Secretary of State James A. Baker III warned Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir yesterday that unless his new rightist government makes compromises necessary to open an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, the United States will halt its efforts to restart the long-stalled Middle East peace process.

Asserting that President Bush will be waiting at the White House to hear from the Israelis, Baker told the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "Everybody over there should know that the telephone number is 1-202-456-1414. When you're serious about peace, call us."

Baker's language -- the toughest he has ever addressed to Israel -- came as he turned questions from committee members about suspending the U.S. dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization into a broad statement of U.S. policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He indicated annoyance at several statements in Israel yesterday, including an assertion by the new foreign minister, David Levy, that past U.S. peace efforts had distorted Shamir's peace plan. {Details on Page A36.}

Baker criticized Arab governments for the confrontational, anti-American tone that characterized the recent Arab summit in Baghdad. And he put the PLO on notice that if it wants the U.S. dialogue to continue, it must condemn and discipline those responsible for an aborted May 30 attack against a beach near Tel Aviv.

But Baker's sharpest words were reserved for Shamir. He said the failure last March of an 11-month U.S. effort to bring about an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and the subsequent collapse of Israel's broad-based unity government were primarily the fault of Shamir's hard-line refusal to accept what the United States regarded as reasonable compromises.

He also expressed concern that Shamir's new government, which took office Monday after three months of political deadlock in Israel, is composed of elements unwilling to make any meaningful gestures toward dialogue with the Palestinian inhabitants of Israeli-occupied territories.

Before coming to yesterday's hearing, Baker said, he had seen reports quoting officials of the new government as saying that the U.S. plan for dialogue no longer was relevant and listing conditions that the Palestinians must accept in advance of any talks.

"Now if that's going to be the approach, and if that's going to be the attitude, there won't be any dialogue, and there won't be any peace, and the United States of America can't make it happen. You can't, I can't, the president can't," he said. "And so, it's going to take some really good-faith affirmative effort on the part of our good friends in Israel."

And "If we don't get it, and we can't get it quickly, I have to tell you . . . that everybody over there should know that the telephone number is 1-202-456-1414. When you're serious about peace, call us."

Exactly a year ago, in a speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the principal pro-Israeli lobbying group, Baker caused great consternation by calling on Israelis to give up their "dream of a greater Israel" incorporating the occupied territories. His call for Israel to trade land for peace ran counter to the goal of Shamir's Likud bloc, but the speech did not criticize the Jewish state or its leaders.

Baker's remarks yesterday, made in response to questions from Reps. William S. Broomfield (R-Mich.), Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and Mel Levine (D-Calif.), represented what U.S. officials later called a deliberate, planned attempt to use any question about the Mideast deadlock to put Shamir on notice that the United States will not go through another laborious effort to intercede in the peace process unless it is convinced that the Shamir government sincerely wants talks.

Baker's previous efforts were intended to further a plan proposed by Shamir in May 1989 calling for discussions between Israel and Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to arrange elections that would give the Palestinians a period of limited self-government.

However, movement was stalled by Palestinian desires to be represented by the PLO and Israel's refusal to deal with the exile organization. Baker sought to bridge that gap through three-way negotiations among the United States, Israel and Egypt, representing the Palestinians in choosing the Palestinian delegation.

In the end, the U.S. good-offices effort failed because Shamir insisted that only Palestinians currently living in the West Bank and Gaza could be part of their delegation. He refused to accept the inclusion of Palestinians whom Israel had expelled from the territories, on the grounds that they would be agents of the PLO, or of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem because of fear that would undermine Israel's claim to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem.

Baker, aware that Shamir's conditions were unacceptable to the Arab side, proposed a compromise that would allow inclusion of Palestinian expellees eligible for return to the occupied territories as well as East Jerusalem residents who also had residences on the West Bank. When Shamir vetoed that idea, Baker is known to have become suspicious that Shamir never was serious about his own dialogue proposal and was determined to sabotage it.

Although he said, "We're willing to let bygones be bygones," Baker yesterday described for the first time why the United States felt Shamir had not dealt fairly with Washington despite Shamir's calls for U.S. mediation. Baker said:

"We worked at this for 11 months, and we got extraordinarily close. . . . But we could not get a 'yes' answer to the question: As regards the participation in the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, would the government of Israel be ready to consider on a name-by-name basis any Palestinian who was a resident of the territories?

"At the same time, I made clear that we posed the question with an assumption; namely, that in the end there would be a few names selected that fit the categories of deportees who would be eligible to return and the categories of {persons with residences in East Jerusalem}.

"Now that's how close we got, and it's really very hard for us to understand -- since the Palestinians were prepared to come to the table to talk with the Israelis about elections -- it's hard for us to understand why we didn't get a 'yes' answer.

"We have not said that for lo these many months. And I think it's hard for a lot of people to understand why we couldn't get a 'yes' answer to that question."

The Israeli government reacted late yesterday by saying "the peace process is best served by direct communication" between the two governments.

In regard to the question of the PLO dialogue, Baker said, "I have made it very clear that the future of the dialogue is in great jeopardy." He acknowleged that breaking off the dialogue could have "adverse effects on the potential for the peace process to advance. However our commitment to fighting terrorism will not be diminished or deterred by whatever impact there might be on the peace process."