Israel Proposes Holding Talks in Washington Five Days Later

After a tense session of the policy-making Inner Cabinet, Israel advised the United States on Wednesday that it is prepared to start bilateral talks with the Arabs in Washington on Dec. 9.

That is five days later than the Dec. 4 date on the invitations that the State Department sent to all of the parties late last week.

Israel also suggested that the three sets of talks — with Syria, Lebanon and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation — be separated by gaps of four or five days, rather than be held simultaneously.

Nervous Cabinet ministers seemed relieved when Washington promptly acknowledged Israel’s response to its invitation as an acceptance.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said the United States was “delighted” that Israel had accepted in principle holding the talks in Washington, after insisting on a Middle East venue or a site close to the region.

There was speculation here that the Americans might set back the talks to Dec. 11, to show the Arabs they are not endorsing a date proposed by Israel.

But Tutwiler scuttled such notions when she said that inasmuch as Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians have accepted the Dec. 4 invitation, “we will have the negotiating facilities ready and open on Dec. 4.

“They will be available on dates after Dec. 4,” she added. “We ask those parties that have not already responded to us to let us know when they plan to arrive and to start the negotiations.”

Syria is now the only invitee that has not responded, though the Palestinians have only accepted the U.S. invitation in principle.

A ‘POSITIVE’ RESPONSE

Israeli ministers, notably Foreign Minister David Levy, said Israel’s response should be seen as “positive.” Levy professed to be dismayed that some international news services portrayed it as negative.

He also lashed out at Knesset opposition factions for accusing the government of trying to stall the peace talks until the process gets bogged down in the U.S. and Israeli elections next year.

There was no explanation of what the government thought it could gain, other than saving face, by agreeing to go to Washington five days later than asked.

The eight-day Chanukah festival, which ends Dec. 9, was a possible pretext, but a weak one inasmuch as no restrictions on secular activities apply to Chanukah.

Another source of suspenseful concern here was how Washington will react to Israel’s terms of acceptance, even though they were formulated as proposals rather than conditions.

The State Department made clear to all parties Tuesday that “we are not in the business, at this point of the game, in dealing with conditions to acceptance.”

But the Cabinet statement submitted to the Americans stated firmly that Israel wants the talks shifted to the region after “one or two” sessions in Washington.

Possibly even more controversial is the proposal for four- or five-day gaps between the bilateral sessions Israel will hold separately with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians.

Cabinet sources pointed out that the Israeli timetable would allow for only one round of talks in each working group before the process adjourns for Christmas.

According to those sources, the multinational talks on regional issues, tentatively planned to open in Moscow in mid-December, could not take place before the new year.

ANOTHER PROCEDURAL OBSTACLE?

Israel is demanding a separation in time and place between the working groups to avoid the impression of an ongoing international conference and also to prevent hard-line Syria from influencing the outcome of Israel’s negotiations with the other Arab parties.

But Knesset opposition circles see that demand as merely another procedural obstacle raised by the Likud government to delay the start of a substantive dialogue.

Reports of the Inner Cabinet meeting quoted Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir as saying, in response to a challenge by Levy, that the Washington talks would embrace substance as well as procedure.

The session was described as a stormy clash between hard-liners and moderates.

Opposed to peace talks in principle or practice were Likud Housing Minister Ariel Sharon, Science and Energy Minister Yuval Ne’eman of the Tehiya party, and Agriculture Minister Rafael Eitan of Tsomet.

They reportedly urged that Israel immediately suspend its participation in the peace process because of recent strains with the United States.

Cabinet sources said Shamir proposed initially that Israel’s terms for participation be delivered in the form of conditions. But moderates, led by Levy and Interior Minister Arye Deri, forcefully opposed that idea.

(JTA correspondent Howard Rosenberg in Washington contributed to this report.)