Kaddoumi: PLO charter was never changed

[Oak]

snip

Farouk Kaddoumi, the PLO's hard-line "foreign minister," said Thursday that when Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat talks about the need to pursue the struggle against Israel, he is referring to the armed struggle. Kaddoumi said the armed struggle was the only way to force Israel to accept the demands of the Palestinians.

snip

In response to a question what does Arafat mean when he talks about the continuation of the struggle, Kaddoumi, who is one of the few PLO leaders still living in Tunisia, said: "Yes, the national struggle must continue. I mean the armed struggle. In the past we abandoned our political parties in favor of the armed struggle.

snip

Commenting on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, Kaddoumi said: "If Israel wants to leave the Gaza Strip, then it should do so. This means that the Palestinian resistance has forced it to leave. But the resistance will continue. Let the Gaza Strip be South Vietnam. We will use all available methods to liberate North Vietnam."

snip

Kaddoumi revealed that the PLO leadership has entrusted him with being responsible for the "portfolio" of supporting the Iraqi resistance against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq. "There is no doubt that the Palestinian revolution supports the Iraqi resistance and we have seen demonstrations in the occupied Palestinian territories in backing the intifada and resistance in Iraq," he said. "I'm in charge of this issue and I condemn the American position."

snip

Kaddoumi said that, contrary to what many people believe, the PLO charter was never changed so as to recognize Israel's right to exist. "The Palestinian national charter has not been amended until now," he explained. "It was said that some articles are no longer effective, but they were not changed. I'm one of those who didn't agree to any changes."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1082606041893

[Classical_Liberal]

1. That is highly misleading

The Plo recognized Israel during the Oslo process.

Furthermore the South Viet Nam analogies clearly refer to the West Bank where the settlements persist.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. The man isn't the leader of the PLO

. furthermore, back when the plo wanted one state, they wanted it binational, which would be no biggie as far as I am concerned. The two state solution is a failure except as an aparthied state, which I won't support.

Yes the south viet nam analogy referrs to the settlements. I don't give a crap whether the plo bothered to change its logo.

[Oak]

5. OK

Show me evidence that they want to establish a state ONLY in 1967 territories. They didn't bother to change that logo? Seemed they didn't bother to change a lot of logos, textbooks, and media outlets.

Furthermore, this guy is a high ranking official in the PLO. When will you believe it is their aims?

And also, how do you explain the terror attacks before 1967?


"When the Palestinians Mean End of Occupation, What do they Mean?"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide1.html

[Classical_Liberal]

7. The Palestinians recognized Israel at Oslo in 1993

Oslo Accords

(Redirected from 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Palestinians and Israel)

The Oslo Accords were a series of agreements negotiated between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO, acting as representatives of the Palestinian people) in 1993 as part of a peace process between the countries, officially called the Declaration of Principles. Despite the high hopes expressed in the Accords and in the subsequent agreements, that also promised the normalization of Israel's relations with the Arab world, the problem has not been resolved.


Rabin, Clinton, and Arafat on September 13, 1993

The talks leading to the agreement was initiated by the Norwegian government, who were at reasonably good terms with both parties. Main architects behind the plan was Johan Jørgen Holst (the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs), Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul. The negotiations were undertaken in total secrecy in and around Oslo, with breakthrough meetings taking place in the home of Minister Holst, and was signed on August 20, 1993. There was a subsequent public ceremony in Washington D.C. on September 13, 1993 with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin.

The principles agreed were, in essence, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and the Palestinian right to self-government within those areas through the creation of the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian rule would last for a five year interim period during which permanent status would be negotiated (beginning not later than May 1996). Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and determined as not prejudged. The interim self-government was to be granted in phases. Until a final status accord was made, West Bank and Gaza would be divided into three zones:
Area A - full control of the Palestinian Authority.
Area B - Palestinian civil control, Israeli military control.
Area C - full Israeli control.

Together with the principles the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition - The Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism, violence and its desire for the destruction of Israel.........

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:dhMQj1QVVPkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Oslo_Peace_Accords_between_Palestinians_and_Israel+Oslo+Palestinians+recognized+Israel&hl=en

Frontpage mag is a right wing butt wipe.

As for their behavior in 67. They didn't recognize Israel then. They did not want to kick our or ethnically cleans jews however, and were committed to a multicultural state.

[Oak]

8. They may have

First of all the Oslo accords are dead, and so are those declarations. Secondly, even if they did recognize Israel, they still teach their younger generation that Israel does not existant.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Israel still teaches their young people that Israel "was a land without

people, for people without land!"

That should be laughable at this point as well.

[Oak]

10. Evidence?

Where is your evidence?

I myself have been to Israeli elementary school, and such a thing was not taught.

Here is my evidence concerning the PLO:

http://www.edume.org/reports/report1.htm

[Classical_Liberal]

14. I doubt the specific schools mentioned are representative either

Here is testamoney from a UU minister who travaled to the Israel/Territories.

