Conference taveng::bagels

>    The State Department has denied a visa to Yassir Arafat for purposes
>    of attending the UN General Assembly meeting.  Anyone know on what
>    grounds the visa application was rejected?  Other comments?

The State Dept invoked a clause in the 1948 UN Headquarters Agreement that
gives the USA the right to deny entry to a person or persons deemed a security
risk. The State Dept stated that the PLO had engaged in acts of terrorism
against citizens of the USA and that as a leader of the PLO Yassir Arafat
was an accesory to those acts of terrorism.

There is another law [passed recently by Congress] that forbids the presence
or operation of PLO personnel in the USA. But the courts have ruled that
US law is subservient to the 1948 Headquarters agreement and struck down that
law.

Comments? There is a discussion ongoing in SOAPBOX!  You may just want to peek
in as that conference, well, you'll know...	8*)


thank you
-parthi

    I've asked this also in another notesfile: Didn't Arafat ALREADY
    speak to the UN assembly, once? Why not now?
    
    The security risk issue seems an artificial argument, to me. No?
    
    Confusedly yours,
    
    Chris

According to a report by Daniel Schorr, the decision to ban Arafat was
personally made by Sec. of State George Shultz because of his anger
at the PLO's support of terrorism, specifically the killing of Leon
Klinghofer in the Achilles Lauro ship hijacking.  According to Schorr,
only Shultz's anti-terrorism specialist supported him in that decision,
(and President Regan went along with it).

Look for Arafat to reappear after Bush takes office.

Martin.

    .2>		    The security risk issue seems an artificial argument,
    .2>		    to me. No?
    
    I don't know.  A question for the masses out there.....should any
    member of a self-proclaimed terrorist organization be admitted to the
    U.S., especially when the group has made threats and taken terrorist
    action against U.S. citizens and officials?
    
    Another questions.....How would you be reacting if the person rejected
    a visa was Qhuadafi (sp?)  ?????!    I believe that the U.S. public
    would be jumping for joy, calling it something along the lines of a
    patriotic stance against terrorism.
    

Re: < Note 590.4 by BIZNIS::ABELOW >
    
>    member of a self-proclaimed terrorist organization be admitted to the

Just a big nit. They are not a self-proclaimed terrorist organisation.
They call themselves the freedom fighters.

And whether one is a "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" is in the eye of the
beholder.

Moreover, the question here is not one of whether Arafat is a terrorist or not;
the question is whether a person invited to speak before the General Assembly
by all but 2 nations of this world has the right to do so at the UN in NY.
And whether the US is violating an international agreement it freely signed
by refusing to let him do so.

-parthi

re: .5:

> the question is whether a person invited to speak before the General Assembly
> by all but 2 nations of this world has the right to do so at the UN in NY.
> And whether the US is violating an international agreement it freely signed
> by refusing to let him do so.

As I read the papers, the answer is apparently that the U.S. is within
its rights to ban Arafat (there is an escape clause in the U.N. headquarters
treaty allowing the host nation to ban entrance to specific individuals
in specific circumstances).

On the other hand, it is a decision with political (as opposed to legal)
consequences.

Maybe if the PLO didn't try to assassinate Schultz, ...

Martin.

>As I read the papers, the answer is apparently that the U.S. is within
>its rights to ban Arafat (there is an escape clause in the U.N. headquarters
>treaty allowing the host nation to ban entrance to specific individuals
>in specific circumstances).

The escape clause states explicitly that the USA can bar individuals who
will pose a threat to the security of the USA if not barred.

I cannot imagine what security threat Yasser Arafat will pose when surrounded
by a few hundred Secret Service, FBI and NY city police officers, not to mention
undercover agents of untold number and unnamed countries!

And you may also observe that Shultz [and this decision is Shultz's alone;
it has been widely reported that even many in his own office adviced against
it] has not stated that Arafat will be threat; only that he has been an
accessory to the threat outside the USA.
And you may also note that Shultz repeatedly talks of this action as sending
a message - exactly the kind of thing that the US-Un agreement speaks against!

What if tomorrow Baker decided that since the Philippines was not signing a
new base agreement [hypothetical], Cory Aquino would not be allowed to come
to address the UN.

If Arafat had been allowed to talk at the UN, either he would have had to
explicitly state that he accepts the right of Israel to exist and that he
absolutely renounces terrorism; or his statements would have been dismissed
as a rehash. If he'd done the former, the peace process could advance; if he'd
done the latter, nothing new and he loses all the diplomatic advantage.

