Talk:State of Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Unrecognized countries    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state.


The lead says "The State of Palestine ... is a de jure sovereign state in the Levant.

Are there sources that back up this statement ? Correct me if I'm wrong: the state exists on paper without land, in the Levant or elserwhere, while Gaza and the West Bank are under control of the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Of course it is expected that the state will eventually be in control of (a large part of) these territories, but is it correct to write that the state currently is there ? WarKosign 14:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This source says it is correct. I'm not sure how reliable it is, though. WarKosign 15:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
To my understanding "in the Levant" is no more than a geographic pointer to let people know in which geographic area this entity is situated (de jure or whatever). We could just as easily written "in the Middle East", "in South Western Asia" etc. My recommendation is to use one of the two options I gave since the Levant is an area much less well known than the other two which are more or less common knowledge. DGtal (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Does a de-jure only entity have a geographic area ? They certainly claim a geographic area, but it alone does not justify saying "in the Levant", it justifies saying "claiming a region in the Levant". I'm not certain I understand the relation between State of Palestine and PNA. WarKosign 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Changed first line to be more factually accurate. Palestine is by no way a de jure state, and the sources cited were not substantial evidence. Eym174 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is a de jure state, it is not necessarily a de facto state. (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Does a de-jure state without defined borders have a location ? No doubt that the State of Palestine claims land in the Levant, but I wonder if it's correct to say that it actually is there. WarKosign 13:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

International Criminal Court[edit]

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has confirmed that Palestine will officially become a member of the International Criminal Court on 1 April 2015, the UN press office said on Wednesday.( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

section and article on "Religion in Palestine"[edit]

The article on Israel has a section on Religion with a main article reference on Religion in Israel.

I am thinking about making a RM to Religion in Israel and the Palestinian territories and wanted to canvass opinion on the best end to this title and whether there might be other options. Another suggested option is to develop content on Religion in the Palestinian territories but no content seems to have got going on this, content would overlap with the Religion in Israel article and it wouldn't solve the existing problems in that article.

I think that the Religion in Israel article has NPOV problems. The article contains pictorial content as follows:

  • 4 Old city images,
  • 1 Modern building in the Arab State side of the UN partition plan,
  • 1 Modern building in the Jewish State side of the UN partition plan,
  • 4 general pictures: street scene, graphics on wall, decorations display, graphics on a bus.

The Old City (Jerusalem) which is located in East Jerusalem, miles from areas the UN had originally marked as being designated for a Jewish State and also on the eastern side of the Green Line. Related discussions are currently underway at Talk:Israel regarding areas that are to be considered as being within Israel.

GregKaye 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg: By a RM do you mean the religion section of the Israel page? If so, would it not be possible to having a section in this article detailing religion within the Palestinian territories. I just had a glance over the religion section on the Israel page and it seems that religion is explained in the context of the entire Israeli and Palestinian territories. Therefore I am in agreement that the RM should take place. Otherwise we should separate the content into the relevant Israel and State of Palestine pages. Mbcap (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap I was thinking of a straight move of Religion in Israel to Religion in Israel and the Palestinian territories though perhaps a move to Religion in Israel and the State of Palestinian or Religion in the States of Israel and Palestinian might be appropriate. Much of the content relates to East Jerusalem. GregKaye 09:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Greg Yes that would be an appropriate move in my opinion. As to which suggested name it should be moved to, I am not entirely sure because I do not understand the precise difference between the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. I trust you will choose whichever one is the most accurate name. Finally, do you have any suggestions as to how a religious section would be incorporated into this page, if it does require one. Mbcap (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap Thanks. I find it interesting that the Israel article has culture section with 9 subheadings while the SoP's has 2 and this when many of the Key religious sites are even on the Palestinian side of the Green line. The sense that I have gained is that editors have placed statements and suggestions regarding various locations to give indication of them as being in Israeli possession. This happens and then the world gets surprised when Palestine rejects various settlement proposals. The SoP article, at the other extreme, does not contain a single cultural photo. GregKaye 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Why mix articles on Religion of 2 seperate legal entities, which completely seperate legal systems, seperate demographics and seperate post 1948 histories? DGtal (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The section Israel#Religion begins with "Israel and the Palestinian territories comprise the major part of the Holy Land". It's impossible to discuss Judaism without mentioning many important sites for Judaism (such as the Western Wall) that are not within internationally recognized borders, yet are within practical everyday access. Similarly, a discussion of religion in Palestinian Territories would be incomplete without mentioning important Muslim sites in Israel (such as the White Mosque, Ramla). This is not to imply that, say, Rachel's Tomb's territory is claimed or actually owned by Israel, only that it's an important site for Israel's main religion. Same goes for Muslim sites in Israel.
Since there would be duplication, perhaps there should be a common main article: Religions in Israel and the Palestinian territories and both articles link to it. WarKosign 08:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Greg From what I understand from your post, there seems to be inadequate content on this article as compared to the Israel article on Religion. If we were to address this, how will we avoid duplicating content. WarKosign's proposal could also work and is quite similar to what you have suggested before. Mbcap (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you If people think that this is the most appropriate name then I, or anyone else, can put forward an RM, GregKaye 01:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose removal of File:State of Palestine (orthographic projection).svg[edit]

