U.S. Steps Up Role in Mideast Talks : Diplomacy: A compromise is offered, but Arabs say it ‘isn’t fair enough.’ A round of talks is completed.

WASHINGTON — With the Clinton Administration signaling its intention to become an increasingly active mediator in the Middle East peace process, negotiators on Thursday ended their first round of talks since the U.S. change of government with the Israelis upbeat and the Arabs increasingly glum.

In a last-minute attempt to reconcile competing Israeli and Palestinian proposals for Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Administration took a step that the George Bush Administration had consistently shunned. It presented a U.S. plan that Assistant Secretary of State Edward P. Djerejian represented as a compromise between competing Arab and Israeli proposals.

But Haidar Abdel-Shafi, chairman of the Palestinian delegation, said the U.S. plan was “not fair enough.” Although he did not elaborate, Israeli and Palestinian sources said the U.S. proposal sided with Israel on such key issues as the status of Jerusalem and the jurisdiction of an elected Palestinian authority.

After the Palestinians demanded changes in the U.S. proposal, Elyakim Rubinstein, Israel’s chief delegate, said that if the plan were altered to satisfy the Arabs, Israel would come back with proposed changes of its own.

With the 3-week-old round in its final hours, there was no possibility of reconciling the differences before adjournment, although Djerejian said the negotiators would continue to discuss the paper before the talks resume, probably in early June.

The sudden U.S. intervention produced a certain irony. Arab delegations had been clamoring for months for the United States to play a more active role, while Israel had objected strongly to any outside interference. When the Americans moved, however, the Arabs complained and the Israelis applauded.

The change in attitude by the Arabs and Israelis probably reflects their perceptions that the Bush Administration tilted toward the Arabs and the Clinton Administration leans toward Israel.

Djerejian called for a U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting to discuss the U.S. proposal. The Palestinians refused to attend, probably because the timing did not give them a chance to clear the matter with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Abdel-Shafi said his delegation would attend a three-way meeting, but only to ratify an agreement worked out in advance through U.S.-Palestinian and U.S.-Israeli talks.

The chiefs of all four Arab delegations told a press conference that there had been almost no progress during the ninth round of separate but parallel negotiations between Israel and its adversaries--Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians. But Israeli negotiators insisted that the round was a positive one. Djerejian said that all four sets of talks produced “a deeper discussion of substance” than previous rounds.

Djerejian and the Israelis predicted that the talks would resume in early June. The Arabs said they had not yet decided if they would continue the negotiations, although they indicated strongly that they will.

The United States had urged that the negotiations be continuous, but the Arab delegations rejected the proposal.

There was no suggestion that the negotiators had reached final agreement on any issue, but U.S. officials said it was remarkable that the parties were seriously discussing their differences. For instance, Israel and Syria have agreed in principle to Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for peace. But the Israelis want to know the nature of the peace before agreeing to withdraw, while the Syrians want a guarantee of Israeli withdrawal before discussing a treaty.