PLO: Not A-OK

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Nicholas Kristof, in his editorial "Giving the PLO the A-OK," bases his viewpoint on a number of gross misrepresentations.

First, he continually uses the terms 'Palestinians' and 'PLO' interchangably. The PLO is a terrorist organization which is alleged to represent the Palestinian people. Yet one wonders how much of the support that the PLO has at all is genuine, if they silence any and all dissension in their ranks, as in the case of the Palestinian religious official in Gaza who was shot 27 times last spring only because he intimated that may be the peace treaty might not be such a bad thing.

Mr. Kristof claims that the terrorist PLO has a "sincere desire for peace" and is in fact "privately...resigned to accept...Israel's existence as a fact of life." That is simply not the case. He evidently is referring to Arafat's acceptance of UN Resolution 3236, which the SCLC says recognizes Israel's right to exist, but in fact does not in any way. The Palestinian National Covenant of the PLO still calls for "armed struggle (as) the overall strategy" (Art. 9) and the "total liberation of Palestine" (Art. 21). wre these the slogans of an organization which wants peace?

And again, contrary to Mr. Kristof's assertion that the U.S. has never "required that Israel recognize the right of the Palestinians to have a homeland," Israel has signed the Camp David accords which expressly state that "the solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate right of the Palestinians and their just requirements" (Art. A, 1(C)).

Israel has time and time again expressed her desire for the resolution of the Palestinian problem. To that end they have been and still are meeting with Palestinians to discuss various solutions. They cannot however negotiate with the terrorist PLO, whose bargaining strategy continues to be murdering women and children in market places and schools.Jeremy Benstein   Amy Wolfson '82   Harvard-Radcliffe   Zionists Alliance