Therefore the peace talks would be of small use, considering that the purpose of the Palestinian liberation is to eliminate Zionism in Israel. According to an article on MSNBC.com (see my last post “ARE WE REALLY GETTING ANYWHERE WITH THIS? (THE MIDDLE EAST)”), Israel’s moving out of Bethlehem is a step closer to a Palestinian demand for cease-fire, which in turn could set the stage for more peace talks. If the PLO is stating the demand for a cease-fire in accordance with the above article, than a major effect of a cease-fire would be putting Israel at a disadvantage. Peace talks anyone?
I believe the PLO dropped its call to eliminate all of Israel from its “charter” sometime ago, during this whole so-called “peace process.”
It may still be in the text of the document, but it has been repealed, I believe. Like our Constitution, if you pick out one certain part of it, could be “shown” to still say that Prohibition is in effect, even though we repealed that Amendment some time ago.
Kirk
true. Do you know where to find a more updated version of the charter?
**Karallen **–
I know you’re new here, but can I ask you to take more care in choosing the title of your threads? This is the second timeyou’ve chosen a vague subject title for your thread. People here like to know what they’re getting into before they click.
Thanks & Carry on…
Well, for one thing, the PLO did not formally repeal the charter items.
Secondly, you cannot find a changed charter on the web (Heaven knows, I’ve tried). Even the Palestinian Authority’s website still maintains the original PLO charter on their site. There is no other charter on their site.
Zev Steinhardt
I suppose I am wrong then. But I was sure I’d read that recently in the NYT (the only paper I’ll read). Oh well.
Kirk
Moderator’s Note: Karallen, frinkboy is correct–please select thread titles that give some hint of what the thread is about.
I will change this one as well.
If the NYT is the only paper you read, you’re getting a nice helping of disinformation topped with some tasty blinders. While the NYT is not the worst source of info it’s not even in the running for “the best” or even “one of the better”. It was said that when a newspaper went to color it was all over. That axiom seems to have held true for the NYT. The biggest difference between the Times and the Post these days is “THE TIMES HOLDS BACK ON THE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!”
Erek
Zev is correct. Arafat agreed during Oslo that the article you mentioned would be taken out. But the PLO Assembly never voted it out, so it’s still there. Kind of like the treaties that Clinton signed (Kyoto, ICC, etc.), but were never ratified - the US is not bound by them. Except in this case, it’s more than arguable that Arafat actually believed that Israel should not be destroyed (hey, somebody had to make this a Great Debate 
)
My recollection is the same as Kirk’s.
According to this website the PLO abrogated articles 6-10, 15, 19-23, and 30 in 1996. However, no new charter has been drawn up.
This is pretty murky to me though. Why, for example, does the PLO have the old charter on their website?
This link appears to conflict with the proceding one, in that it claims that the PNC (Palestinian National Council) has not abrogated any articles. Admittedly, link #2 may be dated.
If somebody can explain what’s going on here, please do.
Ok, here is Likud’s position on the matter. ( Another Likud link )
Likud believes that the PNC resolution was ambiguous and inadequate since it did not specify which resolutions were void, but rather settled on “cancelling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on September 9 and 10, 1993.”
Likud concedes that Arafat did specify specific resolutions in a formal letter to Israel. (In particular article 15 in the OP is abrogated.)
According to my link in the previous post, the PLO basically responds, "Look we abrogated the sections we agreed to. If you want us to go further than that, then you can jolly well hold up your end of the Oslo II bargain.
It doesn’t matter, no doubt, if the PLO charter is changed. There are plenty of fanatics who would take that as just another reason to ignore Arafat. The terrorism will continue. Sadly.
A related problem is the “code” language that the Palestinians use in the press. They often talk about “occupied territory” because that tends to arouse Western sympathy, but they usually mean the entire area (that is, all of Israel.) You hear interviews with people saying they want to go back to their “homes” that were “occupied” … they mean Israel, and conveniently forget the fact that, in most of the pre-1948 situation, they didn’t own the land but just squatted on it, and the Jews purchased it.
The whole problem with the peace process (IMHO) is this hangup, on the nose. If the Palestinians would settle down to compromise, FOR REAL, and not just uttering platitudes, it wouldn’t be hard to negotiate. Most Israelis are OK with the idea of a Palestinian state… as long as that state really, truly, recognizes that Israel has a right to exist.
The PLO charter is still taught to school children, who are taught a fanatical hatred of “Zionism” (that is, Jews and Israel.)
Cite please.
Ok, maybe that’s too difficult to deliver. Let me convey my non-expert understanding, based on Cleveland’s History of the Modern Middle East .
The Jewish National Fund bought most of its land during the 1930s from absentee landlords. Since the fund was subsidized by the Jewish Diaspora, it was able to turn around and sell the land to Jewish settlers (and the Kibbutz’s, I suppose) for a song.
The former Arab tenants (that’s paying tenants, not squatters) were evicted and permitted to experience the joys of unemployment during the 1930s.
In additions, the Brits forced many small Arab proprietors into bankruptcy and forced land sale, since unlike the Ottomans, they refused to accept their tax payments in kind. More dispossessed.
By 1939, some 5% of the Mandate (and 10% of all cultivatable land) was Jewish-owned.
Woops. That suggests that 95% of the land was not owned by Jews. Now, much of that was probably owned by absentee landlords. And some of that was probably purchased by Jewish residents between 1939 and 1948.
But I think its fair to say that a fair amount of wealth, in the form of land and in the form of housing was left behind by the 700,000 Palestinian Arab refugees who fled Israel. There are documented incidents of forced evacuation in 1948 and even 1949.
To which Hamas[sup]1[/sup] might respond, “Why should Palestinian Arabs pay such a heavy price for 20th century European racism?”
[sup]1[/sup]Hamas, unlike the PLO, does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, AFAIK. Which is part of the problem. “I want to destroy you”, is not exactly a bona fide negotiating position IMHO.