Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization

	Palestine Liberation Organization is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Middle Eastern military history task force

To-do list for Palestine Liberation Organization:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Rectify the PLO page with the PLO EC page. The PLO page says 15 people are elected to the PLO EC. The PLO EC page says 18 people. In the Palestine Liberation Organization article, an author named Smith is quoted twice. Can you tell me the author's full name and the work cited? Thanks and regards, Richard Herman
Priority 2

Archives

Archive 1

This article is written in American English, and some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, British English. For more information, see American and British English differences.

[edit] five point program calls for Israel's destruction

The five point program does not call for a binational state. It calls for first a Palestinian state in the territories and for the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. The PLO only pretended to recognize israel's right to exist in 1988. For the osolo agreements calls for the PLO to do that. But the PLO had no plan to follow the Oslo agreements. The PLO never planned on following them even when they signed them.-Dendoi November 14, 2006

Also notice the original PLO did not even call for a Palestinian state. -Connie207.233.32.18 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Ten point program page should not be merged - it should be expanded, and made clear what the 10 points are.

Johnbibby 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the Ten Point Program should not be merged. It is vital for the understanding of the PLO.

eggsilikeskitzo7 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-citations

• 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 (Hebrew) 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)

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)

[edit] does the ten point program really call for a binational state

My answer to the question above is no. Where did they get that idea. The ten point program callled for a Palestinian state on the occupied territories and then the Palestinian state to replace Israel. It says that the palestinian national Authority will call on the Arab states in confrontation with Israel to complet ethe liberation of Palestine which is equal to havibg a palestinian state replace Israel. Also, it also saya that the pLo will struggle against the creation of a Palestinian entity in return for peace and recognition. The ten point program calls for a Palestinian state to replce Israel not a binational state.-Dendoi December 8, 2006 Friday 10:51 AM

[edit] Claim that "PLO no longer represents Palestinian people"

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)

[edit] PLO recognition of israel is fake

The PLO never recognized Israel's right to exist. They only pretended to do so. To Arafat, the Oslo accords [a failure from the start] was a tactic to accomplish the ten-point program, which calls for first a Palestinian state in the territories then the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. The PLO still has the same goal of abolishing Israel. I can't believe I actually once believed that the PLO changed their position on Israel because they didn't. As Fasial Husseini, a PLO moderate said that the Oslo accords are like the Trojan horse and that they are cheating the Israelis and that the PLO still has the same goal, which is the destruction of Israel. The PLO are nothing but lying terrorists.-Dendoi Saturday 11:07 PM January 13, 2007

Wow. That makes one wonder what that makes Israel . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.24.252 (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug Trafficking

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)) No evidence? What about in 2001, when Faisal Hussieni, PA minister in jerusalem affaris and obviously a member of Fatah said that Oslo wa slike the trojan horse and that their aimm is still the liberation of Palesitne from the Jordan river to meditarianian sea in othe rwords destruction of Israel. Or when Arafat said three years after Oslo, we plan to eliminat eIsrael. we will establish a purely Palesitnian state. Jews won't want to live among us arabs. Or the fact how the PLO controlled media still calls for the elimination of Israel. 99% Palesitnian schoolbooks glorify suicide bombings and show maps of Palestine with no Israel on it. Mahmoud abbas calls for the right of return becaus eit would demographically destroy Israel. Is that not proof enough? Don't listen to me. Listen to their messages to their people and you will see that I am right. There was also plenty of footage of arafat inciting violcen on Palestinian TV. The Center for the Impat on [peac etooka surve yof textbooks througout the Middle east to se eif the yincit eviolcen or not and found that Palestiniant extbooks an other textbooks incite violcent on infidels [ncluding Jews] while Israeli textbooks promoted peace with the Palestinian people-Dendoi

let me correct something hear. 1- give proofs about this faisal husseini statement or whatever his name is, because what you are saying is pure crap. 2- Arafat NEVER said that, I challenge you to give solid proofs. 3- Palestinian schoolbooks glorify suicide bombings? are you retarded or what? that's nonsence, and again I challenge you to prove that Palestinian schoolbooks even mention suicide bombing. 4- Arafat gave up all military choices since the 90s, but if you have proofs of your claimed 'messages' and 'footages', you're welcome. I remember when israeli artillery killed 15 civilian on north gaza, Khlaed Mechaal, spokesman of HAMAS, declared that the armed wing of HAMAS will carry military operations against Israel, I've heared it because I speak arabic, then I turn on ABC news, and the translation was: 'HAMAS invited muslims all over the world to strike american and israeli interests all over the world in revenge to blalala'. I mean seriously, who's sending the twisted messages through media? think please, in Palestine they don't even have media. 41.224.223.191 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

jj

[edit] Munich massacre

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)

Agreed. If there are no objections, I'm going to add a mention. JoshuaZ 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What ever happened to this mention? Biccat 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It ain't here yet, but I might as well add it given that I cite sources. Yes, Fatah and Black Sept. are affiliated with PLO. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watch the language!

While I wasn't the one who put up the tag about disputed neutrality, I kinda agree with it. Some of the words in the article have strong connotations and should in general be avoided in Wikipedia articles. In addition, I'm not entirely sure that some of that wording is entirely accurate. For instance, did the PLO really want to "annihilate" Israel when it was first created? I know it wanted to destroy the political body of Israel, but "annihilate" sounds more like what the Nazis intended for the Jews, and I don't know whether the PLO was operating at that level of hatred. (Of course, I know next to nothing about the subject, so if the PLO really wanted to annihilate Israel, then I am simply wrong.) 24.143.231.211 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You have only to read the "Statements made by members of the PLO" section to know that their aim was indeed to annihilate Israel and kill Jews.Dhimwit 11:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to move quotes over to Wikiquote?

I notice there is a growing list of quotes in the quotes section. This really isn't an appropriate use of a Wikipedia article. Rather these quotes should be moved over to Wikiquote in an article entitled "q:Palestine Liberation Organization." --Abnn 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

it would be helpful if Palestinians had access to the internet but they would probably have to go past 3 checkpoints to get out of their own home :p

[edit] "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel"

The article is sprinkled with quotes from this supposed "secret speech" made in Stockholm. No source is provided, and a quick google search reveals that this speech is found only on some obscure pro-Israel blog sites, all of whom probably got it from the ultra-nationalist Arutz Sheva media organization. It is highly, highly unlikely that this speech ever occured. I've removed the relevant quotations, and I believe we need to comb through the article again for any more of this propaganda nonsense. Eleland 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This article uses rather shocking language throughout, and massively fails NPOV. It needs better sourcing, attribution, and needs to avoid the use of hyperbolic language except in specifically attributed quotes. I need help doing this I think. It's a huge task which is why I placed the tag. Anyone who want to help is more than welcome. :) Tiamat 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Im no great lover of the current PLO (although i do support the palestinians, I wont deny) but to say that the PLO is a 'terrorist' organisation then to say it is 'the sole representative of the Palestinain people' looks like someone is trying to call all Palestinains terrorists? To some degree I sympathise with the POV that elemnts of the PLO are open to terrorism, but so are elemnts of the IDF, and they are not classed as 'terrorists', its a loaded word that should be avoided, because for every western country that calsses them as terroirsts there will an eastern country rejecting this, and wikipedia is not just for westerners (or as it happens also Israelis). I think that the word is an pinion, that if you want to use it, you should try and at stop the lead from making it sound like all Palestinians support all of its activities,m terrorist or political. Although to a degree it is an ssumption of bad faith, it seems quite clear to me the chief editors of this article have an agenda.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just cheking, it dosent seem like the source in the lead supports the idea that the PLO is a terroist ogranisation, seems like a bit of hyperbole on the part of a POV editor.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What I also find quite bizarre (although i guess this is just an opinion), is that despite the fact that Fatah over the yars has been the main group attacking Israel and casuing deaths, Israel are doing oeverything in their power to support 'terrorist' Fatah over the more popular (and btw democratically elected) Hamas, even though Hamas' crimes are culmitavily less, simply because Hamas puts Israel in a sticky position where morals and votes are concerned.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited out 'terrorist organization'. Wikipedia has extremely strict rules on the use of this term. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious text

I've removed:-

(1)

'although many Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Faisal Husseini have declared their goal is still "liberation" of all of Palestine.^[1][2]

Both Arafat and Faisal Husseini are dead, 'have declared' implies they are living. (2) The two texts do not support the statement, except for historic opinions dated back at most recent, a decade, referring to Arafat. (3)This leaves many Palestinian leaders (still living and authoritative, apparently still asserting their goal to liberate all of Palestine, something the sources do not say.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(2)

'

• The 1970 Avivim school bus massacre by Palestinian militants, killed nine children, three adults and crippled 19.
• In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the second-largest PLO faction after al-Fatah, carried out a number of attacks and plane hijackings mostly directed at Israel, most infamously the Dawson's Field hijackings, which precipitated the Black September in Jordan crisis.
• In 1974 members of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), another faction affiliated with the PLO, seized a school in Israel and killed a total of 26 students and adults and wounded over 70 in the Ma'alot massacre.

Those who object are welcome to read Rex Brynen's study of the PLO0s battle with many other factions, factions competing with the PLO, and often conducting operations independently, without PLO consent or indeed against its advice. This page deals with the PLO, not George Habash or other leaders who constituted the opposition to it.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the 'factions associated with the PLO' in the terrorist incident section. Many of these factions acted against the PLO, they existed or arose to challenge the PLO's ascendency or political line. The massacre of Ma'alot was undertaken by a group that apparently wished to distance itself from the PLO etc. This article is on the PLO, not on Palestinian factions in Lebanon. So we list what terrorist actions the PLO undertook, and nothing else.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Savoy and Coastal Road massacres were executedc by Fatah, for which Arafat had full responsibility. The others were undertaken by organisations at odds with Arafat, as far as I know. If I am wrong, I'd appreciate specific historical references referring the other incidents to Arafat as head of the PLO. I would add that the list lacks several murderous operations which Arafat approved of. I'll add them in if I can find the time to hunt up RS.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Membership" section tells us the PFLP and DFLP are members of the PLO (indeed, prominent members, being the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations, respectively). They were not ejected from the PLO after these actions, nor sanctioned in any way. This is not a list of "PLO actions personally approved by Arafat", but a list of PLO terror incidents, and clearly high-profile terrorism by the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations fit the bill. I am restoring, accordingly. NoCal100 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written. I have yet to see you citing Reliable Sources here to improve it. You are citing the page itself, which is no guide to the historical realities. Please read Rex Brynen's book on on the PLO and its factions before jumping into it. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid soapboxing statements along the lines of 'This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written'. if you have specific concerns, let's hear them. If there is material that is lacking references, tag it with {{cn}} so that it could be improved, but please don;t remove material on flimsy premises. NoCal100 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up WP:SOAP, you have forgotten its content. To remark that an article is poorly sourced and poorly written is not by any stretch of the imagination soapboxing. Okay. I reported the defects in this material several months ago, and waited patiently. I think waiting 8 months for a reply is sufficient indication that there is no objection. As soon as I proceeded with my edit, within minutes you, who do have a record of stalking me, reverted them, though you show no knowledge of the subject. That is an ideological revert. I have no objection so far to your stalking, but I do object to your rapid challenging of my edits on pages whose subject I have studied, by someone who shows no prior effort to read up on the topic. This is in my view ideological reverting. If you had an objection, you had 8 months to post it. Why the sudden interest? Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside your presumptions to know what I do or do not know of the subject, what specifically are you looking for - references that state the PFLP or DFPL were and are PLO members? NoCal100 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As if these were really in quetsion, here you go:

