Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE ARAFAT MURDER THREAT [[[[[[[[[[[[
(Why won't the Israelis negotiate with the P.L.O.?)
by A.M. Rosenthal
The New York Times, 1/6/89
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 07656GAED]
Consider the following sequence of events.
1. On Dec. 15, Yasir Arafat, the head of the Palestine Liberation
Organization, renounces terrorism.
Within hours, the United States announces it is ready to talk with
the P.L.O.
2. On Dec. 29, Elias Freij, Mayor of Bethlehem and one of the most
respected Arab officials in the West Bank, suggests a one-year truce
in the intifada, the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank, provided
that Israel releases about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners.
The Israelis quietly make it known they are ready to talk about the
deal -- seriously.
3. On Jan. 2, Mr. Arafat broadcasts a murder threat: "Any Pales-
tinian who proposes an end to the intifada exposes himself to the
bullets of his own people and endangers his life. The P.L.O. will
know how to deal with him."
4. On Jan. 3, Mayor Freij withdraws his suggestion and says it is
up to the P.L.O. to make all decisions, He decides it is best not to
be seen for a while.
In this eposode lies the answer to questions that puzzle so many
people around the world who are not hostile to Israel.
Why does the Israeli Government, including conservative and liberal
members, refuse to follow the United States' lead and negotiate now
with the P.L.O.? After all, if you are looking for an end to a con-
flict, isn't it logical to talk with your enemy? And isn't the
P.L.O. supported by most Palestinians? And if Israel will not talk
with the P.L.O., is there any hope for a solution?
The Arafat murder threat against the Mayor of Bethlehem shows that
the P.L.O. still relies on terrorism, not only against Israelis but
against any Palestinian who dares step out of line and make an inde-
pendent suggestion for dealing practically with the Israelis.
The uprising in the West Bank has troubled Israelis deeply and cost
the country support abroad.
But the Mayor of Bethlehem apparently believed, as do other Pales-
tinians, that as long as the uprising continues, the chances for
dealing with the Israeli Government will be zero. Governments rarely
negotiate during insurrections. unless they face defeat.
The threat to the Mayor is totally in line with a policy the P.L.O.
began when it was founded in 1964. That is to use terror to ensure
that no other organization or movement has a chance to build support
among Palestinians opposed to Israeli occupation, but who might favor
a solution not based on the P.L.O. and its covenant.
The covenant calls for elimination of the Israeli state. The P.L.O.
might not have a monopoly if Palestinians had a decent period with-
out P.L.O. terror.
Terror has been an essential weapon of the P.L.O. -- against
Israelis at home and abroad, against Palestinians, against non-
Israeli Jews in foreign synagogues and against American and other
Western planes, ships and embassies.
Mr. Arafat sometimes took "credit" and sometimes blamed P.L.O.
groups he said he could not control. Assuming for the moment he
really cannot control all the P.L.O. terrorists, why on earth should
the Israeli Government recognize Mr. Arafat and his uncontrollable
P.L.O. as its negotiating partners"?
The Arafat murder threat also shows why so many Israeli officials
pay more attention to what the P.L.O. says to Palestinians and other
Arasa than what it says to American diplomats in Geneva or American
Jews in Stockholm. In broadcasts and interviews aimed at Palestin-
ians and other Arabs, P.L.O. spokesmen make it plain that the estab-
lishment of a small Palestinian state is only the first step toward a
much larger state in what is now Israel.
Not only Israelis believe the P.L.O. has yet to put terrorism be-
hind it. King Hussein of Jordan is not taking any chances either.
The P.L.O. tried to kill him before. He knows it would try again if
he suggested Israeli-Jordanian talks about a union between parts of
the West Bank and his own largely Palestinian country -- an idea he
once thought entirely sensible.
One day that may be the solution, because it is ethnically and
strategically logical. Yitzhak Shamir and other members of the Likud
party who are reluctant to give up any territory are not fond of the
idea. But they do not kill Israelis who suggest it.
The United States decided to deal with the P.L.O. on the basis of
Mr. Arafat's word that the P.L.O. renounced terrorism and any hopes
of eliminating Israel -- without waiting one day for proof.
The murder threat by Yasir Arafat helps answer the question of why
Israel declines to take the same step and risk its existence.
* * *
[Note added by Sysop: Have you noticed? TV news (CNN) now reports on
Arafat's negotations etc. like this: "Yasir Arafat, once branded a
terrorist, ..." The meaning that they want to convey is not just that
Arafat has now reformed overnight, but the "branded" implies that he
never reallt WAS a terrorist and filthy murderer.]
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page