MERIP
Middle East Research and Information Project
Middle East Report
Middle East Report Online
Newspaper Op-Eds

MiddleEastDesk.org
Press Room
Background

Contact Info
Subscribe
Back Issues
Internships
Giving
Search
Subscribe Online to
Middle East Report

Order a subscription and back issues to the award-winning magazine Middle East Report.

Click here for the order page.


SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Click here (PDF)

[Click here for HTML version]

 

 

 

Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
A Primer

Back to Table of Contents

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)

The Arab League established the PLO in 1964 as an effort to control Palestinian nationalism while appearing to champion the cause. The Arab defeat in the 1967 war enabled younger, more militant Palestinians to take over the PLO and gain some independence from the Arab regimes.

PLO leader Yasser Arafat addressing Palestinian children.

The PLO includes different political and armed groups with varying ideological orientations. Yasser Arafat is the leader of Fatah, the largest group, and has been PLO chairman since 1968. The other major groups are the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and, in the occupied territories, the Palestine Peoples Party (PPP, formerly the Communist Party). Despite factional differences, the majority of Palestinians regard the PLO as their representative.

In the 1960s, the PLO's primary base of operations was Jordan. In 1970-71, fighting with the Jordanian army drove the PLO leadership out of the country, forcing it to relocate to Lebanon. When the Lebanese civil war started in 1975, the PLO became a party in the conflict. After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the PLO leadership was expelled from the country, relocating once more to Tunisia.

Palestinian women training.

Until 1993, Israel did not acknowledge Palestinian national rights or recognize the Palestinians as an independent party to the conflict. Israel refused to negotiate with the PLO, arguing that it was nothing but a terrorist organization, and insisted on dealing only with Jordan or other Arab states. It rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, insisting that Palestinians should be incorporated into the existing Arab states. This intransigence ended when Israeli representatives entered into secret negotiations with the PLO, which led to the Oslo Declaration of Principles (see below).

UN Security Council Resolution 242

After the 1967 war, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which notes the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by force," and calls for Israeli withdrawal from lands seized in the war and the right of all states in the area to peaceful existence within secure and recognized boundaries. The grammatical construction of the French version of Resolution 242 says Israel should withdraw from "the territories," whereas the English version of the text calls for withdrawal from "territories." (Both English and French are official languages of the UN.) Israel and the United States use the English version to argue that Israeli withdrawal from some, but not all, the territory occupied in the 1967 war satisfies the requirements of this resolution.

For many years the Palestinians rejected Resolution 242 because it does not acknowledge their right to national self-determination or to return to their homeland. It calls only for a just settlement of the refugee problem. By calling for recognition of every state in the area, Resolution 242 entailed unilateral Palestinian recognition of Israel without recognition of Palestinian national rights.

Page 9 | The October 1973 War
Camp David I

Back to Table of Contents

DonateNow

Search MERIP

MERIP OP-EDS

A Country at a Crossroads
The Austin-American Statesman (Austin, Texas)
November 9, 2007
Kamran Asdar Ali

"A very frank discussion"— so President Bush described his Nov. 7 telephone conversation with Pervez Musharraf, four days after the Pakistani general imposed a state of emergency and dissolved the high court expected to rule his continued presidency unconstitutional. And frank the discussion probably was: In the face of spirited protest in Pakistan, and a querulous press in Washington, back-channel pressure succeeded in persuading Musharraf to promise parliamentary elections. Yet the generous U.S. aid earmarked for Pakistan — on top of nearly $10 billion since 2001 — is quite evidently not at risk.

What may be at risk is Musharraf's tenure as head of the military government. Full story>>


Waging Peace, Step by Step
Garden City Telegram
October 2007
Chris Toensing

The war debate in Washington is bogged down. Partisan rancor is one reason why, and bipartisan desire for US hegemony in the oil-rich Persian Gulf is another. But many Americans are vexed by a nobler concern: that a “precipitous” US departure from Iraq would leave intensified civil war, ethnic-sectarian cleansing and massive refugee flows in its wake. This concern is legitimate. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq’s civil war and humanitarian emergency have grown steadily worse as the US military deployment there wears on. Full Story>>


Israel's Military Court System Is the Model to Avoid
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

October 28, 2007
Lisa Hajjar

Should the United States, seeking to recalibrate the balance between security and liberty in the "war on terror," emulate Israel in its treatment of Palestinian detainees? That is the position that Guantanamo detainee lawyers Avi Stadler and John Chandler of Atlanta, and some others, have advocated. That people in U.S. custody could be held incommunicado for years without charges, and could be prosecuted or indefinitely detained on the basis of confessions extracted with torture is worse than a national disgrace. It is an assault on the foundations of the rule of law. Full Story>>


Israel's Occupation Remains Poisonous
The Mountain Mail
July 26, 2007
Lori Allen

There is an oft-told Palestinian allegory about a family who complained their house was small and cramped. In response, the father brought the farm animals inside -- the goat, the sheep and the chickens all crowded into the house. Then, one by one, he moved the animals back outside. By the time the last chicken left, the family felt such relief they never complained of the lack of elbow room again. Full Story>>

 

  Home | Contact/Intern | Background Info | Middle East Report | MER Online | Newspaper Op-Eds | Giving

Copyright © MERIP. All rights reserved.