The Palestinian charter (All Palestinians; Boycott; Yishai Kohen) - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • Tosefta
    • 07.01.07 | 21:16 (IST)

    Some rightwing websites quote Article 24 of the original (1964) PLO Charter to claim that the PLO at the time "gave up" on its claim to the West Bank, etc. This of course is a stupid claim on the face of it. I will explain the basis for it and then ask you a question. First, quotes from the Charter: Art. 2. Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit. Art. 17. The Partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestine people and its natural right to its homeland, Art. 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Since in Article 2 the entire area of the Mandate is considered "indivisible", the Charter of course would make no legal distinction between Israel within the Green Line and the areas under Arab control in 1964. The meaning of Art. 24 is that at thapresent time (1964), the PLO does not exercise control over those area, and will start its liberation work by fighting Israel, not the other Arab countries. I take it that since the Arab League was the one creating the PLO at the time, the Charter wanted to explicitly assure the other Arab countries that they will not suffer an insurrection. But the unsaid word was that once Israel was eliminated, the Palestinians will claim the other territories as well. My guess is that the English translator mistranslated the original term, which may have meant "rulership", into "sovereignty", which gave an opening to stupid claims by stupid ideologues. I suspect the Arabic language has a problem with distinguishing between the the two meanings, since the notion of a nation state is modern and European. Can you please check out the original language of the document and let me know? Thanks.

    from the article: While Livni is polishing her wording
    First published 00:00 07.01.07 | Last updated 00:00 07.01.07
Haaretz Headlines
Palestinian Hamas militants march in front of a mock burnt Israeli bus during an anti-Israel rally

Gaza tensions rising as Israel gains edge over Hamas tunnels

Hamas is under pressure twice over, from both the worsening domestic situation in the Strip and the militant organization potentially losing its main threat against Israel.

Ted Cruz announcing the suspension of his presidential campaign in Indianapolis, Indiana, May 3, 201

Cruz suspends campaign after Trump's Indiana win

Trump virtually clinches Republican presidential nomination; Bernie Sanders wins Indiana Democratic primary.

Opposition leader Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Opposition MKs doubt Herzog will join Netanyahu’s coalition

Herzog hasn't explicitly ruled out joining coalition, and is keeping talks on the matter from his colleagues. Herzog 'knows full well that there is a hard core of MKs in the party who will not allow this maneuver,' Zionist Union lawmaker says.

Border police photographed at Qalandiyah shortly after last week's two deadly shootings.

Palestinian father tries to make sense of two offspring killed in Qalandiyah

'Let's say she had a knife even if she had a cannon – why couldn't they shoot her in the legs? And why did they shoot her brother? Why did they kill them both?,' dad of slain 16 and 26 year old says.