WASHINGTON — Hopes for an end-of-November peace summit in Jordan are quickly evaporating as negotiations between the two Palestinian Arab parties have broken down over the allotment of ministers in Gaza.

After signs earlier this week that Hamas would relinquish control of key ministries inside the Palestinian Authority, word from the terrorist political party yesterday was that it was changing its tune. Hamas leaders demanded that their men control the domestic ministries of any new government without agreeing either to change their charter to recognize Israel and renounce terror or even begin negotiations over the release of an Israeli soldier who was abducted in June, Gilad Shalit.

The deadlock in the intra-Palestinian Arab talks has dampened the expectation at Foggy Bottom that an international peace conference will take place in Amman on November 30, the date Secretary of State Rice has kept open for the prospect of a wide-ranging summit to restart the dormant Israeli-Arab negotiations.

Further eroding hopes yesterday for a peace conference was a new round of Israeli military incursions into Palestinian Arab territory.

The outlook yesterday from the negotiations in particular did not appear positive. The Jerusalem Post quoted Saeb Erekat, a negotiator and adviser to the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, as saying Hamas would not have to accede to a two-state solution. “We’re not asking Hamas to accept the two-state solution or the agreements that were signed between the PLO and Israel,” Mr. Erekat said. “We’re asking the new government to do so.”

Mr. Erekat also said statements from Hamas leaders about the ministries are “harmful” to the negotiations. For now, Hamas is demanding that its party control the powerful Interior Ministry, which Israel, during the Oslo process, asked to arrest and detain terrorists.

“We have been strong on Hamas meeting the requirements. If they cannot meet those simple requirements, we are not going to be able to do this,” an American diplomat who requested anonymity said yesterday. “There is no point in us rolling over for a Hamas-lite government. If they cannot be a partner for peace, then we can’t have a conference.”

The day-to-day negotiations toward Arab-Israeli talks in the last week have been left largely to Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, who will return to Washington on Friday from his tour of the Middle East. On Tuesday, Mr. Welch met with Mr. Abbas to discuss the parameters of the new government. He was in Amman, Jordan, yesterday for discussions with other Arab envoys.

One factor complicating plans for the November 30 parley is a peace proposal floated yesterday by France, Italy, and Spain, three countries the European Union represents in the Quartet process, which began in 2003. In substance, the plan, which the European leaders said would be unveiled to the European Union on December 13 and 14, does not differ much from the requirements of the Quartet, which also includes America, Russia, and the United Nations. For example, the new proposal calls for a national unity government, face to meetings between Prime Minister Olmert and Mr. Abbas, and an international force to be deployed in Gaza.

But the timing of the proposal, so close to the proposed November 30 conference, could create a rift within the Quaratet, which was created to bring the world powers together on the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict.

The acting spokesman at the State Department, Gonzago Gallegos, seemed to dismiss the initiative yesterday, emphasizing instead the primacy of the E.U. position within the Quartet. “We’ve seen the reports. What we haven’t seen is a new proposal from the E.U.,” he said. “We will continue to work closely with our Quartet partners and our friends in the region to create an environment that will facilitate progress towards the realization of the president’s two-state vision.”

One administration official said yesterday that the proposal reflects the need for the governments of France, Italy, and Spain to assuage concerns from their populations, but that it is not a serious effort to make an end run around American diplomacy.