An Interview With Yasser Arafat

By Andrew I. Killgore

A breakneck road race from Tunis Airport to a seaside hotel keeps my pulse racing. The possibility of not seeing PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat suddenly seems real. Tunisian drivers clearly obey the same iron rule as those in Beirut years ago: Get your passenger there in the shortest possible time, whatever the risk. But get him there.

In the hotel, word goes around. We might meet with the Chairman as early as 10 p.m. So be ready. World War II all over again. Hurry up and wait. Rumors say the waiting is while Arafat sees Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz. Midnight passes. A call will come by 1 a.m., or we will wait another day.

Off at 1:15 a.m. in almost total blackness through dangerously thick fog. We creep along, climbing into the hills behind Tunis, meeting the headlights of descending creepers. Finally we stop. Pile out of the car. Confusion. Wrong house. Pile back in. A short distance more. Pile out again. Into a stone house and Arafat is there.

He is shorter and slighter of build than expected. But radiating intelligence. And energy—at 2:30 a.m. when others are exhausted. He will be soon be 60. What is the answer? A disciplined diet and different sleeping habits. Four hours from 4:30 a.m. to 8:30. Another hour and a half in the afternoon. A no-fat diet. Tea on dry cereal. He would prefer skimmed milk, but that generally is not available.

The conversation is not an interview, but a rapid exchange of ideas. The participants are people dismayed by past injustices and misunderstandings, but passionately committed to bringing them to an end peacefully. Each concern is addressed clearly and thoughtfully.

What about the dialogue with the US?

Yes. Yes. There is a change—but not the change we are expecting. The dialogue is only a first step. By itself it is nothing. Governments must act. Washington especially. We are still dealing with this (Reagan) administration which is completely biased in favor of Israel. Go slow, watch what you say, the process is fragile, we are told.

Foreign press reports of a threat against Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij?

How could I threaten my friend Freij? Who writes these stories? I know. Israel. I never mentioned Freij. A young poet in Riyadh said I had betrayed the intifadah in the Algiers Declaration. I told him I had not started the intifadah. I could not stop the intifadah. If I called on the Shabibah (young boys) to stop, one of them might get me with a stone.

Then the stories began. Look at the timing. If you look, I think you may find that Elias had not even spoken when I spoke those words in Riyadh. But journalists in America still want me to look like a "Palestinian terrorist."

Pro-Israel circles in the United States complain that statements that the Algiers declarations superseded the Palestine National Charter are not enough. They complain that the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers did not specifically renounce the charter, which they say calls for the destruction of Israel. Could the chairman clarify the situation?

I really am tired of jumping through hoops. The Charter was perfectly valid when it was issued. It represented our aspirations at that time. A democratic secular state might still be the best solution in the long run. For the Palestinians and the Jews. But that dream became impractical. It cannot be achieved. But I am not going to renounce the charter formally. It does not call for the destruction of Israel.

The "destruction of Israel" myth is only one of many ties perpetrated against the Palestinians. General Yehosaphat Harkabi's book "The Fateful Decision," is instructive in this regard. In his book the retired Israeli officer concludes that Israel's fatal mistake had been that it told so many big lies, among them that the Charter called for the destruction of Israel.

We are trying to be very careful. You note I did not reply to Secretary Shultz's statement that my alleged "threat" against Freij was really very bad. Shultz spoke before he knew of the background or circumstances.

We are serious. We are not playing games. We meant it when we renounced terrorism and recognized Israel. We want peace. Everything cannot be demanded from us and nothing from "the other side."

We have to have some movement. Dialogue has to lead to negotiations. It seems that only the Palestinians have to wad and wait for results. While we wait, look what is happening to my people in Gaza and the West Bank. Look at the numbers.- Killed 568, wounded 19,000 (including 5,400 disabled), 3,400 miscarriages, 29,000 imprisoned in concentration camps, 3,700 houses damaged or destroyed.

I am astonished at the discipline of my people (in the West Bank and Gaza). We are urging with total seriousness that they not use weapons. Only stones. Think of the provocations they endure. Brutality by the other side seems to be aimed to provoke the shabibah to use weapons. But they won't do it.

Have your Palestinian colleagues given you just six months to achieve progress?

No. Another misleading charge. It's not true. After the favorable vote in Algiers some people talked to the press and said we had to have movement in a hurry. Somebody may have mentioned six months. I've heard this business about six months. I don't know. Of course we feel a strong sense of urgency. But nobody set any six-month deadline.

Arafat did not speculate about who destroyed Pan American Flight 103. The destruction of that flight horrified him. He had his intelligence people working full force trying to pick up clues. Behind the scenes, his people were also working to find some way to bring about the release of hostages being held in Beirut, including the nine Americans.

How might Americans of good will help advance the peace process?

Take care of getting us visas to the United States. Tell any group in America I am glad to accept its invitation to come there and speak. And please help me find a way to break the (television coverage) blackout of the intifadah. We are doing our best. We have spoken to the Israelis a lot. We take every opportunity. I believe the Knesset voted 36 to 36 against prosecuting the Israelis who met openly with us.

What impressions dwell in the mind as the car descends through a foggy dawn back toward Tunis? Why have the Palestinians, dispersed to the ends of the earth, united behind Yasser Arafat? Why have they entrusted him to lead them by war if necessary, by negotiation if possible, back to their own homeland?

There is much to say. Arafat smiles easily and frequently. He also turns serious with extraordinary rapidity. His mind is lightning fast.

Yasser Arafat clearly is not a hater. This observation was made to me by a prominent American who had just spoken to him. It echoed my own thoughts as I listened to his answers through a two-hour conversation.

The chairman is a gentle man. He frequently displays frustration or irritation. But without a trace of rancor or bitterness.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of a conversation with Chairman Arafat is the way he speaks about the people of Israel. To dispel a myth, he does refer to them as "Israelis." But he often refers to them also as "the other side." His tone is almost indulgent. This seems to reflect a deep understanding of human conflicts and tragedies, including surely the tragic history of the Jews in western Christendom.

For a Christian American, who knows that history all too well, it is this facet of a complex personality that sticks most firmly in the mind.

The Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization combines a passionate resolve to end the injustices and tragedies suffered by his people with a dispassionate understanding, even empathy, for their opponents. An unlikely blend, but perhaps the recipe for a peace that will endure.