[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
[March 14, 1996]
[Pages 444-451]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Shimon Peres of 
Israel in Jerusalem
March 14, 1996

    Prime Minister Peres. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, under the 
administration of President Clinton, this is the fourth important move 
that took place in the Middle East. The

[[Page 445]]

first was the agreement, the first agreement with the PLO; then the 
agreement with Jordan; then the second agreement with the PLO; now the 
fourth agreement in the Middle East to confront terrorism.
    Those are events that exceeds any normal political achievement. The 
Palestinian conflict looked like insolvable. The Jordanians were not 
quick at the beginning to make peace, and then it became a great 
success. Then we have encountered the danger to all these three 
achievements by the acts of terror. In my eyes, President Clinton is the 
first world leader that put on the agenda peace in our time as the major 
goal.
    If you look back at history, most of the time was spent on wars, on 
cold wars, on confrontations. It was a chance for the first time to 
escape all the bitter histories of blood and terror. And then we have 
encountered again another uninvited and unprecedented problem, how to go 
ahead with peace when you have acts of terror. I think yesterday a 
foundation was laid down to do both, namely to go ahead with peace and 
reject terror. I tell you, Mr. President, that in our eyes, you, your 
administration, the American Congress, have changed the whole destiny of 
the Middle East.
    The importance of the Middle East is not just because it has 
produced religions and Bible, the importance of the Middle East that, in 
our times, it is the first testing ground to take many conflicts that 
were so difficult to solve and try to solve them. If we shall succeed, I 
think it may serve as the model to other places.
    For us, President Clinton is really a great leader, but not less 
than that, a moving friend. He has a tear in his eyes when we go through 
a difficult period of time, and we have a tear in our eyes when we are 
listening to his reaction and involvement. Thank you very much, Mr. 
President.
    The President. Thank you. First, I would like to express my 
appreciation to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet for the meeting that 
we had this morning just before coming over here to discuss the 
situation with regard to terrorism and the recent bombings. We have 
decided that the United States and Israel will immediately begin 
negotiations to conclude a bilateral agreement on combating terrorism. I 
told the Prime Minister that the United States will commit more than 
$100 million to this effort.
    I am taking this step because I am determined that we must have 
every tool at our disposal to fight against extremist violence. Last 
night I sent to the Congress an urgent request for the first installment 
of this counterterrorism effort. I expect Congress to act quickly on 
this important measure.
    The agreement will strengthen our attack on terror in three 
important areas. First, the United States will immediately begin to 
provide Israel with additional equipment and training. Second, our 
nations will join together to develop new antiterror methods and 
technologies. Third, we will work to enhance communications and 
coordination between our nations, as well as other governments who have 
joined with us in the war against terror.
    In addition to what we propose to do under this agreement, the 
United States will also increase its intelligence sharing and 
coordination. At my direction, our Secretary of State, Warren 
Christopher, and the Director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch, will 
remain in Israel to speed the progress of this agreement. We must do 
everything we can to track down those responsible for the recent 
violence, and we must work to prevent them from shedding more innocent 
blood.
    The forces supporting peace and security are stronger than those 
that pursue destruction. We must prove that. Whatever effort it takes, 
whatever time it takes, we must say to them: You will be tracked down; 
you will be rooted out. The message of the pact to the people of Israel 
should also be quite clear: Just as America walks with you every step of 
the way as you work toward peace, we stand with you now in defending all 
that you are and all that has been accomplished. Without security, there 
is no peace. And ultimately, without peace, there can be no permanent 
security. Therefore, we are resolved to work with you until the day that 
Israel achieves peace with security. To give up hope for peace now or to 
fail to stand up for security after all that has been done would be to 
give the terrorists their victory.
    To speak of Israel is to speak of courage and character, to speak of 
strength in the face of decades of hardship and bloodshed. David Ben-
Gurion once said, ``I have seen what a people is capable of achieving in 
their hour of supreme trial. I have seen their spirit touched by 
nobility.''

