REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR ITAMAR RABINOVICH
                          AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB 
                     Washington, D.C. - November 9, 1995 

 
AMBASSADOR RABINOVICH: Thank you very much for this kind introduction, for the 
genuine sentiments that you have expressed.   
 
And I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to offer my gratitude, 
the gratitude of the people of Israel, the government and the state of Israel, 
to the American people, to the American government, for your display of 
friendship, support, confidence at a very difficult time in our history.  The 
outpour of sympathy, support and solidarity from this country, from the first 
moments after the terrible news of the assassination arrived here, culminating 
in the participation of what I believe was an unprecedented delegation from 
the United States in the funeral services and in the other events of this last 
Monday in Israel; in the -- in other manifestations of these sentiments, as 
expressed in the participation in several memorial services that were held 
here in Washington and in other American cities; the long lines of Americans 
from the high and mighty to simple folk who came to sign the condolence book 
in our embassy; what the media said and wrote about Mr. Rabin and about the 
event and about us -- this all combines to endow the term "special 
relationship" that has been used countless times to characterize the 
relationship between the United States and Israel, to endow it with a very 
meaning and substance.  
 
And we are all genuinely grateful for all of this, and we feel enhanced and 
reinforced at this very difficult and delicate time in our own evolution as a 
state and as a society. 
 
I do not want to take much time in a statement, and I would rather spend more 
time responding to your questions.  It's difficult for me personally to 
grapple with the topic of Israel after the assassination of Rabin.  I had the 
privilege of working very closely with the prime minister for over three years 
now, in my role as ambassador to the United States, a relationship that to him 
was Israel's most strategic relationship. 
 
And in the conduct of the negotiations with Syria, which began an important 
dimension of the Arab-Israeli peace process I spent many hours with him and 
developed a very personal bond with him and I thought working with him was a 
privilege and difficult for me personally to think it terms of after Rabin, as 
the sign outside of the door said. 
 
Also, this is a time at which things are still gelling.  We are very few days 
after the assassination.  Not all the effects concerning the assassination 
have been uncovered yet.  And you must have read or seen today that additional 
suspects were arrested by the police for either direct or indirect implication 
or suspicion of implication in the assassination.  And then the investigation 
is still unfolding in full gear.  We do not know what the findings of the 
investigation will be. 
 
Beginning with this, we are groping with the need to consolidate and to go 
through a transition.  I think the country and the government and the 
political system have all displayed an impressive degree of resilience and 
coherence.  I think that the position taken by the principal opposition party, 
the Likud, a position indicating that Likud will vote for Mr. Peres as prime 
minister when Mr. Peres forms his government, is a very mature and a very 
edifying step.  It means the main opposition party felt correctly that this 
was not the time for a small political accounting, it was a time in which a 
country, a political system (was) called upon to display resilience and 
solidarity and a basic unity of the people, divided as we may be over very 
important political questions.  And this, of course, facilitates the 
transition.  And yet a government needs to be formed, and the question of a 
possibility of expanding the government coalition is a very relevant question.  
And this needs to happen. And, of course, before there is a government, 
policies cannot be made. Thoughts can be entertained about policies, but the 
time to determine policies and to start implementing them will come when the 
new government is in place. 
 
But some basic tenets of the situation and of the policies of the government, 
be it as an interim government or as the permanent government that will be 
formed I believe in short order by Mr. Peres, had to be stated.   
 
First and foremost is, of course, the determination to respect, live up to all 
commitments made by the government as a government and by Mr. Rabin personally 
to continue in the peace process.  More specifically, in the Palestinian track 
of the peace process, there are no negotiations scheduled right now.  The next 
phase of negotiation is not to begin before May 1996, when the permanent 
status negotiations are scheduled to begin.  What needs to happen now is the 
beginning of redeployment of the IDF, the holding of Palestinian elections, 
and the implementation of the agreement that was signed so very recently in 
Washington, and this, of course, is continuing and will continue. 
 
