ISRAELI DELEGATION PRESS CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 17, 1992
OPENING STATEMENT BY
MR. ELYAKIM RUBINSTEIN
CHAIRMAN OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO THE PEACE TALKS
WITH THE JORDANIAN-PALESTINIAN DELEGATION
Good afternoon everybody. We'll try to divide our comments between the
two tracks in which we work first, the Israeli-Jordanian
negotiations.
I'd like to state that we attach great importance to the negotiations
with Jordan, our neighbor on the east, and this reflects in the
seriousness of the negotiations taking place. The negotiations in fact
have two major dimensions the negotiations with Jordan. One is
trying to hammer out political differences through the effort to
achieve a common agenda, and some of these aspects are agreed. Some
are, I would say, agreed in principle or at least understood each
other's position is understood. There are questions of drafting, of
language, which of course reflect differences of view. We deal with
matters of security, with other questions refugees, displaced
persons as part of the agenda. And there is obviously a process of
give and take which has not exhausted itself.
Beside this effort we have specialized talks, and the existing
specialized talks, which you have been briefed about water, energy,
environment which have continued. We also added some economic and
monetary issues, as well as other matters, and we are continuing in
this direction, without detracting from the main, diplomatic, political
core.
By and large, these talks are characterized by mutual respect, by a
good, businesslike, positive atmosphere. They are issues of great
weight and complexity, and we look forward to continue these talks.
With the Palestinians, I'd like to start by describing really the
moment which should, in our view, be seen. And let me say on a personal
note, as a veteran in Israeli-Arab negotiations for many years and of
course as a citizen of Israel, an historic perspective is important
before we go into the details of the negotiations.
This is a historic miracle the fact that we've been able to reach
negotiations with the Palestinians around an official table. But this
historic miracle and I mean every word and every meaning of the word
also puts on our shoulders an historic responsibility. These
negotiations can bring a sea change in the situation of the
Palestinians in the territories. A sea change. There is nothing for
them to lose I am saying it with respect to our co-negotiators
and we believe there is a lot to gain. Even though it may not be
everything they are looking for, there is a lot to gain.
We have put on the table extensive ideas, extensive documents, in line
with the terms of reference of Madrid. A number of detailed proposals
considering most walks of life of the population the Palestinian
population in the territories, including relevant infrastructure
aspects. The Madrid invitation and I'll allow myself to quote for a
minute from that speaks of negotiations that will be conducted in
phases, beginning with talks of interim self-government arrangements.
That is why we are here, and that is the challenge that we face. This
is for a period of five years. Beginning the third year, permanent
status negotiations will begin, and those negotiations and the
negotiations between us and the Arab states will take place on the
basis of 242 and 338. So we are now in phase one, and phase one should
be attained.
The key today today means this afternoon, today means next week, as
we go along is the need to engage in the negotiations, to move to
working groups, to start working on the core issue. And we call upon
our Palestinian counterparts, with whom we really yearn to work in
respect and in cooperation in the negotiations: Give it a chance.
We don't think there is an impasse. Not at all. We have the patience.
We will not tire. And we will really work together with them to attain
this goal. The need to engage is urgent, but as I said, we have the
patience.
OPENING STATEMENT BY
PROF. ITAMAR RABINOVICH
CHAIRMAN OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO
THE PEACE TALKS WITH SYRIA
We, I think, are facing today an attempt to stage a mini-crisis in the
negotiations. We don't precisely understand where it comes from or what
the motivation may be. We are certainly here to proceed with the
negotiations.
We brought some forward-looking proposals. We had agreed to work
through the Syrian paper as a gesture of goodwill, designed to
facilitate our ability to agree next week on a joint statement of
principles. We are willing to devote efforts over the weekend in order
to restore the negotiations on track. We are willing to invest efforts
in being accommodating, creative, imaginative and so forth not
efforts in submitting to undue pressure. And hopefully the negotiations
will be back on track on Monday.
I think that in the course of such negotiations, there are ups and
downs. We are at a down moment. I'm sure we'll be back at up moments. I
think that we need to handle such moments with calm and equanimity,
which we do. And we have two and a half days of creative thinking ahead
of us, which we intend to pursue with all intensity and goodwill.
OPENING STATEMENTS BY
DR. YOSEF HADASS
MR. URI LUBRANI
CO-CHAIRMEN OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO
THE PEACE TALKS WITH LEBANON
Mr. Lubrani: We've had our contination of the deliberations concerning
our proposal to the Lebanese delegation with regard to a possible
dialogue on security matters pending between the two countries. It's
been a constructive dialogue. It's not yet come to a conclusion. We're
going to continue that, and hopefully by the end of next week we'll
know where we are.
