Lost in the uproar and debate over the Ohio State administration’s handling of the Arafat invitation is a very important issue: whether Yasser Arafat and the PLO are the ones responsible for the administration’s reaction. In effect, Arafat has continued to fulfill the Israeli adage, coined by a great veteran of peace politics, Abba Eban, that Israel’s Arab neighbors “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” to make peace with Israel. The saying, first invoked long before the 1993 Oslo Accords, was directed at the Arabs’ persistent refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist in peaceful security. Today, the saying is equally applicable to Arafat’s and the PLO’s handling of the “peace process.” In September 1993, Arafat ostensibly denounced acts of violence and terrorism against Jews and Israelis for the sake of peace through negotiations. Had he and the PLO followed through on those commitments and truly turned away from violence and terrorism, he probably would have been invited to OSU. History shows that Arab leaders who have made genuine peace with Israel were, and are, not only accepted by the West, but embraced by Israelis and Jews worldwide: King Hussein of Jordan and Anwar Sadat of Egypt are prime examples. With sincere gestures and acts of peace, those leaders wiped from the West’s consciousness their previous acts of terror and violence. King Hussein, in particular, is incredibly popular among Israelis.The recent Wye agreement notwithstanding (we will have to wait and see on that one), Arafat has been far from sincere, and has not left his terrorist past very far behind. Before the ink was barely dry on the 1993 agreement, Arafat stated to an Arab audience that the signing of the treaty was just “one phase” in the PLO’s infamous “phase plan” for destroying Israel. Soon thereafter, Arafat made another speech claiming that breaking a treaty with the Jewish state is justified by the Qur’an (the Islamic holy bible). He has repeatedly made calls for “jihad, through death, through battles.”Moreover, in meetings with Arab diplomats, Arafat has stated the PLO’s aims vis-à-vis the peace process. In Stockholm, in 1996, he began one such meeting by stating that he expects the collapse of the Jewish state. He said, “the PLO will now concentrate on splitting Israel psychologically in two camps… We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare… I have no use for Jews. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.”Still more disturbing is that, despite the “peace process,” PLO-run and controlled television and newspapers regularly air and publish virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel programming and articles that promote violence and hatred towards Jews and Israel. One representative example of this is a “Sesame Street” type program in which an adorable little Palestinian girl, probably five or six years old, shrieks proudly that, “IN A BATTLE DRESS, IN A BATTLE DRESS!,” she will blow herself up as a “suicide warrior” (her words) in the cause to destroy Israel and liberate Palestine. Other examples include blatant anti-Semitic blood libel: newspaper articles that state that Israeli doctors have injected hundreds of Palestinian children with HIV and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was a Zionist plot to prevent President Clinton from pressuring Netanyahu to give-up more land. As a contrast, note the government-mandated “peace education” in Israeli primary and secondary schools.Of course, one cannot forget that Yasser Arafat, according to Israeli Intelligence, was behind countless terrorist attacks against Israelis and Jews worldwide, including the Munich Olympics Massacre. He is known as the one who is responsible for the murder of more Jews than anyone since Adolf Hitler. So, is it any wonder that the university was uncomfortable extending an invitation to Arafat; uncomfortable with putting itself on the forefront of lending credibility to a man with such a record? It is true that censorship based on content is a very dangerous enterprise. However, that principle does not change the fact that Arafat is the one who bears the brunt of responsibility for his absence. For years he has had the opportunity to make true peace, to truly give-up inciting and promoting violence against Jews and Israel. With the recent agreement at the Wye Plantation, Arafat once again has such an opportunity. If Arafat continues to refuse to truly accept non-violence and negotiations as the only way, not only may he continue to miss the opportunity to speak at OSU, but he will miss an opportunity to achieve peace and security for Palestinians.

Michael B. Kass is a third-year law student at Ohio State