U.S. Seems Intent to Make Israel the Heavy in Geneva Talks Moves

The U.S. initiative to bring about a Middle East peace conference in Geneva by year’s end has entered its fourth week of diplomatic maneuvering with another Israeli-American flare up and indications that attempts would be continued by Washington to pin responsibility on Israel if failure to convene on schedule develops.

Publicly, the U.S. soft-pedalled angry sounds from Israel and blurred differences with Israel, par- ticularly on how to handle Arab demands for the Palestine Liberation Organization to be represented at an establishment of a Palestinian state, but unofficially U.S. officials did not hide their chagrin at Israel’s refusal to deal with the PLO or countenance a Palestinian state.

SAYS NO DAMAGE DONE

The State Department on Friday echoed Secretary of State Cyrus Vance’s view Thursday that “no damage was done” by the release by Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan of the U.S.-Israel “working paper” which Israel’s Cabinet approved Wednesday night. The paper has been transmitted to the governments of Egypt, Syria and Jordan and their reactions are awaited. After a delay, the paper also was given to the Soviet Union Friday. With the paper having been published in full, it is now considered academic when Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and others may be getting it as a formality.

(In Moscow, the official news agency Tass said it was clear that the working paper’s main point was “to split Arab ranks” and exclude the PLO from peacemaking efforts. The working paper, Tass added, “keeps silent on the crucial question of participation” of the PLO in the Geneva talks, “which, according to decisions by Arab summit meetings, is the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine.”)

Vance also took a soft approach to Dayan’s alleged description of President Carter’s expressions in their long meeting in October in New York as “brutal” and “extremely rough” and spoke about Israel’s isolation. Vance said he would not agree with the word “brutal” or “extremely rough, “saying he thought “we will be able to communicate with each other very well.”

Regarding reports that the U.S. was upset over the publication of the agreement, State Department spokesman Hodding Carter said he was “not prepared to answer” whether the U.S. had understood Israel was not to make it public until the Arabs had responded to it. Both here and in Israel, however, Carter Administration officials were irritated by the publication, saying Dayan had promised that Israel would not publish the document during the time the Arabs were considering it.

The U.S. officials were concerned, they said, that it will be harder for Arab countries to agree to the document now that it has been published. However, this contention was offset by Thursday’s official State Department position that the agreement in any case is not final and represents nothing more than a paper that would undergo revisions when the Arabs gave their views.

CONFLICTING VIEWS EXPRESSED

At the Capital, Congressional sources took conflicting views. One well-placed source said the Carter-Vance-Dayan talks did include Israel’s isolation with enough implication to be taken as a Presidential warning to Dayan to go along with some U.S. positions or face rising resentment. An other, however, said he thought that the Dayan language was an interpretation that could vary with the individual hearing the comments.

Meanwhile, the State Department reiterated in strong terms that the U.S. and Israel “do not have agreement” about the PLO. Spokesman Carter said “The question of representation of the Palestinian people is still to be decided.” He added, however, that “what still stands and remains in effect is that all the parties, and that includes Israel, have to agree on the shape, the identity, the form of additional participation on the change of any of the terms of reference of the original agreement on the convening of the Geneva conference.”

Carter was pressed by reporters for clarification and possible verbal understandings in view of Israeli opinion that the working paper indicates the PLO is not a party to the talks but that non-PLO Palestinians could be involved in the Arab delegation. Carter replied that “we still have a great deal of negotiating to do on both the procedure and organizational questions not only with the Arabs but with Israel.”

Both Israeli and U.S. officials appear to agree that no understanding or agreements exist beyond the working paper but there were indications that differences exist in the interpretation of the working paper’s six points. Carter said “We don’t have agreement on those points that go beyond” the statement, when he was questioned about its first point which states:

“The Arab parties will be represented by a unified Arab delegation which will include Palestinian Arabs. After the opening session the conference will split into working groups.”