In unanimously raising the Palestine Liberation Organization to respectability, the Arab summit conference in Rabat double-crossed Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and challenged the United States to surrenders both its national morality and strategic interests in the Middle East for an easier oil policy.
The penalty of American appeasement of avarice is demonstrated, specialists here note.in the latest Arab blackmail proposal: either the U.S. abandons Israel and obtains petroleum at reduced prices as a reward, or. if it continues support to Israel, warfare and a total oil embargo will follow.
Hardly anyone questioned seriously doubts that the United Nations, after hearing the speeches on the “Palestine Question” this week will put its formal seal of approval on the Rabat decision. Status as a national entity, however, may be delayed. The PLO itself does not expect it for a year or so, according to its American representatives.
The dismal record is that what the Arabs want, the UN gives. That, it appears here. is the natural flow from the Rabat decision that was encouraged by the UN’s 106-4 vote to allow the PLO to address the General Assembly. Moscow’s might, European cupidity. Arab terror, propaganda and petroleum dollars have done their work at Rabat and at the UN.
The Rabat decision would have never been made. Western observers here firmly feel, without Moscow’s signal of continuing complete military support to the Arab states regardless of U.S. support to Israel; encouragement, and perhaps inspiration. from Paris (that other Europeans felt were economically advantageous to them, too); and the incredible American weakness, much of it due to Washington’s triple-speak policy to advance Soviet-American detente even though in the Middle East, at least. it is moving mainly on Moscow’s terms continuing appeasement of Arab demands for technical, financial and military aid while pressuring Israel while giving reluctant or no diplomatic support to Israel at crucial Junctures.
WASHINGTON INCHING TOWARD THE PLO
When and how Washington will deal with the PLO remains speculative. The Administration, while Kissinger was away, made no direct public commitment either way saying its policy had not changed but not saying “no” to the PLO either. Many indication have come from the highest U.S. levels that Washington is inching delicately toward the PLO. much like former President Nixon and Kissinger did before ultimately embracing the Vietcong in negotiating the Vietnam “Peace.”
The White House and State Department claims of “no change” in American policy have not part sided anyone that President Ford perhaps spoke prematurely but not inaccurately when he said the U.S. will deal with either “Jordan or the PLO.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
