Tragedy In the Middle East

AS THE WORLD witnesses the carnage wrought by Israel's massive invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon, there can be little question about the reprehensible nature of the kind of retaliation the Israelis chose.

That is not to say that in light of the realities of the Mideast some form of Israeli reprisal would not have been understandable after the brutal, peace-shattering Palestinian terrorist attack. Israel could hardly have been expected to undertake a calm, turn-the-other-cheek response to yet another materialization of a threat they have long encountered.

And yet in bombing and occupying as much territory as they have, in killing over 700 and leaving another 100,000 homeless, the Israelis have gone beyond the point of understandable retaliation. The original question of whether a reprisal was justified becomes an irrelevant one--smashed to pieces by an invasion that raises far more serious questions about the future of peace efforts in the region.

While the Israelis may be right in asserting that the terrorist attack lends credence to their oft-voiced concerns about security, they are clearly mistaken if they believe any kind of military operation--even the creation of a six-mile buffer zone across an entire border--can enhance that security. More likely, the Israeli move will inspire further terrorist activity and a continuation of the cycle of violence. Hate just breeds hate. The guerillas cannot be bombed into submission--they will emerge yet again as promised, if not from the north then from other borders or in other ways.

What is particularly discouraging is the impact of recent events on the prospect for an overall settlement. If Prime Minister Begin believes withdrawal from Lebanon can be used as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Washington and Cairo, he could well be in for a surprise. The invasion is likely to do nothing except severely set back negotiations and divert attention from the main issues of a Palestinian homeland and the occupied territories.

It should be noted, however, that Israel is not solely to blame for shattering the fragile status-quo. Moreover, the terrorist attack gives some validity to Israeli fears about negotiating with the PLO at this stage. That is not meant to belittle the necessity of establishing a Palestinian homeland on the West Bank. Nor is it intended to imply that an overall settlement at Geneva--taking account of that necessity--is not the ultimate solution to the problem of peace. It does suggest, though, that perhaps the best way to capitalize on the momentum left over from Egyptian President Sadat's "sacred mission" is to move towards an Egyptian-Israeli accord. With prospects for successful negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians so bleak, such an accord is the best that can be hoped for at the moment. Egypt, so isolated in the Arab world already, would isolate itself some more; Israel would turn over various occupied territories.

In the meantime, Israel should comply with the U.N. Security Council resolution and withdraw entirely from Lebanon. A U.N. peace-keeping force is an inadequate solution at best but all that is acceptable at present. Only with the ending of the occupation can the real issues at hand be addressed. Hope, so often dashed, should not be abandoned altogether, despite the events of recent weeks.