News Conferences & Interviews on the
Middle East/Israel
(2000)
JANUARY 4, 2000
Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, how are the talks going in the Middle
East—on the Middle East, Syria-Israel?
The President. Well, we just started, but all the issues
are on the table. And it’s a pretty full table, as you might imagine.
Q. Are they going to get together?
The President. We’re working at it. I’m
going back up today, and I’m hopeful.
Q. Are you disappointed at all with the pace of yesterday’s
talks and that the trilat did not take place?
The President. No. No, that was partly my decision.
We just had a lot of other work to do, and I’m going back today.
I think they’re both very serious. I think they both want an agreement.
I think there are difficult issues, and we’ll just have to hope
that we work it out.
Press Secretary Joe Lockhart. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Q. How about the reports that the Israelis need $17
billion, sir?
The President. What?
Q. The reports the Israelis need $17 billion——
The President. I don’t—excuse me, I’ve
lost my cufflink—I think there will be some costs associated with
the security rearrangements. And then obviously, over the long run,
as I have made clear, we need to make a contribution, as do our friends
in Europe and hopefully some in Asia, to the long-term economic development
of a regional Middle East economy. So there will be some costs involved
there, over a period of years, not just in one year.
We’re trying to determine exactly what that should
be. And of course, before I can make any commitments, I will have to
consult with the congressional leadership in both Houses and in both
parties and some of the committee leaders as well. And I have made that
clear. So we’re attempting to ascertain what the general outlines
of the costs would be, over how many years those costs can be spread,
and then I will have to do some serious consultation with the congressional
leadership before I can do more than say I would support this.
We want to have a high probability of success, and
I believe that in America, Americans of all political parties and all
stripes desperately want us to see a comprehensive peace in the Middle
East and understand that in the next 3 to 4 months we have an unparalleled
opportunity that we have to seize. So I’m quite hopeful about
that.
Q. Is $17 million—$17 billion the right figure?
The President. I don’t know yet. What we’re
working on now up in West Virginia is sort of figuring out what the
process for the next few days is going to be. And then we have to start
working on that and figuring out what the specific jobs are that we
would be asked to help finance, whether we could get any others to help,
and over how many years it would have to be done. Then I’ll have
to go talk to the Congress. And I’m just not in a position yet
to say what dollar amount I would ask our Congress for.
JANUARY 7, 2000
Q. Are you satisfied with the cooperation that you’ve
been getting from the Israeli and Syrian negotiators in Shepherdstown?
The President. Yes. This is difficult stuff. This is
very hard. But let me say, they’re working hard, and they’re
trying to find ways to resolve their differences. And they’re
trying to imagine the end of the road here. It’s a difficult,
difficult set of negotiations, but we’re working in a steady way,
and I’m satisfied that everybody is working in good faith.
Q. How long do you expect this to take? The President.
I don’t know—until we finish.
Q. Mr. President, how do you see your role in Shepherdstown
to get these talks moving?
The President. Oh, I don’t want to characterize
that. I just try to get people together and identify what they have
in common and identify what their differences are, try to get people
to keep in mind the big picture at the end, what we want the—in
this case, what we hope and pray the Middle East will look like in 5
years or 10 years from now. And then try to work these things through
to the end. But we’re just trying to be helpful, and I hope we
are, and we’re working at it.
JANUARY 10, 2000
Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, how far do you think that they got
in Shepherdstown, and when do you expect the two sides to get back together
again?
The President. Oh, I think they’ll be back here
pretty soon. We’re just trying to work out the precise arrangements.
And you know, these people really talked about the substance of their
differences for the first time. They were very open; they were very
candid; they covered all the issues. And I think that they broke a lot
of ground. But it’s tough. I told you it was tough in the beginning.
I still think we can get there, but they’re going to have to come
back here determined to do so, and I believe they will.
Q. You’re not disappointed, sir, in the results?
The President. Oh, no. I never expected in the first
go ’round that we could have a concluding agreement. It’s
just—this is too tough. These are very difficult issues. But they’re
not— the good news is they’re not overwhelmingly complicated.
That is, sometimes you have in these peace negotiations issues that
are both politically difficult and extremely complicated.
I think there’s some complexity here, but it’s
all quite manageable. So I think that they know where they are now;
they’ve talked through. They have a feeling for each other; they’ve
dealt with all these issues. We have a working—a document, if
you will, on which we can work through the differences. And so I feel
pretty good about it.
I think our United States team did a good job. I’m
very proud of Secretary Albright and Mr. Berger and all the rest of
them. They did a good job. And I think the people who came from Israel
and from Syria really are trying to make a difference. So if they want
to do it bad enough and they’re willing to sort of take a chance
on a totally different future, they can get there. And I certainly hope
they will, and I’m still quite hopeful.
Middle East Peace Process
Q. You said you were hopeful with the Pales
tinian talks? The President. Oh, very, yes.
Q. For next month?
The President. Yes. I’m quite hopeful there,
too. Mr. Arafat is coming here in a few days, and I’m quite hopeful.
JANUARY 19, 2000
Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, you’ve spoken to President
Asad. Do you have any reason to believe that the peace talks will restart
soon?
The President. Well, first of all, I think it’s
very important that you—I think this has been well and accurately
reported, as nearly as I can tell. But I want to reiterate, neither
side has decided to back away from the peace talks, call an end to them,
call a freeze to them. That’s not what’s going on. They
are having a genuine dispute about sequencing now that I’m trying
to work through for both of them.
But the good news about this is that both these leaders,
I think, want a peace that meets each other’s needs. That is,
they’re both quite mindful of the fact that there won’t
be a peace agreement unless the legitimate concerns of both sides are
met.
And I would not say the gaps in the positions are 90
percent; I’d say they’re much closer to 10 percent than
90 percent. But keep in mind, these folks had not dealt with each other
in a very long time. And that week they spent together at Shepherdstown
was really the first time they had had these kind of direct contacts,
get a feel for where they were. They wanted to go home and reassess
their positions. And so we need to do some trust-building. We’ve
got some work to do, but I’m actually quite hopeful.
And I see that both sides have continued to evidence
a fairly high level of confidence that they can succeed, and that’s
good news. So we’re in a little patch here where I’ve just
got a little extra work to do, and I’m working at it. And hopefully,
we can do it.
Q. [Inaudible]—Asad today or yesterday?
The President. Yes, I talked to President Asad, I think
yesterday, wasn’t it?
Q. But since then——
The President. No, not since yesterday morning. But
I’ll be in regular contact with him continuously. So we’re
working this very, very hard. And of course, we’re also working
on the Palestinian track, and tomorrow Chairman Arafat will be here,
and I expect to have a good meeting with him. You know, if this were
easy, it would have been done a long time ago. But we’re working
at it, and I’m pretty hopeful.
JANUARY 20, 2000
Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks
President Clinton. Let me just say I am delighted to
have Chairman Arafat back in the White House. As all of you know, I
am absolutely committed to seeing a comprehensive peace agreement involving
the Palestinians and the Israelis, committed to doing whatever I can
to achieve that. The resolution of the issues between Palestinians and
Israelis is at the core of the comprehensive effort that we all want
to make for peace throughout the Middle East, and we have to work through
them.
