ABC NEWS

THIS WEEK WITH DAVID BRINKLEY Show #330

LC

February 21, 1988

**ANNOUNCER:** From ABC News, This Week with David Brinkley. Now, from our Washington headquarters, here's David Brinkley.

**DAVID BRINKLEY:** Violence and death in Israel's West Bank and Gaza have now run on for two months at a cost of about 60 lives and many more wounded. The American view, which is now in the form of a new peace plan, is that this cannot go on. Secretary of State George Shultz will be in the Middle East shortly to see if he can get something started. The reaction to the new American initiatives is mixed. We will ask today's guests for their views: Shimon Peres, foreign minister of Israel, from Jerusalem; Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state; Hanna Siniora, Palestinian leader and editor of *Al Fajr*, an East Jerusalem newspaper; some background from our man Jack Smith; and our discussion here with George Will, Sam Donaldson and Ellen Goodman. All here on our Sunday program.

First, a little news since the Sunday morning papers. Secretary of State Shultz flew into Moscow this morning to talk about moving faster on a strategic arms agreement and then onto the Middle East to see if peace is possible in Israel. ABC's John McWethy in Moscow.

**JOHN McWETHY [voice-over]:** As Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze waited for Secretary Shultz this morning, Shevardnadze gave some indication of Soviet positions going into today's meetings. Is a strategic arms agreement still possible by spring, one that could cut by 50% long-range nuclear weapons on each side?

**EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, Soviet Foreign Minister [through interpreter]:** There is a chance, and there is a good chance.

**McWETHY [voice-over]:** Do the Soviets plan to play a larger role in searching for an Arab-Israeli peace agreement?

**Min. SHEVARDNADZE [through interpreter]:** Of course. We want to play a more active role.

**McWETHY [voice-over]:** A more active Soviet role in the actual negotiations?

**Min. SHEVARDNADZE [through interpreter]:** Yes, also in the negotiations.

**McWETHY [voice-over]:** That will not be welcome news to Secretary Shultz, who arrived at Moscow Airport on this frigid morning and came straight to the first round of talks. The United States wants the Soviets to stay away from delicate negotiations that Shultz will try to activate when he flies to the Middle East four days from now — stay away until the Kremlin changes its policy towards Israel.

*[on-camera]* Unlike past meetings between Shultz and Shevardnadze that have dealt primarily with arms control, the emphasis this time will be heavily on regional issues: peace talks in the Middle East, Soviet plans to withdraw from Afghanistan and American efforts to enlist Kremlin support for an arms embargo against Iran. John McWethy, ABC News, Moscow.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** In Israel's West Bank and Gaza, more violence this morning, and a 24-year-old Arab was shot and killed.

The Minnesota poll published this morning shows Senator Bob Dole leading the Republicans in next week's primary and shows Governor Dukakis leading the Democrats.

The United States won its first Gold Medal in the Winter Olympics, won by Brian Boitano in figure skating.

We'll be back with all the rest of today's program in a moment.

*[Commercial break]*

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Again, the U.S. government's view of Israel's problems with violence is that this cannot go on. Almost everyone, including Israel's strongest supporters in this country, would agree to that, but Israel's government is so deeply divided it cannot agree on almost anything. So whatever gets done will be difficult. Before we explore these difficulties with today's guests, here's some background on one of the world's political tangles from Jack Smith. Jack?

-2-

**JACK SMITH** [voice-over]: David, the dark side of Israel's 20-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has never been more apparent, even to Israelis.

**HIRSH GOODMAN, Jerusalem Post Reporter:** Twenty years of complacent occupation. Nobody wanted to read the writing on the wall. It was there.

**JONATHAN KUTTAB, Palestinian Lawyer:** Nobody can take for granted anymore that it is an easy occupation, a cost-free occupation, that the people are somehow reconciled to it.

**SMITH** [voice-over]: With the U.S. about to reenter the peace process, the violence appears to be escalating. Some 60 Palestinian civilians have been killed, not only from continued use of live ammunition but also from the punitive beatings administered by Israeli troops, which the army describes as an effort to prevent stone throwing. Critics say it's nothing more than the systematic use of terror on the civilian population. Hospitals are full of Palestinians youths with broken arms and legs.

**PALESTINIAN** [through interpreter]: The bulldozer came and it made all the [unintelligible] over here.

**SMITH** [voice-over]: A grizzly story surfaced this week that four Palestinians, including this man, were beaten, then buried alive by Israeli troops. They survived, and two Israeli soldiers have been arrested. Defense Minister Rabin this week finally called for restraint by the army but was shouted down by an Israeli Arab Knesset member. "It's a crime," he shouted, "and you're responsible." Israeli peace groups have expressed their growing anguish and so have American Jews.

**AMERICAN JEW:** And it hurts me very much to see what's going on, to see the brutality and violence that occurs through occupation.

**SMITH** [voice-over]: One prominent U.S. Jewish leader, Rabbi Alexander Shindler, even accused Israel of betraying Zionism. Seeking to capitalize on the public indignation, the PLO tried to charter a ship to take some 130 Palestinian deportees back to Israel. Someone blew a hole in the ship; Israel denies involvement. The violence has infused all sides with a new sense of urgency and opportunity. Egyptian President Mubarak has pressed the U.S. to revive the moribund peace process, and so have Palestinian moderates like East Jerusalem editor newspaper Hanna Siniora, who saw the secretary of state last month.

**GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State:** We're trying to develop some ideas. We have called it a new blend of ideas.

**SMITH** [voice-over]: When Secretary of State Shultz arrives in the Middle East with the new U.S. peace plan, he'll see the problem first hand. Palestinians promise more rioting for the visit, and Israel is laying on extra police. Details of the U.S. plan are sketchy, but it appears to have two main features: immediate but very limited autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza by election of a Palestinian self-governing body, and second, talks starting no later than December on the future of the occupied territories between Israel and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, with the U.S. as mediator. The outcome would be some sort of Palestinian entity but short of the independent Palestinian state to which Israel objects — perhaps a federation with Jordan. In effect, it's a streamlined version of the Camp David accords, which called for limited Palestinian autonomy followed five years later by agreement on the disposition of the West Bank and Gaza. The new U.S. plan collapses the process into 10 months or less. But the chances of success are hampered by the divisions in Israel's shaky coalition government.

