News Conference by the Israeli Delegation to the Middle East Peace Talks with Spokesman Benjamin Netanyahu, Ambassador Shoval April 28, 1992

   NEWS CONFERENCE BY THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS
          Speakers: Spokesman Benjamin Netanyahu, Ambassador Shoval
                      Washington, D.C. - April 28, 1992


MR. NETANYAHU: Good morning -- afternoon, really.  This will be a briefing in 
the full sense of the word.  It will be brief.  We have a few points that we 
want to impart within the guidelines that we -- I think we tried to establish 
yesterday that we will talk about the general direction or the -- some 
specific directions of the talks but not get into the full details of our 
proposals, and secondly, also within the objective of saving something to tell 
you tomorrow, which I think is important.

We have today had a good day within the talks.  We had progress in all the 
delegations.  In every one of the delegations there is a discussion going 
about right now about Israeli proposals submitted in each of the three forums.  
In the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation there is an Israeli paper that is 
being discussed.  In the Syrian-Israeli talks, there is an Israeli paper being 
discussed.  In the Lebanese-Israeli talks, there is an Israeli paper being 
discussed.

We think that the talks have reached a stage where we can reduce the gaps or 
the distances between the sides and move towards some sort of negotiated 
result around these proposals.  This is not yet the culmination of 
negotiations, but it is the beginning of the narrowing of differences over 
concrete ideas and concrete areas.  We are to that end offering immediately to 
undertake to agree today or tomorrow or certainly by Thursday by the time that 
we leave, to agree on a second round of negotiations to be held from our point 
of view as soon as possible.  We have certain limitations next week, as you 
know, because of our national holidays, but as far as we're concerned, we're 
prepared to resume the negotiations right afterwards or the closest possible 
date.  We think it's important to maintain the positive momentum that we are 
experiencing within the delegations, and we hope that the Arab delegations 
respond positively.

In the Palestinian-Jordanian -- I'm sorry, in the Palestinian component of the 
Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, we continued to discuss today in great 
detail -- in considerable detail the ideas for existence -- co-existence in 
the territories which we have proposed that outlines all the areas that we are 
talking about for the framework of self-government.

In the area of the municipal -- the pilot municipal elections that we talked 
about yesterday, I think it's important to stress first that we talked about 
it. We received several questions on this subject.  There began a discussion 
today, a concrete discussion on this.

The important thing to stress is this: this is not a substitute for broader 
elections.  Broader elections involve a very complicated range of
 negotiations.  They involve questions that tie together the whole area and 
all the areas of the interim arrangement.  They will require complex and, I 
suspect, lengthy negotiations.

What we have offered is something that allows the undertaking of elections -- 
other elections immediately.  We have suggested something that I think can 
bring about a positive atmosphere in the territories.  I mentioned the 
response, the positive and, indeed, the enthusiastic response of the 
Palestinian Arab population to the thirty-odd elections in various 
organizations yesterday.  And I think it also will habituate -- these pilot 
municipal elections will habituate everyone involved to the idea of democracy.

This is not an obvious idea.  This is not an obvious idea.  Somebody talked 
about election games.  Elections are not a game. Elections are serious 
business and a business that is not familiar, unhappily, to the residents, the 
Arab residents of the territories.  We have suggested, therefore, starting 
something immediately that can be seized upon that can improve the atmosphere 
that can move the momentum forward.  And in no way does it contradict or 
nullify the negotiations over broader election issues and election questions.

I want to close by saying that in the Syrian delegation we did cross a kind of 
threshold today, because for the first time since the beginning of these 
talks, and I mean since Madrid, the Syrians for the first time agreed to 
accept an Israeli paper that outlines the areas of agreement between Israel 
and Syria to date.  I hope that this is a harbinger of the future, but in any 
case it's something that did not happen before and it's of some positive note, 
I think, that it happened today.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Bibi.  Ambassador Shoval.

AMB. SHOVAL: There was a very good meeting today between Israel's Foreign 
Minister, David Levy, and the Secretary of State.  The meeting lasted for 
about an hour and a quarter, I believe.

Although the talks today did not relate directly to the bilateral talks about 
which Deputy Minister Netanyahu has just reported, I think I could say that 
both ministers expressed their satisfaction at the way the bilateral talks are 
proceeding.  We also raised some questions with regard to the multilateral 
talks -- and as you know, there are still some points of disagreement between 
Israel and the United States on certain aspects of these talks -- as well as 
reiterated its position in that respect.

