Israeli Party’s Pullout Imperils Shamir Coalition

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s government staggered toward collapse Wednesday as a minor, far-right party voted to withdraw in protest of Israel’s participation in peace talks. Shamir’s ruling majority, reduced to one vote, could disappear if, as expected, another fractional party decides to pull out.

The prime minister’s deteriorating position throws into question Israel’s continued participation in the Middle East peace talks, which entered a third round this week in Washington. If Shamir’s government falls, new elections are likely within months.

Shamir had been wrestling with leaders of each of the dissident parties--the Tehiya and Moledet--to convince them that he is not offering Palestinians self-rule in the disputed West Bank and Gaza Strip. Both parties oppose autonomy because they think it will lead to Palestinian independence. Tehiya, at least, did not accept Shamir’s assurances.

“We are leaving the government in order to prevent the autonomy, which is, from the beginning, actually a Palestinian state,” said Tehiya leader Yuval Neeman.

Tehiya holds three seats in the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, and its withdrawal would reduce Shamir’s majority to 61 of the 120 seats. Moledet, which favors removal of Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, holds two seats. Its pullout, added to that of Tehiya, would leave Shamir with 59, including unsteady votes from religious parties.

In a sort of tease, Tehiya’s Neeman said his party would stay with Shamir if he stops negotiating. But Rehavam Zeevi, the Moledet leader, said he will recommend that his party quit the government.

If the collapse materializes--Tehiya decided to wait until Sunday to withdraw officially--new elections probably will be moved up from their scheduled mid-November date to as early as this spring.

The fall of the government also would present Shamir with a difficult choice: to continue the peace talks or pull out and put them on hold.

The decision also might force Shamir to declare exactly where he stands on the question of giving Palestinians self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. His opponents on the right insist that autonomy means independence for the territory, which they insist is part and parcel of Israel.

“Shamir must decide if he is the candidate of annexation or autonomy,” said Yaron Ezrahi, a political theorist at Hebrew University.

Such a clear declaration would be unusual for Shamir. Even as the peace talks took hold, he tried to master the art of being all things to all people. For the world audience and particularly the Bush Administration, he was the leader capable of peace. To the right wing in Israel, he was merely in a holding pattern.

On Wednesday, Shamir used a typical shadow play to try to persuade the rebellious rightists. He said he had not offered autonomy to Palestinians but had only placed the issue on the agenda.

Leftist parties pledged to support Shamir if he runs aground over the peace talks. But a spokesman rejected the offer in the unrestrained language that is typical of Israeli politics. He called the offer “disgusting.”

If Shamir gives up his rule, it would be up to Israel’s ceremonial president to call elections. The dovish Labor Party, the largest opposition group, could take power, if it persuaded President Chaim Herzog that it deserves to be tapped to form a new government.

Labor would have to provide strong indications that it could cobble together a majority, something viewed as unlikely.

Many observers here believe that Shamir may persist in the Middle East talks, which have been moving at a snail’s pace, to maintain favor with the Bush Administration, chief sponsor of the peace process. Shamir is seeking President Bush’s backing for guarantees that would provide cheaper access to loans for Israel totaling $2 billion this year. The guarantees would require Congress to set aside tens of millions of dollars.

Analysts have speculated that Shamir wants the talks to go forward to ensure a good reception for the request for guarantees. “The guarantee issue is certainly an incentive for Shamir to keep going,” Ezrahi said.

But members of the ruling coalition to the right of Shamir’s Likud Party had been threatening to quit for weeks. Within Likud, Housing Minister Ariel Sharon had also opposed the peace talks and called for annexation of at least part of the West Bank and Gaza.

Recent Palestinian attacks on settlers influenced the rightists to act, observers said. The settlers protested the talks and considered them to be as much of a threat to their hold on the occupied land as the series of shootings, which began in October and claimed four Israeli lives.

On Wednesday, Israeli settlers moved to establish five new communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in reaction to the ambush of a bus Tuesday. The attack left six passengers and the driver of a nearby car wounded. Settlers insisted that the attempt to create new Israeli communities was a proper response to Palestinian violence.

But the government, apparently trying to avoid a clash with the Bush Administration over settlement policy, dismantled at least three of them.

It was unclear what would happen to the remaining outposts, where mobile homes were set up, although the Defense Ministry said that each was established without permission. In all, 24 settlers were arrested for interfering with the evictions.

Settler backers concluded that the setback was only temporary. “In the past, everywhere a caravan (mobile home) has been placed, a permanent settlement came into being,” said Geula Cohen, a Tehiya member and staunch promoter of settlement.

After the bus ambush, right-wing demonstrators held protests at Shamir’s office and the homes of two Palestinian leaders. The settlers stoned the house belonging to Riyad Malki, who is associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of two groups that took responsibility for the ambush.

TALKS NEAR DEADLOCK: Israelis, Palestinians trade blasts on settlements. A12