[[Page 446]]

    For those of us in the rest of the world, after the ordeal of these 
bombings we have seen once again the nobility that is Israel. As a 
result of the meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh yesterday, I have seen for the 
first time a broad-based commitment to making sure the noble people of 
Israel and the peace-loving peoples throughout this region may be able 
to live and work together against terrorism and for a peaceful future.
    Thank you.

Israel-U.S. Security Relationship

    Q. Mr. President, you just announced the signing of an agreement 
between Israel and the United States about combating terrorism. I would 
like to ask you, will you consider positively the idea of signing a 
defense pact between Israel and the United States, and will you discuss 
this idea with Mr. Peres when he will come to the United States toward 
the end of April?
    The President. Well, first of all, the United States is committed to 
the security of Israel. We have long been committed to the security of 
Israel, and it is not a new event with my administration; it has been a 
bipartisan American commitment for a long time. And we are always 
looking for ways to improve the nature of our security relationship and 
the strength of Israel's security. We have, in fact, in addition to the 
announcement that I made today, a small group of people working on the 
question of what we should do next and where we should go with this 
relationship. The Prime Minister and I discussed it a little bit today, 
and I expect we will discuss it further when he comes to the United 
States in April.

President's Visit

    Q. Mr. President, the opposition in Israel is quite skeptical, I may 
say even cynical about your visit here. They say you came mainly to 
rescue the Prime Minister before the coming elections. They say the 
conference in Sharm al-Sheikh will do nothing in order to prevent 
terrorism. What can you tell them?
    The President. Well, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I 
came here because you have over 60 people dead in the last few days as a 
result of terrorism; because the United States is your ally and friend; 
and because we believe without an effort to reestablish security and a 
feeling of security, it will be difficult for the progress of peace to 
go forward. In addition to the Israelis who were killed, there were 
Americans killed, there were Palestinians killed, there were Moroccans 
killed. So that's why I came here at this moment.
    We put together the meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh along with President 
Mubarak because I felt that the time was right for other countries in 
the region and around the world to demonstrate to the nations here most 
affected, especially Israel, and to the Palestinians who have rejected 
terror, that they are not alone, that it's about time that other 
countries stood up and said, this is wrong, we're going to stand against 
it, and we're going to work against it.
    I do not interfere in the internal politics of other nations, and I 
believe that, at least if the American experience is any indication, it 
would be more of a hindrance than a help. This is a democracy; I respect 
the results of democracy here and at home. I came here because of what 
happened to you and because of our relationship with you.
    America stands with Israel in times like this and because we have to 
act to go forward. Now, nobody--let me just say this--nobody can 
guarantee to the people of Israel or the people of the United States or 
the people of any open, free nation in the world absolute protection 
against any terrorist act. We have been victimized by terrorism; the 
Japanese have been victimized by terrorism--essentially a very peaceful 
society. But we can do more to identify the sources of support, to try 
to dry up money, to develop better technical and other means to prevent 
things from happening.
    So there is no guarantee here. There are no guarantees in life 
against this, but we can do a lot better. And I've thought that the 
shock of the impact here was so great--not only in Israel, but in the 
other areas--it was high time we showed up and did more about it, and 
that's why I came.

Antiterrorism Efforts

    Q. Mr. President, the type of terror attacks that have been going on 
in Israel have been going on for quite a while. Why hasn't something 
like what you announced today been done quite a while ago, and to what 
degree was the delay, if you can call it that, a result of opposition 
from within the Israeli Government?
    The President. Oh, I would say not at all, on the latter question. I 
think, frankly, we all thought that the effort--first of all, we have

