PLO Debate Finally Cancelled

The on-again, off-again debate between a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representative and a Harvard law professor was cancelled for good this week because the diplomat refused to debate, via satellite, on a local television show, organizers said.

The debate between the PLO's permanent observer to the United Nations, Zhudi Labib Terzi, and Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, had been scheduled for last Monday. But the debate was cancelled when the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a State Department decision not to permit Terzi to travel to Cambridge.

The government classifies Terzi as an excludable alien, which allows him to travel outside a 25-mile radius New York only with special permission. Terzi has been allowed to travel to Massachusetts to vacation, but never to speak publicly.

State Department officials have argued that his talk would harm U.S. foreign policy by giving the appearance that the U.S. does not object to the PLO policies.

The forum, Dershowitz and law student Brad Roth filed suit in federal court in March charging that the State Department is violating students' First Amendment rights in limiting their access to Terzi. Earlier this month, first circuit court judge Walter J. Skinner '48 ruled the State Department's decision unconstitutional.

But after the higher court reversed that opinion Friday, the forum made a last-ditch effort Monday morning to hold the debate in the studios of WCVB-TV, Channel 5, in Boston. Terzi would speak via satellite from the television station's New York City affiliate.

Terzi, in a late Monday afternoon telephoneconversation with Forum President James W.Peck-Gray, said he would no longer agree to thetelevised form of debate. But earlier that day,PLO officials had agreed to let Terzi appear viasatellite, Peck-Gray said.

In what was described as an hour-longdiscussion between the forum president and Terzi,the PLO official said he "preferred to be in thesame room--in the debate he wanted to address hisaudience directly," Peck--Gray said.

Calling the televised half-hour debate, a "verygood second- best alternative," Peck-Gray said:"The forum does not understand his reasons for notparticipating in the alternative debate format."

Dershowitz last night questioned therepresentative's motives in refusing the on-airdebate. The law professor said the televisedformat was "perfectly fair" and that Terzi was"more concerned with making the politicalstatement of not being able to travel" than withactually debating.

Dershowitz said Terzi's last-minute decision tocancel was "not in good faith."

Terzi has appeared via satellite in debate onthe ABC's "Nightline."

Peck-Gray said there will be no debate thissemester, but that it is possible the debate totake place next year. "I don't know if we willpursue that possibility," he said.

In a related development, the forum's lawyerssaid they will not appeal the temporary decisionby the Boston appeals court until the courtrenders its final decision. Any appeal would gobefore the Supreme Court.

A decision by the appeals court "on the merits"is expected within two weeks, according to sourcesclose to the case. The temporary decision came thesame day oral arguments were made. It temporarilyupheld the State Department's position, but hadnot finished reviewing the facts.

It remains unclear what Terzi's refusal toappear on television will have on the litigants'claims that the State Department violated theirfirst amendment rights in barring Terzi's fromtravelling to Cambridge