U.S. Drops Calls for 'Restraint,' Backs Israel's 'Self-Defense'

By NORMAN KEMPSTER

Dec. 4, 2001 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — After months of urging Israel to act with “restraint,” the Bush administration abandoned the word Monday and endorsed Israel’s right to defend itself in any way it sees fit.

“The president’s point of view is that Israel is a sovereign government,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. “Israel has the right to defend herself.”

Fleischer and State Department spokesman Philip T. Reeker insisted that despite the latest surge in violence, the administration had not abandoned hope for a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. But their comments marked a sharp change in direction from the earlier U.S. focus on efforts to mediate a cease-fire that would be acceptable to both sides.

Middle East experts said the administration’s stance, unless it is modified soon, will damage Washington’s effort to keep Arab nations in its coalition against Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorism network.

Asked if the administration was repeating its usual calls for Israeli restraint, Reeker refused to even acknowledge the word. “What we’re saying is, we understand Israel is responsible for their security and that they need to take the decisions regarding self-defense,” he said.

At the same time, Fleischer and Reeker, who read their answers from the same carefully prepared script, insisted that the administration had not given Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a “green light” to destroy Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority.

But Sharon, who met with President Bush in Washington on Sunday, left little doubt that he believes he obtained Washington’s support for an escalation of military action, not just against terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but also against key facilities of Arafat’s authority.

In a tough address to the Israeli parliament that echoed Bush’s recent speeches on terrorism, Sharon declared: “The president told me that the United States is a true friend and partner of the state of Israel. In times of peace, just as today in our fight against terror, the United States and Israel stand together.”

Sharon said Arafat “is responsible for everything that is happening.”

Bush administration officials insisted that Arafat remains a potential partner for peace talks with Israel. But they made it clear that they are fed up with his repeated failures to crack down on anti-Israel terrorism.

Reeker said Arafat must not only arrest the perpetrators of the weekend terrorist attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa but destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad. That goes beyond anything Washington has demanded in the past and probably sets the bar higher than the Palestinian leader can reach.

“Everybody is fed up with Arafat,” said Edward S. Walker, former head of the State Department’s Middle East bureau.

But Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, added: “I certainly hope the Israelis keep in mind who the enemy is. I don’t think the focus at this point should be on Arafat or the Palestinian Authority. The focus should be on the two terrorist organizations.”

It was not clear what--if anything--the administration will do if Sharon does go after Arafat. Most officials insisted that the next step is up to Arafat. If the Palestinian leader does not take dramatic action against Hamas and Islamic Jihad, these officials implied, Washington may be ready to leave him to his fate.

“This is a time for Chairman Arafat . . . to do everything in his power to find those who murdered innocent Israelis and bring them to justice,” Fleischer said. “Only time will tell if Chairman Arafat honors that call.”

Some Middle East experts said Sharon’s military crackdown on the Palestinians could soon damage larger U.S. interests by driving a wedge between the administration and the Arab governments that are a vital part of the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy.

“Arab members of the coalition are very worried about the Palestinian issue because it has such resonance with their publics,” said Philip C. Wilcox, former State Department counter-terrorism director.

“These Arab governments want the Americans to do more to restrain the Israelis. They have no sympathy for the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists,” said Wilcox, who now is president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a Washington think tank. “But if there isn’t a quick turn back to the political process, the anti-terrorism coalition that the president has assembled will not provide the support the president needs.”

No matter how difficult it is, Wilcox said, the United States should urge restraint on Sharon.

“Above all, we have to say that this violence will continue whatever the Israelis do or the Palestinians do unless Israel offers some light at the end of the tunnel,” Wilcox said. “Israeli security depends on a peace agreement far more than it does on military defense.”

On Capitol Hill, both Republicans and Democrats urged the administration to be even tougher on Arafat.

“He has a fundamental decision to make: Either he stands with terrorists and destroys any chance for peace, or he opposes terrorism and demonstrates to the world . . . a genuine commitment to vigorously pursue a peaceful solution,” said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) added: “I think this is a case where Arafat will be tested to the maximum. Is he going to step up and do more than just issue statements? Is he going to deal aggressively with these terrorists?”

Although many Middle East experts expressed doubts that Arafat would be able to rein in Hamas and Islamic Jihad even if he wanted to, others said he has ample means to crack down on the terrorist groups.

“The key is to try to convince--or compel--the Palestinian leadership to use the forces of coercion at their disposal in the fight against terrorism,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a foundation dedicated to the study of Middle East issues. “The issue is not one of ability, it is one of will.”

Times staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this report.