**SHIMON PERES, Israeli Foreign Minister:** Whether it will be self-autonomy or self-government, I shall support it.

**SMITH** [voice-over]: Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, leader of the center-left Labor Party, has always wanted a deal with the Palestinians. Last year he backed the international conference favored by the Arabs and has welcomed the new U.S. plan.

**YITZHAK SHAMIR, Israeli Prime Minister:** We are ready for direct talks with our Arab neighbors.

**SMITH** [voice-over]: Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, leader of the right-wing Likud

-3-

[L]

bloc, showed flexibility earlier this month, but under pressure from hard-liners now indicates he won't trade land for peace or accept any acceleration of the original Camp David timetable. Reaction among Arabs has been equally mixed. Jordan's King Hussein, while saying he'll explore Shultz's ideas, has declared that anything based on the old Camp David formula is unacceptable, and the U.S. plan has had a similar reception from Palestinians. Professor Edward Said, a member of the Palestine National Council, the Palestinians' de facto Parliament in exile.

**Prof. EDWARD SAID, Columbia University:** I don't think you're going to find any Palestinian takers who are going to accept anything less than self-determination, and so far the United States has been blindly opposed to this.

**JUDITH KIPPER, ABC News Middle East Consultant:** At this time I think we shouldn't pay so much attention to what we're hearing in the public domain because there is a tremendous amount of posturing.

**SMITH [voice-over]:** Nevertheless, there are real difficulties ahead, not the least of which is that both the U.S. and Israel this year will be distracted by elections, making the talks even harder.

**Mr. KUTTAB:** For both sides, there have to be concessions. We have to concede to most of Palestine which has become the state of Israel. But they also have to concede something to us, as a people, some of our national rights.

**SMITH:** Whatever the pitfalls, and they do exist, the administration has apparently concluded that if the U.S. doesn't act then who will, and if not now, then when? But with no end to the violence in sight, matters just cannot wait. David?

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Jack, thank you. Coming next, Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state; and shortly, Hanna Siniora, a Palestinian leader and editor of a newspaper in East Jerusalem; and the foreign minister of Israel, Shimon Peres. In a moment.

[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming in. Happy to have you with us today.

**HENRY KISSINGER, Former Secretary of State:** Glad to be here.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Here in the studio are George Will of ABC News and Sam Donaldson, ABC News White House correspondent. Now, Mr. Kissinger, we've all heard many, many peace plans for the Middle East. All of them, however, end with the term "yes, but." Do you know one that doesn't?

**Sec. KISSINGER:** No, I think it's inherent in the situation because the two parties up to now have had irreconcilable objectives. The big problem we will face is whether the United States is pushing primarily a procedural course, that is to say, are we just trying to get the parties together, or are we going to develop some substantive ideas which we're going to urge? That seems to me to be the key decision that has to be made.

**GEORGE WILL:** Mr. Kissinger, Israel has a crisis today, and it has no partners with whom to confer and negotiate. Is there anything Israel can and should do unilaterally right now to improve its situation?

**Sec. KISSINGER:** Well, you know, I have sometimes thought that the best thing Israel could do would be to indicate that it is willing to give up some territory, to define the territory that it can give up that is compatible with its security, and to invite a negotiation about its status, its governance and its security guarantees. That is impossible given the divisions within Israel. Failing that, some such solution has to be sought by negotiation under somebody's auspices. I have the gravest doubts about an international conference. I have grave doubts about a Soviet role, unless the Soviets are willing to ask of their Arab friends what we are going to be asked to propose to our Israeli friend. So I think that American mediation is the best course.

**Mr. WILL:** In order to give up land for peace, you have to have someone willing to take the land that you're willing to give up. Suppose Israel said, "All right, the Gaza from now on will be Egypt's responsibility, with some kind of fiddling with the arrangements, and the West Bank shall be Jordan's," would Hussein or Mubarak welcome that?

**Sec. KISSINGER:** Well, first of all, I don't believe that Israel can give up the whole

— 4 —

[L]

West Bank without winding up like Czechoslovakia after Munich. And the beginning of wisdom will be to recognize that Israel has security concerns on the West Bank which absolutely have to be satisfied if this is not to be the beginning of the destruction of the state of Israel. So my— would the Arab leaders be satisfied if Israel made a specific proposal on specific territories other than the whole West Bank? Maybe not. But it would change the entire political and moral climate if that were to be done as an Israeli initiative.

**Mr. WILL:** The point of my question was, sir, that the Palestinian issue has been kept festering, deliberately, as an act of Arab policy, has it not, all these years? After all, there were millions of displaced persons and refugees in Europe in 1945; there were none 10 years later in 1955. Therefore, in whose interest is it now to see this current unrest solved?

**Sec. KISSINGER:** And all of the Arab countries have had grave reservations about letting the Palestinians participate in their own political life. Jordan never annexed the West Bank when it governed it. Palestinians in Gaza were never permitted to visit Egypt when Egypt was in control there; they were kept there. In whose interest is it? I think the moderate Arabs ought to have a theoretical interest to keep the Palestinians out of the hands of the fundamentalists and the radical Arabs. But they will not do this unless they can explain to their own domestic opposition or to the radical factions in their country that there is no other choice, that if they want to get anything, all they can get is whatever is defined as a reasonable compromise, at least for an interim period. By themselves they cannot make a compromise proposal. That might be a role of the United States, to convey to Israel that it has to—the status quo is unsustainable, to convey to the Arabs that their maximum program is unattainable.

**SAM DONALDSON:** Dr. Kissinger, as you know, Secretary Shultz is in Moscow. The Reagan administration favors the idea of international conference, including perhaps the Soviet Union. The theory, I suppose, is that if the two superpowers back such a conference, it puts heavy pressure on all parties, including Israel, to actually do some deals. Why do you oppose this idea?

