Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Nuvola actions help green.svg This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Unbalanced scales.svg Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Palestine Liberation Organization. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Palestine Liberation Organization at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
Peace dove.svg Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-Class, Top-importance)
Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910.jpg
Palestine portal
This article is part of WikiProject Palestine a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Palestine Liberation Organization:

Rectify the PLO page with the PLO EC page. The PLO page says 15 people are elected to the PLO EC. The PLO EC page says 18 people.

In the Palestine Liberation Organization article, an author named Smith is quoted twice. Can you tell me the author's full name and the work cited?

Thanks and regards,

Richard Herman

Probably this work by Charles D. Smith: http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Arab-Israeli-Conflict-Charles-Smith/dp/0312404085. Supercarpenter (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Priority 2
Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 3, 2005.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

[edit] does the ten point program really call for a binational state

My answer to the question above is no. Where did they get that idea. The ten point program callled for a Palestinian state on the occupied territories and then the Palestinian state to replace Israel. It says that the palestinian national Authority will call on the Arab states in confrontation with Israel to complet ethe liberation of Palestine which is equal to havibg a palestinian state replace Israel. Also, it also saya that the pLo will struggle against the creation of a Palestinian entity in return for peace and recognition. The ten point program calls for a Palestinian state to replce Israel not a binational state.-Dendoi December 8, 2006 Friday 10:51 AM

Agree with the above. The democratic secular state idea was specifically counterposed to the idea of a binational state.

See: "Towards the Democratic Palestine", Fateh (English-language newspaper), Information Office of the Palestine Liberation Movement, Vol. II, No. 2. This official programmatic article explicitly rejected the idea of a bi-national Palestine as a "misconception": "the call for a non-sectarian Palestine should not be confused with ... a bi-national state". Moreover, the article stresses that "the liberated Palestine will be part of the Arab Homeland, and will not be another alien state within it"; and looks forward to "the eventual unity of Palestine with other Arab States". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.7.46 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PLO recognition of israel is fake

The PLO never recognized Israel's right to exist. They only pretended to do so. To Arafat, the Oslo accords [a failure from the start] was a tactic to accomplish the ten-point program, which calls for first a Palestinian state in the territories then the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. The PLO still has the same goal of abolishing Israel. I can't believe I actually once believed that the PLO changed their position on Israel because they didn't. As Fasial Husseini, a PLO moderate said that the Oslo accords are like the Trojan horse and that they are cheating the Israelis and that the PLO still has the same goal, which is the destruction of Israel. The PLO are nothing but lying terrorists.-Dendoi Saturday 11:07 PM January 13, 2007

Wow. That makes one wonder what that makes Israel . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.24.252 (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If you haven't got a leg to stand on when defending the arab terrorist just make more pointless comments toward Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlrekooh (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


I doubt the PLO is the "only organization" that recognizes Israel. Please be more precise. -Megapanphilos, december 28th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapanphilos (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Terrorist organization"

Im no great lover of the current PLO (although i do support the palestinians, I wont deny) but to say that the PLO is a 'terrorist' organisation then to say it is 'the sole representative of the Palestinain people' looks like someone is trying to call all Palestinains terrorists? To some degree I sympathise with the POV that elemnts of the PLO are open to terrorism, but so are elemnts of the IDF, and they are not classed as 'terrorists', its a loaded word that should be avoided, because for every western country that calsses them as terroirsts there will an eastern country rejecting this, and wikipedia is not just for westerners (or as it happens also Israelis). I think that the word is an pinion, that if you want to use it, you should try and at stop the lead from making it sound like all Palestinians support all of its activities,m terrorist or political. Although to a degree it is an ssumption of bad faith, it seems quite clear to me the chief editors of this article have an agenda.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just cheking, it dosent seem like the source in the lead supports the idea that the PLO is a terroist ogranisation, seems like a bit of hyperbole on the part of a POV editor.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What I also find quite bizarre (although i guess this is just an opinion), is that despite the fact that Fatah over the yars has been the main group attacking Israel and casuing deaths, Israel are doing oeverything in their power to support 'terrorist' Fatah over the more popular (and btw democratically elected) Hamas, even though Hamas' crimes are culmitavily less, simply because Hamas puts Israel in a sticky position where morals and votes are concerned.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited out 'terrorist organization'. Wikipedia has extremely strict rules on the use of this term. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The intro still quotes the British National Criminal Intelligence Service as saying that the PLO was the richest terrorist organization. Although the NCIS really did state that, this statement should not be included without explanation. For example, much of the Israeli government's and the US government's actions are terrorism on a much larger scale, and those two organizations were and are richer than the PLO was. So the quote should be removed from the introduction. Alternatively, we can quote the assets, but not the word "terrorist". Or, we can qualify the quote by adding that it may have been the riches non-governmental terrorist organization at the time. -Pgan002 (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, the article still includes the "History of Terrorist Groups" sidebar. Pgan002 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious text

