NEWS ANALYSIS : Gloomy Mood Precedes Talks on Middle East

Moments after their final meeting with Secretary of State James A. Baker III, when the Palestinians at last pledged to go to talks in Madrid with Israel over the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, negotiator Hanan Ashrawi murmured to a reporter, “What else could we do? We had no choice.”

A few hours later, in a television interview broadcast nationally, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir appeared to confirm that Israel will attend, but he said so with an equally laconic declaration: “There is no alternative.”

Such cheerless notes sounded the climax of eight months and eight rounds of laborious talks with Baker designed to bring the hostile sides in the Middle East together. Resignation is the rule, and counting up the gains and losses is the main preoccupation of the reluctant parties, be they here in Israel with the Israelis and Palestinians, or in Syria, Jordan or Lebanon.

Although everyone concedes that something needs to be done to end the eternal strife in the Middle East, everybody is taking the medicine offered by Baker with a distinct frown. Syria has already spat out part of the pill by refusing to attend a segment of the talks that are planned to deal with regional issues of arms control, water and economic cooperation.

The absence of joy can be explained in part by the intense ideological nature of the struggle in the Middle East. Arabs at large and Palestinians in particular have long based their very identity on a campaign to oust the Israelis from this corner of the Arab world. Many Israelis, and especially their current right-wing government, view recognition of Palestinian rights as a challenge to the existence of Israel.

“Pragmatic necessities of facing reality do not necessarily bring a smile,” declared Yaron Ezrahi, a political theorist at Hebrew University. “Especially when the most cherished beliefs are giving way.”

If one can glean insight from a comparison of glum expressions, the Palestinians appear to feel put upon the most. They claim to have been left in a weak bargaining position, stripped of dignity and vulnerable to the whims of their adversaries.

“We are having to make the best of the worst possible situation,” observed Jonathan Kutab, a prominent Palestinian lawyer.

One Palestinian described the outcome as a “grand surrender” of everything the national cause has stood for since Arabs began struggling against the founding of Israel more than four decades ago. They are not guaranteed statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, all the land that is left available to them for independence. Formal attachment to Jordan is a likely outcome, an eventuality that intense Palestinian nationalists despise.

Getting a foothold in Jerusalem, Arab districts of which were long ago annexed by Israel, is also highly uncertain.

Vulnerability is heightened by the backstage role forced upon the Palestine Liberation Organization, which in many Palestinian minds embodies maximum Palestinian demands. Shamir rejects the group’s participation.

Although an elaborate fig leaf has been constructed to permit the PLO a role, PLO influence is clearly ebbing. All the Palestinian negotiators hail from the West Bank and Gaza, not from outside, where the professional nationalists and guerrillas have toiled for decades. “This is one of the nightmares come true for the PLO,” said Mahdi Abdul Hadi, a Palestinian political scientist.

Faisal Husseini, a local leader who bargained with Baker during all of the secretary’s visits to Jerusalem, announced Saturday that the Palestinian negotiating team will consist of 14 participants who will take part in rotation. There is also a six-member team of “consultants” that will link the negotiators with the PLO. Husseini said that Washington is in possession of a list of names but has agreed not to release them--this, evidently, to avoid an Israeli veto in advance of the talks.

The Palestinian weakness reflects a pair of debacles during the past year. Association with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait tarnished their image worldwide, and their revolt against Israel flagged badly.

Yet there is an air of enthusiasm among Palestinians in the streets for the peace talks, even if the local leaders are gloomy. “ Inshallah basiir salaam “ is the most common expression heard. “God willing, there will be peace.”

In the Shamir government, the Madrid talks are viewed with intense suspicion. The Israelis worked hard to put as many limits on the talks as possible to preclude a focus on surrender of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians as well as the Golan Heights to Syria.

Shamir’s bargainers tried to commit Baker to ensuring that a peace treaty would come out of the conference, something Baker declined to fully guarantee.

There was plenty of irritation over the evident role left to the PLO, and Israel put the Americans on notice that it would get up and leave the conference if the group’s presence became transparently obvious.

Suspicion extends also to the role the United States will play once talks get under way. Because Washington has long favored a formula of trading occupied land for recognition from Arab states, the Shamir government is unenthusiastic about American mediation. Officials question whether the Bush Administration can be an “honest broker”--that is, indulge both Israel’s claim to keep all the land along with Arab demands for its surrender.

Baker’s tactics in the leadup to talks has left Shamir aides and right-wing commentators steaming. They feel that, at the end, he presented Israel with a haughty take-it-or-leave-it choice. “The ultimatum method may be good for Mafiosos,” complained newspaper columnist Yoel Marcus, “but not for a superpower claiming to be a mediator.”

The Shamir government has begun to quake in anticipation of the Madrid meeting. Two members of the ruling Likud Party have already announced they will oppose Shamir for leadership before next year’s scheduled elections. One is Ariel Sharon, the hard-line former army general and current housing minister who is working to install Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The other is Benjamin Begin, son of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who signed the Camp David agreement with Egypt, Israel’s only peace treaty with an Arab state.

Begin’s move is considered more of a threat to Shamir than Sharon’s because Begin represents mainstream thought in the Likud Party. In official Likud ideology, limits on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza throw into question Israel’s rights within its borders. “Begin reflects orthodoxy, and that is harder for Shamir to deal with,” said Ezrahi.

Still, Shamir’s Cabinet will almost surely approve Israel’s attendance at the talks. Extreme factions of his coalition have stopped short of threatening a walkout that could bring his government down.

Public opinion in Israel appears to be as split as ever on the question, and Shamir, with his laconic remarks after Baker’s latest visit, made little effort to drum up grass-roots support. Doubters are many.

“The problem is, half the people are afraid the talks will fail and half are afraid they will succeed,” remarked Ezrahi.