**Sec. KISSINGER:** If there is a prior understanding between us and Israel, and between the United States and the Soviet Union, about the shape of a possible outcome, then the conference might— can be useful. If there is not, if all we have agreed on is procedures for assembling the conference, then the Soviet Union can appear as the lawyer for the radical Arabs. We will be under pressure to impose a settlement on Israel, and the end will be either an imposition of a peace or the total isolation of the United States. And I oppose the idea only if we are going into such a conference unprepared, and by unprepared— by prepared I mean a substantive understanding, not of every detail, but of what it is that is attempted to be achieved. For example, is a settlement to be sought along the '67 borders, or are some other lines conceivable? If that is not done, the conference will be— will lead to the total isolation of the United States, the resurrection of a major Soviet role in the Arab world at no cost to them, and we will see a repetition of what's going on in Iran now.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** On another subject, in the Middle East, certainly, concerning us — the kidnapping of Lieutenant Colonel Higgins, a U.S. Marine. What would you do if you were secretary of state now?

**Sec. KISSINGER:** You know, when you are out of government it is irresponsible to say that one would do something else. I have in general agreed with the position taken by the secretary, by Secretary of State Shultz, not always followed by the administration, that one should not negotiate with terrorists, that if one has any indication of who did it, that one should retaliate, and that one should punish those countries that give them support. But having said this, one has to apply the concrete circumstances, and I don't know enough—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** What do you mean, should one retaliate? I mean, you suggest that— President Reagan last week used the word "rescue," but he took it back, or his aides took it back on his behalf.

**Sec. KISSINGER:** I was very uneasy about taking the word back because obviously

— 5 —

[L]

you can't undertake a rescue operation unless you know approximately where the hostage is being kept. But I don't know why we should forswear the possibility of a rescue operation in principle, and why we should not keep them guessing at least that we might do it. I don't know whether we have enough intelligence to talk about it intelligently, but I don't think we should create the impression that we are going to negotiate about the release of a hostage because that creates an incentive for taking hostages.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Kissinger—

**Sec. KISSINGER:** But the secretary of state has said all of this, and I agree with him.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Kissinger, thank you. Thanks very much for being with us. Please to have you.

**Sec. KISSINGER:** Thank you.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Coming next, Hanna Siniora, a Palestinian leader and editor of *Al Fajr*, a newspaper in East Jerusalem; and shortly, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. In a moment.

*[Commercial break]*

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Siniora, thank you for being with us today. Glad to have you.

**HANNA SINIORA, Editor, Al Fajr:** Same here.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Now, tell the American people — this is a chance to speak to them — tell the American people as precisely as you can what kind of settlement the Palestinians would accept.

**Mr. SINIORA:** Well, actually it's very simple. Recently, Mr. Abu Rahme and myself were in the United States. We were received by Secretary Shultz, and we told him plainly that the essential element of any settlement is self-determination of the Palestinian people. This is the basic condition that will start the peace process. We told him that the present conditions cannot continue, that the Palestinian people will not accept the status quo, continued occupation, and that the United States as a superpower has to work to end this occupation. Mr. Shultz knows very well that the basic way of finding a solution is to sit down, negotiate all the parties to the conflict, and here, on part of the Palestinian people, there is a designated negotiator. It is the representative of the Palestinian people, the PLO. We told Mr. Shultz very plainly that in order to find peace, the real parties to the conflict — and here it is Israeli government and the representative of the Palestinian people, the PLO — should negotiate. In order to make peace, you have to make peace between parties that can implement a treaty arrived at. We should remember very clearly that in 1983 Mr. Shultz himself actually participated in negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, and during that treaty it was— there was an agreement reached, and at that time that agreement was not fulfilled, was not implemented because the side that represented the Lebanese was not the real forces of—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** But Mr. Siniora, I need to interrupt you. You say the basic question is Palestinian self-determination. Where? West Bank? Israel itself? Gaza? Where?

**Mr. SINIORA:** Well, actually there is already an agreed plan that not only the PLO, the Palestinian people, but all the Arab countries have agreed to, which is the Arab peace plan, the Fez peace plan of 1982. It was accepted by the Palestinian national movement, by the Palestine National Council, which is our Parliament in exile, in 1983, and it calls for exchange of land occupied in 1967 during the June 1967 war for acceptance, recognition of the state of Israel. In return for this, a Palestinian state should be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

**Mr. WILL:** Sir, the West Bank really is not the land that belongs to the Palestinians or Israel or Jordan. Clearly, as I understand it, it's unallocated portions of the Palestine Mandate. Now, you just heard Mr. Kissinger say, among other things, that it is not acceptable and could not be pushed, undoubtedly, by the United States for Israel to return to the '67 borders in two senses: that you would divide the capital of Israel, Jerusalem, again, or that Israel again would be 10 miles wide at the Latrun salient. Given those two sticking points, can we proceed?

**Mr. SINIORA:** Naturally, Mr. Kissinger should know, that today we are living in the missile age, where security is not how wide is a piece of land. Security depends on peace with your neighbors, and essentially security of Israel depends on peace with the

— 6 —

[L.C.]

Palestinians. Now, when you talk about a divided city, about Jerusalem, the Palestinians don't want Jerusalem to be divided. Actually they are calling for Jerusalem to be open, undivided, but for full enfranchisement of both peoples living in Jerusalem. It means that in the future Jerusalem can be both the capital of the state of Israel as well as the future Palestinian state. There has to be the national rights of both people recognized in Jerusalem, the right of the Palestinian people as well as the Israeli people. And in order to keep the city open and undivided, there has to be a working relationship on the municipal local level, but yet the full rights of both people, the national rights of both people should be recognized, and then Jerusalem can be actually the city of coexistence, the city of peace, and where the elements of a settlement—

**Mr. WILL:** I understand. Sir—

**Mr. SINIORA:** —can start from Jerusalem itself.

**Mr. WILL:** Sir, you seem to be saying that these negotiations should be without precedent in history, because all negotiations previously in history have begun with two parties saying, "You exist and you have a right to exist. Now we're going to argue about what we disagree with." You're saying that if Israel gives you what you want, then you will end where you really probably ought to begin, which is saying, "Okay, then Israel has a right to exist." Is this not getting things backwards?