Dr. Hadass: If I may add to this a very short introduction. Our
proposal was made with no great risk to basic positions of each side.
You know the position of Lebanon and ours, so I won't dwell upon it.
But keeping it open to enable us to proceed in a practical way and to
stop after all these meetings until now we have, I think, it was the
34th meeting with the Lebanese delegation so to enable us to proceed
in a practical and an effective way, we have come with our proposal to
have this joint military group. And this cuts the most important
problem which exists between us and Lebanon, and I mean the security
problem.
Q: Ambassador Rubinstein, are you saying that the principles of 242 and
338 do not apply at all to the current phase that's under negotiation?
MR. RUBINSTEIN: What I said was exactly what the invitation to Madrid
said. It set phases. There is phase one, interim self government
arrangement; there is phase two, permanent status and this permanent
status negotiation will take place on the basis of 242 and 338. It
couldn't be clearer. It's crystal clear.
Q: (Off mike) 242 and 338 do not apply in the current phase?
MR. RUBINSTEIN: I think it's the document's position, the invitation's
position. I accept the invitation we accepted the invitation to
Madrid, that's the quote, unquote, "constitution" of the talks accepted
by everybody and I don't think there's a need to negotiate it further.
It's there, it's on the table, everybody knows where we are now,
everybody knows what will be the basis in the next phase.
Q: (Off mike) that they too are faithful to the terms of reference
because in the letter of invitation they say that 242 is the basis for
the process. They also say Hanan Ashrawi said it this morning, "We are
not asking a commitment for a withdrawal now, but we want a reaffirmation
of the things that is in the letter of invitation, that Israel is ready
to commit itself to 242 as the basis of the entire process." So they are
pretending at least that there is no deviation from their part from the
terms of reference and you seem to imply the opposite.
MR. RUBINSTEIN: I don't think we should go into any polemics in this.
What I read to you from the invitation is clear
Q: (Off mike)
MR. RUBINSTEIN: We shouldn't be we should really be using our time
properly I don't speak of the press briefing, I speak of the time of
the negotiations. We should do what we were requested to do under the
invitation, mainly interim self government arrangement. It's an awesome
job. There is no time to dedicate to polemics and these things. The time
is to work on the current stage and you can't imagine how much work must
be put in in order to achieve it, from the big things to the small
things, to the details. Let's work on it.
Q: Ambassador, self government and self administration are the same thing
or they would be considered two different if you would read them in a
document they would be considered two different things?
MR. RUBINSTEIN: No, I don't think we are here (inaudible)
dictionary exercise or an academic semantics discussion. Our goal is
interim self government arrangements. Interim self government
arrangements are interim self government arrangements as they connote
which means we ought to work with the Palestinians on what will be the
organ that will run the life of Palestinians in the territories, in the
agreed spheres in the majority of walks of life, will be their
infrastructure. Aspects will be negotiated. We are to work on how this
body will be elected (inaudible) Palestinian Administrative Council
with a lot of powers even though it may not be everything that they want,
and much more (inaudible) from what happens today from their point
of view and there are many other aspects to it.
I think that is the goal, that is the challenge.
Q: (Off mike) the Palestinians have hardened their position? Have they
explained to you in the room why they've hardened their position this
week? And B, do you feel satisfied with the US efforts to persuade the
Palestinians to get off this issue?
MR. RUBINSTEIN: Well, first of all I really don't think we should be
analyzing the positions of the other side. Our goals is to our
immediate effort is to try to convince them that there is a lot to do and
it should be done and that's what we're trying to do. And of course it's
up to them to decide how and when they want to engage, but we do hope
that they will. As far as the United States, as you know the United
States has been instrumental in bringing about and (fathering ?) if you
want, this negotiating process. They host us here and they play an
important supportive role. They are being briefed. They're kept abreast.
They are encouraging the parties whenever they feel like it. And, of
course, we talk to them, we brief them. We appreciate what the US is
doing. At the end of the day, the name of the negotiations are direct
negotiations, and what will make the difference and will bring the
results is the negotiation between us and our counterparts. And I think
this is a position also shared by the United States.
Q: Did the Palestinians ask you to reaffirm a commitment to 242, and if
so, how did you respond to it?
MR. RUBINSTEIN: Well, 242. Again, I must tell you, for me "242" is a
personal notion because my cholesterol count a few years ago was 242, and
I remember when the doctor called me and said that, I said for an Israeli
diplomat it's a great number; it's good you don't give me 338.
