Every woman knows that a good diet, medical care, and exercise can make you look and feel better.
It's a good idea at any age.
But there comes a time when taking care of yourself is not just for looks.
After age 55, a woman's risk of heart attack triples.
Find out what you can do today. Call the American Heart Association.
Meals for Millions is planting the seeds for permanent solutions to world hunger by putting know-how to work.
In my garden, I choose seeds, fertilizers, and growing techniques that make me quite a food producer.
Meals for Millions introduces new ways of gardening, animal raising, and fish farming to hungry people around the world,
helping them to break free of the need for assistance.
Find out how we bring self-help to a hungry world.
Write Meals for Millions.
Isn't it time?
New issues at best as holidays even.
This morning on Nightwatch, the United States will now talk to the PLO. What is the impact?
In effect, what the United States government has done is said our solution is going to be independent Palestinian state.
Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, and that's tremendous pressure on Israel because this is foreclosing major options in Israeli debate.
If the U.S. wants a resolution of that debate on the American side, it would be wise not to get too involved in that debate.
A newspaper editor's battle with the front office.
I'm not against the business side. I do not believe there has to be a wall, a separation.
What I do believe is that they need equal consideration, and that the reason the business side exists is to inform the public.
Putting a name to a holy woman's beliefs.
It took us a while to get used to the B-word, Buddhism, but yes, it felt right, and I thought, yeah, that's right, I guess that's what I'm teaching.
Also, the Nobel laureates in medicine.
Everything goes for Leslie Uggens and knitting through the ages.
Now in Washington, here is CBS News correspondent Charlie Rhodes.
Good morning. The past few days have seen a kind of global back and forth of the Palestinian question, and this morning there is historic news on that front.
First, in Geneva, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat Wednesday made three things explicit that he had touched on in recent meetings with American Jews and in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly.
Arafat said the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist, denounces terrorism in all forms, and accepts two key U.N. resolutions.
With that, the Reagan administration said late Wednesday Arafat had met all U.S. conditions, and Secretary of State George Shultz ordered that a U.S. – United States PLO dialogue begin.
That in hopes of direct negotiation towards peace with Israel.
But reaction from Israel is highly negative.
Joining us now to talk about the developments is Wolf Blitzer. He is Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post.
Also here, Robert Hunter, the director of Middle Eastern Affairs for the National Security Council under President Carter.
He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington. Welcome.
Thank you.
Let me start with the former administration official here.
What changed and did the administration have any choice if Arafat met these conditions?
Well, they had a choice of deciding whether he had met the conditions, and frankly to my judgment, it's still quite ambiguous.
But the fact is that George Shultz, in his wisdom, took the statements at face value that Arafat had made, didn't look at any of the background or the possible ambiguities, made his decision.
It's now a fate to complete. Now we move on.
Okay, but stay with that though. Did he decide that, look, it was time the United States had these conversations, that the PLO had already come far enough, and so he didn't really pay attention to the language?
Or did Arafat actually say something different that gave Shultz a hook to change his mind or the administration?
I think Arafat got to the point where Shultz judged that it was possible to work with the stuff he'd said.
Also, I think he was thinking about the new president.
Why don't I move something forward so George Bush starts out not with this particular issue, but with something that goes beyond.
Whether that was the right judgment or not, only time will tell, but the judgment has now been made.
And you can't turn back now?
Can't turn back now. It's done.
Talk about the Israeli reaction.
Moshe Herad was on the evening news saying that they deeply regretted it, but it was a kind of a muted regret, as if they accepted it as something they had no control over, that Arafat had come that far,
and they'd just simply have to wait and see what happens.
Well, my sense is that Israel is going to swallow this.
There's going to be a division within Israel.
The Likud people, the party of Prime Minister Shamir are going to be a lot more angry than the Labor Party people, the people that support the foreign minister, Shimon Peres.
But I think in the end, I'm not expecting that they're going to wait for some angry reaction, some real tumultuous negative reaction from Israel's supporters here in the United States to make a big fuss over this.
I don't think that they're going to do that.
I think in the end they're going to swallow this.
