PLO Adopts Controversial Ten-Point Program at Cairo Summit
Palestinian National Council approves phased strategy accepting 'national authority' on any liberated territory, sparking fierce internal debate.
CAIRO - The Palestinian National Council today adopted a controversial Ten-Point Program that signals a potential shift in PLO strategy, accepting the establishment of a “national authority” on any portion of liberated Palestinian land.
The program, approved after heated debate at the 12th PNC session, represents a compromise between pragmatists seeking diplomatic options and hardliners demanding continued armed struggle for all of historic Palestine.
“The PLO will struggle by all means, foremost of which is armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian land and establish the independent national authority for the people over every part of Palestinian land that is liberated,” the key second point states.
While not explicitly recognizing Israel, the program implicitly accepts a political entity on less than all of Palestine—a significant evolution from previous positions demanding complete liberation.
Yasser Arafat, who backed the program, argued for tactical flexibility. “We must be realistic while maintaining our strategic goals. This allows us to establish facts on the ground,” he told delegates.
The decision triggered immediate backlash. George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and other radical factions walked out, forming a “Rejectionist Front” opposed to any partial solutions.
“This is a betrayal of martyrs who died for all of Palestine,” Habash declared. “We will never accept a mini-state that legitimizes the Zionist entity.”
Israel dismissed the program as a “Trojan horse” strategy. “The PLO speaks of phases, meaning they still seek our destruction in stages,” Foreign Minister Yigal Allon stated.
The program reflects changing regional dynamics after the 1973 war. With Egypt moving toward accommodation with Israel and Jordan reasserting claims to the West Bank, the PLO faces pressure to present achievable political goals.
International observers note the program’s ambiguity allows multiple interpretations. Moderates see diplomatic flexibility, while militants view it as tactical maneuvering maintaining maximalist goals.
The bitter divisions exposed in Cairo suggest Palestinian politics entering a new phase, torn between armed struggle traditions and diplomatic possibilities emerging in the post-1973 environment.