Soviets Call Abrupt Halt to Israeli Talks

HELSINKI, Finland — The first formal talks between the Soviet Union and Israel in more than 19 years ended abruptly here Monday when the Soviets declared that an initial, 90-minute session had been “sufficient.”

The move came after the Israelis, in opening remarks, raised the issues of Moscow’s treatment of Soviet Jews and its anti-Israeli policy in the Middle East. The Soviets rejected both as inappropriate for the agenda, but it was not clear that their being brought up had influenced the Soviet decision.

The meeting failed to answer the key question of whether the talks, which came about as the result of a Soviet initiative, represented a step toward change in the Kremlin’s Mideast policy or were only a propaganda exercise.

The Soviet delegation avoided contact with the scores of Israeli, American and European journalists in Helsinki for the talks. A spokeswoman at the Soviet Embassy said that officials there would have no comment.

The Israelis had said that the meeting, which grew out of Soviet contacts dating back to last April 11, would last for two days. But according to sources in Moscow, the Soviets have been saying privately for days that the meeting would consist of just one session. A Soviet journalist here said the Israelis had been so notified a week ago.

Ehud Gol, spokesman for the Israeli delegation, said that despite the brevity of the meeting it was “definitely not” a failure. He described the talks as “candid and concrete” and said the two sides agreed that “we should continue with our contacts through proper diplomatic channels.”

Israeli Visit Proposed

Other Israeli diplomatic sources said the Soviets proposed sending a delegation to Israel in October. These sources said that no definite date or time for such a visit was agreed upon because the Soviet officials here lacked the authority to approve a reciprocal visit by an Israeli delegation to Moscow, which the Israeli side demanded.

Israeli sources speculated that Moscow, having made a gesture to Jerusalem by agreeing to meet publicly with an Israeli delegation, is now anxious to play down the results of the session to pacify the Soviet Union’s allies in the Arab world.

“From the beginning,” one source said, “it was in their interest to reduce the Israeli gains.”

Cutting the meeting short may serve that purpose.

Another Israeli official said he believes that Monday’s meeting was “the beginning of a long road” to redefining Soviet-Israeli relations.

Ties Broken in 1967

The Soviet Union and its East Bloc allies, except for Romania, broke diplomatic relations with Israel as a result of the Middle East War of 1967, the so-called Six-Day War. Monday’s talks were the first formal contacts between the two governments since then.

Moscow proposed last April that it send a mission to Israel for three months to survey Soviet property there, meet with Soviet passport holders in Israel and review the operations of a special section in the Finnish Embassy in Tel Aviv that looks after Soviet interests in the country. In reply, Israel sought a preliminary meeting in a third country to clarify the Soviet request.

Then last month the Kremlin suggested a two-day meeting in Helsinki, and the Israelis agreed.

The Soviet initiative triggered a debate in Israel, where some saw it as a public relations gesture before a possible U.S.-Soviet summit meeting later this year. Others viewed it as a possible first step by Moscow to correct a Middle East policy that has proved bankrupt.

“Of course,” an Israeli official here said, “the government in Israel is looking for an answer to the question. The meeting in Helsinki has not given us an answer.”

(In Tel Aviv, Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir said the Helsinki meeting could produce closer ties between the two nations and that he may meet next month with his Soviet counterpart, Eduard A. Shevardnadze, the Associated Press reported.)

(Asked about the likelihood of meeting Shevardnadze in September, Shamir replied, “It could be, but nothing has been set.” When asked if contacts were under way to arrange a meeting, he said, “Maybe,” the AP reported.)

(“It is possible that we have entered a path of closer relations,” Shamir said. However, he added that “it is inconceivable that an improvement of relations between Israel and Soviet Russia can come about without an essential and substantial change in the . . . attitude toward the situation of Soviet Jewry.”)

Arab States Reassured

Moscow, clearly concerned about reaction to the talks among its Arab friends, has reassured them repeatedly in recent days that there has been no change in Soviet policy.

The Soviet delegation here did all it could to keep a low profile. Delegation members refused to be photographed with their Israeli counterparts and insisted on entering the Finnish government compound where the talks were held through a side gate.

According to Israeli sources, Monday’s session opened with an exchange of pleasantries about the weather in Moscow and Jerusalem. Nikolai S. Tikhomirov, head of the Soviet delegation, then read a statement amplifying Moscow’s proposed visit to Israel on consular affairs.

In reply, Yehuda Horam, head of the Israeli delegation, read a 3 1/2-page paper outlining Israel’s view of “the heart of our problems”--the treatment of Soviet Jews and Moscow’s attitude toward Israel.

No Attempt at Linkage

Israeli officials said the Israelis did not try to make progress on other issues conditional on Soviet willingness to discuss these political matters.

“They (the Soviets) listened, and that was it,” one said.

Another said that the Soviets specifically rejected Israeli complaints about treatment of Soviet Jews as interference in Moscow’s domestic affairs.

After reading his statement, Horam gave a copy to his Soviet counterpart, and the last hour of the session was reportedly spent in an inconclusive discussion regarding a possible exchange of consular visits.

Spokesman Gol told reporters: “We expect them (the Soviet delegates) to bring our positions to the Soviet leadership. And of course we will bring their views to our government.”