Israel is going to see the United States at a low level, a relatively low level, the U.S. ambassador in Tunisia starting to talk with some PLO officials, and life will go on.
A couple of points I guess we ought to make. Number one is that these are not negotiations. These are simply conversations that will take place in which they'll do what Bob said out and say, what is it you think?
And give me some sense of how that conversation might take place and what they might discuss.
Well, first thing, I think they're going to want to talk about terrorism.
You've said you're against terrorism. Now show it. What do you mean? Let's define it.
And let's see how you can control your people over time.
This is what the American government needs to see. Quite frankly, if Arafat can't control his people and there is more terrorism in Israel, that pulls the rug out not just from under him but from under George Shultz as well.
So any act of terrorism somehow will disrupt these kinds of conversations?
Well, that's going to be tough. In fact, if there are people in the PLO who don't like what's going on, and I'm sure there are and they're quite public about it, the chances of some terrorist act in the next few days has gone up dramatically.
If they can link it to the mainstream of the PLO, the Fatah, the wing that Arafat controls, I think that will upend all of this.
But what if it's George Abash? Or Abu Nidal?
If it's Abu Nidal or Abu Musa who's supported by Syria or somebody who doesn't have the connections to Arafat and the United States knows this, then I don't think it's going to make all that much difference.
But if it's some group that is linked to the mainstream of the PLO, I think it's going to cut short this US-PLO dialogue.
What impact will it have on Jewish politics, I mean, Israeli politics in terms of some coalition? Will this make more likely a Likud-Labor coalition government?
My sense is that a Likud-Labor coalition, once again, is in the works.
This is going to make it a little bit more difficult because the Labor Party is not going to be as negative in responding to this US decision than Likud.
At the same time, the Labor Party has no great love for the PLO either, and at a time when Israel is facing this kind of international isolation, there might be a sense that Israel should get its act together and unify in order to face this common threat.
Did George Shultz face an embarrassment because in denying the visa he said Arafat has been an accomplice to terrorism?
Well, you know, in retrospect, one wonders whether Shultz might have had this in mind in the first place.
You know, I'm tired of Arafat's pussy-footing and one-handed on the other end that I'll do something dramatic and we'll see if we can smoke him out.
And he would then say today, OK, I smoked him out. He met my conditions. Let's move forward.
I would agree with Bob, and I think the point can be made certainly with hindsight, that if in fact Arafat has finally uttered the magic words,
the words that we've been waiting for him to say now for 13 years, if not longer, if he in fact has gone the extra mile, then I think Shultz's decision not to let him into the United States was a very powerful source of pressure on Arafat to come clean and prove that he means it.
Let me just suggest that I don't see it that way only because he didn't gain anything by the – I mean, Arafat gained by the denial of the visa rather than it serving somehow as an incentive for him to go further.
I mean, Geneva worked to his benefit.
No, it didn't really because he had to say a lot more. He had to swallow a lot more grief from the hardliners in the PLO now than he would have done if he would have just come to New York.
He would not have had to say something that is poison to him that he has finally said that Israel has a right to exist.
You know how difficult that is for Arafat to have to say that given all of the historical baggage that he brings to this problem?
Why do you think he said it?
Because he wants U.S. recognition. He wants the United States to finally talk to the – he was interested in addressing Washington. He wasn't directly interested in addressing Jerusalem.
There's another angle. He was concerned to take over leadership of this uprising in the West Bank and Gaza that took off without him.
And these people wanted some political alternative. They didn't just want Arafat out there saying no.
And I think he got boxed in and Shultz grabbed at something I'm not even sure Arafat expected Shultz to do what he did today.
And maybe he got out boxed by it, but Shultz has done it.
All right. Let me take a break. We'll be right back talking about the dramatic announcement by the United States that it will begin conversations in Tunis with the PLO.
Nightwatch continues back in a moment.
This ultronic alarm clock telephone can be yours free. I'll be right back to tell you how easy it is to get and about a savings opportunity from Life magazine.
We'd like to remind you of an American phenomenon about how the unique magazine that brought us –