Israel’s proposal to convene the next round of bilateral peace talks five days later than the United States had planned is seen here as a sign of Israeli anxiety over the Bush administration’s activist posture in the peace process.
The Israeli decision, which was revealed after a meeting Wednesday of the Inner Cabinet, offers an agreement to come to Washington on Dec. 9, the last day of Chanukah, for the start of negotiations.
But the Israelis want the talks in Washington to be procedural and then move to the Middle East for substantive negotiations.
Middle East experts now believe the talks will be held in Washington before the end of December, but not necessarily on Dec. 4 or 9.
“Israel and the Arabs are destined for a cold embrace in Washington in December,” said Adam Garfinkle, coordinator of the political studies program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.
The Israeli counterproposal does not jeopardize the peace talks, said Robert Satloff, deputy executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
But it “does reflect anxiety over how Americans are handling the process and underlying tension over how America views its own role in process,” he said.
Secretary of State James Baker offered Washington as the site for negotiations Israel would hold separately with Syria, Lebanon and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, after the parties could not agree on a location.
Israel’s concern is that by breaking the deadlock over the site, the administration is encouraging the Arabs to believe that it will intervene whenever there is a deadlock over substantive issues, Satloff said.
UPSET OVER U.S. PROPOSALS
He said Israel is also concerned that the U.S. invitations were accompanied by proposals to each of the parties on issues they could raise in the bilateral talks.
The most controversial was the suggestion that Israel and Syria consider what could be offered in return for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
Although Washington has stressed that the proposals were offered only as suggestions, Satloff said Israel is anxious about even hypothetical suggestions.
Garfinkle agreed that the Israelis are upset by recent U.S. actions.
“The Israelis feel like they have been beaten up lately” by the United States, which has made “a number of promises which have not been kept,” he said.
He said there are limits to what Israel can be told to do by the United States.
Garfinkle added that the Israeli people feel Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and the nation itself were insulted when the United States sent out the invitations Nov. 21, after promising Shamir they would not go out until he met with President Bush the following day.
Jess Hordes, director of the Washington office of the Anti-Defamation League, also expressed reservations about how Washington has handled the whole issue.
“There is the danger of the United States creating a sense in the Arab world that they really don’t have to negotiate,” Hordes said.
“If U.S. intervention becomes a given, it may encourage the Arabs to say no and turn to the United States, rather than negotiate directly with Israel.”
Henry Siegman, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, said the administration should understand that it has been insensitive to Israel’s feelings.
At the same time, he urged the Israeli government to “keep its eye on the ball and save its ammunition, because there are going to be tough confrontations on substance.”
Siegman said that the location of talks is “essentially a trivial” problem and not a substantive issue.
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.
