Premier Yitzhak Shamir will present his own counterproposals to the American peace plan when he meets with Reagan administration officials in Washington next week. But they will not carry the Israeli government’s stamp of approval.
Shamir said Tuesday that he will put his ideas to the Inner Cabinet Wednesday, but will not allow a vote. The Inner Cabinet, the government’s top policy-making body, consists of five Labor and five Likud senior ministers.
Shamir apparently fears a vote at this time would result in stalemate, which could force him to cancel his Washington trip. He could hardly argue persuasively with the Americans for proposals over which his own government is deadlocked.
But Housing Minister David Levy, a powerful voice in the Herut faction of Likud, told Israel Radio Tuesday that he will demand a vote when the Inner Cabinet convenes. He said there was no point in the premier going to Washington without a full and direct mandate from the government.
Shamir’s aides, nevertheless, were busy putting the finishing touches on the proposals that Shamir intends to present in Washington as alternatives to the American peace plan he received from Secretary of State George Shultz last Friday.
Shultz asked that Israel give a “clear response” to the plan by March 15. Shamir will be in Washington beginning March 14 and is scheduled to meet with President Reagan on March 16.
The Shultz plan calls for a greatly accelerated timetable for Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, to be preceded as early as next month by the opening of an international conference under United Nations auspices. Implicit in the plan is the principle of trading territory for peace.
Shamir and his Likud faction are on record as rejecting that concept, as well as the idea of convening an international conference. It is not known what alternatives Shamir intends to offer.
STRATEGIC COOPERATION GUARANTEE
His aides said Tuesday that he will insist on a binding commitment from the Reagan administration that the present strategic cooperation agreement between Israel and the United States will continue in force after a new administration takes over in Washington next year.
Shamir wants to institutionalize that agreement so that it becomes a permanent feature of U.S.-Israeli relations, regardless of what administration is in power and irrespective of differences between Israel and the United States on the peace process.
Shamir already is under heavy pressure from the Reagan administration and Congress to accept Shultz’s peace package. On Monday, the White House welcomed a letter 30 senators sent last week to Shultz implying that the Israeli premier was obstructing the Middle East peace effort by opposing Shultz’s land-for-peace formula. The letter was signed by many of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the Senate.
Shamir referred to the Shultz proposals in an address to the annual conference of the World Movement for Progressive Judaism here Monday night.
He said the American administration was fully aware that Israel wants peace and wants to negotiate with the Arabs. “The basic policy of our government of national unity reaffirms the commitment to the Camp David accords that offer the Arabs self-rule and autonomy,” Shamir said.
But Shamir went on to say that there are “some aspects of the Shultz proposal with which we do not agree, and we have said so, in all frankness and honesty. We did not, and shall not, mislead our American friends.”
He said his talks in Washington next week would be a continuation of his discussions with Shultz, who visited Israel twice in the last two weeks.
“In my meetings with the president, with the vice president, with the secretary (of state) and others, we shall submit our views again in regard to some troubling questions and proposals which require the most careful consideration,” the prime minister said.
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.