But by this action, the US has given Arafat a far larger stature than he ever
could have imagined; and he could now speak defiantly of how the US is
impeding the peace process and his rhetoric about "how much more do we have to
go, when I am not even allowed to speak" will be interpreted more
sympathetically allowing him a bigger loophole to escape without much
substantive announcements!

-parthi

re .-

>If Arafat had been allowed to talk at the UN, either he would have had to
>explicitly state that he accepts the right of Israel to exist and that he
>absolutely renounces terrorism; or his statements would have been dismissed
>as a rehash. 

Neither logic nor probability leads *me* to your interesting forecast of
what will happen when Arafat speaks to the UN.

He will undoubtedly get his chance in Geneva - we'll see than.

>re .-

>>If Arafat had been allowed to talk at the UN, either he would have had to
>>explicitly state that he accepts the right of Israel to exist and that he
>>absolutely renounces terrorism; or his statements would have been dismissed
>>as a rehash. 

>Neither logic nor probability leads *me* to your interesting forecast of
>what will happen when Arafat speaks to the UN.

>He will undoubtedly get his chance in Geneva - we'll see than.


As far as world opinion goes, you are probably right.  As far as the informed
pundits go, I would think Parthi is right.  Either Arafat will say something
new and meaningful or he won't.  If he doesn't then he comes off as riding the
fence as usual.  Our keeping him out probably makes it easier for world opinion
to support him after an insubstantial statement.

Gavriel

    There are news reports today that a group of American Jewish leaders
    are in Stockholm to meet with Yassir Arafat.  Has anyone heard who they
    are, how they were selected, and what they expect to do at this
    meeting?
    
    ---Av

< Note 590.10 by GRECO::FRYDMAN "wherever you go...you're there" >
                              -< What's up now?? >-

	I heard the same thing on the radio last night.  Arafat the 
	Prime Minster of Palestine speaking to a selected group of
	American Jewish leaders.  Maybe, just maybe we have hope for
	peace after all.  

	Maybe there trying to come up with a plant code for the next
	Digital facility to open in Israel/Palestine.  I heard they 
	want to name it PLO-DEC branch

	a'lykum a-salam,
	-Sultan

    Re: 590.11
    
    PLO is the DEC location code for Portland, Maine.

	I happened to be in Geneva (EHQ) the other day when
	Arafat landed.  The security around Geneva and the French
	border was, to put it mildly, interesting.

	Now that he has spoken at the U.N., both the Israeli
	and U.S. Governments will, if for no other reason than
	"oneupmanship" have to make a political concession to
	his presentation.

	Admittedly, there's a lot of milk and blood that's gone
	under the bridge, but the real test of all, and I use the
	term loosly, three governments will be if they really want
	peace or simply political posturing.  My father used to say
	" either ____ or get off the toilet".

	Aha, what the hell, a lot more dead bodies is really more
	fun, helps the population explosion, and keeps the arms
	makers in business...forget everything I said!

	my 2-cents

re: all who care,

	I think that Mr. Arafat in his U.N. address, said in detail
	what the world(includes anyone who is someone) wanted to hear.

	It has been made known to the world what his intentions are 
	and how far he is willing to go(without kissing someone's a$$) 
	to provide his people with a homeland.

	Yes, I agree that Israeli government has decided long ago that
	it will not give one inch.

	Arafat has moved in the direction for peace....AND he will be 
	waiting for the OTHER side to do the same.



	Hope you all enjoyed your long holiday,
	Best,
	-Sultan

    I watched ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel last night.  The guests
    were the PLO spokesman, the head of the American Jewish delegation
    to Sweeden last week, and George Will of ABC.  It turned out that
    the US Gov. requested three statements from Mr. Arafat, renouncing
    terrorism, aceepting Israel and something els, as a condition for
    talks between the US and the PLO.  Arafat said two of the condition
    and changed the third.  That was the reason the US accuses Arafat
    of ambiguity.
    
    George Will noted that the reason for this change was accepting
    Israel within frameworks of UN resolutions, among which are not
    only 242 and 338, but also the one that equates Zionism with racism
    and does not have a right to exist.
    