State of Palestine (orthographic projection).svg

I propose removal of File:State of Palestine (orthographic projection).svg as pictured to the right. The State of Palestine continues as a de jure sovereign state and I don't think that there is warrant to either extend as far as or limit to the borders presented in the map. Negotiations (often started) are yet to be concluded. I do not think it is within our remit to draw lines, at least not without careful explanation. I find the image (when with legend attached) at File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg to be more informative and less prescriptive. I think that ideally all this information might be shaded into an orthographic styled map. GregKaye 10:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The current image shows the Green Line, which is often mentioned as the base for negotiations regarding final border. The image you are proposing shows it too but adds the unimplemented UN partition plan's borders which are not used as a basis for any negotiations or claims. This image is much more confusing and doesn't describe the current state of affairs any better, so what's the advantage of switching images ? It is very relevant in the background section, near the discussion of the partition plan where it already appears. WarKosign 09:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This is why my basic suggestion is to remove the image. The image presents a cut and dried presentation of the situation which, if it were true, would mean that peace would have been forged long ago. GregKaye 01:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revision to: Etymology[edit]

In my opinion, the Etymology section is lacking, since it only gives partial historical usage of the term "Palestine" and gives no linguistic explanation to the term. I suggest mentioning the following items: 1. That Palestine came from the Biblical "Land of the Philistines" (Heb. Eretz Plishtim) - one term for the cluster of city-kingdoms of the southern shores of contemporary Israel. 2. The derogatory name was given to the otherwise known as "Nations of the Sea" by their Semitic neighbours. Its root P.L.Sh. means invaders. 3. That the term moved from geographical to official usage when the Romans renamed Provincia Judea after the failed rebellion of 132-135 4. That the term was re-introduced to local usage when European dominance (LoN British Mandate) brought it back in 1918. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is lacking in supporting sources. We've got an article on the subject, Timeline of the name "Palestine", that is well-sourced. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the "Etymology" section of this article refers the reader to the much more complete section at Palestine#Etymology. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

1967 myth and missing reference to 1947 rejection of (State of) Palestine[edit]

The leading (head) section enrolls the tale of the jewish occupation myth centred on 1967, in regard to the State of palestine, in that it lacks the reference to the rejection of the state of palestine in 1947 by the palestinian people! It could be made more clear, that the so called Palestine people could have had their state by peacful means if accepting their share of the region of palestine in 1947 in the first place, without war after war and terror around the globe. So please, why is the 1947 rejection not mentioned in the header? It would be helpful to depict the realities better in the way of the above stated suggestion, than to start with the 1967 coccupation myth... The 1947 capital H history thingy is referenced in the article a lot of times, though (also the occupation of the palestine people by egypt and jordan ;) . thanks and cheers -- (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear 85.181, thanks for your contribution. Your post suggests your knowledge of history is based on reading propagandistic works. I suggest you do some proper research before wasting any more time here. Perhaps try the works at WP:IPCOLLPREC to get started. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, in 1947 the Arabs didn't reject the notion of their state, they rejected the notion of handing over a chunk of their state to others. I imagine that if Israeli Arabs would now suggest that Israel should be partitioned, Tel Aviv to lie in the new Israeli-Arab state, the Knesset probably would not endorse this partition plan. The Knesset's rejection would not invalidate the claim Zionist Israelis have to their state. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dailycare: Mandate Palestine was not an Arab state, it was a no-man's land with different people making claims to it. UN proposed a plan that would settle the dispute, one side was prepared to accept it, the other refused. Since the Arabs rejected the plan they also rejected the proposed Arab state in this land. Eventually it is of no practical importance - the division plan is only interesting as a piece of history, it has no effect on current situation. Israel was declared without specific borders and 1949 Armistice Agreements ("1967 borders") are what people actually lived by for generations. WarKosign 04:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The Mandate was a state of the population that lived there, like any other country. It wasn't "no-man's land". --Dailycare (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dailycare: What was this state/country called, when was it established and by whom ? You are describing very interesting historical facts, if they have sources we should update wikipedia to reflect it. So far the articles on Land of Israel and Palestine say nothing about this supposed independent state. WarKosign 15:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the League of Nations mandate page already has this. (" their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice"). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dailycare: Even assuming that "their existence" refers to the Arabs and not to the Jews or both, how do you jump from "independent nation" to country/state ? The mere fact the mandate was established is a proof that the land was not an independent state. WarKosign 18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This is getting a bit off-topic since this talkpage isn't a forum for general discussion on the subject, but what I wrote was "a state of the population that lived there". An independent nation is a state. In fact, you don't even need to be an independent nation to be a state, US states and UK constituent countries being examples. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I dont think you quite understand what no-man's land means. nableezy - 20:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)