How Far Did The Policies Of The Palestine Liberation Organisation Change Between The Founding Of The Movement In 1964, And The Signing Of The Israeli-PLO Peace Accord In 1993?

Sam Coley 11H

How Far Did The Policies Of The Palestine Liberation Organisation Change Between The Founding Of The Movement In 1964, And The Signing Of The Israeli-PLO Peace Accord In 1993?

Before 1964, most Palestinians hoped that Arab states nearby would destroy the state of Israel. Inspired by Nasser in Egypt, they expected him to lead an Arab army in a campaign to successfully destroy Israeli power. However, time passed, and little progress was made, leading to many Palestinians becoming disillusioned with the help they received from the Arab states that they were relying on. Instead, they began to set up their own organisations, to defend Palestinian rights, and to fight against the state of Israel. One of the first of these was called ‘Fatah’. Set up in 1959 by Palestinian exiles in Kuwait, its leader was a young Yasser Arafat, an engineer at the time. Fatah developed into an active fighting force in the 1960’s.

In 1964, the Arab governments set up the PLO, an organisation to represent the Palestinian people. It was controlled by Arab states, Nasser in Egypt in particular. Yet defeat in the 6-day war in 1967 saw change, with Israel gaining a lot of land, such as Golan Heights, and so it was a great turning point for the Palestinians. After this defeat it became much more important.

These events led to the Palestinians rethinking their relationships with the wider Arab world. Fatah fighters alone resisted an attack at Karama in Jordan by Israelis, encouraging more recruits, and the Fatah soon became dominant in the PLO. The PLO was no longer an organisation for Arab states, it was a voice for Palestinians themselves.

The main, and most important policy of the PLO, in 1964, was its straightforward attitude to Israel – it had no right to exist and should be destroyed. The families of Jews who arrived after WW1 should be expelled, and force should be used towards it. Palestine should be an Arab state. These views were stated in the Palestinian National Charter, a document that set out the key principles of the PLO. It was originally written in 1964, but revised in 1968.

Yet Arafat had many problems. Fatah was the biggest group in the PLO, but there were ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Yet Arafat had many problems. Fatah was the biggest group in the PLO, but there were many others as well, meaning a very loose structure to the organisation. Many of these groups took a much harder line than Fatah, and were based in Syria.

Another important policy was that the PLO insisted that Armed Struggle was the best way to liberate Palestine. Arafat launched a guerrilla war on the Israelis, driven by the success of the Algerian Nationalists in driving the French from Algeria. But in this case, the Israeli forces were too strong, and the war failed. With this failure, the PLO decided to launch attacks on Israeli civilians, and civilian targets, these acts condemned as terrorism. Mainly carried out by splinter groups of the PLO, the main body did play a part in the attacks. In 1970, 3 airliners were hijacked, and destroyed in Jordan, gaining massive publicity for the organisation. In 1972, Black September, a group in the PLO, was responsible for the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games. 26 Israeli civilians were killed by Japanese supporters of a group in the organisation at Lod airport, and in 1976, another airliner, this time French, was hijacked, and 100 Jewish passengers were taken hostage. In this case, the plans failed, as Israelis travelled 2000 miles, and freed the hostages, killing the Palestinians. Hijackings were thereafter less common, but other violence continued.

These actions gained some support form outside the organisation, as many people admired the way that the Palestinians were resisting Israeli power. In 1974, the PLO was declared as the ‘sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat as leader was invited to speak to the UN in 1974, strengthening his position. The policies to this stage were working well.

When, in 1970, Palestinians were forced to leave Jordan, after making it home of PLO operations, due to fighting and planning to over throw King Hussein, the PLO forces moved to Lebanon. From there, they launched regular attacks on northern Israel. The PLO also became very involved with Lebanese politics, and controlled large areas of the south of the country. With a huge split between people in Lebanon, poor and rich, Christian and Muslim, the PLO sided with the poor Shia Muslims of the south. Civil war began in 1975 in Lebanon, and the PLO joined the Shia Muslims in the war.

In 1982 however, Israelis invaded Lebanon, and despite strong resistance, they forced out the PLO leaders by August, and moved far from Israel, to Tunisia. Despite being seen throughout the world as the voice for Palestinians, the excessive use of force had bought little success in the struggle with Israel. Arafat’s problems worsened in 1982, when a rebellion within Fatah occurred. A sure sign of divisions within the PLO.

This led once again, to Arafat having to rethink his methods. He now wanted to somehow compromise with Israel, yet he had to be extremely cautious not to appear to be a traitor to the Palestinians. If Arafat was seen to be stepping too far out of line, groups of radicals where ready to overthrow him. This argument was centred on American demands for the PLO. The US refused to deal with the PLO until it agreed to these conditions:

Publicly reject terrorism;
Recognise Israel as a state within its pre-1967 boundaries;
Accept the UN Resolution 242, exchanging land for peace.

Talks in 1986 fell apart between the PLO and the USA, because of divisions in the PLO. Young Palestinians, the Intifada, fought against Israelis, and eventually convinced Arafat that it was time to take control of the West Bank, and Gaza, and set up a mini state of Palestine. Arafat agreed to the terms laid by the Americans in 1988, and was invited into talks with the US.

Arafat used the uprisings of the Intifada to make it look as if he was coming from a position of strength, and not weakness. Some Israelis welcomed the changes, and took the opportunity to make peace with Palestinians. Others claimed it was a trick. They saw the announcements as the first steps towards destroying Israel.

It is therefore clear, that the policies of the PLO changed significantly. From 1964 to 1988, views on terrorism changed from acceptance to rejection. The PLO no longer saw the use of force as being the way forward. The PLO also accepted the existence of Israel as a state, and gave in to the UN resolution 242. These massive changes that occurred between 1964 and 1988, may have been due to the fact that terrorism was not very successful, or perhaps that Arafat had other plans.

There is support for both arguments. Terrorism was failing, and little progress being made with the use of violence. Divisions in the PLO also suggest that it was time for change. But evidence shows that Arafat may have used this agreement to his own advantage. In 1990/91, the Gulf War showed that they were still more than ready to work against the ideas of the UN, and that the agreement to accepting resolution 242 was very muddled. And despite agreeing to accept Israel as a state, arguments continued, and many still continued to reject Israel. Maybe this agreement was the first steps by Arafat to destroying Israel as many Israelis suggested.

Therefore it is clear that there is both continuity, and change in the policies of the PLO. Change is evident between 1964 and 1988, with a revision of them in 1968 when the PLO became the voice for all Palestinians, but by 1993, the changes of 1988, and agreeing to the UN and US terms, seem to be overlooked by the PLO in some cases, suggesting that the PLO was still on course to try and destroy Israel, and the policies were very much the same as they were back in 1964, when they were first laid out by the organisation.