PLO Declaration Falls Short, U.S. Says

The Reagan Administration, dismissing the Palestine Liberation Organization’s implicit recognition of Israel as “encouraging . . . but ambiguous,” Wednesday brushed aside Yasser Arafat’s call for Palestinian-American dialogue and a place for the PLO at the Middle East peace table.

“Possibly implied or indirect reference to Israel’s right to exist is not sufficient,” State Department spokesman Charles Redman said in the Administration’s formal response to this week’s meeting in Algiers of the Palestine National Council. “Recognition must be clear and unambiguous.”

The U.S. rhetoric was several degrees warmer than Israel’s chilly rejection of the PLO resolution, which coupled an acknowledgment of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338--as the basis for Mideast peacemaking--with a declaration of independence of a Palestinian state that, by implication, would live side by side with Israel. But Washington joined Jerusalem in dismissing the PLO overture.

“There are signs that there are Palestinians who are trying to move the PLO in a constructive way,” Redman said. “That’s encouraging, and it should continue. But measured against the requirements of the negotiating process, more movement on key issues will be required.”

Redman said that the PLO’s action fell short of meeting U.S. conditions for the start of any sort of U.S. relationship with the organization--acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, explicit recognition of Israel’s right to exist and renunciation of terrorism as a political tactic.

“The reference to Resolutions 242 and 338 is an advance over previous efforts by the PNC; nevertheless, it is ambiguous both in its placement in the text and its meaning,” Redman said. “And the statement on terrorism is a restatement of previous positions. It’s still performance that counts.”

PLO Action Scorned

American Jewish groups generally scorned the PLO’s action.

Seymour D. Reich, president of B’nai B’rith, said that the declaration of independence was “premature, a triumph of style over substance.”

Reich, whose group calls itself the world’s largest Jewish organization, said: “The PLO is still playing word games and talking out of two sides of its mouth. If it were really serious about peace, it would recognize Israel clearly and specifically by name, repudiate its charter’s call for the annihilation of Israel and renounce not only terrorism but also the senseless, counterproductive violence that is the intifada (the 11-month-old Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza).”

However, Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, a liberal Jewish journal, said the United States and Israel should welcome the step by the PLO’s leaders, even though they stopped short of explicit recognition of Israel.

“It’s a very positive step,” Lerner said. “They still can’t get themselves to use the ‘I’ (for Israel) word. But the motivation behind this move was clearly to signal to the world that they are ready to accept the two-state solution. I think it’s a mistake to focus on the legalistic details. It’s always possible to read this in a negative way, and people who are satisfied with the status quo will do so. But this is the time for the United States and Israel to get off the dime and respond.”

Redman’s statement broke two days of official silence from the Administration on the PLO meeting. Although President Reagan, President-elect George Bush and other officials commented on the Palestinian meeting, they all insisted that they had not had a chance to read the text of the PLO’s declaration. The State Department statement Wednesday was based on an analysis of the resolutions.

Redman noted that the PLO’s statement renouncing terrorism was the same as a statement adopted earlier at a meeting in Cairo. He said there have been a number of terrorist attacks since the so-called Cairo Declaration.