AMBASSADOR SHOVAL: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Israeli Embassy. We originally scheduled this press conference to a certain extent in order to summarize the two weeks of talks -- peace talks which we had here in Washington.

And part of what I intended to say was taken care of, I think, by the unnamed senior official in the American administration yesterday with regard to the Palestinian part in these negotiations. But still, I think it would be worthwhile to cross some of the t's and dot some of the i's, in order to make very clear what we are talking about and why we are not very happy with -- at least with the Palestinian stance in the peace talks in these two weeks.

Although I would say that with regard to the Jordanians -- we indicated that before -- we felt there was a genuine understanding on their part, and of course on our part, of the necessity for both countries to make progress on some of the components of an eventual peace between the two countries. And we were encouraged by that attitude and I think there is scope for progress there. We were discouraged, I must frankly admit, with regard to the Palestinians. When I saw in several papers, I think it probably was on Tuesday, perhaps Wednesday, I don't remember -- headlines -- the Palestinians have proposed a plan and Israel had rejected it -- I thought that we owe it to the public to make the situation a little bit clearer.

They did submit a paper, which I have right here, which has the headline "Palestinian Interim Self-Government Arrangements -- Concepts, Preliminary Measures and Election Modalities." Unfortunately, except for the heading, the paper had very little relevance to the subject it was supposed to deal with -- namely, interim self-government arrangements. In all but name -- in all but in name -- this paper was a proposal to establish a Palestinian state, except in name, although the name Palestinian state does appear several times in the paper itself.

I don't know if you have had a chance to see that paper and the accompanying letter. I don't know if the Palestinian press people gave you the paper. I do not feel at liberty to give you a paper which we received in the negotiations. But I will just perhaps pinpoint a few points. They talked about all the components of the state, whether it's air rights, water rights, land rights, negotiations and agreements with other states. They mentioned Jerusalem specifically. They talk about Israeli withdrawals -- not to specified security locations as Camp David mentions, but to the borders, really meaning getting out of the area altogether. And there are many other examples in that respect. Now, I would like to clarify, perhaps to underline one very important point.

You know, it's no secret, that as far as Israel is concerned, a separate Palestinian state is probably the one outcome which Israel will not accept under any circumstances. But we don't say this in our paper. We don't say that this may not be a legitimate subject which the Palestinians may eventually raise, once we get down to negotiations about the permanent status. What we are saying is, and what the whole concept says, and the terms of reference of this process, the agreed terms of reference, is that at this stage we negotiate one topic only, and that is interim self-government arrangements for the territories -- not for the Arabs in the diaspora, what they call the Palestinian diaspora. And here they say immediately the Palestinians in exile should be included, Jerusalem should be included. All these proposals have nothing to do with interim self-government arrangements, and there is no controversy about that, between the sponsors, for instance, and ourselves.

We, on the other hand, suggested, proposed a detailed agenda which addresses the points which should be negotiated now. And we said, look, we'll have to see how we delegate authority to the self-government body, authority, whatever it's going to be called. We have to negotiate the modalities, how this is going to occur. But let us discuss, as early as possible, concrete matters. And we outlined them in a 12-page-long paper, and we said, the administration of justice and the administrative personal matters, agriculture, education, and culture, finance, budget, taxation, health, industry, commerce, tourism, labor and social welfare, local police, prisons, local transportation and communication, municipal affairs, water supply, housing, sewage, electricity, religious affairs; all these things which really pertain to the substance of what self-government arrangements mean.

We did not make any progress because they made speeches about human rights, about territorial rights, about settlements. The question, of course, is why they acted that way. We don't have the answer to that. There can be different explanations. Maybe they felt encouraged -- wrongly, I think, but encouraged by the present controversy between Israel and the United States on loan guarantees and on settlements. Maybe they thought this was the opening for them to extremise their positions, and I think they were wrong. Maybe they have internal problems. I said some other place, I think they are torn between the fear of missing the bus and the fear of mounting the wrong bus. Maybe they have erroneous conceptions about internal Israeli politics.

For whatever reason, and I say this more in sorrow than in anger, they are the people with whom we want to negotiate. They are the people with whom we want to make peace. They are the people with whom we will have forever to co- exist. We hope they're not going to repeat the same mistake which they've done for generations, always hoping that they will get more and not agreeing to talk with us about some sort of reasonable compromise.

The answer has not been given yet. This round, with regard to the Palestinians, has not been helpful. We hope there will be another round or perhaps two rounds till the Israeli elections. We certainly want to go ahead. The Israeli government wants to go ahead. We don't want to lose time. (Coughs.) Sorry about that; Washington flu. We certainly hope they won't want to lose time. We think enough time has already been lost.

We don't know where the next round of talks is going to take place. We don't know exactly when it's going to take place. That is another point. They still refuse, as do the other Arab delegations, unfortunately, to communicate with us directly between rounds. They have expressly refused that again, which is not a good sign. But, hopefully, there will be a new round, and, at that time, we will try again to press them to talk with us about substance, and hopefully they'll accept our view on that.

Thank you very much.

Q: Mr. Ambassador, are you willing to come back to Washington to negotiate or do you insist on moving the negotiations to the region?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, our position has been made clear several times and we have been very flexible on that. We've come to Washington, I think, what's -- the third round now in Washington? It was the third round? We have nothing against Washington, certainly not me personally being the Ambassador here. But it's not very helpful for the process itself to be so far away from the government, from the decision-making centers. We have been again flexible on places, on venues, where the next round could take place, but we are still waiting for an answer.

MODERATOR: Please identify yourself and your affiliation.

Q: Mr. Ambassador. Ralph Begleiter with CNN.

AMB. SHOVAL: Yes, sir?

Q: I'd like to ask you two unrelated questions, if I could, please? Number one, are you aware of and do you believe a report in the New York Post today about remarks allegedly made about American Jews by Secretary of State Baker? And number two, has Israel asked the United States to intervene militarily or otherwise to prevent delivery of Korean military supplies, which are believed to be on their way to Syria?

AMB. SHOVAL: I'm not aware -- I haven't read the report in the New York Post. And with regard to the --

Q: You're not aware of it either?

AMB. SHOVAL: I haven't read it. (Laughter.)

Q: You choose not to --

Q: Would you like to read it now? (Laughter.)

Q: You choose not to -- the question is do you choose not to comment on it?

AMB. SHOVAL: I haven't read it so I can't comment on something I haven't read. And with regard to the ship, I'm not aware that Israel has asked America to act in that respect, but I think America itself has a very clear policy on the supply by North Korea or perhaps by other countries to potentially dangerous states in the Middle East of illegal weapons of mass destruction, including Scud missiles. But I don't know what the American position will be on that.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q: (Name and affiliation inaudible.) The Secretary of State keeps saying that he is involved in ongoing negotiations with you on the matter of loan guarantees. Now, as far as I'm aware, you've had three meetings since late January, and the last of those was three weeks ago, which doesn't suggest a very up tempo pace of the negotiations. Are you still in negotiations? What does that negotiation consist of? Are you worried that time is running short as far as the legislative time tables of getting this through? Do you still have any hope of getting any of this money?

AMB. SHOVAL: Not money, guarantees.

Q: Guarantees leading to money.

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, right, everything leads to money. It's the root of all evil. (Laughter.) I can't give you a clear-cut answer because we ended the last meeting with the statement by the Secretary and myself that we are going to meet again. And I believe we shall meet again. No scheduled -- no meeting has been scheduled yet. I understand the Secretary is going away on Monday for two days. We may meet perhaps before that or after that.

Yes, we are worried about the passing of time, but not with regard to the legislative calendar of the Congress. This is something which we perhaps take into consideration, but that's not the central focus. We are worried because it's been a year now since the original delay of the loan guarantees. It's not since September, after all, it's since March. And we have absorbed 400,000 immigrants, and we are encountering severe economic problems as a result of that.

We are worried about the situation in the former Soviet Union, a worry which is shared by Secretary of State about what could potentially happen there to the Jewish population.

We are worried by any delay in getting the people out and getting them into Israel.

And we are also worried by an incorrect interpretation or an incorrect perception on the part of the Palestinians and some of the Arabs with regard to this controversy and its influence or impact on the peace process. We would not rule out that, and I mentioned that before, that the hardening stance of the Arabs, of the Palestinians in this round was a result of a perhaps incorrect reading, but certainly of the way they see the present relationship between Israel and the United States on the loan guarantees and on settlements.