As in any process like this, there must be inevitable
and difficult compromises. No one can get everything that either side
wants. But I’m convinced we can get there, and I’m convinced
that Chairman Arafat is proceeding in great good faith, and so I’m
glad to see him, glad he’s here.
Q. Mr. President, is it possible for these talks to
be completed by the deadline for the framework agreement? And if not,
would you support extending it?
President Clinton. Well, I think that will have to
be worked out between the two sides, and specifically between Chairman
Arafat and Prime Minister Barak. And they will work that out. I think
the main thing I want you to know is that I’m convinced it’s
possible for them to reach a comprehensive peace in a reasonably short
period of time. And I’m going to do whatever I can to facilitate
it.
Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, when can we expect talks on the Syrian
tracks to be resumed?
President Clinton. I think they’ll both have
something to say about that before long. I think they’ll keep
working right along. This is not— you shouldn’t overreact
to what has been said about this. I think they’re both completely
determined to get this resolved in an appropriate way. And I think they’ll
have things to say about it as we go along here. But don’t read
too much into this. Actually, the parties have a framework for making
these decisions that’s more clear and more bridgeable than I would
have thought by now.
FEBRUARY 9, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, what are you doing about the daily
bombing of Lebanon?
The President. Well, let me say, we are doing our best
to get the peace process back on track. I think it is clear that the
bombing is a reaction to the deaths, in two separate instances, of Israeli
soldiers. What we need to do is to stop the violence and start the peace
process again. We’re doing our best to get it started. And we’re
working very, very hard on it.
FEBRUARY 11, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. In the Middle East, Mr. President, do you fear that
the Israel-Lebanon conflict is spinning out of control? And what does
this mean for the peace process in general?
The President. Well, so far I think both sides have
tried to keep it within control but take the—the Israelis have
taken the retaliatory action they felt they had to take. But there has
been some restraint there in the hope of keeping the peace process alive.
It seems to me that it is a sober reminder of why we
ought to resume the peace process with great determination. A comprehensive
peace between Syria and Lebanon and Israel is the only way, ultimately,
I think, to resolve the continuing difficulties, over many years now,
along that border. And similarly, I think peace between Israel and the
Palestinians is critical to resolving the gnawing problems which reoccur
from time to time within the borders of the countries.
So I would hope that it would redouble peo-ple’s
energy for it. And so far, I think that that’s where we are, that
you don’t have the people who are the real players here—as
nearly as I can see, and I watch it pretty closely, you know—giving
up on the peace process. You do have a lot of frustration, anger. There’s
still a surprising amount of misunderstanding of each other’s
motives, given how long these folks have been living together and working
together. But we’ll see. I’m hopeful.
FEBRUARY 14, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Mr. Blitzer. All right. We have a chat room that’s
going on even as we speak right now. There’s a question from one
person: Are you optimistic, Mr. President, about the future for Middle
East peace?
The President. Yes, I am. This is—we’re
in a little tough patch right now, because a lot of things are going
on in the Middle East, the trouble in Lebanon right now. And we’re
down to the last strokes, if you will. We’re down to the hard
decisions. But I believe it is so clearly in the interests of the long-term
security of Israel and the long-term interests of the Palestinians and
the Syrians and the Lebanese to have a comprehensive peace. And I think
we’re so close on the substance that I am optimistic.
Now, it will require courage. And it will require courage
not just by the leaders, but the people of those countries have to recognize
that you cannot make peace unless you’re willing to give as well
as to get. But they ought to do it, and they ought to do it sooner rather
than later. I think that the longer you delay something like this, when
you have a moment of opportunity, the more you put it at risk. But I
am basically optimistic.
Mr. Blitzer. You’ve invested a lot of your personal
time and energy in the Israeli-Palestinian and the Israeli-Syrian peace
process. Is it time for you, once again, to personally get involved
and bring the parties together, do something to make sure this opportunity
is not lost?
The President. Well, I am personally involved, even
when I’m not in a public way. I’m always on the phone, always
working this issue. But I think that there will have to be some forward
progress here in the next few weeks, and I’ll do whatever I can
to facilitate it in whatever way I can. But beyond that, I don’t
want to say anything right now. We’re working it, and the parties
are working it.
MARCH 21, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Mr. Jennings. Last question, sir. You’re going
to see President Asad in Geneva on Sunday.
That’s a pretty big meeting. Does this mean a
deal is close?
The President. I wouldn’t say that. But I will
say this. Ever since they met in Shepherdstown the first of the year,
and then the talks sort of were stalled, I’ve been working very
hard with both sides. I now think I’m in a position to have a
sense of what it will take for both sides to get an agreement. So it’s
an appropriate time for me to discuss this with President Asad, in the
hope that we can start the talks again.
I’m encouraged by the decisions that have been
made by the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think they are committed
to going forward, and they have a pretty good timetable. They’re
going to have to work hard to make it. And I think that the only way
we’ll ever have this thing the way it ought to be in the Middle
East is to finish with the Syrians and then with the Lebanese, as well.
So I think this is time. Whether it will lead to a
breakthrough, I don’t know. I hope it will lead to a resumption
of talks.
Mr. Jennings. Is it safe to assume that President Asad
doesn’t leave the country easily and would not agree to go to
Geneva to see you were you not to have something pretty good to offer?
The President. I think it’s safe to assume that
I wouldn’t waste his time, either. I think that we have—it’s
time for us to talk about what we think it would take to resume these
talks and move to a resolution. And I’m going to give him my honest
opinion about where we are and where I think we can go. And then we
just need to make a decision, all of us, about whether to go forward.
But principally, it’s a decision for the Israelis and the Syrians.
Mr. Jennings. Does this involve a comprehensive settlement,
one that involves the Syrian Golan Heights, the Israelis, and the Israeli
withdrawal from Lebanon?
The President. Well, I want to talk to President Asad.
There isn’t an agreement, yet. But if there is an agreement, I
would hope it would lead to a resolution of both the Syrian issues and
the Lebanese issues, which is very important in Israel. The Israelis
care a lot about that, and well they should. And of course, the Lebanese
do. We’ll see. Keep your fingers crossed
MARCH 28, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. President Clinton, how much faith do you have in
peace being concluded before you leave your tenure here?
President Clinton. Well, I think we are making and
will continue to see good progress between the Israelis and Palestinians.
I went to Switzerland to meet President Asad, to clarify to him what
I thought the options were and to hear from him what his needs are.
I asked him to come back to me with what he thought ought to be done.
So the ball is in his court now, and I’m going to look forward
to hearing from him. And we’re going to talk about what else I
can do, what else we can do together. President Mubarak has been at
this longer than I have, and we’re going to keep working.
Q. President Clinton, your term ends in a few months
now. Do you think the Israelis are ready to go along and finalize the
peace process during that period? And what do you think the steps that
they are going to take? For President Mubarak, do you foresee a solution
in the near future?
