Chapter 46 Section III Middle East

The bitterly fought Yom Kippur War in 1973, in which Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, changed the way the West viewed the Middle East.First, the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) cartel of Arab oil producers has hurt the economies of Western countries through production cuts, soaring oil prices and selective embargoes against oil producers friendly to Israel. and caused great panic.Nowhere is this incident more vivid than the dependence of Western living standards on unpredictable Middle Eastern politics.Second, although the Israeli counteroffensive has crossed the Suez Canal and pushed the Syrian army to within 25 miles of Damascus, the Egyptians and Syrians are fighting better than they did in 1967, and the Soviets are threatening to send troops to enforce "Peacekeeping" Mission 6 Third, the US response was to take the lead in achieving the disengagement of Israeli and Arab forces.From now on, US diplomacy is the primary external force for finding solutions to the Middle East problem.These activities were initiated by Dr. Kissinger and continued by President Carter.

For countries like Syria, Egypt and Jordan, and for the Palestine Liberation Organization itself, life has become more complicated, though more promising.Countries have their own priorities, and realistically none of them will be achieved by armed force in the foreseeable future. Those countries that have proven to be the most cooperative in their pursuit of a deal with Israel are likely to gain the support of the United States. The perks of their economies, their economies are crippled by heavy war readiness demands and massive socialist measures.In this case, natural competitors who had previously been concealed, or at least veiled, by obligations to the "Arab cause" emerged.This was the Middle East background when I visited Egypt and Syria in March 1976 and Israel in March.

But the domestic political background at that time was also very delicate.In the eyes of Middle Eastern countries, British politicians are clearly divided into supporters of Israel and supporters of Arab countries and Palestinians.In the shadow cabinet, I am afraid that I am a minority, and I have strong respect and admiration for traditional regimes in Israel and the Arab world.Most of my colleagues are of the traditional conservative "Arab wing", although there is a good deal of support for Israel among the younger members of the parliamentary group, partly because of Israel's audacity to pursue the country's self-interest.The Jewish bloc in Britain closely monitors everything the parties say about the Arab-Israeli conflict.So when Reggie Maudlin demanded in a House of Commons debate in November 1975 that Britain recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization and a Palestinian state, the party was threatened with an open split and people resented me.

I decided to articulate our policy at a gathering of ex-Jewish soldiers in Finchley.This is why the Conservatives believe that any solution to the Middle East must be based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, which itself emphasizes two fundamental requirements: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces"; and recognition of the right of states in the region "to live in peace, within secure and recognized borders, free from threats and acts of force".I added that we condemn terrorism in any form and purporting to serve any cause. This stance, at least to me, is more than rhetoric designed to get us out of trouble.I do think that Israel's security must be guaranteed and that the Palestinians should be respected, in the circumstances we envisioned it in a federation with Jordan.These two goals are not as incompatible as fire and water.While Israel's need for defensible borders is understandable given its history, it cannot achieve lasting peace without resolving the Palestinian issue.And for the Palestinians and the Arab states that support them to varying degrees, the best place to start is to recognize Israel's right to exist there, both in action and in words.However, the panic caused by Reggie's speech confirmed the complexity and diplomatic danger of my upcoming visit.

I arrived in Cairo on Wednesday, January 7, 1976, and had dinner with President Sadat and his wife that evening.We met briefly for the first time in London only two months ago.We had a long talk before dinner.I found him to have a strong and forthright personality, with a good understanding of the power relationships in the western world.Sadat still had to juggle shrewd diplomatic maneuvers to balance relations with the United States and the Soviet Union. After the dramatic ouster of Soviet advisers in 1972, he had secured Soviet support during the war in 1973, but is now again inclined to look to the United States.Just two months after my visit, Egypt formally canceled the friendship treaty it signed with the Soviet Union in 1971.

During our conversation, he claimed to be reasonably satisfied with Egypt's economic situation: at this point there was some hope that the destruction of Beirut as a financial center might indirectly benefit Cairo.And he is hoping for help from the Gulf states.But I think it's significant that the president bemoaned the money that was spent paying for the war that could have gone to Egypt's peaceful development.He told me he was feeling "very tired," which I take to mean both Egypt and himself.He felt he had a good relationship with President Ford, which may indicate a shift in his thinking.Indeed, he gave the impression that Egypt would remain neutral unless forced into another war.There were signs of the well-known rivalry between Egypt and Syria in his talk.He told me that country had supplied arms to both sides in the Lebanese civil war, adding that the Syrian Baath Party was hated throughout the Arab world.The impression I had formed was that Sadat was a difficult man, daring to be bold, and that he was contemplating a major change in his country's foreign relations; however, I could not foresee how drastic the change would be.Less than two years later, he made his historic visit to Jerusalem, which resulted in an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