    Leo Simon

    	I too watched Nightline last night. I was somewhat shocked between
    the "friendly banter" between the PLO representative and Rita Hauser.
    Don't know why, I just felt as he were manipulating her in public,
    and scoring big PR points in the process. George Will seemed totally
    exasperated and ignored in his attempt to inject some skepticism     
    into the process. I was also struck by the phrase about spilling
    Jewish and Palestinian blood... I thought they were talking about
    Israel and Palestinians, but Jews must be all the same to dear Bassam.
    	I don't know why, but last night I've come to the conclusion
    that Shamir really is right, and what's happening is a monstrous
    sham orchestrated by the PLO. I think all the dancing Arafat is
    doing is much more significant than the image he is trying to project.
    	I also think Israel is losing very badly on the PR front, and
    the American Jewish (who do they represent anyway) delegation in
    Sweden was a major blow from an unexpected direction... Don't know
    why, but I have this sad and bitter aftertaste in my mouth after
    last night, almost a premonition of doom.
    
    DG

>    I have this sad and bitter aftertaste in my mouth after
>    last night, 
	
     Maybe what "DG" needs is some mouth cleanser
	(ie: scope,listeren,certs) something to help this poor sole.

	Enjoy,
	-Sultan

    It's as if representatives of all the nations of the world agreed
    to suspend their disbelief at Geneva. It's even more cynacal:  they
    agreed to pretend to suspend their disbelief.
    
    All the nations, from Western Europe to the Third World know what
    Arafat is after.  And let's face it:  they don't care.  They just
    want to be rid of the headache.  And if that means the liquidation
    of Israel.....so, what else is new.
    
    In so far as Israel's position is concerned, I think that it still
    has the strongest card.  PLO statements toward the "recognition"
    of Israel are meaningless.  A group recognizing a state?  That's
    like me recognizing the Rocky Mountains.  But the reverse, Israel's
    agreeing to talk to the PLO would be momentous.  It is the only
    gesture that could give legitimacy  to that group.  And that gesture
    will not be forthcoming, I think, the following reason:
    
    Recognition of a Palestinian state is recognition of a sovereign
    state, one that cannot be told that it cannot have a standing army,
    that cannot tolerate foreign soldiers on its soil, that can, if
    it wills, serve as a staging area for mobilization of Arab armies.
    
    More, later, perhaps.

    He's denounced terrorism,
    
    but has never conceded that the PLO has engaged in terrorism against
    Israel.  And he's recognized Israel (sort of),
    
    but has not repudiated the PLO charter which calls for its destruction.
    
    I can understand why he does this; his position is tenuous vis-a-vis
    his relationship with other PLO factions.  But that doesn't alter the
    fact that he'll really have to come up with something constructive in
    order to bring Israel to the bargaining table.  Therefore, I cannot
    understand those who would credit his UN speech as a peace initiative -
    he's said nothing new for a long time. 
    
    /Ed

Yassir has already started with his doubletalk. The more we get him to open
his mouth, the more the world will learn that he has no intention of
renouncing the goal of destruction of the state of Israel. I still think
stone-walling the guy is the wrong way to go in this public-relations battle.
Isn't there some half-way between "negotiations" and "complete silence"?

Dave (another DG here)

    
    
    Arafat's bargaining table is an international conference where Israel
    would be subject to pressure from other attending countries to give
    in to Palestinian demands. He has never agreed to sit down and confer
    head to head, Palestinian and Israeli. 

    	re.17 
    	I don't understand YOUR GLOATING TONE. Let alone the fact that
    I don't remember ever engaging you in an acrimonius debate, or some
    such action provoking your note. If you just want to goad a person
    you don't even know, be my guest, moron.
    	I have a sinking feeling PLO's posturing is linked with Gorbachev's
    "peace offensive", and we are all in for it. I couldn't decide until
    last night if the PLO's change were genuine, but I think not.
    
    DG

re:-1
	Sorry "DG", don't take it to hard.  I am just fustrated.

	There seems to be no compromise.

	Mit as-cif,
	-Sultan

re: Note 590.23 by MAMIE::SAADEH 

>	There seems to be no compromise.

	Yes, there is...

	Arafat needs to say ... needs to say several times in a row,
	to a couple of different fora ... and admit later, that he
	said, a few things, like:

		1)  Look, I want to live in peace.  I want to live in
		    peace in a Palestinian state. I recognize that
		    Israel, the Jewish State exists, and is going to
		    continue to exist. I want to live in peace alongside it.

		    We, the PLO, are totally dedicated to peace in the
		    region. We NO LONGER BELIEVE that

			"The goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, 
			 and there  can  be  no compromise."

		    nor that
 
			"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel.  
			 We are  preparing  for an all-out war, a war which 
			 will last for generations..."

		    The PLO believes that statements like 

			"The war of attrition against the Zionist enemy will 
			 never  cease  ... It  is  in  my interest to have a 
			 war in the region, because I believe that the only 
			 remedy for the ills of the Arab nation  is  a  true  
			 war against the Zionist enemy." 

		    are now outdated.  It is no longer the in PLO's interest to 
		    have a war; it is in our interest to have a peace.

