Israeli officials are waiting in trepidation for U.S. reaction to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s rejection of President Bush’s appeal for flexibility on procedural obstacles to a peace conference.
Whatever solace they might have gained from the unruffled public responses at the White House and State Department so far was disrupted by a veiled hint from Bush linking future U.S. aid for Israel to noticeable progress on the peace front.
Observers here said Israel cannot expect to emerge unscathed after Shamir rejected two proposals made by Bush and threw in a new condition of his own.
The president dropped his hint of quid proquo at a brief meeting at the White House late last week with a delegation of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
He seemed to indicate that he would favor making U.S. government loan guarantees to help Israel absorb new immigrants conditional on advancing the peace process.
According to some accounts of the president’s remarks, he referred specifically to Jewish settlements in the administered territories.
They have become a major cause of friction between Washington and Jerusalem as the administration tries strenuously to bring Arabs to the negotiating table with Israel while the Israelis plant new houses and mobile homes for Jewish settlers almost daily at new sites in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
EROSION OF CAPITOL HILL SUPPORT
The president’s comment was especially unnerving for Israelis because of evidence on Capitol Hill that this sort of linkage could find unprecedented broad support among legislators, including many friendly to Israel.
Pro-Israel lobbyists who have been preparing a vigorous campaign on behalf of Israel’s expected request for $10 billion in absorption loan guarantees this fall could face difficult questions about Jerusalem’s stand on settlements and the peace process.
The vexing settlement issue surfaced again early this week when it became clear that the United States had proposed — and Israel had rejected — a deal in which Israel would suspend new settlement building in return for a formal move by key Arab states to end their state of belligerency with Israel.
It is the continuing state of war, Israel claims, that is the fundamental cause of the Middle East conflict.
According to some reports, the deal proposed by Bush would have included an end to, or at least a mitigation of, the 43-year Arab trade boycott of Israel.
But the Israelis said no.
In a June 6 letter to Bush, Shamir also rejected the president’s proposals on two procedural issues: U.N. involvement in the peace conference and whether the conference would adjourn or reconvene once direct talks began.
CHOOSING PALESTINIAN DELEGATES
Bush suggested that the United Nations be allowed to send an observer to the peace conference and that it reconvene periodically for progress reports on the bilateral negotiations, with the approval of all participants.
But Shamir insisted on no U.N. role and that the conference limit itself to a ceremonial opening for bilateral talks between Israel and its various Arab adversaries and then dissolve beyond recall.
Finally, Shamir insisted on what would amount to Israeli veto power over the composition of the Palestinian negotiating team.
In Washington, State Department deputy spokesman Richard Boucher said pointedly Tuesday that “Palestinians must choose those who will represent them in negotiations.”
Those Palestinians presumably would be part of a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. King Hussein of Jordan indicated this week his readiness to join the peace process.
Another fear haunting the Israelis is that the United States and Soviet Union might go ahead and issue joint invitations to all parties to attend a peace conference despite the absence of agreement on its form or nature.
A decision could be made when Bush meets Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev at their upcoming summit meeting, now expected to take place in late July.
The Bush administration so far has used measured words to describe the Shamir letter. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Monday that the administration does not want to characterize it as a “rejection,” because “it’s not entirely clear” what Israel’s position is.
Israel’s stance — and that of the Bush administration — was expected to be clarified Thursday morning during a meeting in Washington between Secretary of State James Baker and Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy.
Observers in Israel predicted Levy would hear some harsh words from his “friend Jim,” as he is fond of calling the secretary.
But a leading Jewish insider in New York doubted that the meeting would be confrontational. He predicted Baker would use Levy as a “channel” to convey to Jerusalem the U.S. frustrations over the stalled peace process.
The State Department had said early last week that Levy would be welcome to visit when he came to the United States to address the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in New York.
Bush and Baker, and their counterparts in a dozen European chanceries and foreign ministries, seem to regard the ambitious Israeli foreign minister as a promising political prospect in the long term and an important influence for moderation in the present Israeli power structure.
POSSIBLE INVITATION FROM EGYPT
But just how influential he is in Jerusalem remains to be seen. Sources close to Shamir have persisted in recent days to stress to reporters that Levy is held in low esteem by the prime minister.
It was no accident, they pointed out, that Shamir sent his letter to Bush while Levy was heading home from a visit to Paris. Shamir appeared to be flaunting the fact that Israel’s foreign minister had no input in a crucial communication to Israel’s most important ally.
But Levy also is being courted by Egypt. Its ambassador to Israel, Mohammed Basiouny, hinted Tuesday that Levy might be invited to Cairo to meet the new Egyptian foreign minister, Amre Moussa.
If such an invitation were issued, it would underscore the widening gap between Levy and Shamir, whom the Egyptians stolidly refuse to invite.
Basiouny went on Israel Television to assure Israelis that “personal attacks” on Shamir and other Israeli leaders in his country’s press are disapproved by his government.
The envoy indicated that Cairo would soon invite a group of Likud Knesset members for an official visit. It would be a counterweight to the visit to Egypt, beginning Wednesday, by a group of dovish Knesset members from the Labor Party.
(JTA correspondent David Friedman in Washington contributed to this report.)
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
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.