President Clinton. Well, I think they are making very
serious efforts. And I think Prime Minister Barak would like to do this
as quickly as he can. And I can tell you they have made very, very serious
efforts on all tracks, and I think you will continue to see progress
at least on the Palestinian track. And of course, I hope we’ll
have some progress on the Syrian one, as well—as well as in Lebanon.
MARCH 29, 2000
Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, you said that the ball is in Asad’s
court. Is that because you think that his insistence on the return of
all Syrian land under occupation in exchange for peace lacks logic or
possibility?
The President. It’s because he now knows in great
detail what the Israeli proposals were. And I believe, since they have
made an effort to be specific and comprehensive, if we’re going
to make progress, they should now be able to know what his specific
and comprehensive response is on all the issues.
There is more than one issue here. And if we’re
going to have a negotiation, I don’t think it’s enough to
say, "I don’t like your position. Come back and see me when
I like your position." And I understand how strongly he feels about
it, but if he disagrees with their territorial proposal, which is quite
significant, then there should be some other proposal, I think, coming
from the Syrians about how their concerns could be handled. And that’s
what I meant by that. I did my best to try to just present what I thought
the options were. And if we’re going to have a negotiation, it
takes two people coming up with ideas—or three sides, in this
case, if we are being asked to mediate it.
He, obviously, has the perfect right to take whatever
position he believes is in Syria’s interests and whatever he thinks
is right. But if there is a genuine desire for peace here on both sides,
and I believe there is, and if both sides face certain significant political
constraints within their countries, and I believe they do, then they
both need to come up with some ideas and start talking.
I mean, the one thing there should be no doubt about
is that there is a real effort being made here to resolve this. And
I think it is clear that Prime Minister Barak would like to resolve
it, and I think President Asad would like to resolve it. So once you
know what the other side wants and you don’t think you can do
it, then you ought to come up with some alternative way of trying to
respond to the underlying concerns that are behind the position. That’s
what I’ve suggested, and I hope that will happen. And meanwhile,
the rest of us will keep working. I had a good talk with President Mubarak
yesterday about that, and I hope we can continue to move forward.
Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to deploy American
advisers, monitors, or troops on the Golan Heights to secure an Israeli-Syrian
peace accord? Did you discuss that at all with President Asad and, if
so, what was his response?
The President. We did not discuss it. So far, all the
options being discussed by Syria and Israel do not entail that. The
only time I ever even discussed it as a theoretical possibility was
many years ago with the late Prime Minister Rabin. And it was clear
to me, even then, that both sides were looking for a way to resolve
this that would not require an international force including American
troops there, and I think they are still trying to get that done.
APRIL 11, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, why did you call Mr. Barak so urgently
to come to Washington? What was the urgency in the matter?
President Clinton. Well, we wanted to talk to each
other. It was as much his idea as mine. I think that he wants to continue
to energize the peace process, move forward with the Palestinians and
with his withdrawal from Lebanon, and I strongly support that, and we’re
going to talk about it.
Q. Mr. President, what is the United States going to
do to prevent an outburst of violence in Lebanon when Israel pulls out
in only 3 months?
President Clinton. Well, if Israel pulls out in accordance
with the United Nations resolution, what justification will anyone have
for violence? They’ve been asking for this for years—years
and years and years.
Q. Justification or not, there is a warning that there
could be a real violent——
Q. That doesn’t stop Hezbollah from doing
its—— President Clinton. We’ll talk
about that.
Q. Is there anything the U.S. can do for Israel to
make the withdrawal serene, to make it peaceful?
President Clinton. Well, "serene" is a word
not normally used in the context of the Middle East these days, but
we’ll do what we can to help, and we’re going to talk about
it.
Q. Mr. President, are things as bleak on the
Syrian track as it seems to us? President Clinton.
Excuse me?
Q. Are things as bleak as they seem to us, on the Syrian
track?
President Clinton. Well, I got an answer back from
President Asad to several of the points that I raised when I met with
him in Switzerland. And there are still differences, if that’s
what—but that’s no bleaker than it was before we met. And
so I think what we’ve got to do is figure out where we go from
there. But I think there’s a lot of hope for more rapid movement
on the Palestinian front, and that’s what we’re going to
talk about.
Q. Is the door still open? Is the door still open on
Syrian track? Is the door still open?
President Clinton. You should be asking him, but I
think so. But there’s got to be a willingness. So we’ve
got to bridge some of these divides, and so we need to make progress
where we can.
Q. Are you going to discuss a new proposal on the Syrian
front?
President Clinton. Today we’re going to discuss,
I think, mostly the Palestinian track and Lebanon.
Q. Are you satisfied with the pace of Israel’s
withdrawal on the Palestinian track?
President Clinton. I think you should wait and see
what happens in the next few weeks before we talk about that.
Q. Well, the——
President Clinton. We’re going to talk about
what’s going to happen from here on in.
Israeli Weapon Sales to China
Q. [Inaudible]—Israel’s view of China?
Can you talk about that issue, when you come back from the Prime Minister,
Israel’s sale of weaponry to China? Is that going to affect things?
President Clinton. We’re going to talk about
that. I’m concerned about it; you know I am, and we’ll talk
about it.
Q. [Inaudible]—on the Palestinian track today?
Prime Minister Barak. We have a variety of ideas to
discuss about how to move to give new momentum and energy to the Palestinian
track in order to live up to the timeline that we have set together
with Chairman Arafat.
Q. And what are you going to tell the President about
China, selling arms to China? Prime Minister Barak. We’ll discuss
it.
APRIL 20, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, did you write a letter for former
Prime Minister Netanyahu, promising him that Israel would keep its nuclear
or mass destruction weapons in case they reach an agreement with the
Palestinians?
The President. I don’t believe that issue ever
came up in connection with an agreement with the Palestinians, with
Mr. Netanyahu or any other Israeli Prime Minister. To the best of my
memory, it did not.
I think you all know what the issues are between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. They are difficult, but I think they
can be bridged. If the parties want to do this, we will do everything
we can to help them and to minimize the difficulties and the risks involved.
There are risks and difficulties involved for Chairman Arafat; there
are risks and difficulties involved for Prime Minister Barak, for the
Palestinian people, and for the Israeli people. I believe they are not
nearly as great as the risks and difficulties of not making a peace
agreement, so I hope they will do it. And if they want to do it, I’ll
do whatever I can to help them.
MAY 31, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, it’s been a very busy couple
of weeks in the Middle East, as you know. I’m wondering whether
what’s happened there recently has created any new opportunities
for the peace process, what dangers it might have raised, and whether
anything that’s happened there has given you new hope that the
September 13th deadline for a Palestinian-Israeli agreement will be
reached?
President Clinton. Well, I think the decision of Prime
Minister Barak to withdraw the Israeli troops from southern Lebanon,
in accordance with the United Nations resolution, was, first of all,
a daring one which creates both new challenges and new opportunities.
It changed the landscape. And from my point of view, it imposes on—it
should impose, at least, on all parties a greater sense of urgency,
because things are up in the air again. So there is an opportunity,
to use a much overworked phrase, to create a new order, to fashion a
new peaceful order out of the principles of the Oslo accord and all
that’s been done in the year since.