**Mr. SINIORA:** No, we are not. Actually what I am saying is that we don't have to look to what Secretary Shultz is bringing to the region or to what the United Nations or the Soviet Union can offer. We have an agreement made between Palestinians and Israelis locally. Actually, a few months ago a Palestinian by the name of Faisal Husseini, another, Sari Nusserbeh, and at the same time an Israeli from the heart of the Likud, came to an agreement after 12 long sessions. And in those sessions basically the basis of any agreement between the two people is mutual recognition.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Mr. Siniora, when the demonstrations began on the West Bank and Gaza originally last December, they seemed to be spontaneous. But now they are clearly organized. It is said the PLO organizes these demonstrations daily. Doesn't the PLO bear some responsibility then for the deaths of Palestinians occurring in them?

**Mr. SINIORA:** Well, actually, what the PLO is trying to send a message to the state of Israel is that they have said they are ready for mutual simultaneous recognition. When they hear Mr. Shamir say no to negotiations, no to an international conference, no to withdrawal, no to a Palestinian state, and basically he is not ready to talk with a representative of the Palestinian people—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** But you are sending this message with the—

**Mr. SINIORA:** —which is the PLO.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** You're sending the message with the bodies of the young Palestinians, are you not?

**Mr. SINIORA:** Actually, we would like negotiations to start tomorrow. When the Palestinians were quiet and asking through normal channels—I went to the State Department several times and nobody listened to the Palestinians at that time. Today we are paying a heavy sacrifice. It is the blood of our children. But we are ready to stop this minute, this very day. What is the response of the state of Israel? Actually, Mr. Peres is very responsible about the future. He is ready to bargain about the future of the Palestinians with Arab countries. He is treating us like an Arab minority and not a people with national rights.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, is it your position—

**Mr. SINIORA:** We would like Mr. Peres to talk—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Is it your position, sir, that the demonstrations will proceed and continue indefinitely?

**Mr. SINIORA:** Actually, the demonstrations, the uprising — because this is an uprising, a revolt against the facts, the status quo which has continued perpetuating the occupation — we are not wanting to spill one single Palestinian blood. Yesterday we had three Palestinians paying with their life. Today another Palestinian. You see the beatings every day on American television of Palestinians. We don't like that; we don't condone that. But the Israelis have to respond not with their traditional response, which

— 7 —

[L]

is more beatings, more repressive measures; they have to respond with a political message.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Siniora, thank you. Thank you for coming in, talking with us today.

**Mr. SINIORA:** You're welcome.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Coming next, the foreign minister of Israel, Shimon Peres. In a moment.

[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Minister, in Israel, we are delighted you came in today. Happy to have you with us.

**SHIMON PERES, Israeli Foreign Minister:** Thank you.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Now, you have heard all or most of what has gone before on this program. The current move toward some sort of agreement in the Middle East, and specifically in Israel, is very often compared to the Camp David agreement. There are, however, some differences. Number one, we no longer have Anwar Sadat, regrettably. Number two, Israel no longer has the Sinai to give back to Egypt as a part of the deal. So on what basis might a conference succeed now?

**Min. PERES:** Well, I can't speak on behalf of the Arabs, nor is it my duty to satisfy the Arab demands. But I have to speak on behalf of my people and to satisfy our own convictions. I as an Israeli and as a Jew would not like to dominate another people against their will. We don't have the slightest intention to run the lives of the Palestinian people. Then again, I would like very much to see the whole of the region escaping the vicious cycle of one war and another war and another war. I would like to offer the children of Israel, as the children of the Palestinians and Arabs, a different future, to save our economy, not to spend so much money on weapons, to save our posterity and not to see so much blood.

**Mr. WILL:** Mr. Peres, part of the problem is that you not only cannot speak for the Arabs; you can't speak for the Israeli government. The Israeli government has trouble speaking for itself. Is there, politically, the possibility of a government in Israel in the foreseeable future that would yield significant amounts of land for peace? And then after you've answered that, I'll ask you the other side of the question.

**Min. PERES:** Yes, I think it is. Look, in the United States you are too divided. Take for example the issue of the contras. The administration thinks in one way, the Congress thinks in a different way. But then comes elections and you decide. By the way, I don't accept the idea that you have to have a very large majority to take a decision. In modern democracies, majorities are rather small, but they are decisive and they carry a responsibility. So my answer is yes, we can have this sort of a government we have to have, and we don't have too much time to make up our minds.

**Mr. WILL:** The preceding guest said that in the missile age, it really isn't territory that matters; it's a kind of climate of peace throughout the region on which Israel must depend for its security. I have a feeling the Israeli defense force would disagree, and would say, for example, that they really need to have control of, or a military presence on, the high points on the West Bank. We're not talking, are we, when we talk about land for peace, about tinkering with the Latrun salient; we're talking about a substantial amount of land remaining under Israeli control, are we not?

**Min. PERES:** I don't believe the problem is land; I believe the problem is people. The land is very small in size. Take, for example, the Gaza Strip: all told it's not more than 220 square miles and you have there 650,000 people. So what is the problem, the territory or the people? In my eyes the problem is really the population of Gaza and not the size of Gaza. The same goes for the West Bank. Surely Israel is entitled, after having five wars in 40 years, to have security borders. We cannot return to the '67 frontiers which left us without defensible lines. But this is a matter of negotiations, and I accept the principle that land for peace but not all of the land, because we need also land for security, a part of it.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Mr. Foreign Minister, Secretary Shultz will come to the Mideast after his trip to Moscow, where he is at the moment, and it is widely expected that he

— 8 —

[L]

will continue to press for U.S. backing, with Soviet backing, for an international conference. And you have said you favored this. What do you think the Shamir government will do?

