Israeli Delegation Press Conference with Elyakim Rubinstein, Uri Lubrani, and Ambassador Shoval March 4, 1992

      ISRAELI DELEGATION PRESS CONFERENCE WITH ELYAKIM RUBINSTEIN,
                   URI LUBRANI, AND AMBASSADOR SHOVAL
                    Washington, D.C. - March 4, 1992


MR. GAL, Moderator: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and 
welcome to our concluding press briefing.  With us today, from right to 
left, and not necessarily by political inclination -- (laughter) -- Mr. 
Uri Lubrani, the co-chairman of our delegation to the talks with the 
Lebanese, Mr. Eli Rubinstein, chairman of our delegation to the talks 
with the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, and Ambassador Shoval, Zalman 
Shoval, Israel's ambassador to the United States.

We'll start with some opening remarks and later we'll take your 
questions. We'll start with Ambassador Rubinstein.  Eli, please?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: Good afternoon everybody and thank you for taking the 
time to come.  We are about to conclude this round of negotiations.  
I'll talk about the Jordanian-Palestinian negotiations.  And as you all 
know -- but we are still having one meeting this afternoon with the 
Palestinian side of the Jordanian-Palestinian side of the delegation.

This is a special negotiations because of the complexity of the issues, 
because of the emotions involved, the history of the conflict, its being 
a first-time negotiation of its type, and, frankly, the media -- the 
role of the media, which in my -- when there's an overlapping between 
the negotiations and what's being said outside and the penetrating of 
media matters into the negotiating room, it is not our style.  It's 
definitely not my style.  It's quite problematic in terms of the 
negotiations with the Palestinians, in particular, less with the 
Jordanian-Israeli track.

In the -- we had today what's known as a general meeting, the two tracks 
together with us.  We discussed the question of venue of the 
negotiation. You've been hearing about it for a while.  And we would 
like you not to be hearing about it any more, which means that this will 
be settled.  And in fact, as you know, the administration has requested 
all delegations to submit lists of preferred venues closer to the 
region, and we do need that because of consultations, because of the 
efficiency of talks hasn't been achieved yet because of the refusal so 
far of the Arab delegations to submit their lists. And it's a fair 
proposal.  What you do is compare the lists, put one on the other, see 
what's overlapping, and go ahead.  So, there's been no response so far.  
We hope this will be resolved.  It's necessary from the point of view of 
the negotiations themselves.

We also would like to have a response on our request and hope that there 
will be direct contact between us and our counterparts in a reasonable 
way between rounds of talks.  Again, on this, we still await a response. 
We discussed this in our general meeting in the two tracks.

As far as the negotiations with Jordan, in the Israel-Jordan track, as 
you may have heard, we have exchanged during this round drafts for 
common agendas or agendas, trying to bridge the gap on the agenda.  This 
has not yet been finalized.  There are very significant gaps on (one 
side ?), but there also are areas of commonality, and we hope to be 
working on them.  The atmosphere is a good, businesslike atmosphere.  
And it includes also informal exchanges between our experts and their 
experts on areas like water, economy, energy.

So, there is an atmosphere of negotiations.  We understand their 
constraints. We hope they understand ours.  And we -- the constraints, 
which have to do with considerations which are not only in the 
negotiating room, but beyond it, we understand them.  We would like to 
make progress as soon as possible.  We hope we can do it in the next 
round.  In any case, the atmosphere is an atmosphere of negotiations and 
of a positive character.

In terms of the Palestinian side and the negotiations with the 
Palestinians, we, as you may have heard, submitted ideas which seem to 
us reasonable, answering the -- responding to the rules of these 
negotiations.  And we have identified a long number of spheres and 
powers and responsibilities for the interim self-government arrangement 
that we should discuss.  In fact, we brought with us experts who 
explained and introduced some of these subjects, like economy, commerce, 
industry, marketing -- (inaudible) -- health, et cetera.  And the list 
is long.