Sightseeing during my short stay in Egypt was as much a diplomatic necessity as a pleasure.But even this involves risks.After climbing the Pyramid of Cheops, I descended, somewhat out of breath, when I spotted a small group of photographers, journalists and officials standing next to a camel.The camel driver's name was Ibrahim and the camel's name was "Jack Hurlbert", perhaps a British soldier who used the name of a rapping British comedian popular in the 1930s and 1940s That's how it was named.It appears to be a well-known animal, having been ridden by Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home when he visited.Everyone seemed to think I would follow suit.Possible scenarios flashed through my mind, and I was afraid that instead of just riding, I would have to stay on the camel's back.I firmly refused.Ibrahim claimed he was upset.If Sir Alec could ride Jack Hulbert, why couldn't Mrs Thatcher?I saw the eyes of the camel driver.Suggesting that he should be paid twice as much for not riding the camel might please both of us.He very reluctantly agreed.So the British newspapers published pictures of me being welcomed by President Sadat, rather than some less dignified gesture.

On Friday afternoon I flew to Damascus, where President Assad had just celebrated the fifth anniversary of the military coup that brought him to power with wise airdrops of gifts and massive increases in civil service and military salaries in Damascus.Before this, the head of the country had never been in office for more than two or three years, and he was already confirmed to have survived.Assad, a member of the Ravit minority, presides over a government that includes people from a wide range of religions, ethnicities and political organisations, displaying a high degree of political dexterity in gaining and maintaining power.His Ba'ath Party itself was a curious amalgam of elements derived from socialism and Islam, founded in the 1940s under the slogan "One Arab Nation Endowed with Eternal Mission."Assad has developed this peculiar blend of activism, pragmatism and ruthlessness into a delicate art.It is the art that is required to succeed in the fierce, turbulent political world of the Middle East.He is considered the most anti-Western leader in the region, and he is not only responsible for many difficulties in the Arab-Israeli peace process, but also for plotting to destroy Lebanon.The main mistake of Western policy, which has unfortunately persisted for many years, is to underestimate him and exclude him from negotiations.But because he was subservient to the Soviet Union and supported international terrorism, it was easy for the West to do this to him.

Syria is a tightly controlled police state.Romanian-style wiretapping is apparently all the rage in the official hotel where I live.On our arrival, Gordon Reese and I went upstairs to our room to freshen and change.But Gordon found no towels in his bathroom and knocked on my door asking to borrow one.As soon as I went to get the towels, a maid came rushing to bring them to him. Our hosts would have found the private conversations of their guests more interesting that evening.The Syrians invited me to a secret meeting with the Palestine Liberation Organization the next day without warning.I'm not going to agree to do that.I had no intention of meeting them formally, let alone in secret, because the Palestine Liberation Organization refused to renounce terrorism, but I agreed and actually welcomed the opportunity to visit a Palestinian refugee camp, and they arranged to take me to the outer suburbs of Damascus A refugee camp.

The next day we drove a long, rough road to Quneitra, the last town on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.It was destroyed when the Israeli army retreated in 1974.Even some of the cemeteries there are said to have been desecrated, and the entire town is now a showcase for Zionist crimes.I was told that there is now only one resident there, an old woman who refused to leave and lived there throughout the occupation.As you can imagine, I ran into her by chance on my way around. We stopped at a Palestinian refugee camp on our way back to Damascus. "Refugee camp" turns out to be somewhat of a misnomer.It is a sprawling settlement with roads, tents, social halls, shops, hospitals and schools.I was shown a school where the children were assembled in one hall and taught very seriously by a female teacher.I imagined it was some kind of prayer meeting, and asked my guide what the woman was talking about.The answer: "She was reminding these children that they were lucky enough to be in this school because at least one of their parents had been murdered by the Jews. Now I understand why this school is named "Martyrs' School."

