Talk:Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine

Untitled
"several shooting attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers"

I wonder is there any source for the claim that the DFLP has attacked civilians during the second Intifada? I'm not particularly aware of this having happened.

"The DFLP conducts occasional guerrilla operations in Southern Lebanon."

Also curious about this - is it perhaps out of date since the Israeli withdrawal?


 * Can't find anything to suggest that this information is still accurate so am deleting it.Palmiro 17:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The previous version of this article had a bit of a C&P look to it, especially the peculiar grammar.Palmiro 22:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

West Bank and Gaza Strip
I see the reference to "occupied territories" has been changed to "West Bank and Gaza Strip", separately wikified. I don't think this is a good idea; the occupied territories are effectively a single political/territorial concept and it's not very fair that anyone trying to look them up should have to go to two different entries. Furthermore the West Bank article referred to introduces potential confusion as to whether East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank. In the context of this article (and I suspect most similar articles) it clearly is. I propose to change this to occupied Palestinian territories. It would be both at odds with Wiipedia naming principles (use of common name) and ease of use to do otherwise, in my opinion. The term 'occupied Palestinian territories' is widely used, relatively concise, and refers to an existing article, all of which make it preferable to West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, which is the only unambiguous alternative.

If the problem is with the name rather than the reference, I'd be perfectly willing to point it at a West Bank and Gaza Strip article if there was one that explained the location and status of the two bits of land together, but as you can see there isn't.Palmiro 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Occupied Palestinian territories" provides express support for a particular POV, which one cannot do on Wikipedia. As well, it means different things to different people; large numbers of people, for example, include Israel in the "Occupied Palestinian territories".  "West Bank and Gaza Strip" is neutral, concise, and exact, and in used even more commonly than "Occupied Palestinian territories".  Thus on all counts it is the preferred usage. Jayjg (talk)  18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept that OPT provides support for any POV. While you might argue that it could logically include Israel, in the English language it's never used that way (unlike, for example "Occupied Palestine"); it has a clear, widely understood meaning. In any case, to be honest I'm not particularly hung up on the terminology, but I would like to find a solution that sends people who want to know what the territories are, or why it might be that the DFLP organises there in particular, to one place rather than two. Furthermore, as I remarked above, while you and I might well agree that "West Bank" is precise, the actual West Bank article muddies the waters. Can you suggest how we might address these two problems?Palmiro 12:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the actual West Bank article as muddying the waters in any way; can you explain why you think it does? Jayjg (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The following is the third paragraph of the West Bank article.

The status of East Jerusalem is controversial. Israel, having annexed it, no longer considers it part of the West Bank; however, the annexation is not recognized by the United Nations or any individual country. In either case, it is often treated as separate from the West Bank due to its importance; for example, the Oslo Peace Accords treat the status of East Jerusalem as a separate matter from the status of the other Palestinian territories, to be resolved at a later undetermined date.

If that doesn't suggest to you that there is doubt as to whether East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank, I'll be surprised.Palmiro 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is that relevant, and why would adding the phrase "Occupied Palestinian territories" make it any clearer? From what I can tell, considering the 1947 Partition resolution, the "occupied" and "Palestinian" status of East Jerusalem is even more questionable than that of the West Bank. Jayjg (talk)  14:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

From your comment above it would appear that you yourself don't think the West Bank includes East Jerusalem. In that case, you certainly shouldn't have made the change you did in the article as it would render it misleading to anyone reading it with the same definition as you in mind. Incidentally the 'occupied' status of the West Bank including East Jerusalem has been established in the International Court of Justice ruling on the West Bank fence/wall/barrier (as you please): At the close of its analysis, the Court notes that the territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, the Court observes, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories have done nothing to alter this situation. The Court concludes that all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.  Anyway, you still haven't addressed my principle point, which I will repeat: I would like to find a solution that sends people who want to know what the territories are, or why it might be that the DFLP organises there in particular, to one place rather than two. If you have a problem with the content or name of the "Palestinian Territories" article, you should address that by seeking to resolve those problems directly, not by going around breaking wiki-links to it from other relevant topics as you did here and on Palestinian People's Party.Palmiro 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The International Court of Justice's advisory rulings are interesting, though they are just that, advisory opinions. The 1947 partition plan certainly did not envisage East Jerusalem as being part of an Arab state. In any event, I see no advantage to the single link that is not outweighed by its disadvantages, especially because the links given are so neutral yet informative. Jayjg (talk)  02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what the disadvantages are! The 1947 partition plan is of no relevance, by the way. It didn't envisage the rest of the West Bank becoming part of Jordan either. The fact remains that neither area was ever recognised as being part of sovereign Israel but rather both were occupied by Israel during the June 1967 war.

