Israel Rejects U.S. ‘Dictates’ on Troop Pullback

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Wednesday that he will reject President Clinton’s invitation to Middle East peace talks in Washington if acceptance means Israel acquiescing to U.S. “dictates” on the scope of a West Bank troop withdrawal.

A day after returning from U.S.-mediated talks in London that ended without reviving the moribund peace process, Netanyahu took a tough line against new pressure from the Clinton administration to accept a package of U.S. proposals.

“We are a sovereign state, [and] we won’t accept dictates about things only we can determine--our security, our lives,” he told Israel Radio. “I won’t hand over land [if it] would endanger Israel’s security. If they come with an ultimatum, without mediation or other options, we won’t accept it.”

Publicly at least, the Israeli leader appeared willing to risk confrontation with the U.S. administration, which on Tuesday extended invitations to Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat to come to Washington for the summit Monday, on condition that they first accept the U.S. proposals.

The purpose of the meeting, outlined by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in London, would be to accelerate negotiations on a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Netanyahu has said he favors opening those discussions--on such sensitive issues as the status of Jerusalem and Palestinian statehood--as soon as possible. But the United States first wants a commitment on Israeli troop withdrawals.

Arafat has agreed to the U.S. proposals but Netanyahu has not, insisting that the plan for Israel to withdraw from an additional 13% of the West Bank is impossible for security reasons. The invitation has been seen as giving the Israeli leader a deadline to accept the proposals, while extending the “carrot” of final status talks.

But in a White House news conference Wednesday, Clinton said he was not trying to force a solution on Israel: “There’s no way in the world I could impose an agreement on them or dictate their security to them, even if I wished to do that, which I don’t. I don’t believe Israel or any other country should accept the dictates of the United States in a peace process.

“We cannot and we should not attempt to impose a peace on parties, because they have to live with the consequences,” the president said. “We are talking about a settlement of a sufficient number of issues that will permit them to get into the final status talks within the framework embodied by the agreement signed here in September 1993.”

Even before Clinton spoke, Israeli political analysts and some U.S. diplomats here were predicting that even if Netanyahu remains unbending--which is uncertain--it is unlikely that the United States will force an all-out confrontation with him. “It won’t end in a blowup,” a U.S. official here said. “It’s not in the interest of either side.”

For Clinton, any showdown with Netanyahu would have its risks, as the Israeli leader has considerable support in Congress and from American Jewish and Christian fundamentalist groups.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) on Wednesday strongly condemned White House pressure on Israel to compromise on territorial issues, saying the administration has become pro-Arafat and is blackmailing Israel. Gingrich was joined by lawmakers from both parties in asserting that the administration is trying to force a solution in the Middle East that would be against the best interests of Israel.

What is more likely to happen now, analysts said, is that Israel will come closer soon to the U.S. position, perhaps through “creative solutions” hinted at by Netanyahu and U.S. officials; the developing crisis will be defused or at least delayed. Israel has publicly accepted the idea of a 9% pullback and has told U.S. officials privately that it might agree to 11%.

Under terms of the interim agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, the West Bank is split into three kinds of territory: Area A, fully controlled by the Palestinians, amounts to 3% of the land; Area B, where Israel controls security and the Palestinians have civil authority, covers 24%; and Area C, under full Israeli authority, amounts to 73%.

One suggestion put forward in London was creation of a category--”B-minus” or “C-plus”--that would stay under Israeli security control but where Palestinians would have limited authority on civil issues. The Palestinians rejected this idea.

Hemi Shalev, a columnist for the Maariv newspaper, said Netanyahu could be betting that Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who is counting on the support of Jewish voters in his likely presidential bid, will be reluctant to be seen as pressing Israel too hard. “I’m not sure Netanyahu believes that the U.S. packs a punch behind its ultimatums anymore,” Shalev said. “Even if he says ‘no’ to the U.S. now, it may not mean anything down the line. I don’t think any major steps would be taken against him politically.”

On the other hand, members of the right-wing “Land of Israel Front” in the Israeli parliament have threatened to topple Netanyahu if he agrees to further troop withdrawals at this point in the negotiations. In terms of an immediate political crisis, Shalev said, Netanyahu “will only be damned if he does,” not if he does not accept the U.S. proposals.

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which conducted a conference telephone call with Albright on Tuesday night, said the U.S. figure of 13% had “no sanctity” and should not become the focus of efforts to revive the peace process.

Still, he said, “it is very important to start final status talks promptly. If the U.S. can get the parties there next week to jump-start the talks, that will be very helpful. But not with ultimatums and not by dictating to the parties.”

Meanwhile, the urgency of getting the process going again was underscored by a flare-up of violence in which two people, an Israeli and a Palestinian, were killed Wednesday in separate incidents.

Haim Korman, 28, a Jewish seminary student, was fatally stabbed in Jerusalem’s Old City as he walked to sunrise prayers at the Western Wall. Jerusalem police said they believe that the killing was politically motivated. Korman belonged to Ateret Cohanim yeshiva, which has been buying property in Arab areas of the Old City. Within hours of his death, Ateret Cohanim members set up tents on a vacant lot in the Muslim quarter, saying they would redouble their efforts to buy land and increase the Jewish presence in the disputed area.

The Israeli army, meanwhile, reported the shooting death of an unidentified Palestinian man after he allegedly tried to stab a resident of the West Bank Jewish settlement of Eli through an open car window. The settler, who suffered moderate injuries, shot and killed his assailant. An army spokesman said the incident is under investigation.

Times staff writer Norman Kempster in Washington contributed to this report.