The Editor
The Sunday Times
Henry Kissenger wrote in one of his articles that “it is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it”. I am referring to the new attitude of the Israeli government towards the PLO.
The real PLO was exposed once again for all to witness, when the later continuously and unconditionally supported Saddam Hussein during the crisis in the Gulf. Arafat’s opinion of the Jews [“may their ancestors be cursed… with whom I shall settle the account in the future”]… was broadcasted on CNN on 11th February 1992. Abba Eban once said of this organization “The PLO never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. The PLO was the greatest power behind world terrorism behind world terrorism in the history of mankind. Julian Baker once stated, “To speak about international terrorism without mentioning the PLO is like speaking of the blood circulation without mentioning the heart”. The PLO “invented” the war against the airline passengers, against innocent bystanders, shoppers and school children. It abused international law; supported all the wrong elements in international politics, be it the Chinese leadership further to the Tiananmen Square massacre; Iran, during the US embassy crisis; Libya; or the “Arab Dr. No” [Saddam – according to Newsweek]. All this should be considered when this entity to be received as an equal partner in the international community? Indeed, Secretary of State, James Baker, when testifying to the Foreign Relation Committee of the US Senate on 7th February, 1991, stated that “the PLO… in supporting Saddam Hussein made the wrong choice”. And so, according to John Bollach and Harvey Morris confirmed that Washington also “decided that no matter what happened, the old guard of the PLO would never again be a party to negotiation.” According to the Economist of 8th February, 1991 the Palestinians themselves were approaching similar conclusions regarding Yassir Arafat. The PLO does not have to be, and should not be a crucial player in this juncture. This is, notwithstanding the assumed support to the PLO within the West Bank and Gaza, which support cannot be challenged for fear of death.
It is true that Israel made peace with Germany after the Second World War. The first German ambassador to Israel to present his credentials to President Zalman Shazar was an ex-serviceman. Yet Germany of today differs from Germany of yesterday [dispite some ugly reminders to the contrary]. The PLO was and still remains a disputed entity, with each dissenting party representing the interest of another Arab or Muslim country, with one thing in common; the heart of international terrorism.
The PLO is severely divided. Such divisions, if realized in the West Bank and Gaza, will convert the area to a second Lebanon. Israel cannot expose itself to more instability “next door” to another version of the introduction to Black September to a “second Lebanon”. The PLO’s conflicts with Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the URA should lead all Arab leaders in the area to agree that for the sake of peace US’s understanding that “the old guard of the PLO would never be a party to any negotiations” stands as a pillar of stability and reliability.
Alas, the confusion begins not in the USA or Europe but in Israel. And if members of the government are supporting a different approach to the PLO, the later has won. It will support the Hezbollah in Lebanon, it will shell the north of Israel, it will be responsible for violent actions in the West Bank and Gaza and Israel will offer its credibility. Why should they amend? They do not. Israel does.
23 August 1993
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה