Embracing a Murderer

To pick up a copy of the Harvard Gazette and see the president of Harvard University clasping hands with a terrorist such as Yasser Arafat presented so jarring an image that it could not go without being noted. To imagine that a murderer has been allowed the privilege of addressing an audience at this proud institution and to tread upon ground hallowed by the footsteps of heroes, is surely enough to send chills down the spine of every decent member of our community.

By indulging Arafat's desire for a sounding board from which to advance his nefarious aims, the Kennedy School, and Harvard University by extension, has averted its eyes from his long and disgraceful record of murder and destruction. It should not be considered melodramatic to associate the "red carpet" with which Arafat was welcomed with the blood of the countless thousands of innocent men, women and children whom he and his henchmen have slain in the course of the malicious history of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Let us not forget that the man who was granted a lectern here on Tuesday night has spent the better part of the last half-century blowing up not only Israeli, but international civilians--we were not aware that Harvard was in the business of providing photo-ops for this sort of fellow.

Is our national conscience so fickle as to forgive a terrorist for his crimes against humanity, without ever having tried him in a court of law--a mere matter of months after the most heinous of them have been perpetrated? In welcoming a man such as Arafat, whose hands are not yet dry from the bloodshed of his all-too-recent career, the Harvard administration is setting a disturbing precedent. It would have been no less appropriate for the Kennedy School to entertain Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadaffi.

It should be remembered that Yasser Arafat was catapulted into the international spotlight even before the advent of his brainchild, the "Intifada." Scarcely five years after the adoption of the Camp David Accords, the first honest effort at Middle East peace, this terrorist-turned-Harvard lecturer was coordinating the most effective, bloody exercises in civilian warfare since the end of the Second World War.

This is the man responsible for engineering the "Zionism equals Racism" resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. This is the man responsible for more than a decade of airplane bombings and hijackings, attacks on school buses, murdered soldiers and brutalized civilians. This is a monster.

Since we seem to have forgotten to take any note of Arafat's silver anniversary in the terrorism business, have we also forgotten the photos pasted all over the international press of Arafat embracing Saddam Hussein as he led his troops into battle against the armed forces of the United States? Are we at Harvard truly in the practice of honoring men who supported the invasion of nations, the inexcusable bombardment of others, and the slaughter of our very own soldiers in this manner?

Some will doubtless point to the recent Oslo Accord Declaration of Principles between the Rabin government and the PLO. Not for a moment should anyone be so naive as to think that a man with Arafat's dubious resume is now committed to the hallowed principles of peace which all Americans hold in such high esteem.

We would submit that the only reason for which Arafat currently seeks peace is not any reversal of conscience, but the stark reality that his life is in danger. He is being bounded and threatened by the more virulent Hamas Party, and now relies on the same Israeli public that he has waged war against for his very safety. Some "partner in peace."

It is frightening to consider that, so soon after the tragic bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the demolition of the World Trade Center in New York, so many Americans have already forgotten how devastating and emotionally traumatic terrorism can be. Inviting Arafat to address members of the Harvard Community under the trumped-up title of "President of the Palestinian National Authority" is tantamount to making light of the deaths of Americans, Israelis and others who have died at the hands of the PLO in the not-too-distant past.

Giving Arafat the credentials and stature that he enjoyed during his stay at Harvard has done for him what no other organization in the world, and no public policy coups on the part of the PLO could ever have achieved--it has lent legitimacy to a man who should have been relegated to infamy and tried for his crimes against humanity before the World Court at The Hague long ago.

Harvard may argue that Arafat merely exercised his right to free speech in coming to the ARCO Forum. Perhaps the Institute of Politics will suggest that Arafat arrived as a "peace-maker" and is therefore entitled to the respect afforded men of such stature. Furthermore, some will argue that despite Arafat's track record, he should be entertained for the sake of our own "intellectual curiosity."

To this we would respond, with all due respect, that the opportunity to speak at a venue such as the Kennedy School is an honor and a privilege and not an absolute right afforded terrorists who have only recently relinquished their sidearms. Moreover, if "interesting debate" was our only aim in hosting this man, we truly went well "above and beyond the call of duty."

We not only allowed Arafat to address us, but we also hugged him, kissed him, fed him and congratulated him, in President Rudenstine's words, on his 20 years of "loyalty to the Palestinian cause." Were he alive today, Adolf Hitler, though "interesting" in the extreme, would still not be among those we would invite to our house, nor would we congratulate the man for his "loyalty" to the German people.

Indeed, we have hosted Yasser Arafat in our communal "house," and, knowledgeable as we were of his bestial history, we should never have afforded him the distinction of a "welcome guest." When all is said and done, on Tuesday, October 24, Harvard "wined and dined" a murderer.

What so many in the United States fail to realize is that there is a crucial difference between pursuing peace with a terrorist as a practical matter, and legitimizing him in decent society. In fact, it seems the only public figure to have grasped this distinction was New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Giuliani tolerated Arafat's presence in his city but refused to entertain him at his

Whether or not we approve of the "peace process" in its present form, we fully acknowledge that there is an argument to be made for it. However, even if one believes that the time has come in the Middle East for governments and terrorists to negotiate a peace, there is still a distinction between approaching Arafat and embracing him. The memories of all those whom he has slain cry out against such blasphemy.

How ironic that it was Arafat himself who best captured the sad legacy of his visit here: "If they write a paragraph about my history, they will write that I was at Harvard, that I spoke at Harvard." How true.

Whether or not we approve of the "peace process" in its present form, we fully acknowledge that there is an argument to be made for it. However, even if one believes that the time has come in the Middle East for governments and terrorists to negotiate a peace, there is still a distinction between approaching Arafat and embracing him. The memories of all those whom he has slain cry out against such blasphemy.

How ironic that it was Arafat himself who best captured the sad legacy of his visit here: "If they write a paragraph about my history, they will write that I was at Harvard, that I spoke at Harvard." How true.