[[Page 447]]

been making a lot of extra efforts since, at least--I can speak for 
since I've been President. We have constantly tried to upgrade our 
capacity to deal with the problems of terrorism. And we have met with 
some considerable amount of success both in dealing with terrorism 
within the United States and in cooperating with our friends around the 
world.
    But what I think has happened is, I think that the impact of these 
incidents coming so close together and being so clearly directed at 
derailing the peace process and undermining those who want peace--
primarily in Israel, but also among the Palestinians and in the region--
has had such a shocking impact on other Arab nations and others around 
the world that we were able to put together this meeting at Sharm al-
Sheikh in a hurry as a result of their changed sense of urgency. And if 
you listened to those--I know it was difficult for those of you who were 
there, particularly those of you who came from the United States with 
little sleep--but if you listened to those 29 separate statements 
yesterday and you compare that to anything that Arab leaders especially 
had said before about Israel or about terrorism, there was a remarkable 
shift there.
    And so I wouldn't say that we're just trying to do more now, and I 
think we have the capacity to do more. I also think it's obvious that we 
have to do more to support and insist on greater effectiveness in the 
Palestinian Authority. I think that's the other thing that hit home to 
everyone as a result of these events.
    Is there another question from an American journalist?
    Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about Congress' handling of 
your antiterrorist legislation. Yesterday the House voted to delete a 
provision to ban foreign fundraising in the United States. Do you think 
this bill is on the right track?
    The President. Excuse me, would you--they voted to delete what?
    Q. Foreign fundraising in the United States. Do you think this 
weakens the bill? Is it on the right track? How do you think they're 
handling it?
    The President. Well, of course I think it should have passed months 
ago, and I don't know why it wasn't. We have a lot of resources to 
combat terrorism now; we would like some more. The bill had been 
transformed and things have been added to it that weren't necessarily 
urgent, but I'm very concerned that because of the hearings we had 
earlier in the year about some of the developments in the United States, 
I'm afraid there's a little too much domestic political considerations 
maybe in the debate of the antiterrorism bill and not enough focus on 
the global aspects of terrorism and how we need these tools to combat 
terrorists from abroad and what terrorists from abroad might do within 
the United States. That's the reason I put forward the legislation, and 
I would hope that Congress would focus on that and keep those two 
elements in mind in moving through this bill and passing a good one.

Palestinian Territories

    Q. I would like to ask the President and the Prime Minister about 
the closure that could jeopardize the whole peace process according to 
the Palestinians' claim.
    Prime Minister Peres. Well, the closure is not aimed against the 
Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank. There are really, to answer, some 
security needs. The minute we shall overcome it, the closure will reach 
its end. We are trying very hard not to create any starvation or any 
suffering in the territories. This is clearly a security measure and 
nothing else.
    The President. To be fair, I mean, I think that's a legitimate 
concern. But that's one of the--that's clearly one of the objectives of 
the terrorists. And I think that's the point we were trying to make at 
Sharm al-Sheikh yesterday, that the Israelis and the people who are not 
only--the people who died, their families, their friends, this country, 
your attitudes, that's primarily the target of the terrorists. But 
they're also trying to get to the people in the--the Palestinians who 
would like to have a peaceful future. And so they know that if they can 
put Israel in a position of closing the territories as a security 
measure, they then have a chance to change the attitude of the 
Palestinians.
    So it's a deliberate attempt by them to make the Palestinians as 
miserable as possible. And in that sense the Palestinians are the 
targets of the terror as well; that was the point we were hammering home 
yesterday in Sharm al-Sheikh and why it's so important that Mr. Arafat 
and his administration do everything possible to cooperate with us in 
rooting this out so that we can keep the free flow of transportation 
open and so that they can enjoy their jobs and have access to food and 
do all the things that they

[[Page 448]]

need to do, because if it becomes--look, countries are like individuals 
and families. If you have to choose anything over your continued 
existence, you will always choose your continued existence. Security 
will take preference. So these people are not stupid. They're doing this 
to provoke the reaction that they got. And we have to stand against them 
together.