Q: Well, actually, I was going to -- Margaret Warner from Newsweek. I was going to ask what Alan asked about the loan guarantees. You said though that you weren't concerned about the legislative calendar, but if next week and the next week pass without any action, wouldn't you concede that action is unlikely before another year has passed?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, this may happen, and of course, this is part of my general concern. What I mentioned -- what I meant to say to Alan was that I am not part -- Israel is not part of the negotiations which I understand are going on between leaders of the Senate, the Congress and the administration with regard to a vehicle. We are concerned about the substance of this -- of the loan guarantee matter. We don't now whether a compromise will be worked out or will not be worked out between these two parties, the Congress -- leadership of the Congress and the administration.

And if there is a compromise, Israel will have to see whether we can live with that or not. I would like to make it very clear without going into detail that all the compromise proposals so far have emanated from Israel, and Israel has been very, very flexible in this whole matter. But there may be a point beyond which no Israeli government -- left, right, or center -- would be able to go.

And then we will probably have to reassess or reevaluate our position with regard to the loan guarantees if we are put before a situation which we would feel is not helpful to the one and only purpose, to help us absorb a million immigrants. We don't want to go into something which may have a heading but nothing under the heading. So we shall see.

I have not given up hope. We are still guided by the statement of the Secretary to me and to the public that America is committed to the principle of helping us in absorbing these refugees, immigrants. So I haven't given up hope, but I'm realistic about it.

Q: Just to clarify, you are suggesting then that the compromise in which Congress would authorize the money but leave it entirely up to the administration to set the conditions and establish or assess whether Israel is meeting the conditions would not be attractive to your government?

AMB. SHOVAL: I shall not comment on that because I am not privy to the exact contents of the compromise proposals worked out-- if they are worked out between the administration and Congress. I'm talking in general about compromises. And Israel is aware that it will have to compromise on some of its positions, whether we are enthusiastic about it or not. We realize that, and we have said this publicly. But we'll have to see what the nature of the possible compromise is.

Q: Two questions, also unrelated. Number one, the lack of mention of elections in the Israeli proposal -- should one infer that elections are a priori ruled out in Israel's view as a result that it's not mentioned?

AMB. SHOVAL: Not at all. Not at all. One of our proposals is, of course, an immediate negotiation about the modalities, and modalities includes the possibility of elections. We have not ruled that out, but there are different ways, how to treat it, what sort of elections, municipal elections, other elections, the timing of that. And once we get down to discussing modalities, and that's one of the first items on our agenda, they will bring up that proposal, and we will negotiate with them about that. But not as a precondition.

Q: My second question is related to Nabil Sha'ath. It's an interesting evolution in that in Madrid he was there but very much in the background and was not seen. He was in the first round and kept in the background. He -- not in the first round. In the first round he was kept out. The second round he was here and kept in the background. Here's the third round in Washington and he's very prominently working together with the Palestinians. He held a press conference yesterday with the head of the Palestinian delegation, Dr. Abdul Shafi, in which they clearly were working together. I wonder is it your view that this is an indication that the PLO is indeed coordinating the negotiations, and if so, what is Israel's reaction to that?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, we have publicly -- not only publicly -- clarified our position with regard to the PLO. And we have not changed that position with regard to Nabil Sha'ath's appearances in this country. This is a question you'll have to put to the administration, not to me.

Q: John Rush (sp) -- (inaudible). I want to go back to the loan guarantees for a moment because I understand Arik Sharon has said to day that Israel should just simply say thanks but no thanks to loan guarantees from the US. Number one, I was kind of curious as to what your reaction is to that. But do you think -- does that reflect, do you think, a growing sentiment within the Israeli government on the loan guarantees?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, I think -- I don't know about the Israeli government. The Israeli government is not going to act on this matter emotionally, nor should it. I mean, we have the lives of many people at stake. On the other hand, we have security problems which are related to the future of the territories at stake. And that is really the character of the difficulty of the choice which we have been asked to make by some people.

But I guess in the Israeli population there is a certain feeling of -- well -- I am looking for a word of a euphemism instead of insult. But there is certainly a feeling that people's sensibilities are assaulted by the fact that this matter is being held hostage to Aram demands.