I've removed:-

(1)

'although many Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Faisal Husseini have declared their goal is still "liberation" of all of Palestine.[1][2]

Both Arafat and Faisal Husseini are dead, 'have declared' implies they are living. (2) The two texts do not support the statement, except for historic opinions dated back at most recent, a decade, referring to Arafat. (3)This leaves many Palestinian leaders (still living and authoritative, apparently still asserting their goal to liberate all of Palestine, something the sources do not say.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(2)

'

Those who object are welcome to read Rex Brynen's study of the PLO0s battle with many other factions, factions competing with the PLO, and often conducting operations independently, without PLO consent or indeed against its advice. This page deals with the PLO, not George Habash or other leaders who constituted the opposition to it.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the 'factions associated with the PLO' in the terrorist incident section. Many of these factions acted against the PLO, they existed or arose to challenge the PLO's ascendency or political line. The massacre of Ma'alot was undertaken by a group that apparently wished to distance itself from the PLO etc. This article is on the PLO, not on Palestinian factions in Lebanon. So we list what terrorist actions the PLO undertook, and nothing else.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The Savoy and Coastal Road massacres were executedc by Fatah, for which Arafat had full responsibility. The others were undertaken by organisations at odds with Arafat, as far as I know. If I am wrong, I'd appreciate specific historical references referring the other incidents to Arafat as head of the PLO. I would add that the list lacks several murderous operations which Arafat approved of. I'll add them in if I can find the time to hunt up RS.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Membership" section tells us the PFLP and DFLP are members of the PLO (indeed, prominent members, being the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations, respectively). They were not ejected from the PLO after these actions, nor sanctioned in any way. This is not a list of "PLO actions personally approved by Arafat", but a list of PLO terror incidents, and clearly high-profile terrorism by the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations fit the bill. I am restoring, accordingly. NoCal100 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written. I have yet to see you citing Reliable Sources here to improve it. You are citing the page itself, which is no guide to the historical realities. Please read Rex Brynen's book on on the PLO and its factions before jumping into it. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid soapboxing statements along the lines of 'This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written'. if you have specific concerns, let's hear them. If there is material that is lacking references, tag it with {{cn}} so that it could be improved, but please don;t remove material on flimsy premises. NoCal100 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Look up WP:SOAP, you have forgotten its content. To remark that an article is poorly sourced and poorly written is not by any stretch of the imagination soapboxing. Okay. I reported the defects in this material several months ago, and waited patiently. I think waiting 8 months for a reply is sufficient indication that there is no objection. As soon as I proceeded with my edit, within minutes you, who do have a record of stalking me, reverted them, though you show no knowledge of the subject. That is an ideological revert. I have no objection so far to your stalking, but I do object to your rapid challenging of my edits on pages whose subject I have studied, by someone who shows no prior effort to read up on the topic. This is in my view ideological reverting. If you had an objection, you had 8 months to post it. Why the sudden interest? Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside your presumptions to know what I do or do not know of the subject, what specifically are you looking for - references that state the PFLP or DFPL were and are PLO members? NoCal100 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As if these were really in quetsion, here you go:
Give me a break. Googling instantaneously does not constitute personal knowledge. It means you simply put key words into a search machine and ask it to connect the dots. Your first source is wrong. The DFLP (al-Jabha al-dimuqratiyya li-tahrir filastin)did not split off from the PFLP ((al-Jabha al-sha'biyya li-tahrir filastin) in 1969. This article requires not googling but reading a reliable source on the intensely fractured nature of the PLO, with its internecine battles, breaks divisions and regroupings. To note one of about 20 facts pertinent here, the PFLP for the period of 1974 (massacres etc) withdrew from the PLO Executive Committee, and joined the Palestinian Rejection Front opposed to the PLO. So unless you are willing to read a detailed analysis like Brynen's you simply will not have the background to assess whether what you google up is correct or not. It's hard enough with book-learning to disentangle the mess, and order the page on a time-line to clarify who belonged to what, at what period, and whether these groups at this or that time seconded the PLO or opposed it, without jumping at the page with slick info' dredged up by googling rapidly. I repeat. If the page really does interest you, read Brynen's book on the PLO in Lebanon, and we can work over this together slowly. I do need help. It's a very complex subject. Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As to my Soapboxing, please see Jmabel's remarks in the next section. he says exactly the same thing. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so even if you were correct, it would be your personal resarch , which is not allowed. The date when the DFLP split off the PFLP is not the point here - it is their membership in the PLO, which was not affected by the split. These is not about 'one of about 20 facts' (though it would be perfectly reasonable to include such acts if it were) - but about the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations. The PFLP's withdrawal from the PLO Executive Committee can be noted in the history section, but it is undisputed that they remained a member of the PLO throughout the period during which they committed these hideous acts of terrorism, and that the PLO did nothing to suggest that it viewed these actions as actions of non-member groups.