• "Founded in 1969, the DFLP is Marxist-Leninist. The DFLP split off from the PFLP in 1969 over personal and ideological rivalries and became the third-largest PLO faction." [1]
• "In 1968, the PFLP joined the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/pflp.htm NoCal100 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. Googling instantaneously does not constitute personal knowledge. It means you simply put key words into a search machine and ask it to connect the dots. Your first source is wrong. The DFLP (al-Jabha al-dimuqratiyya li-tahrir filastin)did not split off from the PFLP ((al-Jabha al-sha'biyya li-tahrir filastin) in 1969. This article requires not googling but reading a reliable source on the intensely fractured nature of the PLO, with its internecine battles, breaks divisions and regroupings. To note one of about 20 facts pertinent here, the PFLP for the period of 1974 (massacres etc) withdrew from the PLO Executive Committee, and joined the Palestinian Rejection Front opposed to the PLO. So unless you are willing to read a detailed analysis like Brynen's you simply will not have the background to assess whether what you google up is correct or not. It's hard enough with book-learning to disentangle the mess, and order the page on a time-line to clarify who belonged to what, at what period, and whether these groups at this or that time seconded the PLO or opposed it, without jumping at the page with slick info' dredged up by googling rapidly. I repeat. If the page really does interest you, read Brynen's book on the PLO in Lebanon, and we can work over this together slowly. I do need help. It's a very complex subject. Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As to my Soapboxing, please see Jmabel's remarks in the next section. he says exactly the same thing. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so even if you were correct, it would be your personal resarch , which is not allowed. The date when the DFLP split off the PFLP is not the point here - it is their membership in the PLO, which was not affected by the split. These is not about 'one of about 20 facts' (though it would be perfectly reasonable to include such acts if it were) - but about the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations. The PFLP's withdrawal from the PLO Executive Committee can be noted in the history section, but it is undisputed that they remained a member of the PLO throughout the period during which they committed these hideous acts of terrorism, and that the PLO did nothing to suggest that it viewed these actions as actions of non-member groups.

You don't know what you are talking about, since you can't even defend the one, of many errors, in the paper you cited, and which I noted. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And, no, Jmabel most certainly does not say "exactly the same thing" as you - he says the article is weak, and then proceeds to name 5 specif issues he sees that needs addressing. If you do the same, rather than spewing generalizations such as 'This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written.', we may get address those. NoCal100 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrific. I can't wait to observe your dazzling erudition at work here. As elsewhere, when I find, on pages I habitually edit, someone stalking in, I drop the page and leave them to it. Normally I find that as I withdraw they fiddle with a few edits, and then, lacking the chosen antagonist, wander off, wait a bit, and then try it with me on another page I habitually edit. So, I'll leave it to you, drop my intended comprehensive review of this and associated pages, and see what you can do with it. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it you have nothing substantial to add to this article then, nor any specific issues with anything contained herein, now that your policy-violating edit has been reverted. NoCal100 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it as you will. Had I continued the page would have had, apart from substantial general revision, several terroristic acts undertaken by the PLO which, since you appear not to know about them, it will probably lack. It would not have acts listed as PLO terrorism which were specifically undertaken by splinter groups in that organization, in defiance of the PLO's directives, in order to shipwreck peace talks undertaken by Arafat. Of this you know nothing, otherwise you would have concentrated on helping the page, instead of focusing on my one edit. I've tipped you off, so get to work, and start adding to the list of terrorist acts that can be ascribed to the PLO. In a year, I'll come back and see if you've improved the page. I'll edit with anybody, of any POV, as long as they see their role as aimed at improvement in an encyclopedia, and not playing jejune games with other editors. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your persistent patronizing attitude reflects badly on you, not me. Fell free to add any terrorist acts undertaken by the PLO which are not currently there, or feel free to leave. It is of no consequence to me. This article will most certainly contain acts carried out by organizations who are PLO members, whether Arafat personally approved of them or not. NoCal100 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In bidding you adieu here, could I note that my patronizing tone comes as a response to your wikistalking where, habitually, you precipitously revert or controvert an edit of mine, and then start saying 'feel free to (do this). . . feel free to (do that)' and make various admonitions, warnings, veiled threats I will be reported. I need your advice as much as the page needs your attention. I am free to do as I like, and don't need some patronizing voice over my shoulder seconding my natural instincts. Good evening and good bye, until at least you turn up on another page I habitually edit and where you don't.Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of wikistalking ring hollow coming from someone who less than 2 hours ago followed me to an article he hasn't edited in more than 4 months, in order to summarily revert an edit of mine. Keep editing this way and you will soon find yourself blocked, yet again. NoCal100 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the page. Or ask Michael Safyan, how much work we have both put into that page. It runs to dozens of pages of extensive discussions on the intifada, subjec to also to administrative mediation. The record is there. You weren't. Check before you make silly remarks.Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the page. Your last edit there was in June, more than 4 months ago, exactly as I wrote. You then followed me there today, and reverted my edit within hours of me making it. As I said, accusations of wikistalking after such behavior ring hollow. NoCal100 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