		2)  We would be willing to compromise with the Israelis to 
		    reach a peace settlement. We DEMAND that the 
		    Israelis be willing to compromise, likewise.

		3)  Because we want to live in peace with ourselves, our
		    other Arab neighbors, and the Jewish State of Israel,
		    we are no longer going to consider Israeli citizens
		    legitimate "targets."  We will have to defend ourselves 
		    from outside attack, but we will no longer commit terrorist 
		    acts against Israel, Israelis, or anyone else.

		 4) We are changing our covenant. We want it to reflect PLO
		    leadership in the Arab world: a model demonstrating the 
		    PLO's heartfelt desire to live in peace with ALL the 
		    peoples and states in the Middle East.


	That would go a **long** way towards "when will there be peace over 
	there".


>	Mit as-cif,

	I'm sorry, I don't understand much Arabic. Please help me.


/don feinberg

    re: 24
    
    I like your suggestions, especially item 4.  However I'm afraid
    that Arafat will have to do more than say these things.  He's going
    to have to demonstrate them. How?  I don't know.  It may be that
    an acceptable demonstration will take many years.

RE:.24
>	Mit as-cif, IN ARABIC

=	I'm sorry, IN ENGLISH

RE:OTHERS,

	You want him to say what he already said, and have the Israeli
	government in the mean time use conventional weapons against a
	group of rock throwing youths.  

	Compromise means just that.  Both sides giving in a little.

	Don't that so called democratic government ever run out of ammo.

	Good day,
	-Sultan



	

>>		Mit as-cif, IN ARABIC

>>		=	I'm sorry, IN ENGLISH

	Thank you!

>	You want him to say what he already said, and have the Israeli
>	government in the mean time use conventional weapons against a
>	group of rock throwing youths.  

	Just a few examples: 

	Do you mean like the 250 pound pebbles heaved down from rooftops onto 
	Egged busses?

	Do you mean like Molotov cocktails on civilian cars, trucks, and
	busses?

	Do you mean like the big rocks heaved down on car rooftops every night
	as people drive through the Shomron?

	Do you mean like the rocks and firebombs that are thrown at ARAB
	vehicles by Arab youths? (of course, conveniently not reported here)

	Do you mean like the four Arab leaders who were butchered alive
	by intifada gangs, for keeping their jobs with the Israeli civil
	administration? [...During the last four months while I was in
	Israel.  Do you mean that this wasn't reported here, either?
	That's a pity.]

	Maybe there's something I don't understand....Sultan, PLEASE answer 
	all these questions directly.  Somehow, I think you're trying to make it
	seem as if the intifada is just non-violent civil disobedience. Or,
	that it's just a few kids throwing pebbles. It just isn't that way.  
	IT'S REAL, LIVE, HATRED AND VIOLENCE. Face it! I've personally been 
	on the receiving end.

	You know, you would do much to endear youself to us, if you'd care to,
	and to Israelis, if somehow you could recognize that violence
	for what it is, and feel a little ashamed of it.

	I don't think that you should feel ashamed of your goals.  But 
	please express your shame and embarassment that both Arabs and Jews 
	are getting hurt  as a result of Arab violence.  Or, do you expect
	Israel to simply not respond to the violence?  Please answer this
	question.

	I'm willing to say it.  And I've said it publicly in Israel, too.  
	I decry the fact that Arabs are getting hurt.  I am embarrassed 
	when the IDF oversteps boundaries.

	What about you?

>	You want him to say what he already said, and have the Israeli

	A major problem is that he either hasn't said it, or won't admit later
	that he's said it.  When people say that he's said it, he won't
	talk about those statements later. 

	The biggest problems the Israelis have, in my own opinion, are

		a) The Charter -- which calls for the violent destruction of 
			Israel, AND WHICH STILL STANDS

			He has to make a clear statement about this.

		b) The direct encouragement which several members of the
			Algiers group gave to increasing the level of
			violence in the Shomron and Gaza

			He already made a clear statement promoting the
			violence.

		c) The fact that not only is Arafat inconsistent from hour
			to hour, but his lieutenants make totally
			contradictory statements.  Examples: The day after the
			Algiers meetings, the PLO represntative to France
			met with top officials of the French Government, to
			"reassure" them that "nothing agreed to in Algiers
			speaks to the recognition of Israel".  Habash
			made a similar statement, the same day.

			Who, or what should we believe? He's the leader,
			he'd better make a statement.