But from my point of view, it also imposes a much greater
sense of urgency. I think the consequences of inaction are now likely
to be more difficult because of this move. And so— for example,
you have now—just for example, you talked about the Palestinians.
I think this will heighten the anxieties of the Palestinians in Lebanon.
Does this mean that there is going to be a peace and, therefore, they
will be able to have a better life, either going home or going to some
third country, going to Europe, going to the United States? Or does
this mean that this is it, and there is sort of a new freezing of the
situation? So there is anxiety in that community. You see that in every
little aspect of this.
I think, on balance, it’s good, because I believe
they are going to reach an agreement. But it both turns the tension
up in all camps and increases the overall price of not reaching an agreement
fairly soon and the overall reward of reaching an agreement fairly soon.
It changes everything in a way that both increases the pluses and increases
the potential minuses. That’s my analysis.
Q. President Clinton, sir, can you confirm if it’s
true that tomorrow you will meet in Lisbon with Prime Minister from
Israel Ehud Barak?
President Clinton. Yes. I will, and I’m going
to talk to Mr. Arafat before that, sometime today.
Upcoming Meeting With Prime Minister Ehud Barak of
Israel
Q. Mr. President, can you please explain the timing
and reasoning behind your visit tomorrow with Barak and tell us what
you hope to accomplish?
President Clinton. Yes. They have—first of all,
all the balls are up in the air as I just explained, and so there is
both greater potential for something happening and also greater tension
in the atmosphere, which is causing a ripple effect in the relationship
between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Secondly, Mr. Barak and Mr. Arafat have set for themselves
an earlier timetable, as you know, to reach a framework agreement—not
a final agreement; that’s supposed to be done in Sep-tember—but
an earlier one. And there are lots of things that need to be gone through
that we need to go through if we’re even going to reach the framework
agreement, because a lot of the toughest things have to be—they’ll
have to come to grips with those just to reach the framework agreement.
So I have been looking for an opportunity to meet with
Prime Minister Barak. As you know, he was supposed to come to the United
States a few days ago, and because of developments in the region, he
could not come. Then he was going to come to Germany and participate
in an event to which he was invited anyway, and we were going to talk,
and then he couldn’t do that because of a holiday in Israel. So
this was the only shot we had to do it and still have enough time to
meet the deadline that both he and Mr. Arafat are trying to meet.
There’s no—you shouldn’t overread
this. It’s not like there’s some bombshell out there. But
we just really needed to have a face-to-face meeting, and we needed
to do it in this time-frame. He couldn’t come last week to the
United States. Then he couldn’t come to Berlin to the meeting
to which he was also invited. So we’re doing the best we can with
a difficult situation.
JUNE 28, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. There are reports that Israel and the Palestinians
will be coming to Washington next week for talks. Do you think enough
progress is being made to arrange a Middle East summit, or are you discouraged?
And secondly, should Israel stop the sale of radar systems to China?
The President. Let me answer the second question first
because that's a much clearer one. We're very concerned about that sale,
and I've talked to Prime Minister Barak about it extensively. And as
you know, there's a lot of concern in the Congress, so we're still working
on that.
Now, in terms of their coming here for talks, there
has been no date set. I do not believe that they can resolve the final,
most difficult issues without having the leaders get together in some
isolated setting and make the last tough decisions--or decide not to
make them, as the case may be.
Of all the issues involved with regard to all the parties
in the Middle East peace talks, the final status issues between the
Israelis and the Palestinians are the most difficult. I do not, however,
believe they're going to get any easier with the passage of time. I
think that some foreign policy problems--the answer is to kick the can
down the road and wait for them to get better and hope time takes care
of them. Some have to be decided sooner or later, and sooner is better
than later. My own instinct is that the cluster of problems here would
be better off being resolved sooner rather than later.
I've had Mr. Ross out in the Middle East, and then
Secretary Albright went, and she's going to give me a report. And when
she does, then I'll make a judgment about whether the time is right
to ask them to come here. But I have not made that decision yet.
JULY 10, 2000
Israeli Knesset Vote
Q. Mr. President, the Israeli Government is falling
apart. How is Barak going to be able to negotiate a peace?
The President. Well, first, I think it's important
to note that, as the news reports this morning in Israel reflect, a
solid majority of the people want him to come and want him to pursue
peace.
Look, if this were easy, it would have been done a
long time ago. This is difficult. It is perhaps the most difficult of
all the peace problems in the world, certainly dealing with the most
difficult issues of the whole Middle East peace process, on which I
have worked for nearly 8 years now. But both Prime Minister Barak and
Chairman Arafat have the vision, the knowledge, the experience, and
the ability and the shear guts to do what it takes, I think, to reach
an agreement, and then to take it back to their people and see if they
can sell it.
And keep in mind, Prime Minister Barak has said that
the people of Israel will have their say on this. So this is really,
I think, a matter of trying to come to grips with the issues on the
merits, asking whether the price of peace is greater than the price
of continued conflict and all the associated difficulties and heartbreaks
and uncertainties and insecurity that that carries.
And I'm going to do my best to help them. I admire
both of them for coming. It's not easy for either to come. But they
have come because they think that the price of not doing it is greater
than the risk of going forward. And I hope we'll have the thoughts and
prayers and best wishes of all Americans. It's going to be a difficult
process. But the fact that they're coming means that we still have a
chance.
JULY 26, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. On the Middle East, Mr. President, the Palestinians
are saying the deal on the table on Jerusalem is just not doable. If
that's the case, how can there ever be a compromise?
The President. Well, first of all, let me try to frame
this in a way that I think that the Palestinians and the Israelis, and
I would hope other friends of peace around the world, would think about
it. We all know how hard Jerusalem is because it goes to the sense of
identity of both the Palestinian and the Israeli people, and in a larger
sense, the adherence of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all around
the world.
In a sense, therefore, the city of Jerusalem is not
just Yerushalayim for the Israelis and Al-Quds for the Palestinians.
It is a holy place that reaches beyond even the geographical boundaries
of the city.
If there is to be an agreement here, it must be one
which meets the legitimate interests of both parties. And that requires
a certain imagination and flexibility of defining those interests and
then figuring out an institutional and legal framework for them that,
frankly, just takes more time and more reflection and probably less
pressure than was available in our 15 days at Camp David.
But in any negotiation, it must be possible for both
sides to say they got most of what they wanted and needed, that they
were not routed from the field, that there was honorable compromise.
And so, therefore, the issues cannot be framed in a "you have to
lose in order for me to win, and in order for you to win, I have to
lose" framework. If they are like that, you're correct, then we
can never reach an agreement.
But I have spent a great deal of time, obviously, not
only studying about this but listening to the two sides talk about it,
think about it, and looking at all the options available for a potential
resolution of it. And all I can tell you is, I'm convinced that if the
issue is preserving the fundamental interests of the Palestinians and
the Israelis and the genuine sanctity of the Muslim, Christian, and
Jewish interest in the Holy City, then I think we can do that. I just
do. But we couldn't do it in the 15 days we were there.
