A More Visible Presense

By William E. Smith

The Marines move into East Beirut, as the U.S. loses patience with Israel

At first there were astonished looks and open stares. Then cautious waves and shy smiles. Eventually, cries in English and Arabic of "Welcome!" Some residents even shouted "God bless America!" as the visitors passed by, followed by groups of children on bicycles.

The newcomers to East Beirut were U.S. Marines. Since their arrival in Lebanon six weeks ago, the 1,200-man U.S. contingent had been confined to relatively remote areas around Beirut International Airport, while their 1,560 French and 1,400 Italian counterparts were carrying out more visible assignments throughout the devastated city. But last week President Reagan agreed to a request by Lebanese President Amin Gemayel for additional help in providing security in the Lebanese capital. It consisted in fact of only four Jeeps, prominently displaying the Stars and Stripes and carrying three Marines each. Nonetheless, the U.S. presence in East Beirut was an important signal of the Reagan Administration's commitment to the stability of an independent Lebanon. Said a Marine on duty at the airport: "We're here to do whatever has to be done, including fight if necessary."

As the Marines defused land mines and improved their bivouac positions, Washington was also moving on the broader questions that face the Middle East. U.S. Negotiator Morris Draper was in Beirut and Jerusalem, trying, with little success, to negotiate a withdrawal of Israeli, Syrian and Palestinian fighting forces from Lebanon. Late last week the U.S. reacted with unusual vehemence to a speech by Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Minister David Levy, who declared that five new Jewish settlements would soon be established on the West Bank. In his Sept. 1 speech outlining a new peace plan for the Middle East, President Reagan had specifically urged the government of Prime Minister Menachem Begin to freeze the development of all new settlements in the occupied territories. State Department Spokesman Alan Romberg described the latest announcement from Jerusalem as "most unwelcome." Said he: "We cannot understand why, at a time when we are actively seeking broader participation in the peace process, Israel persists in a pattern of activity which erodes the confidence of all . . . in the possibilities for a just and fairly negotiated outcome to the peace process."

At the heart of the dispute is the question of the future of the occupied territories. Under the Camp David accords, the U.S. is committed to the achievement of "autonomy" for the West Bank and Gaza Strip, whose population is overwhelmingly Palestinian. President Reagan proposed in September that the West Bank be linked to Jordan in a confederation. There are increasing signs, however, that while the Begin government accepted the principle of autonomy at Camp David, it is in fact aiming for the outright annexation of the West Bank. According to a research project conducted by Meron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, and completed earlier this year, Israel already exercises direct ownership of 27% of the West Bank. But by using an old statute from the days of the Ottoman Empire, it has managed to gain access to as much as 65% of all West Bank land. Israel's stated goal is to have 100,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, an increase of 76,000, by 1987. The U.S. believes that as long as Israel continues on this expansionist course the peace process is doomed.

The Reagan Administration is much more encouraged by recent events in Lebanon, where Gemayel has moved aggressively to restore his country's ties with the Arab world and to strengthen the tenuous links between Lebanese Christians and Muslims. During a visit to Morocco last week, he declared that he and King Hassan II were in agreement on various Arab problems over which "we are all suffering." Gemayel said that he would soon visit other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. Gemayel's motives are commercial as well as political. As a Lebanese businessman explained: "Beirut prospered as the commercial and financial center of the Arab world. Lebanon cannot survive without its Arab connections."

This policy has dismayed the Israelis, who had hoped to forge an active partnership with a Lebanese government headed by Amin Gemayel's brother Bashir, who was slain nine days before his scheduled inauguration as President two months ago. Perhaps more serious than the disappointment of the Israelis, from Gemayel's point of view, is the dissatisfaction of some members of the Lebanese Forces, the Phalangist-dominated organization of Christian militias that was once headed by Bashir. Many Phalangists resent Amin's attempts at conciliation with the Muslims, and they oppose an effort by his government to gain emergency powers for the next eight months.

Until last week, the Lebanese Forces were unchallenged as the dominant military group in East Beirut, while the fledgling Lebanese army had taken over the security of Muslim West Beirut. But Gemayel was anxious to exert the authority of the central government over East as well as West Beirut. And so, at midweek, he sent the Lebanese army into the eastern sector of the city along with elements of the multinational force.

In Jerusalem, meanwhile, the Israeli government's commission of inquiry continued its investigation of the massacre in two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut. At least 400 civilians are known to have died at the hands of Lebanese Christian militiamen whom the Israeli military authorities allowed to enter the Palestinian camps. The number of victims may be much higher: there are persistent reports in Beirut that as many as 1,000 residents of the camps are still missing.

The key witness last week was Major General Amir Drori, who, as commander of Israel's northern front, was in charge of Israeli operations in Beirut at the time of the massacre. He acknowledged that he had had some misgivings about what might happen if the militiamen were allowed to enter the Palestinian camps. Said he: "Everyone, somewhere in his mind, feared this possibility [of massacre]." He recalled that not long before the militiamen entered the camps at 6 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 16, an Israeli officer named "Reuven," who served under Drori, had "raised the possibility that these kinds of things might occur." But, continued Drori, "I told him that we knew [the militiamen] and that they had not done this kind of thing when we were near by."

Drori's statements conflicted with the testimony of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, who had said earlier that "no one in his worst dreams could have foreseen such a conclusion." Drori noted that "the question of morality" had been raised by the Israelis at previous meetings and that "it was clear that [the militiamen's] battlefield morality was not that of the Israeli Defense Forces." Interjected Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak, one of the three members of the commission: "What do you mean--that they were capable of killing women and children?" Replied Drori: "Throughout the war, the I.D.F. made supreme efforts to spare civilians. That was not clear with the Phalangists."

At 11:30 a.m. Friday, Drori testified, he ordered a halt to the operation because he had a "bad feeling about what was happening in the camps." In fact, he made no special effort to get the militiamen out of the camps until 5 a.m. Saturday, the deadline that had been previously arranged. Drori said that he had felt no sense of urgency because no one knew that a massacre was taking place.

Lieut. Avi Grabovsky, an assistant tank company commander in Beirut at the time of the massacre, disagreed. He testified that between 8 and 9 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 17, he and several members of his tank crew had been standing at their post and had seen militiamen kill five women and children in the Shatila camp, some 500 yds. away. When Grabovsky reported what he had seen to his regimental commander, he was told: "We know; it's not to our liking." But no one was ordered to intervene. At noon Friday, Grabovsky and his crew approached a militiaman and asked him why the Lebanese Forces were killing civilians. Replied the Christian militiaman: "Pregnant women give birth to terrorists. Children, when they grow up, will become terrorists."

Israeli reaction to the latest testimony was muted, since the law forbids public comment until the commission has completed its work. The implication, however, was clear to all: it was becoming increasingly difficult for Israeli officials to deny that their soldiers knew what was going on in the camps as early as Friday morning, and that their senior officers could have taken action much sooner than they did. --By William E. Smith. Reported by Robert Slater/Jerusalem and William Stewart/Beirut

With reporting by Robert Slater, William Stewart

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.