Arabs Cautious on Attack on Israel : Mideast: Some citizens celebrate, but leaders are more restrained. It's a 'delicate matter,' one official says.

By KENNETH FREED and MICHAEL ROSS

Jan. 19, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

NICOSIA, Cyprus — Ordinary citizens throughout the Middle East celebrated the Iraqi missile attack on Israel as a heroic act that will change the nature of the Persian Gulf War, but Arab leaders, including some Iraqi supporters, were far more restrained about such a prospect.

The greatest concern about the Iraqi move against the Jewish state came from Egypt. An Israeli reaction would, in the words of a senior Cairo official, “pour oil on the fire.”

A major Israeli retaliation “will just be obeying Saddam Hussein’s wishes,” the official told The Times. “They will be doing exactly what he wants them to do”--that is, force Arab members of the American-led multinational coalition to break off support or even join Iraq.

Regarding the Arab members of the coalition, the focus of most concern, particularly that of the United States, is Syria, a bitter enemy of Israel. Syrian officials have repeatedly said that Israeli involvement in the war against Iraq would cause Syria to shift its already tenuous backing.

“That’s why I am telling you that this is such a delicate matter,” the official said.

For the moment, Syria, which has 20,000 troops in Saudia Arabia, remains in the coalition. Shortly after Iraqi missiles hit Tel Aviv and other Israeli locations early Friday, the Damascus government simply took note of the development in a morning newscast but made no comment. The report was included near the end of the news program.

Furthermore, some diplomats in Syria said they doubted any change in policy if, as one put it, “Israel restricts its reaction to a ‘tit-for-tat’ retaliation and does not carry out a full-scale war.”

That view was reflected by another ranking Egyptian official, who said that “if the Israelis confine (retaliation) to a strike of four or five rockets, just to show that they’re there, that would be OK.”

However, he went on, if Israel got truly involved, even in a limited way, not only Syria but even Egypt would have “to look again at the situation.”

This was the first time since the war broke out Thursday morning that Egypt expressed such ambivalence. Previously, Cairo officials had stuck to the position expressed last week by President Hosni Mubarak that Israel, as with any nation, had the right to retaliate against an attack.

Cairo’s ambassador to Washington said Friday that Egypt will stick with the U.S.-led coalition in the gulf war even if Israel retaliates against Iraq, the Reuters news agency reported from Washington.

“Our stand is very clear,” Ambassador Abdel Reedy told reporters. “Our position is very solid. We are part of the coalition.

“To put it simply, you don’t have to worry about it,” he said.

A warning came from Morocco, the only other North African Arab state besides Egypt with forces in Saudi Arabia. The Rabat government warned via its official news agency that “Israel’s involvement in the conflict could change its nature and open a breach in the anti-Iraqi coalition.”

In spite of these dire thoughts, the reaction from even some of Iraq’s allies was relatively muted.

The Palestine Liberation Organization, which has sided with Iraq in the gulf, noted soberly in a statement from PLO headquarters in Tunis that the missiles represented “the effective entry of Israel into the conflict.”

But there were no PLO calls for major strikes against Israeli targets, although some splinter groups renewed demands for action against Israel, the United States and those Arab states that oppose Iraq.

Some of the strongest reaction came from Muslim clergymen. Sheik Mohammed Ali Jozo told Friday worshipers in Beirut that “the Iraqi missiles that struck the heart of Israel . . . are glory for Islam throughout the world.”

But in Tehran, prayer leaders, reflecting the non-Arab Iranian government’s stated determination to stay out of the war, said the conflict was not a holy war.

“What we are witnessing,” said the Ayatollah Mohammed Emani Kashani, “is a war between two unrighteous sides in which the righteous nation does not interfere.”

Palestinian leaders in Israel and the occupied West Bank reacted cautiously, as well. Saying that he admired Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for supporting Palestinian independence from Israel, a West Bank university professor said from Amman that “I hope this will be a good lesson” for the Israelis.

While adding that he hopes Israel “responds not by firing missiles but by . . . talking and negotiating,” the professor said the Iraqi action “will at least create a bit of havoc among the Arab nations.”

There was no immediate official reaction from Jordan, which Thursday condemned outright the American-led air war against Baghdad as inexcusable. But officials said privately that while they were satisfied and happy that Israel had been damaged, they were fearful that Israeli reaction would draw Jordan into the war.

“We hope that Israel would not draw the whole region into a devasting Arab-Israeli war,” said a Jordanian military official, although “we’re alerted for any Israeli surprise response.”

In spite of their expressed hopes that Israel will restrain itself, there were other, mixed, signals from Amman. The Jordanian Parliament, which is heavily influenced by the religiously fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, voted Friday night to call on Arabs throughout the world to attack the interests of Israel and the United States.

This anti-Israeli and anti-American feeling was reflected in elation among Palestinians in Jordan, particularly among those who just a day earlier had been demoralized by the immediate success of the attacks on Iraq and by Hussein’s early failure to carry out a promise to devastate Israel.

A Jordanian soldier said that “we have finally found a man who has kept his word and humiliated Israel. He is a hero.”

But even as they expressed pride in an Arab nation’s ability to strike Israel, many Palestinians on the West Bank mixed glee with caution. “I am happy about the attack on Israel because it will change things,” said Mohammed Khalaf in Jericho. “Maybe now the Israelis will think about negotiating a peace settlement.”

Another West Bank resident, Mahmoud Khalaf, expressed the mixed emotions of many Palestinians. He said the Iraqi attack was a time to be “happy and scared at the same time. . . . I am happy because I wanted a victory for the Palestinians. I am proud of Saddam. But I don’t think he will win.”

Freed reported from Nicosia and Ross from Cairo.