At the same time, Palestinians are destroying ancient artifacts in Jerusalem and denying the historical fact that Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years. ([US Congress], search for Bill Number HR 2566)
I don't agree that it is propaganda, but I do agree that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, at least not without significant contextualization of some kind.
Here's the way I see it. Some people believe that the PLO and/or Palestinian Authority are still fiercely committed to the destruction of Israel.
Other people believe that the PLO and/or Palestinian Authority sincerely wants peace and will be happy with co-existence with Israel. In general, peoples beliefs on these things are correlated with their overall degree of support for Israel or the PLO. This topic is too controversial and contemporary for us to think that we can take a position on the truth or falsehood of these beliefs. Therefore, as Larry has put it -- we should fairly _characterize_ the debate, rather than _join_ the debate.
I have a theory that thoughtful combatants can disagree vehemently about who is right or wrong in the debate, but -- if careful and co-operative -- can still characterize the debate in a way that both can agree upon. --Jimbo Wales
If RK stops posting this stuff or if people just delete it I might be able to resist my urge to express my disagreements with him. To be brutally honest RK really annoys me: he keeps on attacking me personally (not on this page, elsewhere). Anyone is more than welcome to try to refute what I say, but I can't stand his unfounded ad hominem accusations of antisemitism. If you want to delete the whole page, my comment included, go right ahead. -- SJK
This clearly is not an encyclopedia article. Even the topic is probably not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I have pasted it here in case anyone wants to see what we are talking about, or even to reshape this material into a more proper form. - Tim
PLO Rejection of Israel?s Right to Exist in Peace
RK: How do you know the actions of the Palestinian leadership reflect their real motives, rather than just being propaganda for Palestinian consumption. An important part of the PLO strategy is to be able to turn on and off Palestinian sentiments. When it suits them in the negotiations, they stir up anti-Israel feelings; and when it suits them, they calm down anti-Israel feelings. If the negotiations are not going anywhere and the world's attention is drifting away from the conflict, they can stir up violence to help bring the world back to get the world's attention back. And when they need to show others they are serious about the negotiations, they crack down on violence. It's just a negotiating tactic; you have no proof their propaganda reflects their real intentions. -- SJK
Acceptance of Israel's right to exist in peace is the first of the PLO's obligations in the Oslo accords. In Yasir Arafat's September 9, 1993 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, as part of Oslo I, Arafat stated that "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."
Statements and actions of Arafat and the PLO during the four years since Oslo I was signed have contradicted this recognition of Israel's right to exist in peace. Arafat and other senior PA officials have repeatedly made statements calling for the "liberation" of all of Palestine; and have continued to refer to cities within pre-1967 Israel as part of Palestine.
Arafat said on the PA?s[[Voice of Palestin] radio station in 1995, "The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated." (Voice of Palestine, November 11, 1995)
In a 1995 speech, Arafat named two cities within pre-1967 Israel among those to which the Palestinian Arabs will be returning: "Be blessed, 0 Gaza, and celebrate, for your sons are returning after a long celebration. 0 Lod, 0 Haifa, 0 Jerusalem, you are returning, you are returning." (Ma'ariv, September 7, 1995)
Rashid Abu Shbak, a senior PA security official declared: "The light which has shone over Gaza and Jericho [when the PA assumed control over those areas] will also reach the Negev and the Galilee [within pre-1967 Israel]." (Yediot Ahronot, May 29, 1994)
The PA's Voice of Palestine radio last year broadcast a Friday prayer sermon by Yusuf Abu Sneineh, preacher at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque, in which he asserted: "The struggle we are waging is an ideological struggle and the question is: where has the Islamic land of Palestine gone? Where is Haifa and Jaffa, Lod and Ramle, Acre, Safed and Tiberias? Where is Hebron and Jerusalem?" (Voice of Palestine, May 23, 1997)
Arafat and other PA officials have assured Arab audiences that the Oslo agreement is one phase in the PLO?s 1974[Strategy of Phases]?. The[Strategy of Phases]? was adopted by the PLO's National Council at its session in Cairo during June 1-8, 1974. Prior to the 1974 meeting, the PLO?s position was that it would never accept anything but the immediate destruction of Israel. At the 1974 meeting, the PLO decided to seek Israel's destruction in phases, by first establishing a small PLO state, then later seeking to conquer the rest of Israel. Point #2 of its 10-point 1974 platform declared that the PLO should create "a national, independent fighting authority on every part of the Palestinian land to be liberated." Point #8 explains that "the Palestine national entity, after it comes into existence, will seek to complete the liberation of the entire Palestinian soil."
