Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whatever happened to the PLO?[edit]

Here's an unusually uncontroversial question: Whatever happened to the PLO? When Yasser Arafat was alive, he was known as the "leader of the PLO". However after the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established, mention of the PLO in the media has all but disappeared. I would imagine that this was because with Arafat's undisputed popularity, the PLO was the natural organization to form some sort of government within the PA, and so Arafat became known as the leader of the PA, rather than just the PLO.

I understand also that the PLO was/is an umbrella organization, with Fatah being a major constituant.

The recent elections were described by the media as basically a competition between Hamas and Fatah, apparently for leadership of the PA, the PA being the closest approximation for the apparatus of a Palestinian State, or, for the time being, the Palestinian "entity".

This all leaves me confused. Whatever happened to the PLO? Does is still exist or has it become redundant due to the existence of some other organization such as the PA or Fatah. If anyone would be interested in clarifying this I'd really appreciate it. Loomis51 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The PA is the de facto State of Palestine. For years, the PA was maintained by the leading faction in the PLO, al-Fatah. As a result, Arafat was the Chairman of both the PLO and the PA, and many of the key players in the PA were also key player in the PLO. Now, Hamas has gained control of the PA. They have never participated in PLO activities. The PLO continues to exist, and, as there have been no new elections in the PLO for years: a) al-Fatah continues to dominate it; and b) several factions, like the DFLP, are probably over-represented (as they have lost support on the ground since the last election). These days, one can assume that the PLO spends most of its time debating the best way to regain control of the PA... but that is a question for someone closer to the organization to answer. --(Mingus ah um 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC))
I have been wondering about the status of the PLO as well. I don't think it's just a matter of them having lost control of the Palestinian Authority, I am not sure what their status was before the election either. Fatah and several other parties in the election are (or were) part of the PLO, but they ran separately. So is there really a unified PLO anymore, that is recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people? Or has that now passed to the PA, with the PLO breaking up into its constituent parties? In fact I was very surprised before the election to hear Fatah being referred to separately, before that it was just as a forerunner of the PLO. 6SJ7 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Quick response (quotes in italics):
So is there really a unified PLO anymore, that is recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people? Or has that now passed to the PA, with the PLO breaking up into its constituent parties? Yes, there really is a unified PLO, and it is used by the secular Palestinian parties and leaders if and when said parties and leaders believe that they stand to gain from unified action. When it comes to national elections in the PA, each party runs on its own ticket to try to maximize its individual importance (i.e., the more votes the PFLP wins, the better its stance will be in internal negotions, etc, etc). There have been no new elections within the PLO apparatus for years, and this probably has to due with the fact that most of the players know that they could stand to lose in the next election (i.e., the DFLP will certainly lose much of its clout, for it has few men on the ground; an internal struggle within Fatah could strengthen the PFLP; etc, etc).
At the same time, the PA HAS become the recognized representative of the Palestinian people, and this can be seen in the fact that both the secular Palestinian movement (the PLO) and the main Islamic movement (Hamas) both accept the fact that the PA is the real path to political power and some level of international acceptance.
In fact I was very surprised before the election to hear Fatah being referred to separately, before that it was just as a forerunner of the PLO. This is a common misconception which stems from the fact that Fatah has dominated the PLO throughout the PLO's existance. Regardless, its positition has been contested repeatedly over the last few decades (through internal referendums and also violent resistance) by the other political parties within the PLO. Because of this, the secular parties within the PLO have no problem contesting each other for power in the PA, for they operate in an almost parlimentary fashion (each party stands alone, but, in the end, they accept the fact that they have to work together in a grand coalition). Hope I didn't repeat myself too much here... If have any other questions, fire away... --(Mingus ah um 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Neutrality means facts[edit]

A simple observation: The "disputed territories" for which the PLO seems to limit its struggle for, were occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. However, the PLO was established in 1964. At this time the "disputed territories" were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Yet the PLO at this time focused its terrorist activities on Israel. Why? was Yasser Arafat, when the PLO was established, able to predict the future? That three years hence the "disputed territories" would fall into Israeli hands? If the PLO was only concerned with establishing a state in the West Bank and the Gaza, its main quarrel would have been with Jordan and Egypt, not Israel. Yet this was clearly not the case. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that the PLO's focus on liberating the "disputed territories" is merely a more politically acceptable goal, to be used as a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel itself. Proof of this can be found in the Palestinian National Covenant, and, more simply, it can be seen clearly from the map on the PLO emblem that the whole of Israel, not just the territories, is what the PLO seeks to "liberate".Loomis51 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some "Acts of Terror" I feel that the Israeli state has either undertaken or been a part of are the massacres in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in the middle of Beirut. Yes it may have been undertaken by the Phalangist militants but the Israeli military units that had "No idea of what was going on". Also to go way back, just for example, of course. 5A-DAH. A Libyan Arab Airlines 727 that was shot down by Israeli F-4 Phantoms just over the eastern side of the Suez Canal. Yes, the PLO Carried bombs on planes, but there are two "acts" that people aren't aware of.--Chadfarhat 07:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As you say, the discussion is not if U.S. is a “terrorist organization” or not, but if it’s responsible of terrorist acts as a mean. First, “Neutrality means facts”, so “Hiroshima was a once-in-a-lifetime, tragic choice the U.S. had to make, and, as most historians agree, it saved more lives than it destroyed” is not a valid argument, and it is not a fact that most historian agree with that opinion. In the other hand, that would mean that for saving the lives of my countrymen I have the right to spend the lives of the civilian population of an “enemy” country. That’s the same argument that “terrorist” can use to kill innocent people. Perhaps they think that they are saving more lives than they are destroying. Second, saying Abu Ghraib is a mistake is not a fact, but again, a matter of opinions. With the same logic, you can say that Nazi holocaust was not a German state policy because Wannsee Protocol wasn’t signed by Hitler. I’m not the same person that accuses Israel of more terrorism than PLO.--FedericoEcon 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1- You have to show me where the statistics of historians’ opinions about Hiroshima and Nagasaki decision is. Does it include Soviet historians, Japanese historians, Chinese historians, South American historians, East and West European historians, African historians, Arab, Indian historians? Or only include U.S. Military historians? Even in that case, opinion of the majority is still OPINION, not fact. Second, even if we grant that, if it really saved more lives than it destroyed, is that a legitimate choice to do? Do we have the right to kill totally unaware human beings because we believe that way we can save more lives? If so, isn’t then a right for Palestine people to kill civilians because they think they are saving lives that way? If we think that the nuclear bombings were right, then we are forced to say the same about Palestinian terrorism acts. Otherwise we are using a double standard, and not logically coherent. In my point of view, both things are wrong, it is not a legitimate right to kill innocent people even in the extreme situation of war. War itself is not a rational or legitimate way of solving things.

2 - USA is not comparable with Nazi Germany, except in that brief period of time in Manzanar, of much lower intensity than any Nazi camp. George W. Bush is not comparable to Hitler and I think this is not relevant for the discussion here. My argument was just to illustrate how hard is it to know when a criminal action is result of a state policy or of the persons who commit the crime. One can say that even in the last case, commanders should be aware of the acts of their subalterns and share some of the responsibility for the crimes.

3 - I think we have to use the same moral standard for judging the facts. Neither Nazi Germany nor USA has a special status in this area. FedericoEcon 17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the difference between Abu Grahib and the Wannsee Protocol. Also, I agree with you on the issues with the embarrassingly barbarous acts of the military in democratic countries. But still these acts are subject to indirect responsibility of the commanders, who are responsible for granting power to perverse people. Leaving aside the isolated incidents, there are still in history political decisions, such as the nuclear bombings and School_of_the_Americas#Controversy. These were USA state policies, not isolated incidents. These policies, as well as something that happen on September 11, Chilean_coup_of_1973#U.S._role_in_1973_coup and Project_FUBELT, were not accidents, and were the cause of thousands of deaths, not in a war but in the form of executions. Then, I think you show the non NPOV nature of your argument when you say “The former describes the U.S. and Canada and pretty much any democracy with a military, and the latter category is reserved for those truly evil organizations as Nazi Germany, Hamas and the PLO”. “truly evil organizations”? I did give examples of USA causing harm and dead of civilians as a mean for a political end. Now you have to show me why USA government is not an “evil organization” and why PLO is. FedericoEcon 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that you agree with me on the POV nature of your argument, I think we shall not discuss any further. Also, as you say, there is some degree on POV in everything and NPOV is an abstraction. Still, IMHO, I would like to see that you rethink your position about evil and good. This is not Clancyverse, this is real life. USA government has committed pretty "evil" things. This is not lessening by the fact that it also did "good" things. Maybe you think one of the main differences between USA and PLO is that the former fights for freedom. Let me remind you one thing Karl Marx (an evil man?) once said: "No man combats freedom; at most he combats the freedom of others". FedericoEcon 16:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with the need of facts to back the arguments. Personal and individual experience is relevant for other contexts, but not accessible to other people and consequently inappropriate for this kind of discussions. Here in wiki there is a lot of information for you to support your words. Loomis: In regard to our discussion, I think is historically inaccurate to say that “Throughout the 20th century the free, western democracies have had to navigate a rough course in battling and ultimately defeating” fanatic imperialism, given the fact that imperialist countries were that same free, western democracies. North western to be precise, because South and Central American countries are as western as USA, but were often “the enemy”, like freely elected Salvador Allende and Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán. (See List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945). The process of decolonization on the other hand, was supported by “evil” countries (see Decolonization#Cold-war_era). Perhaps you can clarify this to me, which in the following list were the evil side and which the good side in the following confrontations:

I don’t see how life under totalitarian communism (or State Capitalism), in witch you can choose were to work, you get a money wage and choose how to spend your own money can be compared with slavery in any relevant scientific conception of the word.

Your moral standard for judging good and evil seems unbalance towards the interest of the rich nations, like Israel, disregarding the merit or demerit of the particular actions of those nations. Those actions often do not aim at the achievement of "abstract freedom", but a lot of time against some freedoms: freedom to self-determination, freedom to choose a socialist economic system, freedom to choose State-ownership of certain strategic resources, freedom to choose Islamic Republic as a political system. And, what an amazing coincidence, abroad interventions, to give an example of actions, seem to benefit the interest of pressure-groups of the invading country more than the people of the invaded country (see United_fruit_company#History_in_Central_America). FedericoEcon 18:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, you are not answering my questions. You are just begging the question. The facts are: imperialist countries (like USA, France, and the British Empire) fought against the freedom of some countries to deviate from capitalist system in some way. These countries, like Chile, use to enjoy freedom of speech and lost it because of the interventions. Also, you can see a clear example of limitation to freedom of speech in HUAC#Hollywood_Blacklist. Are you implying that there should be freedom of thinking except for non capitalist ideas, because there are by definition against the freedom of thinking? Then you should demonstrate to me why every possible anti-capitalist ideal is against the freedoms of thinking and expression. If you are not able to do so, please answer my previous questions, in a logical fashion. By the way, our discussion should be universal and then independent of my nationality. If anything, I do not own my freedom to access Internet to the north western countries. FedericoEcon 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Your argument appears to be the following: 1) You owe freedom of expression to "western" countries. 2) Therefore, you can’t express your opinions against the same countries that allow you to express.

Resulting from this, it seems that I have right to express myself as long as I do not criticize the "good" powers that granted me that right. That's the kind of freedom of expression that exists in any system. On the other hand, democratic socialist or otherwise anti capitalism movements around the world were subject to severe limitations of their freedoms, as I already said. In your list of people who would like to put me in jail, you forgot to mention Allende's Chile or Arbenz's Guatemala. Maybe because your paladins of freedom (freedom of market, of private ownership, of not being anti capitalist, freedom to die of hungry, freedom not to ratify Kyoto's protocol, freedom to invade another people just for my own convenience) took away most of the civil freedoms in most of Latin America, in the so called war against communist evil. You should not attack me, by saying that I'm contradicting myself by standing for systems that would suppress something like wiki. I'm not supporting such a system; I think most of the experiences aborted by the north western powers were not of that nature. The abroad interventions show the true nature of the so proclaimed freedoms: "you are free, as long as you do not interfere with my own interests". The same global powers do not seem to be disturbed by flagrant violations to the human rights, when these do not interfere with businesses. Back to my point, you only judge the actions of those powers as good or for a good cause, sacrifices (mostly of others) that are justified for a greater end. Objective facts do not support that vision, and the same arguments that you use (unilaterally and not logically demonstrated) could be repeated by the same people you are opposing to. As I tried to show you, the arguments supporting the nuclear bombings could be reused by evil terrorist of the PLO supporting, for example, the bus bombings. Is of not use to say "Americans are right, Palestinians are wrong", because any Palestinian can then say "Palestinians are right, Americans are wrong". Any rational discussion should be universal and not to appeal to a supposed better quality of some ideology over the other. FedericoEcon 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let’s clarify the facts:

  • I’m exercising my freedom of speech to criticize some countries.
  • It is not a fact that I owe my freedom of speech to USA, France or Israel.
  • I’m not supporting any system that would forbid something like wiki. Therefore, I'm not being hypocrite.
  • USA, France and Britain’s States during the XX century have carried out abroad interventions that aimed to or achieved the elimination of certain freedoms in other countries, including but not limited to freedom of expression, freedom of self-determination, habeas corpus, economic and political sovereignty. These interventions include actions against freely elected governments.
  • Imperialism is a term that refers to USA, France, Britain and some others, so saying that these powers fight fanatical imperialism is an obvious contradiction.
  • Capitalism is not synonym of Democracy, neither a requisite for it. There is democracy without capitalism and capitalism without democracy.
  • Justifying a single military action against innocent civilians implies, if we use a non-ideologically unbalanced moral standard, that any violent action against innocent people can be justified. In other words, you will be saying, as a good Machiavellan, that the ends justify the means. This seems to be the main argument for supporting violence perpetrated by USA or Israel, and condemning violence perpetrated by Palestinians. Or in a simpler way: "I am good, you are evil".FedericoEcon 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy we agree on my freedom of speech! Regard to who I have to thank for that, don’t think is God, it exceeds this debate. I personally honor the particular men and women who fight through all history for the improvement of all humanity.

