Formation of the PLO

Origins of the PLO in Regional and International Context

The Palestine Liberation Organization, usually known by its initials PLO, emerged in the early 1960s in a very specific political moment. Arab states had recently experienced both anti-colonial victories and humiliating defeats. Palestinian refugees were scattered in camps in neighboring Arab countries, largely without a unified leadership that spoke in their name. At the same time, Arab governments wanted to show they were committed to the Palestinian cause, but many also wished to control it and prevent independent armed activity that might drag them into unwanted wars.

In this setting, the PLO was initially conceived less as a spontaneous grassroots body of Palestinians and more as a structure strongly shaped by Arab state politics, especially the influence of Egypt under President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The organization’s early form reflected the balance between two forces. On one side were Arab governments, wary of revolutionary movements they did not control. On the other side were Palestinian activists, refugees, and professionals, who sought a vehicle to reclaim political agency and speak as a distinct national movement, not merely as part of broader Arab nationalism.

The 1964 Arab League Decision and the Cairo Summit

The formal starting point for the PLO is usually dated to decisions taken by the Arab League in 1963 and 1964. The Arab League, a regional organization of Arab states, discussed how to respond to Israel’s plans to divert water from the Jordan River. These discussions quickly broadened into wider questions about coordination of military and political efforts concerning Palestine.

At the Cairo summit of the Arab League in January 1964, Arab leaders agreed that Palestinians should have their own framework to participate in the struggle over the future of Palestine, but that this framework would be created under Arab League sponsorship. The decision was both symbolic and practical. Symbolically, it acknowledged Palestinians as a distinct people with a right to organized representation. Practically, it allowed Arab governments to channel Palestinian political and military activity through a body they hoped to influence.

The summit therefore called for the convening of a Palestinian congress that would establish a national organization. Nasser’s Egypt, then a leading voice in the Arab world, played a central role in promoting this plan. The initiative tied Palestinian organization to wider Arab strategies against Israel, and to regional rivalries among Arab states that competed to present themselves as the main champion of the Palestinian cause.

The First Palestinian National Council in Jerusalem

In response to the Arab League decision, preparations began to bring together Palestinian notables, professionals, and some representatives of refugee communities. The result was the convening of the first Palestinian National Council, or PNC, in May 1964 in East Jerusalem, which was then under Jordanian control.

The PNC functioned as a kind of parliament in exile for Palestinians, although its composition in this first phase was not based on universal or direct elections. Delegates were selected in consultation with Arab governments and with leading Palestinian figures. This method reinforced the perception that the new organization was initially guided from above, rather than arising directly from refugee camps or armed groups.

Meeting in Jerusalem gave the gathering strong symbolic meaning. The city was a central place of Palestinian life prior to 1948, and it remained a religious and cultural focus. Holding the conference there, even under Jordanian rule, linked the new organization to a territory that many Palestinians and Arabs regarded as central to the Palestinian cause.

The PNC adopted a charter and resolutions that formally established the PLO as the representative framework of the Palestinian people. It also elected the PLO’s first leadership and defined the structures through which the organization would operate.

The Palestinian National Charter and Political Vision

One of the core documents produced during the formation of the PLO was the Palestinian National Charter, also called the Palestinian National Covenant. The charter set out how the organization defined the Palestinian people, the nature of their connection to the land, and the political aims of the struggle.

The charter described Palestinians as a distinct national community with an enduring link to Palestine. It presented the territory of Palestine, as it had existed under the British Mandate, as the indivisible homeland of this people. The document rejected the legitimacy of the political order created after 1948, especially the establishment of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

The PLO’s early charter framed the conflict primarily in national and anti-colonial terms. It portrayed the struggle as one of liberation, in which Palestinians sought to regain their homeland and exercise self-determination. It gave a central place to armed struggle, describing it as the primary means of achieving liberation, and it did not recognize the state of Israel as legitimate within any borders.

At the same time, the charter presented the Palestinian people as part of the broader Arab nation and expressed solidarity with Arab unity projects then promoted by Nasser and others. This dual identity, Palestinian and Arab, would shape the PLO’s early rhetoric and its relationships with surrounding states.

Organizational Structure: Council, Executive, and Army

From its creation, the PLO was designed with a set of institutions that resembled those of a state in exile. The highest body was the Palestinian National Council, which was intended to represent Palestinians in various countries and social sectors. Between PNC sessions, a smaller body, the Executive Committee, acted as the main leadership, responsible for implementing policies and overseeing the organization’s growing network of departments.

Another element established very early was the idea of a Palestinian army. The PNC resolutions in 1964 called for the formation of the Palestine Liberation Army, or PLA. This force, in practice, operated closely under the control of Arab host states, especially Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, which recruited, trained, and stationed the units. The existence of the PLA signaled an aspiration to conduct an independent military struggle, but the degree of control Arab governments retained over it limited that independence.

The PLO also began to create specialized bodies that would eventually defend Palestinian interests in fields such as education, culture, and social welfare. At the outset, these structures remained small, but the institutional model reflected the ambition to represent an entire people, not just to lead a military campaign.

Early Leadership: Ahmad Shukeiri and State Influence

The first chairman of the PLO, Ahmad Shukeiri, personified the close link between the early organization and the Arab state system. Shukeiri was a Palestinian lawyer and diplomat who had served as a representative for Arab states in international forums. His selection in 1964 came with strong backing from Egypt and aligned with the Arab League’s desire for a leadership that would coordinate with governments.

Under Shukeiri’s leadership, the PLO stressed its role as the sole legitimate representative of Palestinians, yet the way it was created led many Palestinians, especially emerging guerrilla groups, to see it as too dependent on state patrons. Its decisions often reflected the positions of major Arab capitals, and its military wing remained largely under Arab army command structures.

Shukeiri’s rhetoric was often strongly anti-Israel and emphasized the inevitability of liberation through armed struggle. However, his political and military room for maneuver was constrained. Arab states remained cautious about direct military confrontation with Israel and wary of Palestinian initiatives that might provoke escalation outside their control.

Relations with Guerrilla Groups and the Question of Independence

As the PLO took shape, new Palestinian guerrilla organizations began to emerge, primarily in the late 1950s and early 1960s, driven by younger activists who wanted a more independent and action oriented movement. While these groups will be discussed in more detail elsewhere, their existence influenced the PLO’s formation and evolution from the very beginning.

Many of these activists initially viewed the PLO with suspicion. They saw it as an instrument of Arab state policy, rather than a genuinely autonomous national movement. They also questioned whether an organization born from a summit of Arab heads of state could truly prioritize Palestinian interests when these might conflict with the calculations of host governments.

This tension created a dynamic in which the formal PLO existed alongside increasingly active guerrilla organizations. Over time, pressure from these groups and from Palestinian communities would push the PLO to transform itself from a structure built by states into an umbrella for a diverse set of Palestinian factions and institutions. The seeds of that transformation were already present in the mid 1960s, in debates about representation, control, and the meaning of liberation.

Early Activities and Symbolic Claims

In its first years, the PLO concentrated on diplomatic, organizational, and symbolic efforts, more than on large scale military actions. It sought to secure recognition from Arab and international actors as the official voice of the Palestinian people. The leadership worked to create PLO offices in key capitals, to participate in Arab League meetings as a distinct delegation, and to develop links with decolonizing countries in Asia and Africa, which were sympathetic to anti-colonial struggles.

Symbolically, the PLO promoted elements that would become markers of Palestinian national identity. This included popularizing a Palestinian flag, building commemorations around the events of 1948, and emphasizing the right of return of refugees. In public statements, the PLO insisted that no solution to the Arab Israeli conflict could bypass the Palestinians or be decided solely by states. This insistence on direct Palestinian agency was one of the main reasons the organization mattered to many Palestinians, even as they criticized its limitations.

At the same time, the PLO’s capacity to improve daily conditions in refugee camps or to change realities on the ground inside the territory of former Mandatory Palestine remained very limited in this early stage. The organization was still finding its footing, dependent on funding, hosting, and political backing from governments that had their own agendas.

The Impact of the 1967 War on the PLO’s Early Phase

The formative phase of the PLO, from its creation in 1964 until the June 1967 war, represents a first stage in its development. During these years, the PLO was primarily an Arab League sponsored institution with a state influenced leadership and limited military activity. Its platform rejected Israel’s existence in the territory of historic Palestine and framed the struggle as one of national liberation.

The 1967 war, and the new occupations that followed, deeply shook Arab regimes and transformed Palestinian politics. In the aftermath, armed Palestinian groups gained in prestige among many Palestinians and Arabs, and the balance of power within the Palestinian movement began to change. These shifts would lead to a reconfiguration of the PLO’s leadership and direction after 1967, which belongs to the next phase of its history.

What remains distinctive about the period of the PLO’s formation is the combination of factors that produced it: an Arab regional system seeking to coordinate policy, a dispersed Palestinian people in search of representation, and an international climate influenced by anti-colonial struggles. The PLO’s early institutions, charter, and claims to represent the Palestinian people emerged from this specific historical moment and laid the organizational groundwork for the transformations that would follow.