The move for an international conference as a means of bringing about negotiations between Israel and the Arab countries, particularly Jordan, seems to have received a new spurt of life in recent weeks.
But there seems as little chance of it actually coming about as it did when King Hussein of Jordan first proposed it in Washington last year in order to provide him with an “umbrella” for negotiations with Israel.
This would be true even if there was no split in Israel’s national unity government between Labor and Likud over the issue. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was in Europe last week promoting the idea, while Premier Yitzhak Shamir reiterated his firm opposition to such a conference.
This situation could change if the Soviet Union were to restore diplomatic relations with Israel, broken since the 1967 Six-Day War.
Hussein has demanded that the international conference include the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two of whom, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, do not have diplomatic relations with Israel.
THE SOVIET FACTOR
Both the Reagan Administration and Israel have rejected Soviet participation until Moscow restores diplomatic ties with Israel. Although China is rarely mentioned in this context, it too would have to open relations with Israel before it could participate in an international conference.
The Soviet Union, which has joined the effort pressing for an international conference, apparently sees it as a way for Moscow to be dealt into the Middle East peace process. The Kremlin has been dropping hints about restoring relations and the increased Jewish emigration from the USSR may also have something to do with this.
Peres returned home encouraged from a meeting in Rome with two Soviet officials and more may be learned when Soviet officials visit Israel this month, ostensibly to inspect Soviet property there.
There was no public sign during Secretary of State George Shultz’s meetings in Moscow this week. But when Shultz was asked at a press conference last week whether he would discuss an international conference with the Soviets, he appeared to reject it.
Shultz reiterated his position that the “object is greater stability and, in the end, peaceful relationships between countries in the Middle East.”
He said the U.S. believes the way to achieve this objective “is through bilateral, direct negotiations. Now the Jordanians feel, and many others feel, that there may be a role for an international conference in getting us to that point. We have been exploring with the Jordanians and others whether or not such a useful role can be defined and just how that would work.”
Shultz, after his meetings with Shamir earlier this year and with Jordanian Prime Minister Zeid Rifai last week, stressed that the U.S. was willing to explore an international conference as a means of bringing about direct negotiations, but not as a substitute for it. Shultz said direct negotiations were needed to reach an agreement between Israel and a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation and Israel and Syria.
Rifai, in his comments after meeting with Shultz, seemed to be moving away from Jordan’s willingness to discuss just the West Bank and Gaza. “We’re not talking about peace between Jordan and Israel,” he said. “We’re talking about a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem.”
He explained this included negotiations about the Golan Heights, south Lebanon as well as the Palestinian problem, which he said was “at the core of the Middle East conflict.”
Former President Carter, during his recent Mideast visit, also called for an international conference to reach a comprehensive settlement. The Carter Administration was moving to an international conference with the Soviet Union in 1977 when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat made his historic visit to Jerusalem which eventually led to direct negotiations between Israel and Egypt and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty.
Carter also said that in his talks with Syrian President Hafez Assad, the Syrian leader expressed a willingness to attend such a conference, a change from his earlier opposition.
When Israeli Ambassador Meir Rosenne was asked about this, he pointed to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s experience in 1974. As Kissinger relates it in his memoirs, he and Assad had a long talk in which they finally agreed about a proposed Geneva conference, but when Kissinger asked about a preference for dates, Assad replied it didn’t matter since Syria would not attend.
There is some suspicion that Assad’s change of heart may have more to do with the Soviet desire to be part of the Mideast peace process than any Syrian desire for negotiations.
ISSUE OF PALESTINIAN REPRESENTATION
Even if a mode for an international conference could be found, there is still the question of who represents the Palestinians. Israel, and this includes both Labor and Likud, rejects any negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The U.S. rejects any dealings with the PLO until it accepts UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Even Carter accepts this position though he said that since leaving the Presidency he has felt free to meet with members of the PLO.
Jordan and other Arab countries would no doubt press for PLO participation. The Jordanians have been saying for over a year that the PLO is ready to accept the Security Council resolutions, although every time the terrorist organization appears to be on the verge of doing so publicly it pulls back.
Israel insists that Palestinian members of a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation must come from the West Bank and Gaza. Efforts have been made for over a year to come up with some names. Although several have received the approval of Peres such a delegation is still a major stumbling block in the effort to bring about negotiations.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
