Middle East Turmoil

Tad Szulc’s proposal that the United States resume direct talks with the PLO (Opinion, Jan. 31) is based on the twin notions that the PLO is the “moderate” alternative to Hamas, and that America can lead the Palestinians to moderation. Both ideas are mistaken.

Only in the blood-soaked politics of the Arab world can the PLO be considered moderate. The PLO charter, like that of Hamas, calls for the destruction of Israel. The PLO continues to vie with Hamas in murderous attacks on Israelis (and Palestinians).

Szulc glosses over the reason America withdrew from talks with the PLO in 1990 by characterizing it as Yasser Arafat’s failure to “promptly” condemn an attack by a “renegade faction.” Arafat never condemned the attempt to massacre Jews, and the Abul Abbas gang remains a member in good standing of the PLO. This raises an important question: Since Arafat is unwilling or unable to prevent PLO attacks on Israelis, why is it so crucial to negotiate peace with him?

There is a danger that Hamas will stampede both Israel and America into the arms of the PLO. This cannot improve the prospects for peace.

What is required is simply that the Palestinians must realize that only the most unequivocal renunciation of their war against the Jews will bring them any gains whatsoever. If they accept what the Rabin government is offering them, then Palestinians and Israelis can begin to walk together on the path of peace.

PAUL KUJAWSKY

Encino