PLO Covenant and negotiating role
Cluskey pressed Lenihan on whether the PLO had renounced the Covenant’s call for Israel’s destruction and on Arafat’s reputation as a moderate. Lenihan said the Covenant was not the issue and argued the PLO was an unavoidable representative for negotiations.
Will the Minister say at what level his discussions with the PLO took place and if he got any assurance that the covenant of the PLO which called for the destruction of the State of Israel would be deleted?
Comment on this
I had no personal discussions with representatives of the PLO but officials of my Department had and these have been going on for the past six years. This is an ongoing process and it occurred during Deputy FitzGerald's time and during my predecessor's time.
Comment on this
Will the Minister answer the part of the question relating to the convenant which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel?
Comment on this
That has nothing to do with the present attitude of the PLO. I have not at any stage met a representative of the PLO, although Deputy FitzGerald as Minister, for Foreign Affairs met leading representatives of the PLO.
Comment on this
The Minister described Mr. Arafat as being a moderate. What was that statement based on?
Comment on this
That is his reputation among the leaders of the PLO and it was on that basis that Ireland voted for him to be heard in the UN some years ago, and he has been received by most of the leading politicians and statesmen of the western world from time to time.
Comment on this
Is the Minister seriously unaware that the convenant of the PLO calls for the destruction by military force of the State of Isreal?
Comment on this
That is in a polemical document attributed to the PLO. I have no comment on that, good, bad or indifferent. That is not the issue at stake. What is at stake is the recognition of the reality of the existence of an organisation that is in a position to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people and is recognised as such by all the Arab States.