In respect to USA imperialism, you can read the following articles (don’t take it from me, read it from more informed and neutral people):

Here, some operations that affected internal affairs of foreign countries:

Preemptive invasion of Iraq for alleged terrorist links and WMD, later proved falsely, is a good example of unprovoked invasion. To make a fair analogy, if you were a WWII Japanese general you could say Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike against a Nation that was capable of developing WMD and therefore a menace to Japan security: in fact USA not only built the WMD but actually used these against Japan. Then Pearl Harbor, in the preemptive war doctrine, was more than justified. If Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack of a sovereign nation, so was the Iraq invasion. Thus, you should recognize the fact that US is imperialist. But I’m realistic, I know you won’t.

Examples of USA interventions against freely elected governments that result in the eliminations of basic freedoms:

  • Coup in Iran. As Madeleine Albright said: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.". Remember this if USA invades Iran.

In particular, see the Nicaraguan case against USA, which eventually ended in favor to Nicaragua but USA refused to recognize. The International Court of Justice would be a much better option for solving international issues than the armed invasions and covert operations, even when these are somehow justified, if such a justification can ever exists. It is also very illustrative the School of the Americas.

Capitalism is the social system existing now in the world. If you think different, maybe you should go to the capitalism article and mark it as outdated.

Finally, vaporizing people as in the nuclear bombings looks like the ultimate case of depraved indifference to human life. In general, Bombing of cities is an example of disregard to human life. Another example is the use of uranium bullets.

I would like you to check my previous posts in the present discussion for additional links. And yes, I believe in the right of Israel to exist. FedericoEcon 16:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In respect to the original discussion, I think it is already handled in Words to avoid. FedericoEcon 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the friendly touch! My focus on the US foreign policy is mainly to expose the one-sided and ideological nature of some arguments, especially in reference to terrorism. As Wiki says, the use of the word terrorist should be avoided. Politic is a complicated matter, we have to take interests into account by unveiling the moral and high principles behind which they tend to hide. In politics abstract notions such as freedom and justice can be used to justify practically anything, especially if these notions are not developed into full concepts. Major philosophers like Adam Smith or Hegel wrote entire books about a few words like moral, right, justice and freedom. I propose to you the simple exercise of defining these simple words (not in here, just in a paper) and then compare your own definitions with the ones that appear in any important philosophical work.

In respect to the military actions of the PLO, let me exceed your question. I will talk about any military action. As a general principle, I think it is not justified to conduct any violent action against a human being. The particular subject that performs the action cannot affect this situation. The same action in the same context, carried out by A or B, Palestinian or Israeli, black or white, human or alien, should be judged equally. If we do not agree on this, any further agreement is certainly impossible.

Let me consider an exception to the general principle. It appears that in human history, some kinds of situations were never solved without resorting to violence. These include the emancipations of foreign occupations, like is the case with the American Revolution, the end of the British protectorate on Palestine or even India Independence. Major political changes, as the French or Russian Revolutions, the American Civil War, when progressive forces of humanity fight the defenders of an unjust status quo (absolute monarchy, tsar, slavery), implies the use of violence. The question of whether this violence is right or wrong is a moral one. History advances with disregard to morality: great men as Abraham Lincoln have to do hard choices, i.e. the bloody repression of New York riots against the drafts, in order to end the slavery. On the other hand, non-violent movements usually have to endure violence and fierce persecutions, as Allende and Martin Luther King did. Most of the time it is a choice between conformism on one side, and kill or die for a better world in the other. So, instead of asking whether we, outsiders of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, morally approve or disapprove the methods being employed by both sides, we should focus on the study of the problem and the path to it solution. Remove the cause of the conflict, and the problem of the method of fighting disappears. Imagine that Palestinian people achieve sovereignty, an own nation, education, work, welfare... Do you think many Palestinians would rush to be martyrs because a crazy minority of extremists advocates for the destruction of Israel? There are extremists in the entire world, in every historical period; from USA to Uruguay, including Israel. But they only seem to succeed in convincing the rest of the population to follow them in times of great distress. This was the case with the Nazis, Napoleon, Stalin, Pol Pot to name a few. And Hamas today. If you focus on the military actions of the PLO, you will see only the symptoms but not the disease.

Do not take this as an attack, but I would like to see your responses to my previous assertions, case by case, if not here, maybe on my talk page. Good night and good luck. FedericoEcon 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Chilean. I descend from Jews, as well as you do. I know about Israeli-Palestinian, as much as human history in general and XX C. in particular. My hyperlink frenzy, if you would like to call it, was to avoid unjust accusation of twisting historical events. “Neutrality means facts”. You keep asking for concrete historical examples of the facts some of us were exposing. I have answered much of the questions you have asked to me and I provided hard evidence on my assertions. I am sorry I can not say the same about you. But I agree to stop the hyperlink posting as long as you agree to stop challenging my exposition of historical events. So far, the situation seems to be: you challenge my assertions, I provide the evidence, and then you change the subject without any further discussion. Right now, you did not answer any of my own questions; you just keep talking about personal matters. It is ideas that can be object of intellectual debate, not personal qualities.

By outsiders, I meant people living outside the conflict area and therefore analyzing the facts through the pre-processed vision of mass media, not first handed. And the media, especially regarding conflicting matters, is necessary filled of POV. I think that the facts that Hamas won the elections illustrate well my position: as you know Nazis also gained the power through an electoral process. You should probably be aware that it has not been enough time for Palestinians to improve their situation since withdrew from Gaza. Extremist take advantage of that situation, adding that the same extremist in Hamas are practicing what in the third world is known as social policies, or social welfare. When people are in material need, it is easy influenced or extorted by politicians who provide them food, education, health, religious service. Any one with some political experience in the undeveloped world, regardless his political leaning, can confirm that to you. Then if all this material needs somehow disappear, everybody have jobs, education, health, spare time, cultural activities, the extremist lost their support. I would like to know how Israel military actions, as well as Palestinian military actions, will end this conflict, leaving aside the complete extermination of the opponent. Elimination of every single extremist on either side will make room for some moderate people to extreme their positions, and therefore it is the never ending story. In the mean time, Israel and Palestine are already in war, and that makes it difficult to stop the war. Violence breeds more violence. Sometime the chain must be cut. Ignoring the economic distress of the Palestinians as part of the problem will prevent the finding of the solution. Have a nice day.FedericoEcon 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So far you called me:

  • Hypocrite (several times).
  • Dense.
  • Ungrateful.
  • Lack of verbal ability to argue.
  • Extremely poor debating skills.
  • Lack the humility to admit that I may sometimes be wrong.

You also have assumed I was Chilean. It is not an insult but is wrong anyway. Your remark that English in not my first language, although I assumed you did not mean it as an attack, sounds very cynical anyway. If you are ok with something, you just do not mention it. It is like you were saying to someone: "I know you are homosexual, but I do not have a problem with that." If it is irrelevant, do not say it, someone can gets hurt.

I would like to believe you when you say: "I'm usually a soft-spoken, agreeable person, reckognizing[sic] that not everybody agrees with everything I say, yet once again, I respect each and every person's right to have their own opinion, no matter how much I may disagree." In order to do that, I ask you if you please eliminate those comments about me in your previous posts. I do not care if you do not want to argue with me, but attached to the right to use wiki comes the responsibility of not offending anyone, especially for personal reasons. I could eliminate these references by myself, but I do not want to alter the spirit of your arguments. FedericoEcon 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, thank you for pointing out my typo when I put a K in the word "recognize". Again, it seems that when Loomis makes the slightest spelling typo, its fair game to point it out, but when Federico makes numerous spelling, grammar, syntactical etc... mistakes, its impolite to recognize and show sensitivity towards the fact that English is not Federico's first language. (From FedericoEcon: No hard feelings! You are right, I shouldn't [sic] that. I'm sorry. I see the irony to that.)

Loomis: Don not forget to read what I added on your last post. There are other post by Chadfarhat and others (I assume the "DUDE, FUCK YOU" is not yours, I'm sure as hell I didn't write it!). All my posts have my signature. Good Night. FedericoEcon 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Loomis: I see your point with Islamic Republic, but note that I didn't say Islamic Republic of Iran. The simplest definition of Islamic Republic is that the civil law does not contradict the Islamic Law. I do not think Islamic Law forbids something like wiki, so I think I am not applying a double standard here. We should consider that some expressions would be forbidden, as defamation of Muhammad. But this prohibition can be compared with Germany's regulation of prohibit the display of Nazi symbols. Nobody would question Germany's free of expression only because of this.

Back to the Islamic Republic's issue, even in Iran there are electoral processes and the distribution of the power in branches is somehow comparable to the one existing in most modern republics. Of course, if you are not a Muslim, you will found yourself forced to obey the positive Islamic laws and refrain to disobey the negative ones. As repressive as this can seem, it does not obstruct the use of wiki. I agree with you that it would be ridicule to once and for all vote for the abolition of the right to vote, but for me, this does not seem to be the case even in Iran, as the Iranian people can vote regularly in a multi party system. But I want to repeat that Iran is not the only example of Islamic Republic, and possible is the most repressive one. Therefore, I am not being hypocrite in this particular case.

Anyway, as you well know, me being hypocrite or not does not mean I am right or wrong. If indeed I am hypocrite, it is factually accurate to say so but still it doesn’t belong to this discussion. Maybe you can post it on my user page, I will not object that! (lol). But still I think that kind of comments should not be here. FedericoEcon 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for the cleaning! If you agree, we can delete the "cleaning discussion" itself, so it would be easy to continue any discussion. Maybe we can start a new discussion, focusing on a few aspects of the PLO situation. That is, if you agree to it. FedericoEcon 16:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Federico, I see no use in leaving any of my above arguments on the page, by now they're just a confusing mess of ideas. I think we've discussed those issues to death anyway. Feel free to delete as much as you want (including my entries of course) so that we can start over and have some more fun debating something fresh. (If you noticed, I asked a pretty neutral question at the top of this page...not controversial, just curious.)
But beware! We may have finally settled down and learned to respect each other, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to unmercifully confront and challenge and destroy every ridiculous leftist, pinko, commie argument you present! (lol I'm teasing...I look forward to having future discussions with you.) Buenas noches, Federico. (That's about the limit of my Spanish...Spanish isn't very common in Canada, our languages are English and French. Although I'm bilingual in those two languages, my French is nowhere nearly as good as your English.) Loomis51 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Random, unstructured discussion:[edit]

Added the objective, demonstratable, fact that the PLO calls upon it's constituents to use acts of terrorism against Israel, citing Article 10 of the National Charter. Sorry guys, no more fact-hiding, document-shredding, cover-ups, spinning, lying, facts are facts and the truth needs to be told whether we agree with it or not. For instance, we wouldn't lie about the terrible acts committed by Hitler just because it might upset the German people. I don't see how this is any differant.

BTW I know my edit needs to be cleaned up a bit but it's all true so...



It seems that some members here prefer to cover-up and conceal truth as opposed to getting that information out to the public like an encyclopedia is supposed to do. It's not that some parts of the PLO might not want peace, it's the fact that YOU WANT TO BELIEVE that the PLO is a peaceful organization more than what the facts tell us. In other words, your self-contained reality superceeds objective reality.

We know for a fact that the PLO was at one time a terrorist organization. We can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that it still contains many terrorist elements in it's organization and structure. In the name of neutrality, are we compelled to conceal this information?

I think book burning would be a more appropriate method. Just burn any book which casts doubt on the intentions of the PLO. I'm surprised you people don't take this same stance on other issues, like slavery for example. After all, it's only a majority opinion that slavery is 'wrong.' This isn't very neutral because we don't take into account the quotes and opinions of slave-owners, right? Both sides of the coin are not equally represented, therefore it is not neutral because we tend to favor the anti-slavery side. -Bro


In getting my BA degree in Political Science (specializing in Soviet Foreign Policy) and having graduate certification from the Institute for Comparative Political Ideologies, it was taught that during the four decades when the USSR funded many of the world's terrorist groups (Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades, etc.) the funds almost always initially went through two groups - the ANC and the PLO - before being meted out to terrorist clients. The PLO has a strong, documented, extensive relationship to terrorism and their words (not the ones to CNN but the Arabic words to their own people), writings and actions continue to specifically support terrorism within and the destruction of Israel. Hasn't anyone been taught about their documented history or is the 'public image' simply what everyone has and is buying into? M.T.

I just want to make the comment that the first Palestinian quote, which talks about Israel getting 78% of historic Palestine and the Palestinians 22% is not only a propaganda tool but an outright lie. Historic Palestine, a province of the Ottoman Empire, comprised modern Jordan as well as Israel and the disputed territories. Jordan (a state ruled by Hashemite Arab sheikhs but ethnically 60-70% Palestinian)was created (by the UK with the consent of the League of Nations) as the temporary state of Trans-Jordan in 1922 (confirmed in 1946 as Jordan by the UN)on 78% of historic Palestine. Pre-1967 Israel was about 12% of historic Palestine, and the disputed territories are around 10%. J Rona

Much of what is here has now been superseded by more recent discussion: Peace_treaty_with_Israel_is_a_temporary_measure


Members of the Israeli cabinet have called for assasinating Arafat; does it follow that official Israeli policy is to assasinate Arafat, or that most Israelis support assasinating Arafat? No. Then the fact that some PLO officials have called for certain things does not prove that that is official PLO policy or that most Palestinians support what they have said. -- SJK

But whenever it comes to Arab (and especially Palestinian) groups, you refuse to even admit the existence of mainstream Arab views; you still present the views of their minority as if they were a majority. Contrary to your baseless claims, Yassir Arafat and the other elected leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA) CAN BE CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE of many Palestinians. The official pronouncements on PA newspapers, radio stations and TV stations, and editoritals in PA run newspapers CAN BE CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE of many Palestinians. I cannot imagine how anyone could disagree. RK
I think the recent Palestinian elections speak for themselves. A PLURALITY of Palestinians voted for a group that calls for the destruction of Israel. Any further doubt as to "mainstream" Palestinaian views?Loomis51 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed from main entry on PLO: "According to Jewish law, any one person you can apply it to [or] any one person who willfully, consciously, intentionally hands over human bodies or human property or the human wealth of the Jewish people to an alien people is guilty of the sin for which the penalty is death" -- Rabbi Abraham Hecht, leader of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, on the assasination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin

This has been deleted. First, because this has nothing to do with the PLO. But also because it was incorreclty implied that Hecht was some kind of Jewish leader. Fact: Abraham Hecht is not recognized as a leader by any Jewish or Israeli body or organization. In fact, Hecht was publicly attacked and criticised in Jewish and Israeli newspapers all over the world for his hateful and dishonest statement. But this context seems to have been left out. RK

The source I was using said he was leader of the "Rabbinical Alliance of America", whatever that is. Obviously it is not a mainstream organization, but that is not to say it is not an organization at all. -- SJK
What are you smoking, SJK? Just because an organization calls itself the "Rabbinical Alliance of America" is meaningless. It's like saying the "Democratic Republic Of Germany" is democratic just because it says so. (That was the name of the old Soviet dominated East Germany, by the way). Either you're extremely stupid or extremely gullible. Either way, please don't waste our time by writing here.Loomis51 21:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also curious is your failure to include context on the statements of the PLO, your ignorance (or deliberate ignoring) of the complexities of Palestinian politics, your constant attempts to paint Palestinians in the worst possible light. -- Simon J Kissane

No, Simon. I am quoting their own mainstream point of view . RK

SJK, please do yourself a favour and read the Palestinian National Covenent. It calls for the outright destruction of Israel. How can that possibly be read out of context?Loomis51 21:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


At the moment, all the points of view presented here are from the Palestinian point of view. No criticisms of the PLO are included in the any of the quotes/sources. This should not be implied as agreement with the PLO to destroy Israel. (Indeed, I disagree). Rather, it is meant to illustrate the beliefs and goals of the PLO, without comment. Readers can decided for themselves if they agree or disagree with its goals. A note of caution: Quotes from PLO members to non Arab, English-only newspapers will be of little value. What is more representative are what PLO members say in the Arabic speaking press, when speaking to each other and to other Arabs. RK

The fact that it are all palestinian quotes doesn't mean the article is written from a neutral point of view. Quoting is not objective per se, because selecting is part of it. Another point: you could call the PLO-members terrorists or freedom fighters, depending which side you are on. I guess 'rebels' would be the most neutral term. Tsja

RK: I deleted most of your quotes from Palestinian leaders. I don't deny that they said them; but their presence is obviously designed to give the impression that the Palestinians are lying, which while it may or may not be true is not NeutralPointOfView.

Huh? I assumed that the PLO leaders were telling the absolute truth. Every leader of the PLO has stated the goal is still to destory the State of Israel, and that all the peace traties are only temporary positions. Why did you delete every single statement made by the PLO? Are you accusing all PLO members of lying about their own beliefs and intentions? If so, who do you believe speaks for the PLO, if not its own leaders? I am willing to entertain alternate points of view, if you have any to offer. But your current stance is to delete anything that makes the PLO look anything less than angelic. An encyclopaedia should state a group's actual, on-the-ground point of view, even if you and I personally find it incorrect, or worse. RK

I mentioned however that PLO members have said some things that contradict their statements in support of the peace process.

But what did they say? You deleted the quotes and references. RK

I think it needs to be pointed out that there is a range of opinion in the PLO, and you can't take what some members have said as representative of the whole organization.

I agree entirely, but one must take as representative what the MAJORITY of people in the movement say and preach. We are obligated to take as representative what almost all the leaders of the PLO have consistently stated for the last 20 years. Your version of the entry takes the PLO minority point of view, and represents it as the majority, and that is why I disagree with you. RK
I say we should take as representative what the leaders of the organization say, especially Yasser Arafat. If you want to find out the opinion of US government on an issue, you don't take a poll of US government officials, you ask George Bush. In the same way, if we want to know the PLO's opinion on an issue, we should ask Yasser Arafat. -- Simon J Kissane

And as to saying one thing to the West and another thing to fellow Arabs, I don't deny Palestinians do that. You would argue that proves their statements to the West are lies, but isn't it equally possible that their statements to fellow Arabs are lies?

They lie in their own newspapers, they lie in their own mosuqes, they lie in the own PNC board meetintgs, and they lie when they allow Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists to be released from prison to murder Jews? But they are telling the truth when they speak to English newspaper reporters? RK
Like all politicians, Palestinian leaders tell their audiences what they want to hear. --Simon J Kissane

The PLO is threatened by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., and sometimes they have to say extremist things to keep out the extremists. I think it is grossly unfair to simply quote their comments without providing any sort of explanation for them. -- Simon J Kissane

PLO members have repeatedly stated that not only are they NOT threatened by Hamas, but that Hamas is their ally. Many Palestinain Authority policemen are also members of these groups. RK
The PLO is composed of secular Palestinian nationalists; Hamas is composed of Islamists. They do cooperate when they need to, but they have radically different ideas of what they want Palestine to be -- the PLO wants it to be a largely secular state, like Egypt or Syria or Turkey; Hamas wants it to look more like Iran or Afghanistan. The PLO leadership is threatened by Hamas. Hamas has a lot more popular support than the PLO, so the PLO tries to avoid publicly opposing them. -- Simon J Kissane

Your changes were extremely non-neutral. You deleted facts (e.g. 15 articles out of 33) and inserted controversial opinions without pointing them out as such (the PLO accepted the existence of Israel and does not seek the whole of Palestine). I'm sorry, but it strains credulity to emphasize, on the one hand, that accurate quotes from PLO chairman and senior officials do not necessarily reflect the position of PLO and then accept some of such quotes (for they are almost the only source in this case) as definite evidence that the PLO renounced the exreme provisions of its charter, without even pointing out that this claim is controversial. This is not NPOV. --AV


I have restored Simon's notes to the PLO statements. Still, I think that an encyclopedia should be a work of presentation and interpretation, not of extensive quotation. --Tsja


I object to nearly all the quotes. An encyclopaedia is not a propaganda tool. The thought that the quotes are trying to transmit should be expressed in a single paragraph according to the NPOV, as stating that Israelis claim that the PLO is deceitful based on many contadictory statements. --AV

Again, the way these quotes are selected and presented violates the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia, even though the quotes themselves might be genuine and correct. Wikipaedia is not a propaganda tool, however hard you try to make it into one. You should be ashamed, and your bullying and name-calling will not stand. Noone is intentionally engaging in historical revisionism here, nor is anyone trying to hide any truth. -- AV, hailing from Jerusalem.


RK: So I suppose you wouldn't mind if I added a bunch of quotes from Rabbi Meir Kahane? If we are going to have negative quotes from Palestinians, we better have negative quotes from the Israelis as well? There are extremists on both sides, and if you are going to quote one side's extremists you better quote the other side's extremists as well. -- Simon J Kissane


Yes, I would mind if someone deliberately and falsely claimed that Meir Kahane's views were agreed with by the leadership of the current Israeli government, or by all or any of the previous Israeli governments, or by the majority of the Israeli public. Why would I mind? Because it would be a damned lie. The information I gave, on the other hand, was about the OFFICIAL views of the PLO, by all the major members of this organization. You, on the other hand, are continuing to engage in blatant historical revisionism. you seem to be personally embarassed by thge PLO's views, and instead of reporting them, you are attempting to rewrite history to cover them up. What is next? Making Al Qaeda out to be pro-peace process, in the name of "neutrality"? RK

Someone writes - These are the official views of the PLO: "the PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security", "those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist ... are now inappropriate and no longer valid". (Letter of Arafat, 9 September 1993).

No, no! This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Yassir Arafat and the PLO council NEVER said that the PLO National Convenant was not valid! They claimed that it was "caduc", a french word meaning "aging", or "not current". It was only American newspapers that falsely claimed that this word meant "invalid". RK

The official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel is presented here: [1] Quoting: "In his letter of September 9, 1993 to Prime Minister Rabin, Yasser Arafat stated that those articles which deny Israel's right to exist or are inconsistent with the PLO's new commitments to Israel following their mutual recognition, are no longer valid." --AV

Since then, whenever reporters asked PLO officials about this supposed invalidation of the PLO National Convenant, Arafat has explicitly said that his statement was mistranslated. The PLO has NEVER invalidated or changed its covenant. It has merely promised that at some time in the future, someone would modify some part of it. Yet, as we have seen, this never actually occured. Since then, PLO officials have continued to publish the OLD charter, and continue to view it as valid. The actual, official PLO position paper on the Covenant is stated in the document written by the "Research and Thought Department" of Fatah, Yasir Arafat's faction of the PLO.

The document said that changing the Covenant would have been "suicide for the PLO". It continued: "The text of the Palestinian National Covenant remains as it was and no changes whatsoever were made to it. This has caused it to be frozen, not annulled. The drafting of the new National Covenant will take into account the extent of Israeli fulfillment of its previous and coming obligations...evil and corrupt acts are expected from the Israeli side...The fact that the PNC did not hold a special session to make changes and amendments in the text of the National Covenant at this stage...was done to defend the new Covenant from being influenced by the current Israeli dictatorship."

The January 1997 Hebron accord included a "Note for the Record," drafted by the U.S. at the request of Israel and the PLO, and signed by all three parties. Among other obligations, the Note requires the PLO to "complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter." The Note also specifies that this, and the other PLO obligations listed in the Hebron accord, must be fulfilled "immediately."