Terrorism

    Q. Mr. President, in an editorial this morning highly critical of 
Mr. Arafat, the Jerusalem Post makes the point that the bloodshed here 
would be the equivalent of killing 10,000 Americans over 31 months, and 
they further say that American people would not ``be pacified by the 
mindless platitudes'' that went on yesterday in Egypt. Your reaction?
    The President. Well, I think the--I do believe if you think about 
the American people losing 10,000 over 30 months, or several thousand in 
a matter of just 3 weeks, and if you compound that by saying that every 
American felt that that had happened within about 50 miles of where he 
or she lived--that's another thing you can't overlook, the density, the 
geographical dimension of this, so that every Israeli feels that this 
happened next door--that our people would be off the wall. They would be 
angry, they would be furious, they would want action, they would want 
what the Israeli people want.
    But I think if you look at the extent to which the terrorists' 
networks which are active in this area have mobility and have ties 
beyond Israel proper, beyond the Palestinian areas proper, it is wrong 
to say that the rather specific commitments that we got from those 
countries to work together to try to dry up their sources of support and 
move as one against them was an empty commitment. I showed up here today 
to say I will be the first, the United States will stand up first, 
here's our $100 million, here's what we're going to do with it, here's 
how we're going to work together. These are not empty commitments.
    It is not easy for democratic societies to defeat organized forces 
of destruction. The end of the cold war means that there will in all 
probability, and we hope, be less conflict among nation-states. There 
will be more conflict in the future by people who organize themselves 
for illegitimate means through terrorism and who try to access the 
dangerous weapons--traditional, biological, and chemical weapons--who 
try to use the forces of organized crime and the money they can get from 
drug trafficking to build a network of destruction, if you will, that 
can cross the boundaries of nation-states. I believe this is a problem--
the Prime Minister alluded to this earlier--this is today Israel's 
problem, it's the Middle Eastern problem, but it will be the principal 
security problem of the future, and I think we had better get after it. 
And that's what we're trying to do.

Israel-U.S. Security Relationship

    Q. Mr. President, would a defense pact between Israel and the United 
States limit Israel's ability to strike at Hezbollah for example?
    The President. Well, first of all, the decision has not been made, 
either in Israel or in the United States, to go beyond the agreement 
that we announced today and our clear, unambiguous, longstanding 
commitment to Israel's security, to maintaining its qualitative 
advantage in defense capacity. But the discussions that we have under 
way about what we can do from here on out obviously would have to 
encompass every conceivable contingency. And that's why I urge you not 
to jump ahead. We're going to really have serious discussions about what 
we should do to strengthen Israel's security and our relationship. But 
let's not undermine the impact of what we're announcing today, which 
will do just that. It's very important.

Syria

    Q. Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, I have a question about Syria 
for both of you. First of all, Mr. President, you have on two occasions 
met with President Asad. You went to Damascus once, you met with him in 
Geneva once, even though the State Department continues to include Syria 
on the official list of countries that support terrorism. Syria's 
decision not even to send a representative to Sharm al-Sheikh must have 
been a severe blow to you personally given your courting, if you will, 
of President Asad over the past few years to engage in the peace 
process. How much of a setback will that be in terms of Israeli-Syrian 
negotiations?
    And to you, Mr. Prime Minister, you mentioned that Iran was a 
capital of terror yesterday, but you didn't mention anything about Syria 
and its absence from this conference yesterday. Can you continue 
negotiations with Syria at this point after President Asad decided not 
even to send a representative to Sharm al-Sheikh?

[[Page 449]]

