Jordan Agrees to Israel Talks, Sources Say : Deal Conditional on Jerusalem Accepting U.S.-Brokered Plan

Jordan has agreed to bilateral peace negotiations with Israel in the context of an international Middle East conference, provided the Israeli government formally approves a U.S.-brokered framework for the talks worked out after months of shuttle diplomacy, government sources said here Friday.

The all-important conference guidelines are embodied in what one official termed a “document of understanding” that is also said to have the tacit approval of Egypt. The document reportedly agrees in all important points with a so-called 10-point plan for a peace conference proposed some time ago by Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

However, sources here cautioned that several hurdles remain before any peace conference can begin. Also, the degree of alleged agreement on other critical points--particularly the terms of Palestinian participation in the talks--was not entirely clear.

Not Yet Signed

“It’s not a contract that’s been signed,” said a senior government official who briefed foreign reporters on condition that he not be identified. “We’re still in the process of shaping it up.”

According to Peres and U.S. officials, the latest developments represent major progress in the long-stalled Middle East peace process, whose only notable success to date was the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

Peres’ principal political adviser, Nimrod Novik, referred in a radio interview earlier this week to a “breakthrough.”

However, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has repeatedly said that an international conference would be a disaster in which this country would come under enormous pressure to give up occupied land on the West Bank of the Jordan River, which he and his rightist political allies consider an inseparable part of “greater Israel.”

Uneasy Coalition

Shamir’s Likud Bloc is joined with Peres’ centrist Labor Alignment in an uneasy “national unity” coalition government as the result of inconclusive elections in July, 1984. The next elections are not scheduled until late 1988, and both sides said Friday that they would prefer not to break up the government over the peace conference issue.

But Peres, who served as prime minister during the first half of the unity government’s term, has threatened to do just that if Shamir blocks the peace plan.

A senior government official said Friday that Peres will bring the “document of understanding” to a vote of the so-called “inner Cabinet” of 10 senior government ministers, possibly as early as next Wednesday.

Another senior source said, however, that Peres is not likely to act until late May or early June, after he returns from a scheduled trip to the United States.

The inner Cabinet is evenly divided between Likud and Labor ministers, and if Peres’ proposal should result in a tie vote, it would mean his defeat. In that case, he has said, he will “go to the people” in new elections that would amount to this country’s first referendum ever on the divisive issue of the future of the West Bank.

Ploy to End Government

Sources close to Shamir charge that Peres is only using the international conference issue as a ploy to break up the government. While the results of public opinion polls concerning a peace conference vary according to the way in which the questions are asked, the latest surveys do show Peres’ Labor Alignment gaining strength.

A Jerusalem Post poll this week, for example, suggested that Labor would get 41% of the vote if new elections were held today, compared with only 24% for Likud. In 1984, Labor got 35% and Likud 32%.

The balance of the voters opted for one of a dozen smaller parties, with whom Peres would have to negotiate if he should succeed in heading a new, narrow coalition government.

It is still possible that either Peres or Shamir will back away from a confrontation. The two men are expected to meet Sunday on the conference issue.

Shamir Under Pressure

Shamir is clearly under mounting pressure to agree to an international conference. Returning from a state visit to France on Thursday evening, he admitted that he had been unsuccessful in attempts to dissuade French officials who have come out in favor of the plan.

On Friday, he met for the third time in a little over a week with U.S. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering. Neither man spoke to reporters following their session, but in unusual public comments regarding the peace process earlier this week, the American envoy said: “I think it is fair to say there has been some recent, very significant progress made. I think it is important, and I think there is a quickening of interest in the region that I see on both the Arab side and here in Israel.”

Shamir has also confirmed that President Reagan has urged him to explore the international conference idea rather than pass up a “historic opportunity” for progress toward Middle East peace.

Secretary of State George P. Shultz is believed to have been on the verge of scheduling a Middle East trip this month to give greater impetus to the peace process. Now, however, he has reportedly deferred any such plans for fear of appearing to interfere in what is clearly a volatile domestic political battle in Israel.

Shamir might yet agree to the proposed guidelines for an international conference knowing that there remain many potential pitfalls before such a meeting could convene.

Point of No Return?

Asked if the political clash had reached the point of no return, a Shamir aide commented Friday, “The point of no return is if and when Peres will present to the Cabinet a plan unacceptable to the Likud.”

It is uncertain how firm an agreement exists between Peres and Jordan’s King Hussein on the framework for talks. There have been reports here that the two men met secretly in recent days. Other sources say the agreement was worked out during months of shuttling between Amman and Jerusalem by U.S. special Middle East envoy Watt Cluverius.

Reporting from Amman on Thursday, the Associated Press quoted a Jordanian government spokesman as denying that Peres and Hussein had met or that any agreement had been reached. “Hussein would never go (to an international conference) without” the Palestine Liberation Organization, AP quoted the spokesman as saying.

Hussein has long insisted that he would not enter negotiations with Israel without some form of “international accompaniment” that would lend legitimacy to the talks. It is not surprising that his government would deny reaching any agreement with Peres until he has some assurance that Peres speaks for the Israeli government rather than just for himself.

Vow to Shun PLO

Both Labor and Likud, labeling the PLO a group of terrorists, have pledged not to negotiate with the organization, and it is said here that a key element of the American-brokered conference framework is that there will be no PLO participation.

A senior government source here said Jordan has agreed to put together for the talks a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation that will not include PLO members. However, the source added, the PLO is not mentioned specifically in the “document of understanding.” Rather, he said, it says that Palestinian participation is conditional on renunciation of violence and acceptance of U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, which implicitly acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

Another breakthrough, according to Israeli informants, is that Jordan has agreed to limit the involvement of third parties in the talks.

According to details of the “document of understanding” leaked here over recent days, the plan calls for the secretary general of the United Nations to invite the permanent members of the Security Council and the Middle East states to a conference whose aim will be a comprehensive regional peace.

Bilateral Negotiations

The conference would serve as a prelude to bilateral negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors within the framework of independent committees. The bilateral committees would include Jordan-Israel, Syria-Israel, and Lebanon-Israel. Progress in any bilateral committee would not depend on progress in the others.

Still unresolved is the question of participation in the international opening by the Soviet Union and China, both of which are permanent Security Council members but do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. (The other members are the United States, France and Britain.)