Analysis : Not Discouraged Over Mideast, Stubborn Shultz Says

The way Secretary of State George P. Shultz tells it, he isn’t disappointed that no country has signed up for his Middle East peace plan because he never expected that any would--at least not this soon.

“Whether you are disappointed or not depends on your expectations,” Shultz told reporters as he flew back from a weeklong shuttle through Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. “I’m not that naive to think that these difficult problems fall away that easily.”

There can be no doubt that the recent history of the Middle East provides ample justification for low expectations. It is not so clear why Shultz persists in flogging his plan in the face of such long odds.

When he first unveiled the proposal a little over a month ago, it called for an international conference about mid-April, followed by a May 1 start of negotiations over interim arrangements for the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Negotiations over the final status of the territories would have begun in November or December.

That time schedule is now out of the question. It seems almost inconceivable that the final status negotiations could begin before the end of the Reagan Administration, even if Shultz is far more successful on his next swing through the region than he has been so far.

So, why persist?

Shultz says he is stubborn. He says he is not afraid to struggle against overwhelming odds. And he says he wants to “leave something constructive for my successors.”

Those are all commendable objectives. But Shultz clearly cannot make peace alone. At a minimum, he needs the approval of Israel and Jordan. If those two countries sign on, others probably will also go along. Moreover, if either Jerusalem or Amman accepts the plan, the pressure will be overwhelming on the other to also approve it. But if Jordan and Israel continue to hold out, the plan seems doomed.

In Jordan, all important decisions are made by King Hussein. He has been skeptical of the Shultz plan in public, although Shultz insists he has been more flexible in private.

According to a commentary in the Jerusalem Star, a government-influenced Jordan weekly published in Amman despite its irredentist name, Jordan, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization have adopted a joint strategy for dealing with the Shultz plan.

“Consensus, it seems, has been reached but for the mere agreement that the Arab countries should not be the first to refuse the American plan,” the daily said.

Such a strategy only works if Israel does not accept the U.S. plan. The present Israeli coalition government seems to be incapable of either accepting or rejecting the proposal because power is evenly divided between the Likud Bloc of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir--which opposes key parts of the Shultz proposal--and the Labor Alignment of Foreign Minister Shimon Peres--which accepts it.

But Israel faces a general election this year. By law, it must be held by Nov. 1.

That campaign shapes up as a referendum on the Shultz proposal, with Labor running on a pro-Shultz platform and Likud running against the U.S. initiative.

Although Shultz insists that he is neutral in the Israeli election, it is not difficult to see that a Peres victory would give a boost to the U.S. peace initiative. And, if Shultz continues to campaign actively for his plan, as he says he will, his efforts inevitably will be seen as support for the Labor party. Whether that perception of U.S. backing will help or hinder Labor, of course, remains to be seen.

Asked what the trip accomplished, one senior Administration official said, “It sharpened the debate in Israel.”

Before he left Amman on Friday, Shultz said he would return to the region in the near future.

“We have shifted gears; we are now in a forward gear,” he said. “People are starting to engage the substance of the program. The road ahead is tough, but we will travel it with determination.”

He added: “We know how hard these issues are--if they were easy, they wouldn’t be around after all these years.”