U.S. Won’t Become Involved in Arab-israeli Talks Until Arabs Agree to Direct Negotiations with Israe

The Reagan Administration reiterated today that it will not become involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations, as called for by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, until the Arabs agree to direct negotiations with Israel.

At the same time, the Administration indicated that while it views the agreement on a joint Middle East peace framework by King Hussein of Jordan and Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasir Arafat as a positive move, it does not yet see it as including the U.S. requirement for direct negotiations.

“As we have said, we are ready to re-engage in the search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East whenever the parties are ready,” State Department spokesman Bernard Kalb said when asked about Mubarak’s statements in an interview in The New York Times today. “We would support direct talks between Israel and its Arab neighbors in any way that seems appropriate at that time.”

Kalb refused to comment on Mubarak’s proposal that the U.S. invite Israel and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to set the Framework for negotiations. Nor would he comment on Mubarak’s alternative proposal that he would host such a meeting in Cairo.

But Kalb said the Reagan Administration would discuss the Middle East process with Mubarak when the Egyptian leader visits President Reagan in Washington March 12. Reagan stressed the need for direct talks when he met with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, February 11-12, who also urged greater U.S. involvement.

A LONG WAY TO GO

Asked about the Hussein-Arafat agreement, Kalb said “what we have seen so far constitutes a step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go.” He repeated the need for direct negotiations based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

“As we have said,” Kalb added, “if the agreement promotes movement toward the negotiating table and if it reflects an awareness that direct negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors are the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East, then it will have been a constructive step.”

Kalb would not say what in the agreement which was published over the weekend from Amman, reflects “progress.” Nor would he comment on whether the U.S. views anything in the accord as constituting acceptance of Resolution 242 which the PLO, as late as last week, had rejected.

The agreement calls for “total withdrawal (by Israel) from territories occupied in 1967 for comprehensive peace as established in UN and Security Council resolutions.” This apparently includes General Assembly resolutions not accepted by either Israel or the United States. Administration officials have long stressed that they want a flat statement clearly expressing acceptance of resolutions 242 and 338.

The Hussein-Arafat agreement also calls for peace negotiations under the auspices of an international conference which would include the five permanent members of the Security Council and “all the parties in the conflict,” including the PLO as part of a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.

The U.S. rejected such an international conference which has been proposed by the Soviet Union, as has Israel. In addition, Israel has said it will never sit down with the PLO.

Mubarak, in his New York Times interview, called the Hussein-Arafat agreement a “very good achievement” but also stressed that it was “only a first step.” He, too, called for direct talks between Israel and members of a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation which he said could include Palestinians who were not known members of the PLO. He said an international conference could come after an agreement had been reached.

Meanwhile, Kalb added a warning today that “it would be most unfortunate if the parties in the region, by resorting to the public media, reduced their ability to achieve the objective of direct negotiations.” He would not specify the target or targets of his statement.