Arafat’s Roadblocks to Peace : Middle East: The PLO won’t surrender power and influence to elected representatives who have a direct stake in reaching a settlement with Israel.

No other country this century has suffered more wars than Israel. During the past four decades, that tiny nation of 4.5 million people living in a space of 8,000 square miles has fought five bloody conflicts with neighboring hostile Arab states.

Today, of the 21 Arab countries, only Egypt recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Still, Israel knows it must find a lasting peace, and in the face of hostile powers continues to seek a negotiated resolution to regional disputes.

Most recently, Israel proposed a comprehensive four-point plan that offers Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip the opportunity to participate in free and democratic elections to select representatives to negotiate a possible end to military occupation and the establishment of self-rule.

Under the plan, if an interim period of stability and joint cooperation on local governmental policies succeeds, the representatives would then take the next step of negotiating final status of the territories.

This plan originated with the Camp David accords, jointly developed and signed by the United States, Egypt and Israel. After its presentation by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, it was warmly embraced by President Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III.

While some Palestinian leaders in the territories reportedly wish to respond positively to the Shamir plan, Yasser Arafat and his Tunisia-based Palestine Liberation Organization have supported a campaign of terror and intimidation designed to block any progress.

Tragically, between 200 and 300 Palestinians have died at the hands of their fellow Arabs, according to Israeli authorities.

The PLO opposes free elections precisely because it does not want to surrender its power and influence to elected representatives, who, as a result of their residency in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, have a direct, personal stake in reaching a settlement with Israel.

Israel has prudently agreed to discuss substantive issues with those who are most directly involved--the democratically chosen representatives of the territorial residents. But with equal prudence, Jerusalem has persevered in refusing to allow terrorists masquerading as diplomats to sit at the conference table.

In one breath, Arafat proclaimed an end to terrorism against Israel by the PLO, then announced that anyone daring to seek a peaceful resolution of the intifada could expect “10 bullets in the chest.”

Since Arafat’s supposed renunciation of terrorism and recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the PLO has continually supported terrorist action against Israel.

Those who believe we can trust the PLO to govern the West Bank should heed the lesson of Lebanon. In September, 1970, when King Hussein expelled the PLO from Jordan to prevent his own intifada , this infamous terrorist group moved into southern Lebanon. They brought hatred and divisions that fueled a 14-year civil war while they used the country as a base and safe haven from which to project terrorism against Israel.

The peace process recently took a major leap forward when the governments of Israel and Egypt agreed--with conditions--to Baker’s five-point plan to begin discussions leading to elections as envisioned by Shamir.

Israel’s acceptance is rightly based on the understanding that it will not deal with the PLO and that substantive issues will be negotiated only with elected Palestinian representatives. Egypt’s acceptance in principle of the Baker plan reinforces Israel’s position that negotiations must be limited to the authentic civilian leadership of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which further isolates the terrorist elements of the PLO from the search for a diplomatic resolution.

As a result, U.S., Israeli and Egyptian officials are expected to meet in Washington for discussions on the agenda for initial negotiations between Jerusalem and Palestinian representatives of the occupied territories.

Responsible Palestinians now have an opportunity to show that they can act in good faith and seriously discuss conditions needed to secure enduring peace. If not, we can expect them to continue the public relations effort that Arafat launched in 1988, aimed at creating American impatience with the Shamir government’s rightful insistence upon protections required for Israel’s survival.

Rather than expressing dismay with the Israeli government, Americans should condemn the ongoing duplicity of the PLO. Our sympathy and encouragement should be reserved for those Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza who have the great courage to brave PLO threats and work for an accord within the framework of the Israeli initiative.

Americans, above all, ought to be not just patient but unequivocally in support of the position of America’s strategic ally, Israel, that it cannot--and should not be expected to--negotiate with those whose ultimate aim is its annihilation.