Session: 1234567891011121314         Page 408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490 of 763

beings, whose interests have to be taken into account. And this is what Andy was saying, that communication had to help people. And the fact is that it was not only Andy who had been in communication with the PLO representatives. Other people in the State Department had been in quiet communication with them. But for some peculiar reason, Andy's attempts were made a major front page issue, and the Carter administration-- he was required to resign. I've never been able to understand that.

Carter was not as adamant about not dealing with the Palestinians, was he, as the Reaganauts are?

How adamant are the Reaganauts? They're not dealing with anybody, it seems to me. Carter at least had campaigned it. I don't understand the Reagan administration in terms of the Middle East at all. I don't know what they're saying or what they're doing. One time Mr. Reagan says that under no circumstances is he going to pull the American Marines out of Lebanon, that Tip O'Neill can retreat if he wants to, but he-- two weeks later the Marines were leaving Lebanon. And I find it fascinating that our press didn't see this as a curious inconsistency. But maybe we've just gotten used to inconsistencies in the Middle East.

Become a little jaded?

Yes. You know. I was at a meeting at the Council on