Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

f that slowed by David I.andan JERUSALEM (JTA)—The Cabinet decided by majority vote thii week to extend the life of Elon Moreh for at least another five weeks, the estimated time required to complete construction of a new settlement at Djebil Kebir six miles away. It was the second extension granted by the Cabinet since the Supreme Court ruled last October 22 that Elon Moreh was built illegally on seized Arab lands and must be removed in 30 days. The first extension expired Jan. 3. Cabinet Secretary A rye Naor read a Cabinet statement that blamed ‘'regretfully'' the difficult topographical conditions at the new site and recent heavy raips down wsik. It he had voted for the original six- ✓ week extension last month. “In my opinion, that was time enough,” Tamir said. Deputy Premier Simcha Ehrlich, leader of the Liberal Party, supported the extension but said his approval was conditional on formal assurances from, the settlers that they will leave Elon Moreh peacefully. Amnon Rubinstein, leader . of'the opposition Shai faction, denounced the Cabinet’s decision. “There is apparently no limit to the' government’s readiness to demean itself and kowtow to the Gush Emunim,” he said. Similar comments were made by Labor Alignment spokesmen. the Cabinet acted vti its own initiative, in affect rejecting the tractors and ot>er- heavy equipment to DjeMl Kebir, {he deadline last Thursday could not be met. Nevertheless, the three Democratic Movement ministers voted against the second extension. Justice Minister Shmuel Tamir told reporters that he hoped to avoid a clash between the militant Gush Emunim settlers and the army and for that reason tted *0 Premier Menachetn Begin, that it was not reasonable to extend the deadline. He said the extension would be impossible to defend in court should the owners of the affected land decide to bring new legal action. Therefore, Zamir questioned the wisdom and propriety of applying to the Supreme Court for an extension of the long-passed time limit. Technically, that limit was complied with when several parcels of land were returned last month to Arab villagers wjio had filed the original complaint. The government has acknowledged that the entire settlement must be removed since it has been established for “security” reasons that the high court found not to exist. Work at Djebil Kebir, which is located on State-owned land, began only three weeks ago after the Elon Moreh settlers indicated that they would leave peacefully. Subsequently they made their compliance contingent on the adoption of new legislation to change the legal status of Jewish settlements on the West Bank in a way that would bar future court mmSwim Any such measure is almost Certain to be defeated in the Knesset and is therefore unacceptable to the government. A violent Qpnfrontation between the settlers and the army is still possible. Begin apparently is banking on the assurance by National Religious Party right winger HaimrDruckman that the Gush Emunim leadership has promised that the Elon Moreh settlers would transfer peacefully to Djebil Kebir. Atlanta, Georgia, Friday, January 4,19M \ cr o c r\j CE r\i X tr to xj -i •* . X —i c o O 1X1 2 2 2 O LU —> > _ 2 < H 3 < 2 2 X o 2 LU h-. .—i 3C. LL O m 1X1 _1 ■—. I o O Five more weeks Israel’s Cabinet git Israeli school children rally near a replica of the Liberty Bell in Jerusalem recently, expressing their support for the U.S. hostages being held by Iranians at the American Embassy in Teheran. The youngsters carried banners and shouted slogans—some of the placards comparing the seizure of the embassy to the hijacking of an Air France jetliner three years ago. Is Israel real strategic asset or not? ' ? ■ "• by Joseph Poiakoff Th. AOI S«tt«ta WASHINGTON (JTA)—Contrasting accounts are being told of Defense Secretary Harold Brown’s views towards Israel’s usefulness in the Pentagon's strategy and his outlook for an American military presence in the Middle East. The varied accounts i followed a luncheon- meeting at the Pentagon Dec. 14 with Brown and 15 representatives of Jewish communal organizations in their personal capacities. The discussion was not off the record, although private, with the usual leakage occurring. A similar meeting with Brown was held 18 months ago and some comparisons with the recent session were pointed out by participants. The major difference is that in this instance the Iranian-American crisis and its implications for the U.S. and Israel pervaded the talk. Among those Who had attended both were Rabbi Alexander Schindler, Max Kampelman, Richard Maass, Morris Amitay, Hyman Bookbinder,' Irwin Field, Richard Shifter, Ben Epstein, Frank Lautenberg,’ Paul Berger and Alfred Motes. One generalized account of Brown's presentations was on the following lines: Iran is falling apart and a leftist regime may take over with ominous significance for the oil sheikhdoms and Arab governments friendly to the U.S. In these circumstances, the U.S. must proceed with new urgency for a solution to the Palestine problem because as long as this problem' percolates “moderate” Arabs are in danger. The U.S., according to this account, can't use Israel's Sinai bases which are to be turned over to Egypt in 1981 because that move would jeopardize President Anwar Sadat's safety. Neither can the U.S. consider Israel as a strategic asset except in the most dire circumstances. The impression Brown gave was that Israel must adapt itself to President Carter's formula because in essence the U.S. support ( of Israel is fundamentally moral, not strategic. When apprised of this account, some other participants expressed surprise. One found it “an unjustified, alarmist reactiofl* and that “an alarmist position is not warranted. There isn’t the slightest basis for it.” Brown did not show any reluctance, another- group said, to assert Israel’s importance to the U.S., a position he did not take 18 months ago. Those participants' account, also generalized, differed in ptany respects from the one they criticized. They stressed Brbwn said there is no question Israel is a strategic asset to the U.S. They quoted him as saying “we start frotn that premise“1hat lsratl.jp great strategic alset.” While 18 months ago', • Brown would not concede Israel's strategic importance, he now se^s Israel differently. Sadat, Brown reportedly said, is unwilling to grant bne rights in the Sinai to any foreign power. Saudi Arabia requires a settlement of the Palestinian question. However, Brown did not imply failure thus far to involve the Palestinian Arabs in thp peace process is Israel's fault. In this context. he pointed to Jordan's refusal to enter the autonomy talks with the U.S., Egypt and Israel. : When the two accounts were broached to another source, he responded that both accounts could be drawn from the discussion. Brown did speak out on the need to solve the Palestinian issue that troubles Saudi Arabia particularly. When asked about Israel’s strategic place. Brown said “grudgingly*.that Israel has some strategic vahie. This source observed Brown is “not a grdqt believer” in' Israel's strategic j- The source added the Carter Administration b facing “a helluva lot of criticism” on its Middle East policy and it is wondering what to do. The Defense Department’s current 'mission in Saudi Arabia (and three other countries) is to ask the Saudis “what do you want us to do.” Summing up, the source said “keep in mind that Brown called thit meeting. You figure it out from there.”