The decision that will have to be made is whether there
is a way-- for example, in this case, you mentioned the Palestinians--for
the Palestinians to win their fundamental interest without also winning
the right to say they have routed the Israelis, or whether there's a
way for the Israelis to protect their fundamental interests without
also winning the right to say they have stuck it to the Palestinians.
I believe there is, and we're going to explore how we might persuade
them, all of them, that there is and where we go from here.
And I hope that just this kind of thing I've been talking
about will spark a whole range of "oh" articles in the press,
commentators on the TV programs, other people talking and thinking this
way, trying to be innovative and open and--you know, I realize the incredible
pressure these people were under in even having this discussion. That
is, in the end, why I realized we couldn't get it done in 2 weeks. You've
got to get used to talking about something for a little bit before you
can then entertain how you can create an edifice that you hadn't previously
imagined. And I think we'll be able to do it.
JULY 28, 2000
U.S. Embassy in Israel
Q. Mr. President, are you going to move the Embassy
to Jerusalem, or take any other steps to reward the Israelis and punish
the Palestinians over Camp David?
The President. First of all, I have nothing to add
to what I said yesterday. I think we released the transcript of my interview
with Israeli television. We are working aggressively to get these talks
back on track. The two parties are meeting, as you know, and has been
widely reported.
I meant what I said yesterday, and I reaffirm it. I
think what we should all do is to recognize that Prime Minister Barak
took some far- reaching steps. The two parties discussed things they
had never discussed before. They came closer together than they had
ever come before. They still have a ways to go. And I think we need
to support the friends of peace and this process in every way that we
can. That's what I intend to do.
AUGUST 10, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Do you have any special message for the Arab world
after Camp David?
The President. We have in the next few months an historic
chance to resolve the Palestinian issue. It is the core of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, and we can and must resolve it on a basis that's fair, honorable,
and lasting. Together, we need to seize this opportunity, or it will
be lost. The parties cannot do it alone. We need the help of our Arab
friends in the region. And we need an approach that resolves problems
in a practical and fair way so that the principles that guide Arab-Israeli
peace--comprehensiveness and implementation of United Nations Security
Resolutions 242 and 338, including land for peace--can be realized in
a way that meets the needs of both sides. What is fair and just for
Palestinians and Arabs must also be fair and just for Israelis. There
cannot be a winner and a loser in these negotiations. We must have two
winners, or we will lose the peace.
I know that there is a deep sense of grievance in the
Arab world, and through nearly 8 years of working for peace alongside
Chairman Arafat, I understand the suffering and pain of the Palestinians.
But I also know that the only pathway to realize Palestinian aspirations
is through negotiations, through the process of give and take where
each side can have its needs met and its hopes realized. I urge all
those in this region committed to peace to join with me and to seize
this historic moment.
The opportunity to work for a lasting peace between
the Palestinian and Israeli people has been among the most meaningful
and rewarding aspects of my Presidency. I am motivated in these efforts
by the possibility of a better future for all of the peoples in the
region. We must all remain focused on this better future, a future in
which the Palestinian people might finally achieve through negotiations
their aspiration of a Palestinian State recognized by and integrated
with the world, at peace and working to address the needs of the Palestinian
people.
U.S. Role in the Peace Process
Q. How would you characterize the American role during
Camp David talks? Do you see that role evolving in the future, and if
so, in what direction?
The President. The talks at Camp David were revolutionary
in their detail, their directness, and their honesty about what each
side needed to reach an agreement. I worked personally--sometimes all
night long-- with both sides to advance this process. Both sides, both
Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak, worked hard and in good faith
on difficult problems. Sometimes we proposed ideas, suggestions, even
language. We made progress across the board. At the same time, our role
was not and will never be a substitute for direct Israeli-Palestinian
engagement. We will need both levels of interaction to reach an agreement.
U.S. Embassy
Q. You have repeatedly urged the two sides of the conflict
not to take any unilateral action that could block progress in the peace
process. However, you told Israeli television in your recent interview
that you are reviewing the decision to move the Embassy to Jerusalem
by the end of the year. Don't you consider this announcement a contradiction
of the stated American policy and an impediment to your peace efforts?
The President. From the beginning of my administration,
one factor has guided me: to take no action that I judged would harm
the peace process. That still is my guiding principle. The 2 weeks I
spent at Camp David underscores my commitment to doing everything I
can to help both sides reach an agreement.
With regard to the Embassy, I stated that I would review
the issue by the end of the year, and I will do so. It is my great hope
that by then Israelis and Palestinians--with our help--will have reached
an agreement on Jerusalem that meets their needs. Then I would also
be able to inaugurate an American Embassy in the capital of a Palestinian
State. I firmly believe that the Jerusalem problem can be resolved in
a way in which both sides' national aspirations can be realized.
Jerusalem
Q. Many Arabs consider President Clinton as the most
sympathetic to the suffering of the Palestinian people and their political
aspirations and the only leader in their history to have achieved breakthroughs
in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Are you concerned that taking a position
in the issue of Jerusalem at this stage would hurt not only Arabs but
Muslims and Christians around the world?
The President. I have worked hard to understand the
plight of the Palestinian people, to understand their aspirations, their
losses, and their frustrations. My trip to Gaza and the opportunity
to address the Palestinian National Council with Chairman Arafat was
critical to this process and a great honor for me.
I am guided in my efforts by one central goal, the
need to promote a fair and honorable solution to each of the core issues
that both sides find acceptable. Jerusalem is a difficult issue because
of its critical importance to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. It is
a unique problem which requires a unique solution. In this regard, Jerusalem
is really three cities: It is a municipal city like any other with problems
of environment, traffic control, and city services; it is a holy city
which embodies the values of three great religious traditions and which
contains religious sites sacred to three religions; and it is a political
city which symbolizes the national aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Resolving the issue of Jerusalem means dealing with all three of these
dimensions in a way that harms no one's interests and promotes the interests
of all. And I believe it can be done.
Q. The Camp David summit was a landmark in terms of
tackling for the first time the core issues, and at the same time it
did not produce the hoped-for final agreement. Are you worried that
reducing your personal involvement in the process would lead to a speedy
deterioration of the situation?
The President. One of the remarkable aspects of the
Camp David experience was that Israelis and Palestinians engaged on
the core issues in an unprecedented manner. They broke taboos and discussed
issues seriously and not on the basis of mere rhetoric and slogans.
I am ready to do my part. To do so effectively, both sides will need
to be ready to make historic decisions and, on the most sensitive issues,
recognize that both must be satisfied.
Confidentiality of the Peace Process
Q. Did you receive a letter from Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat recently? What can you tell us about it?
The President. One of the reasons Arabs and Israelis
continue to look to the United States for help is that we protect their
confidences. I have great respect for Chairman Arafat, and I'm sure
you understand that I'm not going to start now by talking publicly about
letters either from him or Prime Minister Barak.
Further Negotiations
Q. Are you willing to issue an unconditional invitation
for Arafat and Prime Minister Barak to come to Washington and give peace
another shot?
