The PLO Charter Amendment That Never Was
Summary ... Despite what Yasir Arafat said, and what Mahmoud Abbas and other members of the Palestinian National Council continue to allege, the PLO Charter still remains, to this day, unchanged. They believe they have fooled the world; however it only takes a bit of research to find out they haven't.
They seem to have fooled the world. If you read this, they will not have fooled you anymore.
The "Peace Process" which began with the Declaration of Principles (DOP) in 1993 and continued with the Oslo Accords was actually an Israeli divestiture of land in exchange for promises of peace from the Palestinian [sic] leadership.
One of the major and probably the most important Palestinian obligation in the "Peace Process" was a promise to annul the onerous clauses of their formal original 29 clause 1964 Charter (the "Charter") which was amended into a 33 clause charter in 1968 after the 1967 War.
The importance of the Charter to the Palestinians can not be exaggerated. To the Palestinians, it is virtually their "Junior Koran." These clauses in the Charter, in sum, declared the establishment of Israel illegal and void and called for armed resistance until Palestine [sic] was liberated.
It is the opinion of the writer, predicated upon the facts which follow, that not one word of the Charter has ever been changed. Arafat and the subsequent Palestinian leadership instituted a series of steps to indicate that the Charter had been changed; however, there is not one shred of evidence that any change has ever occurred.
Palestinian Charter Amendment Requirements
Clause 33 of the Charter as amended in 1968 specifically states that there can be no change to the Charter unless 2/3's of the full membership of the Palestinian National Council and such a vote can only be made in a meeting specially noticed for an amendment change.
Arafat's 1993 Letter to Rabin
Arafat wrote a magnificent letter to PM Rabin in September 1993 days before the signing of the Oslo Accords. In the letter, Arafat stated that the "clauses in the Charter which are contrary to what I have stated in this letter are either no longer operative or will be nullified." Critically, Arafat's 1993 letter ended with the sentence that the "letter will be presented to the PNC (the Palestinian Council) for their formal approval." In other words, all of Arafat's peaceful statements in his 1993 letter were "subject to" the PNC formal approval pursuant to Clause 33 of the Charter.
PNC 1996 Vote and Resolution
The PNC finally did meet in April 1996 and did vote for a two clause resolution after a speech by the PNC Chairman Zanoun. Zanoun's speech clearly stated that "we have to do something at the lowest possible price-if we amend, it will mean that we have paid a very high price- if we prepare a new charter it will be less challenging- the resolution which we have drafted gives us 6 months until the Palestinian Central Council meets. They can say, we leave it for the National Council...."
Clause 1 of the Resolution states that the PNC decides "amending the Palestinian National Charter and cancelling the Charter's articles opposing the exchanged letters between the PLO and the Israeli Government on September 9th and 10th, 1993. Clause 2 of the resolution states that a legal committee would be formed to draft a new Charter.
If we combine the Zanoun pre-vote speech with the 2 clause resolution that was actually voted on, plus the fact that there is no record of a legal committee ever being formed, and there is no record that a redrafting of the Charter ever occurred, no reasonably objective person could arrive at a conclusion that there was a change in the Charter up to this point.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in October 1996 issued a communication which stated that the PLO had failed to amend the Charter's clauses no later than May 7, 1996. It further stated that "By leaving the Covenant (the Charter) intact, the PLO sends a clear message that it has not renounced violence nor accepted Israel's right to exist."
Arafat's 1998 Letter to President Clinton
There is no record that anything pertaining to the Charter ever occurred from October 1996 until Arafat wrote a letter to President Clinton in January 1998. Arafat declared in this 1998 letter that questions have been raised pertaining to the legal effect of the April 1996 PNC action. Arafat then stated "we would like to put to rest these concerns." In accordance with Article 33 of the Charter, the 1996 PNC Resolution is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the PLO commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.
As a result, articles 6-10, 15, 19-23, and 30 have been nullified and parts of articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-18, 25-7. And 29 that are inconsistent with the above mentioned commitments have also been nullified.
Arafat ended his letter: I can assure on behalf of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority that all the provisions of the Covenant that were inconsistent with the above mentioned commitments of September 9/10, 1993) to Prime Minister Rabin, have been nullified.
Arafat stated that specific clauses were annulled in the 1996 Resolution.
Can anyone reasonably arrive at a conclusion that a statement from Arafat that the 1996 PNC vote for the Resolution annulled the specific clauses enumerated in Arafat's letter to President Clinton when there is not one fact that could sustain Arafat's allegations?
On the contrary, the 1996 resolution itself specifically appointed a legal committee to draft unspecified actual changes to the Charter in the future which unequivocally means that no actual changes took place at the 1996 vote.
Various Palestinian reaffirmations of Arafat's 1998 letter to President Clinton
The following series of events occurred in December 1998 which were reaffirmations of the contents of Arafat's letter to President Clinton:
- Dec. 7, 1998, the Executive Committee of the PLO reaffirmed the letter of Arafat to President Clinton.
- Dec. 10, 1998, the Central Committee of the PLO met and reaffirmed the Arafat letter.