That's the way many people in the population of Israel see it. They don't say that this is the American attitude. I don't think so at all. But people in Israel very often think, well, here the Arabs are against Immigration. We know this. They have been fighting against immigration for decades.

At the eve of the Second World War, the British closed the gates of Palestine and forbade the Jewish population in Palestine to buy additional lands right at the beginning of the holocaust. And I don't want to make comparisons, but people will say here again difficulties amount for political reasons, indirectly related to the Arab demands, and we don't expect that sort of attitude from a good friend and ally.

Now, I know this is not the American position, but that's the way some Arabs see it, and some people in Israel think may be the motivation. And I think this will be a very sad conclusion if that -- if that were really the general conclusion.

Q: Ambassador, Robert Greenberg (sp), Wall Street Journal. You said a moment ago on the loan guarantees that all the compromise thus far has emanated from the Israeli side. Two points: I take it by that you mean that there's been no flexibility shown on the part of the administration in your discussions with Secretary Baker, and second of all, has there, in fact, been a hardening of US attitudes as -- do you feel publicly there has been over this period --

AMB. SHOVAL: Well --

Q: -- in which you've negotiated?

AMB. SHOVAL: I'm not going to characterize the American position, but I will say that Israel has come forward with several -- what I consider far-reaching compromise proposals. Certainly, in light of the declared policy and ideology of the government of Israel.

Q: Do you want to address the second half of the question? Has the -- has there -- over the course of these negotiations, has the US position, in fact, hardened?

AMB. SHOVAL: I have made it a point of not referring to the contents of my negotiations with Secretary Baker, neither to the specific proposals which I made nor to the ones which he made. So I will leave it at that.

Q: Mr. Ambassador, John Hanrahan, Fox Television. I saw a bumper sticker on the streets of Washington the other day, one I've never seen before. It had an Israeli flag and a Palestinian flag, and it said, "Two peoples, two nations." I'm not saying this is a trend, but it's the first I'd seen it, and I detect in my conversations with Americans a disenchantment with the Israeli position -- never a Palestinian state. Do you not see that feeling growing among Americans? And how would you counteract it?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, I either haven't seen the sticker -- I've seen lots of stickers in this town, and I wouldn't take them too much to heart, but -- (scattered laughter) -- I do think, seriously, that the Palestinians, in the last few years, have been quite successful in implanting part of their views in public opinion, and they have been very adept at that, and sophisticated. And without calling it by the name it deserves, they have been adopting the strategy of repeating certain lies over and over again, until they become believable, especially if you wrap them into a sandwich of true statement. And I've often said -- and many of you have heard this before -- take a reasonably educated person -- let's say myself, and if I'm being asked to comment about the pluses and minuses of the intricacies in Cambodia, what do I really know about it except what I read in the headlines.

And when the Palestinians -- first of all, the name Palestinians, which is a rather new invention. It's not -- it is not something which I, as a child in Palestine, ever heard an Arab call himself. And until 20 or 30 years ago, when you saw little Israel facing 150 or 140 million Arabs, everybody supported the Israeli underdog. But the moment you paint Israel as the superpower -- 4 million Israelis as the superpower facing the poor, little Palestinian underdog, perceptions, of course, change.

And then they speak very often about such things as to reestablish Palestinian sovereignty over occupied -- belligerently occupied Palestinian territory. Why should the average American who is not so involved not react to that and say, "Why not, after all? I mean, everybody in this new world order is giving up territories which they conquered, and why not give the Palestinians the right to live their own lives?" People don't necessarily think back why Israel is in the territories, why we went and conquered in '67 -- conquered in parentheses -- these territories, what happened before that, who had committed aggression, that there never was a Palestinian sovereignty which has to be reestablished, that this is really open to negotiations because it's a disputed territory, that Jerusalem over a hundred years ago already had the Jewish majority -- there was no Arab Jerusalem.

People forget these things. They cannot be expected to know these things.

Q: A follow-up quickly, Mr. Ambassador --

AMB. SHOVAL: And I think this creates a lot of difficulties to us in public information. We address -- we are the first who have addressed the Palestinians' specific concerns back in Camp David.

Q: Should Americans therefore be prepared to accept Israeli control -- military control forever over hundreds of thousands of Palestinians?

