Tuesday, December 13, 2011

DID THE PLO EVER PROMISE PEACE?

Jerusalem Post, The (Israel) - Wednesday, January 2, 1991
Author/Byline: Elliott Green
Section: Middle East
Page: 06
SEVERAL WEEKS ago, Faisal Husseini, considered the leading PLO spokesman here in Jerusalem, declared, "We accepted two states ... ," subsequently adding that theultimate goal was a state coexisting with Israel ( The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 16, 1990).

The common assertion that the "Palestinian problem" is next in line to be settled after the Gulf crisis, raises the possibility that the PLO will be brought back to the center stage of world diplomacy, despite its notorious alliance with Saddam Hussein. Hence, Husseini's assertion that the PLO really did offer Israel peace deserves to be checked.Did the PLO actually accept the principle of two states, one Jewish and one Arab, in this country in December 1988?

NOTE: I post this article to demonstrate the misrepresentation aka lies the PLO and PA leadership have engaged since 1991 on this issue.

The immediate context of events preceding the Algiers declaration (November 1988) was not promising. The PLO 's headquarters was still in Iraq, which had just massacred thousands of Kurds two months before. Algeria, the host for the PLO convention, had suppressed riots several weeks before by killing more than 500 persons in a few days. Neither atrocity held the attention of the PLO , as it went on to issue its declaration. It proclaimed a state, but without specifying borders, laying claim to all of what it called "Palestine." ( The PLO 's founding 1964 Covenant had specified "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate.") Therefore the proclaimed state coveredthe territory of an existing state, Israel. In other times such a proclamation would have been seen as a declaration of war.

NEVERTHELESS, IN November 1988, politicians and journalists rushed to describe the PLO 's proclamation as a breakthrough - as "progress toward peace."

To evaluate this judgement, one must look at statements of the PLO 's Council in Algiers, and at Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva in December. Although diplomats and media commentators stressed what they perceived as new in these declarations, continuity was a more striking feature. Arafat himself emphasized the continuity throughout.

Several long-standing PLO positions persisted. For one thing, the PLO Covenant (1964) had propounded:

"Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism ... is not an independent nationality ... with an identity of its own."

In line with the Covenant, the Algiers Declaration omitted any mention of ancient Israel from its version of the history of the Land. It symbolically excluded Jews from belonging to the Land, let alone the Land belonging to the Jews, by depicting the Land as always Arab and by specifying minarets and church bells (representing Moslems and Christians) as being part of the Land and the people, while synagogues and the Temple are conspicuously absent.

It is noteworthy that this view is neither supported by the Koran nor by the traditional Arab and Moslem historians. The Koran indeed acknowledges the divine assignment ofthe Holy Land to the Children of Israel (Sura 5:12, 20-21). Rather than follow original Moslem teaching, the PLO borrows from modern antisemitic ideologies.

Arab ideologues have long denied the Jews' capacity to form a state by calling Israel a "fictitious state" or the "Zionist entity." This denial persisted into Arafat's Geneva speech to the UN (December 13, 1988), in which he referred to Israel as an "entity," never calling it a state.

On the other hand, one might construe one line in the speech as alluding to the Jews as a people. He said, "Our people does not want ... a destiny that negates the destiny of another people."

However, if "another people" did mean the Jews, or Israelis in particular, then the flowery phrase begs a question: just what do Arafat and the PLO consider the Jews' destiny to be? Are they doomed to humiliation, as the Koran teaches (Sura 9:29), or servitude or extinction, as some recent Arab writings have urged? The Algiers Declaration hints at humiliation. It closes with a Koranic quote, including the line: "Thou abasest whomsoever Thou wilt ..."

ANOTHER ASPECT of continuity is the Arab identity of the Land and its people. The Covenant put it this way:

"Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."

The Algiers Declaration asserts this point as follows:

" The State of Palestine is an Arab State ... an integral part of the Arab nation with its legacy and civilization ... [It] underlines its commitment to the covenant of the Arab League ... "

It goes without saying that the geographic and diplomatic context of the new declaration was pan-Arab. It was declared in a convention in Algeria and repeatedly praised on American TV by the Arab League delegate to the UN.

The identification of "Palestinians" with the Arab nation is not an academic issue. It vitiates claims that a "Palestinian state" governed by the PLO would be no threat to Israel since it would be small and possess limited human, economic and military resources. In fact, a PLO state would likely call upon available pan-Arab resources.

