Analysis : Shultz Peace Quest Attains More Modest Mideast Goal

Secretary of State George P. Shultz likes to say that the greatest obstacle to peace in the Middle East is the unrealistic illusion by Israelis and Arabs alike that they can remake the region to suit themselves.

But as Shultz on Tuesday concluded his fourth round of shuttle diplomacy this year, it appeared that the most unrealistic expectation displayed anywhere in the area is the belief that the now-familiar American peace plan can produce serious negotiations between Israel and its Arab adversaries.

The top leaders in Syria, Jordan and Israel all told Shultz that he should not expect them to be the ones to make the concessions needed to bridge the gulf between the parties. Only Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak endorsed the Shultz approach, and Egypt already has a peace treaty with Israel.

This situation raises the question of why Shultz would persist in a seemingly fruitless quest. The answer now seems certain to be that his real objectives are far more modest than his stated goal of launching a peace conference that would assure Israel’s security, guarantee the political rights of Palestinians and end decades of Middle East conflict.

As long as the parties are talking to Shultz about the peace process--even if the discussions are Analysis

making no noticeable progress--they are not as likely to start shooting at each other.

Shultz hinted at that objective in a Cairo press conference Tuesday when he said the leaders he met on this trip “each recognize the dangers that would follow the breakdown of the peace process.”

“A negotiating process that hangs by a thread is better than none at all,” he said. “And a static situation marked by a hostile peace is better than a dynamic situation that leads to war.”

Apparently, Middle Eastern leaders ranging from Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to Syrian President Hafez Assad agree with that assessment, because each of them urged Shultz to return to the region later this year to try again.

“The problem has lasted 40 years, and it can’t be solved in only one meeting or two meetings or three meetings,” Mubarak said as he bid goodby to Shultz.

Shultz did not commit himself to return, although he said he is willing to do so “any time it seems there is something constructive to be done.”

He promised “there will be no diminution of the American effort,” but he said that there may be other ways to keep the process going.

Shultz was not specific on the way that he hopes to keep the ball rolling. Previously, special envoy Wat T. Cluverius IV has shuttled between the capitals during Shultz’s absence. But Cluverius is leaving that post next month to head the multinational peacekeeping force in the Sinai Peninsula. No replacement has been named.

Shultz launched his latest exercise in personal diplomacy in February, ending several years in which he maintained a low-key approach to the volatile region.

Early in his tenure, Shultz put his personal prestige on the line by advocating a comprehensive American plan for ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and by personally mediating Israeli-Lebanese negotiations over the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.

Both initiatives foundered. Menachem Begin, then Israeli prime minister, scornfully rejected the comprehensive American plan within hours of President Reagan’s announcement of it on Sept. 1, 1982. And the Shultz-mediated Lebanon settlement broke apart when Syria--which had not been a party to the negotiations--refused to honor its provisions and Israel decided to withdraw its forces from most of Lebanon under conditions that differed sharply from those outlined in the agreement.

After his Cairo press conference Tuesday, Shultz flew to Madrid for a meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization foreign ministers.