talking peace with the Israelis is to improve Syria’s relationship with the United States in a post-Cold War world where Damascus can no longer look to the Soviet Union for support.

The Clinton administration is urging Assad to rein in Hezbollah. The Islamic militants get most of their weaponry and support from Iran, but they also get backing from the Syrians and maintain an important office in Damascus.

So far, the Syrian leader has shown no indication that he will comply. When he meets with Christopher, Assad can be expected to argue that Syria is not obligated to restrain its Hezbollah ally as long as the United States refuses even to criticize its Israeli ally.