You don't know what you are talking about, since you can't even defend the one, of many errors, in the paper you cited, and which I noted. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And, no, Jmabel most certainly does not say "exactly the same thing" as you - he says the article is weak, and then proceeds to name 5 specif issues he sees that needs addressing. If you do the same, rather than spewing generalizations such as 'This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written.', we may get address those. NoCal100 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Terrific. I can't wait to observe your dazzling erudition at work here. As elsewhere, when I find, on pages I habitually edit, someone stalking in, I drop the page and leave them to it. Normally I find that as I withdraw they fiddle with a few edits, and then, lacking the chosen antagonist, wander off, wait a bit, and then try it with me on another page I habitually edit. So, I'll leave it to you, drop my intended comprehensive review of this and associated pages, and see what you can do with it. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I take it you have nothing substantial to add to this article then, nor any specific issues with anything contained herein, now that your policy-violating edit has been reverted. NoCal100 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Take it as you will. Had I continued the page would have had, apart from substantial general revision, several terroristic acts undertaken by the PLO which, since you appear not to know about them, it will probably lack. It would not have acts listed as PLO terrorism which were specifically undertaken by splinter groups in that organization, in defiance of the PLO's directives, in order to shipwreck peace talks undertaken by Arafat. Of this you know nothing, otherwise you would have concentrated on helping the page, instead of focusing on my one edit. I've tipped you off, so get to work, and start adding to the list of terrorist acts that can be ascribed to the PLO. In a year, I'll come back and see if you've improved the page. I'll edit with anybody, of any POV, as long as they see their role as aimed at improvement in an encyclopedia, and not playing jejune games with other editors. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Your persistent patronizing attitude reflects badly on you, not me. Fell free to add any terrorist acts undertaken by the PLO which are not currently there, or feel free to leave. It is of no consequence to me. This article will most certainly contain acts carried out by organizations who are PLO members, whether Arafat personally approved of them or not. NoCal100 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In bidding you adieu here, could I note that my patronizing tone comes as a response to your wikistalking where, habitually, you precipitously revert or controvert an edit of mine, and then start saying 'feel free to (do this). . . feel free to (do that)' and make various admonitions, warnings, veiled threats I will be reported. I need your advice as much as the page needs your attention. I am free to do as I like, and don't need some patronizing voice over my shoulder seconding my natural instincts. Good evening and good bye, until at least you turn up on another page I habitually edit and where you don't.Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Accusations of wikistalking ring hollow coming from someone who less than 2 hours ago followed me to an article he hasn't edited in more than 4 months, in order to summarily revert an edit of mine. Keep editing this way and you will soon find yourself blocked, yet again. NoCal100 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Check the page. Or ask Michael Safyan, how much work we have both put into that page. It runs to dozens of pages of extensive discussions on the intifada, subjec to also to administrative mediation. The record is there. You weren't. Check before you make silly remarks.Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've checked the page. Your last edit there was in June, more than 4 months ago, exactly as I wrote. You then followed me there today, and reverted my edit within hours of me making it. As I said, accusations of wikistalking after such behavior ring hollow. NoCal100 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
81 revisions, check the diff. Nothing of substance worth challenging, until the page undergoes serious revision, since we are still arguing about 'uprising'. I have a long history with the page, and follow each revision. You haven't. In any case, now that this is becoming a pattern I will list on my page the instances. Not a threat, since I don't report misbehaviour, but I like studying patterns. Your rising obsession with me is quite curious.Nishidani (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
81 revisions, the last more than 4 and a half months ago, until suddenly today you show up to revert an edit of mine a few hours after it was made. As I said, accusations of wikistalking after such behavior ring hollow. make your list, and I will make mine. NoCal100 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This: "The PLO's diplomatic relations with other Arab countries, particularly those against Israel, are fairly misunderstood. Most Islamic Arab countries generally dislike and show contempt for the PLO, due to the fact that most of its formidable members are leftists, communists, and seculars." was put under the section In The United Nations. Is this a POV? It isn't sourced and one wonders if this "contempt" was materially demonstrated by Arab countries at the United Nations. If not what is it doing here? And if so what is the relevance? Eyesockett (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Weaknesses

To me, this article seems weak. I definitely don't have the expertise to fix it, but I would hope that someone else does.

