Shamir Visit Ends; U.S., Israel Avert Open Break

Despite elaborate public displays of solidarity, this week’s U.S.-Israel talks about the Middle East peace process were often acrimonious, with the Israeli side threatening an open confrontation unless the Bush Administration softened its criticism of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, U.S. and Israeli sources said Friday.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and his government were angered by President Bush’s statement Monday that U.S. goals in the Middle East include “the end of the occupation and achievement of Palestinian political rights.”

Israeli officials interpreted those remarks as a tacit endorsement of the creation of some sort of entity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip controlled by the Palestine Liberation Organization. When Shamir and his party reached Washington on Wednesday, Israeli officials told their American counterparts that if Bush’s comments, which he made after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, accurately reflected U.S. policy, then the two countries were facing an open break.

‘Put Our Dukes Up’

One Israeli source characterized the attitude of the Israeli side this way: “We might as well put our dukes up and settle it right now.” The source said Shamir left no doubt that Israel would refuse to go along with any plan that afforded even a remote chance that Arab armies might be moved into the West Bank or that included any sort of role for the PLO. The source said that Israel would not accept even a demilitarized Palestinian entity because pledges of peaceful intent could be violated.

An Administration official conceded that the Israelis were angry when they arrived. But he said the troubles were smoothed over during the course of Shamir’s visit, which ended Friday.

“The Israelis came here feeling bruised,” the official said. “They are naturally paranoid and feel they are boxed into a corner. There certainly is no desire in the Administration to undercut the Israelis. We do want to work toward the same goal. But we have different tactics. There is no question about that.

Israelis Mollified

“They came away feeling a lot better than when they came here,” the official added.

Israeli sources said the confrontation was defused by Bush’s qualified endorsement of Shamir’s proposal for elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to choose Palestinians willing to negotiate terms for limited self-government.

“It is clear the United States has decided to walk with us,” one Israeli said. “Both sides wanted to find a middle ground.”

Bush told a White House press conference Friday that although he was not elated with Shamir’s election plan, “In the Middle East, a little step sometimes can . . . prove to be fruitful.”

“I think that the answer is to get on with the elections,” Bush said.

However, Washington and Jerusalem may have very different understandings of what the elections will look like. U.S. officials clearly expect PLO-backed candidates to sweep the elections. But Israeli officials say they expect the balloting to select Palestinian leaders independent of the PLO.

Asked if the PLO would have a role in the elections, Bush said: “We haven’t fully resolved exactly who’s going to have a role, but I think that’s a matter to be determined by--between the parties. . . . The PLO has people living on the West Bank, as you know, and we want to see elections that are free and fair there.”

Bush also said he has not changed his view that two key U.N. Security Council resolutions require Israel to yield at least part of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Shamir has argued that Israel met the conditions outlined by the resolutions when it returned the Sinai to Egypt a decade ago.

“I do not feel that the provisions of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 have been fulfilled,” Bush said. “The territory that has been ceded for peace (so far) is not the end. It simply isn’t.”

The resolutions require Israel to withdraw from territory seized in the 1967 Middle East war. The United States has long interpreted that to mean that Israel should yield most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, although some adjustments to the pre-1967 borders would be acceptable. Arab parties have insisted that the resolutions require Israel to withdraw from all occupied land, including East Jerusalem and part of what is now the main Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway.

Under Shamir’s election plan, Palestinians would be selected to negotiate with Israel over an interim “autonomy” plan which would allow the Arabs to run their own domestic affairs but would retain Israeli control over security. Shamir also has promised to negotiate a final settlement following the autonomy period.

Palestinian leaders in the occupied territories and the PLO at its headquarters in Tunis announced their rejection of the plan Friday. However, both Israeli and American officials have expressed hope that the elections can be structured in a way that would attract wide Palestinian participation.

When State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was asked if Washington expects Palestinians to participate in the elections, he said, “The Palestinians’ decisions probably depend on how the details are worked out.”

Another Administration official said most Palestinians’ “natural inclination is to reject anything Shamir will propose because it comes from Shamir.” But he added, “Palestinians should take a look at this because it is a more positive approach from the Israeli side than they have ever heard before.”