Israeli Attack Puts U.S. In A Tough Spot

The Israeli attack on a U.N. camp in southern Lebanon has created a quandary for both the United States and its Arab allies: how to react strongly enough to the shelling of Lebanese civilians, but not too strongly to hurt Prime Minister Shimon Peres in Israel’s upcoming election.

Even after Thursday’s attack, President Clinton declined to criticize Israel, limiting his remarks to a call for an immediate cease-fire and an expression of sympathy for those who died.

In the days since Israeli troops went on the offensive in response to Hezbollah firing rockets into northern Israel, the Clinton administration has both focused its ire on the guerrillas based in Lebanon and sought to quietly persuade both parties to stop fighting.

That approach has been embraced by Sen. Bob Dole, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who called Thursday’s attack “a terrible thing,” but blamed the fighters in Lebanon for starting the violence.

“You have to keep in mind it was all initiated by Hezbollah,” Dole said, adding: “I don’t know what other recourse Israel had.”

Even criticism from much of the Arab world, where there is increasing impatience with Hezbollah, has been unusually muted.

But some American experts on the Middle East were dismayed that the United States did not take a firmer stand against Thursday’s attack.

“If this president, who is so sensitive to the loss of civilian life, wants to preserve American credibility in the area, then the killing of so many people on a United Nations base has to be condemned,” said Judith Kipper, co-director of the Middle East Forum at the Council on Foreign Relations.

At the United Nations, the United States began to press for a Security Council resolution that would reinforce Clinton’s call for an immediate cease-fire.

But U.S. officials threatened to veto an Arab resolution that condemns Israel alone for the violence.