But, so far, what we got from the Palestinians, and that's saddening 
from our point of view, is, in fact, a plan for a Palestinian state in 
all but name, and this is not what we -- the negotiations are about.  We 
only want to plead that the negotiations would focus on what can be 
achieved, an interim self-government arrangement, and the possibilities 
are there.  And, well, there are gaps between our positions. We would 
like them to work with us in identifying those areas which can be worked 
on and this is important.  There have been also emotions and we didn't 
like, as you may know, some of the utterances and language but we 
wouldn't like to respond in kind and we will stay where we are in this 
respect. But just to wrap up and not to monopolize the time in any way, 
we want to continue to talk and to negotiate in both tracks, in the 
general meeting, everywhere, the time was not wasted, was not wasted.  
You're professional people, all of you, you know how painfully slow this 
thing can be and you don't measure the progress in miles.  You sometimes 
measure it in much smaller measurements and ups and down will occur -- 
hopefully more ups than downs -- but you be aware of the fact that what 
sounds like procedural matters, agenda and so forth, is not procedures 
it is substance and we are there and we are working on it and as far as 
we're concerned we are ready to have another round soon and to continue 
our deliberations.

I think that will take care of my opening remarks.  Thank you very much.

MR. GAL: Dr. Yossi Hadass has joined us.  He is co-chairman of our 
delegation to the talks with the Lebanese and he'll make some comments.  
Please.

MR. HADASS: It's our third round in Washington with the Lebanese.  We 
know for the time the respectful position of each one, of each side.  We 
have conveyed to the Lebanese delegation that Israel remains firmly 
committed to the achievement of a peace treaty and in this round of 
talks we have focused on the problems of security along our northern 
border and presented practical proposals to resolve the questions of 
both substance and procedure.  In the area of security, we emphasized 
two issues which are of a special source of concern to us: Terrorism 
from Lebanese territory undertaken by Hizbullah, by Palestinian 
organizations and by some small Lebanese organizations. And we have 
demanded, and we are going still to demand, that Lebanon put a halt to 
terrorist activity from its territory.

And the second issue was the military and security threats which are of 
us of a lot of concern.  I mean, Syrian presence.  There are today 
35,000 Syrian soldiers on Lebanese territory and around 800 members of 
the Iranian Revolutionary Guards which train, assist, provide military 
arms to the Hizbullah and other groups in mainly the Beka'a valley, 
which is controlled, by the way, by the Syrian Army in Lebanon.

Unfortunately, the Lebanese delegation didn't accept our proposal or 
different proposals, including the establishment of two working groups, 
one on security and second one on civilian affairs.  They have even 
refused to formulate with us a common agenda or to try to define 
problems, topics on which we agree, and others on which we disagree, to 
enable us to enter into concrete negotiations or discussions, to try and 
reduce as much as possible the gap between ourselves and Lebanon.

We are aware of the constraints and difficulties to which the Lebanese 
delegation is subject, both internally and externally.  But we have 
tried to make them understand, as we made if very clear to them that no 
element outside the framework of the bilateral direct negotiations can 
or will be permitted to impose its views upon both parties.

Thank you.

MR. GAL: Thank you, Yossi.  Mr. Lubrani.

MR. GAL: Okay, Mr. Lubrani will be available for questions later.  I now 
turn to Ambassador Shoval for some concluding thoughts and remarks on 
the whole process.

AMB. SHOVAL: Each of my colleagues reported about his negotiations with 
the counterpart delegation.  My counterpart delegation is the Americans, 
but this is not part of the process.

I think that what characterizes the spirit of negotiations of all the 
Israeli delegations in this round of talks is the positive attitude we 
have taken.  And I'm glad to say we met -- the heads of the delegations 
and myself -- we met the Secretary of State this morning, and I don't 
want to talk on his behalf but I would say that that characterization of 
the positive attitude of the Israeli delegation was certainly not only 
our own view.

I would like to reiterate what Ambassador Rubinstein has said about the 
positive, promising atmosphere in our negotiations with the Jordanians.  
I won't go into detail, but I think there is certainly hope and scope 
for progress. With regard to the Palestinian side in the Jordanian-
Palestinian delegation, we find their attitude sometimes rather 
perplexing.  We don't really know if they want to achieve progress or if 
they want to talk to the media.  There's nothing wrong talking to the 
media, but one should have one's sights on the main interest involved, 
and the main interest should be making progress on interim self-
government arrangements.  That's the name of the game of this stage of 
the peace process.

