A Tale of Two Charters

In Der Judenstadt, written in 1896, Herzl's first line provides probably the most impact, "The idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is an ancient one: It is the restoration of the Jewish State" (204). Herzl, however, does not say, exactly, where the Jewish State should be located, but rather lists two possible areas: Palestine and Argentina (222). Meanwhile, the main foundation behind the PLO Charter was to return Palestine to Arabs, from Jewish control, "...our right of a self-defence and the complete restoration of our lost homeland..." (1), while not wanting to kick the Jews out, as it says in Article 7, "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine." (1). The PLO Charter distinguishes Palestine as, "an Arab homeland, bound by strong Arab national ties" (1), which contrasts Der Judenstadt in that Der Judenstadt doesn't define either Argentina or Palestine as inherently Jewish. The PLO Charter goes on to explain what and who are Palestinians, The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled..." (1).
It seems that both of the authors' aims were to generate more success in the region. The PLO Charter called for a Palestinian State that would support the other Arab nations around it, which would undoubtedly strengthen the other nations. It seemed that in Herzl's case, however, that although he argued that the prosperity of the nations surrounding it (from the enriched soil that the first Jewish settlers would have cultivated) would increase (222), it seemed that that was an afterthought effect. But, in the end, both plans would aide the surrounding land.
What the PLO Charter seeks to gain is the land that they believe was originally theirs. The PLO takes this stance, seemingly, on the basis of who is occupying this territory: the Zionists-not the Jews, but the Zionists. The PLO states, in Article 19 of the Charter, "Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goals, racist and segregationist in its configurations and fascist in its means and aims" (2). This directly opposes Theodor Herzl's ideas, which call for a Jewish State, and not just for Jews to live together in an area of the world. The major difference between these two pieces though, seems to be that Der Judenstadt favors a separate state for a certain people, and that those people should have their own land. Meanwhile, the PLO Charter requests that the land be turned back over to Arab control, and Zionists are not welcome.
What the PLO Charter and Der Judenstadt each requested were very similar, but for opposing groups (namely, each other). Both were trying to make an argument to accrue a plot of land for their people. Both sides argue that it is land that is rightfully theirs, in that Herzl believes that the Jews, in order to escape persecution for the Jewish people, and so the rest of the world would not be burdened with having a large amount of Jews in their country to persecute. Meanwhile, the PLO believes that the land given to the Jews was taken from them, and must be returned, because it was not rightfully given away from the Palestinians to the Jews. But what it ultimately comes down to is the fact that the two documents are in complete contradiction with each other. Whereas Der Judenstadt calls for an autonomous Jewish State, the PLO Charter calls for no such political entity to exist in Palestine. Meanwhile, the PLO Charter will allow for Jews to live in Palestine without wanting to make it a Jewish State, for the Jews this is just not kosher-pardon the pun.

Works Cited

Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstadt. [From the Coursepack], 1896.
Palestinian Liberation Organization. PLO Charter. [From the Coursepack], 1964.