Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization/Archive 1

message: The following attributed quote was reverted the way we usually deal with vandalism : 
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 sapiens←Talk 08:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lozowick's quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Whoops 

message: "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 ).
"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)
thread_title:  The final target of the ten point programma 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Even better... Troll Refaim 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hamas]] irrelevent? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arabic name of group 

message: #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 
Troll Refaim 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main lacks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: [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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Liberated 

message: 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)
replies: text: Could someone tell me where Jordan comes into all of this? Please? Palmiro | Talk 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much liberation is enough? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Iraqi-controlled group? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lame Talk 

message: Amoruso 09:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  erased OR comparison 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PLO Charter 

message: * 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Claim that "PLO no longer represents Palestinian people" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Drug Trafficking 

message: They should be blocked from editing, and the page reverted. Ryan4Talk 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody changed every instance of "Israel" to "Zionist International Criminals" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Munich massacre]]