AMB. SHOVAL: Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians -- between you and me -- for the first time in their lives, those in the territories have a chance -- have a chance to rule their own lives, to govern their own lives. They never had it under Jordanian military occupation, they never had it under Egyptian military occupation, not to speak of the British, and the Turks, and all those who preceded them. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are also living in Jordan. As a matter of fact, they are the majority in Jordan, they are part of Jordan, they are part of the Jordanian government. So not all of them are living under Israeli military government.

What we are trying to propose to the Palestinians in the future is run your own affairs, at least in the interim period of five years, and that's the subject we're discussing now. But we cannot endanger Israel's security. And I think this is one of the main points of this whole thing. Israel will have to take care of its own security. We can let the Palestinians run their lives, but not our future.

STAFF: Saul, then this man --

Q: Yes, Mr. Ambassador, if I may go back to the loan guarantees, as you said, the -- you think that perhaps the Arabs are playing to the Israeli elections, I wonder to what extent do you think the United States in its consideration and its delay of the loan guarantees might be playing to the Israeli elections as well?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, I'm absolutely convinced that the American government is not playing Israeli politics, nor would we do it vice versa, and I have heard official statements and I take them at face value. If there were any other intention, it would probably backfire, I think. But this is internal Israeli politics. I don't want to be involved in that at the present time.

I would like to point out one very important aspect: that there is no difference between the two major Israeli parties except on -- in degree and in detail, but not on principle. The Labor Party is not against settlements in the territories. They say it's security-related settlements, not political settlements. Okay, there's something which the two major parties have a certain divided opinion upon. Let's not forget that the major settlement effort in the territories started when there was a Labor government, not a Likud government. And our problems, the political problems which emanate from this question with regard to loan guarantees and so on the so forth is not about this settlement, yes, and that settlement, no. It says settlements, period. So I don't really believe that anybody in the administration would want to play with Israeli politics, and I take that statement at -- as I said, at face value.

Q: (Name and affiliation off mike) -- Dr. Nabil Sha'ath yesterday publicly identified Dr. Haider Abdul-Shafi, your negotiating partner in the peace talks, as a founding member of the PLO. I'd like your reaction to that.

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, we will have to hear and await Dr. Abdul-Shafi's statement about that.

Q: That's the way he stated it.

AMB. SHOVAL: Abdul-Shafi himself said it? That he was a founding member -- (Cross talk.)

AMB. SHOVAL: Ah, Nabil Sha'ath said. Well, this wouldn't be the first time that any official of the PLO says untrue things. But I don't know. We will have to see what Dr. Abdul-Shafi says.

There are certain ground rules to this process. I think one American official before this process started called it, fraud -- if any of the negotiators would be guilty of fraud, namely, that he would be an active member or directly concerned, involved with the PLO, he could not negotiate. Just like Mr. Arafat is not part of the negotiating team. And I have a lot of liking for Dr. Abdul-Shafi. I think he's a reasonable man we can negotiate with, and I would be eager to hear from him, not from somebody else.

Q: (Name inaudible) with NBC News. You've mentioned that you wouldn't rule out the fact that the Palestinians' hardening at the negotiating table is a result of the perceived way they're viewing US-Israeli relations now. Do you feel -- have you mentioned that to Secretary of State Baker, number one, and do you feel that in some way the Secretary in the way he's handling this loan guarantee issue is in some way siding with the Arabs and hurting the negotiations?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, I would say very briefly that this controversy about the loan guarantees has not been helpful to promote the peace process. It has not been helpful because I would say probably -- I would mention two reasons.

First of all, it may have created, as I mentioned before, a hardening on the part of the Palestinians. There must be a reason why they start up every meeting with the subject of settlements and (otherwise ?). But there may be also a long-term negative impact, because I think one of the main reasons the Arabs -- not just the Palestinians, the Palestinians have different, additional reasons -- but the Arabs have entered this peace process is because they understand and that is their -- the way they see it, that America's support for Israel is a constant and stable factor in America's foreign policy -- and from Israel's point of view, a basic strategic factor?

I don't believe this has changed. I think this is still so. But perceptions, as Kissinger has said, I think, and others, may turn into reality. And if the Arabs would ever believe that Israel is not fully supported policy-wise beyond this or that misunderstanding by America, the will for peace among the Arabs will weaken, and not the other way around.