You don't seem to understand the status of the ICJ ruling either. It was an advisory ruling as to whether the contruction of the wall contravened internqtional law. That means that the court's decision is not binding on any party and does not of itself legally require action from any party to implement it. However, in the course of its ruling, it made a number of findings, including the finding that the OPT are occupied territories under international law. The fact that this was stated in the course of an advisory ruling rather than a binding one does not detract from its authoritative nature. The ICJ is the authorative judicial instance in questions of international law.Palmiro 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I clearly explained above the disadvantages; excess verbiage, ambiguity, and politicization/POV. The 1947 partition plan is certainly relevant to whether or not East Jerusalem is part of the "Palestinian territories". And finally, who says the ICJ is the authorative judicial instance in questions of international law?  It's just another international body which is attempting to extend its scope and jurisdiction into areas where it has no authority, by claiming it is the authority. Jayjg (talk)  18:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I dispute your remark as to POV. This was a link to a page that exists on Wikipedia. If you don't like the name of that page, you should seek to resolve that issue on that page, not by preventing other articles linking to it. Excess verbiage: "Palestinian Territories" is two words, "West Bank and Gaza Strip" five. Ambiguity: no more than for West Bank, on the basis of the entries here.

As for the 1947 partition plan, perhaps I should have been clearer. What I meant was that it doesn't have any bearing on whether EJ is occupied or not. You could certainly argue that it means the Palestinian 'right' to it (and incidentally that would also mean to Bethlehem) is less clearly established than in the case of the remainder of the territories, but that isn;t in my view an adequate reason for rejecting the use of the term Palestinian territories, which can be justified in three separate ways (1) the last state they were recognised as belonging to was the British mandate of Palestine (2) they lie within the historic region of Palestine (3) they are inhabited primarily by Palestinians (4) most importantly it's widely used and understood. But I really don't want to get into a row about terminology.

Would you accept as a compromise turning the existing West Bank and Gaza Strip article into a redirect to Palestinian territories and linking that in the text? As far as I can see that would cover your objections (subject to noone objecting on that article's talk page).Palmiro 19:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because a page exists in Wikipedia doesn't mean linking to it isn't expressing a POV, much less introducing excess verbiage and ambiguity. As for your other suggestion, it would no doubt soon be changed to "Palestinian territories" in order to avoid re-directs.  I've added a link to Palestinian territories in the "See also" section to address your issues. Jayjg (talk)  19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. My objections to your edit stand. However, while I don't think this is a satisfactory approach, I'm not going to pursue the issue especially given the inadequate nature of the current PT article.Palmiro 19:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC) The DFLP did purposely commit terrorist attacks on israeli civilians during the second intifada. Even before the second intifada, the DFLP committed terrorist attacks on israeli civilians.-Dendoi

DFLP carried out terrorist attacks
I don't understand you people... The DFLP carried out the Ma'alot massacre, they took explicit responsibility for it! So why can't it be stated clearly in the introductory paragraph, that the DFLP carried out terrorist attacks? It's a fact that can't be disputed. Please read the article and you'll agree that it should be there. The terrorist attacks are also mentioned in the article itself, and were never denied. I don't understand why you keep deleting the sentence "...and military organization, which carried out numerous terrorist attacks". Please explain it to me clearly; I think it must be there. Thanks. --Gabi S. 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism and WP:NPOV. Please note that no state or international organization (AFAIK) share your view, so stating it as a fact would not add to the Wikipedia's reliability. Furthermore, from a mathematical point of view it can be argued that one incident does not constitute numerous. Bertilvidet 07:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC), Please, Gabi S. is right. The DFLP has committed terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. What you say would not add to wikipedia's reliability. The maalot massacre was just the first one.

