Baker’s Departure from Middle East Leaves Cabinet Split on Peace Plan

A serious split emerged at the highest levels of Israel’s government as the Cabinet engaged in a rancorous post-mortem over the failed visit of U.S. Secretary of State James Baker.

Evidence of the gap had appeared Friday, when the government did not speak to Baker with a single voice. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Foreign Minister David Levy apparently presented opposing views on key issues to the secretary of state and continued to argue them at the Cabinet session Sunday.

Baker flew home Friday upon receiving word that his 96-year-old mother had died in Houston. The abruptness of his departure was therefore understandable.

But the toughly worded parting statement read to reporters by State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler made clear he held Israel responsible for his inability, after three extended tours of the region since mid-March, to nail down a process that might yield peace.

“Questions remain here in Israel,” the statement said. “We still need some answers from the Israeli government relating primarily to the modalities before we can move the process forward.”

Baker made no reference to “answers” from Arab leaders during the lengthy talks with them that took up most of his tour.

By all accounts, the talks with the Arabs were even less forthcoming than the Israelis. But he managed to leave his Arab hosts on an upbeat note, jarringly absent when he left Israel.

‘MORE SERIOUS THINGS TO WORRY OVER’

Shamir said in a Sunday morning radio interview that he believed Baker’s effort would continue in the future. In any event, the prime minister had “more serious things to worry over” than the peace process. “The absorption of immigrants preoccupies me more,” he said.

Nevertheless, it was the peace process that dominated the Cabinet debate Sunday.

The stumbling block was the nature of the regional conference supposed to usher in parallel peace talks Israel would hold with its Arab neighbors and the Palestinians.

Levy’s ideas were closer to the scenario favored by the United States. But whatever Levy offered by way of concessions to the secretary was withdrawn by Shamir, the Cabinet learned.

“I have had to say no in my life before,” Shamir told the Cabinet. He insisted there was no crisis looming with Washington and hoped the United States would persevere in its efforts.

But reports surrounding Baker’s departure and subsequent U.S. media commentary have starkly highlighted the differences between Washington and Jerusalem.

According to one American commentator, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, U.S. officials left the impression Baker was trying to administer some diplomatic “shock therapy” when he indicated that President Bush might have to reassess the U.S. approach to Middle East peace.

One major Israeli difference with the Americans was over their insistence that the conference they would host jointly with the Soviet Union should have greater scope and longevity than the brief ceremonial occasion envisioned by Israel.

Baker proposed that instead of adjourning, the conference could reconvene in six months in case of deadlocked talks, though only with the consent of both parties.

That was too much for Tehiya, one of the right-wing parties in Shamir’s government that opposes territorial concessions. The idea was also rejected by the prime minister himself.

‘DIFFERENCES OF NUANCE’

Shamir’s position was supported by the most powerful elements of Likud, including Defense Minister Moshe Arens and Deputy Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Health Minister Ehud Olmert, deemed a moderate by Likud standards, backed Levy, as did Arye Deri, the interior minister who represents the Orthodox Shas party.

Both sought to minimize the split between Shamir and Levy. Olmert spoke of “differences of nuance” rather than substance and predicted that the peace process would move forward.

He said that when the prime minister opposed “continuance” of the conference beyond the start of bilateral talks, he really meant a “U.N.-type continuance” that would turn the process into a full-fledged international conference, which everyone in the government opposes.

Levy maintained that only “a political neophyte” would confuse an international conference and the regional one Baker was proposing, which could reconvene in six months only with Israel’s consent.

It could not take up or decide disputed questions between the parties and therefore would not be a decision-making forum, Levy contended.

The long-term domestic political significance of the split was not immediately clear. Some observers felt that Levy, though outgunned in the Cabinet, was better attuned to the sentiments of the party’s rank and file.

Those observers thought he would be vindicated and might even achieve outright victory were Likud’s huge Central Committee convened to debate the issue.

Until now however, calls to convene the grassroots Central Committee have emanated from Ariel Sharon and other hard-liners, who have opposed the American peace initiative from the start.