PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's belated condemnation of the slaying of Beit El resident Haim Mizrahi by members of his own Fatah faction was hardly reassuring. For many Israelis, such episodes offer a preview of what can be expected from an unreliable partner to the peace process.
Following weeks of accusing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of trying to make peace with charlatans who will do anything to gain their "real" objective, the eventual destruction of Israel, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu finally has come up with a plan of his own.
Frustrated by the Israeli-PLO agreement, Syria's President Hafez al-Assad is trying to reposition himself in his negotiations with Israel to regain control over the Golan Heights.
The Rabin government's decision to continue to negotiate with the three top Palestinian delegates despite their new status as members of a PLO committee that oversees the talks is another step in the right direction. Israel and the United States should now make the next logical move and begin formal meetings with the PLO under certain conditions that the Tunis leadership is likely to accept.
A growing number of Israeli government officials, led by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, believe the sealing off of the West Bank and Gaza should be made permanent. They say notions about Israeli-Palestinian coexistence have proven illusory. Although closure has halted the random killing of Israelis and may seem to have opened up new political options for a solution, sealing off the territories would be disastrous for both sides.
Maintaining the separate national character of both Israel and the future Palestinian en-tity to be established in the West Bank and Gaza is critical to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel should not wait for the Palestinians to decide when and under what conditions they would resume the negotiations. The time has come for Israel to take the initiative and dramatically alter the negotiating equation.
The punitive air strike on Iraqi military installations will certainly not put an end to Saddam Hussein's provocations. But it could be the catalyst for a badly needed United States strategy in the Persian Gulf. The great danger to Western interests in the Middle East emanates from Iran, not Iraq. Combating the Iranian Islamic fundamentalism which threatens the stability of many Arab states, restoring the traditional balance of power between Iran and Iraq, and fostering regional stability, must be the Clinton Gulf strategy. Due to size, composition, and proximity, Iraq is in a unique position to check Iran's export of Islamic fervor. This was the rationale for supporting Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. The rationale is still valid.
Opening direct talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at this juncture in the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations could benefit Israel's short- and long-term interests and provide the peace process with renewed momentum. The United States should encourage such a move and in return bring pressure to bear on the PLO to demonstrate more flexibility. Excluding the PLO formally from past direct talks may have given Israel some room for political maneuverability and some gains in establishing the peace negotiating parameters. The growing strength of the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalists (Hamas), however, the perplexing direction that Israeli-Palestinian bilateral negotiations have taken, and the changing of administrations in Washington all raise a question as to whether Israel's interests and the prospects for peace are not better served through direct negotiations with the PLO.