Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!ittvax!aouriri From: aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Middle East settlment. Message-ID: <587@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 19:37:52 EST Article-I.D.: ittvax.587 Posted: Wed Feb 5 19:37:52 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:00:27 EST References: <132@mit-vax.UUCP> <584@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <329@pluto.UUCP> Organization: ITT-ATC, Shelton Ct. Lines: 111 Warren Burnstein writes: [] > Chedley Aouriri writes: > Indeed, this is the QUI-PRO-CO of the american administration and the > israelis. Israel, and the US government, claim that they will not talk > -officially- to any palestinian or PLO representative, unless the PNC > is repudiated. On the other side, the palestinians and the PLO cannot > repudiate their PNC without getting in return something tangible, such > as negotiations to establish a palestinian state. > > Note that there are ways around this. For example, all UN resolutions > are accepted by the PLO, including resolutions 338 and 242 which > unequivocally recognize and mention Israel as a sovereign state. > > I am not convinced this has happened. If the PLO has accepted these > resolutions and it has not been reported in the media, they should try > holding a press conference in which Yassir Arafat says "The PLO > accepts UN resolutions 242 and 338 and calls on Israel to negotiate > with it without preconditions. Everything will be open to discussion > but neither side will be expected to make any concessions whatsoever > before the meeting." I recall that once a PLO spokesperson said that > the PLO recognized UN resolutions on the Middle East. It was thought > that this included 242/338, but it turned out all that was meant was > UN condemnations of Israel. > > Chedley, do you think this might work? Could it hurt even if it failed? > > Please convince me that I am wrong, that the PLO really wants a > negotiated peace, that there is ever so slight a chance that it would > amend the PNC and stop calling for the total destruction of Israel. > ***************************************** First, let me state that I am not a PLO member and that I do not represent in any way any organization. The opinions and writings I post on the net are strictly mine. ***************************************** Concerning UN resolutions 338 and 242, the Arab League has declared more than once, publicly, officially and privately that it accepts them. The latest being the Arab peace plan issued after the Rabat Summit of Arab heads of states and kings. Therefore the PLO who is a full member of the Arab League accepts them as well. Now, it is obvious that for political and public relations reasons, the PLO states publicly that it "accepts ALL UN resolutions pertaining to the Middle East, including those resolutions condemning Israel". However, the term ALL means the inclusion of resoultions 338 and 242. We should remember that the PLO is not a monolithic organization. Actually it is an umbrella organization of several groups covering a wide political spectrum (yes, Abu Nidhal is the head of one of those groups). The PLO has then to modulate its public declarations and statements to play to different audiences, including the radical and extremist audiences. The other side of the coin is the israeli position. It is Israel's official position not to talk to any PLO member or representative unless the PLO amends its covenant (the PNC) and accepts "publicly" Israel's existence. Even on american TV programs, members of the israeli government are not allowed to debate simultaneously with PLO members or representatives. This is also the "official" US administration position. It seems clear to me that Israel does not want to talk to the PLO, or any other palestinian for that matter, unless the pre-condition of public official recognition of Israel is met. It is also clear that Israel does not want to acknowledge or recognize the PLO. How to break the dealock? I think Israel -and the US- can and should take the PLO and the Arab League at their word, ie. agree to start talks without ANY PRE-CONDITIONS ON EITHER SIDE. This means Israel and the US should drop their pre-condition of official and public recognition of Israel by the arab side. Remember the fall of 1977, when the US did just that: ie talking without pre-condition with PLO members. Israel dispatched then one of its government ministers to New-York, and got a position reversal from the US government in the form of a "memo of understanding". Talks have been aborted, and the US vowed not to do it anymore. Also in 1981, the US representative in the UN lost his job because he held private discussions with the PLO observer in the UN. As of this year, a major stalling is observed about the members who will represent the palestinian side (note: not even the PLO) within a jordan delegation in peace talks. Because those palestinian representatives need at least the approval of the PLO, stalling by Israel has not been budged yet. It seems that today in the Middle East, Israel has the key for peace and also the key for future wars. Which key it chooses to use? I still hope that Israel's military superiority does not blind it from seeking peace. Yes, Israel should "give peace a chance" now that it apparently has the upper hand militarily, and the backing of the US. For military balances and political alliances are not static! Helas, yesterday's interception of an arab civilian airplane by israeli military jets shows that Israel is not inclined to use the peace key. (Mr. Feingold, I hope your are happy now that those "jewish warplanes" are roaring again over the Mediterranean blue sky, even if they did not catch any fish!!) CHEDLEY AOURIRI, ITT-ATC, Shelton,CT. ....ittatc!ittvax!aouriri