what the ten point program really calls for
I see this article claiming that the ten point program calls for the two state solution. Hah. The progam calls for first a Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza and then the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. Read the plan yourself. It also says that the PLO will strugle against any Palesitnian entity at the price of peace or recognition.-Dendoi December 19, 2006 Teusday 10:28 PM

DfLP goal is the destruction of Israel
The DFLPs goal is to replace Israel with a Communist Palestinian state. If you look at the map of palestine on their website, you would see that israel is not even on that map. That map does not show the border that distinguishes the West Bank from Israel and does not show the border that distinguishes Gaza from the Jewish state.-Dendoi

Repeated reinsertion of
Please read WP:WTA. Note too, that this discussion ended without concensus on whether such a category was useful or not. In order to include it here, consensus from other editors must be gained. This article is already categorized under. The reason for this is that no one officially classified the DFLP today as a terrorist organization. Indeed, the article explains that its attacks on Israel are limited to military targets within the Green Line. In other words, this is a militant group, but not a terrorist group.  T i a m u t talk 15:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion on Categories for discussion/Log/2008_November_4 ended with keeping that category. As such, arguments related to WP:WTA are irrelevant. The only thing which remains to be determined is if the group, the DFLP, meets the requirements of that category. The DFLP has carried out terrorist attacks, and is officialy designated as a terrorist organization - and thus meets the category requirements. NoCal100 (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The link you gave is to a press release by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs which calls a DFLP attacker "terrorist". That's not an official designation. Further, DFLP tactics as described in the article focus on militant activities against Israeli military targets within the Green Line (i.e. in the occupied territories) and therefore cannot be considered terrorist, as per international law, an occupied people have the right to resist their occupiers. That the category was retained due to a lack of consensus among Wikipedians as to whether it should or go, does no9t mean we have to use it. We certainly do not have to use it here, where there is very little evidence to suggest that the DFLP is considered to be a terrorist group by anyone other than Israel. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter which is why terrorist is a word to avoid. That is the reigning Wiki policy to date, the only to still enjoy consensus and until that changes, I will resist the inclusion on this category on this page and others.  T i a m u t talk 16:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * this category is not Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist, nor is it Category:Organizations designated as terrorist - it is Category:Palestinian terrorism. What you are doing is subverting the decision arrived at - which was to keep the new category, and by implication, use it. At the same time, the category Zionist terrorism was created and populated. I did not participate in the deletion discussion discussion, because I am ok with either deleting both these categories, or keeping them both (and then, of course, using them). If this is a principled stance on your part, I'd be happy to help you remove organizations in both categories. otherwise, it seems like pushing a certian POV, where only one nationality's terrorist organizations are so labeled. NoCal100 (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never added the Category:Zionist terrorism or Category:Jewish terrorism to any article, though I do support them being used if Category:Palestinian terrorism is to be used. Nor have I seen the other categories added to articles on my watchlist. If I did, I probably would have removed them as well, since as I said (please WP:AGF) "terrorism" is a WP:WTA. In any case, what we are discussing here is this article. The DFLP is not currently designated as a terrorist organization. It is also doubtful that there has ever been consensus regarding its former activities (resistance or terrorism?). Terrorism is a tactic and one used by many people. There is no such thing (in my mind) as "Palestinian terrorism" or "Zionist terrorism". Both Palestinians and Zionists have used terrorist tactics to be sure, but to pair the word terrorism with a nationality or ideology just crosses the line into unnecessary and inaccurate essentialization. That there was no consensus in the debate over the cateory leading to its being kept, does not mean we must use it. We have to discuss its application in each case if others want to use it, but we don't have to agree its use just because it exists.  