(Laughter.) In any case, to come back to 242, yes, they did talk to us
about that, and we just reaffirmed what is in the Madrid invitation, and
we are committed to it.
Q: (Off mike) authorized to change any item in your talks or proposals
that you are offering the Jordanians or the Palestinians?
MR. RUBINSTEIN: If I correctly understood, you are asking whether as
negotiators we have flexibility and room? Negotiations are a give and
take process, and of course we have basic positions and we have
government instructions, and if the other side comes up with constructive
ideas, they should be conveyed to our government and be okayed, and to
try to accommodate. We'll do that with pleasure. The negotiations are
what they are, negotiations.
Q: Did Ambassador Allaf at any time suggest or hint or say that he would
not be coming back on Monday to resume these talks?
MR. RABINOVITCH: No, not to us.
Q: What form will these contacts take over the weekend? Are you going to
be meeting directly? And the second question is, I understood you to rule
out an American role, which is what the Syrians want. Could you
MR. RABINOVITCH: No, no. We I'm sorry.
Q: Sorry. I was just going to ask you to elaborate on why.
MR. RABINOVITCH: Let me address both parts of your question. One is that
given that we are here to promote the talks and the weekend is not for
purposes of rest and recreation, we'll be willing to work over the
weekend, observing, of course, the holy days of all faiths which are
involved in the negotiations. But if one needs to work Saturday night,
we'll do that. That's not the problem. And we can meet at the State
Department. Some employees of the State Department may not like this
idea, but we can maintain the same framework.
With regard to the American role and the profile of the administration's
conduct in these negotiations, thus far we are pleased with it. I think
the administration struck a perfect profile of being a co-sponsor, a
host, a facilitator on good terms with both sides, and there's a light,
enlightened touch to the way with which they handle it, and we are very
pleased with it and I don't think it needs to change.
Q: What caused the what caused the difficulty today? What went from
everybody talking about progress yesterday to you calling it a down
moment and Ambassador Allaf calling it a lot worse?
MR. RABINOVITCH: Okay. By way of explanation, I've known Mr. Kempster in
an earlier life, when he came to my office in the university.
Now, what caused what we have now jointly defined as a down moment was
the Syrian insistence to pinpoint certain formulations to a point that
made into making every further discussion dependent on such pinpoint
formulation that was not acceptable to us in the way in which it was
presented. Our philosophy of negotiations is that we recognize that two
countries that come out of 40-some years of conflict have been
negotiating without success for some 10 months and have been negotiating
with some success for less than a month cannot resolve all differences
right away. And we sometimes encounter difficulties and we ought to put
our heads together in an effort to solve them. And by pinpointing and
insisting and demanding capitulation, one is not going to progress very
far.
Q: You said yesterday that the formula, peace-for-land, is not the basis
of these negotiations, and there are other formulas that can be more
helpful. Can you please tell us what you meant by this and what are these
other formulas, and does it include withdrawal?
MR. RABINOVITCH: Okay. At the basis of these negotiations is the Madrid
formula, the letters of invitation to Madrid, the letters addressed by
the United States to all the parties, and Security Council Resolution 242
and 338 that are included in these terms of reference. The role of the
cosponsors is also very well defined in the Madrid framework. Land for
peace is not a legal instrument. It is not in the Madrid terms of
reference, it's a Syrian political position that is not at the basis. We
think that there is more than one interpretation to Security Council
Resolution 242 and much of the negotiation has to do with juxtaposing
these divergent or different interpretations of 242 and we don't try to
impose one interpretation on the Syrians, they should not be trying to
impose theirs on us.
Now the issue of withdrawal or the territorial aspect of the settlement,
together with the issue of peace and together with the issue of security
are on inseparable package and all three components should be dealt with
together and everything that happens in the discussion of one of them is
going to affect all the others.
Q: Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin who was in town said that when
asked about a need for an informal Israeli-Syrian channel where each side
can more freely discuss their aims without feeling that they've made some
sort of irrevocable concession, he said the need for such talks were, I
think vital. I was wondering if you share that view and maybe this is the
way to get around this tactical standoff where they want you to say
territory and you want they to elaborate on peace and each one is waiting
for the other one to elaborate further.
MR. RABINOVITCH: Yeah, there are matters of views and matters of
guidelines and for me in this regard it's not a matter of view but a
matter of guidelines, and the Prime Minister's guidelines to me which
have been reiterated recently that the two delegations sitting and
meeting here in Washington are the channels for which the two countries
negotiate.
