PERSPECTIVE ON THE PALESTINIANS : Arafat Wants Israel, Not Peace : The PLO leader’s words and actions make it clear that he’s a fraud, with no intention of letting the Jewish state exist.

Yasser Arafat the peacemaker is a fraud. By supporting Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and repudiating moderate Arab backers of the Palestinian cause, such as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization has revealed his true colors. His goal is the Palestinian conquest of Israel, by whatever means, just as Hussein’s goal is domination of the Middle East.

Arafat’s current diplomatic initiatives regarding the Persian Gulf crisis should be dismissed as disingenuous verbiage. The same goes for a letter dated June 25, 1990, that I received from him.

In December, 1988, I was one of five American Jews who met with Arafat and other senior PLO leaders in Stockholm. After our discussions, Arafat for the first time publicly recognized Israel and renounced terrorism. I believed then, and I believe now, that any viable Middle East peace initiative must seek to satisfy both Israel’s security concerns and the Palestinians’ legitimate national aspirations. The PLO’s declared new policy was, therefore, a welcome development.

However, Arafat has never truly committed himself to implementing his Stockholm pledges. His subsequent pronouncements on the peace process have been ambiguous at best. He has taken no steps to halt the summary execution of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians accused of “collaborating” with Israel. And he has refused to condemn the May 30 terrorist attack on the beach of Tel Aviv by a PLO faction whose head sits on the PLO Executive Committee.

In his letter, written after the suspension of the U.S.-PLO dialogue, but before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Arafat contends that the PLO “has made a historical compromise which is the cornerstone of any just solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He accuses Israel of having rejected all peace initiatives. “Israel,” he writes, “has to make a similar historical compromise to achieve peace with the Palestinian people based on the recognition of our people’s national rights including this right to freedom, independence and sovereignty.”

While the tone of Arafat’s letter is positive, his reference to the PLO’s recognition of Israel and renunciation of terrorism as a “compromise” is alarming. He does not seem to understand that those were not concessions. They were the minimum, unconditional prerequisites for acceptability into the international community. Israel’s right to exist and the sanctity of civilian lives are not negotiable and may not be compromised. Any suggestion to the contrary lends weight to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s absolute rejection of the PLO as a potential negotiating partner.

I agree that Israel must recognize the Palestinians’ fundamental human rights, including their right to political self-determination. But not at any cost. Israel’s survival and the safety of its citizens take priority.

Arafat writes that he is “confident that the chain of violence would definitely end if each of us makes the necessary steps to realize just and permanent peace.” This admirable sentiment is belied by his omission of any reference to continued PLO terrorist activities. He could have used the occasion to repudiate the May 30 raid. Instead, his deliberate silence on the subject leads to the conclusion that his renunciation of terrorism may be revocable. If so, it is also meaningless.

The PLO’s recognition of Israel is put into question not by Arafat’s words but by his letterhead. He writes as president of the “State of Palestine” as well as PLO chairman. Prominent at the top of each page is an emblem that features a map of the entire territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, including all of Israel.

Arafat’s use of this controversial emblem appears designed to reassure his more radical constituents that their future state will ultimately embrace not only the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but Tel Aviv and Haifa as well. The PLO’s vision of a Palestinian state thus directly negates Israel’s continued existence.

After the Stockholm meeting, I was sharply attacked by Israeli leaders and by many of my American Jewish colleagues for supposedly enhancing Arafat’s credibility. I responded at the time that if the PLO’s metamorphosis was authentic, it presented a unique opportunity to move the peace process forward. I believed that Yasser Arafat had to be put to the test. His letter and his alliance with Saddam Hussein demonstrate that he has failed it.

Simply put, the PLO cannot play a credible role in the diplomatic arena when it aligns itself with a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel.