Jump to content

Talk:State of Palestine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 16 January 2024 (→‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2024: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statehood

Is there any scholarly consensus as to whether SoP actually qualifies as a state? The most recent academic treatise I could find weighing the issue concludes that "It is a subject of controversy as to whether the State of Palestine [can] be considered a State in accordance with classical international law definitions."[1] Another somewhat recent book from OUP summarizes that "while Palestine enjoys some of the attributes of statehood, primarily international recognition, it would be wrong to classify Palestine as a state".[2] In light of this it seems untenable to have the first sentence of our article simply assert statehood. – St.nerol (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Consensus is that Palestine is a state. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current entity sometimes called Palestine is simply not a State by any internationally agreed convention, and its status (as well as the status of the associated territories) is a subject of great contention. From the juridical perspective of the United States & Europe-- who happen to count quite a bit more than others in terms not least of power--, whatever it is, it is not a State. Labeling the entity as "Palestine" much less a state is not neutral, rather advocates a point of view and political position/aspiration. As well, it leads to a variety of confusions, including that this imagined entity is historically or otherwise equivalent to other historical, cultural or political entities such as Mandate Palestine.
See the two reference materials below. KenThomas (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them when they were posted, if I recall they were also considered in the discussion I linked above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, there was an RfC about whether or not to include the qualifier de jure and as there was no consensus, the qualifier was removed. The word "state" itself was not the focal point of the discussion, but still the closing comment claimed consensus about this. I cannot find such a consensus when reading the discussion. I think we agree that a community consensus should be built upon an academic consensus. But where is the consensus, any consensus, about the status of Palestine? –St.nerol (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legal status of the State of Palestine is linked in the article, in case you missed it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest two possible solutions:

  1. Simply remove "a state" from the lead sentence. The article would begin Palestine, officially the State of Palestine, is located in the Southern Levant region of West Asia. The purpose of statehood is clear from the official name, but wikivoice does not judge whether or not this purpose has been fulfilled.
  2. Change "state" to a broader term, like "political entity". The Wikipedia page redirects to "polity", which overlaps with "state" but without implying that some particular set of conditions have been met.

– St.nerol (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No solution is needed because there isn't a problem. There is an established consensus which you are welcome to try and change. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not demonstrated any consensus on the matter, neither on Wikipedia nor in academia. What we have is a an unsourced claim which several reliable sources say is either false or disputed. How could we let that be? –St.nerol (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the well cited https://iccforum.com/media/background/gaza/2009-05-19_Quigley_Memo_on_Palestine_Declaration.pdf written before the UN upgrade to observer state at the UN and the subsequent detailed review of the question as part of the decision to allow an ICC investigation, overruling US, Israel and some others arguing that that the ICC does not possess territorial jurisdiction because Palestine cannot be considered a state. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This is reasonable, scholarly and argues principially that Palestine is, not should be, but is, a state. Other sources argue otherwise; but at least, finally, a case for statehood! One objection: Written in early 2009, the document is already a bit old. It seems apparent that a lot of faith has been lost in the two-state solution since fifteen years ago. –St.nerol (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Signature added. "Sweden thinks"... you mean the Swedish government, which is relevant since I cited an expert from Sweden? But since you bring it up: "The Swedish government considers the decision on October 30, 2014 to recognize Palestine to be unfortunate." (Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tobias Billström, translation my own).[5] –St.nerol (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new government, just demonstrates that these decisions are as much political as anything else. Politicians come and go. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! That's why I'd like us to rely not upon what governments think, but what academic sources say, to establish whether or not Palestine has achieved statehood. –St.nerol (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two are interlinked in the academic theory that says recognition is the critical thing. Bosnia Herzogovina is a good example to look at. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the parameters of a two-state solution are well known and well rehearsed. And yet the prospects for a two-states solution are in fact fading, undermined by hardliners on both sides" – The Palestinian–Israeli Conflict, A Very Short Introduction, by Martin Bunton.[6] Emphasis mine. –St.nerol (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The US and everyone else used to talk a lot about a 2 state solution but haven't done much about seeing it happen, although currently it is back in play following recent events. What they mean by that is an I/P peace agreement, not questioning whether there is a state already. Imagine there was such an agreement, who would sign it for the Palestinians? Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather strange to say "the prospect of a two-states solution is fading", if one means "the prospect of peace between the two states is fading". And the context makes it clear that the author intended to discuss the existence of two states: "In the absence of a two-states solution, Israel will face two options. One scenario posits a shared homeland: a binational state [...] The alternative costs Israel its democracy." –St.nerol (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely with that interpretation. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Exactly what is the interpretation that you disagree with? He says that the alternative to two states is one state: either a shared one, or an oppressive one. What is there to understand differently? –St.nerol (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to further discuss this atm. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sabel, Robbie (2022). "Is Palestine a state?". International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
  2. ^ Robinson, Glenn E. (2016). "Whither Palestine? Weak State, Failed State, or No State at All?". Fragile Politics. Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ Mackinnon, Amy. "Palestinians Live in a State of Despair". Foreign Policy.
  4. ^ Jönsson, Per. "En vrede av alltmer gudomliga proportioner". Svenska Dagbladet.
  5. ^ "Tillbakadragande av erkännandet av Palestina som stat". Riksdagen.se.
  6. ^ Bunton, Martin (2013). The Palestinian–Israeli Conflict. Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press.

