Israeli-Palestinian context
between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Judging from what Mr. Netanyahu
said on Capitol Hill today and what Mr. Sharon has said, the Israelis
seem to be arguing that a military response is the only one that makes
sense against terrorism, and that by meeting with Arafat, by talking to
Arafat, the U.S. is, in a sense, rewarding terrorism. What is the
administration's argument?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, this President will reward those who help
create peace. That's the President's focus. That's where his time
will be spent.
The President has met on many occasions with Prime Minister Sharon,
as you know. Yasser Arafat had his chance to meet with the Vice
President. He did not live up to the conditions the Vice President
established for a meeting.
The Secretary of State has met with Yasser Arafat before. It is
part of his portfolio that the President has invested in him, to have
the broadest, most flexible mandate. That if the Secretary of State
thinks it's worthwhile having a meeting with Yasser Arafat, he can do
so. But the people who will contribute the most to peace are the
people who put their shoulder to the wheel, the people who help create
a cease-fire, and the people who even after all the violence express a
willingness to work with each other.
And that's why the President has given the message he has to all
parties, that he is concerned that, as a result of what's taking place
on the ground now in the Middle East, it will be harder to bring the
two parties together. But a way must be found, and the President has
committed himself to finding that way and to working with whoever can
get that done.
Q Well, that is the problem, and you know there is obviously a
lot of conservative criticism here at home as well, in addition to the
Israelis, saying that the U.S. has characterized Arafat as a
terrorist. Yet, we're willing to sit down and talk with him about
peace, and a lot of people find some difficulty in reconciling.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think everybody knows what the President has said
on the topic of Yasser Arafat and whether he has earned the President's
trust. He has not. Nevertheless, the President wants the Secretary of
State to have the broadest mandate possible with the most flexibility,
so he can have the most influence on bringing peace to the region.
Q Ari, there have been many anti-Israel and anti-American
demonstrations in some of the Arab countries -- one of them, the
Queen of Jordan apparently was participating in; there have been other
ones. But the states have -- these countries have at least, if not
sanctioned them, certainly allowed them to go on and perhaps encourage
them.
What's your reaction, what's the White House's reaction to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President's message to the Arab nations
is that they need to do their part to create peace. They need to stop
the incitement and the hatred that can be found in the government
press, they need to speak out strongly, urging an end to all terrorist
actions, and an end to all financing.
The President's message is one of moral clarity to all. And he
won't pull his punches from that. He thinks that is a vital part of
the future of the region, that it's time for statesmanship in the
region, that nations need to step up and express that desire.
Q If U.S. aid to Israel is secure, are there any consequences at
all for the U.S. side for Sharon's refusal to heed the President's
wishes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Listen, a lot of people have said -- asked the
President or asked me, what is the President's reaction, how does the
President feel about this. I can only tell you, just having talked to
the President in the Oval Office shortly before I came out here, the
only way I can describe him is persistent. The President understands
that since 1948, when Israel was born, there have been numerous wars
fought, that this has been a region that has been racked by violence
for far, far too long.
And the President understands that no American President can simply
wave a magic wand to make it all go away overnight. But what an
American President can do is commit to working to solve the problem,
and that is what this President is dedicated to do, and that's why the
Secretary of State is in the middle of a very important diplomatic
mission. And the President has faith that at the end of the day, these
parties have no choice but to make peace with each other.
The job of the United States is to help the parties to help
themselves to find a way to realizing that day. And he understands it
may take time. That won't stop him from pushing forward.
Q But doesn't he have feeling, though, that he's put his
personal prestige on the line here, with these very public calls, and
then the personal phone call, and particularly in a part of the world
where personal prestige counts for a lot and he's getting dissed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, to the President, this is not a matter of
personal prestige or anything else personal. It's the right thing to
do at the right time to do it. And that's why he gave the speech he
gave last Thursday, and that's why he continues to press the parties to
agree to the path the United States has laid out.
Again, the President is going to continue to be persistent to help
the region to achieve that day.
Q Ari, I'd like to ask you about something the President said in
another speech in Knoxville, Tennessee earlier this week. Referring to
the threat to U.S. homeland security, he said: the best way to fight
them -- meaning terrorists -- is to unleash the military. It again
raises the question: is there a different set of ground rules for the
U.S. response to terrorism than other countries, especially after yet
another bus suicide bombing?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, Peter, because I think in that same speech and
many speeches, you've heard the President talk about the coalition that
he's put together that is fighting terrorism on multiple fronts,
involving the military, involving diplomacy, involving financial
transactions and drying up terrorists' money. All of that is done
through an international coalition that he has built to fight
terrorism.
The military can play a role. The President recognizes Israel's
right to self-defense. But the President also understands that you
still have to create an environment where, at the end of the day, when
military use has done all it can, that the parties can still agree to
peaceful resolutions of their disputes.
Q So you're saying it's okay to do it with the coalition but not
to go it alone?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you back to what the President said
on Thursday in his statement, about recognizing Israel's right to
self-defense, calling on the Palestinian Authority to finally stop the
terrorism and the role that other Arab nations can play.
Q Can you comment a little bit on the evolution of the
President's thought on the road map to a final resolution? You know, a
few weeks ago and even last week, he was talking about sequentially the
cease-fire and then Tenet and then Mitchell. And yesterday, obviously,
the Secretary of State said the sequencing doesn't work and we have to
move the security and immediately to political talks. So, obviously,
the President would support -- I mean, one hopes that Powell is not
off by himself saying this.
So could you tell us how the President's thought has evolved from
that sequential approach to this broader approach?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the easiest way to get
into the political talks is as a result of the cessation of the
violence. The President looks at the situation in the Middle East and
you have two parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. And he
believes it's just harder for them to sit down at the table and agree
to the political process, so long as there's so much shooting on both
sides.
So I think it's a very good understanding of human relations, human
interaction, that it's going to be hard for two people to sit across a
table and talk about political boundaries if they're shooting at each
other from the opposite sides of the room. That's the President's
belief. But the President understands, as well, that it's intertwined,
that it's not just a clear cut, you proceed with one, and only after
you proceed with one can you get to the other. If progress can be made
on the political front, to measure it with a reduction of the violence,
the President will be for that. And that's why the Secretary is in the
region.
So it's never been as if there was a clear, simple delineation
between going from cease-fire to political. But it's just common sense
that it will be easier to get into political if there's a cease-fire.
Q So is there a change in policy here or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I said, it's always been intertwined. But it's
just common sense that it will be harder for those parties to agree to
a reduction of -- to enter into political boundaries discussions if
they're still shooting at each other over the existing boundaries.
Q Two questions. The coal -- just to change the subject for a
second -- the coal industry, for a number of years, has been engaged
in a practice called mountain top removal, where they'll blow off the
tops of the mountains and dump the waste into the valleys and streams
in West
Virginia and Kentucky.
In this weekend's Washington Post, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Joe
Lovett, who are two environmental attorneys, reported that the Bush
administration is going to change rules under the Clean Water Act to
make this practice legal. It has been up until now illegal but
unenforced. And I'm wondering why the administration is going to do
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, you have a very good habit of asking
questions that the agencies know a lot more about. I have not heard
about any of this, so again I refer you to one of the agencies that has
jurisdiction over these type of regulations.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:10 P.M. EDT