[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 87 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           PLO-TERRORIST ACTS

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last fall the PLO agreed to take 
two long overdue steps toward establishing peace with Israel: it would 
renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of violence, and it would 
recognize Israel's right to exist.
  Those commitments are a bare-minimum to insure that this process 
moves forward. Without them, Israel can be hardly expected to negotiate 
with the PLO, much less give the Palestinians the concessions they 
seek. Without them, the Palestinians have offered the Israelis little 
in these negotiations.
  But a State Department report released on June 1 shows that the PLO 
has not fulfilled its commitments. This report, combined with others 
released by the State Department, reveal that of the 89 attacks against 
Israelis between September and May, the PLO denounced only four, and in 
those it merely expressed regret. In no cases did a PLO official 
unequivocally denounce attacks against Israelis. Instead, officials 
simply said that such attacks threaten the peace process.
  Indeed they do. Terrorist acts--like that at Hebron--can derail talks 
for months. But they can terminate talks if they are not dealt with 
properly. Mr. Arafat is one of the few voices with the ability to limit 
Palestinian violence. As long as he remains silent, he virtually urges 
it to continue.
  Moreover, these failures occurred before the Gaza-Jericho autonomy 
agreement took effect last month. Now, Mr. Arafat must not only condemn 
such attacks, he must investigate and prosecute those responsible. Can 
Israelis expect justice if they are victimized in or near Jericho or 
Gaza? Or will Mr. Arafat still refuse to search out and punish those 
responsible?
  And, what is to happen to Mr. Arafat's credibility as we face the 
more difficult steps in these negotiations? Already, he has threatened 
the peace by incorrectly telling his supporters that Israel has 
promised the Palestinians the right to take control of East Jerusalem. 
He recently called for a Jihad to recapture Jerusalem, and he has 
called the Israeli-PLO agreement temporary. If he cannot pass this so-
called confidence-building stage of the peace agreement without 
flaunting his commitments and inciting his supporters, how can we 
expect him to negotiate toward a responsible final settlement?
  He has called into question his willingness to accomplish these 
tasks, and as a broker in this agreement, I believe the United States 
should be monitoring his compliance closely. We should have a mechanism 
for watching his efforts and noting where the PLO has come up short.
  The State Department's report should be such a mechanism. Through it, 
we should present an adequate standard for the PLO to meet before it 
can rely on our aid through the UN, and in turn, our role, in the peace 
process.
  Instead, I am disappointed to say, much of the State Department's 
June report has been devoted to making excuses for Mr. Arafat's failure 
to comply with his September commitments. It explains that he does not 
have operational control over many of the groups responsible for these 
killings and that he had no foreknowledge of the attacks.
  This does not hold Mr. Arafat to a high enough standard. Clearly, Mr. 
Arafat could help end some of this violence. Of course, his is a weak 
coalition, but he has nonetheless delivered autonomy to Jericho and 
Gaza, and is the undisputed leader of the Palestinian people. And even 
if he cannot directly stop the violence, he can renounce it, and 
perhaps inhibit it. Its illuminating to contrast Mr. Arafat's reactions 
to Arab violence against Jews and Israel's reaction to Jewish violence 
against Arabs. In responding to the Hebron massacre, the Israeli 
Government, which was not responsible for the Hebron massacre, quickly 
renounced that attack, compensated victims, created an independent 
investigative and review panel, arrested dangerous Israelis, and took 
other items to increase security for Arab worshippers.
  But, most importantly, Mr. Arafat must comply with his September 
commitments if we are ever to move forward with this tenuous peace 
process.
  Both sides have described this agreement as a series of steps that 
will be used to build confidence between the two sides before the most 
difficult subjects are breached. Without an adequate trust having been 
established in those areas, those final issues will see little 
movement. If Mr. Arafat ever hopes to attain the goals that he has 
sought in this peace process, he should be doing everything in his 
power to comply with the letter of both the September and the May 
agreements now.
  Mr. President, actions speak louder than words. Mr. Arafat must show 
by his actions that he and his followers are committed to pursuing 
peace. During the past few months Mr. Arafat's words of peace and 
moderation have been contradicted by Mr. Arafat's actions.
  I urge the administration and my colleagues to watch Mr. Arafat's 
actions. That, more than words, will tell us if peace is truly their 
ultimate goal.
  If the actions of Mr. Arafat and the PLO fail to show greater 
compliance with last September's agreement, I will strongly urge my 
colleagues and the administration to reevaluate the United State's 
support to the PLO that is provided for under the terms of that 
agreement.

                          ____________________