Nevertheless, the PLO took no such action. An Israeli government report in July 1997 found: ?The Palestinians have not taken any steps toward completing the amendment process. To date, no new version of the Covenant has yet been submitted to the Palestinian National Council.? (?Special Report: PA Has Failed to Fulfill Its Commitments Under the Hebron Accord,? Israel Government Press Office, July 20, 1997)

Faisal Hamdi Husseini, head of the legal committee appointed by the PNC, told the IMRA news agency on January 22, 1998: ?There has been a decision to change the Covenant. The change has not yet been carried out.? During a visit to the White House that same week, Arafat presented President Bill Clinton with a letter listing those sections of the Covenant which he claimed had already been changed. Arafat promised that the letter would be ratified at the next meeting of the PLO?s Executive Committee, although not by the PNC, even though the PNC is the only body legally empowered to alter the Covenant. However, at the PLO?s next Executive Committee meeting on January 31, 1998, Arafat did not bring up the matter for a vote. (Reuters, January 31, 1998)

Conclusion from all this? An Encyclopaedia entry has to be based on actual facts, and not on wishful thinking that rewrites history. RK

I wrote that. My source was not American newspapers, it was an article in the European Journal of International Law. According to the Dictionnaire Universel Francophone En Ligne, caduc means "Qui est tombé en désuétude, qui n'a plus cours", which translates roughly as "which fell into disuse, which has no more movement" (if the translation is wrong, pardon my bad french) -- 'caduc' seems to imply not merely old, but no longer of any relevance, not going anywhere, like a spent provision, or in other words "has no application in today's conditions". While the popular translation may not match the French exactly (and no translation can ever be perfect), it seems a good approximation to his meaning. Arafat certaintly meant more than just "old".
The quotations from the Fatah document you provide do not say that the PLO shouldn't change its covenant ever, just that it shouldn't do so until the Israelis fulfill their obligations better. Well, Israel has promised to do a lot of things but it hasn't on the grounds that the PLO should fulfill its obligations better first. So the PLO on this is no different from Israel. -- Simon J Kissane

Isn't this a reversal of your position? You had previously argued that the PLO did effectively make the changes required by the Oslo treaties, but now you admit that they never have done this, and are still refusing to do so. Here you argue that the PLO has what they believe to be grounds for refusing to change their current covenant, which calls for the total destruction of Israel. Don't you see how this is an entirely new position on your part? Why not just say this? Point out that the PLO still published the old covenant, and still teaches it in their schools and universities, yet does so because of what you just wrote above?


SJK: Whether or not RK would mind, it would be great if you added quotes from Rabbi Meir Kahane. The point is that RK doesn't have to, but someone should. NPOV is being used as a club for censorship. --TheCunctator

If we follow this policy, all controversial articles will turn into a shout-match between extremist pronouncements from both sides. Not a good solution IMHO. The statement of censhorship is a red herring - just because something isn't included in an encyclopaedia, doesn't mean it's being censored. --AV
Actually, that is not true. What makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia is the fact that there is censorship. Without this censorship, the terms "NPOV" and "concise" would not exist. "Censoring" and "editing" are more or less equivalent. So to argue against censorship of an encyclopedia is like arguing against it being edited. M. Kristall 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not censorship that is the problem, it is context. A few people here are taking the unofficial views of a handful of Palestinian leace activists, and are trying to pretend that these are the mainstream and official views of the PLO, the PA, and the majority of the Palestinian people. These bizarre claims are so far from reality that it takes one breath away. On the other hand, the mainstream views stated by almost all leaders are ignored. RK

I have no problem with someone pointing out Rabbi Kahane's failed program; Kahane tried to convince the Israeli people that peace with any Arab is impossible, and therefore that all Arabs should be drive out of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. The Israeli response was to reject him, label him a terrorist, and kick him out of their political structure. Further, the vast majority of the Israeli public overwhelmingly rejected him and his party; many in fact think of him as an idiot. Again, CONTEXT. On the other hand, I would be bothered by someone who deliberately lied, and falsely claimed that his views were representative of the Israeli government and a substantial part of the public. RK

I would have a problem with mention in this article as the topics are unrelated. Try Meir Kahane instead. M. Kristall 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I bet a case of beer that no wikipedia can satisfactorily explain why the PLO is ethnic nationalist (but not terrorist) while the JDL is terrorist but not ethnic nationalist.


It appears that we have a significant different of opinion regarding some content of the PLO page. Several facts regarding the history of the PLO have been added to the page that some wikipedians feel should not appear on the page. The differences are highlighted in the numbered list below. Please add any that are missing. Let's discuss the matter.

  1. "founded in 1964". is this disputeable? is this significant?
  2. does the founding document call for the "replacment/destruction" of the State of Israel? is this significant?
  3. does the PLO call for the removal of all Jews born after 1947/8 from the territories that the PLO envisions will comprise Palestine? is this ethnic cleansing as opposed to population transfer (which would move the all Jews to one side and the all Arabs to another)? is this significant?
  4. does the founding document call for "comando action"? is this a euphemism for terrorism? is this significant?
  5. has the PLO recognized the right of the State of Israel to exist? has this been done in English (not the native language of most PLO members/supporter)? is this significant?
  6. has the PLO committed numerous acts of terrorism? is this significant?
  7. is the Al-Aqsa Martyr Bridges organization on instument of the PLO? does it carry out acts of terrorism, including suicide bombings? does it receive funding from the PLO? is this significant? OneVoice 14:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Answers: 1. it is already in the article; 2. it is already in the article; 3. not any more; 4. see 6; 5. yes, no the language is not significant (Palestinians are not ignorant, do you think they don't know what Arafat says in English?); 6. yes, it is significant 7. it is already in the article.
Most of what you want to add is already there. Why not read the whole article carefully first? --Zero 23:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
regarding 5. Language is significant. The text of statements by Palestinian leaders differ markedly based upon the language used to make the statement. Therefore, one must take a face value, absent very good reason otherwise, the statements the Palestinian leaders speak to their own people, just as one must do the same for American, Chinese, Israeli and Hindi leaders. One recent and very clear example of this is hudna. The term, new to non-Moslems, allows each side to understand something different while using the same words. This is one of the core reasons no progress can be made in the conflict. The many parties involved use the same terms with distinctly different meanings. The seven items listed above provide considerable insight into the PLO. They should be stated clearly without being couched in more gentle terms.
All of that is just your personal political position. This is not a chat room and not a place to practice political activism. Btw, the PLC's statements recognising Israel's existence were in Arabic as well as in English. There was even a controversy about the correct translation of some of the words. --Zero 00:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
let us refrain from ad-hominem attacks. that will surely lead to unreasoned discussion. can you provide a link to the Arabic translation? Is this not a call for the destruction of Israel:

Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and the geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-à-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East.

from Article 22 of http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_three.html referred to on the PLO page as The current version of Palestinian National Charter


Zero0000: you added "several drafts of such a constitution that includes full recognition of Israel have been published." are these available. Can we provide links to them? OneVoice 14:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't mention Israel explicitly but gives its borders as those of 1967 (i.e. the borders of Gaza and W&B including East Jerusalem) which amounts to the same thing. I modified what I wrote. Actually I would not expect a constitution to recognise another state explicitly; that is the function of a peace treaty and no national constitutions do that as far as I know. --Zero 14:33, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the link to the most recent (14th May 2003) draft. 190 Articles, wow! That's a lot of reading to do. Perhaps the lack of explicit recognition on a document voted upon by the PLC is a reason for continued problems. OneVoice 15:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero0000. you deleted a Feisal Husseini quote, add to the page by someone besides you and I, cited in "Al-Sephier". Could this be a transliteration of "As-Saffir"? As-Saffir seems to exist.

Yes, "al-sephier" could be a transliteration of "as-saffir". It is a left-wing Lebanese newspaper. However this is only speculation and we still need some evidence that the quote is genuine. The closest I managed to find was something originating with Arutz 7, and there is just no way that is good enough. --Zero 11:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


A single source of a quote is never desireable. A quick Google search yielded additional organizations/websites with the quote or related quotes (same idea expressed both others including Yasser Arafat) and additional material (in no particular order):

  • MEMRI
  • [2] (see page 23) quoting As-Safir, March 21st 2001.
  • [3]

It is not surprising, at least to some people, that this quote does not appear in the New York Times. The quote was in Arabic. We spoke in the past regarding possible differences in statements make in Arabic (for internal consumption possibly) and those made in English (for Western listeners, perhaps). OneVoice 15:25, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Something should be added about the PLO's interactions with other Arab states as a sub-national entity. In particular, the expulsion of its leaders and army from Jordan, and its subsequent participation in the Lebanese Civil War on the Muslim side (which had the strategic effect of making the Lebanese Christian partisans in the civil war strongly pro-Israel). --Delirium 20:36, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)


ZINDABAAD PLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --24.229.141.63 06:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lozowick's quote[edit]

The following attributed quote was reverted the way we usually deal with vandalism [4]: According to an Israeli writer Yaacov Lozowick: "It was not the Palestinians themselves who decided to create the PLO after their defeat in 1948; The Arab League set it up in 1964 to attack Israel. For years, Palestinian independence was off the Arab agenda; now it was back. Inventing the PLO was a prelude to war, not a result of it; the goal was to destroy Israel, not to rectify the misfortune of the Palestinians, which still could have been done by the Arab states irrespective of Israel." (Source: "Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars", p.126) Is it factually wrong (proof please) or simply doesn't fit someone's agenda? Humus sapiensTalk 08:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It just is a point of view, and a political analysis by an Israeli author, there are no facts mentioned in the article. Samer 06:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

Dear All,

Many of the Quotes are not related at all to the PLO, many of the facts are not even correct. For example, many of Farouk Kadoumi's quotes are about Fatah, not PLO. A Quote by Faisal Husseini has been taken out of context to make it look like he is calling for the eradication of Israel. A whole paragraph erroneously talked about Fatah as a military wing of PLO, and talked about PLO diverting funds to Al-Aqsa Brigades.

This encyclopedia article is a mess. Mostly because many of you are seeking to advance their own agenda, whether it was pro- or anti-PLO. Please use facts to construct an encycolpedia article, not POVs.

Thanks, Samer 07:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


The statement that the PLO charter was adapted to remove the clauses relating to the destruction of Israel is incorrect. While a discussion about these clauses was opened in the PLO leadership they were never revoked in the official text.

Whoops[edit]

Jelzinga here. Uh... I deleted a comment on the PLO page about the three radicals killing the 21 children in a school, and it was only until afterwards that I thought, "Hey, maybe I should have checked out what articles were being disputed beforehand..."

I picked out that bit of information to remove because I determined that it was a non-neutral comment. Comments like that are guaranteed to encourage negative opinions from readers. If we want to keep the article neutral, we have to avoid comments that glorify the PLO, or make them seem like monsters. The reader is supposed to determine that, not us.

It's an accurate description of their actions; NPOV doesn't mean "we can't ever mention anything negative about the group". I don't imagine you would argue the Richard Nixon article shouldn't mention Watergate. Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a big difference between factual information about somebody which is unflattering, and an unflattering POV. Gzuckier 16:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about the PLO!?[edit]

I work on the Hebrew version of this article, and I had think that I can assist this article. Actually, This article is not connect to reality:

  1. "wide range of ideologies"? Where the Hamas?
  2. "the Palestine National Council voted to nullify or amend all such clauses"? You should reread the statement, Actually the council reject this suggestion (I know that Shimon Peras publish that is was the voting, but it is not truth).
  3. "Actual political power and decisions are controlled by the PLO Executive Committee"!? This is committee that assembled a few times for year?

There are many other mistakes and whole article should be rewritten. Troll Refaim 10:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free not to assist with this article, you've already illustrated enough POV bias to make me cringe.  :/

I found many pro-Palestine sites on the Web, so my problem was solved, but the article is already wrong.
I understand why you don’t believe to my, you may checked by yourself. Troll Refaim 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Opening Definitions[edit]

I've changed the link in the opening paragraphs to describe the members of the PLO as 'Palestinian Arabs', and to link to the entry on Palestinian, as opposed to the general entry giving different Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - I did this because this is the appropriate definition to use in this instance. The link to the definitions page is now there under a reference to the geographical location of the desired state. Nomist 5 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Allegations of Terrorism[edit]

Is there source for the "international jurists" who argue that attacks Israel are carried out under the provisions of Protocol I: Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts? I ask this because it seems that neither party is bound by Protocol I Geneva Conventions depository overview in English (.PDF)

If there is no source then this paragraph should be removed:

In contrast, Palestinian supporters and some international jurists would consider attacks on the Israeli military legitimate armed resistance to Israeli occupation, in accordance with International Law and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1949) (which applies in "armed conflicts against alien occupation" and gives lawful combatant status to non-uniformed guerrillas who display their arms openly during military operations).