	Can't you see this?


/don feinberg

According to something I half-heard on NPR's All Things Considered this
evening, Arafat clarified his UN remarks in such a way that Sec. of State
Shultz is now (rumored to be) willing to talk to the PLO face to face.
"This is a significant change."

Tonight might be a good time to watch Nightline.

Martin.

 
   WASHINGTON (UPI) _ The following are texts of statements by
Secretary of State George Shultz and President Reagan Wednesday
concerning a U.S.-Palestine Liberation Organization dialogue:

   Secretary of State George Shultz:
   "The Palestine Liberation Organization today issued a statement in
which it accepts U.N. resolutions 242 and 338, recognizes Israel's right
to exist in peace and security and renounces terrorism. As a result, the
United States is prepared for a substantive dialogue with PLO
representatives.
   "I am designating our ambassador to Tunisia as the only authorized
channel  for that dialogue.
   "The objective of the United States remains as always: a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
   "In that light, I view this development as one more step toward
the beginning of direct negotiations between the parties, which alone
can lead to such a peace.
   "Nothing here may be taken to imply an acceptance or recognition
by the United States of an independent Palestinian state. The position
of the United States is (that) the status of the West Bank and Gaza
cannot be determined by unilateral acts of either side, but only through
a process of negotiations. The United States does not recognize the
declaration of an independent Palestinian state.
   "It is also important to emphasize that the U.S. commitment to the
security of Israel remains unflinching."

   President Reagan:
   "The Palestine Liberation Organization today issued a statement in
which it accepted United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and
338, recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism. These
have long been our conditions for a substantive dialogue. They have been
met.
   "Therefore, I have authorized the State Department to enter into a
substantive dialogue with PLO representatives.
   "The Palestine Liberation Organization must live up to its
statements. In particular, it must demonstrate that its renunciation of
terrorism is pervasive and permanent.
   "The initiation of a dialogue between the United States and the
PLO representatives is an important step in the peace process, the more
so because it represents the serious evolution of Palestinian thinking
towards realistic and pragmatic positions on the key issues.
   "But the objective of the United States remains, as always, a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East. In that light, we view this
development as one more step toward the beginning of direct negotiations
between the parties, which alone can lead to such a peace.
   "The United States' special commitment to Israel's security and
well-being remains unshakeable. Indeed, a major reason for our entry
into this dialogue is to help Israel achieve the recognition and
security it deserves."
   
 
    

	I have never been ashamed of my goals my good friend.  I have
	mentioned all your points in the past and to this date nothing
	has changed.  The violence on both sides needs to end.  If we
	are throwing rocks then throw rocks, but don't go putting 
	families in shame, and in morning their dead, by using 
	weapons designed for a conventional war.
	talk about those statements later. 

	I can see as clear and broad as any other educated person.  
	Yes, violence is evedent on both sides.  But the government
	of Israel are going out of their way not to come to the table.

	-Sultan

    In last night's ABC Nightline both Henry Kissinger and Israel MP
    Benjamen Nataniyahu correctly noted that at the
    Algier's meeting of the PNC it was stated that the Palestinian Charter
    is not going to be changed.  The Charter that calls for the destruction
    of Israel was quoted many times here.

        Here goes "peace solution" again!
    
    Leo Simon

    RE: 590.31

    >                            it was stated that the Palestinian Charter
    >is not going to be changed.

    Lots of things have been said--and not said.  After watching Arafat's
    press conference, I have come to the conclusion that there are people
    in the PLO who are serious about wanting peace.  If that is the
    case, it is time to start talking.
    
    Talking does not mean agreeing in advance to anything.  Talking
    does not (necessarily) mean an international conference.  Talking
    does not mean liking each other.  Talking does not mean dismantling
    defenses.
    
    Talking to each other does not necessarily mean that problems will
    be solved, but it does hold out the hope of settling at least some
    of the problems without bloodshed.  Whenever there is that possibility,
    I think we must grasp it.
    