The President. I'm willing to do anything if it will
help Israelis and Palestinians reach an agreement. At the same time,
I know that the two sides need to reflect on what happened at Camp David
and work together. Without an Israeli-Palestinian foundation on the
substance of the issues, the United States cannot play its role effectively.
That process got a big boost at Camp David. It needs to be continued
now. Both leaders must be ready to make historic decisions.
Egypt's Role in the Peace Process
Q. There has been criticism of Egypt's role. What is
your view?
The President. The fact is that all that has happened
since the original Camp David in September 1978, including Madrid and
Oslo, is a vindication of the courageous and visionary policy of Egypt.
Egypt was a pioneer for peace and continues to be a key partner for
the United States. We agree on the fundamentals of the peace process,
and we will not be able to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement on
these core issues without close consultation with Egypt. We are engaged
in such a process today.
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, the deadline set by Israel and the
Palestinians is a week from today. Do you have any reason to believe
that there might be something worked out by this time, or would you
like the parties to discard the deadline?
President Clinton. Well, I haven't met with them yet,
but I think that--I think we can work through that if there's a sense
of progress-- and one of the things I hope I have a chance to talk to
President Putin about--but I think the main thing they have to decide
is whether there is going to be an agreement within what is the real
calendar, which is the calendar that is ticking in the Middle East against
the political realities in Israel as well as for the Palestinians. There's
a limit to how long they have, and it's not very much longer.
OCTOBER 2, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, in your talks with the Israelis and
Palestinians, do you get the impression that the recent violence is
helping them move along towards wanting to reach an agreement? Or is
it hurting things?
The President. Well, in the short run, it's hurting
them, because they can't do anything on the peace process until people
stop dying and the violence stops. But when the smoke clears here, it
might actually be a spur to both sides as a sober reminder to what the
alternative to peace could be. So we have to hope and pray that will
be the result.
OCTOBER 25, 2000
Situation in the Middle East
Q. In the Middle East, can Yasser Arafat be considered
a reliable partner for peace while he is releasing Palestinian militants
from jail and actually giving them decisionmaking roles? Can he be reliable?
The President. Well, as you know, part of what the
parties agreed to at Sharm al-Sheikh was a certain specific set of security
measures which were, by agreement of the parties, kept confidential.
But I think it's quite important that, as I think it was reported in
the morning press, that I had a conversation with Chairman Arafat. I
talked with him and Prime Minister Barak yesterday. I talk to them several
times a week now. And one of the things we need to do is to have people
who are interested in violence off the streets and the people who are
interested in ending the violence out there doing what they're capable
of doing.
A big part of what the parties recognized at Sharm
al-Sheikh was that it's impossible to maintain this uneasy status quo,
where we've come so far in the peace process, but the big and most difficult
issues remain. We can't expect there to be a reliable peace process
unless we can reduce the violence. That's the real answer to your question.
We would like to see, and I think that the Israelis would like to see,
a resumption of the peace process, but both parties have got to do what
they said they'd do at Sharm and get the violence down, so we can open
up the possibility of peace again.
Q. Mr. President, do you think that Chairman Arafat
can still retain sufficient influence over his people to stop the violence
in the West Bank and Gaza?
The President. I think the violence can be dramatically
reduced. I think that there are probably some people within the Palestinian
territories, and probably some people within Israel, that are not within
total control of Chairman Arafat or even the Israeli Government. But
I do think Chairman Arafat can dramatically reduce the level of violence.
The problem, as I have been saying for years and years
to the people in the region, is that once you actually start a peace
process and people's expectations get built up and you have a commitment
to peaceful resolution of these issues, violence is no longer a very
good tool to achieve political objectives. It always, in the end, will
be counterproductive. Why? Because if you look at the pattern, what
you have to do is, you stir the people up--you get the people all stirred
up so that they believe that violent reactions are legitimate--and then
you can't just turn mass emotions on and off, like you can a water tap.
It's just not that simple.
So I think that it's very important--I think what we
did at Sharm was to put at least a speed bump on the road to the dramatic
deterioration of the situation. But I don't think that we should ask
ourselves whether he has 100 percent control, because the truth is,
none of us know the answer to that, and nobody has 100 percent control
of any situation. The real and fundamental question is, can the level
of violence be substantially reduced by a sustained effort? If the parties
do what they agreed to do at Sharm, the answer to that is a resounding
yes.
Q. Mr. President, to follow up on that question and
one other question, you said that you do believe he is capable of reducing
the violence. So are you saying that he hasn't tried to do that? And
secondly, there was a poll out today in Israel that showed that if there
was an election today, Netanyahu would beat Barak 2-1. And are you concerned
at all that in your attempts to be an honest broker and the way the
violence has continued that you've somehow sold out Barak, that he will
no longer be a leader in Israel in a few weeks, in a few months from
now, and that the peace process will inevitably be over once that happens?
The President. Well, the short answer to your question
is no, because he made the decisions that he made--he made very courageous
decisions, and he's in a difficult position now because he's getting
the worst of both worlds. I mean, he reached out to the Palestinians,
and he showed enormous courage in doing so. And we did not get an agreement
at Camp David, although it was, on balance, quite a positive thing.
I will say again, you can't maintain this status quo.
We either have to shut the violence down and get back to the peace process,
or there is going to be at least a level of anxiety, mistrust, and a
worsening of relations, which I don't think would be good for anybody.
But I think that--I will say what I said the day the
Camp David talks ended. Prime Minister Barak knew what he was doing.
He took a big chance. He did it because after years in the Israeli military,
he reached the same conclusion that Yitzak Rabin reached, that in the
end, the best guarantee of Israel's security is a sustainable peace
with all of her neighbors. He knew there would be bumps along the road
and that there would be points at which the process would be ragged.
He made a decision that he was trying to go for the long-term security
of Israel. And events in the next several days will determine whether
or not we can get back on that path.
That's my reaction. I think it can be done, and I think
the parties can do it, and I'm going to do my best to see what I can
do to be helpful. But we've got to get the level of violence down. This
peace with the Israelis and the aspirations of the Palestinians can,
in the end, only be fulfilled by agreement.
We called at Sharm for a commission to look into what
happened, to try to make sure it shouldn't happen again. We can do that,
but the critical pillars for a good situation in the Middle East are
the absence of violence and the presence of negotiations and continued
progress. And those are the things that all the people should be focusing
on. Those are the things that I've been working on every day for the
last couple of weeks now.
OCTOBER 27, 2000
Situation in the Middle East
Q. Four more Palestinians died this morning in clashes
with Israeli troops. Are you trying even harder now to try to arrange
separate meetings with Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat, or
do you think that violence still has to stop before there is even any
point in bringing them here?
The President. I think there has to be a much lower
level of violence before they could meet together and talk about the
long-term prospects for peace. I worked on this for several hours yesterday,
and we obviously keep up with it. And I'm very disturbed about today,
because we actually had 2 or 3 good days here, where there was very
little violence.
We're trying to get to the bottom of seeing what happened
and see what, if anything, we can do to undermine the causes of today's
violence so that it won't recur. But we've got to get the level of violence
down before there can be a resumption in negotiations.
In terms of who comes here when, that is still subject
to discussion. We're talking to the Israelis. We're talking to the Palestinians.
We're talking with others around the world, and--look, I'm working really
hard on this. I'm frustrated--I'm just as frustrated as you are, and
it's heartbreaking. We've just got to try to get a hold of it, and I--but
don't lose sight of the fact that we had 3 pretty good days. And I would
say to the people in the region not to lose sight of the fact that we
did, and tomorrow needs to be a good day, not a bad day, because of
what happened today.
Q. One more on the Middle East. How can you have peace
in the Middle East until you train the younger generations of both Palestinians
and Israelis to stop hating each other?
The President. Well, you know, that's--I must say,
that's what the Seeds of Peace program was about and a lot of these
young Palestinians and young Israelis, along with other young Middle
Easterners I've met, young Jordanians and young Egyptians, in the Seeds
of Peace program, young people from other Arab countries.
I think, obviously, a big part of what is driving these
demonstrations is a profound alienation of young people in the Palestinian
community who have not seen any economic benefits from peace over the
last 8 years, and who despair that it will ever actually be completed.
I think finding a way to reach out to the young and give them some more
positive contact with each other across the lines that divide them is
very important.
I think one of the best things I've seen in the whole
region over the last 8 years is this Seeds of Peace program and what
these young people have done together. And that kind of dialog is what
has to replace the bullets and the rocks.
NOVEMBER 4, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We'll talk about the Middle East real
quick before we go to Latin America, which is a subject dear to our
viewers' hearts. Some critics have said that the United States, your
administration, has been so keen on pushing for some kind of concessions
on both sides, that maybe it's become an American agenda in the Middle
East, versus the Americans acting as brokers and as objective people
who can help the system.
The President. I don't think that's a fair criticism.
Here's why. We, all along, have basically facilitated what the parties
wanted to do. Now, when we met at Camp David, we met knowing that there
might not be an agreement. But we did it because both parties were afraid
that they were coming up on the September deadline for the declaration
of a Palestinian state without an agreement, and that without further
progress on these tough issues, we might have a real mess there, even
worse than what we've been through.
So what I tried to do was to explore--when they reach
an impasse, I did what President Carter did, way back at Camp David
I, between Israel and Egypt. If they reach an impasse, then you can
offer an idea to see if both sides will take it. But it can never be
America's agenda. All we can ever do is try to be an honest and fair
broker, because we don't have to live with the consequences. The people
that have to live with the consequences are the Israelis and the Palestinians.
So for us to try to force something on them is a grave mistake.
On the other hand, the consequences of not making peace
have been evident these last 3 or 4 weeks over there. And they are just
horrible. So we should nudge them when we can, and as long as both sides
trust us, we can nudge them without them thinking it's our agenda, because
they know when they have to get off--they know when they can't do something.
NOVEMBER 14, 2000
Situation in the Middle East
Q. I was going to ask you if there really is anything
left to be done in the Middle East, whether diplomats can now cause
what's happening in the streets to stop happening?
The President. I think it depends on whether we can
reduce the violence to the point where it's possible to resume negotiations.
Q. Can you do that?
The President. The unbelievable irony of the present
situation is, with this level of violence is unfolding in the aftermath
of the first serious discussion, official discussion that the Israelis
and the Palestinians had, which occurred at Camp David on the serious,
difficult final status issues of the Oslo agreement. And I might add,
after Camp David, they continued to talk in informal ways. And they
know that while there are still differences between them, they are agonizingly
close to a resolution of these fundamental issues.
I think they also know that violence begets violence
and that in the end they're still going to be neighbors. So they're
either going to keep killing each other at varying rates with one side
feeling beleaguered, the Israelis, and the others feeling oppressed,
the Palestinians, or they're going to come to grips with this and complete
the process they agreed to complete when they signed the agreement on
the White House lawn in September of 1993.
So that's the frustration. The answer to your question
is, yes, there's more that can be done, but I do not believe it can
be done with this level of violence going on. I just don't think that's
possible.
Q. How do you get control of that--Sharm al-Sheikh,
you weren't able to do it there. You've had these----
The President. The Sharm al-Sheikh agreement was perfectly
fine. It just hasn't been implemented. So that's why I saw Arafat and
Barak this week, and I think within--in this coming week you'll see
whether there is going to be any kind of effort to change course.
You know, somebody has got to quit shooting. And I
think the demonstrations in the daytime have gone down among the Palestinians,
but the nighttime shooting hasn't. I think everyone understands now
that it may not be possible for Chairman Arafat to control everything
every Palestinian does immediately. It may not be possible for Prime
Minister Barak to control everything every Israeli does immediately.
But this thing can be reduced dramatically if they want to get back
to the negotiating table. I think the Israelis will respond in kind
if the Palestinian shootings will diminish now. You know, we had a rough
day today, and the Palestinians said it was in retaliation for the shooting
of the resistance leader the other day. We'll just have to see what
happens.
But the ironic answer to your question is, every time
I talk to them, I come away more convinced that we could actually have
an agreement if they could free themselves of this cycle of violence
and get back to the negotiating table.
And I think if they--I think there's a way to do it,
and I'm going to try to see what we can do this week. That's all I can
say. I'll do my best.
Q. A secret plan? A Clinton secret plan?
The President. No, I don't have a secret plan. I just
think the more I talk about this sort of thing, the harder it is to
do.
President's Experience in Office
What is my greatest regret? I may not be able to say
yet. I really wanted, with all my heart, to finish the Oslo peace process,
because I believe that if Israel and the Palestinians could be reconciled,
first the State of Israel would be secure, which is very important to
me, personally, and I think to the American people; secondly, the Palestinians
would be in control of their own destiny; third, a peace with Syria
would follow shortly; and fourth, the Middle East would not only be
stable, which is good for America's interests, and not just because
of the oil but the forces of progress and prosperity--progress and reconciliation,
excuse me--would be stronger in all countries, including Iran. And I
felt that I really think this is a sort of linchpin which could lead
to a wave of positive developments all across the region. And I think
that's very important.
Most of the people in the Middle East are young; there
are all these kids out there. What are they going to--are they going
to be raised to believe their faith requires them to hate the Israelis
and the Americans and anybody else that's not part of their faith and
politics? Are they going to be perpetually poor, even if they have a
fairly decent education? Are we going to see that whole region being
integrated into a global system and these children having a whole different
future, in which they're reconciled with their neighbors in Israel and
deeply involved in the world in a positive way? Are they going to be
using the Internet to talk to terrorist cells about chemical and biological
weapons, or are they going to be using the Internet to figure out how
to grow new businesses and have new opportunities and build new futures
for their families and their children? So if it doesn't happen I'll
be profoundly disappointed, but I'll never regret a minute I spent on
it because I think it's very important for the future.
I have never bought the thesis--on an inevitable collision
course with the Islamic societies, or that the 21st century had to be
dominated by terrorists with highly sophisticated weapons, fueled by
broad popular resentment from people who are both disenfranchised and
poor. I don't think it has to be that way, and I think if we could really
make a big dent in this problem, it would give confidence to the forces
of reason and progress throughout the region.