--PBS 19:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find some, I know I've seen such arguments; I don't think this is a controversial paragraph; whether Israel or the attackers accept this protocol is not exactly the same question as whether the attacks accord with the stipulations of the protocol. The State of Palestine (or the PLO) tried to accede to the 4th Geneva Convention (and maybe the protocols too), the reasons why the ICRC could not accept it are given at the ICRC site, but such a declaration arguably binds them. --John Z 21:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is controversial as neither side has signed P1 and P1 does not (yet) have wide spread acceptance in the international community. Even some of the countries who have signed up to it, like the UK, qualify article 44 paragraph 3b [5]. Further without knowing who they are "Some international jurists" are weasel words PBS 21:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
As I said before, whether either side has accepted it is not entirely relevant. It's a different question, and the paragraph is phrased appropriately and not making any controversial claim I can see. What is your specific objection, aside from weaselling? (Think there is a good chance that the Palestinians have in some form accepted P1, for obvious reasons.)--John Z 23:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Providing a source is supplied then the first half sentence is not controversial: "In contrast, Palestinian supporters and some international jurists would consider attacks on the Israeli military legitimate armed resistance to Israeli occupation accordance with International Law" BUT, if the second half of the sentence is used then the international jurists ought to have used P1 as part of their explanation of why it "legitimate armed resistance". As I suspect that P1 is not yet "recognised by all civilised nations"[6] as part of international law, particularly in this case wher one or both of the parties to the conflict are not signatures, finding international jurists who argue that P1 applies may prove difficult. PBS 00:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The problematic point is whether P1 is international law or not. If it is granted it is, and is applicable, then there is nothing at all controversial. There certainly are many international jurists who consider P1 international law. I'm not saying whether I agree, or whether the ICJ or a war crimes court would agree, but if the words "their interpretation of" were inserted before "international law" there would be little left to argue with. I think you are vastly overestimating the difficulty of finding international jurists (or any other species of lawyer) who would argue anything at all. :-) (E.g. black is white) I remember a debate on various legal issues of the I-P conflict on some big war crimes site, probably have the URL somewhere, should have this topic. If you want a name, I'd be surprised if Francis Boyle (for a long time he was a legal advisor for the PLO) has not so argued. I mean if you want to make a list of strained or outrageous legal arguments that have been used by all sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it has problems, but it doesn't make the top 10, maybe not the top 50.  :-) --John Z 04:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Neither P1 or the ICJ are universal accepted in the way that Hague 1907 is. Clearly the "international jurists" listed would have to be disinterested because otherwise it becomes a "yes it is no it isn't" type of argument with a number of "howevers" thrown in for good measure. An inhouse PLO lawer or Israeli forign ministry lawer are not going to be the best sources to quote in such a debate because of their vested interests in the situation. But any source with names for the "international jurists" would be a start. PBS 11:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a response to you about a week ago, but then couldn't come back till now. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have shown up. It already was a yes it is no it isn't type debate, balancing the assertion which was above it that the Israel considers attacks on its military to be terrorism, which the current version confuses.. I believe you were misreading the statement, which was qualified and not saying anything controversial; it did not pretend to assert anything authoritative, or that P1 was universally accepted, this is not 100% relevant, all that is necessary is that some international jurists consider (some of ) P1 to be international law.. All it was saying is that some people say that some Palestinian attacks are legal under a possible international law, which is so weak it could hardly be false. I think you greatly underestimate the prestige and long-term power of the ICJ, and I don't think "disinterested" is implied or necessary, etc. So I am putting back some of the old stuff in, more qualified, and shorter, as it did go on too much.--John Z 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you list some of the "international jurists" who believe this? Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Seconded. Without such a source from a disinterested/neutral "international jurist" it is so many weasel words dressed up as an authoritative statement. The simple statement "In contrast, Palestinian supporters consider attacks on the Israeli military legitimate armed resistance to Israeli occupation" is sufficient, more than that should have a source. BTW if the "international jurist" is acting for a party to the conflict, they are either Palestinian supporters or Israeli supports and can not be listed as separate from "Palestinian supporters" in the sentence without the current full sentence being at best misleading and it could be seen as duplicitous. At the moment, I think that the section falls foul of the Mandy Rice Davies statment "Well he would [say that] wouldn't he?", and will continue to do so unless it includes something more substantive than that the supporters of Israel think that the PLO supports terrorists and the supporters of the PLO do not think that the PLO supports terrorists. PBS 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Philip, where is the "authoritative" ? I repeat, you seemed to be misreading it to say something it was not saying, seeing problems with an innocuous statement which are not there. Do you really doubt that some jurists consider P1 to have some legal force? And that they would then not agree with this argument, and say that some PLO violent actions are not illegal? I understand your Mandy Rice Davies point, but there's also the Wiki rule that you shouldn't dispute things that you don't really believe are wrong.

Who is a disinterested/neutral "international jurist"? - it would usually mean - "one who agrees with me." For examples, Boyle no longer is associated with the PLO, for another Richard Falk, one of if not the the most prominent professor of international law in the USA has written articles IIRC basing arguments on P1 ; practically any professor from a nation which had formerly been under colonial domination - or that has supported P1 - these sets have a lot of overlap (as they do with "Palestinian supporters") - consider it to have some legal strength, and I think in most cases the logic is I believe in P1 therefore I support this particular Palestinian position, not the reverse. If you want, I will change "and" to "including" for now, but well, I am really surprised and still don't understand why you are picking on a "dog bites man" type story here. Of course everything should be sourced, but I think one should start with dubious or surprising statements, and I'm astonished if you think there are ones here. Could put in "some international jurists support Israel's position" right now, even though I don't have a source in mind at this very moment; would you really dispute that?

For instance, for Falk " I have argued before, with Burns Weston, that Israel's failures to abide by international law, as a belligerent occupant, amounted to a fundamental denial of the right of self-determination, and more generally of respect for the framework of belligerent occupation -- giving rise to a Palestinian right of resistance.(1) " http://www.merip.org/mer/mer217/217_falk.html, he refers to (1) Richard Falk and Burns H. Weston, "The Relevance of International Law to Palestinian Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: In Legal Defense of the intifada," Harvard International Law Journal 32/1 (1991). See also Falk and Weston, "The Israeli-Occupied Territories, International Law and the Boundaries of Scholarly Discourse: A Reply to Michael Curtis," Harvard International Law Journal 33/1 (1992). There is no reference to P1 in the net article, but it would be astonishing if it were not in the sources. He of course states that the resistance must be bound by IHL, but this prohibits attacks on civilians, not the military. --John Z 20:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that by and large "international jurists" who are citizens of a continental European Union country such as the Netherlands or a Scandinavian country, or a citizen of a countries like Japan and Switzerland, would be seen, by many, as more likely to hold a unbiased view than a citizen of a party closer to the conflict, including citizens of the USA where the debate is highly political.
A paragraph based around what you have written above would help. But unless P1 is mentioned explicitly in one of the sources it ought to be avoided as it is controversial. As you will be aware the US government argues that most of P1 is already part of IHL. But articles such as 44 are controversial and are not covered by existing laws or customs of war, which is why the US has not ratified the protocol. PBS 22:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, the main point is that some jurists do think there is "a Palestinian right of resistance" grounded in international law, however they base it. Maybe just noting that the partly controversial P1 is a possible basis, used by Palestinians at least is OK for now? Found some statements like that from them in a very quick search before, and don't feel like more thorough searching now. I think we agree pretty much on an acceptable solution for now. My apologies if I was a bit snippy.--John Z 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that we are close to an agreement on this, but I still think that the current wording is not acceptable as it still implies that P1 is the basis for the "international jurists" thinking on armed resistence, which without a source is speculation. Likewise a source on at least one respected "international jurist" is needed to change window dressing into a fact. PBS 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Hope what I wrote now is OK with you, just didn't get around to doing it yesterday. --John Z 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the article regarding the Achille Lauro is not mentioned or linked to, or the fact that the PLO paid an undisclosed sum to the daughters of Leon Klinghoffer in a settlement for a wrongful death lawsuit? --andsmi 12:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply stating Israel's designation of the PLO as a terrorist organization is equatable to including Rick Santorum's thoughts on Howard Dean in an article about the Democratic Party. I checked some of the subsequent supposed PLO-backed attacks and found that about half were actually carried out by groups either explicitly hostile to the PLO or that had split from other organizations in the PLO. In light of this, I went ahead and removed them. If anyone else feels that accusing an organization of violent acts made by its enemies or detractors, on account of their relationship (of enmity), is beneficial to the article, please correct me. Also, if there are any factual pieces of evidence I overlooked, go ahead. It is Wikipedia, after all. Have a yawm mumtaz! Atomsprengja 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The final target of the ten point programma[edit]

"8. Once it is established, the Palestinian national authority will strive to achieve a union of the confrontation countries, with the aim of completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory, and as a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity." (My bolds, The text is from [7]).

"completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory" = destorying of Isreal. I hope that this is source good engouh for you. Troll Refaim 19:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hamas irrelevent?[edit]

The most important Palestinian organization outside PLO and its main opponent, it is irrelevant? This is very strange... Troll Refaim 22:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant to that sentence you were adding it to, because when the PLO was formed, Hamas didn't exist. If you'd like, you an add an excerpt about how the PLO is trying to get Hamas to join it (and relinquish its weapons) - but remember this article is about the PLO, not a discussion on Hamas. Ramallite (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The sentence is "The PLO incorporates a range of ideologies of different Palestinian movements committed to the struggle for Palestinian independence and liberation, hence the name of the organization”. The current sentence omitted a main fact; the Islamic ideology isn't existed at PLO. If you think that the location of this fact is other, put it there, but this fact must be at the article. Troll Refaim 16:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why/if it must be incorporated in the article, but it probably doesn't hurt either. Is it better now? Ramallite (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Even better... Troll Refaim 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Which equals the restructuring of the British Mandate State of Palestine.--Chadfarhat 07:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabic name of group[edit]

Why is the first word of the Arabic name of the group given as "Munazzamah" منظمة when the reverse acronym "Fatah" was formed from Harakah حركة (Arabic for "movement")? AnonMoos 00:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - you do realize that the PLO is an umbrella organization of which Fatah is only one (group), so they are two different things? Ramallite (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I was confused. The names are similar in Arabic, but not in the usual conventional English rendering. AnonMoos 04:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Land They Claim[edit]

In the image box, This POV original research is present: "The PLO emblem shows the Palestinian flag above a map of the land they claim as Palestine (roughly, present-day Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)." (emphasis added). As the PLO accepts a two-state solution and claims only the Occupied Territories as Palestine, this must be removed. (I'm attempting to edit another version of this into a more NPOV format over at the [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] page, and I could use some support.) On this page, I'm going to fix the problem by removing the words "the land they claim as Palestine (roughly," so that the panel reads "The PLO emblem shows the Palestinian flag above a map of present-day Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." --joveis 00:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the PLO DOES NOT accept a two state solution. The PLO was formed in 1964, three years before there existed any "occupied terretories". Those "occupied territories" were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. If the "occuppied territories" were all the PLO was after, then why, in the period 1964-1967 did the PLO conduct terrorist activities only against Israel? Israel at that time was not in possession of any "occupied territories". Jordan and Egypt was. Why wasn't the PLO using terrorist tactics to free the "occupied" territories from Jordan and Egypt? The answer is simple.
The PLO emblem isn't necessary, but shows the obvious intent of the PLO, to anyone who isn't an idiot, that the aim is to take all that land depicted in the emblem, namely, all of Israel. Jove, you can't "fix the problem" by editing Wikipedia. No matter how much editing you do, it will not change the simple fact that the PLO conducts terrorist activities with the simple aim of destroying the Stae of Israel. Period.