    						Aaron

    	Thank you Sultan, for your civility (though I too can't read
    the arabic apology, hmmm.. :-).
    	Now, something interesting has been going on in the media -
    Israel is once again the underdog! The world is on the side of Arafat,
    USA seems to be drifting, and Israel - isolated and under pressure
    - suddenly has legitimate security concerns! The strong supporters
    of Israel are now interviewed often and with sympathy, and they
    are articulating hard-line views with more assurance. Once again
    the fundamental problems of security, annexation, etc., etc., are
    on the mainstream agenda.
    	I think what's been happening in the last two days is the political
    undertow - while PLO is scoring explicit diplomatic points, Israel
    is succeeding in the battle for the hearts and minds of the ordinary
    folk. This has the potential of becoming a major PR coup - especially
    if PLO launches another bloody attack soon, and shows up Arafat's
    words as mere propaganda. On the other hands if the armed resistance
    by PLO is brought under control, fewer people will die in Israel,
    and PLO will find itself under extreme factional pressure. One doesn't
    train an army of guerillas, arms them, indoctrinates them - and
    then tells them to sit pat indefinitely (not with any success, anyway).
    	Suddenly, the Arab states' attitude towards PLO is public
    knowledge, USSR is drifting towards recognizing Israel, and
    powers-that-be act almost embarassed for taking Arafat at his word.
    
    DG

    
  	I have a good idea for all of us:
    
    	Read .32 at least once a day. Maybe we will all be the better
    	for it.

Seems to me that what we really want and need are:

1. exclusive military control of the Golan 
   (quite achievable if we make a separate peace
   with the Palestinians to the exclusion of Syria)

2. military domination over the West Bank and exclusive military
   presence along the Jordan. (domination does NOT mean omnipresence or
   law enforcement responsibilities... just overwhelming
   military power vis-a-vis whatever Palestinian forces are
   allowed to operate in the West Bank

3. a recognition of Jews' rights to live in Yehuda and Shomron
   in peace, with a suitably fudged arrangement concerning
   "sovereignty" and "extra-territoriality" of Jewish Settlements.

And although I have no illusions about Arafat ("a snake in a suit is just
a well-dressed snake" as Benny Begin said (I think it was he)), frankly
I don't care. It is all a question of whether we are better off or worse
off if we miss this chance. Since we still have the main card the
PLO wants it seems to me we have a good chance of getting ALL of the
above 1-3 and then some more, too!

Remember this: if a compromise solution with the PLO did NOT work out
it would be through continuing terrorist organization and activity.
I think that would lead to such a massive Israeli attack (maybe in 
the context of a general war with the Palestinians and some 
Arab state)  that the result really would be a "transfer" 
of much of the Palestinian population... possible in that context
because so many people in Israel would feel justified in that reaction.
And since the PLO knows this full well, they would have every reason to
make this NOT happen. Similar remarks concern engaging in terror 
during the long period of negotiations.

So personally, although the risks
are frightening to me, so too are the possible advantages enticing!

    re: .35
    
    I think that you're a bit optimistic, especially concerning number
    3 on your list.
    
    David

    I agree with .36 that point 3 in .35 is more than a bit optimistic
    -- if any settlements are allowed to remain, they'll be very
    constrained in their sovereignty.  No country can allow so many
    "extra-territorial" islands within its territory.  The settlers
    know this and thus have no interest whatsoever in a peaceful
    settlement, short of something rather (uh) extreme.
    
    The PLO does, however, have an interest in achieving a peaceful
    accomodation with Israel.  If they were granted an independent state
    (consistent with .1 and .2 of reply.35), then they'd still be
    economically rather a basket case, people-rich and resource-poor.
    They'd need Israel as a source of jobs and markets.  So many
    Palestinians now work in Israel that the economies of the two areas are
    throroughly intertwined.  An independent Palestine might make an effort
    to separate itself, but it would be a long, slow and probably
    unprofitable effort.  An independent Palestine at peace with, and
    freely trading with, Israel would be economically more viable. And in
    politics, people vote their pocketbooks first unless other things get
    very bad (which is now the case for many Palestinians). 

       _      Israelis are Palestinians too (geographically speaking).
   ___/ |\
   | ++ |G)   Let's get our terminology straight and be precise in our
   / + +|/    references. Palestine refers to the outlined region with
   | +**|     the exception of Golan Heights (G). "Independent Palestine"
   | +**|     by definition would swallow Israel. "Independent Palestinian
   | ***|     State" (IPS) would include (at most) Yehuda v' Shomron aka West
   | +**|     Bank (*), Gaza and parts of Jerusalem (J) (pre-1967 borders),
   |  J*|     in addition, most countries have never accepted even the
   / +**\     post-1948 boundaries, and so IPS will also lay claim to the
  /% ****|    post-1948 territory (+). This leaves Israel with (at least)
 /%+ +**(     the Negev in the South, parts of Galil in the North and a 20mile
 \++ ++  \    strip of land along the Mediterranian. I believe that will be
  |      |    PLO's initial and minimal claim.
   \     |
   |    /     Regarding poverty stricken IPS' need to cooperate with Israel
   \    |     on economic grounds: Halomot.
    \  /
     \_|

    re .37: On item 3 in a previous note, on a news show (I think All
    Things Considered) a few weeks back there was a piece about two
    different groups of Orthodox living in the same West Bank village.
    One, represented by NRP, was adamant on Israel possesing the land.
    The other, I forgot what group, just wanted to be able to live on
    the land, regardless of what legal state it was part of.
    
