[Page: E2099]

• Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, those of us who are deeply concerned with our Nation's policy in the Middle East were cheered by the decision announced yesterday by the President to suspend dialog with the PLO. That decision was made in the aftermath of a Palestinian terrorist attack on an Israeli beach. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat refused to condemn that terrorist attack unequivocally, and he refused to discipline Abu Abbas and the PFLP faction which planned and carried out that attack.

• While the administration's decision to cease talks with the PLO is most welcome, extremely serious and troubling questions remain.

• The initial decision to proceed with PLO talks was made after Yasser Arafat uttered a ritual incantation about terrorism, which the administration then pronounced to be a renunciation of terrorism. For the past 18 months, the administration has maintained the fiction that the PLO had abandoned terrorism.

• Just days before the blatant terrorist incident that prompted the administration--after considerable handwringing and delay--to suspend the PLO dialog, the State Department released a report, `Patterns of Global Terrorism,' which pronounced that the PLO was not engaging in terrorism.

• The State Department report is a whitewash. If the subject were not as serious as it is, this State Department report on terrorism would be the best comedy show in town. `Alice in Wonderland' is a scientific research document compared to the State Department report on terrorism.

• The State Department report reveals--and recent events confirm--that Yasser Arafat has schizophrenic power. He has no power to control terrorist acts. He has no power to calm down and restrain individuals or his own constituent groups. But he has enormous power to whip up the sentiments of war.

• After the tragic shootings of Palestinians by a deranged man, Arafat and others tied the Government of Israel to the act of a single deranged murderer. This would be analogous, Mr. Speaker, to blaming President Bush for the isolated act of the deranged man who murdered 11 people in Florida earlier this week. The responses of Arafat and irresponsible Arab leaders to this tragic incident in Israel have done far more to undermine the peace process than anybody else has done in years.

• Mr. Speaker, the administration's decision to suspend PLO talks was the right decision--but it should have been done long ago. The uncertainty, the delay, the reluctance of the administration to take this action--which has been warranted for the past year--suggest that at the next available opportunity the administration will resume the dialog. Those of us who care about the integrity and the efficacy of the peace process in the Middle East must oppose any such efforts.

• Mr. Speaker, to give my colleagues a flavor of the State Department's contortions in declaring that the PLO did not support terrorism, I would like to place in the Record a brief exchange that took place recently at the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East to consider the State Department's report on terrorism.

Mr. Lantos. If there is an attempt by a terrorist group to attack a purely civilian target like a kindergarten--does the State Department definition of civilian targets include kindergartens?

Mr. Kelly. Yes.

Mr. Lantos. I just want to be sure that we are using the same definition. So we have now defined a kindergarten as a civilian target. Let us assume that a terrorist group has a premeditated plan, as in fact several PLO terrorist groups have had over the years, as you well know. Are you aware, Mr. Kelly, of attacks at children's homes by terrorists groups in Israel?

Mr. Kelly. I am.

Mr. Lantos. So this is not a fanciful example. If a terrorist group has a premeditated plan to attack a kindergarten and Israeli troops prevent this outrage from unfolding, and they intercept the terrorist group and prevent the terrorist group from machine-gunning children, under your definition clearly this is not a terrorist attack because the children were not killed.

Now no one in his right mind can truly believe that this is a rational definition of terrorism by the major democratic nation on the face of this planet. But let me give you a purely military example. Our distinguished chairman and I and other colleagues visited our troops at Beirut Airport shortly before they were blown up. Now there was no kindergarten there. They were just American soldiers, and they were all killed. Was that a terrorist attack in your judgment, Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Kelly. Yes, indeed.

Mr. Lantos. Well, is it not time then, as a responsible official in the State Department, that you advocate the changing of this idiotic definition rather than keep repeating it. It is obvious to everybody who has eyes and ears that there is a series of terrorist attacks which the State Department attempts to sweep under the rug.

Let me quote from your report: `Since December 1988,' you say, `there have been almost 30 border and rocket attacks by Palestinian groups against Israel, at least nine of which have involved constituent groups of the PLO.' In most cases--and follow me closely now, I am quoting from your report--`the intended target of the attack was unclear.'

Well, was the intended target of the attack the Vienna Boy's Choir, was the intended target of the attack the Bolshoi Ballet, was it the Congressional Women's Caucus? No. The intended targets were targets within Israel--children, women, communities, kindergartens. Those were the intended targets. Those intended targets are clear to everybody except to the authors of this report. That is why I believe that this report is a shameless whitewash.

And the inability of the Assistant Secretary to define terrorism--when our fight against terrorism is one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy--is absolutely unbelievable. We do not want you to make a judgment case by case, because we do not trust your judgment. We want you to have criteria that rational people can apply without your judgment. Your judgment has proven flawed because you say we do not know the intended targets of unquestionably terrorist attacks.

You say in the three incidents in Israel that `civilians appeared to be the target.' Well, let me tell you why they appeared to be the target. This is what the PLO group that perpetrated the terrorist attacks against civilians said. I am quoting from the report about the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine--which is about as democratic as the Kremlin was under Stalin: `The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine has claimed responsibility for the operation. A spokesman for the Front said that a Fedayeen group from the unit carried out Operation Holy Jerusalem No. 2 along the road leading to the Zionist settlement of Zarit.' Well, the `Zionist settlement of Zarit' is made up of children and women and farmers. So you do not have to say that it appears to be an attack against a civilian target, but they say so! They named the settlement, and they named the place where the kindergarten is. But you have not made up your mind as to whether that is a terrorist attack or not. Was that a terrorist act?

Mr. Kelly. I believe it was, yes.

Mr. Ackerman. Why is that not listed in your report if that was a terrorist attack. I see nine things listed, but this act of terrorism is not among them, or can you find a definition that would now preclude it?

Mr. Kelly. Congressman, I am advised that this was an ex post facto assertion by the PFLP, and that the information--

Mr. Lantos. Well, that is good enough for me. That after the terrorist attack they claimed responsibility for it. The CIA puts out this chart saying Palestinian organizations, and on the left it says PLO member groups. And this is one of the PLO member groups. This PLO member group claims that its terrorists were on their way to a civilian settlement--presumably not to play chamber music. And on the way to the settlement, they are intercepted and killed. Is that not a terrorist act, or explain to me under what definition that this is not a terrorist act?

Mr. Kelly. The assertion by the PFLP was that they were heading for a settlement, which would imply a non-combatant target. Which would imply to me based on that assertion alone that it was an attempted terrorist attack. The people who evaluated the incident determined that, based on the available evidence, the target was unclear.

Mr. Lantos. Well, unless they are deranged, the target is not unclear. They were headed in that direction, and their statement claims that they were headed in that direction, and they were killed on their way to that civilian settlement. So why was it unclear?

[Page: E2100]

END