I would say that no less important than questions relating to the peace 
process were the points pertaining to US-Israel bilateral relations, and some 
very positive points were mentioned and agreed upon.  For instance, it was 
agreed that the United States and Israel will jointly examine the possibility 
of cooperating on a technical plane with regard to utilizing Israel's 
expertise in agriculture irrigation and other fields in the former Central 
Asian republics -- or the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union, 
rather.

Another point which was raised was the question of how to ascertain that 
Israel's qualitative edge shall be maintained under every condition, under any 
condition, and it was agreed in principle that a joint group will be set up by 
the two countries, by the two governments, in order to examine that question.

I would say, in summarizing, in summing up, that these talks today proceeded 
in the spirit of the very close relationship and friendship between our two 
countries.  Thank you.

MODERATOR: Yes, please?

Q: Mr. Ambassador, how did Secretary Baker respond to Israel's concerns about 
the diaspora Palestinians?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, we made our position -- the Minister made our position very 
clear in that regard.  We reiterated that Israel would not agree to 
participate in any working group in this peace process which does not function 
in accordance with the ground rules which had been set up originally for this 
whole process. Certainly not in a question like that.  It is very clear to us 
and I think it's very -- should be very clear to anybody who knows anything 
about it that the insistence of the Palestinians to include outside 
Palestinians or diaspora Palestinians in this process is in order to get the 
right of return question back into the whole process through the back door.  
Otherwise, there's very little explanation, very little reason why they should 
insist all of the sudden for so-called diaspora Palestinians to be included.  
And Israel will not agree to that.

Now if refugees -- Palestinian refugees, the diaspora Palestinians so-called, 
want to discuss their problems with the Arab governments, well, it is 
basically really a problem which relates to the Arab governments which have 
perpetuated the refugee problem for so many decades and to the refugees.  If 
they want to discuss that, let them discuss it.  But this is not part of the 
present peace process.  That's the way we look at it.

Q: Mr. Netanyahu, if I could follow up on a question yesterday that was raised 
in the Palestinian briefing today, there was a comment made on Israel radio by 
an Israeli spokesperson that if during these municipal elections, a candidate 
was elected who ended up being a PLO supporter, Israel would find that 
unacceptable. This goes to what I asked you yesterday.  As long as they're 
under military occupation, what is there to protect the integrity of these 
elections which is what the Palestinians seem to be concerned about.  How can 
we say we won't accept who you vote in?

MR. NETANYAHU: Let's distinguish between two things.  The PLO is an outlaw 
organization in Israel and any member of the PLO would not participate in the 
negotiations just as no formal member of the PLO as you know, participates in 
these talks as well.  That is Israel's traditional position.  It has not 
changed.

On the other hand, we're aware of two things.  First, that people may have 
sympathies.  We're not in the business of censoring sympathies.  Secondly, we 
understand also that the PLO will try to insert itself into the process, and 
from our point of view the test of not only the pilot municipal elections that 
we're talking about, but any other elections that will be undertaken would be 
the emergence of a leadership that breaks with the PLO.  The PLO is committed 
to the destruction of Israel, not to peace with Israel.  It may say 
differently in other forms but it is -- acts and says precisely this line and 
follows it in everything that it does.  So from Israel's point of view, it is 
simply not an acceptable negotiating partner.

If on the other hand, there is a leadership that emerges that breaks with the 
PLO line, the destructionist line, nothing else, Israel refused to negotiate 
with the PLO, not merely because it's a terrorist organization, but because 
it's a unique kind of terrorist organization.  It is a terrorist organization 
that is committed to wiping out a sovereign state.

And I don't think that other governments that opposed each one for their own 
reasons the negotiations with their "terrorists," in quotes, would have any 
greater agreement to negotiate, say, with the IRA, which there is no 
willingness to negotiate, or with the Red Army faction, which the Germany 
government does not negotiate with, and so on, if those terrorist groups also 
espouse, in addition to terror, the idea of destroying Germany or Britain or 
whatever. So Israel is not unique in that sense to any other country.  What is 
unique is the terror groups that are attacking Israel.  This terrorist 
organization seeks a goal that is even more incompatible and more unacceptable 
to any reasonable government.  Therefore, what we're seeking is the emergence 
of a different
 leadership that will break with this terrorist and destructionist line.

Now, you ask how can we have negotiations guaranteed?  We just had them.  We 
just had free elections in the territories.  No one -- by the way, no 
Palestinian Arab today that I know of -- there may have been individual 
sayings, but I'm not aware of anybody contesting the fairness of the 
elections.  No one has challenged the outcomes of the elections that we've 
just held.  And I think that this is the best indication of the kind of 
elections that we have in mind.

