|
==Neutrality means facts==
I think we should understand that "PLO is a terrorist organization" is not appropriate to be written in the article. I know that PLO has been waging terrorist activities against Israel and Western countries. Most people would think that PLO is a terrorist organisation, no doubt. However, we should not underestimate people's wisdom and intelligence that they even don't know the definition of a terrorist group. It doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned in the article. What we should do is to list out all the quotes and terrorist activities that PLO has spoken or plotted to let people analyse the nature of PLO based on the information. We can make a comparison between statements "Many people worldwide think PLO is a terrorist organisation because they have plotted many terrorist activities, such as suicide bombings." and "PLO is a terrorist organization" while the first one can be written into the article and the second one cannot.
==Random, unstructured discussion:==
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|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. [[User:RK|RK]]
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. [[User:RK|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
SJK writes :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. -- [[User:SJK|Simon J Kissane]]
No, Simon. I am quoting their own mainstream point of view . [[User:RK|RK]]
----
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. [[User:RK|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. [[User:Tsja|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|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. [[User:RK|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. [[User:RK|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. -- [[User:SJK|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|RK]]
:: Like all politicians, Palestinian leaders tell their audiences what they want to hear. --[[User:SJK|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. -- [[User:SJK|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. [[User:RK|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. -- [[User:SJK|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. --[[User:AV|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. --[[User:Tsja|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. --[[User:AV|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. -- [[User:AV|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. -- [[User:SJK|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"? [[User:RK|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". [[User:RK|RK]]
:The official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel is presented here: [http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pv0] 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." --[[User:AV|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. [[User:RK|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. -- [[User:SJK|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. --[[User:AV|AV]]
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. [[User:RK|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. [[User:RK|RK]]
----
I bet a case of beer that no wikipedia can satisfactorily explain why the PLO is [[:ethnic nationalist|ethnic nationalist]] (but not terrorist) while the JDL is [[:terrorist|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.
# "founded in 1964". is this disputeable? is this significant?
# does the founding document call for the "replacment/destruction" of the State of Israel? is this significant?
# 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?
# does the founding document call for "comando action"? is this a euphemism for terrorism? is this significant?
# 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?
# has the PLO committed numerous acts of terrorism? is this significant?
# 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? [[User:OneVoice|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.<br>Most of what you want to add is already there. Why not read the whole article carefully first? --[[User:Zero0000|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. --[[User:Zero0000|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? [[User:OneVoice|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. --[[User:Zero0000|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. [[User:OneVoice|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"? [http://www.assafir.com/iso/today/front/summary.html 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. --[[User:Zero0000|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):
* [http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP23601 MEMRI]
* [http://www.jcrc.org/israel/npr/NPR%20Report%20FINAL%201-19-03.pdf] (see page 23) quoting As-Safir, March 21st 2001.
* [http://www.isranet.org/issues_of_the_day.htm]
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). [[User:OneVoice|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). --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 20:36, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:24.229.141.63|24.229.141.63]] 06:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Lozowick's quote ==
The following attributed quote was reverted the way we usually deal with vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine_Liberation_Organization&curid=24324&diff=0&oldid=0]:
''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? [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]]←[[User talk:Humus sapiens|Talk]] 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. [[User:Satiany|Samer]] 06:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
== Quotes ==
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,
[[User:Satiany|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 ==
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. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 14:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, there's a '''big''' difference between factual information about somebody which is unflattering, and an unflattering POV. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 16:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== This is an article about the PLO!? ==
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:
# "wide range of ideologies"? Where the Hamas?
# "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).
#"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. [[User:Troll Refaim|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. [[User:Troll Refaim|Troll Refaim]] 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
==Opening Definitions==
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.
[[User:Nomist|Nomist]] 5 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
==Allegations of Terrorism==
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 [http://www.aiipowmia.com/legis/protocoles.pdf 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_Law|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 [[guerrilla]]s who display their arms openly during military operations).''
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 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. --[[User:John Z|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 [http://www.law.qub.ac.uk/humanrts/treaties/texts/uk645.html]. Further without knowing who they are "''Some international jurists''" are [[weasel word]]s [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 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.)--[[User:John Z|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"[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawre.htm] 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. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 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. :-) --[[User:John Z|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. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 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.--[[User:John Z|John Z]] 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
:Could you list some of the "international jurists" who believe this? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 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. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 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.
--[[User:John Z|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. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 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.--[[User:John Z|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. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::Hope what I wrote now is OK with you, just didn't get around to doing it yesterday. --[[User:John Z|John Z]] 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why the article regarding the [[Achille_Lauro|Achille Lauro]] is not mentioned or linked to, or the fact that the PLO paid an undisclosed sum to the daughters of [[Leon Klinghoffer|Leon Klinghoffer]] in a settlement for a wrongful death lawsuit? --[[User:andsmi|andsmi]] 12:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
== The final target of the ten point programma ==
''"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 [http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/doc_one.html]).
"completing the liberation of '''all''' Palestinian territory" = destorying of Isreal. I hope that this is source good engouh for you. [[User:Troll Refaim|Troll Refaim]] 19:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
== [[Hamas]] irrelevent? ==
The most important Palestinian organization outside PLO and its main opponent, it is irrelevant? This is very strange... [[User:Troll Refaim|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. [[User:Ramallite|Ramallite]] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">[[User_talk:Ramallite|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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. [[User:Troll Refaim|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? [[User:Ramallite|Ramallite]] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">[[User_talk:Ramallite|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Even better... [[User:Troll Refaim|Troll Refaim]] 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
==Arabic name of group==
<s>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")? [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 00:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)</s>
: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? [[User:Ramallite|Ramallite]] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">[[User_talk:Ramallite|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 04:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
== The Land They Claim ==
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." --[[User:Jove Is Mad|joveis]] 00:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
::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 ==
#The IAF attack on PLO center (1985)
#Killing of Abu Jihad
#The connection with first intifada
#The relations with Palestinian Authority
# The terror during Al-Aqsa Intifada
#The kidnappings of airplanes
#The artillery attacks on the north of Israel
#The terrorist attacks (Most effected only): Ma'alot massacre, at shore road and, at Nitanim
#The gaining control on south of Lebanon
#The relations with the Hamas
#The relations with governments of Arab states (Mainly Syria, Iraq and Egypt)
#The gaining control of military organizations over PLO at 1969
[[User:Troll Refaim|Troll Refaim]] 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
| 