On my return that evening I dined with the President at his comfortable but modest residence.He is clearly highly intelligent and has a definite purpose.While he impressed me, there was little consensus.We talked about the intention of the Arab countries to introduce a Security Council draft resolution on the question of Palestine.In my opinion, there are many proposals that could be made to make this resolution responsibly crafted without incurring a US veto.But of course it is impossible for me to know what the real purpose of the Syrian President is in this matter: since Syria's general position is against peace negotiations with Israel, it is better to veto a very pro-Palestinian resolution than to pass a less pro-Palestinian one. The resolution probably made him happier.In any case, it was clear at the time that his real preoccupation was with the Lebanese civil war, as he insisted repeatedly that Syria would never tolerate the partition of Lebanon.I was not surprised when the Syrian Army intervened there by force a few months later.But oddly, I feel like we've developed a relationship of mutual respect.He walked with me to the garden gate and jokingly asked if I had been woken up early by the prayer-time reporter from the nearby mosque.I said, "No, I get up earlier than the mullahs." I tried to be the perfect diplomat in both Egypt and Syria, but the questions posed to me at the last press conference in Damascus made me feel like I needed to be more forthright.Members of the Arab press corps pressed me on Britain's attitude to the Palestine Liberation Organization, demanding to know why we did not recognize it.Having just visited a refugee camp, I state the above policy of impartiality, but I condemn the terrorism of the Palestine Liberation Organization and say that unless it is based on law and not violence, you cannot get peace among nations.They dispute this.This stirred my emotions again, and I reminded them that if they didn't benefit from some kind of rule of law, they didn't have the freedom to ask questions.I also said that I fundamentally disagree with the anti-Zionist resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly, which portrays Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination.A journalist pointedly reminded me that Jewish groups in Palestine also engaged in terrorist acts.I am fully aware of this.Brits of my age remember very well that in July 1947 two sergeants from Liverpool were hanged by Irgen and their bodies were used as a trap.But one act of terrorism does not justify another act of terrorism.Some at the time thought the blunt speech was somehow a diplomatic gaffe.It doesn't matter to me because I take principles very seriously.In fact, it didn't take long for me to do well. In March, I visited Israel for the third time.One of my earlier meetings was with former Prime Minister Golda Meir, who was still in office when I first met her.I have enormous respect for her, and perhaps, as another woman in politics, I especially understand that strange mixture of toughness and tenderness that makes her at times motherly and at other times commanding.She is deeply pessimistic about the prospects for peace and is particularly concerned about the Syrians.She said it was brave of me to criticize Palestinian terrorism in Malaysia and congratulated me warmly.She also strongly endorsed my speech on the Soviet threat, which she flatteringly linked to Solzhenitsyn's.In her view the West is far from being tough enough. I find that my comments about the Palestine Liberation Organization have created a similar impression on other Israeli politicians I have spoken to.Now and in subsequent visits as Prime Minister, I have not flinched from condemning terrorism, and I have consistently defended Israel's right to a safe existence.These facts allow me to speak to the Israelites frankly, but as a friend.In my discussions with Mrs. Meir and later with Foreign Minister Yigal Aron, Defense Minister Shimon Peres, and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, I conveyed my impressions from Egypt and Syria, That is, Arab leaders are now thinking along the lines of a possible solution.I also tried to persuade my hosts to consider not only Israel's security -- which I fully realized must be their primary goal -- but also the long-term need to reach a settlement with moderate Arab regimes.But the politicians I spoke to were generally pessimistic, Prime Minister Rabin in particular, who at this point did not seem to understand that the Arab people wanted to see justice for the Palestinians, and that dealing with this would be difficult. However, as always, I find that there is much to admire in Israel - a democracy in a region that does not know what democracy is, where people are prepared to make sacrifices for their The money goes into production: they have indeed blossomed the desert.However, there is one institution that never fascinates me, and that is the jibbutz. I visited one near the Golan Heights and had lunch there.Living among the kibbutz in these areas is partly a need for security and partly a matter of economic theory.However, it also seemed to me a rather debilitating and unnatural social experiment in collectivism.I admire people who choose such a life, but would never want to be one of them.Not so my daughter Carol.As a teenage girl with some left-wing leanings, she told Dennis and me that she wanted to spend some time in a jibbutz.We were concerned about it, but we knew there was a Gibbutz that looked right, and we finally went with it.The life there is extremely difficult and the conditions are not perfect.One of Carol's tasks is to vaccinate the chicks.She took them out of one box, gave them a shot, and dropped them into another box.Unfortunately, every now and then a fighter jet roars by and the chicks jump and end up getting mixed up.Carol returns with a less romantic view of the work of a farm laborer.Besides, as Dennis later told me, she may have been bad at vaccinating chickens, but she was definitely vaccinated against socialism. I was taken up to the Golan Heights by an Israeli general—in civilian life he was a professor.I was impressed by his gentleness and soundness of opinion.At an appropriate moment he told me that the land where we stand is not the land of Israel, but a temporary trusteeship until the day a secure solution is produced.He was a caring man, and when he saw me shivering from the cold wind that lashed the