They may have problems, which I don't want to go into.  But we certainly 
hope that at the next round -- and there may be another round, perhaps 
even two rounds during the holidays, after the holidays.  There's the 
Moslem holidays, there's the Jewish holidays, there are the Christian 
holidays.  We are in the holiday season.  I hope that we shall make 
progress all the same.

Thank you.

MR. GAL: Thank you.  We'll take questions.  Barry, please?

Q: Just coming from the Palestinian briefing, the Palestinian 
spokeswoman said that the Palestinians would begin to implement their 
plan in at least -- in a minimal way whether or not Israel accepts their 
plan.  Pressed for examples, she really said she didn't want to give 
any, but ultimately she spoke in terms of making arrangements for the 
elections.  I suspect she means determining who is eligible to vote and 
making lists of voters.  Is there an Israeli response to the notion that 
the Palestinians might initiate on their own at least the first steps of 
their plan?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: We never heard of this.  This is the first time I heard 
about it.  I can say that the -- one obvious thing could be if they want 
to talk to us about the details of the negotiations -- and I'm not 
speaking particularly of this example, but any other thing -- they can 
talk to us.  We don't hear them between the rounds and we have the 
problem in communicating from this point of view.  We would urge them -- 
and we urged them to communicate with us between the rounds and see -- 
this is not to say that there's any agreement on our side to their 
proposal which, as I said, is full-fledged almost.  Palestinians say 
this is not acceptable and everybody understands why.

But communicating with us would be a first step to some dialogue between 
the rounds, because we never heard of this kind of an idea.  And so 
before we do this kind of thing or agree to them, we have to hear what 
they mean and talk to them.

Q: I think -- just to follow up quickly, if I didn't misunderstand her 
on that either, she said there was no need for direct channels.  I think 
maybe she's talking about what you're talking about is bilateral talking 
between rounds.

MR. RUBINSTEIN: Well, it's with us that the negotiations have to be 
conducted. With all respect, if somebody thinks that there'll be some 
deus ex machina or some emissary from heaven or from some place to take 
care of the negotiation, that's wrong.  The negotiations are with us.  
That's with us that they have to live, and we want to coexist and live 
with them.  So talk to us, and then before mentioning that this or that 
is going to be done, you have to agree on what has to be done.

MODERATOR: Yes, please.

Q: In summing up, Mr. Rubinstein, do you -- did you say that the plan 
you have submitted to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have 
submitted to you, in spite of the flaws each of you find -- have they 
become a basis for discussion and negotiation?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: First of all, we have not submitted a full-fledged 
model.  We have submitted a concept which included a lot of the elements 
of our -- our ideas, but some has to be developed, including in the 
negotiations, like the modalities -- (inaudible) -- their elections, and 
what elections, and how and so on.  This has to be agreed and that -- a 
basis for negotiations must be something that addresses the process.

What we got from them so far -- and I'm saying it -- (inaudible) -- that 
way and with regret, is not a concept of interim self-government 
arrangements, but really, I have to repeat it, a Palestinian state.  
From our point of view, you know the security aspects and all the other 
vital national interests that are invoked, this is not something which 
one can put on as a basis for negotiation. Let's get to the ground, 
which means to the ground rules of the process, and to the essence of 
the negotiations.  This is interim self-government arrangement. Here 
there are (X ?) spheres which now are under Israeli civilian 
administration in the military administration framework.  These areas 
have been offered to be negotiated and to be delegated or moved to the 
Palestinians with all kinds of coordination and cooperation, caveats and 
so on.  But it's a very major list. Let's talk about it I submit this 
way: instead of trying -- the major gaps may not be bridgeable at this 
point, but there may be a gap that should be bridgeable, so let's take 
those areas which in any way would have to be negotiated.  For instance, 
those spheres -- economic spheres, the social spheres, the -- all other 
spheres that I have tried to enumerate, and if we could number it, I 
think it has been mentioned here before -- and talk about
 them, because in any case they should be in any form you shape the 
negotiations.