Q: Have you mentioned that to Secretary of State in your face-to-face meetings with him?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, I think these views are not unknown to Secretary Baker.

Q: And the last part of the question, do you feel that in some way, the way he's handled himself public publicly and privately has in some way hurt the negotiation process?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, I think Secretary Baker is entitled to immense credit to get this whole process on the road, and once we will reach the point of peace, all of us will evaluate where some of us were right and less right and so on and so forth -- not at this time.

Q: I read this morning about a policy discussion -- (inaudible) -- yesterday. I remember in your policy discussion in the administration about boarding the North Korean ships, falling Scud-C missiles to Syria --

AMB. SHOVAL: I think that question was asked.

Q: Oh. Okay.

AMB. SHOVAL: I'm sorry.

Q: It's worth a follow-up, though. How concerned are you about that delivery? How concerned is Israel about that delivery?

AMB. SHOVAL: We are very concerned, not just about that delivery. Syria, according to reports in the press, has been spending upwards of $2 billion, which she received for her services so-called in Desert Storm, on buying sophisticated arms, not just Scud missiles, from North Korea, perhaps from China -- I'm not sure, that has been denied -- but also by improved-quality Soviet tanks in Czechoslovakia, fighter planes. Against whom, we ask ourselves? I mean, if we are in a peace negotiation, and if Syria's economic situation is as it has usually been described, why do they spend their last penny on these armaments, if not against us? We are very concerned; yes, we are.

Q: Another follow-up on Syria. There were reports that three top-level Syrians close to President Assad visited Washington in the last six months, Idr (ph), Makloud (ph), Raziq (Khaddam ?). Levitsky is going to the Hill to talk about Syria and drugs next week. I'm wondering if you think the administration is less harsh, more lax towards Syrian arms acquisitions and drug sale policies than it is considering its critical public attitude towards your settlement policy?

AMB. SHOVAL: We have no information which would enable us to either confirm or not to confirm (Khaddam ?)'s visit to Washington. We just don't know. And we have seen that America still considers Syria a terrorist state, which it is. And of course, Syria is very active -- or some Syrians are very active in the drug trade in the Beka'a Valley in Lebanon. And I'm sure the United States is aware of that.

MODERATOR: We'll make it the last question.

Q: (Name inaudible) -- from the Cox Newspapers. Is there anything in the Palestinian plan that they presented this week that you think you can address in future negotiations? Is there any piece of it or is the tenor of the plan such that you feel that you just cannot deal with it at all and it would require an entirely new proposal to be made?

AMB. SHOVAL: No, I don't want to rule out wholesale every word in that plan. After all, it's also pages and pages long. But as I said in the beginning, it's not a plan for an interim self-government setup, it's a plan for a state and if these elements will be taken out, yes, there are points which we may want to discuss. I think we went about it in a more practical way, where we said let's first identify the points which will have to be discussed, not the substance. And they put the substance before the agenda, the cart before the horse. And of course the cart is full of wares which we cannot accept, but which shouldn't really be on the agenda right now, because they pertain to the ultimate stage and not to this interim stage.

Q: (Name and affiliation inaudible.) Do you see the comment -- (inaudible) -- the position made about the Palestinians to have their own, whatever was told, and you did express some satisfaction over it? Do you think that a sort of American intervention in the (course ?) in that peace process, and would you receive with welcome comments next time even though the receiving game might be a different one?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, if I understand your question is are we pleased by the comments yesterday by the American senior official, because they more or less confirmed what we have said. We see the American role and the Russian role but basically the American role, of course, as being the sponsors of this process. We see nothing wrong with the Secretary of State asking each round -- at each round how things went. And we went and told him, we reported them, so did the Arabs. And they drew their conclusions from that and I think the correct conclusions. But whether in the future we would like the Americans to play an active role in creating certain mindsets, well, this is something we'll have to look at.

In the meantime, I would say that the Americans are acting also as go-betweens and this is something which should stop. Not because we don't want the Americans to be go-betweens, but because we want the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs to communicate with us directly. This has not happened so far.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador and thank you all for coming. Have a good day.

AMB. SHOVAL: Thank you. Have a nice weekend.