A month after the suspension of the talks, it seemed that passions were cooling off gradually, and a more sober evaluation of the situation convinced Mr. Ford that the resumption of the suspended talks was a distinct possibility as well as meetings between himself and Mr. Rabin and other leaders from the Middle East. Excerpts:
Q: Can we move on to the Middle East now? Are you reconciled to a Geneva meeting now or would you still like to see some more direct diplomacy in the step-by-step Kissinger pattern?
A: I think, following the very serious disappointment of the last negotiations between Israel and Egypt, we are committed, at least in principle, to going to Geneva.
Now, in the meantime, we are going through this process of reassessment of our whole Middle Eastern policy which, prior to the suspension of the negotiations between Egypt and Israel, had been a very successful one.
Now, there really are three options. You could resume the suspended negotiations without making a commitment to go to Geneva. You could go to Geneva and try to get an overall settlement - which is a very complicated matter. People advocate it, however.
But while you were going through this negotiation for an overall settlement, as a third option you might have an interim negotiated settlement between two of the parties, such as Israel and Egypt.
Now, those are basically the three options. We have not made any decision yet. We have had our ambassadors from the Middle East come back and report to me. We have undertaken a study under the leadership of Joe Sisco to bring together the best thinking and all of the options.
We have brought in, or Secretary Kissinger has brought in, some outside experts in the Middle East. Last week, I had a meeting with a former State Department official, Gene Rostow, who is an expert in this area. But right at the moment, we have made no firm decision as to what our next particular step will be in the Middle East.
Q: Mr. President, can you foresee any possible circumstances in which you would feel it right to send American armed forces into the Middle East on land, or in the air? In other words, military intervention?
A: I can't foresee any, Eric, but - and I see no reason to do so, so I think the answer is pretty categorically no.
Q: What about a wholly different level, if there were agreement for a Russian-American peace patrol and the alternative to what was another Mideast War, would you go that far?
A: You put it on about the most extreme alternatives. We want peace in the Middle East and I think the Soviet Union does, too.
I would hope that there wouldn't be a need for either the United States or the Soviet Union having any peace-keeping responsibilities with their own forces in the Middle East.
Q: Mr. President, does the reassessment now going on of the Middle East policy also include a reassessment of the U.S. position toward the Palestinians?
A: If you take the path of an overall settlement and going to Geneva, I think you have to have an analysis of what is going to happen there because the Palestinians are going to demand recognition.
But I don't mean to infer that we have made any decision. But the Palestinians have to be examined as a part of the overall Middle East situation.
I am not making any commitment one way or another but it has to be part of the problem that we are analyzing.
Q: Let me ask you this just as a follow-up. Could the Palestinians be included if they refuse to deal with the Israelis?
A: I don't see how because the Israelis, in the first place, don't recognize the Palestinians as a proper party and the PLO doesn't recognize the existence of Israel. So, I think that is an impasse right there and it will be one of the most difficult things that will have to be worked out if it is worked out at Geneva.
Q: Do you have any feel for when there will be a date for the Geneva Conference reconvening?
A: I have seen a lot of speculation early this summer, but no set time has been determined.
Q: Mr. President, the Israeli Foreign Minister Allon is in Washington now, and there are reports out of Jerusalem today that he is going to suggest a summit meeting between you and President Rabin. Do you expect to have such a meeting?
A: I wouldn't expect that I would make any commitment on that until we are further along in our reassessment. It may be desirable at some point. It may be desirable to meet other parties, or other heads of states, in the Middle East, but I don't want to make any commitment tonight as to anyone or as to more than one.
Q: Doesn't that sort of imply that we are still being a little bit hard-nosed in our disappointment over the Kissinger mission?
A: No, I think it is wise for us to take a look ourselves... before meeting with Mr. Rabin, but I don't want to make any commitment to one until we have moved a bit further down in the process of a reassessment.
I reiterate that if we meet with one, we certainly ought to give others an opportunity, other heads of states, to have the same input.
Q: So, there won't be any favoured nation treatment of Israel in the future?
A: I think we have to, in this very division, where the possibility of war is certainly a serious one, if you have a war, you are inevitably going to have an oil embargo - I think we have to be very cautious in our process of a reassessment.