MODERATOR: Okay, Hamedi (sp) and then Tom.

Q: Ambassador Shoval, we understood that Secretary Levy has got a different 
point of view, which does not coincide with the Prime Minister concerning the 
participation of the Palestinians, that the Palestinians could be represented 
in Ottawa as observers, not as full members.  And the question to Mr. 
Netanyahu concerns -- yes?

MR. NETANYAHU: Let me just put this to rest.  This is just not accurate. 
There's absolutely no divergence of opinion between any part of the Israeli 
government about that question.  No, it's not correct.

Q: Mr. Netanyahu, we understood from the Jordanians that there is a kind of a 
joint agenda, and he mentioned that you have discussed water and other 
projects. Can you give us an idea about what is this kind of joint agenda you 
have agreed on?

MR. NETANYAHU: There are a number of areas that relate to the bilateral 
relations between Israel and Jordan that would be part of the normalization of 
the relationship between any two states and especially any two bordering 
states. You mentioned and correctly such questions as water.  I added 
yesterday that we brought in a deputy minister -- a deputy director general of 
the ministry of the environment, because the environment questions loom large 
in the relations between Israel and Jordan.  We have a common port, as you 
know, in Aqaba and so on.  And there is a problem of pollution there.  We have 
anything from mosquitoes who don't recognize borders to any -- many, many 
other areas that would be discussed in the course of establishing normal 
relations between our two countries.

We have decided that a useful way to approach the subject of politically 
normalizing these relations is to begin addressing each one of these building 
blocks of common good neighborly relations.  And that's what we're doing. Now, 
I think in the -- what we sought to do is not only begin to probe these 
subjects, but to develop an agenda, an agreed upon agenda.  That is, we 
initially proposed, as you know, a set of points which follow very much our 
ideas of what a peace treaty should look like.  What we're seeking to do 
today, and will continue to do this afternoon, is to try to establish a joint 
list, an agreed upon list -- agreed upon, that is, by Israel and Jordan -- on 
the common points to be negotiated in this round of talks and the next round 
of talks.

MODERATOR: Tom, please?

Q: A couple of questions.  One is on the elections.  You said the elections 
won't be a substitute for broader elections.  I understand what municipal 
elections are and I understand what broader elections are, but I don't 
understand what "pilot municipal elections" are.  So I wonder first if you 
could explain what are you talking about?  Is it just municipal elections from 
one city to the next?

And the second point relates to the Syrian gesture yesterday of apparently 
lifting the travel ban on Jews.  Obviously this is something Israel had asked 
for a long time, something Israel considered to be a right.  But nevertheless, 
in the context of this relationship in these negotiations it is something of a 
confidence-building gesture.  Do you anticipate Israel would make a counter or 
reciprocal gesture toward Syria?

MR. NETANYAHU: On the first question you asked on the question of the pilot
 municipal elections, we said yesterday that we wouldn't discuss our ideas.  
We have them, by the way, we have ideas on how to proceed.

When I say "pilot" or when we use the word "pilot" that necessarily implies 
something that begins and that will be followed by something else.  Now, we 
could circumscribe it geographically, or we can circumscribe it functionally. 
I'm not saying how we view it because this is something that we hope to 
negotiate -- and I think we have, in a way, begun to negotiate with the first 
probing questions today from the other side -- in the negotiating room.  But 
the operative word, I think, is "initial."

Q: It will begin with a test case?

MR. NETANYAHU: It will begin with an initial stage that will be followed by 
something else, expanded into something else.  And I'm deliberately holding 
back our own views, which we have, I assure you, because we think that that 
kind of discussion really ought to take place in the negotiations themselves 
and not here.

Secondly, you asked about the Syrian policy vis-a-vis the Syrian Jews.  I said 
yesterday that we welcomed this change.  I want to say very clearly that we do 
not think that this should be linked in any way to the peace negotiations. 
First of all, if we linked it, we would be establishing a principle of 
hostage-taking.

Q: But you raised it in your negotiations with Syria.