Inconsistency between Palestine and Taiwan

Why is Palestine, an observer to the United Nations (UN) recognized by 138 other UN member states, referred to as a "partially recognized state with a "status" parameter on its infobox over its recognition, while Taiwan, which has no representation to the UN and is recognized by 12 other UN member states, is referred to as a "country" with no "status" parameter present on its infobox over its recognition? Why the inconsistency? 175.198.165.9 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not the same place. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:slatersteven, this doesn't really answer their question.. Genabab (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does, as they are not the same place, so are not treated the same. As such there is no inconsistency, as they are not the same. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are saying this article is wrong or Taiwan's is wrong, but Taiwan does not call itself a state(if it did that would likely trigger war with the PRC). 331dot (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that they're saying Palestine should be called a country? I'm not sure why they aren't Genabab (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well lets see, No control, over their own boarders,... is that a good start? Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be? Genabab (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is one area of difference, want another, an internationally recognized capital, want another? Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An area of difference in what?
Taiwan doesn't even have recognition to begin with, yet it is called a country.. Genabab (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RC used to have a seat on the UN. Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so? What is the defenition of country being used that disallows Palestine to be one? Genabab (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RS saying it is (or was) one? Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rs meaning? And if they're saying it is one then doesn't that add a reason to treat it as one? Genabab (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rs, reliable sources. And no, we go by what RS say, about what they are talking about, anything else is wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just say that some group of reliable sources said it was a country?
It is certainly suggestive of signficant bias to say that Taiwan is a country (it is), that Kosovo is (it is). But Palestine isn't? Genabab (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
signficant bias Get used to it. It's a state, that will do ftb. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly sounds counter to what Wikipedia is Genabab (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP cannot deal with systemic bias, can only go by sources. If we want to call Palestine a country then we need a bunch of reliable sources that do that. Theoretically state and country are the same thing, however, it seems to me that it is better to be recognized as a state within the UN system. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt I just say what? What do you think I just said? Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of states with limited recognition Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is a de facto state fully self governing and controlling. Palestine is restricted to a few besieged island cities while the rest of their claimed territory is under full Israeli military control that the Palestinians have been enduring for 5 decades The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which the US recognize as states. The comparison is not a valid one to make as the circumstances are quite different. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

A number of acronyms are used without a previous reference. Specifically PLO and PNA in the third paragraph. It would help greatly to have them link to their articles. Xitit (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Left guide (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts against consensus

The last RFC is here, it says

"The community agrees that Palestine is a state. There is substantial and well-argued support that says we should add certain qualifiers such as "sovereign" or "de jure" in front of the word "state", but this falls short of an actual consensus to add these words. There is also no consensus to remove the disputed words. So the question is what to do without a consensus....... I believe it's right to remove the disputed phrases and I will do that with my next edit."

There are other discussions still on this talk page (two of them) and multiple others in the archives, there is no consensus to qualify the word state.