There is the question of negotiations with Syria.  As you know, as you 
probably know, the negotiation between Israel and Syria has been suspended for 
several months now.  It was not suspended by us; it was suspended by Syrian 
action last July.  And during the past few weeks, efforts were afoot by the 
U.S. administration -- by the Clinton administration, by the State Department 
-- to try to resuscitate the talks between Israel and Syria.  And some of the 
last decisions made by Prime Minister Rabin concerned that.  And he met with 
President Clinton, with Secretary Christopher and with the U.S. peace team 
headed by Ambassador Dennis Ross, and the parameters were established for the 
efforts to be continued by the U.S. peace team in what then would have been 
described as the next few weeks, with a view to reviewing the Syrian-Israeli 
negotiations.   
 
These efforts will continue.  They will continue fully when we have a 
government in place, but Acting Prime Minister Peres has indicated that he 
certainly wants to continue in this vein.  But the basic question that had 
been with us for months remains with us: Do we have a partner for these 
negotiations, a partner not only in the sense of wanting to conclude an 
agreement with Israel, but making the decisions that will make such an 
agreement possible?  There was a question mark that hovered over these 
negotiations, at least from our point of view, for the past few months, and 
it's still hovering.   
 
This question mark will have to be addressed in the next few weeks, so we are 
determined to proceed, but we need first to have definitive answers to the one 
big question mark, or to several question marks, that we have in this regard. 
Another issue that I would like to address, briefly, concerns the soul-
searching that is taking place in Israel now.  A democracy in the midst of 
making difficult and controversial decisions is a democracy that undergoes 
difficult tests.  A government that has a small parliamentary majority and 
makes decisions on crucial national issues is going through a difficult 
period.  And there was inflammatory rhetoric, and the foul odor of political 
violence had been in the air for some time. 
 
It would be very easy for us as a government, and for the supporters of this 
government, to become vindictive and partisan at this time.  This is not the 
intention.  One wants to explore the crime fully.  One wants to understand the 
context in which it took place. And one wants the soul-searching that has 
begun in Israel, to continue to unfold. 
 
But one also wants to heal.  One does not want to slide from responsible soul-
searching that is done by everybody in a constructive and a responsible 
fashion, into partisan bickering.  There is a very fine line that separates 
one from the other.  And we are determined to do that.  Questions -- important 
questions need to be addressed that do not have to be partisan. 
 
Let us take the assassination itself.  Among other things, Prime Minister 
Rabin was killed because he mingled with the crowd.  A decision could have 
been made a long time ago that, in this -- in the political atmosphere that I 
described earlier, the prime minister and the foreign minister, and other 
leaders of the country that have been identified with the peace process and 
with these decisions that were not acceptable to some, should be kept away -- 
at arm's length -- from crowds. 
 
Then, the imperative that a leader in a democratic society feels is the need 
to interact with the crowd, with the people; not to be insulated; and, as 
always, a trade-off and a balance that needs to be made.  And I think 
Americans are particularly aware of this.  And, you know, Pennsylvania Avenue 
was closed down in this city not a long time ago.  And other decisions have 
been made, and other decisions have not been made in this country that concern 
this very question of the personal, physical relationship between the head of 
the government and the constituency. 
 
But these are questions that need not be partisan and need to be asked in a 
democracy -- questions of freedom of speech.  I said earlier "inflammatory 
rhetoric." When is rhetoric just inflammatory, or when are the boundaries of 
the law being crossed by someone who uses inflammatory rhetoric?  Who is to 
guarantee to us that the laws that this week would be there to curb 
inflammatory rhetoric and maybe to prevent another assassination would not be 
used in order to affect, curb genuine freedom of expression at another point?  
Again, a question familiar to all democracies and very familiar to you in this 
country. 
 
