With a slew of reporters, media attention and the tightest of security surrounding him, Yasser Arafat, the president of the Palestinian National authority, will speak tonight at the Kennedy School. The spectrum of opinions concerning this world figure ranges from those among whom he is revered to those among whom he is despised. As in most issues of controversy, few of us lie on either extreme; rather, we fall ambivalently somewhere in the middle. That Yasser Arafat evokes such ambivalence is not only understandable but is justifiable.

That as a 19-year-old junior in college I will hear Yasser Arafat speak is the essence of Harvard's unique reputation and experience; consequently, it is with much anticipation that I look forward to this evening's address. Yet, it is with much greater uncertainty that I try to decide how I will receive him. Will I stand and applaud for this man?

While my greeting of Arafat may seem a rather insignificant question, its implications highlight the very ambivalence characterizing a majority of those emotionally, religiously, or politically entangled in the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To assess the validity of Arafat's controversial profile, it is essential to identify the source lurking behind the ambivalence with which he is received. The discrepancy between the Yasser Arafat of today and the man whom he was yesterday is what fuels such conflicting emotions from those involved.

Yasser Arafat today is the head of a world-recognized Palestinian nation. He is the man who in September of 1993 signed an agreement to end the bitter warfare which had been continuing since the Palestinian uprisings began in 1987. He is the leader of the Palestinian people who was invited to the White House in May of 1994 and there signed an agreement heralding the initial withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories. He is a prominent figure in the Arab world who expresses a strong desire to work out future problems with Israel by peaceful means.

This is Yasser Arafat today. One must recognize him as a key player in the ongoing Middle East peace process He has demonstrated both the desire and the ability to play this central role and it is for this important and humanity tarian function that he is deserving of support. For this Yasser Arafat of today and the peace process towards which his efforts are directed, I eagerly await to applaud.

Yet, precisely at the moment that I envision myself clapping, a lump develops in my throat. The Yasser Arafat of yesterday is still very much alive, maybe not in the news, but in my mind. He was the head of the P.L.O., an organization recognized across the world as one heavily involved in terrorist activities.

Under Arafat's leadership the P.L.O. executed a series of hijackings, bombings, murders and kidnappings throughout the 1970s. In 1974, Arafat appeared before the U.N. General Assembly with his machine gun strapped to his waist. He refused to recognize U.N. Resolution 242, that which planned out the basis for Middle East peace negotiations. He remained loyal to a charter which recognized the State of Israel as "null and void" and insisted that "armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." This was his ideology, and according to the guidelines of these principles did he govern himself and the organization which he led. That the P.L.O. in general and Arafat in particular were objectively considered terrorists in the 1970s through the mid 80s is therefore, fact.

In 1972, P.L.O. terrorists violently and brutally seized and killed 11 Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich. In 1985, Palestinian guerrillas hijacked an Italian cruise ship, killing an American Jew, Leon Klinghoffer. The P.L.O. took credit for these and many other bloody terrorist deeds with pride.

It was barely seven years ago that the United States refused to grant this man a visa to come speak at the U.N. in New York. In its statement issued on November 26, 1988, the State Department labeled Arafat "an accessory to terrorism," claiming that he "knows of, condones, and lends support to such acts." It was the U.S. and Israel against the rest of the world, yet we considered this man to be reprehensible, justifying our decision to deny him entrance to our country. This is the Yasser Arafat of yesterday. This is the man for whom I hesitate to applaud.

So whom to choose? The man as he is or the man as he was? An inescapable part of being human is the inability to make such black and white decisions. It means coming to the realization that Arafat today is a necessary agent in the long awaited establishment of peace in the Middle East, yet acknowledging that he has left us with a bitter aftertaste. We must respond to the Arafat of today, while reflecting on the Arafat of yesterday. To dwell on the latter in spite of the former undermines the very peace effort we are working so hard to preserve. However, to forget the Arafat of yesterday for the sake of the Arafat of today releases him from a past to which he is justifiably bound.

When Arafat appeared before the U.N. in 1974, the New York Times described him as "bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun." This is a powerful image which remains in the minds of those of us emotionally implicated in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While at the time it symbolized the irreconcilability between his goals and his means, namely the pursuit of peace via the strategies of war, today this image conveys the dichotomy between the Arafat of today and the Arafat of yesterday. He brings peace, but he brought war. As we clap for the former, it is the latter action which leaves the lump in our throats.

If Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin can shake Arafat's hand with what is probably a much larger lump in his throat than mine, I can certainly bring myself to applaud. Not too loud though, and without any cheering--an ambivalent applause. Arafat does not deserve to be received with whole-hearted approval and respect. The Arafat of today should not be let off the hook for the crimes he committed yesterday. As he gets up to speak he should feel the same lump in his throat which he has caused so many others to feel.

Tonight, I will be listening to three speakers. As I sit amongst fellow students, faculty and political figures, I will be physically listening to the Arafat of today discussing his outlook and goals for the peace process. This is the Arafat who has put down his freedom fighter's gun and comes merely with an olive branch in hand.

In my mind, however, the words and deeds of the Arafat of yesterday will be ringing loud and clear. The "accessory of terrorism" will make his voice heard to me. The encouragement and optimism being displayed by the Arafat of today are cautiously kept in check by the condemnable track record of the Arafat of yesterday. Through hearing both of these voices tonight, I will carefully be listening for the Arafat of tomorrow.

Due to circumstances beyond her control, Erica Schacter will be unable to witness any of the Arafats at today's Forum.