    Prime Minister Peres. Well, both to the first question of the 
previous question and this one, let's take things seriously as they are.
    About the Palestinians--I'm referring to the editorial in the 
Jerusalem Post--yes, we can mobilize the whole of the Palestinians 
against us. It is very easy. We can take measures and steps and return 
to the time of intifada, push back the PLO to become a terroristic 
organization, or work gradually with all the pains from a majority of 
the Palestinians who support today peace to a complete support of peace 
by the Palestinians. We shouldn't submit to minorities.
    Now, frankly about Syria and Iran, there is a similarity because 
there are headquarters of terroristic organizations in Damascus. But 
there is also a difference. Syria does not call today, like Iran does, 
for the destruction of Israel. Syria is negotiating with Israel to look 
for a peace, which Iran refuses completely. So we didn't reach yet the 
necessary agreement, but we don't want to close all the doors. And to be 
fair I think what we have to do is to impress the Syrians with the need 
to depart from any support or shelter to terror and terrorism, but not 
to kill the future.
    And I agree that the peacemakers do have a much more complicated 
road to go. It's not black and white. It's like climbing a mountain; it 
is difficult, it takes time, you don't reach the peak in one jump. So 
what is necessary to retract we shall retract in clear terms, and I 
think we shall clearly make it known that we cannot support terroristic 
headquarters in Damascus or elsewhere. But at the same time and by the 
same token, we shall continue the peace effort. Our purpose is not to 
submit to terror, but to overcome it when it is necessary by force and 
otherwise by hope.
    The President. My answer to your question is I was disappointed that 
no Syrian representative came and I think it was a mistake, but I was 
not surprised because if you look at the pattern of all these 
developments since I have been President and indeed, before, President 
Asad tends to deal with these matters with people one-on-one. And to 
have Syria steer a different course, I think it was a missed opportunity 
for the Syrians and I wish that they had been there. But I do not 
believe that undermines the fundamental fact that the United States is 
committed to support Israel if Israel is involved in negotiations and is 
taking risks for peace.
    And as long as there are fruitful negotiations going on--we know 
there will never be a comprehensive peace in the Middle East until there 
is a resolution of the differences between Israel and Syria. We also 
know if those differences were resolved the capacity of the Syrians to 
help to live up to any agreement they might make and to create a more 
secure region is very considerable. So my position is that the 
negotiations should absolutely continue as long as Israel is prepared to 
be a part of that, and we should support that.

Antiterrorism Efforts

    Q. With your permission, I would like to relate to a question I 
heard several times yesterday from different people. The question was, 
how can a conference like yesterday's persuade a person who's got a bomb 
strapped around his middle to turn it off or take it off or not set it 
off? I think they're asking, do you have any short-term answers for 
terrorism or are your solutions only long term?
    Prime Minister Peres. We have a collection of answers, not one--
short terms and long terms. But you know, it's again a very simplistic 
way of putting the question. For example, if we can dry out the sources 
of finance to this man that goes finally with the bomb, will it help or 
not? My answer is yes. If we can stop the traffic of arms, will it help 
or not? It will, yes.
    I mean people are confusing; we are fighting on three different 
fronts in order to create one system and do it systematically. One is 
domestically, to increase our forces, to fortify our borders, to control 
the passages, and when necessary, to put a closure--instead of the 
conference in Sharm al-Sheikh. As a matter of fact, what is so 
interesting is that in spite of the closure and in spite of this 
measure, the conference in Sharm al-Sheikh took place. So even the Arabs 
understand that those were necessary measures.
    Then we have demands from the Palestinian side. We don't ask them to 
defend us, but we ask them clearly to have just one armed authority in 
Gaza to put order at home, that Gaza cannot become a headquarter for 
terror in other ways. And then, by the leadership of the President, we 
are organizing practically the whole world to stop the traffic of arms, 
the supply of money, the shelter to the murderers, the mobilization of 
the existing systems, police, or intel-


[[Page 450]]