**Min. PERES:** Well, I heard Dr. Kissinger speaking about it. The problem, what role the Russians will play depends upon what role the international conference will play. I wouldn't go for any conference that has the right to impose a solution or to replace us in the negotiations. I would never agree that any foreign country, Russia or another country, will make decisions instead of us or will try to force us to make a decision. I don't accept the Russian concept that the international conference should be an authoritative conference. I think it should be an authorizing conference, namely enabling the parties to negotiate among themselves freely. This is to the best of my knowledge the Jordanian position, the Egyptian position, the Israeli position, the American position. So the international conference should be like somebody that opens the door to a new era but not somebody who'll replace us, the residents, in the house itself.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Mr. Foreign Minister, as you know, the backdrop to all of this recently has been the violence in Gaza and on the West Bank, with Palestinians being killed, sometimes almost daily. Two yesterday, one including a 12-year-old boy. At least one, perhaps two today. When are Israeli defense forces going to stop the killings from the standpoint, if nothing more, than it's awful public relations for you?

**Min. PERES:** Well, just to correct one remark. My views were the same before the riots, and the riots wouldn't change them, neither would it stop me from trying to look for a negotiated agreement.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, I didn't intend to imply that you had changed your views. But I'm asking now about when Israel is going to stop killing Palestinians.

**Min. PERES:** I deplore, as all of us do, I hope, I am sure, the loss of life of any person. It is not our purpose; it leads to nowhere; it doesn't carry any solution. And I know it is not a military problem but a political one, or at least the answer must be a political one. The sooner we shall start to negotiate, the more security—or the more secure will be their lives of the Palestinians and of our own people.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Mr. Foreign Minister—

**Min. PERES:** And we don't—pardon? We don't like the present situation, but we cannot deal with the results of the situation rather than dealing with the roots that have led to them. And I am convinced that a time has really come which shouldn't be postponed, to start to negotiate and find a solution which will answer the aspirations of the Palestinians on the one hand and the security call of Israel on the other.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** I'd like to ask you a question on an unrelated subject. The *Los Angeles Times* today has a story which says that in the summer of 1985 you wrote a handwritten message to Attorney General Edwin Meese concerning that proposed Iraqi pipeline, which has now gotten many people in this country, including the attorney general, under some sort of cloud of suspicion. Did you write such a letter?

**Min. PERES:** Yes, I did.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** What did you say in it?

**Min. PERES:** I was told about the idea of laying a pipeline from Iraq through Jordan up to Eilat which will add, in my judgment, more security to the whole region and that Israel could have enjoyed oil for a lesser price. Once I was told, I wrote to Meese and I said that if this is the case, I would like to meet Secretary Shultz, a man for whom I have the highest regard, in order to discuss it and talk it over. That was the content of my letter.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Mr. Foreign Minister, as you know, there are allegations that there were some schemes to pay off Israeli officials. Your name has been prominently mentioned in connection with this pipeline.

**Min. PERES:** Oh, that's foolish.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Did anyone—

**Min. PERES:** That's so foolish, it doesn't call for any answer.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, let me just give you an opportunity to deny it categorically.

**Min. PERES:** I deny it—

— 9 —

[L.C.]

**Mr. DONALDSON:** At any time did anyone ever approach you with any idea that perhaps you could be of assistance in giving a security guarantee for this pipeline, for which you or the party would receive renumeration?

**Min. PERES:** You know, it's a shame, even, to relate myself to such an accusation. If somebody would come to me and suggest it for the party or for somebody else, he would be thrown out the window. We never do it, we never did it, nobody ever approached me. I don't know what somebody was scheming behind my back. But I was never approached—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Why would you write the attorney general, sir? Why would you write the attorney general on this matter? Could you not have dealt with State Department officials? Although Secretary Shultz had excused himself, others were available.

**Min. PERES:** You know, the attorney general already said that I gave my agreement even before the memorandum because I think it was a good suggestion. I think it would serve all the parties concerned. What has it to do with bribes or money? I think it would add stability to the region.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** But why write the attorney general? Why not write the national security advisor, who was empowered to deal with this matter?

**Min. PERES:** Because I was approached by people who told me the attorney general will deal with it, and then the attorney general replied and told me that since it was a company that Mr. Shultz used to work for, that Mr. McFarlane will approach me, and he did approach me in another letter and I have replied officially after I've consulted my fellows in the government.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Minister, thank you. Thank you very much for being with us today—

**Min. PERES:** You're welcome.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** —and giving us your views. Coming next, our discussion here, and if anyone has a peace plan, now is the time to offer it to the world. And joining us will be newspaper columnist Ellen Goodman. In a moment.

[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, we have all been through Iowa and New Hampshire and survived, more or less. Next, Super Tuesday, March 8th, 20 states, primaries, caucuses all on the same day. Now, is that going to choose a nominee for the Republicans and the Democrats, or is it simply going to make a mess? George, what do you think?

**Mr. WILL:** I think it will compound the mess on the Democratic side. It's very hard to see how, with Jesse Jackson and Al Gore really joining this fray in a serious way for the first time, and no one really having enough money to fight all across the land just—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** It costs millions.

**Mr. WILL:** Well, it would take six-seven million dollars to do it right because you have to buy media markets from Maryland to Texas. There are 17 media markets in Texas alone. What about Baltimore, Land— no one can afford it. On the Republican side, I think you're also going to see a long march all the way to New Orleans, all the way to California, which on the Republican side is an enormous collection of delegates, something like 15%, 17% of the amount needed to nominate, and it's winner take all.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, Super Tuesday is certainly going to test the theory we've all been propounding now for weeks that the two reverends are the real wild cards in the party, Jackson and Robertson, and that they're going to come out of the South maybe holding the balance of the power at their conventions. Perhaps so. I'm willing to let this drama sort of unfold, but it is kind of a mess on the Democratic side. And it also tests whether Al Gore is going to be a factor. We look at him and say he's going to be the southern candidate, maybe. But he hasn't really taken off yet, and he didn't get many votes in the North. And finally on the Republican side, I sort of think that unless Bob Dole can regroup somehow, Bush's organization is well in place throughout the South, and Texas I think firmly in his camp, we may very well see Bush come out of Super Tuesday a man so far ahead that it's going to be very difficult to stop him.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Ellen?