So some of these issues are the issues that Israeli society is grappling with 
now.  They are not new to us, but they are more poignant now than they have 
been in the past, and Israeli society does it in (informal ?) meetings, in 
formal gatherings, and, first and foremost, over the media.  These are the 
themes that dominate the airwaves and the printed media in Israel now. 
 
This is where I'd like to end my statement.  And of course, I would welcome 
any questions and will try to answer them as fully and as openly as I can 
under these unusual circumstances. 
 
MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Ambassador Rabinovich. Please state your name and your 
affiliation when you're asking questions. (Over there ?).  Yeah, Ahmed (sp)? 
 
Q (Yes, sir ?).  Ahmed Said (sp), Egyptian correspondent. Now we know these 
groups in Israel who assassinated, one way or another, Prime Minister Rabin, 
but do you think some militant Islamic groups, by their inflammatory rhetoric 
and their terrorist activities, too, in the last few days helped these groups 
in Israel to find their way to make more actions, more rhetoric through this 
kind of combinations, like -- helped them at the same time?  I would like to 
(hear your opinion ?).  Thank you. 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Yeah.  Thank you for the question. Let me -- has anybody 
heard the question in the back, or need I -- 
 
MR. HICKMAN: Yeah, why don't you repeat it -- (inaudible). 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Yeah.  The question was on -- Mr. Said says that since now 
that we know the identity of the groups responsible for the assassination in 
Israel, what about the rhetoric that came from militant Islamic groups during 
the past few days and which justified the assassination and added more oil to 
the fire? How does one affect the other? 
 
First, let me say we have to be very careful with our terminology.  We do not 
know the identity of any group that was responsible for the assassination. 
 
We know we have an assassin who confessed to the crime.  We know that he had 
affiliations.  Suspects were picked up that were affiliated with him.  But 
what their relationship to the assassination itself, and whether it is 
warranted at this time to speak about a group responsible for the 
assassination or whether it still can be seen as the act of a lone assassin is 
premature to say.  So I would like us to be very precise in that. 
 
Now, we have heard some of this rhetoric that came from militant Muslim groups 
that welcomed the assassination.  We know that Mr. Rabin had been attacked 
personally, and his government has been attacked in political terms by some of 
these groups.  When the last car-bombing of a bus in Israel took place, a 
statement was released that took responsibility for the act and explained that 
this act was directed at the Rabin government in order to topple the Rabin 
government because the Rabin government has been an enemy of Islam, and so 
forth and so forth.  But more specifically, of course, Iran because the prime 
minister spoke often and effectively about Iran and the message of extremist, 
fundamentalist exploitation of religion for political purposes as the main 
danger to Israel as such, and to the Middle East. And certainly there was an 
attempt to target him politically.   
 
And part of the problem with the protection of the prime minister was that -- 
I think if the Israel Security Service had the notion of an attempt on the 
prime minister's life, it was first and foremost an attempt that would come 
from a group of that nature -- a terrorist foreign group, maybe a militant 
group inspired by Iran.  That specifically was on their mind and they were 
better prepared for this than for a Jewish Israeli assassin. 
 
Now it is -- it's a very sad commentary that the assassination -- the tragic 
assassination of a great leader, that the whole world would mourn, would be 
welcome in such fashion by two or three states and a group of movements.  It's 
deplorable and I think it reflects very negatively on these groups themselves.   
Of course it can be and probably will be viewed by people who criticize the 
peace process in Israel who would point to these groups and say, well, these 
are not the people that you want to make peace with.  Our answer is that we're 
not making -- or we would not be making peace with these groups, we'd be 
making peace with the states and peoples of the region; that these people 
oppose the peace process precisely because they know that peace is not good 
for them.  And the way to proceed is peacemaking, even if a chorus of ugly 
rhetoric can be heard in the background.   
 
MODERATOR: Next question.  Did you have your hand up, Jeff? 
 
Q Yes.   
 
MODERATOR: Okay, and then Reuters. 
 