T i a m u t talk 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Category:Zionist terrorism and Category:Jewish terrorism should be used if Category:Palestinian terrorism is to be used - and as a corollary, that if Category:Palestinian terrorism is being depopulated of its member pages, as you and Ceedjee are apparently doing, so should the categories Category:Zionist terrorism and Category:Jewish terrorism. I am really ok with either solution - so long as it is being done in an even handed manner. That is why I ask if you are going to be doing the same for those other categories (Check Irgun, Lehi, List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s, Gush Emunim Underground and others) - as a matter of principle, or if you are only going to be doing it for the Palestinian category. NoCal100 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing it systematically for either. I did it for a couple of articles that appeared on my watchlist. When I noticed you had added the category to both, I checked you contribs to see where else you added it. I removed it from a couple of other articles (but not all of them that you tagged). I'm not really interested in being systematic about it. I prefer editing to categorizing to be honest. I can pledge that I will personally not add any of the categories anywhere and will try to remove those I see, but that won't really solve any problems here, since people will edit-war to get their way with these. That's why I think it's just better to get rid of them altogether.  T i a m u t talk 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about this here, which is where the original categories were proposed and achieved consensus - you should probably take your comments there. I don't know if you and cedjee are doing this "systematically" or not, and it does not really matter - the end result is that you are depopulating the Category:Palestinian terrorism category, while leaving Category:Zionist terrorism intact, which is obviously not neutral. Please demonstrate your good faith by depopulating the  Category:Zionist terrorism articles I've pointed you to. NoCal100 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained why I removed the cats I did above and why I won't be doing anything systematic about it as well. I noticed from your contribs that you have removed cats of Jewish terrorism and Zionist terrorism from various articles while adding Palestinian terrorism. You seem to like categorizing so I suggest you take it upon yourself to do a systematic removal of all the cats, if you are so inclined. That doesn't change my position about the placing of that category on this page, where I maintain that it is inappropriate and does not reflect what the DFLP is about, and particularly not today. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You said you would 'try to remove those I see' - and I've shown you several. You are of course free not to do what you pledged you will do, and people will be free to draw their conclusions about this - whether you are acting out of principled opposition to "xxx terrorism" categories, or are pushing a certain nationalistic POV. I know I've drawn my conclusions, and will edit accordingly. NoCal100 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see Tiamut "pledging" to do anything in quite the definitive terms that you have suggested. If you wish to discuss the details of the English language again, I am more than willing to do so. In any event you seem to be complaining simply when other editors fail to do what you are suggesting, as if this is some sort of fundamental problem. And while you are here, please comment on content not on the contributor (Is that right? And what's the wiki-link? Where's Jayjg where you need him?)--Nickhh (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here I am, thanks for asking. I find it hard to believe that people would insist that the group responsible for the Ma'alot massacre and Avivim school bus massacre are not "terrorist". In any event, here's a reliable source: "In 1974 it took responsibility for an especially brutal terrorist attack in Maʿalot, Israel, in which several dozen schoolchildren were taken hostage and a number of them killed, and another raid". Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ridiculous. We have a guideline called WP:WTA precisely because on man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So please don't pretend that by providing one source (or even tens of sources) that designates some of the actions of this group as "terrorism" that the bar for including this group in the Category:Palestinian terrorism has been met. The category should not even exist in the first place, but just because it does, does not oblige us to use.