**ELLEN GOODMAN, Syndicated Columnist:** Well, part of the confusion too is that in

— 10 —

LC

13 of the states you can cross vote. You know, you can vote for either party. So if you have a number of Democratic voters switching over to vote for Robertson, for example, you may have a far greater chance for a more liberal candidate to emerge from the South than we typically have thought of all this.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** You mean Dukakis, your governor.

**Ms. GOODMAN:** My governor, I think, is in a very good shot, a very good position at the moment. Six of the states are not southern states, including Massachusetts, and he's got some liberal strongholds, or some not liberal but some strongholds in the big cities in the South that he could do unexpectedly well in.

**Mr. WILL:** The southern component of this, David, was put together by conservative southern Democratic state legislatures.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Hoping to increase their influence.

**Mr. WILL:** Hoping to increase their influence, and on the sure and certain hope that they'd be choosing with Sam Nunn or Chuck Robb of Virginia. Now, all Democratic Party reforms illustrate the law of unintended consequences, which is they get exactly the reverse, and you could have, just for what Ellen was talking about, the crossover phenomenon — you could have conservative Democrats say, "This is fun, let's go vote on the Republican side," and have a kind of hyper liberal turnout in the southern primary.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** I didn't mean to imply, when I talked about Gore being tested in the South and not yet seeming to have demonstrated much, that he couldn't do it. As a matter of fact, inside the Beltway, people who talk about politics more and more are looking to Al Gore as someone who may very well develop out of Super Tuesday a good head of steam and go on to be a major factor at the convention.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Anyone here, do you care to guess what states Jesse Jackson will carry? And I think he'll carry some.

**Ms. GOODMAN:** South Carolina.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Everyone says South Carolina.

**Mr. WILL:** Georgia.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Georgia you think, maybe?

**Mr. WILL:** Maybe Alabama.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** How about Alabama?

**Ms. GOODMAN:** He may get a plurality in a number of other states too.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Altogether possible. So you want to put that—

**Ms. GOODMAN:** He comes out of—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** You want to put that on paper and we'll come back and look at it on March 9th?

**Ms. GOODMAN:** Do we have to?

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** No, but I do think he'll carry some states.

**Mr. WILL:** You know, it's possible, before leaving this, to say something about what Sam has said about Al Gore is going to come out of the 1988 contest an enlarged figure. He may be nominated, he may be president; he might lose and come out an enlarged figure. And you do have to wonder if someone like Bill Bradley didn't miss a moment, that the brass ring doesn't come around every four years. This might have been his time because the field is going to look very much different, perhaps more difficult next time around.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Al Gore may be president someday, but he's 39 years of age. And to a lot of us old fogeys, the thought of someone that young, since we missed John Kennedy — he didn't cut me off; I was in my 20s — is horrid. I mean, Al, youth will be served, but can you wait four or eight years?

**Mr. WILL:** A journalistic colleague of mine babysat for Al Gore when he was a wee child here, when his father was in Congress, and this colleague says that one axiom is, do not vote for someone you babysat for.

**Ms. GOODMAN:** I think one of the really interesting things that's going on between Bush and Dole, you have Bush who's fighting the wimp factor and Dole is now fighting the meanness factor, and how do they fight with each other? I mean, it sets up for a

— 11 —

[L]

situation where Bush can hit and Dole has to put his hands behind his back and be gent-
lemanly. It's going to be a very curious fight.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, what is clearcut is that if you had the choice between a wimp and a, what do you call him, a meanie?

**Ms. GOODMAN:** Darth Vader.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Whatever. What's the choice?

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, if you had a clean choice—

**Mr. WILL:** It's a mean world.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** —take the Darth Vader, I guess. But when Tom Brokaw gave each of them a chance to say something to each other and Dole said, "Stop lying about my record," that was the old Bob Dole, you know, fist stomping down, down, you know. And people will keep wondering whether that's going to come out at the oddest times.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** When did we come to expect our politicians to be so nice and sweet and kind and soft-spoken and gentle and hand little posies to their opponents? Have we—

**Ms. GOODMAN:** When we turned on the television camera and we brought things up close and personal.

**Mr. WILL:** It could well be that—

**Ms. GOODMAN:** A witty remark on paper doesn't look the same way on television.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Or a genial reading of a teleprompter speech. We love that.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** So we're to blame television for that too. All right. All right. Now, Mr. Reagan, in his last year, has sent Congress his last budget. The figure's so big I don't even know how to say it, but I think it's $1.1 trillion.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** And some-odd hundred million.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** It's a whole lot of money. Does this budget make any sense, George?

**Mr. WILL:** No, it's a capitulation. On the part of everybody has decided that we'll think about this next year. It's the Scarlet O'Hara budget — we'll worry about this some other day. It's astonishing that the Republican Party came to power, David, in 1981 pledged to a strong defense and balanced budgets. Took it four and a half years to double the national debt, and on and on it goes. This budget now guarantees that we will have for four consecutive years a decline in real terms in defense spending, and the interest component of this budget— and tell our readers what they're getting— our viewers what they're getting for their money. Interest component of the budget costs more than the combined budgets of agriculture, labor, state, interior, justice, education, energy, commerce and transportation departments — just to rent money. Now, obviously that's a regressive transfer of wealth.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, of course it is. Congress has spent years and years transferring income from, at least in theory, from the rich to the poor, take it from the rich, give it to the poor. That's the business we've been in. This is the absolute opposite. We take money away from everybody in the country and give it to the rich who buy the bonds.

**Mr. WILL:** And some of the rich live in Riyadh.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Exactly.

**Mr. WILL:** Because not everyone buys Treasury bills who lives in this country.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** But even to the true believers it is absolute proof that the Reagan revolution is over when it comes to economics in this country, and I say high time. Because this budget is a more realistic one. They made a deal last October, right, that set the perimeters. But the budget reflects that. As George has pointed out, defense spending now is going to go down. Go ahead, David.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** No, I just wanted to start something else as soon as you finished that.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Gosh, I could run on forever.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** I know you could.