Bringing out of date or a limited number of sources are no justification for editing against consensus, a new RFC will be required to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's covered by the older RfC, as well as the recent one above. DFlhb (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This "consensus" seems to go against WP:BURDEN, since there is no source provided which says that SoP is, without qualification, a state. –St.nerol (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121201 even says its sovereign, "The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate".
Fyi, this recognition was a crucial part of unlocking the Palestinian claims at the ICC, where Israel, the US etc objected to that as well, overruled. Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political decisions tend to be political, so a news source about countries recognizing Palestine is not exactly what I think is needed what we need. Is there something more academic, which argues actual, actualized statehood? –St.nerol (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what I think is needed is not the issue, there is a consensus that Palestine is a state. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant consensus would be among scholars and academic publications, not among political leaders or wiki editors. –St.nerol (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For an encyclopedia? Politics and opinion more relevant than scholarship? Please elaborate. –St.nerol (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a WP consensus and that is all that matters. That you are not in agreement with it matters not at all. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion does not matter. However, what the sources actually say matters a lot more than a fleeting consensus. There is already a minor collection (4 and counting) in the discussion above. It could be built upon and organised until, with the support of the community, the lede can give WP:BALANCE to the question of statehood, and not just claim it as a fact. –St.nerol (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better approach. Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's consistently been my approach. I have not made any reverts on the article. –St.nerol (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Palestine?

“The state claims the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip as its territory, though the entirety of that territory has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.”

There are no Israelis occupying either of these areas. Israel vacated Gaza and handed it over to the PA in 2005. Hamas subsequently took control, suspended elections in Gaza 17 years ago, and destroyed the groundwater with malfunctioning wastewater treatment making them dependent on Israel. An Aljazeera reference? Really???

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/gaza-strip-controls-s-know-rcna119405 24.113.96.238 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The international community considers Gaza as occupied due to the extent of Israeli control over it. Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier That's redefining the verb occupy. You can say the territory is blockaded by Israel and Egypt, but not that it's occupied by anyone, in my opinion. 71.228.185.2 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier did not refer to their personal opinion in the prior comment. CMD (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to the everyday meaning of the word occupy. The oPt or occupied Palestinian territories are defined as the West bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. The legal consensus in regard to the latter is summarized here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The full story should refer to Israeli disengagement from Gaza and the Egyptian and Israeli Blockade of the Gaza Strip, rather than just calling it occupied. Chaojon (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article, the "disengagement" is linked in the lead and the blockade has nothing to do with occupation other than being an integral part of it. Make an editrequest if something should be altered in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@24.113.96.238 I agree. Seems fair to delete the end of that sentence (", though the entirety of that territory has been under Israeli occupation since 1967") since the next sentence reports the Israeli settlements in the West Bank anyway. One can argue that the Gaza strip is not really independent in the full meaning of the word, but not that it is "occupied" by Israel. 71.228.185.2 (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Incorrect Statement Quoted: "Officially governed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), it claims the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip as its territory, though the entirety of that territory has been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 Six-Day War.[5][18]"

Incorrect statement that the Palestinian Territories (West Bank and Gaza) have been under Israeli occupation since 1948. Gaza has been under full autonomy and under self control since 2005. The PA took it back in 2005 and Hamas took over full governance and control in 2007.

Evidence:

Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

Please change:

...it claims the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip as its territory, though the entirety of that territory has been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 Six-Day War.

To the following:

...it claims the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip as its territory, though with respect to Gaza, it has been under self governed autonomy by the P.A. from 2005-2007 and by Hamas from 2007 to the present day. Newart61 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. 1) See the section immediately above, where the question of Gaza occupation was dealt with. 2) The article does not claim since 1948, only from 1967. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied vs controlled