I can provide tens of sources that characterize this group as a "national liberation movement", "resistance movement", "freedom fighters" and we could create categories with those names as well. We don't do that here at Wikipedia though since it would lead to endless edit-warring across mutliple pages (as is happening here and at Fateh and elsewhere).

In any case, there is no consensus for including this category on this page. It is the editors adding something to the page who have to gain consensus for their edits. Since none has been attained, the cat shouldn't be here. Period.  T i a m u t talk 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have WP:WTA, and yet, the category exists, and was not deleted at CFD. And I'm sure most of the organizations categorized as under the "Terrorism" categories could also be described as "national liberation" etc. We currently have a situation where categories such as Category:Palestinian terrorism, Category:Zionist terrorism, Category:Nationalist terrorism exist. You disagree with their existence; very well. However, you cannot resolve that disagreement by selectively depopulating one category. Either these categories should exist, in which case they need to be appropriately populated, or they should not exist, in which case they should be dealt with at CFD. Now, what criteria are you using for populating the categories? Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't populate these categories, any of them. As I said above, categorization is generally not my thing. When articles on my watchlist have had these categories added to them and I've seen it, I've removed them. Otherwise, I have nothing to do with them since I think they are silly. Terrorism is a tactic, and should not be paired with national ideologies or national groups as though it were possible to essentialize people. It's not. If people insist on using a category with the word terrorism in it, I might accept Category:Use of terrorism as a tactic. Terrorism is a tactical means to end. No more, no less. It's not worse than any other form of violent intimidation. Unfortunately, its a much more emotive term as it is used colloquially and when paired with national groupings (as in "Palestinian terrorism") becomes borderline racist and de-humanizing.  T i a m u t talk 02:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I happened to agree with you, that none of these categories should exist. That said, they do, so they cannot be selectively de-populated. If you like, I could propose that they all be deleted at CFD. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think my jaw just hit the ground. Jayjg, we agree?!? How is that possible? ;) Anyway, I'd be happy to participate in a CFD on the issue. If, or when, you do set it up, let me know. I'll be their with bells on.  T i a m u t talk 03:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A link might need review
In the section "Between Fatah and the rejectionists" it reads the DFLP "acted as a strong supporter of the 1974 Ten Point Program." The words "Ten Point Program" links to a website which might be malicious and I believe should be looked into. LoneWolf1992(talk) 01:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928121505/http://www.medea.be/?page=2&lang=en&doc=72 to http://www.medea.be/?page=2&lang=en&doc=72
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828101215/http://www.dflp-palestine.org/english/about_dflp/dflp_foundation.htm to http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/doc_one.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928121505/http://www.medea.be/?page=2&lang=en&doc=72 to http://www.badeel.ps/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031215210945/http://www.jmcc.org/politics/pna/newpagov03.htm to http://www.jmcc.org/politics/pna/newpagov03.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828101215/http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/doc_one.html to http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/doc_one.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828101215/http://www.dflp-palestine.org/english/about_dflp/dflp_foundation.htm to http://alhourriah.org/english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807051829/http://www.dflp-palestine.org/english/news_%26_reports/al-badil-list-kicks.htm to http://www.dflp-palestine.org/english/news_%26_reports/al-badil-list-kicks.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807051937/http://www.dflp-palestine.org/english/statements/democratic-front-for-the-liberation-of-palestine-concludes-its-fifth-general-congress.htm to http://www.dflp-palestine.org/english/statements/democratic-front-for-the-liberation-of-palestine-concludes-its-fifth-general-congress.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

________________

There is a dead reference to the 10 point program. There is now an article that can be used in place of the dead external link. PLO%27s_Ten_Point_Program

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist?
There are no citations for the claim that DFLP is MLMist. I have never seen anyone claim this with any evidence other than this article, which cites no evidence itself. If there is no evidence, this claim should be removed.2601:642:C481:4640:EDCD:145B:D668:C976 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In 2023, I’d say the fact that “DFLP partakes in no major operations” is no longer true
In 2023, the DFLP, under Hawatmeh’s leadership, joined the Hamas-led offensive Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against Israel, attacking multiple targets with their paramilitary wing, the National Resistance Brigades. The DFLP admitted to this involvement in their party news, Alhourriah, on October 8th. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) There is good evidence that the DFLP may have participated in the killing of civilians when Hamas invaded Israel. There is a video that suggests that. And I'm a supporter of Palestinians! But I believe in truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E070:A850:A03B:6717:F4A1:B764 (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Pieter Cleppe
Pieter Cleppe wrote on Twitter:

Funds from Sweden's "Left Party"'s aid organization have gone to projects with links to the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), a group that participated in the Hamas terror raid on Israel.

The U.S. (and the EU) should now relist this group as a terrorist organisation, which it was until 1999:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine

Do You know is the "Left Party" called the social democrats or what kind of Marxian party is it, i.e. what is the name today? Kartasto (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oficial
https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/global/664139/ 2.55.184.3 (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Can You tell us have they ever discussed about that organization for to be defined as a terrorist organization in the West (EU, UK, USA etc.)?
 * आतंकवादी संगठन के रूप में परिभाषित किया जाए Kartasto (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That article is weird. It seems to say they "admitted for the first time" in December? But the militant wing released video of themselves in Israon 7 October. Unless I'm getting mixed up and that was just the PFLP? MWQs (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - Typo
Please edit heading of first section of History. "Formation as the PDFLP" should read "Formation as the DPFLP." Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas F. Scharff (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Left guide (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)