Please don't. The current text is not an incorrect description of the PLO emblem as long as that is the way it is. The land they "claim as Palestine" will always be the same, and it has been known as such for centuries, but is obviously not the same as the land that they have accepted to be the territory of a future sovereign Palestinian state, which will geographically be situated in parts of Palestine. --me

Main lacks[edit]

  1. The IAF attack on PLO center (1985)
  2. Killing of Abu Jihad
  3. The connection with first intifada
  4. The relations with Palestinian Authority
  5. The terror during Al-Aqsa Intifada
  6. The kidnappings of airplanes
  7. The artillery attacks on the north of Israel
  8. The terrorist attacks (Most effected only): Ma'alot massacre, at shore road and, at Nitanim
  9. The gaining control on south of Lebanon
  10. The relations with the Hamas
  11. The relations with governments of Arab states (Mainly Syria, Iraq and Egypt)
  12. The gaining control of military organizations over PLO at 1969

Troll Refaim 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

First Intifada[edit]

The information that was added by me to this article is true. The whole information except the killing of Palestinians by PLO members is existed at formal documents of PLO (I have a translations of them to Hebrew, so I cannot insert them here). The information about the killing of Palestinians can be found at human rights reports of Amnesty.
I know that all facts are negative (so the phrase is POV), but I think that is important. If you wish, you can add more positive information, but will not delete the facts! Troll Refaim 16:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to add it, b'seder, but also cite the Amnesty International page that you got the information from. Here are the problems I had:
  • It is hard to define what a "PLO member" is in this context. If one is a member of Fatah, is he/she a "PLO member?" There is no "PLO membership card", people usually belong to one of many groups that make up the PLO, like Fatah, PFLP, DFLP, etc. The more correct phrase is the "Unified Intifada Leadership" which was the organization in charge of directing the first Intifada and was made up of many factions, some of whom were members of the PLO. Also, many of the collaborators killed were by individuals, or even by fellow relatives because of "shame" or whatever. As Sari Nusseibeh said back then about the killing: "This may not be the right thing to do, but in such situations, it is expected that these things will happen".
  • It is ok to put a negative POV as long as you put the opposing POV to make it neutral. You have to explain who the collaborators are and the reasons for being hated.
  • You wrote "The result was as long as the Intifada continue and the PLO got more control, the Intifada became more violent, for the Israelis (that many of them injured and a few killed)". This makes it seem like the Intifada was violent only when Israelis started to get killed. That is an unfair distortion. Many many Palestinians were killed (mostly for throwing rocks and being in demonstrations), and the use of arms was rare (and didn't increase with time as you say, it stayed rare, because the PLO couldn't get much control).
  • You wrote "the PLO policy was the armed struggle so the massive demonstrations weren't fit to it" - this is disputable, because the PLO was happy with the intifada NOT being armed because it was more effective. Arafat himself used to say "il-dawla ala marma 7ajar", or "independence is a stone's throw away". I don't have any evidence that they were trying to make it armed. Do you? Ramallite (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. OK but isn't really matter, should be members of organizations at PLO. The "Unified Intifada Leadership" was a PLO organization.
  2. I added the title long before I added the text but the text wasn't written. I think that if I wrote a text, someone will write more information.
  3. I simply don’t understand why you think the meaning is that the Intifada became violent only when Israelis killed. Actually, the meaning is opposite. Most of Palestines were killed, didn't kill by the Israelis, they killed by the Palastines! (Many of them were killed by "Unified Intifada Leadership"). The events of using of arms weren't rare from the middle 1988, I have list of nearly daily events of that at second half of 1989.
  4. This speech of Arafat is from latter period, after the Palestine's leadership understand the situation (At the middle of 1989).
I will search Amnesty International report, I know that they publish it but I don't know where is at the Internet. Troll Refaim 18:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
According to בצלם, there were between 750-950 'collaborators' killed by other Palestinians, and 1531 Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers or settlers. Your assertion that most Palestinians were not killed by Israeli soldiers is very wrong. Also, I lived through the intifada and the use of arms was rare. However, even if arms were used daily, I don't see what the problem is, Israeli soldiers had much more arms than Palestinians ever did. Ramallite (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
This very strange, when the report of B'tselem published? I have one (from 1991), but maybe the report that you own is from latter version... B'tselem updates their data ... Anyway, the number of Palestinians that were killed by Palestinians was significant, and this point which was important for me.
I didn't write that Palastines used arms more than Isrealies. I wrote that the using was common... Troll Refaim 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
You can see the report on www.btselem.org under "statistics". Why are you so interested in the collaborators? Ramallite (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Many of "collaborators" weren't collaborators at all; they killed due to another reasons (For obvious reasons, the exact number is unknown)
  2. This is the easy way to break the myth of nonviolence Intifada. All "collaborators" were killed by the Palestinians
  3. The humanism of organization is tested by its attitude to its enemies. Troll Refaim 22:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberated[edit]

why is it that that the PLO article says the PLO is planning to create "a national authority over any piece of liberated Palestinian land", but when I point out that Israel happens to have actually liberated some "Palestinian land", it is immediately deleted from the article? is it ok by Wikipedia policy to say that all the land there is "Palestinian land"? Israelis can only "occupy" it, and Arabs can only "liberate" it? John McW 03:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

wow john mcw is a freaking idiot i feel bad for his family

Are you objecting to the POV word "liberated" in the PLO article? Or what? Adam 04:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John McW, I've read your comment here on the talkpage (that got reverted). Whatever you, Jayjg, Klonimus, Guy Montag, SlimVirgin et al, may believe, this and other Israel/Palestinian related articles are not meant to be a platform to disseminate Nationalistic propaganda. Just stop it. A true pro-Israeli stance is to be able to acknowledge, not just the positive aspects of our homeland, but also the negative (including the oppression of the Palestinian people), so that things can change. Or else all will be lost. --saxet 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you have no idea what I believe, please avoid speculating about it, and in the future please refrain from dragging me into your unrelated discussions with other editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[sigh] Speculations and presumptions about other editors' beliefs are not only irrelevant but unproductive since it diverts the focus away from actual article contents. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not the function of an encyclopaedia to take "stances" for or against anything, or to disseminate propaganda of any kind, or to "acknowledge" the positive or negative aspects of anybody's homeland. I still want to know exactly what John McW is objecting to in this article. Adam 05:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Which was my point. I didn't state that Wikipedia should acknowledge anything. Anyways, how did you reason when you wrote that "liberated" was a POV word? What would be a NPOV word for actions resulting in an occupied territory being not occupied? "unoccupied"? As for John McW, if you look at the changes he recently made to this article (which got reverted), you will understand what his objections are. --saxet 05:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Nicely stated call for objectivity, Adam. I had to add your words to my "Favorite quotes" section... : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Arguing that the "liberated" is NPOV when a territory is "occupied", when there is a debate about whether or not they should be described as "liberated" or "occupied" in the first place is completely circular. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree his edits should have been reverted, and if he wants the article to reflect his POV he will be disappointed. The use of the word "liberated", however, is nearly always POV, unless there is universal acceptance of its use. Thus most people will accept a Wikipedia statement that "Europe was liberated from the Nazis," but will not (for example) accept a statement that "Baghdad was liberated from Saddam Hussein," because there is significant opposition to that view. Adam 06:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think John is arguing that there is a double-standard or POV being displayed here - when Israel captures the West Bank, it is "occupied", but if the PLO were to capture the West Bank or even Israel, it would be "liberated". Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

there seems to be a double standard when it comes to israel you can criticize the palestinians or anyone else but the minute you make the smallest criticism of israel they shut you up by calling you anti semetic LEGITIMATE criticism of israel is not anti semetic

Here is another example: Palestinian Islamic Jihad is described as a group "whose goal is the liberation of historical Palestine". Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Did I miss something obvious? Why don't those who are objecting to these statements go to the articles, put the disputed sentences in quotation marks to indicate that they are quoting the source and not reflecting Wikipedia POV, and move on to their next topic of mischief? (I mean that in the most humorous way possible). If you do so, please place a sentence in quotation marks, not a specific word, because a specific word will invite more NPOV battles. Ramallite (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh - and by the way, in the scheme of things, one should think of what's being liberated as the people, not the land, and relate the nature of the conquering army to the natives of the land being conquered. This makes classifying "liberation" vs "occupation" a lot easier. But that's just my opinion. Ramallite (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If Islamic Jihad or the PLO ever "liberated" Israel, I suspect the vast majority of "natives" would consider it something other than "liberation", assuming they survived. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I don´t see why you would have any worries about most of the natives surviving a "liberation" of what's now Israel by the PLO (ignoring the fact that the PLO has more or less given up on the idea in any case), especially considering that most of the natives are in Jordan, Syria, the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon at the moment and wouldn´t be directly involved. Palmiro | Talk 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I guess it wouldn't be called "liberation" by the above definition then. The "assuming they survived" part I don't follow, because having grown up in this society, I think that Hamas/IJ's barks are worse than their bites, and this would be especially true once the humiliation factor is removed (not counting the virgin-seeking loons of course). But it will take years to undo the negative stereotypes that have developed between both sides due to constant propaganda. In any case, I don't think the scenario you suggested is anything to worry about, it won't happen. Ramallite (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that the dozens of people murdered and hundreds seriously injured by Hamas and Islamic Jihad would consider their barks to be worse than their bites. They are the "virgin-seeking loons". Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

so everyone here agrees that the word "liberated" shouldn't be used. John McW 23:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't, I think disputed items should be left in quotation marks to imply context and left as is, like I said above. Otherwise, misrepresentation results. If I state that "Ramallite likes coke", I wouldn't want a Pepsi fanatic to change that to "Ramallite hates Pepsi". I think all this nitpicking is a waste of time by the way. I think it serves NPOV best to state the POV of both/all sides when it comes to topics such as these (especially when there is no alternative to 'liberate" and "occupy" - certainly not "conquest"), and place them in quotation marks when it's necessary. Ramallite (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the word "liberated" shouldn't be used until the Palestinians have actually been liberated. Which they will be, but not by Hamas or Islamic Jihad, but by an international coalition put together by the United Nations on June 24, 2009. Or something like that. As for the fear & paranoia crowd, you might have a point; South Africa was lucky that those ANC thugs never managed to come into power, Nelson Mandela would, for sure, have slaughtered the entire white population if that would have happened. Anyway, I have no clue why this section/discussion is here on Talk:Israel and not on Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization, where it belongs. --saxet 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The only way the Palestinians are going to be "liberated" is if they get rid of the terrorist groups that dominate them and the propaganda machines they call "schools". your fantasies about the United Nations ever doing anything effective make as much sense as the rest of your statement, the ANC has nothing to do with zealot suicide bombers. John McW 12:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The terrorist groups you refer to are ideologues that are not dominant, but a vocal minority on both sides that have unfortunately dictated their views to a silent majority. Funny, I went to these schools, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please point out exactly what you've seen or read? Thanks Ramallite (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
On a side issue, I really would like to know why there is so much hatred for the Palestinians and so much defamation of them. I've been very calm, as much as I can, on these talk pages but I have to say that I really find it utterly sickening and despicable. Palmiro | Talk 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Documentary fact:[edit]

According to the documentary study conducted by Professor Francisco J. Gil-White (see article “Palestine Is Our Land And The Jews Are Our Dogs” at http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/Israel.htm) PLO has Hitler's Nazi roots, ties, ideology, thus, it consitutes a fascist organization and must be exterminated

Why I deleted the paragraph "A partner for peace?"[edit]

This paragraph was a pure progodana, from the title to the end. The paragraph has no connection with PLO. Troll Refaim 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting sourced and factual information. If you have any substantive argument against the paragraph in question, then raise it here. Just saying that it's "pure progodana, from the title to the end" won't cut it. Palmiro | Talk 22:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I wrote: PURE PROGORANDA. Oh, Menachem Begin had to say: "I love the PLO that kills my people. Only they say 'We accept the 242' and I kiss them", didn't him?
The current article is garbage, the most important information is deleting because "is not POV" and instead we have this paragraph. At the current state, the aritcle can be published by PLO as progodana, and nobody will pay attention that the article was taken from Wikipedia. Troll Refaim 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The PLO in Lebanon section[edit]

I was disturbed at the extremely small section dedicated to the PLO in Lebanon. Considering they are one of the main reasons for the civil war, I think this section should be extensive...

Closer to the facts?[edit]

Hi Ed - your recent edits are in fact closer to a political analysis (i.e. original research) because you 1- use words such as "somewhat confusingly" and 2- are actually taking the POV that Jordan is also Palestine (region), which is highly controversial and not neutral. It is known that the area now known as Jordan was originally designated by Britain as part of the mandate of Palestine, but that designation did not last long enough to be of any significance before the emirate of Transjordan came into existence in the 1920s. I'm going to try to neutralize this (along with some other things). See what you think. Ramallite (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course this is correct: there is a dispute over how much of Jordan is "in Palestine". If none of Jordan is in Palestine, then there is no "Palestinian state" under Arab control right now. If all of Jordan is in Palestine, than one could say that Jordan is an Arab "Palestinian state", but this would undermine the argument that Palestinian Arabs don't have a Palestinian state and thus must continue to fight Israel to get one.
The question I'm trying to figure out, as a contributor, is not whether PLO or other Arab nationalistic aspirations are justified. Rather, I'm trying to describe WHO wants WHAT, and WHY they want it. I feel this is the job of an encyclopedia, at least a neutral one. Once we describe everyone goals, the readers can decided for themeselves who (if anyone) is right. --Uncle Ed 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK never mind - I'll wait until you are done. Incidentally, suicide bombings etc was a recent 1990s phenomenon and cannot realistically be attributed to the PLO. Most bombings were by Hamas and Islamic Jihad (not PLO members) and later Al-Aqsa (an offshoot of Fateh but not PLO endorsed). You are mixing up timelines. Ramallite (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. The distinction between PLO-sponsored terrorism and terrorism sponsored by other organizations continues to escape me, but perhaps Wikipedia has or will have an article on Terrorism in the Middle East which describes it all clearly. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How much liberation is enough?[edit]

The purpose of the PLO seems to be to "liberate" all of the region of Palestine from non-Arab control and make one nation of it.

I suppose this either means that Jordan conquers Israel (which is an impracticality, given Israel's huge nuclear arsenal) or that a new Arab nation in Palestine is created (in addition to Jordan) which then conquers Israel (which is likewise an impracticality).

I'm also wondering whether the PLO has really given up its goal of absorbing all Israeli lands (i.e., Israel itself, not just Gaza, WB and E. Jeruslem) or was that just a diplomatic ploy. Does anyone have any clue as to whether the PLO's founding purpose has been amended so radically?