Q: Did the negotiations today break down over the word withdrawal?
MR. RABINOVITCH: I don't think I would want to use the term breakdown. I
don't think we are facing a breakdown of the negotiations, at least not
in my understanding of the situation. And secondly, I don't think it's
going to be very helpful to isolate a single word or a particular word
and to turn it into the key of everything. It's not a turn key situation.
As I said in response to an earlier question, there are three and of
the three foundations of the Madrid process which is peace, territory and
security, and you ought to deal with them as one three dimensions of
one entity.
Q About an hour ago Ambassador Allaf said that the Israeli strategy was
to divide the Arab delegations. How would you respond to that?
MR. RABINOVITCH: It is certainly not our strategy to divide the Arab
delegations. We are here negotiating on several tracks. We would not be
naive enough to assume that there is no real relationship between what
goes on in the various tracks. Some Arab countries have influence over
other Arab countries. There is a notion of Arab solidarity. The Arab
delegations met the Arab foreign ministers and their equivalents met
twice in Damascus to coordinate policies. We know that there are
coordination meetings here in Washington during the talks. So, we realize
that all of this is there.
At the same time, I would also say that we respect the Arab wish, in our
particular case the Syrian wish, to reach a comprehensive settlement. And
we are not trying to subtract from the comprehensiveness of the solution.
At the same time, we negotiate with Syria, and we would like to feel that
when we negotiate with Syria, we negotiate with Syria, and that when we
finalize something with Syria that it is finalized between us and Syria.
Q: Can you give us a status on Israel made a proposal, I believe it
was on Wednesday for military-to-military, Israeli- Lebanese meetings on
the security situation in the south. Can you give us any more details on
the proposal? What the military-to- military would be discussing
specifically? And B: What has been the Lebanese response.
MR. LUBRANI: Well, it is quite well know that we have an ongoing daily
problem with security with Lebanon. There is not a day in which something
does not happen on the border between Israel and Lebanon the Security
Zone.
I think this is the main piece of our deliberations with Lebanon. At the
end of the day we have no territorial claims, no territorial problems and
we have no other mind-boggling problem to solve with Lebanon except the
security one which is, I think, our daily problem with Lebanon.
And therefore, we believe that once we have clarified the problems we
have, our concerns concerning the security problems, I think we will have
made quite a long way toward understanding the problems from the other
side and we hope that the other side will also respond by explaining to
us its concern that its capabilities in answering our problems.
Now this is not going to be an easy one. It's going to be quite a
complicated one as you well know. But we hope that by having this
dialogue we will be able to clear the air and clear the road for further
negotiations.
Q: (Inaudible)?
MR. LUBRANI: Well, we're in the midst of it. And let me make one thing
clear: we are discussing a working group a military officer working
group within the realm of the present plenary of our negotiations. We're
not discussing something separate, we're not discussing a corpus
sitaratum, if you wish. We're discussing a working group composed of
experts, military experts, officers who will discuss with each other,
within the plenung, the problems outstanding between us and Lebanon in
the field of security.
Q: Do we have to understand by that that Israel is opposed to recreate
the Israel-Lebanese Armistice Commission from '49?
MR. HADASS: That was a long time ago, a quite long time ago. Immediately
during the Six Days War, if you remember you are young that Israel
declared that the armistice agreement is null and void so now we are
sitting here, we are meeting here under the framework of bilateral peace
talks between Israel and Lebanon according to what has been agreed upon
before the Madrid Conference. So that is it.
It's in the framework, as Yuri just said, of the bilateral peace talks
that we are meeting and we are, each side can raise any problem it wishes
to raise and is going to be solved.
The Lebanese didn't reject our proposal.
Q: Where does the South Lebanese Army fit in the talks about security in
the south.
MR. LUBRANI: We're discussing security problems concerning the two
countries. The SLA is part of the component of security and when the time
comes of course it will be discussed.
But for the moment the discussion is between the two (inaudible) of
the two countries concerning the security. There is nothing concerning
actualities of today which has to be decided. First of all, each side has
to understand the concerns of the other. That's the first order of
business.
Q: Yes. I'd like to know; are there things on the table now that were
originally agreed upon and signed back in, I think it was May of 1983?
MR. LUBRANI: Well, you mean the Agreement of May, 1983? It had a security
addendum but you know that the 17th of May Agreement of 1983 has not been
ratified by the Lebanese President and therefore has indeed been annulled
and therefore we were back to square one and we're starting at square
one, unfortunately.
END