Q Mr. Ambassador, I'm Jeffrey -- (last name inaudible).  I'm the editor of 
Focus Israel and -- (inaudible) -- Newsletters.  In the past, there's been 
some concern about fund-raising in the United States going towards extremist 
Arab groups in the Middle East, including Israel.  Does your government have 
any concern about fund- raising in the United States which goes towards Jewish 
groups in Israel? 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: This is not an issue that we as a government dealt with, and 
I must say that the issue that you have just raised as such has not been on 
our screen. 
 
MODERATOR: Yes?  And then -- (inaudible). 
 
Q My name is -- (inaudible).  I'm from Reuters.  I just have a -- (inaudible) 
-- question on possibly restarting the peace process with Syria.  Can we still 
say that you're looking to trying to resume talks or resume this contact 
within the next few weeks?  Are you that -- (inaudible)? 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: We -- you know, we always wanted to have contact with Syria. 
We always believed and said that the best way, the only way to negotiate 
effectively and to conclude agreements would be by direct contact.  We had 
direct contact with the Syrians in delegation form when we used to meet in 
delegations.  That was direct, but it was very stilted and difficult to 
negotiate in those formal, stilted negotiations.  And then we had here a 
direct contact, but never exclusively with Syria.  The Syrians insisted that 
the meetings be attended by at least one American representative, never 
exclusive Israeli-Syrian contacts, and again under very structured 
circumstances as dictated by Syria. 
 
So we have always felt and said that one of the impediments to progress, or 
further progress in these negotiations was the mode of negotiation that 
basically was dictated by Syria. 
 
Now, contact was suspended in July when sequence agreed upon by the parties 
was broken by Syria, and we have said all along that we would like to renew 
contact once the impediments or the obstacles placed by Syria were to be 
removed, and this remains our position. 
 
And we will not be the ones who say that we do not want to meet with the 
Syrians.  But at the same time we must insist that agreements be kept and 
honored.  If agreements on procedure are not kept, what's the point of making 
other agreements?  So, there is -- in that respect there is no obstacle or 
objection on our part.  We want to -- of course, always want to resume contact 
but contact needs to be resumed in a way that also respects the agreements 
made between us. 
 
Q Can I just have a brief follow-up?  Last week, just one day before the 
assassination, Israel's economic minister said that he talked to people in the 
State Department, that they were encouraged enough by Syria's readiness to 
continue the talks that they were sending Dennis Ross over.  The State 
Department -- (inaudible)? 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: There was the discussion and the probability of Ambassador 
Ross coming out to the region to deal with that.  I very much hope that we 
will see Ambassador Ross back in the region in the not-too-distant future, not 
necessarily to do this.  There's an entirely new situation, of course, in 
Israel, in the Middle East, and there may be many good reasons for Ambassador 
Ross or any other senior American diplomats to be in the region.  Of course, 
there was a massive American presence, but a funeral is not the right occasion 
for the conduct of business.  And I will not be surprised if other 
opportunities will be sought when the mourning period is after. 
 
MR. HICKMAN: (Name inaudible) -- and then -- (inaudible) -- over here. 
 
Q I was wondering if you can explain a little bit about how --  
 
MR. HICKMAN: Would you identify yourself? 
 
Q Sure.  (Name inaudible) -- of the Jerusalem Times.  Have you determined 
through the Americans, through other channels, how the Syrians see the new 
government, the new temporary government (handled ?) by Peres, as affecting 
their willingness to deal?  I mean, is it going to throw an additional monkey 
wrench into the equation that was already there -- (inaudible) -- the talks? 
And also, how much does it trouble the government not to have had any (message 
?) concerning -- (word inaudible) -- assassinations? 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Can you repeat the last part of the question? 
 
Q (Inaudible.) 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Right.  You know, it's still impossible to speculate on the 
policy of the new government when there is -- there still isn't a new 
government.  And in that respect, I think it is premature.  I think that the 
Syrians are aware of our determination to continue with the same policies and 
the government's determination to respect all commitments. 
 