**Ms. GOODMAN:** I just have to—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Let me just button it up by saying not only is defense spending going down, but we're raising taxes; we're going to have to raise taxes more in succeeding years. I heard Beryl Sprinkel, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, the other day try to argue that while deficits are bad and debt is bad,

— 12 —

[c]

well, it's not really anything to be worried about. Good luck, Beryl.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** But that was only a bunch of economists, Sam. Now, here's a question, and this question about the budget bears on it. *The New York Times* had a poll of I don't know how many people but enough, I guess, asking if they were—if they thought the future would be better than the present and better than the past. The result was that people expect the future to be about the same as the present. That is, they don't expect any great improvement.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Or worse.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** They don't think things will be better in the future than they are now. Which is the first time that's happened, I think. What are we to make of that? I think in fact if the future is as good as the present for most Americans — obviously not all — for most Americans, that's a pretty good prospect. Don't you?

**Ms. GOODMAN:** Well, it's very much—I think their feeling is tied into the real story of the budget, if you don't mind a segue, which is a transfer of wealth from one generation to another. Now, my favorite line on this comes from a mistake made by the Wells Fargo bank when it sent out announcements last week of a new mortgage equity loan, and at the bottom, by computer error, it had the line: "This will allow you—this loan will allow you to borrow from what otherwise would have been your children's inheritance." And that's a classic line.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** We've got 20 seconds.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** I think Ellen's point is the same thing that that poll shows. When Jimmy Carter suggested to the country we're going to have to start living within our means, not just in fiscal senses but in the sense of national resources, Ronald Reagan said that's not right. But he did it with a credit card.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Five seconds, George.

**Mr. WILL:** Seventy percent of the budget, defense, interest, Social Security and Medicare. This is the transfer of wealth—[crosstalk]

**Mr. DONALDSON:** There is no free lunch, and we're about to discover it.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** That's all, that's all. Thank you very much. I wish we had more time. We'll be back with a few words about Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on politics and what happens to those who don't read them. In a moment.

[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY** [commentary]: Finally, we've heard and seen quite a lot about the candidates for president traveling the country in chartered airplanes, surrounded by staff and bodyguards, debating on national television and spending money in the millions. But, what about this? Harold Stassen has been running for president since 1948 when he was governor of Minnesota. Forty years later he is still running, sort of. This week he was home in Minneapolis when he saw in the paper that the Republicans would have a debate that night in Dallas and that two candidates, Dole and Robertson, refused to participate. Stassen figured that meant there would be two empty chairs, and maybe they would let him have one of them. He took the first plane to Dallas, but he arrived 20 minutes after the debates had begun. Some people have no luck. But not only would they not let him join in the debate; they wouldn't even let him in the hall. He took the first plane back home. It's too bad that in these 40 years Stassen has not read Jefferson's advice, which is, "Politics is such a torment, I would advise everyone I love to stay out of it."

For all of us at ABC's This Week, until next Sunday, thank you.

PREVIOUS EDITIONS & GUESTS: (Send $3 for each transcript ordered)

1986

8-3 #249 Lawrence Tribe, Paul Bator, Joseph Biden, Orrin Hatch

8-10 #250 Beryl Sprinkel, David Roderick, Warren Rudman, William Gray

8-17 #251 Robert McFarlane, Les Aspin, Thomas Downey, John Warner, Sam Nunn

8-24 #252 Ken Blaylock, Peter Bensinger, Carlton Turner, Dennis DeConcini,

— 13 —

(L)

Paula Hawkins

8-31 #253 Alfred E. Kahn, Morten Berger, Frank Borman, Donald Engen

9-7 #254 David Harman, Marva Collins, Sidney Sheldon, Harold McGraw

9-14 #255 Gennadi Gerasimov, Mortimer Zuckerman, Alexander Haig, Richard Lugar, Daniel Patrick Moynihan

9-21 #256 Paul Warnke, Jeane Kirkpatrick, George Shultz

9-28 #257 Murray Weidenbaum, Alan Greenspan, Bill Bradley, John Danforth, James Baker

10-5 #258 Nicholas Daniloff, Gennadi Gerasimov, George Shultz

10-12 #259 Zbigniew Brzezinski, William G. Hyland

10-19 #260 Max Kampelman, David Sawyer, Roger Ailes, Paul Kirk, Frank Fahrenkopf

10-26 #261 Peter Hart, Robert Teeter, Mitchell Daniels, Richard Lugar, Lloyd Bentsen

11-2 #262 John Heinz, George Mitchell, Donald Regan

11-9 #263 Geoffrey Kemp, Barry Rubin, Henry Kissinger, Richard Lugar, Sam Nunn

11-16 #264 Moshe Arens, Robert Byrd, Patrick Leahy, Robert McFarlane

11-23 #265 John Phelan Jr., William Proxmire, Alfonse D'Amato, John Shad

11-30 #266 Abba Eban, Cyrus Vance, Robert Dole

12-7 #267 H. Ross Perot, Ernest Hollings, Howard Baker, Robert Dole

12-14 #268 John Ehrlichman, Lee Hamilton, William Broomfield, David Durenberger, Patrick Leahy

12-21 #269 Richard Ben-Veniste, Dick Cheney, Dante Fascell, Daniel Inouye, Warren Rudman

12-28 #270 Andrei Sakharov, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gary Hart

1987

1-4 #271 Jim Wright, Robert Michel, Robert Byrd, Robert Dole

1-11 #272 Carl Levin, Dan Quayle, Caspar Weinberger

1-18 #273 Stephen Bosworth, Joker Arroyo, Juan Ponce Enrile

1-25 #274 Michael Ledeen, Claiborne Pell, Henry Kissinger

2-1 #275 Karl Otto Pohl, Henry Kaufman, James Baker

2-8 #276 Sam Nunn, George Shultz

2-15 #277 Anthony Fauci, Faye Wattleton, Connaught Marshner, Thomas Vernon, Henry Waxman

