January 27, 2000

Martin Indyk, recently returned to Israel for his second tour as U.S. ambassador, told an Israeli television interviewer January 25 that he believes “that there is a real opportunity now on the Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian tracks to achieve, not one agreement, but three agreements this year.

The U.S. goal “is to work with the Government of Israel to try to achieve what is an ambitious agenda, but one which, President Clinton agrees with Prime Minister Barak, is achievable this year.”

[begin transcript]

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk’s Interview with Israel TV Channel One Senior Correspondent Ehud Yaari January 25, 2000

Mr Yaari: Welcome to Israel, Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador Indyk (In Hebrew): Thank you very much.

Question: It’s quite unusual for an ambassador to return to the place he was serving in for a second round.

Ambassador Indyk: It feels quite unusual. It’s like Rip Van Winkle waking up out of the dream and coming back to the place that’s the same. Of course, it’s changed, but I am delighted to be back; my family is also excited to be back, and we are looking forward to working with Prime Minister Barak and the government and people of Israel in an intensive effort to try to achieve a real peace — a comprehensive peace and a secure peace for Israel — this year.

Question: One of the previous Prime Minister’s confidantes, Mr. David Bar-Ilan, is already attacking you publicly. I am asking you, was there any bad taste left last time when you left the job here to take up your position in Washington when Mr. Netanyahu was prime minister?

Ambassador Indyk: You know it’s in the nature of Israeli society that people can’t rest for long without attacking somebody, and I am a big target. I think that’s unimportant. I am the ambassador of the United States to Israel — that means to all of Israel. I certainly expect to have close working relations not only with the government but also with the opposition.

Question: Can Mr. Netanyahu expect an invitation to a dinner some time at the Ambassador’s residence?

Ambassador Indyk: Of course. I would expect to pay a courtesy call on him as I would on Prime Minister Shamir.

Question: If I may, Mr. Ambassador, I would like to switch to something that Syrian official sources were leaking recently. They were saying, through their mouth-peace, a Lebanese newspaper by the name of “Al-Safir” that the peace team of which you were a prominent member…

Ambassador Indyk: I am a prominent member.

Question: I stand corrected… that the peace team: you, Dennis Ross and the rest of them are pro-Likud. That you were unofficial members quote unquote of the Israeli delegation to Sheperdstown. Why would they attack you?

Ambassador Indyk: Well, I don’t think that’s serious. It’s in the nature of this business that I am or we are accused of being either pro-Likud or anti-Likud. In your two questions you have the two opposite positions. I think we have to do what we have to do, and that is to try to be honest brokers in a situation in which, of course, we have a close and strong relationship with Israel — of which the present Secretary and the peace team are proud — because we believe that that is the cornerstone for a comprehensive peace. It is impossible to achieve a real peace in which Israel has to take risks for peace and has to take painful decisions — it is impossible for Israel to do those kinds of things unless it has the solid, secure, strong backing of the United States. Some people see that as somehow that has an impact on our ability to play the role of honest broker. I say the exact opposite. Because we have a relationship, a close relationship, a strong relationship of trust with the Government and the people of Israel, it gives us the ability to play an effective role in the peace process.

Question: Were you surprised by the size of the Israeli request for a military package?

Ambassador Indyk: No. We have known for some time that when it comes to a deal involving the Golan, that Israel’s security requirements are going to be substantial. We are working hard on that request to refine it, to see how we can be responsive. But there is a basic underlying commitment that, if you remember, President Clinton made to Prime Minister Rabin in April of 1993. When then Prime Minister Rabin made his first visit to meet with the new President, President Clinton said: “Prime Minister Rabin, you have told me that you have a mandate to take calculated risks for peace, and I will tell you that my role is to minimize those risks.”

Question: Tomahawk missiles — is it a possibility? Tomahawk cruise missiles?

Ambassador Indyk: I am not going to get into details of the package we are looking at, at Israel’s request. We obviously owe an answer to the Government of Israel and we will be talking to them about all of these things before we talk about them in public. Of course, we have a responsibility to work with the Congress to make sure that the Congress will be supportive of this also. So, there are a lot of steps that have to be taken before we can answer questions like that.

Question: Are you concerned because the Syrian technical team did not show up in Washington as expected?

Ambassador Indyk: No. I think that this is a timing or a scheduling issue and, as we understand it, we want the Israeli team to come first and the Syrian team will follow.

Question: Finally, Mr. Ambassador, do you think it’s “doable?” That is: getting a framework with the Palestinians, getting out of Lebanon in an agreement and clinching a deal with Syria in the span of the few next months?

Ambassador Indyk: Well, as I said at the outset, our intention is to achieve a comprehensive peace in the coming year by working with the Government of Israel to do that. Whether it’s achievable in the exact timetable as laid out now is not clear. But I certainly believe that there is a real opportunity now on the Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian tracks to achieve not one agreement, but three agreements this year. That is the intention of Prime Minister Barak, and our intention — President Clinton, Secretary Albright and myself as their representative here in Israel — is to work with the Government of Israel to try to achieve what is an ambitious agenda but one which, President Clinton agrees with Prime Minister Barak, is achievable this year.

Question: Competitive simultaneity between the tracks — is it helpful or is it damaging?

Ambassador Indyk: We have a word in English “symbiosis,” which means that there is an interaction between the two, which produces a positive outcome. I have always felt that if it’s possible to have all the tracks moving simultaneously, what develops out of that is that movement on one track helps to produce movement on another track. So, it has always been our objective to have all the tracks moving. That’s why the Secretary of State is going to Moscow next week to re-launch the multilaterals at a ministerial level, because that track also can help to grease the skids on the other two tracks. So, we really would like to see all the tracks moving. It’s my understanding that that’s Prime Minister’s Barak’s intention as well.

Mr Yaari: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

[end transcript]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR