WASHINGTON - Everyone knows that Israel's Lebanon wishlist will not be met in its entirety. A number of the concessions that Israel will presumably have to agree to in the days and weeks to come have already been leaked from the various and sundry diplomatic talks being held in Beirut, Jerusalem and Rome.

Hezbollah will not be disarmed, at least not in the short term. Any international force to be deployed in Lebanon will serve as little more than a buffer force along the border. The likelihood of its remaining there depends largely on the goodwill of Hezbollah, and perhaps that of Syria and Iran, too.

It is similarly unlikely that Israel's kidnapped soldiers will be returned without at least a token release of prisoners.

	Advertisement

But it is the Shaba Farms that will pose one of the greatest problems for Israel. Israel recognizes that it is not its territory and ostensibly should not find it hard to hand over the keys, but conceding the area to the Lebanese government, or to a committee that will decide whether to give it to Lebanon or to Syria, will be presented as another Hezbollah victory. The Americans, too, know this.

Nevertheless, Shaba Farms is on the table because Lebanon asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to put it there, and for the time being Lebanese requests carry a lot of weight. The U.S. paid a high price in terms of its international image for its near-unconditional support of Israel's campaign, for which it will demand painful concessions for the sake of maintaining the stability of the Lebanese government.

The U.S. realizes that Israel will probably not succeed in destroying Hezbollah's infrastructure in Lebanon. It hopes that strengthening the government in Beirut will eventually enable that regime to get the job done, but is not counting on it. "Right now Hezbollah is not disarmed, and to hold off as the precondition for deployment of [an international] force.. is to create a precondition that cannot be met," Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs David Welch said Wednesday while flying with Rice from Israel to Rome.

"So let's be realistic about this," Welch counseled. In other words, the time for making big promises is over, now is the time for negotiations.

And if there are to be negotiations, then it is more than likely that the Americans will also have to pay a price. Just as the U.S. was forced to take a new tack with regard to Iran, now it may have to resume talks with Syria. That would be a very bitter pill to swallow, especially for Pentagon officials, but there are already signs that they are getting ready to do so.

The argument in favor of reopening the dialogue with Syria says this is the only way to reassure Lebanon and Hezbollah and to ensure the welfare of the international force in the making. Further, an agreement with Syria would isolate Iran and create a buffer between Iran and Lebanon. In addition, it would be a pity not to exploit the fact that Syria has no connection, either ideological or religious, to the Shi'ite revolution.

But the most decisive argument in favor of talking with Damascus could be a public-relations argument: The U.S. administration is finding it increasingly harder to explain its refusal to talk to Syria. According to one U.S. official, the government has few tools left for dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and in the absence of an attractive plan for waging war against it, the only thing left is jaw-jaw rather than war-war.