2-22 #278 Gennadi Gerasimov, William Hyland, Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Schlesinger

3-1 #279 Paul Laxalt, John Tower

3-8 #280 Maynard Glitman, Sam Nunn, Robert Byrd, Robert Dole

3-15 #281 Bartholomew Kiely, Daniel E. Pilarczyk, Lisa Sowle Cahill, Richard Viguerie, Susan M. Wolf

3-22 #282 Patrick Caddell, Robert Teeter, Howard Baker

3-29 #283 Jerry Falwell, Harvey Cox, Robert Dugan, Theodore Hesburgh, Leander Keck

4-5 #284 Gary Skoloff, Harold Cassidy, William Pierce, William Handel, John Dunne, Wendy Chavkin

4-12 #285 Valentin Berezhkov, Arthur Hartman, Daniel Mica, Robert Lamb

4-19 #286 Les Aspin, Viktor Karpov, Paul Nitze

4-26 #287 Nobuo Matsunaga, Malcolm Baldrige, Richard Gephardt, Jack Kemp

5-3 #288 Allan A. Ryan, Mark O'Connor, Beate Klarsfeld, Christian Prosl

5-10 #289 Warren Rudman, Daniel Inouye, Charles Manatt, Joseph Biden, Albert Gore

5-17 #290 Leonard Garment, Dante Fascell, Dick Cheney, Orrin Hatch, George Mitchell

5-24 #291 Said Rajaie-Khorassani, Nizar Hamdoon, John Lehman, John Warner,

— 14 —

[c]

John Glenn

5-31 #292 Capt. Henry Duffy, James Stogner, Sen. Nancy L. Kassebaum, William Bolger, Adm. Donald Engen

6-7 #293 Sec. James A. Baker, Martin Feldstein, Robert Hormats

6-14 #294 John Singlaub, George Mitchell, Henry Hyde, Lee Hamilton

6-21 #295 Alfred Messer, Benjamin Hooks, Roy Innis, Edward Koch

6-28 #296 Laurence Tribe, Paul Simon, Edwin Meese

7-5 #297 Daniel Moynihan, Howard Baker

7-12 #298 Stansfield Turner, Brent Scowcroft, Orrin Hatch, George Mitchell

7-19 #299 John Tower, Thomas Foley, Henry Hyde, Warren Rudman

7-26 #300 Les Aspin, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, Caspar Weinberger

8-2 #301 Dennis DeConcini, Howell Heflin, Edwin Meese

8-3 #302 Oscar Arias Sanchez, Alejandro Bendaña, Christopher Dodd, Bob Dole

8-16 #303 George Mitchell, Paul Laxalt, Patrick Buchanan, Jody Powell

8-23 #304 Henry Duffy, John Thornton, Robert Crandall, Allen McArtor, John Baker

8-30 #305 Bernard Rogers, Harold Brown, Vitaly Churkin, Max Kampelman

9-6 #306 Allan Bloom, E.D. Hirsch, Lynne Cheney, Mary Futrell, James Freedman

9-13 #307 Carla Hills, Ira Glasser, Laurence Tribe, Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Dennis DeConcini

9-20 #308 Les Aspin, George Shultz

9-27 #309 John Glenn, John Warner, Caspar Weinberger

10-4 #310 Jack Kemp, William Gray III, Alan Greenspan

10-11 #311 Lloyd Cutler, Birch Bayh, Alan Cranston, Robert Dole

10-18 #312 Peter Hart, Michael Barone, Paul Kirk, Sam Nunn, Charles Robb

10-25 #313 Frank Carlucci, John Phelan, Dan Rostenkowski, Lloyd Bentsen, Beryl Sprinkel

11-1 #314 Brent Scowcroft, Richard Lugar, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Roxanne Ridgway

11-8 #315 Arlen Specter, Howell Heflin, Mike Mahaffey, Bonnie Campbell, Richard Darman, Robert Strauss

11-15 #316 Peter Peterson, Thomas Foley, Trent Lott, Pete Domenici, Lawton Chiles

11-22 #317 Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Michel, Howard Baker

11-29 #318 Pat Swindall, Xavier Suarez, Roger Conner, Wade Henderson, Alan Simpson

12-6 #319 Gennadi Gerasimov, George Shultz

12-13 #320 Gennadi Gerasimov, Sam Nunn, John Warner, Gen. Colin Powell

12-20 #321 Robert Beckel, John White, Paul Simon, Michael Dukakis

12-27 #322 Allen Sinai, Michael Evans, Patrick Buchanan, Jody Powell, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Caspar Weinberger

1988

1-3 #323 Morris Abram, Alexander Schindler, Edward Said, Shimon Peres

1-10 #324 Frank Fahrenkopf, William Schneider, Dick Cheney, Vin Weber, Bob Dole

1-17 #325 C. William Verity, C. Fred Bergsten, Jesse Jackson, Albert Gore

1-24 #326 Daniel Moynihan, Ted Stevens, Elliott Abrams, Jim Wright

1-31 #327 Tony Coelho, Trent Lott, George Shultz

2-7 #328 Paul Simon, George Bush

2-14 #329 Al Gore, Bob Dole

— 15 —

Subscribe to 'This Week' Transcripts & Save Over 33%

Subscriptions are available to transcripts of "This Week With David Brinkley" for only $95 per year — less than $2 per transcript and a savings of more than one-third on the cover price. They are mailed automatically within two weeks of air date. Service can start immediately or could be retroactive to an earlier date that you specify. Send to This Week Transcripts, Journal Graphics Inc., 267 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.

Subscription start date ______________ Amount Enclosed: $ ______________
(Please make start date the first of a month, not mid-month.)

Ship to:

Name ____________________

Address ____________________

____________________________________

City ______________ State ___________ ZIP ___________

Show #330
February 21, 1988

THIS WEEK WITH
DAVID BRINKLEY
Journal Graphics Inc.
267 Broadway
New York, NY 10007