Mr. Arens was due to travel to Washington on 10 March for meetings with President Bush and Secretary of State Baker, paving the way for a Bush-Shamir meeting later that year. In answer to a question, he said that he would discuss in Washington a presentation of an initiative or a plan and exchange views and ideas on the peace process. He did not expect agreement on Israel's position, but thought that high level consultations between friends are normal and natural. Excerpts:
Q: In your two-month career as foreign minister you have done a lot of travelling. What impression have you received of Israel's position in the international community?
A: I believe that the State of Israel - along with its achievements and its ability to stand in the face of dangers and enemies - enjoys today the same appreciation it enjoyed in the past. [We] want there to be peace; everyone is looking for a way, a proposal or some kind of process that can bring about peace. Sometimes I have to tell those statesmen with whom I meet that nobody has to preach peace to us. In the State of Israel there is a great yearning for peace. I told [Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who spoke to me about the fact that the time has come to make peace: "It is very unfortunate that you have not visited Israel. Were you to visit, you would see that there is not a home that has not been hurt by the wars, where there is no husband or brother or son who has not been killed or injured. Then you would understand how great the yearning for peace is in Israel." The obstacle to peace is not here in Israel. We are naturally making every effort to make progress.
Q: Don't the events in the territories harm Israel's image?
A: We certainly hear criticism, and it is understandable when an individual residing in Paris, London or New York sees seemingly unarmed citizens - women and children - on television, facing soldiers in full combat gear. Whoever does not see the picture in its full context, in the historical perspective of the Israel-Arab conflict, naturally supports the citizens and not the soldiers. The context has to be explained: what is really going on? Molotov cocktails, stones, people getting hurt, people being burned alive. This is part of a long-term conflict, part of the Israel-Arab conflict. Then people begin to understand.
Q: Do you intend to satisfy American expectations and present plans and proposals on your trip to the U.S. next week, as a precursor to the prime minister's trip to Washington?
A: First of all, I have not heard about these matters, nor have I received a letter from the American secretary of state or from members of congress. In my opinion - and I said this during my visits to Europe - we have to make a political initiative. I believe that the prime minister will indeed do this. It is natural that there is anticipation and curiosity. People wish to know what the initiative will be: "Perhaps you will reveal [something] to us or give us a clue." The one to present the initiative, if and when it is presented, is the prime minister.
Q: What then is the purpose of your visit to the U.S. next week?
A: I would say that the purpose of a meeting is not only the presentation of an initiative or a plan. There is importance in the holding of a meeting, in the exchange of ideas and appraisals. Perhaps new ideas can be formulated as a result of these talks. We have a special bond with the Americans, we are true allies, and I think that it is natural that when such a bond exists, the foreign ministers of the two states should meet twice or maybe three or four times in a year, in order to exchange ideas, and to discuss the problems we are facing. This time we will certainly discuss the peace process.
Q: Do you have a meeting with the secretary of state only, or will you meet President Bush as well?
A: That depends on the president and whether he will have time to see me. But I will certainly meet with congressmen and with the Jewish community in the U.S. as well.
Q: Do recent signals from Capitol Hill regarding a reduction in American aid to Israel, and the fact that the new administration is less supportive of Israel, threaten Israeli-American relations?
A: I do not think so. This question is frequently asked, mostly be people who are not familiar with and do not understand the quality of the relations between Israel and the Americans.
Q: As a former ambassador to the U.S. how do you explain this?
A: Israel and the U.S. share common ideals and values. As a result, we have shared strategic interests. A uniquely special relationship has been built in this case. I do not know whether the U.S. has such a relationship with any other country, including the NATO states. We always say that the U.S. is the biggest and best friend Israel has. We tend to think that in the U.S. as well, Israel is perceived as one of the countries closest to the U.S., and I believe that is true. This does not mean that we always agree with one another. It is impossible that Jerusalem's perception would be identical to that of Washington. But the basis of the relationship is so solid, that whoever thinks of a change in or an undermining of relations does not understand them.
Q: Will you insist in your discussions in Washington that the Americans halt their dialogue with the PLO?
A: As I said, agreement on all topics all of the time cannot be expected. This is not natural, and as it never existed in the past it will never be so in the future. We disagree on contact with the PLO. I will of course attempt to convince [the Americans] that it not efficacious, and that it advance the peace process. It is not in Israel's best interest, nor, I believe, in that of the U.S. But the U.S. is a large, sovereign state and it will ultimately decide what is good for it.
Q: Will you demand more aggressively that the U.S. stop the dialogue?
A: As far as Israeli-American relations are concerned, demands - if you can even call them that - are not made aggressively. These are talks between friends, as we exchange ideas and represent our positions. Things are not said aggressively.