Has the PLO decided to settle for just creating a second Arab nation in Palestine in Gaza and West Bank (and possibly East Jerusalem)? Do they intend to stop at seeking sovereignty for the Palestinian National Authority?

Considering that maps of "Palestine" displayed in Arab-run elementary schools in West Bank deliberately exclude Israel, it would seem that the goal of extending Arab sovereignty to all of the area west of the Jordan River to the shores of the Mediterrenan Sea is still intact.

It would be useful if this encyclopedia could shed light on these questions. Note that I do not ask contributors to say whether the nationalistic aspirations of the PLO are "rightful" or "natural" or anything like that. I just would like to know what they want. --Uncle Ed 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone tell me where Jordan comes into all of this? Please? Palmiro | Talk 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

Sorry, Ramallite, due to simultaneous talk page editing, it looks like I'm ignoring your comments in the section above. Actually we were writing at just about the same hour and minute.

You are right, of course about the "analysis" aspect. I deleted the "confusingly" part and tried to describe my personal confusion and concerns here on the talk page where they belong. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries - Ramallite (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Ed, the notion of Jordan being Palestine is ridiculous from a Palestinian viewpoint. You seem to be of the opinion that if Jordan - in a certain convoluted sense - may be designated as a 'Palestinian state', then that means that I (being from Ramallah) already have a state, along with every other non-Jew west of the River. Saying so betrays a deep misunderstanding of both the conflict and the culture. Before I go any further, and since you seem genuinely curious, I suggest you read this exchange I had a while ago on another page about nationality and familial origins (keep reading down that section, it won't be obvious at first glance). See if its of any help. Ramallite (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously ;-)
If Ramallah is in the West Bank, and you are as you name implies a "Ramallite" then you are (technically) stateless - unless you count the Palestinian National Authority as a "state" of sorts. It seems to be only half a state, as it doesn't have full sovereignty over any territory.
If Jordan is a "Palestinian state" suitable for your aspirations, you might emigrate from West Bank to Jordan. But I haven't heard that their immigration policy includes any intention to absorb several million West Bankers or Gazans.
If you are indeed stateless, then your choices for living someplace which (a) is in Palestine and (b) is or has a state are:
  • to immigrate into a congenial state - such as Jordan, the bulk of which is in Palestine (region); or,
  • to turn your existing living area into a state
Many Arab Palestinians have been calling the second alternative, often along with annexing Israel as well (although Israel continues to refuse to be annexed).
What I meant before, though, is about the justification for Palestinian Arab nationalism in the non-sovereign portion of Palestine. The argument goes like this:
  1. All Palestinian Arabs need a state.
  2. Although some Arabs in Jordan have a state, Jordan refuses to give citizenship to a substantial number (millions?).
  3. The Arabs of West Bank, Gaza and (possibly) East Jerusalem don't have a state.
  4. The Arabs mentioned in points 2 and 3 lack a state, so the only way to get one is through violence.
  5. Hence violence is justified, and let's conquer Israel or at least turn Gaza, WB & EJ into a state.
  6. Maybe this new state can absorb the refuges to which Jordan has refused citizenship
I'm not sure I understand it all yet, but I'm hoping I will soon. Anyway, thanks for continuing to dialogue with me. This ought to provide a basis for clarifying the articles. --Uncle Ed 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Jordan is not a Palestinian state and has never been ruled by Palestinians. Is it so extraordinary that people would want to live in freedom in their own homeland (rather daringly defining homeland as, where they actually come from)? Palmiro | Talk 21:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Consider the article's audience[edit]

I am a female 19-year old college student in the Midwestern US, and I was perusing this article just as a source of background information for the PLO and its history, etc.

I'm a political science major at my school, and I am not emotionally vested in one "side" or the other (of the Palestine/Israeli conflict), have not published anything, and have not at this point earned any degrees. So, in other words, I don't claim to know much, but I'm trying.

The article as it stands upon my reading (26 March 2006) appears to be honestly neutral. I am not equipped or qualified to examine it as microscopically as some who have commented here, but I think its use as an article of general information and NOT AS A SCHOLARLY PUBLICATION (consider the nature of Wikipedia) is of considerable value to the general public and to the average student like myself.

I understand that it is the duty of Wikipedia to provide the most accurate articles to the best of its ability, but for the generalist, it is not worth revoking the article, especially considering it concerns an incendiary topic that is personal to many and that ANY take on such a topic is bound to upset some.

156.56.8.103Ali, Indiana University (The above comments made on 27 March 2006 were moved here from the To Do list)

Iraqi-controlled group?[edit]

The Arab Liberation Front (ALF) - Minor Iraqi-controlled Ba'thist faction. Historically certain arab groups have been divided between Iraqi/Syrian factions. But is it accurate to say a faction is today Iraqi-controlled (as it was during Saddamm days)? Do the iraqi authorities of the day control this movement?Constanz - Talk 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 'aligned with the Iraqi Baath Party' would be better? The "Iraqi" or "rightist" Baath still exists in quite a few countries outside Iraq; I'm not sure what the absolute best way to refer to it now that it no longer rules Iraq is. Palmiro | Talk 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lame Talk[edit]

This "Jewish" talk isn't even connected with PLO. We are not talking about Iraqis, we are not talking about Terrorists(They dont belong to this world) we are talking about Palestinians. Such pages should be deleted from the website, and nobody monitors these discussions? Offensive chat such as comments by RK and Simmone should be deleted. Thanks. Yu5uF 4:40 PM GMT May 07 2006

It isn't wikipedia policy to delete anything from talk pages. Articles neat; talk pages a mess :-P. In future, however, please avoid religious slurs and refer to discussion by topic or by the people discussing it, and not as "Jewish".
I have one request for you to dude, please don't forget to give out your signature. --Yu5uF 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations From .org and .gov sites prefered[edit]

When editing the article in question please make sure you have clear and reliable sources for edits that are of a disputed or controversial nature. Due to the broadness of the various debates surrounding this article it is recommended that all citations should come from a .org or .gov type of web page. If your edit is of a disputed nature and has no attached citation, then it seems logical that it be open for immediate deletion.

erased OR comparison[edit]

Amoruso 09:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For information's sake, the user who added that has a history of posting OR articles/essays and statements. --Wafulz 19:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PLO Charter[edit]

Why does the introduction say that the Charter was ammended in 1988 to recognize the state of Israel? As pointed out earlier on this discussion page, this just isn't true. I think an edit is needed, but I'm just not sure how to reword it myself. ---alyosha- 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the intro. Just today I had time to read the whole text. Does anyone else think that the article is an organizational mess? ---alyosha- 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple facts[edit]

The fact that Palmiro especially has removed some information, placing it somewhere where it should not be, claiming "neutrality", and then lets an extremely biased, (forget unsourced) UNTRUE, and incredible misleading edit go by says it all of what "neutral" may mean. The NCIS is more than reliable and credible, and the fact that it is saying (not that it is one, but) that it is THE richest of all of them, says how much money they have, how much they are making, where they get it, how they get it, and then their secret investments. That is not an allegation of terrorism. The paragraph is written perfectly for an encyclopedia and has been there. Just because one may not like it is not a valid claim. --Shamir1 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Allegations of Terrorism" is a disgraceful title anyway... what allegations ? PLO has killed hundreds of civilians and was designated as such by the designation sources like the U.S. It should atleast be "Desginated Terrorism" or something of the like. It's not allegations, it's facts. Amoruso 05:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There are all sorts of interesting and important things in the article, and this particular claim is simply a way of worming the word "terrorism" into the lead. It's so obvious it's pathetic. As for "Designated Terrorism", well, if you want it to reflect this claim haveing been made by states who in total hold perhaps 5% of the world's population, fair enough. Palmiro | Talk 12:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro, you have deleted much information that was perfectly factual and and had reason. Meanwhile you let something slide as ridiculous as "former Palestine" and much other biased baloney and you know it. For this, I do not trust your judgment. --69.231.251.209 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Care to tell me who you are, while you're attacking me? And what information did I delete that was, as you put it "perfectly factual and had reason"? I don't particularly recall deleting anything here. And what's the reference to former Palestine about? Or is this just random abuse? Palmiro | Talk 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that rather than attack each other's character, it would be useful if people would list exactly what is at issue here, preferably with neutral descriptions of the issues? The list can include whether certain matters belong in the article (and whether they belong in the lead or elsewhere), whether certain wordings should be used, whether certain matters need citation, whether certain sources are acceptable, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 21:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. My view is that the lead paragraph should give basic information regarding the nature and structure of the PLO (its pseudo-state structures, diplomatic presence and perhaps military wing, and also its being composed principally of a variety of paramilitary/politicomilitary groups and dominated historically by one of them), and that regarding the history of the organization the guerrilla takeover in 1968-'69 is every bit as important as its foundation in 1964, its gradual move to accepting a two-state solution, and signature of the Oslo Accords. I think my edits resulted in a more informative and comprehensive, but reasonably succinct, lead. Of course all these issues could be discussed in detail.
Secondly, I don't agree that a quotation from the British National Criminal Intelligence Service about the PLO's financial resources is at all suitable or necessary for the lead, although it is reasonably informative and possibly merits inclusion at an appropriate point in the article. It seems to me that it's being pushed for inclusion in the lead as a way of getting the word "terrorist" in there, which if so is regrettable. However, I would add that if the funding of the PLO is to be discussed, it is almost certain that there are works by professional historians or political scientists which give a better and more comprehensive overview of the situation.
Thirdly, I'm not at all convinced that the "destruction of Israel" is the best way of describing the PLO's purpose. We're not meant to be looking at it through Israeli eyes, but from a neutral and distanced standpoint. The PLO itself in earlier years made no bones about wishing to eliminate the state of Israel, but as far as I know its primary stated aim was to liberate Palestine. That would seem like a more suitable way of introducing its objectives. I don't think we have it as a general rule that in giving the aims of political organizations, they should be cited as they appear to their enemies. I think it is quite normal to allow them to formulate them themselves. They can then be glossed or elaborated on, using reliable sources, as necessary. Palmiro | Talk 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro, some of the deleted was information added a while ago, that you simply deleted just because. It provided a lot of correct insight and was true. He/she is right. Your judgment of keeping unsourced, biased, and untrue material while entirely moving or removing others does not do you any good. All that you mentioned above is history and belongs in later sections. The lead shows the organization's intent, brief creation, and above all what makes it unique. --Shamir1 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the prominent NCIS, and how is it that it is being "pushed for inclusion" when it was you who first had the idea of removing it? If anything it is being "pushed for exclusion". It is put in quotations and written very well, neutral and factual language. The commentaries or opinions of "professional historians or political scientists" cannot even measure up to the NCIS. --Shamir1 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It was in fact the PLO's purpose. It is not "Israeli eyes" or "as they appear to their enemies" (who were offering and trying to negotiate a peace settlement for years); the org was founded by Egypt and the Arab nations who CONTINUOUSLY and EXPLICITLY called for none other than the destruction of Israel. The PLO was controlled by the Egyptian government who sought to destroy Israel and used the PLO as a tool and appointed an Egyptian as its leader. Egypt occupied the Gaza and had no intention of giving it up to or for anyone or anything. They did not call at all for the Jordan's West Bank either. I can go on forever and lay down more facts, but most importantly, IT SAYS SO ALL OVER THEIR CHARTER. IT SAYS SO BY THEIR LEADERS. One example out literally hundrends, if not more, is said by PLO leader Zahir Muhsein: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem." Did you really say, "The PLO itself in earlier years made no bones about wishing to eliminate the state of Israel, but as far as I know its primary stated aim was to liberate Palestine."? Is that a joke, a sick joke? The Palestine National Charter says NOTHING about establishing a Palestinian state, by the way, and stresses their pan-Arab objective of the destruction (al-qada-ala) of Israel. --Shamir1 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find a copy of the PLO covenant of 1964 here. It looks to me like "the liberation of Palestine" gets rather more coverage in it than "the destruction of Israel". Can you point out any reasons for not agreeing, on the basis of this text, and without making long political speeches? Palmiro | Talk 01:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can pull out of that a neutral statement of some issues to be decided. I'd suggest that for each of the following, what should be considered is (1) whether it belongs in the lead and (2) whether it belongs in the article at all.

