PROFILES IN COURAGE (II): CENTER SALUTES JEWISH LEADERS DEMANDING P.L.O. COMPLIANCE WITH PEACE ACCORDS

(Washington, D.C.): At a recent meeting in Jerusalem with
the presidents of major American Jewish organizations, Israeli
Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin suggested that it was
nobody’s business but Israel’s whether the Palestine Liberation
Organization complied with its commitments under the September
1993 Declaration of Principles (DOP). According to Jonathan
Mitchell — a Regional Vice President of the American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — Mr. Beilin said:

“If Arafat complies exactly with the Oslo Accords or
not, it is none of your business. It is not the business of
Jewish organizations, not AIPAC’s, not the American Congress’
and not of any other country in the world except the State of
Israel. Only Israel signed the agreement with the PLO and
only Israel will decide when and in what form it will demand
from Arafat to behave.”

This statement (which is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s
pre-election defense of her husband’s infidelity on “60
Minutes” — to the effect “If it doesn’t bother me, why
should it bother any one else?”) is astounding for two
reasons:

The Horse’s Mouth

First, it was Yossi Beilin on 31 August 1993 who made some
of the most sweeping statements about the importance Israel attached
to PLO compliance. According to the next day’s Wall Street
Journal:

“Mr. Beilin….said that the [DOP plan] is
conditional on the Palestinians being able to prevent Islamic
fundamentalist groups who oppose the peace talks from
carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel….Mr.
Beilin…said that a key part of the ‘Gaza and Jericho first’
plan is the fact that it is reversible. “Mr. Beilin
continued ‘As in any other agreement, there is the belief
that both sides will be able to implement it and can be
trusted, but if there is a clear violation, it will be more
than understandable that we cannot adhere to it.'”

No one seriously disputes that there have been “clear
violations” of the DOP plan by the PLO. In fact, thanks
to the concerted efforts of the Zionist Organization of America
(whose energetic National President, Morton Klein, posed the
question that elicited Mr. Beilin’s abrasive response) and a
congressional Peace Accords Monitors group, a book has been
carefully kept on a pattern of non-compliance by Yasser Arafat
and his organization. ⁽¹⁾

On such fundamental commitments contained in the Declaration
of Principles as the disciplining, pursuing and extraditing of
terrorists, condemning their activities, changing the PLO
National Covenant (e.g., so as to delete articles denying
Israel’s “right to exist” and urging violence against
Israel) and speaking out in favor of non-violence, Arafat and the
PLO have repeatedly breached their formal obligations. There have
been more than 300 terrorist attacks (including over 168 people
murdered and 445 wounded) since the DOP was signed on the White
House lawn.

What About U.S. Law?

Second — and even more remarkable — is the fact that U.S.
law makes PLO non- compliance a matter of direct relevance
to the United States. The Mideast Peace Facilitation Act of
1993 permits the President to waive restrictions that would
otherwise have prohibited U.S. government funding of the PLO, provided
certain conditions are satisfied. These include renunciation of
the use of terrorism and other acts of violence, disciplining
perpetrators of such acts and recognizing Israel’s right to exist
in peace. As AIPAC’s Jonathan Mitchell put it in an open letter
to the editors of Jewish publications dated 24 March 1995 ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=95-D_19at”>a copy of which is attached):

“Beilin should remember that the U.S. was asked by
his government to provide economic assistance to the
Palestinians and that the aid was contingent upon the PLO
observing its agreement with Israel — especially,
terrorism-related issues. Fully aware of the irrefutable
evidence of the PLO’s failure to live up to its commitments
regarding terrorism, Beilin, nevertheless, wants American
money to flow freely to the Palestinian Authority.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Beilin is not alone in his apparent
disregard, if not contempt, for the U.S. Congress. When
Vice President Al Gore visited with him in Jericho last week, he
promised a further $70 million in aid to the Palestinian
authority — aid to which the PLO is not entitled under American
law.

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy commends those in the American
Jewish Community — particularly AIPAC’s Mitchell and the ZOA’s
Klein — who are demanding full accountability on the part of the
Palestine Liberation Organization if U.S. tax dollars are to
continue to flow to the PLO. Doing anything less would be an
invitation not only to intensified non-compliance on the part of
the Palestine Liberation Organization but also on the part of all
other present or prospective parties to the peace process.

No one should be surprised at PLO violations; they were
predictable — and predicted.⁽²⁾
By the same token, no one should think that there will be fewer
violations in the future if Yassir Arafat, or for that matter
Hafez Assad, believes that rewards will be forthcoming no
matter what.

The Center strongly supports congressional initiatives aimed
at strengthening an earlier, Spector-Shelby-Lowey amendment
adopted last year which was meant to put some teeth into the
Mideast Peace Facilitation Act. Such initiatives would restrict
further disbursements of U.S. aid to a non-compliant PLO —
perhaps by setting a date certain for full compliance or by
establishing procedures for withholding specified amounts in
response to specific violations. This legislation would minimize
the chances that, in the future, the likes of Messers. Beilin,
Arafat, Assad or Gore will hold Congress, and the American
taxpayer, in contempt.

(1) A current accounting of such
violations authored by Mr. Klein appears in the February-March
issue of Midstream Magazine.

(2) See for example the Center for
Security Policy’s Decision Brief entitled ‘The
Triumph of Hope Over Experience’: Israeli Weariness Begets
Strategic Peril (No. 93-D
78, 13 September 1993).