The PLO: Reasonably Radical?
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 as a secular nationalist group. The PLO was originally led by Chairman Ahmad Shukeiri. From 1969 to 2004 Yasser Arafat and the Fatah faction led the group. The PLO’s current leader succeeded Arafat after his death and is referred to as Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Mazen. The PLO arose from a number of unique yet similarly minded movements. The group aims to unite Arab people in refuting Zionism. They also promote structured Pro-Palestine goals e.g. the creation of an official Palestinian state. Unlike the Pro-Palestine group HAMAS the PLO was recognized by the Arab League as a semi-legitimate representative of Palestinian desires. They were even allowed to sit in on United Nations Committees. According to the lecture the PLO gradually became the unofficial government of Palestine. Like HAMAS the PLO wants a single Islamic State, however, they are decidedly less religious and radical; this allows Westerners to more easily understand their goals.
The PLO and the OSLO Accords
After the OSLO Accords between the PLO and Israel of 1993 and 1995 the PLO was made the “Palestinian Authority” (Mar 21 lecture). The Accords established the foundation for a two state solution and recognized Palestinian self-determination and their right to eventually create a Palestinian State. However, this has yet to come to fruition as Israel’s political desires are often contradictory to those of the PLO. Many Pro-Palestinian groups consider the OSLO Accords as a failure because they did not officially establish the legitimacy of a Palestinian State.
Unfortunately, the PLO is often plagued by radicals who find their cooperative stance too soft. The Abu Nidal Group killed PLO representatives because they were more radical than the then ruling Fatah. HAMAS, translated as, the Islamic Resistance Movement states in Article 27 of its Charter that, “Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought”. When compared to HAMAS the PLO is easier for a Westerner to understand, however, due to their cooperative tactics they may lose support from some of their own people. Western Civilians can more easily relate to the PLO’s goals to create a peaceful, stable state which promotes religious freedom (PLO Charter Article 16).
Radical yet Realistic
Whereas the group HAMAS is willing to combat the Zionist movement beyond their immediate territory (Article 22) the PLO seeks to engage Arab allies to oust Israel. Perhaps, this poses less of a threat to Western authority. The PLO’s willingness to work with the United Nations to negotiate potential solutions may also appeal to Western governments. Although not always democratic the PLO does engage in secular reasoning. Their entire Charter is not openly supported by Western nations like the United States, however, by engaging in the creation of a document it shows their commitment to their cause and their dedication to structured reasoning. That type of thought process is encouraged and rewarded by the West: think before you act. You cannot communicate with someone easily unless you speak the same language. By writing their belief that Palestine is the Arab homeland (PLO Charter, Article 1) and that people need to be raised in an Arab revolutionary manner (PLO Charter, Article 7) they effectively communicate their goals-even if they remain controversial. The West does not support the radical revolutionizing of people, or the use of violence, however, they would support the PLO’s articulation of their ideas.
The PLO’s focus on secular goals most likely pushes less radical Arabs away from their cause and towards a more religious group like HAMAS even though both the PLO and HAMAS recognize that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine” (PLO Charter, Article 9). The way they attempt to achieve their goals varies greatly because of religious reasoning. Whereas HAMAS justifies its actions through religious reasoning the PLO’s more relaxed and relative stance may not provide enough reasoning for people to rally behind it.
Hattie,
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Are you arguing that NOT being radical can be a weakness for a group like the PLO? What does that say about chances for peace in this or other cases?
Hi Professor Shirk,
DeleteAvoiding extreme measures could drive radical extremists away from the P.L.O. Peace is not always achieved through cooperation. Consider Bosnia, they were ruled by a dictator-but the violent killings were halted-one could argue that in certain areas a democratic peace is practically unachievable. To establish short term stability you need to establish peace at any cost. Granted, the peace would not be long term...but you may be able to persuade radicals disillusioned with the PLO to support stability so long as it aligns loosely with their demands.
Nice Post Hattie, I like the discussion you've created in this post between the differences of the PLO and Hamas. I definitely agree that the PLO's motives are more easily understandable for a westerner to grasp. It also makes me wonder if this is ultimately a detriment for the PLO garnering domestic support. By having an ideology that is easily understandable for foreigners, does the Palestinian community they are trying to represent and garner support from feel alienated as a result?
ReplyDeleteHi Dave!
DeleteThanks for the thoughtful comment. Advocating for a clear cause which both the West and their own people agree upon is challenging. It's a difficult situation to navigate because if they consider a more Western view they are no longer standing by their beliefs. I think this definitely makes the community they want to represent "feel alienated" and may even increase hostility towards the West. It is doubtful that Western ideals will be considered legitimate. The Westerners' are simply imposing democracy, which is ironically undemocratic.
Hattie,
ReplyDeleteNice post! I really enjoyed the discussion between the PLO and HAMAS. I agree that the PLO holds fewer fundamentalist ideals than HAMAS and is more likely to reach agreements with western nations. However, I question if a group can be radical and realistic, as you put it. The PLO may be able to articulate their plans to create a Palestinian state, however, the means they plan to accomplish their goals are not realistic. I believe that just because one can write their ideas in a civil manner, that does not mean they are completely civil or fighting for their cause in a moral way. Do you think the PLO should separate from their violent tactics to be more appealing to western nations for independence discussions?
Hattie, I like the different perspective you took on the benefits of extremists. However, do you think two groups competing for similar objectives is beneficial. If both groups have different ideals of how something should happening, they might start fighting each other. Also, do you think the people of those countries where they are fighting would prefer a more peaceful approach so less people would be killed and less property would be damaged? Such as the PLO trying to make agreements.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Hattie! Do you think there is something the PLO could do to remain a less aggressive group than HAMAS but still manage to gain enough support/momentum to be effective? Or do you think this is a sad case wherein the more reasonable group will just never be able to out-do the very radical group?
ReplyDelete