81 revisions, check the diff. Nothing of substance worth challenging, until the page undergoes serious revision, since we are still arguing about 'uprising'. I have a long history with the page, and follow each revision. You haven't. In any case, now that this is becoming a pattern I will list on my page the instances. Not a threat, since I don't report misbehaviour, but I like studying patterns. Your rising obsession with me is quite curious.Nishidani (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

81 revisions, the last more than 4 and a half months ago, until suddenly today you show up to revert an edit of mine a few hours after it was made. As I said, accusations of wikistalking after such behavior ring hollow. make your list, and I will make mine. NoCal100 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weaknesses

To me, this article seems weak. I definitely don't have the expertise to fix it, but I would hope that someone else does.

A few remarks:

• Although Fatah eventually became ascendant, the PLO started as (and, officially, still is) a confederation of organizations. The word "confederation" does not currently appear in the article. That seems an odd omission.
• The article refers to these organizations as "factions", which seems to me a dismissive word.
• We indicate present member organizations and two former member organizations, but we give no list of which of these were founders.
• We mention the PFLP joining the Rejectionist Front but nothing about them returning to the fold. Or am I mistaken about the latter?
• The collection of quotations reads like a large mass of undigested material. Some of the choices seem very polemical: for example, the three quotations under "On whether the PLO police force will work with Israel against terrorism" all imply that they will do no such thing, whereas in practice they have often done precisely that. Also, all of these quotations are about 14 years old, and don't necessarily reflect current policy. Surely we would not attempt to represent U.S. government policy on Israel and Palestine by drawing our quotations from the first Clinton administration.
• In general, a collection of quotations is not how we do these things, and there is a good reason for that. With decades of history to pick from, and such a broad organization, you can probably find a quotation from some leader of the PLO saying nearly anything. Quotations like this, appropriately placed, can give flavor to an otherwise bland narrative, but they should not be used as a substitute for citing strong secondary sources and what they have to say about the evolution PLO. And "evolution" would seem to me to be the operative word: organizationally, operationally, and politically, the PLO has undergone extensive changes; one can glean that from the article, but other than a general (if not by any means uniform) movement from rejectionism to support for (or at least toleration of) a two-state solution, the rest of that evolution would be very difficult to glean from this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note the original PLO charter article 24 (PLO permanent observer to the UN website): Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

Thus, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was officially sanctioned while the occupiers were Jordan and Egypt, and there was no objection to these occupiers' treatment of the refugees. The charter changed in 1968, after the 1967 War, and this article was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.190.58 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)