MR. NETANYAHU: We didn't raise it as an issue for commensurate response: If 
you release these prisoners -- or these hostages that shouldn't be there in 
the first place, we will do this or that.  We said: Release them because you 
should release them a long time ago.  But since you asked -- and by the way, 
let me say that when we raised this issue yesterday for information -- because 
we received news about this from public sources.  We did not get any kind of 
communication, direct or indirect, from the Syrians.  We heard Ms. Tutwiler 
say exactly what she said, like you, shortly -- or I think during, actually, 
the negotiations we got the information.  Well, our delegates turned to the 
Syrians and they asked, "Can you tell us anything about this?" And they said, 
"Well, we really have nothing to say on this.  It's not related to the 
negotiations." So it's not only we who have, as a principle, from our point of 
view, unlinked or refused to link these issues with the negotiations, it 
appears to be Syria's position as well. Now, since you asked, though, about 
gestures, confidence-building gestures from the Israeli side toward the 
Syrians, let me point out that we've recently made two of them.  We don't 
perhaps publicize them in the same way, but you should be aware first that a 
Syrian ship was found in trouble along the coast of Israel, was taken into the 
Israel port and was fixed up, patched up, treated.  There was a very 
complicated issue of how Syria would pay, or this Syrian company would pay the 
Israeli --

AMB. SHOVAL: They solved the issue.  They didn't pay.  (Laughter.)

MR. NETANYAHU: He took the --

Q: But the position of the -- MR. NETANYAHU: Ambassador Shoval took the punch 
line away.  (Laughter.) It was very complicated.  We are now in peace 
negotiations, but Israel, in fact -- talk about gestures, good will gestures -
- (laughs) -- we spent thousands and thousands of dollars fixing up this ship 
in distress, which good neighbors do with one another -- (laughs) -- and then 
said, well, could we get paid?  And they said, well, we're not paying Israel.  
(Laughter.) We're not at peace with Israel.  This is a country we don't 
recognize.  So we ended up footing the bill. Maybe in the course of the peace 
negotiations we'd have a reciprocal gesture and get paid for that.

In addition, we had some Syrian soldiers stranded in the Hermon, on the Syrian 
side of Mt. Hermon, which gets to be very snowy, I mean, with several meters 
of snow and they are really locked out from any reinforcements.

There is only a possibility of reinforcing or supplying them from the air.  
But for Syria to access that point they go through very sensitive military 
airspace. And normally we would be very concerned with such flights of 
helicopters or any other aircraft.  The Syrians approached us, and we enabled 
such -- shall I say succor? -- to be delivered to these Syrian solders in 
distress.

So here you have within the space of days two Israeli gestures, one towards a 
civilian ship, commercial ship, the others toward soldiers, Syrian soldiers. 
And I think that says about enough about our willingness and the spirit that 
we are bringing to these talks.

AMB. SHOVAL: By the way --

MR. NETANYAHU: All of us.

AMB. SHOVAL: -- we expressed our appreciation today to the Secretary for the 
American efforts with regard to Syrian Jewry, and I think this note of thanks 
was certainly due.

MODERATOR: (Calls on questioner.)

Q: Mr. Netanyahu, I'd like to ask you about the benefit of local elections, of 
municipal elections, for Israel.  And you counted yesterday, and then today, 
what would be the benefits for the Palestinians, you know, nurturing 
democratic values among them, and so on.  But what good would it do for 
Israel?  Why -- would the be interlocutors, as far as Israel is concerned?  
What's the benefit?

MR. NETANYAHU: The benefit is something that most of the world -- most of the 
world with the exception of the Middle East -- has come to recognize, that -- 
I'm not going to repeat Churchill's cliché, that -- (laughs) -- democracy is -
- is it.  It may be the worst, but it's the best available.  And it definitely 
makes for better representatives, better -- it makes for better decision-
making, and I must tell you it makes ultimately for better negotiations.  So 
the benefit is for everyone, for Arabs, for Jews, I think the benefit is for 
an ethos that emerges -- that will emerge perhaps in a corner of the Middle 
East, in a corner of the Arab world, that I hope would spread elsewhere.

You know that same question you can ask to the American government, why there 
is this -- taking the full court press in the face of what is happening in 
Peru or the positions taken by the United States and other countries in the 
face of what happened in China.  Democracy is its own value.  We could discuss 
at great length if you wish -- (laughs) -- outside this room, the full 
implications of the benefits of democracy.  I, for one, believe there is a 
direct relationship ultimately between democracy and the predilection to go to 
war or the lack of predilection to go to war.

So I see so many benefits that I -- I beg your forgiveness for not going into 
them.  It would take too long.  I think they're obvious.

MODERATOR: We have about five minutes.  Yes, please?

Q: Minister Netanyahu, are the pilot municipal elections a necessary 
prerequisite to negotiations on broader elections?  And the second question: 
When you talk about resuming negotiations the week after next, are you talking 
about a sixth round in Rome or a continuation of this round back in 
Washington?

