The foundational ideology of the Palestinian national movement during its formative years was explicitly defined by the negation of Jewish statehood and the systematic call for the dismantling of Israel. When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964 under the auspices of the Arab League, it sought to formalize these objectives in a binding constitutional document. This political vision was subsequently codified in the 1964 Original Palestine National Charter and later revised in 1968 following the Six-Day War. These documents did not merely express a desire for self-determination, but rather outlined a comprehensive legal, geographic, and military framework aimed at the total elimination of the State of Israel.
Background and History of the PLO Charters
The creation of the PLO in 1964 occurred in a Middle East dominated by Pan-Arab nationalism, led primarily by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The first chairman of the PLO, Ahmad al-Shukeiri, drafted the initial version of the charter to align Palestinian national aspirations with the broader geopolitical objectives of the Arab states. At this stage, the charter did not call for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, which were then under Jordanian and Egyptian control respectively. Instead, the primary goal was the conquest of the territory within the pre-1948 British Mandate boundaries.
Following the overwhelming defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 Six-Day War, the PLO underwent a profound internal reorganization, shifting away from Pan-Arab control toward independent Palestinian fedayeen groups. The Fourth Palestine National Assembly convened in Cairo in July 1968 to revise the original charter, resulting in the 1968 Palestine National Charter. This updated text placed Palestinian armed struggle at the absolute center of its strategy, transforming the movement into a vanguard for revolutionary violence. Despite these structural and rhetorical shifts, the core commitment to eradicating the sovereign existence of Israel remained entirely unchanged.
Key Facts on the Eliminationist Clauses
- Indivisible Mandatory Boundaries: Article 2 of both the 1964 and 1968 charters explicitly defines Palestine as an indivisible territorial unit within the boundaries of the British Mandate. This geographical definition covers the entirety of modern-day Israel, leaving no room for any sovereign Jewish presence between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
- Rejection of Israeli Legitimacy: Article 19 of the 1968 charter declares the 1947 United Nations partition plan and the subsequent establishment of the State of Israel to be entirely illegal and void. This article codifies the absolute refusal to recognize Israeli sovereignty, regardless of the passage of time.
- Armed Struggle as Strategy: Article 9 of the 1968 charter establishes that armed struggle is the sole method to liberate Palestine. It explicitly states that violence is a permanent strategic directive rather than a temporary tactical phase, thereby ruling out any diplomatic compromise.
- Demographic Exclusion of Jews: Article 6 of the 1968 revision restricts Palestinian identity to Jews who permanently resided in Palestine prior to the "Zionist invasion." Because Arab historiography dates this invasion to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, this clause effectively strips the vast majority of Israeli Jews of their claim to residency and presages their systematic expulsion.
Ideological Analysis of the Charters
An examination of the charter's text reveals a deliberate attempt to delegitimize the historical, cultural, and religious connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Article 20 of the 1968 charter asserts that claims of historical or religious ties between Jews and Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true concepts of statehood. By defining Judaism strictly as a religion rather than a nationality, the PLO sought to deny the Jewish people their fundamental right to national self-determination. This rhetorical strategy was designed to frame the Arab-Israeli conflict not as a territorial dispute between two national movements, but as a struggle against an illegitimate colonial intrusion.
Furthermore, the text of the charters demonstrates that the phrase "from the river to the sea" is deeply rooted in these foundational documents. By asserting that the British Mandate boundaries form an indivisible unit, the PLO codified a zero-sum political objective that required the complete erasure of the Jewish state. According to a detailed analysis of the Palestine National Charter, these articles directly contradict any possibility of a two-state solution or peaceful coexistence. The charter's insistence on the "elimination of Zionism" was not a call for political reform, but rather a blueprint for the physical dismantling of Israel's state infrastructure and the displacement of its population.
Conclusion and Significance for Israel
The historical codification of Israel's elimination in the PLO charters remains a cornerstone for understanding the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the rejectionist rhetoric that persists today. Although the PLO officially claimed to have revoked these problematic articles during the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s, the process of amendment was plagued by profound ambiguity and internal resistance. Many scholars and observers note that the original ideological framework was never fully replaced with a public, unambiguous education for peace. Consequently, the core tenets of the 1968 charter continue to shape the political consciousness of various Palestinian factions.
For the State of Israel, the legacy of the 1964 and 1968 declarations underscores the critical importance of secure, defensible borders and national self-reliance. The explicit denial of Jewish nationhood and the formalization of perpetual armed struggle serve as historical evidence of the existential threats Israel has faced since its inception. To read the original texts of the 1964 Palestinian National Covenant is to understand that the ultimate goal of Israel's adversaries has historically been its total replacement. Safeguarding Israel's sovereignty thus requires a sober assessment of these foundational doctrines, ensuring that security policies remain grounded in historical reality rather than diplomatic wishful thinking.