And the question really returns to the very same point, not so much a Syrian 
perception of the new Israeli government, but the Syrian decisions that need 
to be taken. 
 
With regard to the failure to offer any act of condolence, if you remember, I 
was asked about that over the weekend in some of the first press interviews 
that I gave after the assassination.  I expressed very much the hope to have 
that, and I said that -- I apologize for quoting myself, but it still remains 
the relevant answer.  I said then the element of warmth and the human touch 
was very glaringly absent from these negotiations, that I very much hoped that 
this time we would see that, and I said that I would be positively surprised 
if it happened.  And I wasn't positively surprised. 
 
I don't think -- to answer your -- the last portion of the question directly, 
we had no expectations, we were not disappointed, and yet I am disappointed. 
 
Q (Name and affiliation inaudible.) Is the fact the Syria has not offered a 
public apology to Israel seen as an impediment to resuming the Israeli-Syrian 
negotiations? 
 
AMB. RABINOVITCH: No.  I just expressed disappointment because as I said, I 
think that the absence of any human touch or warmth in these negotiations or 
in the position projected to us from Damascus doesn't help the negotiations.  
But these negotiations and peace negotiations in general are not based on 
sentiment and emotion, but are based on other elements.  It's a political 
decision.  We have made the decision that we want to explore the possibility 
of making with Syria -- making peace with Syria or arriving at an agreement 
that would meet our criteria for peace and security.  We seem determined to -- 
to try to explore whether this is possible and to turn it into an agreement if 
it turns out that it is possible.  And regrettable as the absence of any act 
of condolence or personal or human touch that I mentioned before is absent, 
but in itself is not an impediment to the resumption of negotiations. 
 
Q (Off mike) -- (inaudible) -- Mr. Ambassador, there's an aspect of the 
Syrian-Israeli peace talks that concerns -- (inaudible) -- and that indicates 
the existence of terrorists camps in the Syrian- controlled Bekaa Valley.  
Now, I know issues like Golan Heights, for example, are extremely important, 
in terms of those discussions. 
 
I was wondering if a peace is possible between Israel and Syria, without 
addressing that crucial issue?  What will happen to these terrorist camps?  Or 
is it not too important an issue for you at this point in time? 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Right.  Thank you for the question. 
 
I use the term "our criteria for peace and security" earlier. Now, the Bekaa 
Valley is in Lebanon.  And Lebanon is a sovereign country, but Syria enjoys a 
great deal of influence in Lebanon. 
 
I cannot envisage -- I cannot envisage a peace made between Israel and Syria 
without provisions and agreements, between Israel and between Lebanon, that 
will make certain that there will not be any terrorist camps in the Bekaa 
Valley, or in any other part.  This will not meet our criteria either of peace 
or of security. 
 
Now, the negotiations unfortunately are not at the point where this discussion 
is on the agenda.  But if the negotiations move forward and we get to that 
point, this of course would be a very important issue for us, as well. 
 
MR. HICKMAN: Joe, and then Carl (sp). 
 
Q Mr. Ambassador, after the tragedy of last Saturday -- 
 
MR. HICKMAN: Could you identify yourself, Joe? 
 
Q Oh, Joseph Polakoff, Washington correspondent, Jewish Newspapers. Mr. 
Ambassador, after the tragedy of last Saturday, the Jewish organizations of 
the United States have been critical of the negotiating policy of the Israeli 
government, and have issued statements and held meetings deploring the 
tragedy, and hoping that unity and civil discourse, and in a democratic 
fashion, will prevail in Israel. 
 
As you mentioned today that Prime Minister Peres has mentioned, after 
Netanyahu had said that the Likud Party will not dispute the rights of the 
Prime Ministry. In fact, Netanyahu used the same words you did -- (inaudible) 
-- of the politicians. 
 
But -- and yet, afterwards, Netanyahu was personally attacked in words by 
rather prominent people, and I wonder whether the government of Israel would 
consider personal attacks on Netanyahu, who is leader of the opposition, the 
disparaging effort on the part of people who would say there should be unity 
with -- (inaudible). 
 
