Labor’s Leaders Vote to Bolt Israeli Coalition : Action Stems From Dispute Over Peace Plan; Would Bring Down Government if Implemented

Leaders of Israel’s Labor Party proposed Monday to withdraw from the ruling coalition and bring down the government in protest against a toughened stand on Palestinian elections taken by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s Likud Party.

Finance Minister Shimon Peres, Labor’s party chief, also clarified his own stand on elections on the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, outlining positions that directly counter limits set by Shamir. Foremost among his views is the insistence that Israel be prepared to give up land in exchange for peace with the Arabs.

A Political Storm

If the threat to break up the coalition is carried out, necessitating new elections, it would create a political storm here less than nine months after bitterly fought elections and delicate negotiations gave rise to an uneasy partnership between rightist Likud and center-left Labor.

A rump session of the Labor Party advisory bureau voted 45 to 2 to leave the coalition. The bureau is made up of 120 party leaders, most of whom stayed away, so it is not clear just how united Labor is in its willingness to break with Likud. Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who voted with the majority, called for the party to establish its own criteria for Arab elections but to delay for three weeks any decision on pulling out of the government.

The final decision will rest with Labor’s 1,200-member Central Committee. No date was set for a meeting, leaving time for the back-room compromises characteristic of Israeli parliamentary crises.

Nonetheless, statements by Peres and other leaders were the fullest expression of dissatisfaction with Labor’s junior role in the Shamir-led government. Since the coalition was forged last December, numerous members on Labor’s left wing have lobbied to pull out, saying that the stands of the two parties over Middle East policy are incompatible.

Last week, Likud imposed strict limits on Shamir’s plan for elections in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, bringing the contradictions to a head.

“We will not be a fig leaf for Likud. We will not be a fig leaf for a tragedy,” said Peres, who invoked a Jewish funeral prayer to add: “We will not say ‘God full of mercy’ over the grave of this peace plan.

“In view of the latest events, which seriously harmed the government’s peace initiative, it would be proper to . . . dismantle the present government,” Peres added in a letter that will be sent to Shamir if the Labor Party decides to pull out.

‘Decision Is Final’

“If there is no peace initiative, the decision is final,” Peres warned on a later news broadcast.

Shamir stunned Labor Party leaders by giving in to demands from Likud’s right wing to alter his election plan. Under the original proposal, agreed to by the coalition government, Arab voters would select delegates to work out a period of limited autonomy for Palestinians; final disposition of the territories would be left to later talks.

Under prodding from Ariel Sharon, the hawkish trade and industry minister, Shamir added several specific conditions: no territorial concessions by Israel, no participation in the vote by Arabs who live in annexed East Jerusalem, no talks at all until the Arab uprising ends and yes to more Israeli settlements on the disputed land.

Since the Likud decision, Shamir has played down the action by portraying it as a mere confirmation of previously held positions. But Labor Party officials objected, as did U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who termed the conditions “not helpful.”

Peres unveiled his own, more liberal conditions Monday. Israel should give up the occupied land, home to 1.7 million Palestinians, in order to ensure that the boundaries of Israel would encompass a Jewish majority, he said. “We are in favor of territorial compromise if it brings peace,” Peres stated flatly.

East Jerusalem Arabs could participate in the election, Peres said, although the vote should not physically take place in the city. The Arab uprising need not end before talks with Arabs get under way because such a condition would “transmit a veto into the hands of extremists.”

Peres called for a halt to construction of five new settlements that Labor and Likud had agreed to build when they signed the coalition agreement. “We must decide that there is no room for the five settlements at this time,” he said.

Peres, who also holds the title of deputy prime minister, rebuked Shamir for trying to put limits on topics that elected Palestinians could discuss--including the desire for an independent state. “The elections must be political, with completely free speech,” he asserted.

‘Independent Government’

He spoke in hazy terms of an “independent government” that would emerge from the Arab vote. It was not clear whether he was going beyond Shamir’s concept of limited self-rule for the Palestinians.

Under Peres’ election scheme, foreign observers would be welcome to scrutinize the election. Likud had said there was no need for formal oversight.

Rabin, who first broached the subject of Arab elections, had hoped to delay a showdown with Likud over details until talks with Arabs were well under way. But as Labor rose up against the Likud proposals, he too spoke out.

“The Likud decisions damaged severely the chances of carrying on the peace initiative,” he said Monday, challenging Likud to find an Arab partner for peace.

“If they can succeed in convincing Arabs to come to negotiate when they are telling them that (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) will never have foreign sovereignty, that we will impose our sovereignty upon all the territory, they are welcome to try,” he said.

Rabin tentatively outlined his own view of how to create an environment for Arab elections: a halt to new Israeli settlement of the occupied land, a commitment to exchange some occupied land for peace with the Arabs and an agreement to later include Palestinians from abroad in negotiations on a final settlement--a condition that could open the way for participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Likud leaders immediately cautioned Labor against bringing down the government. Shamir’s top aide, Yosef Ben-Aharon, said that Labor should stay on for “the benefit of the nation.” Political observers viewed the statement as a means of reminding Labor that it could bear the blame for toppling the government in a time of crisis.

Housing Minister David Levy said that Labor had done the Arabs a favor by creating a ruckus; now, he said, the Palestinians do not have to respond to the peace plan in any form.

In an unusual departure, the Bush Administration openly intervened by advising Rabin and Peres not to be too hasty in pulling out of the coalition, government-run Israel Radio reported. Washington has been trying to find common ground between the Israeli government and the PLO on settling the Israeli-Arab conflict. U.S. envoys have attempted to persuade the PLO to endorse some variation of the election plan in order to get peace talks off the ground.

In turn, Washington has pushed for Israel to be prepared to give up at least some of the occupied land. The stand put the Administration on Labor’s side in the ultimate test of the peace proposal.

On Monday, Secretary of State Baker said that he will send an envoy to Jerusalem later this month to ascertain whether the Jerusalem government is still “serious” about seeking peace through Palestinian elections. Baker spoke to reporters in Poland, where he is part of President Bush’s visiting delegation.

Political analyst Shlomo Avineri foresaw a double-edged dilemma for Labor: Leaving the government opens the party to an unpredictable electoral test, he said, but staying in would mean submission to its direct ideological opposite, the right wing of Likud.

“My guess is that Labor wants to pressure Shamir to come back to a middle position,” Avineri observed.

The mood of the country is considered to have shifted toward a hard-line position on treatment of the Arabs, at least in the short run. Emotions were heightened last week when a Palestinian steered a bus off a highway, killing 14 Israeli passengers.

Columnist Aryeh Naor argued that Labor’s move presents Shamir with a challenge to put his party’s program into effect or back off once and for all. “He cannot keep using the Labor Party to legitimize his program,” Naor said.

Both analysts viewed the strain in the coalition as the logical conclusion to an untenable partnership. They pointed out that the previous Labor-Likud government, formed in 1984, was based on a consensus on dealing with two main issues confronting the country: disengagement from the war in Lebanon and reducing runaway inflation.

The present coalition, on the other hand, papered over differences on the main issue of the day: how to end the 19-month-old Arab uprising and bring peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

“The chickens are coming home to roost,” said Avineri. “As long as no one got into details, the parties could pretend to go along with each other. But once specifics were raised, the government was absolutely bound to fall apart.”