As Israel Blames Arab Intransigence, It Sets New Condition for Peace Talks

Israel, having flatly rejected President’s Bush’s plea for flexibility on procedural matters holding up a peace conference, has sought to blame Arab intransigence for the impasse while reportedly setting a new condition of its own.

That was the situation when the Cabinet convened for its regular weekly meeting Sunday to discuss the letter Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir sent to Bush last Thursday.

The policy-making Inner Cabinet is set to meet Wednesday for a deeper discussion, by which time the United States may have indicated what its next move will be.

So far, Washington’s response has been low-key and without recrimination. “They have some other ideas. We have ideas. We continue to talk,” White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Friday. He refused to divulge the contents of Shamir’s letter to Bush.

It is widely known, however, that the prime minister refused Bush’s proposals for a limited U.N. presence at a conference in the form of an “observer” or a conference that would reconvene periodically, with Israel’s consent, for progress reports.

It is clear that Shamir did not budge from his position that the conference must be nothing more than a ceremonial opening for bilateral talks between Israel and its various Arab adversaries, after which it would dissolve.

According to reports here Sunday, Shamir threw in another condition.

He argued that even so limited a conference should not be convened without prior agreement on who is to represent the Palestinians.

Shamir recalled Israel’s position a year ago, when the United States proposed that Israel talk with a Palestinian delegation about elections in the administered territories.

NO PRESSURE FROM WASHINGTON

Egypt offered to host those talks. But Israel refused to allow East Jerusalem Arabs or Palestinians living abroad to participate. It also refused to meet with anyone it considered associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization or a “nationalist” bent on Israel’s destruction.

Israel has never specified which Palestinians it would be willing to talk to. Observers believe Shamir raised the issue to head off the embarrassing possibility the U.S. administration would send out invitations to a conference, despite the absence of agreement on its nature or form.

Foreign Minister David Levy, who was reported last week to be urging the government to be more flexible, lined up solidly behind the prime minister Sunday.

He insisted to reporters that Shamir’s letter did not “slam the door” on further contacts. He challenged the United States to extract “meaningful flexibility” from the Arab side.

So far there is no sign of pressure in Washington. Asked if Shamir’s response was a setback, Fitzwater replied, “No, I wouldn’t characterize it that way because, you know, we have a situation where positions change and they’re fluid.

He added that Secretary of State James Baker, who spent most of April and May visiting Middle East capitals, believes enough progress has been made to “continue to pursue this matter.”