Second question is about Arafat and his failure to appear at the funeral and 
the statement made by the -- (inaudible) -- spokesman of the Israeli 
government that they did not want him there and does that affect your 
relationship between Peres and Arafat and when will those negotiations as you 
see it now be resumed?  Will Arafat move a little more quickly than -- 
(inaudible) -- from the top with his people -- (inaudible). 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: With regard to your first question or statement, as it really 
was, let us remember one thing the Likud party said that it will support the 
formation of the permanent government of Mr. Peres but there is an election in 
Israel planned or scheduled for October 1996.  So the political disagreement 
or dispute and the normal contest and political struggle between the parties 
and the camps continues.  This is not the end of parties and politics in 
Israel. And I don't think Mr. Netanyahu needs the political protection of the 
government and I think the process of soul searching, introspection and 
political discourse in Israel is conducted in a very dignified, dignified way.  
I don't think government needs to take any additional action in this regard.   
 
With regard to Mr. Arafat: I think that -- of course, having been in Israel 
and at the funeral ceremony, Palestinian participation in the ceremony struck 
precisely the right note -- (inaudible) -- I think that we all realize -- we 
all in this case means both Israelis and Palestinians -- that we have not 
concluded still the final agreement that puts an end to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.  
 
We have a framework agreement that drew a framework for concluding an 
agreement and we have moved happily or fortunately from armed conflict and 
political conflict to political competition.  But we have set a time frame of 
five years for the implementation of this agreement and for the discussion of 
permanent status issues, because we know that there are still many wounds that 
need to healed and that there is a process of reconciliation that is only in 
an early stage.   
 
And perhaps for Mr. Arafat to appear in this funeral would have been too 
early, and I think that this was sensed both by Palestinians and by Israelis.  
And yet, Mr. Sharif (ph) and Mr. Abu Alaa, and other prominent Palestinians 
who work with Mr. Arafat and participated in the negotiations with us, came to 
the funeral.  And I think everybody felt that this was the right level of 
representation and that this was the right tone to be struck, and there is no 
problem with that. 
 
Now, with regard to the negotiations, as I said at my opening statement, 
there's no need to negotiate now before May 1996 when the negotiations for 
final status are to begin.  We are now at the phase of implementation, and 
implementation does proceed. 
 
MR. HICKMAN: Carl? 
 
Q Carl Hartman, Associated Press.  You spoke of the need for Syria to respect 
its agreements with regard to the negotiation.  Could you explain what those 
commitments are and to what extent they've not been fulfilled? 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Yes.  Last June, Secretary of State Christopher came to the 
Middle East and shuttled between Jerusalem and Damascus. His visit took place 
in the aftermath of the conclusion of a non-paper on the principles of 
security arrangements.  And on the basis of that, he arranged for a three-
phase sequence: the first phase, meeting between the chiefs of staff of the 
two armies; the second, a trip to the Middle East by the U.S. peace team in 
the aftermath of these negotiations; and the third, for another group of 
military experts to come to Washington to flesh-out the points of convergence 
or agreement that will have been reached, or would have been reached in the 
discussions between the chiefs of staff. 
 
And the first phase took place and, according to our feeling -- our, Israeli 
and I believe American as well -- was actually a good meeting.   
 
In the aftermath of that meeting, although there were points of disagreement, 
most prominently the question of ground station for early warning that we 
regard as essential as part of our security arrangements, in the aftermath of 
that, Ambassador Dennis Ross headed the American team that came out to the 
Middle East.  The group was told by President Assad that he was not happy with 
the first round, that he thought that the issue of early warning and ground 
station needed to be resolved before the experts came to Washington, and he 
was not about to send his experts to Washington. 
 