The third item of continuity was the renunciation of terrorism. Actually, the PLO had never admitted to being terrorist. When Arafat appeared on Meet the Press in 1976, he had declared himself and the PLO then to be against terrorism. He described the murders at the Savoy Hotel in Tel Aviv as "not terrorism, not terrorism - military operations."The Algiers Declaration did not mention terrorism. But an ancillary political statement released by the PLO 's Wafa press agency professed: " The Council [of the PLO ] renews its refusal of all forms of terrorism ..." Arafat reiterated this stance at his Geneva press conference. However, the PLO had perpetrated terrorist acts all along.

Despite the continuity, there were new elements, however. Some saw these as signs of moderation.

One innovation was the mention of General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which had recommended partition of the country into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Butthe Algiers Declaration did not accept or endorse 181. Rather, it saw 181 as an expedient for achieving Palestinian Arab political goals. It implies that 181 represented a "historical injustice" against the Arabs, but that it also "provides conditions for an international legitimacy that guarantees the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty ..."

This is not an endorsement of 181, but rather a description of 181 as available to be used for Palestinian Arab purposes.

As to Security Council Resolutions 242 or 338, the declaration of a state does not mention them. However, they received conditional endorsement in the Wafa press release which urged an "international conference concerning the Middle East and the Palestine question" (not a peace conference) for which 242 aqnd 338 would form one among several bases.

Yet if 242 and 338 are understood as a foundation for peace between Israel and Arab states, other PLO -proposed bases for a conference (" the legitimate rights of thePalestinian people" and "other UN resolutions concerning Palestine") could provide for the total deligitimization of Israel. That said, it should be pointed out that 242 is itself problematic for Israel.

This is for several reasons. One is that though 242 calls for "secure and recognized boundaries" for "every State in the area," it does not name Israel as a state. This is significnt, because Israel is an "entity" in PLO terminology. If Israel is not a true state, then does it does not necessarily deserve boundaries - or peace.

THE STATE Department found Arafat's Geneva press conference to fulfill U.S. conditions for "dialogue." In this speech, Arafat clearly accepted Israel's right to "exist in peace and security" and accepted 242 and 338 without reference to "other UN resolutions."

Yet he stressed at the same time the conformity of his remarks to previous PLO positions. He did not call Israel a state or the Jews a people. Just the day before, he had called Israel an "entity" when addressing the General Assembly. Even setting aside the major issue of whether one man's remarks at a press conference could commit his organization, we see him leaving a loophole for future action against Israel's independent statehood within any borders. Hence, the question arises of his real intentions.

This sense is strengthened by his repeating his oft-repeated, oft-violated disavowal of terrorism. It is further strengthened by subsequent remarks by Arafat's associates. Salah Khalaf, known as Abu Iyyad, stated, "There was no PLO recognition of Israel, neither in the PNC ( PLO Council) decisions in Algiers nor in Arafat's address to the UN in Geneva" (Al-Watan, Kuwait, February 11, 1989). The speaker of the PLO Council, Sheikh Abd Al-Hamid As-Sayigh, said: "If you read the political statement (of the PNC in Algiers) carefully, you will find that what some term recognition of the Zionist entity is untrue" (Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, London, January 13, 1989).

Unless we assume the best of all possible meanings, like Dr. Pangloss's best of all possible worlds, reasonable grounds for thinking that the PLO wanted lasting peace with Israel were not present in December 1988.
Caption: Illustration: Photo No caption (A photo of Yasser Arafat with a question mark and the word shalom floating out of his mouth.)
Index Terms: Keywords: Analysis. PLO . Peace. Yasser Arafat. Palestinian. Jew. Terror. Israel.
Record Number: 110EEDAFEF7F478D
Copyright 1991, 2006 The Jerusalem Post, All Rights Reserved.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:25 AM, David Gerstman wrote:

Here's Charles Krauthammer

Plo Move A Ploy Aimed At The U.s. And Gullible American Tv Networks Swallowed It
http://articles.philly.com/1988-11-22/news/26248456_1_plo-move-algiers-meeting-palestinian-national-council

Not much has changed since 1988.

Or 1969 for that matter.

Thank you to David

No comments: