Recognition of the PLO

This is in response to Harry Stokes’ article (Editorial Pages, Jan. 1), in which he argues that the United States should recognize and negotiate with Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization.

Permit me, at the outset, before discussing the PLO as it relates to Israel, to say a few words about the PLO and the relevance of its activities to the security of the United States.

Soviet and East European agents have trained thousands of PLO members. The establishment of a PLO state in the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which by implication is advocated by Stokes, would be the equivalent of creating a Soviet base in the heart of the Middle East and would undermine America’s strategic position in that part of the world.

The PLO is the major motivator and organizer of terrorist activities in countries on every continent of the globe. The PLO trained and encouraged the Iranian terrorists to seize the American Embassy in Tehran. The PLO murdered American diplomats in Sudan. The PLO has aided, materially and ideologically, the Farabundi Marxists in El Salvador. At the recently concluded sessions of the so-called Palestine National Council in Amman, Jordan, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, the PLO’s official spokesman, declared that “contrary to the general impression, our battle is not against Syria. This time it is against the United States.”

President Reagan and practically every other important American leader have said that the struggle against terrorism will be one of the democratic countries’ major priorities in the years to come.

How, therefore, can Stokes advocate American recognition of the PLO when it is known that the PLO has maintained and trained in camps located in half a dozen Marxist-oriented Arab countries many thousands of terrorists who operate against nations in every part of the world?

With regard to Israel, the so-called moderates who now control the Arafat wing of the PLO clearly demonstrated at their conference in Amman that the PLO position toward my country, Israel, has not changed in any way. The delegates categorically rejected United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, again repudiated every suggestion that they recognize Israel’s right to exist, spurned every proposal that they amend the so-called Palestine National Covenant, which calls for the total destruction of Israel, and in their resolution referred to “the occupied territories from Galilee to Gaza, from Nablus to Jerusalem, from Negev to Al-Yarmuk.” In short, to all of Israel from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. And to make his intentions perfectly clear, Arafat declared: “Palestine cannot be liberated without the gun.”

With good will on all sides, the problem of the remaining Palestinian Arab refugees can be resolved. It does not require, however, that there be two Palestine Arab states and no Jewish state. Israel, with 10,000 square miles has absorbed more than a million Jewish refugees. Certainly, the Arab powers, with more than 5 million square miles at their disposal, can absorb no more than half the number of Jews absorbed by Israel.

A truncated Israel, the result of negotiations with the PLO proposed by Stokes, would render Israel incapable of defending itself, irreparably weaken the major strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East, and perhaps do harm to the American national interest. The vast majority of the American people support us in opposing such an outcome of the Arab-Israeli dispute in the Middle East.

Peace is our great and ultimate objective. But peace cannot be achieved by recognizing and negotiating with a terrorist organization that seeks to undermine and destroy all peaceful relations. Only direct negotiations between states that recognize each other’s sovereign existence can bring about a genuine peace. It is in this spirit that Israel extends its hand to all its Arab neighbors and urges them to abandon the ways of war and in a spirit of compromise adopt the ways of peace.

JACOB EVEN

Los Angeles

Even is consul general of Israel in Los Angeles.

I was very impressed with Stokes’ article, “Arafat Proves His Ability; It’s Time to Talk with Him.” I commend The Times for publishing it.

The United States needs to come out of the dark ages and recognize the legitimacy of Arafat’s leadership of the Palestinians and the legitimacy of their rights, which have been ignored for so long.

The only way to peace in the Middle East is to negotiate with the Palestinians and to acknowledge their leader, Yasser Arafat.

ANNELIESE WEGER

Orange

Stokes lends further proof that these are indeed Orwellian times. He says that by convening the Palestinian National Council in November, 1984, and that by rejecting the Syrian wing of the PLO it reaffirmed moderate leadership and that that was a political and personal victory for Arafat. He also states that “by the council adopting a resolution endorsing efforts to improve relations between the Egyptian and Palestinian people, Arafat exonerated himself in his step toward accommodation with Israel.” What accommodation?

Has not Stokes read the final communique that the council issued in which it called for renewed “armed struggle against Israel”? Has he not read that at the final meeting Arafat said that he would not rest until the Palestinian flag flew over cities from Haifa to Eilat, which encompasses all of Israel?

Has he seen any statement repudiating the PLO spokesman Farouk Kadoumi’s remarks stating very clearly, “There are two initial phases to our return. The first is to the 1967 lines, the second is to the 1984 lines . . . the third stage is the democratic state of Palestine. So we fight for these three stages.”

Has Stokes read any statement about the repudiation of the PLO covenant calling for the destruction of Israel? By this Orwellian terminology, Arafat is a “moderate,” according to Stokes.

By what reasoning does Stokes come to the conclusion that our recognition of Arafat would help restore balance to Israeli policy? Arafat is a murderer with the explicit design of destroying Israel. Peace will have to come in other ways, Mr. Stokes. Just stay out of the process because you’re not qualified to discuss the issues.

JACK SALEM

Los Angeles

Salem is president of the Los Angeles chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel.

I’m sure The Times will receive a plethora of letters from Jews and other supporters of Israel roundly condemning the article suggesting that the United States conduct negotiations with the PLO.

Why the United States is bound to a position so unrealistic and imposed on it by a foreign government is rather astounding. While we negotiate with a variety of unsavory governments and insurgent groups around the world, we exclude the only political voice the Palestinians have.

To condemn the PLO as only a gang of terrorists not to be negotiated with is so obviously a specious argument. Conveniently (and hypocritically) never mentioned is that we have no problem dealing with such active and former terrorists as Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir. These three men are responsible for the deaths of many, many more innocent people than the PLO is.

In truth, it appears that Israel and her supporters are afraid to deal with the PLO and Arab moderates because doing so may make them give up land. While issuing hollow appeals to peace to the Palestinians and Arabs, they are busily grabbing and developing for Jews any land the Palestinians may be able to carve a homeland out of. Actions definitely do speak louder than words.

DONALD ALLEN

Santa Ana

Thank you for publishing Stokes’ article.

It is about time the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people received some attention. The problem of the Palestinians obviously will not go away just as the problem of the oppressed black people in South Africa will not go away no matter how vigorously we try to sweep these problems under the rug.

As more attention is being focused on the plight of South Africa’s blacks, the parallel between them and the Palestinians cannot be ignored. Both peoples are oppressed in their own countries, and both yearn for the freedom that we in this country have taken for granted. The human rights principles are indivisible, and they should apply to all peoples of the world whether they are South African blacks, Afghans or Palestinians.

ZAC SIDAWI

Costa Mesa