On Capitol Hill, Friends of Israel View PLO Talks With Skepticism

Members of Congress, including some longtime friends of Israel, said Thursday that the new U.S. dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization will be worthwhile if the organization keeps its promise to end terrorism and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

Some lawmakers, however, were skeptical that the PLO would keep its end of the bargain.

Arab-American organizations welcomed the development enthusiastically, but American Jews expressed doubts.

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) said President Reagan’s decision to open talks with the PLO was “a first step, but it is a significant step toward advancing the peace process.”

“In light of the PLO’s record, however, it must be viewed with caution, and these words must of course be matched by deeds,” Mitchell said. “I reaffirm strong and unwavering American support for Israel’s security and the continuation of a close U.S.-Israel friendship.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Yasser Arafat’s unequivocal acceptance of Israel’s right to exist and renunciation of terrorism was an important step, adding: “He proved that he is at least willing to pay the price to get a seat at the bargaining table.”

Lugar said: “Now we shall see if this opening can produce peace and progress. It may be a blind alley, but an alley worth treading with eyes open. This dialogue in no way mitigates our steadfast support of Israel. But I hope Israel will at least be willing to informally acknowledge this process as a worthy attempt.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a strong backer of Israel, said the decision “may well be a historic step on the road to lasting peace in the Middle East.”

“Only time will tell whether the PLO is genuinely prepared to live up to the far-reaching conditions they have now accepted,” Kennedy said.

Two Jewish members of the House--California Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) and Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)--expressed doubts that the PLO would keep its word.

“It is not the Americans whom the PLO must convince that they seek peace,” Levine told reporters. “Israel deeply desires peace with its neighbors--and the PLO must convince Israel that it seeks peace with her.”

Schumer and Levine termed the decision a “gamble” whose outcome will depend on whether PLO and Arab states are willing to turn rhetoric into reality.

“It could be a real breakthrough for peace,” Schumer acknowledged, “or, if there’s no follow-through (by the PLO), it could have an enormous down side and leave hopes shattered.”

In a written statement, Levine said, “I do not wish to second-guess (Secretary of State George P. Shultz’s action in announcing the opening of a dialogue). Secretary Shultz and the United States government are obviously deeply committed to obtaining peace in the Middle East.”

Warren W. Eisenberg, director of the International Council of B’nai B’rith, the world’s largest Jewish organization, expressed strong doubts that Arafat would keep his word. But he avoided direct criticism of the U.S. decision to open talks with PLO representatives.

“The PLO has to show through deed that it has finally come to terms with Israel’s existence and intends to pursue the path of peace and eschew violence,” Eisenberg said.

“The PLO chief’s history of artful zigs and zags on the issues of peace, together with his organization’s blood-drenched record of disdain for human life and peaceful accommodation with Israel, leave us exceedingly skeptical,” he added.

Morris B. Abram, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, challenged the PLO to repeal its governing covenant that calls for the replacement of Israel with a secular state.