mountain, he handed me his jerkin.I was photographed wearing this and drew fury and protest from the Syrians.So my first major foray into the Middle East ended in an atmosphere of misunderstanding in the region. In retrospect, my trip to the Middle East took place during an important transition period between the Arab-Israeli war of 1973 and the Egyptian-Israel peace settlement brokered by the United States in 1978-1979.While the Camp David accords ultimately failed to resolve the deeper issues, the agreements were commendable for the key players — Jimmy Carter, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.Agreement still seemed the best basis for progress when I became Prime Minister.In practice, however, the rise of armed, ambitious Islamic fundamentalism, largely funded and centered in Iran, is bound to upset all these assumptions. I was one of the last senior Western politicians to visit Iran while the Shah was still in power.The troubles there started long ago. There were riots in Tabriz in February 1978 against the Shah's westernized reform plans, which the mullahs called an evil attack on Islam, and, alas, the common people felt that they were often forced to destroy their traditions lifestyle.Due to the frequent disturbances, the Carter administration's attitude towards the Shah of Iran was vacillating.At times it has offered aid to the king, viewing him as a bastion of Western influence in a strategic center of the world; at other times it has denounced his human rights record and demanded enlightened reforms.What this advice forgets is summed up nicely by the Shah himself: "I will live like the Swedish king, if my subjects live like the Swedes." In any case, the inconsistency of the Carter administration only digs America's potential allies in the Middle East will not fail to see that the Shah of Iran has encouraged his opponents. As for me, I don't doubt Iran's strategic importance to the West.Moreover, while by most definitions Iran is only on the fringes of the Middle East, it has a great deal of potential influence in the region, as later events have demonstrated.All in all, I admire the Shah personally and believe his policy of modernizing along the western path will turn out to be the right one.In retrospect, I can realize that the success of this policy would have required a more gradual approach, taking into account the customs and habits of his people, which was certainly more effective than a retreat to fundamentalism and medieval economics. Desirably, the latter two have lowered the standard of living of the Iranian people.To distract the people, the regime has had to engage in political and religious adventurism abroad. However, when I arrived in Tehran on the evening of Friday, April 28, and was greeted by my ambassador to the country, Tony Parsons, all of the above was in the future.I found Iran to be a busy, prosperous, Western-style country on the surface.Many, many new cars drive the crowded streets.Stores sell luxury items to the richly dressed women in keeping with modern trends.Moreover, this consumer society is fueled not just by oil, but by new industrial investment, as I learned from my visit to the extremely modern Iranian National Automobile Factory. Tony briefed me on the situation.Not only did he have a good personal relationship with the Shah of Iran, but he also had intimate knowledge of what was happening across the country.By this time it was widely accepted that the main threat to Iran's strongly pro-Western regime came from the Communist-backed opposition Communist Party of Iran (CPI).Even the Shah himself seems to believe this, judging by his public statements.But Tony Parsons has seen that the mullahs and their supporters are also a threat.This turned out to be correct.However, Tony was very candid, describing the incident later admitting that he had thought the army would be in control.It turned out to be very wrong.But none of us foresaw the disintegration of the Shah's position so quickly. I was received by Justice Minister Amir Abbas Huwayda at the palace on Saturday morning.Huwayda was a suave and prominent figure whom I later saw on television executed by the ayatollah's regime after a sham trial. When I met the Shah of Iran, he was initially concerned about the communist-backed coup that had just taken place in Afghanistan: He said he had expected such a coup to happen eventually, but 10 years sooner than he thought.He repeatedly spoke of Iran being on the front line against communism.He did not reveal any resentment toward his vacillating Western supporters, although he had reason to harbor such feelings.Not only are Americans uncertain about his obligations, but Iranians insist that anti-government propaganda also dominates BBC World News in Persian.When I left, I was impressed by his knowledge of world affairs.But of course, no amount of this wisdom can stop the disruption he is facing at home. The Shah of Iran was a handsome man with a somewhat haggard appearance, which I later learned was an early sign of the cancer that would kill him.There was nothing in his demeanor to suggest that he thought his time was running out.When he goes out to inspect his troops, he flies in a helicopter.It might have been a bad omen: I was told at this point he was always flying by helicopter rather than crossing the street because of the threat of attack.I also noticed that when I visited the ancient mosque in Isfahan, my personal security was very strict. In retrospect, my impressions of Iran seemed to have a taste for paintings in which French aristocrats played in artificial pastoral scenes on the eve of the Revolution.A year later, the Shah of Iran would have fled the country, the Ayatollah Khomeini had returned, the Islamic Republic had been proclaimed, and killing and terror were rampant.But here I was invited to see the splendor of the peacock throne and the magnificent jewels of the crown, to be enchanted by the splendor of the ruins of Luangsepolis. Could the Shah of Iran Be Saved?Had the Americans been more assertive, had the French insisted that the Ayatollah's asylum in Paris be conditional on his abstention from political activity in Iran, and if the Shah of Iran had appeased the still moderate Moslems, perhaps the result might have been different. different.In fact, the forces unleashed by the Iranian revolution remain unchecked to this day and constitute one of the greatest threats to international peace and stability.