We look forward for their response to this notion.

Q: If I could follow up on that.

MR. GAL: Oh, go ahead sir.

Q: I just want to follow up.  I know that the Palestinian state is their 
goal, you have a different goal at the end.  But in the interim are 
there no points of commonality in your outline or their plan on which 
you can begin discussions as to some of the things that you want to talk 
about such as administration, the economics -- the administration of the 
territories?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: I think that they -- in my humble view, they should take 
a good look at our ideas and should revise their plan not to accommodate 
us only because this is a negotiating process, you want to narrow the 
gap, but to accommodate the process in terms of government arrangements.  
So if this is a state which has a legislative and executive and a 
judiciary and the foreign relations and all kinds of other things, what 
is there almost to negotiate about?  That is not a (concept ?).  They 
should take a good look at our proposal and should -- I think from their 
point of view if they want to achieve -- one of them said the other day, 
the choices between one and the other thing -- we said to them the 
choice is really between peace and nowhere, so let's go for peace.

Q: (All their answer ?) were the same thing.  I mean Mr.  Rubinstein you 
said that your ideas, what you submitted were more or less preliminary 
ideas, I mean they are not the final plan.  when the Palestinians 
offered you detail, I mean they might have wanted to offer you detailed 
ideas or detailed steps to implement these ideas but in their own -- 
from their own perspectives, why don't you look upon this also as a 
negotiating platform, both of them on the table and negotiate?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: It's simple, the -- and really I -- it's not my personal 
style and I think my government's style to negotiate through the media.  
We meet with them in half an hour, we'll tell them what we have to say 
about (these things ?).  I certainly believe in the confidentiality of 
the process and (the free exchange ?) rather than through the media, but 
in order to serve as a basis for negotiations.  First of all something 
should be given to us and not to the media -- at the same time as to 
make it a media exercise rather than a negotiating process.

So, we would like this to be -- when you look into it, really you -- one 
can always put the sky as the goal and then start from that.  Now, let's 
not put the sky as the goal, and that is the problem.

MR. GAL: Ralph?

Q: I'd like to ask, if I could, two questions that are not really 
directly related.  Number one, I suspect the answer will be brief.  Can 
you tell us, Eli, whether your negotiations at all with the Palestinians 
in any way, shape or form involve discussion by your side of the 
delegation of the issues of settlements or of military activities in the 
territories and so on?  And my other question is, I guess, for 
Ambassador Shoval.  In the meeting with Secretary Baker today, have you 
discussed the loan guarantee issue, and are you any closer to resolving 
that between Israel and the United States than you were, let's say, 
yesterday?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: On the first question, they have been raising 
the settlements, as you know, wherein they made it, as I said before, 
the choice between settlements and peace, and we said no, the choice is 
between peace and (nowhere ?) if the roads are -- if that's the road you 
want to choose.  Practically speaking, this is not part of the 
negotiations, from our point of view.  And it's been, by the way, highly 
and widely exaggerated on this subject.  Between what's there and 
between the pumping up of the subject, there's a big gap. But on the 
other point that you mentioned, the question of hat's going on in the 
territories, let me tell you something.  They come every day, and I 
regret it again because that's not what I'd like to see in negotiations, 
and read us a collection of newspaper clippings or something like that 
which -- on human rights in the territories as a daily report.  We said 
to them a number of times, time and again, publicly and privately, if 
you're really interested not in a media exercise of -- (inaudible) -- 
being distributed but to talk to us about these things, despite the fact 
that they are not a direct part of the negotiation, here we are, 
(General Rothschild ?), who is the coordinator of the territories, is a 
senior member of our delegation, myself.  Talk to us seriously.  If you 
think this or that thing needs fixing, we'll address it. We're here to 
talk to you and in a free way as equal human beings.  Why not do that, 
and you can do it here, you can it when we are back home in Jerusalem. 
And just pick up the phone and say, "Listen, we think this or that is 
not proper and let's talk about it." We are there.