I returned from Chautauqua after last summer, anxious to share with you the story I had learned about Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, the Village of Peace in Israel. Karen and I had met and become friends with an Israeli couple from a village that is intentionally composed of an equal number of Arabs and Israelis: a village that is devoted to peace. This summer an Arab family from that village was brought to Chautauqua. We did not get as close to them, but what they had to say was instructive. This is a family that has chosen to commit itself to peace by living in this village - they are not terrorists. They, however, spoke eloquently of the perspective of Palestinians, a perspective of which few of us have even a glimpse. Their homeland has been occupied by foreigners. It has been taken from them and they have become, at best, second class citizens. In their ghetto schools, they are taught from textbooks that describe Palestine “as a land without people that was just waiting for a people without a land.” But they know they were a people on that land, just as African Americans know that their ancestors were not brought in chains to a land of milk and honey.......



http://www.uurockford.org/sermons/S2001-03.htm

[drdon326]

4. **yawn**....PLO charter was never changed....

Tell me something I dont know.

ohhh...thats right....the plo just wants peace...

sure,right,yeah.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I'll tell you something you already know...

The letters of mutual recognition from Oslo well and truly outdate a charter from the early 1960's, and prove that any claims that the PLO have never recognised Israel's right to exist to be a complete falsehood....

While we're talking about charters that don't recognise a people's right to exist, have you taken a squizz at the Likud platform where it states that the state of Israel includes the West Bank?

ohhh....thats right....Sharon and his ilk just want peace....

Violet...

[Oak]

11. "West Bank"

The "West Bank" rightfully belongs to Israel. They got it in a war, and they need it for defense.

The Arabs there have the right to go to any of their 20 other Arab countries. Jews only have one.

[number6]

12. mite is right .......:o

"The "West Bank" rightfully belongs to Israel. They got it in a war, .."

:o let the transfer begin :eyes:

ok, what-ever ..

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Yes, only Israel is not supposed to keep land taken in war

The rest of the world gets a pass or mild complaint.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Was Iraq allowed to keep Kuwait?

Was Germany allowed to keep France and Eastern European territories. Did America keep Japan and Germany? Was Napoleon allowed to keep his territories?

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Don't forget East Timor!

:)

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

18. Oh and the Viet Namese invasion of Cambodia

perfectly justified but they had to leave eventually.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. How about Tibet?

Or the Falklands (clearly disputed land) or Lebanon to name just a few. What about the Sakhalin Islands?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. The Falklands...

The Falklands were occupied briefly by Argentina after the invasion of the islands. Prior to that they were disputed. An easy way to tell whether territory is occupied or disputed territory is that when it's occupied, there's a foreign military power running the show and generally raining death and destruction on the inhabitants. So knock the Falklands off yr list. Even if you could come up with one or two examples of states that have retained occupied territory, how does that make what Israel is doing right?

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

21. I have actually donated alot of money to the free tibet movement.

. Anyway the examples of countries not allowed to maintain such control over a territory are so numerous the persecution complex you display is pretty outrageous.

[Oak]

23. I am talking about defense

I am talkng about defense. There is no way Israel can be defended if all lands after 1967 are returned.

This map, made up back in the nineteen eighties, clearly shows the vulnerability of israel from within its 1949-1967 armistice lines, if the areas of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan were to be ceded to a lightly armed arab entity.

[tinnypriv]

24. I know this is going to be a waste of time

But you seem unaware that before the 1967 war, Israel barely had more than a couple of battalions defending the entire border with Egypt, a powerful military state. You may wish to ask, say, an Israeli military correspondent about this.

Regardless, Israel is not vunerable, inside the 1967 lines or not. It is "the most powerful in the Middle East", and "stronger than ever", according to the center-right Hebrew press.

Of course, all this rests on one tacit assumption: we should be concerned with the security and defense of Israel alone. There do happen to be Palestinians living there you know, and their security concerns should be equally considered.

Oh, and the site you got the image from seems to be run by total maniacs. You may want to bear that in mind before you consider it a useful source.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. How wrong can you get, my good man?

The languange in Resolution 242 states emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

That was not a nasty way of telling Israel that she alone among the nations of the world has no right to annex territory conquored in war; it is a statement of general priniciple that no nation has the right to annex territory taken in war being applied to a particular case.

It still stands. The West Bank and Gaza are not part of the modern state of Israel and never have been.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Wrong...

Israel has no legitimate claim over the sovereignty of the West Bank. Keeping territory acquired in war is something that tends to be frowned upon. As for any attempt to claim that Israel needs the West Bank for defensive reasons, you'll have a nearly impossible time trying to argue from that standpoint...

Yr argument that the West Bank belongs to Israel means that you'd support an apartheid state that doesn't bestow citizenship upon those on the land that belongs to it based on their ethnicity. Not a nice thing to support...

The Arabs there have the right to go to any of their 20 other Arab countries. Jews only have one.


What other states are Palestinians of the West Bank citizens of? None. Don't you believe they should have their own state on the land that many of them have lived on for ages? While forced or coerced transfer of the Palestinian population would give Israel what it wants, which is the territory minus the existing population, transfer is nothing that any progressive or liberal should ever support in any way...

Violet...

[Oak]

22. How are..

How are "Palestinians" different then Arabs. Do they have a different religion? Different language? What?

[tinnypriv]

25. What if the "Palestinians"

Don't "leave" their homes which they've lived on for centuries willingly?

Are you going to be the one to shoot the Palest.. sorry, Arab - children in the head?

[Classical_Liberal]

26. One could make the same arguments with Canadians and the US

. Though frankly I would like to invite the Canadians to be America so we can overcome fundy hegemoney from the South.