    Maybe there is some hope.
    

>    Maybe there is some hope.
    

	I just heard yesterday (on radio station WEEI), but I cannot give 
	the sources -- I hope someone else can...

	Several of Arafat's aides have been running around to embassies
	in Europe, claiming that Arafat's remarks at the UN in Geneva were 
	"Arafat's personal opinion only", and that they "in no way were 
	representative of the PLO's actual position".

	Hmmm.  Starting so soon?

don feinberg

    RE: 590.40

    It may be that Arafat is only concerned with PR.  It may be that
    there are groups in the PLO that are doing their best to sabotage
    any move toward peace.  It may be that nothing will come of talking
    to the PLO.

    But it might.

    Obviously, one of the (many) points we need to resolve prior to any
    agreement is precisely whether Arafat's comments were authoritative
    or not.  Another question is whether Arafat can enforce his side
    of any agreement.  There are many things that can go wrong.  Talk
    may not accomplish anything.

    But it might.

    Hope is not peace, but it is not nothing either.

                                           Aaron

    Abba Eban had some interesting comments on the McNeil-Lehrer report
    the other day.
    
    "If the words mean nothing to Arafat, why has taken 15 years for
    him to utter them?"
    
    WS

>    Abba Eban had some interesting comments on the McNeil-Lehrer report
>    the other day.
>    
>    "If the words mean nothing to Arafat, why has taken 15 years for
>    him to utter them?"

He may have been concerned that it would get him shot by some of his
compatriots.

    re:-1
    
    The something has changed and if so what?
    
    WS

An AP story in today's Boston Globe:

Jerusalem -- The Mayor of the West Bank town of Bethlehem, who proposed a
truce in the Palestinian uprising, appeared to be in hiding yesterday after
a warning from Yasser Arafat and death threats painted on town walls.

    Re: .45
    
    This "warning" from Arafat appears now to be more disinformation
    put out by the Israeli government.  Both the PLO information offficer
    and the Mayor have denied the existence of the "warning".  This
    seems to be similar to the situation when Mubarak Awad was being
    deported, and the Israeli government was quoting him as saying the
    Palestinians demanded all of Israel.  The Israeli ambassador to
    the U.S. even used this quote in an opinion piece in the New York
    Times.  Then, fortunately, someone who had tape recorded the actual
    speech came forward, and showed that what Awad actually said was
    on the order of:  the Palestinians want all the land, you Israelis
    want all the land, and what we both must do is come together and
    compromise.
    

    Karen,
    
    Will you please supply us with the sourse from which you learned
    that it was "more disinformation put out by the Israeli government"?
             
    Leo Simon

    The UPI newswires reported the information officer's denial of the
    threat, as well as the mayor's statement that he didn't believe
    it had been made.  The only source for the statement is Arens.
                             

Reprinted without permission from an article in the January 6 edition of
The Jerusalem Post:

	In a statement broadcast on Radio Monte Carlo's Arabic-language
	service on Monday [January 2], Arafat said: "Any Palestinian leader
	who proposes an end to the intifada exposes himself to the bullets
	of his own people and endangers his life.  The PLO will know how
	to deal with him."

The article was written by Wolf Blitzer, who is as reliable a source as
anyone reporting on the Middle East.  (He's certainly more reliable than
the Post as a whole, much more so than the UPI, and probably more so than
Mr. Arens.)  Radio Monte Carlo itself is quite pro-Arab and pro-PLO, and
it would be out of character for them to misrepresent Arafat.

From "Kol Ha'ir", January 13, 1989:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FREIJ: "THE CLAIMS THAT I AM HIDING - NONSENSE"

The Mayor Of Beit Lechem Stands To Sue The News Service Ap For
Distributing The Newsitem That He Is In Hiding To Save His Life.

 by Haled Abu-Tuame


 The mayor of Beit Lechem, Elias Friej, is planning upon
bringing suit against the American news service AP for an item
distributed last week, that claimed he was in hiding due to threats
upon his life.
.....
 This week Friej angrily said that the report distributed by
the Associated PRrss was a fabrication and false. The report claimed
that Freij was in hiding for his life, following Arafat's threat and
following the slogans and pamphlets condemning Friej's proposal and
labeling him a "traitor".