Our position -- and again, I do not want to speak for the administration, the 
administration will speak for itself, but certainly our position was that when 
Secretary Christopher worked out the procedure, there was no conditionality in 
the transition from one phase to the next, and we insisted that the procedure 
be kept.  
 
Now, we do not want to be sticklers for detail, for protocol.  At the same 
time, we felt when Prime Minister Rabin was leading the negotiations, and I 
think we continue to believe so under the aegis of Prime Minister Peres, that 
it is not the procedure but it is the principle of living up to commitments 
that is here at stake.  At the same time, I do not want to focus the whole 
issue over the question of venue and procedure.  There are much larger 
questions. 
 
Now, there is a limited time frame to these negotiations.  At some point in 
1996, the negotiations will have to be folded or, hopefully, positively 
concluded.  We were very crudely reminded by the assassination of Prime 
Minister Rabin that you cannot take anything for granted, and that what is 
available at a certain time ought to be taken advantage of or may not be there 
the next week or the next month or the next year.  And these are larger 
questions than the question of procedure; and I think, I very much hope, that 
when all those who are concerned with these negotiations -- we, the Syrians, 
and our American friends -- take a look at this question, of course we will, I 
know for our part, the Israelis, we'll take a look at the larger question, 
will not just focus on the detail of who promised what to whom, although, as I 
mentioned earlier, for us it's very important that commitments be honored and 
kept.  But we will also bear the larger picture in mind, and it is mostly the 
big answers to the big questions that need to be addressed in the next few 
weeks. 
 
Q (Name and affiliation inaudible.) Mr. Ambassador, the foreign -- minister of 
Foreign Affairs, Farouk al-Shara, said that he hopes for a speedy (comeback ?) 
to the (negotiation ?) table.   
 
And we heard that Minister Yossi Beilin in Israel (finds ?) that a shocking 
statement, because how can the Syrian foreign minister find something positive 
as we come out of this tragedy?  Do you think that this statement by (Farouk 
al-Shara ?) has some positive element, (like ?) the Syrian intentions to speed 
up the process, or do you see it as a shocking (sort of ?) statement by Syria? 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: I believe that the comment by Minister Beilin referred to the 
formulation used by the Syria statement: that something "good," quote, 
unquote, may come out of something evil.  And I think that his comment or 
criticism referred to that, not so much to the substance of the comment. 
 
On the substance, the question is not so much the statement of intention, but 
its translation into actual decision or decisions on the questions.  I think 
that we and the Syrians -- "we" is this Israeli government -- and the Syrians 
have negotiated for over three years.  Not too many mysteries with regard to 
each other's position between us.  We know exactly what the major issues are, 
what the concerns of the other side is.  We have felt that if Syria were to 
take a number of decisions on some of these issues, then negotiations could 
have moved expeditiously and therefore could have moved expeditiously -- that 
--that's talking about the past. 
 
In the present situation, this statement needs to be translated into actual 
decisions.  And when we will be in a position to observe these decisions, I 
think we'll be better poised and better equipped to assess what they actually 
mean for the pace and direction of the negotiations.  It's too early now. 
 
MR. HICKMAN: We have time for one more question. (Inaudible name)? 
 
Q (Ahmed Said ?).  Just a few hours ago, the attorney general, Ms. Janet Reno, 
said that the FBI has offered its assistance to Israeli officials in their 
investigation into the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and (that the ?) 
FBI immediately responded to Israeli authorities to offer their -- (inaudible) 
-- assistance and their full cooperation.  How you can characterize this 
cooperation? And are you happy with this cooperation?  Thank you. 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Yes, I think that our two justice systems and our two law 
enforcement systems have had -- "ours" means American and Israeli -- have had 
excellent relations over the years, including in the recent past and in the 
present.  And we are very pleased with this cooperation, and I am sure that we 
will have reason to continue to be very pleased with it. 
 
Q Thank you. 
 
AMB. RABINOVICH: Thank you. 
 
MR. HICKMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. 
 

Return to Ambassador Rabinovich's Speeches Page