ligence, whatever it is, to cooperate and put an end to it, because 
terror is becoming an international phenomenon; it is also in a way 
global.
    So I don't understand all this criticism. I think people simply--
those who criticize--didn't think about the question.
    The President. If I might follow up, if you had to answer the 
question the way you asked it, the answer would be no, no one can do 
that. But no one could have done that before this meeting, and no one 
can do that 6 months from now.
    I wish I had it in my power to reach into the hearts of those young 
men who have bought some apocalyptic version of Islam and politics that 
together causes them to strap their bodies with bombs and blow 
themselves to smithereens and kill innocent children. I wish I could do 
that. I don't pretend to be able to do that. But that's not the 
question. The question is, can we improve the capacity of Israel and of 
the Palestinian Authority to prevent these things from occurring? The 
answer to that question is yes.
    Second question, can we improve our capacity to break up the 
networks of money and materiel that make these things possible? The 
answer to that is yes. Can we create a risk-free world here in Israel? 
No. Can we reduce the risks and do much better? Yes. That is the way we 
should look at this and that is the focus we should take. You know, I 
couldn't do that in the United States. Is it less likely that someone 
could do what happened in Oklahoma City again in the United States? I 
think it is because of steps we have taken. Is it absolutely certain 
that nothing like that will ever happen again? No.
    As long as you have free societies where people have some ability to 
move, some right of privacy, some ability to transfer funds, and some 
ability to get access to materials that can be made into bombs, you 
cannot have a totally risk-free world. What we are trying to do is to 
reduce the risks, to reduce the likelihood of this, to prevent more of 
these things from happening, to catch more of the wrongdoers. That's 
what we're trying to do. We can absolutely do that, and that should be 
the focus.

Iran and Saudi Arabia

    Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you specifics, two specific 
questions related to yesterday's conference. You met with all the 
European leaders privately. Do you feel you have an assurance from 
them--they last week had asked the Iranians to condemn terrorism; they 
didn't get what they asked for. Do you sense from them they're now 
willing to go forward and get tougher in their relations with Iran? They 
haven't really followed your dual containment program with the Iranians. 
Do you see this as a turning point in their policy toward the Iranians 
in your discussions with them yesterday, because people are looking for 
very specifics?
    Second, do you sense in your talks with the Saudis that they're now 
willing to turn off the spigot because they've allowed funds to go to 
Hamas? I just would like to know, I think the Israeli public would like 
to know, do you have a sense of assurance on specifics? Because the 
principles were set out, and you said in a month there will be this 
working group, but can you just give us a sense from these European and 
Gulf leaders what they are willing to do specifically? Thank you.
    The President. Well, I would have to give you two separate answers. 
To the first question, when I announced an even stronger policy against 
Iran last year, I think it's fair to say that the leaders, most European 
leaders thought I was wrong and disagreed with me. I believe now they're 
having second thoughts. And I received some indications--I think it's 
quite important that I not speak for them and go beyond what they're 
prepared to say in public, but based on my private conversations, I did 
believe that there was a change in attitude and direction in the minds 
of some of the European leaders with whom I met.
    With regard to Saudi Arabia, that specific question was not 
discussed, nor as you would imagine could the Foreign Minister discuss 
that on his own. We didn't have a bilateral meeting yesterday. But the 
thing I will say about it is that we know that the Middle Eastern 
leaders, the Arab State leaders are quite careful about what they say. 
And a lot of times the phrases and words they use carry a lot of 
historic either meaning or baggage, depending on the perspective you 
have, about what they say. He said some things yesterday that no Saudi 
leader had ever said before. So I am hopeful, but I had received no 
explicit commitments, because we didn't have a private conversation.
    On the European front I can tell you that I had the distinct 
impression that our view, which I think is the view broadly held in 
Israel,

[[Page 451]]

I know it is, is making some inroads among the Europeans. I mean, you 
only--how many times does it have to be demonstrated to them what the 
facts are, and we are perfectly prepared to do everything we can to 
demonstrate to them what the facts are, and obviously we need their help 
if we're going to really keep turning up the heat on this issue.
    It is regrettable, but the Iranians are committed to supporting 
these terrorist activities and glorifying them, totally ignoring the 
progress of the last several years, totally ignoring the facts, totally 
ignoring what is happening. Now, that's just the fact. And every country 
in the world that deals with them is going to have to just wake up in 
the morning, look in the mirror, and decide whether they're going to 
stay with the policy they have or change it, and whether the policy is 
based on principle or some other basis.
    Thank you.

Note: The President's 116th news conference began at 11:19 a.m. in the 
auditorium at the Jerusalem Convention Center. In his remarks, he 
referred to Minister of Foreign Affairs Saud al-Faysal bin Abd al-Aziz 
Al Saud of Saudi Arabia.