MR. NETANYAHU: I'm sorry.  Could you repeat the first question.  Oh, you asked 
about the pilot?

Q: Are the pilot elections a necessary --

MR. NETANYAHU: I see.  I see.

Q: -- prerequisite to negotiating on broader elections?

MR. NETANYAHU: No.  We haven't placed it as a condition of any kind. 
Realistically, though, and I think we have some experience with this, the 
broader issue of elections is going to require considerable negotiations, and 
it probably would be -- I think it probably would benefit from the 
establishment of these municipal elections.  I think it would actually 
facilitate the
 negotiations.  But we haven't linked the two.  We haven't said, well, unless 
you accept such and such, we won't discuss.  We suggest, in fact, discussing 
continuously and in parallel other subjects, as well.

What we're suggesting is not merely negotiating; we're suggesting implementing 
these negotiations while -- these pilot municipal elections as we are engaged 
in negotiations.  We haven't placed any limitation on the implementation.  I 
think that's important to stress.  Not only did we not link broader 
negotiations to municipal elections, but we didn't link municipal elections to 
broader elections in the other way.  So as far as we're concerned, we can 
continue the negotiations on the other issues while implementing already this 
question.

The second question you asked concerned the venue of the next round.  I think 
that's been agreed upon, and we'll be happy to see all of you there in Rome. 
It's certainly closer to home.

MODERATOR: Barry, please?

Q: At the last round, we understood that the Palestinians weren't willing to 
talk about anything that didn't lead to a state, even though at the last day 
or two they listened to some of your experts a little bit, but essentially 
there was no negotiations. They wanted only arrangements for statehood.  Now, 
can you -- it's almost impossible to follow their public line.  They're hot 
one day, cold the other.  Could you tell us what their basic approach has been 
in these last two days?  Are they negotiating with you on autonomy, are they 
simply listening and not throwing it back at you, or are they making the same 
demands that whatever happens has to produce a state?

MR. NETANYAHU: Let me draw a distinction between what happens inside and what 
happens on the outside.  What happens on the inside is actually quite 
encouraging, in our point of view. It is encouraging because we're discussing 
concrete, substantive proposals.  These are not slogans.  These are spheres of 
life and areas of potential agreement that we have put on the table.  They 
have not been rejected, and we're going one by one and negotiating them.

On the area of pilot municipal elections, there was a willingness to study the 
proposal yesterday.  I thought that was important because it wasn't described 
I think as it was last -- the whole areas -- or the list of areas was 
discussed in the last round as "an insult to intelligence." And, of course, 
we're discussing this today without any insult.  And, secondly, the fact that 
today we already received some questions on this, I think indicates a positive 
direction.  That's on the inside.

On the outside, it's something else.  I'm afraid you'll have to form your own 
impressions.  I think maybe there is a disappointment in some quarters that 
this is actually proceeding in a businesslike and concrete way.  I think that 
maybe there is a -- there's been a pampering, I suppose, in certain quarters 
that whatever is said, whatever statement is made is taken immediately at face 
value, whatever the exaggeration, whatever the charge, immediately there is a 
-- you know, the press lines up with the proverbial Israel bashing.  Well, it 
never happens quite that way even in the worst of times, and this is not the 
worst of times.  This is actually one of the good times.  So, there may be a 
disappointment there that it's not -- the field of press gravity doesn't quite 
line up according to the Palestinian magnet.

But that's unimportant.  We have been trying to downplay the public battles. 
We're not -- we hear all these incantations of doubt and negativism.  We're 
just not interested now.  We're interested in making concrete progress, and 
since we're making it in the room, I think that's important.

MODERATOR: The last question goes to Israel Radio, Mr. Ben Ami.

Q: Ambassador Shoval, just by what you -- how you quoted Minister Levy today 
regarding the multilateral and the Israeli policy, Ms. Tutwiler said today 
that the administration is still waiting for the Israeli official response for 
the invitation that five countries issued to all parties.  Is the -- Mr. 
Levy's discussion with Secretary Baker today is the official Israeli response 
or not?

AMB. SHOVAL: No, there is no contradiction between the two things.  You are 
right.  We have not yet given our official response.  Maybe some of the others 
haven't given them either.  I don't know.  What the Foreign Minister restated 
today was Israel's very clear position opposing any possibility of outside 
Palestinians participating in any part of these negotiations because this goes 
counter to the ground rules which were agreed upon.  And once you change 
ground rules, I mean there's no end to it.  And, of course, we know why the 
Palestinians want to change them, and we are not going to go along with that.

MODERATOR: Okay.  Thank you very much.