 It was further said, that the mayor is not reporting to work in
his office, does not answer the phone at his home, and does not
receive visitors at home either.
....
 "I'm sorry
that a dignified news agency with a world-wide reputation such as AP
commits such follies", he said.

    
    

    Re: -.1
    
    Any more news if Freij brought the claim to court?
    
    So far I got the following piece from usenet:
    

    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Path: decwrl!labrea!agate!bionet!ames!amdahl!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Ilan
Subject: Re: Please answer this
Posted: 1 Feb 89 06:53:16 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
 
"Arafat denounced calls by many people in the West Bank and the Gaza
6954.3.1123.4 Re: Please answer this                                        
1/27/89 13:27 hijab@cad.Berkeley.EDU (Raif Hijab) writes:
             
>When this story first broke, I read a report of it in the Kuwaiti            
>Arabic-language newspaper Al-Qabas. I do not have that issue in front        
>of me, but my recollection of it does not include a mention of the            
>desire to "put 10 bullets in the chest" of anyone. Rather, what Arafat        
>said was that anyone calling for a stop to the uprising in the West           
>Bank and Gaza would subject themselves to the "wrath of our people".
 
At the time the report came out, Hijab kept silent.  Now he is attempting
to rewrite history, as usual. Here's the proof:          
 
 
======
 
Ha'aretz (the country), January 3, 1989, reports:
 
Written by the Ha'aretz's Arab issues expert correspondent:
 
"THE BLOOD OF THOSE ADVOCATING THIS, IS ON THEIR HEADS"
 
"ARAFAT REPRIMANDED SUGGESTIONS TO CALL FOR A CEASE FIRE OR
STOPPAGE OF ANY VIOLENT ACTION."
 
"Arafat denounced calls by many people in the West Bank and the Gaza
strip, including the governmental chief in Bethlehem, to stop the rioting
or to a cease fire, and warned that THE BLOOD of those demanding such
acts would be their own responsibility.  Arafat said: anyone who attempts
to stop or slow down the Intifada is opening himself to be hit by bullets
of his own people, and places his life in jeopardy since the PLO ALREADY
KNOWS how to deal with such a person.
 
In a speach that delivered in Riad [sic] to commemorate the 24th year
of the first attack of the Fatah, Arafat declared that the dialogue
between the PLO and the U.S.A that was help recently in Tunisia was
not the first of its kind.  He also said that the Intifada affected 70% of
the occupying Zionist forces during the past 13 months.
 
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front
[sic], and the Popular Front [sic] -- the general infromation office
denounced Freij for his recommendations to call for elections
under the Israeli controls.
 
Head of the Palestinian council and one of Arafat's assistants, Salim
Al Zanon [sic], also called Abu al-Adib [sic], declared that 'the time has
come to start using LIVE weapons against the Israelies'.
 
Arafat is scheduled to arrive in Jordan this Saturday in order to
discuss with King Hussein an organized effort between Jordan and
the Palestinians."
 
 
=====
 
 
U.S based "Israel Shelanu", January 13, 1989, reports:
(Translated from Hebrew):
 
" 'Arafat`s threats too kill anyone who recommends to stop the Intifada,
stand in bad light with respect to his denouncement of terrorism', said
the Secretary of State, George Schultz.
 
Schultz was refering to an interview with Yasir Arafat broadcast live
on the RADIO in Monte Carlo, where Arafat said that any Palestinian
leader who attempts to conclude the Intifada is opening himself to be
hit by bullets of his own people and is placing his own life in jeopardy.
The PLO knows how to deal with him.
 
...
 
Phyllis Oakly [sic] spokesman for the state, said that Arafats comments
do not help in advancing peace talks in the Middle East."
 
 
 
note: my own comments are bracketed.
 
  - Ilan Rabinowitz -
  Ilan@cup.portal.com
    

    I don't know if the claim is in court.  I see, however, that in
    contrast to the news coverage of this situation, Sharon's
    call for the assassination of Arafat seems invisible in the U.S.
    news media.  I wonder why that is.
    

    Karen,
    
    Please do not switch the subject to Sharon. 
    
    I do believe that with all the publicity that Arafat's threats got
    in the media, we would have heard by now if the matter was in court.
    I am also sure that you would not have failed to post the news in
    this file, right?
    
    Regards,
    Leo
    
    
    

    re: 52
    
    If Sharon's threat is, as you say "invisible" in the US press, it
    is probably because it is generally known that there are probably
    no Smerdyakovs in Sharon's audience.