  1. Use of the term "terrorist", and if so, cited to whom
  2. Pseudo-state structures of the PLO
    1. its diplomatic presence
    2. its military wing
  3. That the PLO was founded by Egypt and the Arab nations in 1964
  4. That (perhaps "whether") Egypt and the Arab nations "CONTINUOUSLY and EXPLICITLY called for none other than the destruction of Israel."
  5. That (perhaps "whether") PLO was controlled (until what date? I presume '68-'69) by the Egyptian government who sought to destroy Israel and used the PLO as a tool and appointed an Egyptian as its leader.
  6. That before the 1967 war Egypt occupied Gaza and had no intention of giving it up.
  7. Whether the Palestinian people existed in 1948, whether it existed in 1964, or 1968, or at various other dates, whether it exists today, or whether, conversely, Palestinian nationalism is only a means of Arab anti-Zionist struggle
  8. Whether there is any meaningful difference among the various Arabs of the region (Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese)
  9. Whether the essential character of the PLOchanged with the guerrilla takeover in 1968-'69
  10. That the PLO (for at least the past 35 years) is composed principally of a variety of paramilitary/politicomilitary groups and dominated historically by one of them, Fatah
  11. That it gradually moved to accepting a two-state solution, and signed of the Oslo Accords.
  12. Something about a quotation from the British National Criminal Intelligence Service about the PLO's financial resources (I - JM - cannot decipher what is being alluded to)
  13. The extent to which we focus on "destruction of Israel" versus "liberation of Palestine"

I'm sure there is a lot else that could be added; feel free to point out other things that are in contention. And my apologies if any of that is not worded neutrally: I've tried to use the word "whether" to indicate points where I suspect that even the claims of fact are disputed here. I'd suggest that the most productive way to proceed is to see if there are any of these items that are not matters of contestation. On some of them, if they are to be discussed in the article at all, I can only imagine handling them by bringing forth multiple conflicting views: in particular, the question of the extent to which the Palestinians constitute a distinct people, or whether (my own view, by the way) they have been forging a national identity over the past century or so, much as many other historically colonised peoples. But I am not at all convinced that this is the major article in which to take that up. It seems to me to belong mainly in Palestinian people. Similarly, the analogous discussion of the evolution of Israeli identity seems to me to belong at Israelis, not in an article about a political or military organ. - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly enthusiastic about addressing some of these issues, as they seem more likely to provoke political arguments than development of article content. My preferred starting point would be: 1. what are the essential characteristics - structures, functions, activities and so forth - of the PLO, and 2. what are the basic points of reference in its historical development - of course, all this shouuld, for the lead paragraph, be considered in relation to the lead's role as a summary of the article, and this article is a bit of a mess. However, here goes.
    1. I don't think the term 'terrorist' belongs in the lead, unless an argument can be made for delineating Israel's (or possibly the US's) changing attitude to the PLO - as opposed to the changing relations between the PLO and Israel - per se, which I am doubtful about.
    2. I think this clearly belongs - the PLO has historically had both structures and functions that recall those of a state. My version of the intro was a pretty rough attempt at summing this up and I think there's plenty of room for debate on how to approach this both in the article as a whole and in the lead.
      1. Obviously the international/diplomatic role of the PLO (including its position in the UN and the League of Arab States) is v. important; I think the reference to its diplomatic representations is significant in this regard and is also useful in giving an example of the range of state-like functions it performs (bearing in mind that many of the diplomatic representations are officially missions of the State of Palestine and not of the PLO qua PLO). I'm not heartset on including it in the lead, though, this is obviously open to debate.
      2. Again the PLA is an example of the PLO's formal state-like structures, and was theoretically one of the major arms of the organization, though it was generally under the control of other states and not under Palestinian control and including it here without stating this may be problematic. The most important military element in the PLO's history was of course the armed wings of the various factions; again how precisely to convey the best possible summary information here is something that would bear detailed examination.
    3. Clearly an essential point, though again the precise phrasing may bear examination.
    4. Not sure about this. The article is about the PLO, and we have to be focused.
    5. Not sure about this. I don't have any books on the PLO to hand, but from somewhat relevant ones that I do have, note Kimmerling and Migdal, The Palestinian People, p. 253: 'Even with Nasser's firm backing, Shukayri had never managed to establish his own control over the organization, despite his claims that the PLO he led represented the general will of the Palestinians: He [sic] ended up precipitating and dealing with one factional split after another.' This suggests that the situation was a bit more complex, as does Khalidi, Palestinian Identity p260n: 'The PLO was founded in 1964 by the Arab League in response to pressures Arab states felt from burgeoning independent Palestinian organizations and from Palestinian popular sentiment, and was meant to contain and control those pressures. Although it was thus not originally an independent actor, the Arab states quickly lost of control of it, as it was refashioned by these organizations into the primary vehicle of Palestinian nationalism, a process which was completed by 1968.'
    6. Not particularly relevant, even if true, certainly not for the lead, and for what it's worth (arguably not much) implicitly contradicted by the 1964 covenant.
    7. Not at all relevant, this is an article about the PLO not about Palestinian national identity - though the role of the PLO in articulating and shaping Palestinian identity is something that would bear consideration in the article.
    8. A great topic for interminable polemics, but not a good one for inclusion in this article.
    9. I think this is pretty much undisputed - pace Shamir1 and Amoruso, whose views on the matter I'm not certain of. It's certainly treated as a key turning-point in everything I can recall reading both about the PLO and about Arafat and Fatah.
    10. I'm a bit scared of overemphasising Fatah in the lead at the expense of the other component groups, but something along these lines is definitely called for. What exactly is the best way of referring to PLO factions in the lead while being simultaneously accurate, clear and concise is a bit tricky in itself.
    11. Obviously of prime importance for the article, and thus also for the lead.
    12. I've already made my views on this clear...
    13. I'm not sure what the right solution here is. I can quite see why many people don't like the formulation "liberation of Palestine" but it is the one used repeatedly by the 1964 covenant. I reiterate my reservations as expressed above about focussing on "destruction of Israel". From my point of view this is perhaps not the most important issue, however.
I think one thing that is reasonably clear is that any really serious attempt to deal with these issues would have to be accompanied by research, or at least the production of serious and topic-specific sources - i.e. books or papers actually about the PLO, the books I have cited above are obviously not adequate sources for a good article about the subject. However, what seems to me rather doubtful is whether this level of work would be worth anyone's time when however greatly the article was improved - and of course that's supposing peace and harmony were to break out among currently active editors with an interest in the topic - it would almost certainly start heading downhill again as soon as that improvement was accomplished, more or less rapidly depending on how much consensus and determination to preserve a good version there was among active editors. I appreciate that this may not be the most positive contribution, but I am trying to be realistic. Palmiro | Talk 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In short, the term "liberation of Palestine" is a propagandist term. It means nothing. Liberation of what? We, as Wikipedia, cannot use it. In this case, liberation of Palestine=destruction of Israel, their primary and utmost goal. They did not nothing to 'liberate' where the Palestinians were living (West Bank and Gaza), or to attack the other countries. Rather than relieving the refugee crisis, providing funds for them, homes, anything, they instead just attacked Israel. That is their goal, again, written ALL OVER their charter. Either way, all of this neutral information was sitting in the intro long before Palmiro's idea of removing it. Stick with the original. --Shamir1 06:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, propagandist terms like "liberate", "freedom fighter" etc are POV. --ManiF 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Basic goal as liberation of palestine, besides false, is just what they said: a propaganda phrase. it is not an official term. Also, it was recognized by Arab states as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," only those a part of the arab league officially regarded it as that. it was not recognized internationally, only later the PNA was recognized as such. The british national criminal thing is really drawing light to their business and power. Take a look at different countries or groups or organizations, if it is the first, last, highest, lowest, whatever in the region or the world it says so in the intrduction. the section below it can go into specifics about their terrorist attacks. -Connie
Leaving aside for the moment the question of destruction of Israel v. liberation of Palestine, are there any comments on the other questions raised or on whether the rake of apparently random quotations should be included? Palmiro | Talk 23:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not a random quote. We are not using the quote, we are using the information compiled by possibly the most organized and powerful agency on criminal intelligence in the world that gathers international data. The quotation is used to demonstrate the wealth of the PLO, and where its funds are from. As mentioned earlier, when reading about other countries or groups, you can see who they are and how they are unique. As 'Connie' said: "first, last, highest, lowest, whatever" or also strongest, most, fastest-growing... is also stated. --Shamir1 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
PS, please read this. Read the chronology at the end and find 1964. See what the goal is. [8] --Shamir1 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ten point program calls for Israel's destruction[edit]

The ten point program does not call for a binational state. It calls for first a Palestinian state in the occupied territories and for the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. The PLO eventually did recognize israel's right to exist in 1988. For the osolo agreements calls for the plO to do that.-Dendoi November 14, 2006

Also notice the original PLO did not even call for a Palestinian state. -Connie207.233.32.18 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Ten point program page should not be merged - it should be expanded, and made clear what the 10 points are.
Johnbibby 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-citations[edit]

  • Many of the quotations cited in the article are only semi-cited. They give names of non-English newspapers and dates: they don't give either in English or in the original language the title or author of the article in question.
  • I have commented out a blind-URL citation to http://www.emra.org.il/story.php3?id=12801. The link is not accessible as of 5 December 2006, nor is it on the Internet Archive. Unless someone knows what it was and where a copy might be now, this one is effectively lost. This is part of the problem with putting an uncommented URL as a reference.
  • The reference given as (Hebrew) http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/003-D-6200-00.html?tag=23-15-32 nfc.co.il news site would be much improved by the date, Hebrew title, and translated title; if there is an identified author, that would be good, too. Ideally, we would also provide the original and translation on relevant passages.
  • There are citations to "Smith, op. cit., p. 357" and "Smith, op. cit., 376" but there is no original citation of a "Smith" for these to refer back to. I suspect that there once was; someone may want to trace through the article history for this.
  • http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1082606041893&p=1078027574121, cited as a source, just says "Cannot find article". Although the Internet Archive shows itself as having archived versions of this page, they also come up blank. This raises the same issue as the other now-dead blind URL.

- Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

After you wrote these remarks I actually went through the page history reasonably thoroughly and could find no citation for "Smith". A brief look on Amazon turns up a book called "Palestine and the Palestinians" by one Pamela Ann Smith, though I've heard of neither book nor author before myself. Unless someone can confirm that as the source, perhaps statements and references alike should go. Palmiro | Talk 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Claim that "PLO no longer represents Palestinian people"[edit]

The reference to the PLO being recognised as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people has nothing to do with who wins elections in the PNA. There is no evidence that any relevant body has withdrawn its recognition of this status of the PLO on this basis. The PNA, on the other hand, has never been recognised as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by any body, even if it has to some extent been de facto treated as such by some countries; and it is in fact forbidden from engaging in international relations by the Oslo agreements under which it was set up. So there is no relationship between the PLO being recognised internationally as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and Hamas winning the PNA legislative elections.

Whether people conclude that the PLO does not in practice represent the opinions of the Palestinian people is quite another question, which should not be contraposed to this one, at least not without a very weighty source suggesting that it is immediately salient thereto. In any case, this too can hardly be purely addressed on the basis of PNA elections given that most Palestinians don't get to vote in PNA elections - only those living in the Occupied Territories can vote, a minority of the Palestinian people whom the PLO is considered to represent.

It should also be noted that the source cited does not in fact support the contention that the PLO's status is now in question, and is not itself the epitome of a reliable source (with all due respect to the International Committee of the Fourth International). Palmiro | Talk 12:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PLO recognition of israel is fake[edit]

The PLO neve rreally recognized israel's right to exist. They only pretended to do so. To arafat, the osolo accords [a failiure from the start] was a tatic to accomplish the ten point program, which calls for firs ta Palestinian stat ein the territories then the Palestinian stat eto expand to replace Israel. The PLO still has the same goal of abolishing Israel. i can't believe I actually once bleieve dthat the PLO changed their position on israel becqaquse they didn't. As fasial Husseini, a PLO moderate said tha tthe Osolo accords are like the Trojan horse and that the yare cherating 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

Drug Trafficking[edit]

Can i see another source for this...one that doesnt lead you to a site full of pop-ups that slow down your computer. (Ssd175 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Somebody changed every instance of "Israel" to "Zionist International Criminals"[edit]

They should be blocked from editing, and the page reverted. Ryan4Talk 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it Chikanamakalaka 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Munich massacre[edit]

I don't see any mention of the 1972 Munich massacre in this article, even though the attack was carried out by Black September, a group with ties to the PLO. Due to the importance of this event and its impact on the PLO's cause, it should at least get a mention. --Transfinite(Talk) 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

five point program calls for Israel's destruction[edit]

The five point program does not call for a binational state. It calls for first a Palestinian state in the territories and for the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. The PLO only pretended to recognize israel's right to exist in 1988. For the osolo agreements calls for the PLO to do that. But the PLO had no plan to follow the Oslo agreements. The PLO never planned on following them even when they signed them.-Dendoi November 14, 2006

Also notice the original PLO did not even call for a Palestinian state. -Connie207.233.32.18 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Ten point program page should not be merged - it should be expanded, and made clear what the 10 points are.
Johnbibby 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I also think that the Ten Point Program should not be merged. It is vital for the understanding of the PLO.
eggsilikeskitzo7 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)