Friday, December 18, 1998     29 Kislev 5759 
Jerusalem Post

Show biz in Gaza 

  By MOSHE ARENS 


  (December 18) - Most of Israel, and many throughout the world,
  watched Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's
  appearance in Gaza before an assembly of Palestinian
  dignitaries that included many members of the Palestinian
  National Council, expecting to witness the revocation of the
  clauses in the Palestinian Covenant calling for the destruction of
  the State of Israel.

  The PNC was, or maybe still is, the highest decision-making
  body of the PLO, an organization founded over 35 years ago with
  the explicit aim of destroying the State of Israel. Just what is the
  relation between the PLO, claiming to represent the Palestinians
  residing in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and also the Palestinian
  "diaspora," and the PA, elected after the OsIo agreements by the
  Palestinians of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, seems to be
  deliberately left unclear by the Palestinians.

  What should be clear is that it is in Israel's interest to deal with the
  PA rather than with the PLO, avoiding giving legitimacy to the
  PLO's demand for the "right of return" for their diaspora
  constituents. It is difficult to fathom why the Israeli delegation at
  Wye Plantation initiated the idea of the PLO spectacular in Gaza
  with the participation of President Bill Clinton, and moreover
  hailed it as part of Israel's "diplomatic triumph" there.

  A triumph it was, but not for Israel. Arafat, dressed as usual in
  olive-drab, after delivering a lengthy programatic address, without
  further ado turned to the subject at hand. "Now," he said, "in the
  presence of President Clinton, our great guest, and in
  accordance with the Wye agreements, I turn to you, to all of you,
  to support the letter that I sent to Clinton, and to recognize the
  decisions that we have already taken for peace. Do you accept,
  are you ready, to raise your hands in support of the content of this
  letter?"'

  Many hands in the audience were raised in response. One of the
  Palestinians present afterward said sarcastically, "I even raised
  both my feet."

  To any objective observer with a minimal acquaintance of
  parliamentary procedure, it is obvious that if it was the Israeli
  government's aim to have the PNC revoke the offensive sections
  of the Palestinian Covenant, that objective was most certainly not
  accomplished at the Gaza meeting.

  This certainly must have been clear to the president of the United
  States who was witness to the unparliamentary spectacle. This is
  no way to change a covenant, to amend a constitution, or to pass
  a law. Clinton preferred to gloss over these failings and to
  congratulate the audience for its "momentous" decision. Then he
  went on to pledge the support of the American people for
  Palestinian aspirations. When he equated the children of parents
  killed by Palestinian terrorists that he met in Israel with the
  children of the jailed terrorists who perpetrated these acts that he
  met in Gaza, this must have been the last straw for most Israelis.

  It seemed to be a message that from now on US policy would be
  "even-handed." Israel, the victim of Palestinian terror, was being
  equated with the men who had perpetrated these acts of terror.
  One can only hope that the president of the United States was not
  fully aware of just who and what he was facing in Gaza and that a
  sober reappraisal will prevail when he returns to Washington.

  There is a lesson here for the Israeli government. Negotiations
  with our Arab neighbors should be held directly. Involving our
  best friend and great ally the United States in these negotiations
  inevitably forces the US to distance itself from Israel in order to
  assure an even-handed posture. The ally turns into an arbiter,
  and that is certainly not in our best interest.

  Possibly too much attention has been focused on the demand to
  revise the Palestinian Covenant. And yet, a lingering doubt
  continues to hover over the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Is
  Arafat incapable or unwilling to bring about a proper revision of
  the Covenant?

  In the first case, it is an indication that the prevailing opinion of
  the members of the PNC is opposed to the elimination of the
  clauses calling for the destruction of Israel. In the latter, it raises
  doubts regarding Arafat's own ultimate intentions. His repeated
  announcements that he is fighting terrorism with all the means at
  his disposal are not given much credence by Israel's security
  professionals. It is generally agreed that some of the worst
  terrorist outrages of recent years could have been prevented by
  Arafat and his security services. It seems that he is unwilling
  rather than incapable.

  On leaving the Gaza meeting, Palestinians were heard to say that
  "the show is over." The curtain has come down on what turned
  out to be a spectacular success for Arafat.

  Israelis have little reason to be pleased. Especially since, in
  accordance with the Wye agreement, Israel is now expected to
  begin vacating parts of the Judean Desert. These areas are
  referred to by the Israeli government as "nature reserves." That's
  also show biz.