- Dec. 14, 1998 all the Palestinian leaders of all the Palestinian ministries met and reaffirmed the Peace Process, and reaffirmed the actions of the executive Committee and the Central Committee pertaining to the Charter.
Enclosed is the summary of the decisions and actions pertaining to the Palestinian National Charter as currently posted by the Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. This summary conveniently omitted from the second clause of the 1996 PNC resolution, the words "which will be presented to the PCC during its first meeting." There is no evidence that this PCC "first" meeting ever took place. Similarly, there is no evidence that a legal committee was ever formed nor is there any evidence that a redrafting of the Charter has ever occurred.
In conclusion, Arafat's "subject to" letter to Rabin, the inconclusive Clause 1 of the April 1996 PNC resolution, Arafat's letter to President Clinton, and the three Dec. 1998 votes reaffirming Arafat's letter to President Clinton are the total evidence that the specifically enumerated clauses of the Charter have been annulled or partially annulled.
The evidence that there has never been one word changed in the Charter is as follows:
- There is not one document that has ever surfaced to support the claim any change in the Charter has ever occurred.
- PNC Chairman's Zanoun's pre-vote speech specifically stated that no amendment was contemplated and that there was to be a redrafting of the new charter. There is no evidence that a redrafted charter is in existence.
- There is no evidence that a legal committee was ever formed pursuant to Clause 2 of the April 1996 PNC resolution and no evidence of a new charter (seelink to PNC website at end of article.).
- Three Dec. 1998 reaffirmations of Arafat's January 1998 letter to President Clinton which stated that the consequence of the April 1996 resolution, for which a vast majority of the PNC voted, was an annulment of the specifically enumerated clauses and partial annulments of the other enumerated clauses was an Arafat allegation that never happened. An affirmation of something that never happened does not convert an event that never occurred into an event that happened. Thus, all of those reaffirmations of Arafat's letter to President Clinton were reaffirmations of nothing. (A reaffirmation of a legally defective charter amendment, does not legally convert the legally defective amendment into a legally effective charter amendment.) (A reaffirmation of a fictional false event, doesn't make the fictional false event any more factual or true.) If there were a real intention on the part of the Palestinian leadership to annul any part of the Charter, all they had to do was to have the Palestinian National Council vote specifically to annul each clause as Arafat alleged in his letter.
Facts speak louder than words. The years following the December 14, 1998 Palestinian leaders vote by raising their arms to vote "reaffirming peace," resulted in the greatest amount of Israeli civilian casualities per year since the 1949 armistice. (see link at end of article) The average Israeli civilian deaths from terrorism from January 1999 through December 31, 2009 was 108 versus 28 annual Israeli civilian deaths from terrorism from 1949 through December 31, 1998. If the wall had not been built, the total Israeli deaths would have been much higher.
The result of the "Peace Process" as of this moment is: Palestinians now control land which they have never controlled in recorded history; Hamas control of Gaza; more Israeli civilian deaths from terrorism than ever before; the same PLO charter calling for Israel's destruction which has never been modified; plus a Fatah constitution and a Hamas charter, both of which call for Israel's destruction, and a Palestinian leadership mindset to destroy Israel which has not changed one iota.
[ Published: February 28, 2013 ]
The tragedy of the pro-'Palestinian' movement is its attachment to a single narrative: "Look at how wretched the lives of the 'Palestinian' people are," they tell us, "It is because of Israeli oppression." Because this narrative must be constantly reinforced, there is little room for real reporting about the failures of the 'Palestinian' leadership and the corruption and infighting that have caused the 'West Bank' [i.e., Judea & Samaria] and Gaza to languish.
The Arab leadership is attempting to portray the current Intifada as a kind of popular, spontaneous struggle that expresses the population's despair over the political situation. In reality, it is an Intifada supported and directed by the Arab leadership of the PA/PLO-Fatah and Hamas.
Rabbi Meir Kahane points out that, contrary to popular belief, the Temple Mount is in Arab hands, the cunning Arab foxes. And the words of Motta Gur ring hollowly — and it is the Jews who are to blame. They took a miracle and disdained it. They, who took holiness and profaned it. They who were given a Zion, a Jerusalem, Temple Mount — gave it over to the jackal-foxes.
Hamas explains general principles and objectives in 42-article document.
PA/PLO leader Abbas seems intentionally to ignore that he and his PA/PLO are responsible for the violence, as a result of their daily incitement against Israel. A recent poll found that approximately half of 'Palestinians' believe the "Intifada" should lead to the destruction of Israel.
What is really going on behind the scenes of the current terrorist attacks? It's actually a lot more than what is seen on a daily basis. Hamas is fighting to take control of the PA/PLO while Fatah is doing its best to stay in power and get Gaza back under its control.
US Jewish leaders blew it recently when what was a rare opportunity to ask the US president face-to-face to release Jonathan Pollard, they didn't even consider the matter as being a priority.
Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizb'Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Islamic State, and the establishment of a terrorist state in the midst of Israel.
It's no state secret that US President Barack Obama is not a huge fan of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His distain for the Jewish leader is well-known throughout the world; he's never tried to hide it. But now that Israel is having new elections in March does it mean Obama could, either directly or indirectly, influence the elections in Israel in order to obtain a defeat for Netanyahu?