NEWS ANALYSIS : Expulsion Issue Could Chill Relations, U.S. Warns Israel

WASHINGTON —  In a test of wills that could set the tone of Middle East policy for the Clinton Administration, Secretary of State Warren Christopher has told Israel that it must permit the return of the hundreds of Palestinians it recently deported if it hopes to continue traditionally good relations with the U.S. government.

The message is a simple one: Even if the deportees, now numbering about 400, are guilty of provoking terrorism, as the Israeli government contends they are, nothing justifies their confinement in the snowy no-man’s-land in southern Lebanon.

U.S. officials say the only way to defuse the crisis--and to keep the U.N. Security Council from considering sanctions against Israel in response to the expulsions--is for Israel to allow the deportees, mostly members of two extremist Muslim groups, to return to Israeli-controlled territory, even if only to Israeli jails.

So far, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has rejected the urgings of his country’s closest ally. Rabin ordered the deportation of the Palestinians after the slayings of several Israeli soldiers and police, allegedly by Muslim extremists. He asserted that the action was necessary to deter a tide of violence by Muslim fundamentalists opposed both to the Israeli government and to the peace talks between Israel and a Palestinian delegation dominated by the Palestine Liberation Organization. The deportations were upheld last week by the Israeli Supreme Court.

Rabin maintains that in a matter vital to Israel’s national security, his effort to protect life and property must take precedence over Washington’s global diplomatic concerns.

Usually that argument would be persuasive. But in this case, Israeli intransigence could poison President Clinton’s relations with the Arab world, damage U.S. efforts to isolate Iraq and hamstring the new Administration’s hopes for using the United Nations to maintain a post-Cold War order.

Despite Clinton’s generally pro-Israel leanings, U.S. officials say, Rabin cannot damage U.S. policy in that manner without putting severe strains on the overall Washington-Jerusalem relationship.

Clinton and Christopher have talked by telephone with Rabin since the new Administration took office Jan. 20, and Christopher is planning a get-acquainted trip to Europe and the Middle East late next month. If the deportee issue is not resolved before then, the secretary of state will take it up in person in Jerusalem.

Rabin seems to be convinced that he can face down the new Administration, which was elected in November with the aid of a heavy majority of American Jewish voters. But officials say it would be a major mistake for Rabin to abuse Clinton’s goodwill.

Rabin re-established the close U.S.-Israeli bond last year after ousting Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in the June election. Relations between Shamir and former President George Bush were marked by a personal animosity that strained all government-to-government dealings.

Although Rabin and Bush worked together easily, foreign policy experts in both Israel and the United States expected the relationship to become even closer with Clinton in the White House.

But if Israel refuses to permit the return of the deportees, the U.N. Security Council almost certainly will consider economic or other sanctions. The council earlier approved a resolution, with U.S. support, demanding that the Palestinians be allowed to go home. However, that resolution contained no enforcement provisions, and Arab delegations are lining up support for a new resolution that would impose a penalty.

The U.S. government hopes to delay U.N. action as long as possible to give Israel a chance to back down. But if the deportees remain in their squalid camp long enough, the Security Council is virtually certain to consider sanctions eventually. Such a resolution almost certainly would command enough support to pass.

The United States, like the other four permanent members of the council, has veto power. And after hinting that the Administration might not cast its veto, U.S. officials now say privately that it is inconceivable that Washington would permit sanctions to be imposed on Israel.

But officials also say such a veto would spell disaster for U.S. foreign policy. The most immediate effect would be to shatter U.S. relations with the Arab world, probably doing irreparable damage both to the U.S.-brokered Middle East peace process and to the coalition that fought the Persian Gulf War and continues to restrain Iraq.

Arab leaders already are skeptical that Clinton can impartially broker Middle East peace negotiations because of his pro-Israel campaign rhetoric. A U.N. veto of an Israeli sanctions resolution so early in his Administration would destroy any chance for Clinton to establish credibility with the Arabs.

A veto also would end an informal moratorium on Security Council vetoes, which has lasted for more than two years. If Washington uses its veto in this case, an increasingly assertive Russia might return to the Soviet practice of frequent vetoes. And China, which has never cast a veto, might conclude that it is free to do so. U.S. plans for a post-Cold War order, which require Security Council approval for their legitimacy, could unravel.

Moreover, if the United States refuses to permit punishment of its ally for defying a Security Council resolution, Washington will find it increasingly difficult to be sure of U.N. backing for enforcement of the restrictions imposed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. And U.S. hopes of obtaining U.N. authorization to take action against Serbia for atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina will all but expire.