DECEMBER 27, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, has the Mideast peace process been
set back by the Palestinian reluctance to accept your proposals for
an agreement with Israel? And do you have any indication of whether
Thursday's summit is going to go forward?
The President. Well, let me say first, this is the
first chance I've had to comment on the substance here, so--the parties
are engaged in a renewed effort to reach an agreement. Based on the
months and months of discussion I've had on these final status issues,
we have attempted to narrow the range of outstanding matters in a way
that meets the essential needs of both sides.
The whole question now is whether they agree to continue
the negotiation on the basis of these ideas. We've got to bring this
to a conclusion if we're going to continue. The issues are extremely
difficult, but they are closer than they have ever been before. And
I hope and pray they will seize this opportunity. And I think that is
all I should say at this time. The less I say, the better.
Q. Is that right--you haven't heard from them? It sounds
like you have not. The Palestinian officials have been saying they cannot
accept your proposals.
The President. Well, we'll see what happens. Prime
Minister Barak has said that he would accept and continue the negotiations
if the Palestinians would, and we'll see what happens. There's a lot
of things going on now, and will be in the next several days, and I
think, as I said, the less I say about them all, the better.
Q. Have you received a response, an actual response
from the Palestinians yet?
The President. I've said all I'm going to say about
this today.
DECEMBER 28, 2000
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, since last we asked you about the
Middle East yesterday, there have been a number of developments. There
have been bombings in Tel Aviv, an ambush. Prime Minister Barak did
not go to that summit meeting in Egypt. What does that make you think
about the prospects for nailing down a final agreement while you're
still in office?
The President. Well, first of all, I condemn the violence.
And I believe it is the violence and the bus that prevented the Prime
Minister from going to Egypt; I don't think it is a lack of desire to
pursue the peace process. Chairman Arafat is consulting with President
Mubarak and, I believe, wants to talk to some of the other Arab leaders.
The important thing to note is that Israel has said--I
put some ideas on the table. They go beyond where we were at Camp David;
they meet the fundamental needs that both sides expressed at Camp David.
And the Israelis said that they would agree to try to close the remaining
gaps within the parameters of the ideas I put forward if the Palestinians
will agree. And I think that this latest violence only reminds people
of what the alternative to peace is.
Look, I expect there to be more in the next few days,
as long as we're moving toward peace. There are a lot of enemies of
peace in the Middle East, and there are a of people that have acquired
almost an interest in the preservation of the status quo and the agony
of the Israelis and the abject misery of most of the Palestinian population.
So I expect that we will have to continue to combat
violence. But if we can get a peace which meets the fundamental longstanding
desires of both parties and we start to have common efforts in security
that go even beyond what we've had for the last few years and we start
to have common efforts to build an economic future that benefits everyone,
we will have more political and economic stability and we'll have a
different future. But in the meanwhile, this thing has been going on
a long time, and a lot of people don't want to give it up. And so they're
going to try to disrupt it.
But if you just look at the last few months, it's the
best argument for going ahead and finishing this. It's not going to
get any easier. So this is by far the closest we have ever been. We
are much closer than we were at Camp David, but there are still differences,
and we're just waiting. If the--the Israelis have said they will meet
on these conditions within the parameters that I laid out; if the Palestinians
will, and the Palestinians are negotiating--or talking--excuse me--with
the other Arabs, and we'll just see what happens.
Q. Back to the Middle East. Have you given the Palestinians
any sort of deadline to give you an answer, or are they going to be
given an unlimited amount of time to decide? And also, do you expect
them to come here? Do you need to talk to them again before you can
see if they are making headway?
The President. Well, first of all, I think it is obvious
we are all operating under a deadline. We're all operating under a deadline;
it's just some of us know what our deadline is.
What I have said to them is, there is no point in our
talking further unless both sides agree to accept the parameters that
I've laid out--not because I am trying to dictate this, but because
I have listened to them for months and months and months--indeed for
8 years-- and this is the most difficult of all the issues I've dealt
with. If there is a peace agreement here, I'm convinced it's within
the four corners I laid out.
And then there are still--they both have legitimately
a lot of questions, and they ought to ask those questions and get answers
to them. But there is no point in even doing that unless we've got a
basic framework so we can close. The time has come to close here. And
the last several months have shown us this is not going to get any easier,
and prolonging it is only going to make it worse. So I'm doing my best
to facilitate what I think is what they want, which is to try to resolve
this.
Q. Do you really think you can resolve it in the remaining--are
you really optimistic that you can resolve it in the remaining 3 weeks?
And, if you cannot, would you keep at it after you leave office?
The President. Well, the answer to your first question
is, I think that if it can be resolved at all, it can be resolved in
the next 3 weeks. I don't think the circumstances are going to get better.
I think, in all probability, they'll get more difficult.
In terms of what I do when I leave office in the way
of official work like that, that will be up to the next administration
and any parties there or anywhere else in the world. That would not
be for me to say.
One of the things I am determined to do when I leave--I'm
going to work until the last day, because I'm drawing a paycheck, and
I'm going to work to the last day. After that, I'm going to observe
strictly what I think is the proper role of a former President. And
we will have a new President, and he has to make the calls, and I will
support that entirely. Around the world, I think that's very, very important.
So anything I might ever do, indeed, for the whole rest of my life,
not just in the first few years I'm out of office, will be determined
by what whoever happens to be the President does or doesn't want me
to do, and whatever parties in other parts of the world do or don't
want me to do. That's just the only appropriate thing, and I will rigorously
adhere to that.
Q. Have both sides asked you to, sir? Have both sides
asked you to keep at it?
The President. No, I didn't say that. It depends upon--I
think that it is--first of all, in this context, I believe that is exceedingly
unlikely. That is, I honestly believe, given the pendency of the Israeli
election and the developments within the Palestinian community and the
larger Arab world, that the best chance they have to make an agreement
is in the next 3 weeks.
Now, none of us who long for peace in the Middle East
would ever give up on it. But I think that is both a theoretical question
and an unlikely one, because if you look at where the forces are today,
they have a better chance to do it now, if they're ever going to do
it. It's just--it's really hard. If it weren't hard, they would have
done it before this. I mean, they signed the Oslo agreement in '93 and
put all this stuff off to the end because they knew it was hard, and
it's still hard.
But if you look at where we've been the last few months,
it's not going to get any easier. And I just hope that--I've said this
before, I said it earlier--we had a confluence of Christmas, Hanukkah,
and the end of Ramadan and the beginning of the Eid, and maybe there's
something in the stars that will give them the divine strength and inspiration
to do it. I don't think it's going to get easier.
Q. Well, are your terms negotiable, or are they just
parameters?
The President. No, they're the parameters. The negotiations,
in other words, have to occur within them.
Q. So East Jerusalem could be negotiated more?
The President. No. I do not want to talk more about
this. They understand exactly what I mean. Both sides know exactly what
I mean, and they know exactly what they still have to do, and that's
enough right now.
Sources: Public Papers of the President |