Following are excerpts from a transcript of a
news conference yesterday in the Old Executive Office Building by
President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel, as recorded
by The New York Times.
PRESIDENT CLINTON -- Prime Minister
Barak and I have had a very good series of meetings over the past few
days. Of course we have focused primarily on the Middle East peace
process. We strongly agree that a negotiated peace is the best way to
make Israel more secure, the best path to lasting stability and
prosperity for all the peoples of the Middle East.
The Prime Minister is determined to accelerate that process, to reach, with Chairman Arafat, a permanent-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people and to achieve a broader regional peace that includes Syria and Lebanon. As he has said, the objective now is to put the peace process back on all its tracks.
But we should have no illusions. The way ahead will be difficult. There are hard decisions to be made. Knowing his long record of accomplishment, both as soldier and civilian, and having spent a good deal of time with him these past few days, I believe the Prime Minister is ready to move forward decisively. And America is clearly ready to help in any way we can. As Israel takes calculated risks for peace, we will continue to support Israel's defense. Today we have agreed to strengthen our security assistance to Israel, so Israel can best meet the threats to its citizens, including terrorism and the growing threat of long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We have also agreed to establish a high-level joint planning group to consult on security issues and to report back regularly. . . .
To enhance our scientific cooperation, we will
create a working group between NASA and the Israel Space Agency to
advance scientific research, educational activities and the peaceful
uses of space. And an Israeli astronaut and a payload of Israeli
instruments will fly on a space shuttle mission next year. . . .
PRIME
MINISTER BARAK -- President Clinton and I have just concluded the last
in our series of meetings. Those meetings were held in an atmosphere of
deep friendship and understanding that characterizes the bilateral
relationship between Israel and the United States. Our policy is based
on the following.
We are committed to the renewal of the peace
process. It is our intention to move the process forward simultaneously
on all tracks: bilateral, the Palestinian, the Syrians and the
Lebanese, as well as the multilateral. We will leave no stone unturned
in our efforts to reinvigorate the process, which must be based upon
direct talks between the parties themselves and conducted in an
atmosphere of mutual trust. Any unilateral steps, acts or threats of
terrorism, violence or other forms of aggression have no place in the
process of peace. The peace we seek to establish is only the one that
will enhance the security of Israel. Only a strong and secure Israel is
capable of making the difficult choices that the process requires. I
will not shy away from those difficult choices but I have
responsibility to the people of Israel to do all that I possibly can to
minimize the risks and dangers involved. . . .
Q. Mr.
President, the Prime Minister has committed himself to implementing the
West Bank pullback agreed on at Wye River. You just talked about
accelerating the peace process. Realistically speaking, looking ahead,
how long before the final-status talks get under way on the tough
issues like Jerusalem, the Palestinian hopes for a homeland, refugees
and what specific steps can the United States do to facilitate this
process?
CLINTON . . . We should support the security of
Israel, the stability of the region, the economic development of the
region, and we should help to work out any of the particular problems
as they arise. In terms of the timing, I don't think it's for the
United States to set the timetables here. . . .
BARAK . . . I
would suggest a kind of framework of about 15 months within which we
will know whether we have a breakthrough and are really going to put an
end to the conflict, or, alternatively, I hope this will not be the
case, we are stuck once again.
I use the kind of framework of
15 months to signal to all publics and us, the players, that we are not
talking about a magic solution that will drop upon us from heaven in
three weeks. And we do not intend to drag our foot for another three
years. . . .
Q. What is your reaction to the meeting of
[Syrian Vice President] Abdel-Halim Khaddam in Damascus with the few
Palestinian organizations that are opposing the peace process? Do you
think that it's a significant step for peace?
BARAK . . . I
did not get a real report about this meeting but if there was such a
meeting and the Syrians really asked the terror organizations to reduce
the level of activity, it is, of course, good news for all of us. . . .
Q. You've said that when Mrs. Clinton expresses her opinions
publicly she's just doing something in public which you've done in
private before, that is have disagreements. That's the American way.
But when she talks about an opinion in which she takes the Israeli
position on Jerusalem, doesn't this make it more difficult for you to
be that honest broker?
CLINTON -- No, no. For one thing, let
me say, that issue is not one. That's not the public-private
distinction. The Government of the United States, the Executive Branch,
the President, is a sponsor of the peace process and a facilitator of
it. In that context, those of us with positions of official
responsibility who are all the time asking Israel and the Palestinians
were all the time asking both sides not to do anything which prejudices
final-status issues. I have taken the position that my Government
should not prejudice final-status issues. There are many American
citizens who consider, for example, Jerusalem to be the capital of
Israel. . . .
Q. Do you see, Mr. President, and you, Prime Minister Barak, a Palestinian state at the end of this period of time?
BARAK
-- I think it's too early to think of the results of the negotiations
about permanent status that were hardly begun. And I don't think that
you should interpret this 15-month framework as a kind of a deadline
where everything should be either fully concluded and implemented or
the whole thing is blown apart. . . .