So, here is the answer to the second question.  Unfortunately, it hasn't 
been taken (up ?).

But I do want to underline, really, I'm not complaining.  We understand 
that the negotiating process is tough and difficult and it should 
continue, and we are here to help it continue in a continued way, in a 
positive way.  All I am saying is that if we could really have the 
negotiations in the negotiating room in the proper atmosphere, I think 
much, much, much could be achieved, and I'm still looking forward to 
this kind of a possibility.  I think the potential is there.

Q: Is it accurate to say, then, on the basis of that answer that your 
side -- my question was about what did your side of the delegation do on 
that issue, and the answer is what you have told the Palestinians is 
talk to us in another forum about those issues?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: Not another forum.  Even in this forum.

Q: Have you -- have you -- has the Israeli delegation addressed the 
Palestinian concerns on those issues in a substantive way in these 
venues, in these talks?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: There was no -- there was no -- unfortunately, as I 
said, on these human rights things, there was no effort to address us or 
to talk to us on these things.  There was an effort to read to us 
reports on what they think is taking place daily.  And we tell them, 
with respect, if you want to talk to us, here or in Jerusalem, raise 
concerns -- they said we're not interested.  I am saying it with regret, 
because here we are, serious people, experienced in negotiations, want 
to come and talk about these things, and we look forward to their 
working with us on that.  That's all.

AMB. SHOVAL: With regard to the loan guarantees, Ralph, the matter came 
up very marginally.  The Secretary wanted to reiterate once again that 
what he had said or what he had been reported to have said, the matter 
of the scoring only would refer to economic aid, only the scoring.  And 
even on that, it was clarified that Israel may prefer to pay that in a 
different way, perhaps in cash, and not to be deducted from the economic 
aid whatsoever.  He wanted to clarify that once again.

Q: And when you say -- when you use the word "reporting," you're 
referring to Senator Leahy's public statements, right?

AMB. SHOVAL: I saw something in the papers.  I don't want to attribute 
it to anybody, but --

MR. GAL: We have three or four minutes because we have to rush back to 
the State Department.  Alan, please.

Q: Can I ask, in your concept of self-rule, are you willing to discuss 
any change in the activities, the rights, the duties of the Israel 
Defense Forces?  I understand that you want to keep security in your own 
hands, but are you willing to discuss anything that would make it seem 
less like an occupation and more like a self-rule in terms of the 
actions of the military?


MR. RUBINSTEIN: Well, one has to distinguish between two different 
things.  One is the whole interim self-government arrangement would be a 
change because now this is under Israeli military administration, and it 
ought to be most of these spheres would be in Palestinian hands to run 
them.  So, there will be, in this respect, a change, although the source 
of authority for the interim period should remain where it is now in 
order to keep all options open for the final status negotiations. As far 
as security as such, we are very serious on everybody's security, 
including ours, which means in terms of how security will be run, this 
responsibility should be ours.

By the way, this has been the concept all along.  There's nothing new in 
that for the interim period, and we'll take care of our security forever 
because that's something which nobody would compromise.  This country 
wouldn't compromise its security, nor would we.  The negotiations should 
concentrate on the interim self-government arrangements for the 
Palestinians.  This can be done.

STAFF: Two minutes remaining.  Excuse me, last -- short one only.  Short 
question, short answer.  Please?

Q: Two short questions, if I may.

STAFF: One, one, one.

Q: One is if there was any kind of -- any element, anything of the 
Palestinian proposal that you found yourself agreeing to, anything which 
is -- that you agreed to, and the second half is if you agree to the 
timetable which says that the interim arrangements should be implemented 
no later than the end of October?

MR. RUBINSTEIN: I don't want to go into details of the Palestinian 
proposal.  I said that a problem with it is in its basic concept, and 
we're going -- I, really, being a negotiator, I'm going now to see them.  
I'll leave it to my discussion with them to explain to them our 
problems.  But this has all been in the newspapers before we even had 
the time to look into it and talk about it. I'll just say that the 
problem is with the very concept, and everything derives from that.

STAFF: You have all been very patient and very kind.  Thank you very 
much.