A few remarks:

  • Although Fatah eventually became ascendant, the PLO started as (and, officially, still is) a confederation of organizations. The word "confederation" does not currently appear in the article. That seems an odd omission.
  • The article refers to these organizations as "factions", which seems to me a dismissive word.
  • We indicate present member organizations and two former member organizations, but we give no list of which of these were founders.
  • We mention the PFLP joining the Rejectionist Front but nothing about them returning to the fold. Or am I mistaken about the latter?
  • The collection of quotations reads like a large mass of undigested material. Some of the choices seem very polemical: for example, the three quotations under "On whether the PLO police force will work with Israel against terrorism" all imply that they will do no such thing, whereas in practice they have often done precisely that. Also, all of these quotations are about 14 years old, and don't necessarily reflect current policy. Surely we would not attempt to represent U.S. government policy on Israel and Palestine by drawing our quotations from the first Clinton administration.
  • In general, a collection of quotations is not how we do these things, and there is a good reason for that. With decades of history to pick from, and such a broad organization, you can probably find a quotation from some leader of the PLO saying nearly anything. Quotations like this, appropriately placed, can give flavor to an otherwise bland narrative, but they should not be used as a substitute for citing strong secondary sources and what they have to say about the evolution PLO. And "evolution" would seem to me to be the operative word: organizationally, operationally, and politically, the PLO has undergone extensive changes; one can glean that from the article, but other than a general (if not by any means uniform) movement from rejectionism to support for (or at least toleration of) a two-state solution, the rest of that evolution would be very difficult to glean from this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Note the original PLO charter article 24 (PLO permanent observer to the UN website):
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
Thus, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was officially sanctioned while the occupiers were Jordan and Egypt, and there was no objection to these occupiers' treatment of the refugees. The charter changed in 1968, after the 1967 War, and this article was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.190.58 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Occupation? Perhaps you can show us where Jordanian or Egyptian soldiers ever behaved like this: I immediately thought of the stories my parents had told me of how Jews had been treated by the Nazis in the 1930s ... how Jews would be forced to clean sidewalks with toothbrushes ... an elderly Palestinian walking down the street, leading his donkey ... his grandson, was with him ... ordered the old man ... kiss the animal's behind ... Throughout that summer of 1985, I saw similar incidents: young Palestinian men being forced by Israeli soldiers to bark like dogs on their hands and knees PRtalk 12:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
@Jmabel - there are much worse Israel/Palestine articles than this in the project, but the commentary on the Palestinian policemen is typical of the rank and worthless propaganda that's been shoe-horned in. Even more than most Palestinians, the policemen were singled out for murder at random by Israel - and we don't need to rely on "confused Arabs" to document this policy, because we have 5 Israeli soldiers telling us they were under orders to do it.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] - published by an Israeli source in Israel. PRtalk 12:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
While I do respect "shovrim shtika" (your source) as a credible source, considering that the Palestinians did not blow the Jordanian or Egyptian buses, I can't see a reason for the Jordanian/Egyptian to shoot Palestinian officers. I'm against the acts depicted in your sources, but considering the long list of terror attacks against Israel from the 1920s (someone said occupation?) I can see why a commanding officer will want to break the international law and shoot a Palestinian officer. You are trying to put things out of context in order to picture the Israelis are "evil". Well, try to watch the Israeli "sesame street" and then the Palestinian one... While the Israeli show teaches the young to understand and accept everyone, from all religions and views, the Palestinian show teaches how there was never a holocaust, the jews are the source of all evil, and that god want every little boy to be a suicide bomber...User:FraterAchad —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

ITS ALSO KNOWN AS PLO REMEMBER THIS IT MAY COME IN HANDY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.101.99 (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UNSUPPORTED TEXT

This: "The PLO's diplomatic relations with other Arab countries, particularly those against Israel, are fairly misunderstood. Most Islamic Arab countries generally dislike and show contempt for the PLO, due to the fact that most of its formidable members are leftists, communists, and seculars." was put under the section In The United Nations. Is this a POV? It isn't sourced and one wonders if this "contempt" was materially demonstrated by Arab countries at the United Nations. If not what is it doing here? And if so what is the relevance? Eyesockett (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine_Liberation_Organization"