In an interview with Egyptian Orbit TV on April 18, 1998, Arafat was asked about his decision to sign the Oslo accords. He replied: "In 1974, at the Palestinian National Council meeting in Cairo, we passed the decision to establish national Palestinian rule over any part of the land of Palestine which is liberated."
Various Wikipedians have hypothesized that these statements are deliberate lies, and that the real intention of the PA and PLO is peace.
In an interview with the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Ayyam on January 1,1998, when asked his view of the Oslo agreement, Arafat replied: "Since the decision of the Palestinian National Council at its 12th meeting in 1974, the PLO has adopted the political solution of establishing a National Authority over any territory from which the occupation withdraws."
PA cabinet minister Abdul Aziz Shaheen told the official PA newspaper Al-Havat Al-Jadida (January 4, 1998): "The Oslo accord was a preface for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Authority will be a preface for the Palestinian state which, in its turn, will be a preface for the liberation of the entire Palestinian land."
Arafat has also compared the Oslo accords to peace treaties that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, signed and then later discarded. In the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Quds on May 10, 1998. Arafat was asked: "Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?" Arafat replied: "No .... no. Allah's messenger Mohammed accepted the al-Khudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted."
The Khudaibiya agreement was a 10-year peace treaty between Mohammed and the tribe of Qureish. After two years, when Mohammed had improved his military position, he tore up the agreement and slaughtered the Qureishites. Salab a-Din was the Muslim leader who, after a cease fire, declared a jihad against the Crusaders and conquered Jerusalem.
In an interview with Egyptian Orbit TV on April 18, 1998, Arafat declared that the Oslo accords are comparable to "when the Prophet Mohammed made the Khudaibiya agreement.. .we must learn from his steps.. .We respect agreements the way that the Prophet Mohammed respected the agreements which he signed."
Speaking in a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa on May 10, 1994, Arafat stated that the Oslo Accord was akin to the temporary truce between Muhammad and the Quraish tribe: "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce...But the same way Muhammad had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort." (Ha?aretz, May 23, 1994)
The PA uses maps showing all of Israel labeled as "Palestine." Such maps appear on PA Television; in the offices of PA officials; in textbooks used in PA schools; and on the shoulder-patches of PA police officers. The significance of the use of such maps was pointed out by the Washington Post back in 1988, when the PLO applied for admission to the World Health Organization, and used the map of all of Palestin? in its application papers. The map "wipes out symbolically.. .a member-state" of the WHO, the Post remarked. (Washington Post, May 1, 1989)
While this entry can and should certainly be improved, I don't see how it violate the Wikipedia policy of keeping a neutral point of view (NPOV). After, this article does not actually advocate murdering Jews and destroying Israel, rather it only states that PLO's view that Israel will be destroyed. I think the real problem is this: Some people don't want this information known, as it make Israel seem more sympathetic, and it makes the PLO look bad. But that is a value judgement. Similar entries on the Taliban might make the USA look good and the Taliban look bad to some people...but what does that have to do with NPOV? Nothing at all. Think about it: From the PLO point of view, this article actually makes these PLO leaders look good and admirable as they are open about their goals, and are not embarassed by them. The idea that destroying is bad is a western idea (one that I happen to agree with), but we have to admit that other people think its a great idea. (Millions of people, in fact.) Good or bad, this had been the PLO's goal, and if the contention is questioned, I feel that this sub-entry with quotes is needed to back it up. RK
Moreover, many of the quotations in the article seem specifically designed to argue for a view that you have--very probably a true view, of course, and one that probably a large majority of informed observers have--but surely it seems odd that in an encyclopedia we should be arguing for anything at all? Instead, we should be doing exposition: "A number of different quotations from the 1990s from Palestinian officials might well be construed as saying that the Palestinians do not hope for, or intend to achieve, peace with Isreal. A very large majority of observers (in Isreal and the West) believe this..." (Then you'd go on to characterize the state of the art here--what have diplomats, foreign policy experts, and political scientists had to say about it? Report that, and you have achieved NPOV.) Stating or even merely insinuating, "The Palestinians do not wish for peace" is clearly not NPOV.
One more point along these lines is apropos. Why should it ever be an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article (I emphasize these words because they are important to the point I'm making) that some group of people do not desire peace? Even if it's true and uncontroversial, it is prejudicial to make that topic an encyclopedia topic. Imagine if someone were to write an article called "Americans do not desire peace with terrorists." --Larry Sanger
To clarify the NPOV problems with this article, as I see them, primarily for your benefit, RK:
--Dmerrill
The title of such an article might be "Right to exist" or Israel/Right? to exist", with links to topics such as Sovereignty and [Self determination]?. Plus, of course, links to pages on which this is mentioned (or bring those references to this new page).
-- Cayzle