In the infobox, it states that “all of the territory is occupied by Israel.” However the argument is that area A and most notably Gaza do not fall under actual military occupation. However, Israel controls significant aspects of these territories, including Gaza. Would it be more correct to say “all controlled by Israel” as opposed to “occupied?” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/abs/status-of-gaza-as-occupied-territory-under-international-law/654DB8FE844ED96C47AAA3B213D438F0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does Gaza make up the majorty of the Palestinian State? Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel does not control Gaza. That is simply not true, no matter how you want to look at the situation. רון18 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would check some sources rather than relying on your own personal opinion, which is entirely incorrect. Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The expert opinion given in the academic journal ("The status of Gaza as occupied territory under international law". International & Comparative Law Quarterly. 72 (4): 1069–1088. October 2023. doi:10.1017/S0020589323000349.) disagrees with your opinion, and wikipedia prefers wp:reliable sources. True, the control is not absolute but nevertheless is very substantial (as the article explains). No movement in or out without Israeli permission and inspection. Control of water and electricity supply. Control of food imports. etc.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to the original question, if we accept the journal article's "evolved" definition of occupation (beyond the traditional "boots on the ground" definition), Israel "effectively" occupies all of Palestine. But, to meet Wikipedia's standards, more than one RS would be needed for such a controversial statement. Compare Israeli settlement, where four citations are given in support of the statement that the settlements are illegal under international law. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, 1999, The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: The Arab World

"Although the concept of the Palestine region and its geographical extent has varied throughout history, it is now considered to be composed by the modern State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

- Rubin, 1999, The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: The Arab World, p. 186, at Google Books

A book on contemporary theatre is not an appropriate source to define geopolitical boundaries, nor is the editor of the book qualified to discern the veracity of that statement. Spork2367 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a valid objection. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The geographic definition “Palestine" went through significant changes and developments. What is called "Palestine" today is nothing except the British mandatory geographic definition of the borders, resulting from agreements with France during and after World War one." Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect description

The PLO has not been the government or leaders of Palestine since 2006, when Hamas was put into power and has been ever since. 63.155.55.204 (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOurce? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism/personal views (Education section)

Someone remove the edit by DavidRoth. It contains personal political views, is not backed up by any sources, and labels people as terrorists. This is vandalism and is not welcome here. XenonDelta (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material per WP:UNDUE. I hope you don't mind that I amended the heading for this discussion to make it more clear what we're talking about. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

The “all claimed territory is occupied by Israel” isn’t correct. 49.3.77.247 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling template, it is intended for an explicit change request rather than a more general request for change. CMD (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023 (2)

. In the Etymology section, change "General use of the term 'Palestine' or related terms to the area at the southeast corner..." to "General use of the term 'Palestine' or related terms to an area at the southeast corner..."

The definite article suggests a wider meaning that originally given to the term, which gained terrritory only during the Roman Empirial period. 24.193.29.184 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The definite article suggests a wider meaning that originally given to the term, which gained territory only during the Roman Empirial period Not sure what the issue is here, what is the difference, in terms of geography, between "the" and "an" in this context? Is there an explanatory source? Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: until a better explanation is provided. M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canan

the history should be corrected to include Canaan, Palestine dating back to when Jesus was born. The histt starting in 1947 is soo deliberately misleading.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:8181:5200:152a:9edf:ac2e:7111 (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THis is about the satte of Palestine, not the region. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

English translation of the name of the Palestinian Anthem is stated in Wikipedia as “Fedayeen Warrior”. However, after listening to the anthem and reading the lyrics it is important what context the word is used in, as it results in significantly different meaning. In the context of the anthem, “fida’i” is composed of “fida”, meaning “sacrifice” and the personal possessive suffix “-i”. Therefore an accurate translation of the name of the Palestinian National Anthem is “My Sacrifice”. I implore the moderators make the change and correct the mistake as the translation listed in the page are simply inaccurate and may lead to gross misunderstandings on what Palestine is and what its anthem is meant to evoke. 188.71.226.199 (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is wp:or, please cite a source. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Slatersteven. Seawolf35 T--C 19:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the revert of Dovidroth

@Dovidroth has reverted my changes. I suggest we undo the revert.

It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

My changes can be summarized as:

  1. Clarify that Gaza is still under occupation.
  2. Clarify that the blockade is supported by Egypt and not an independent blockade led by Egypt.
  3. Clarify that the *native* Arab population rejected partition, and not, for example, the Arab Jewish population who had emigrated from Iraq.
  4. Clarify the widely accepted motivation behind the rejection of the partition plan.

I suggest we reincorporate my changes. DMH43 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly (personal opinion obviously), as one of the three users who received topic bans just received a reduction in their topic ban, some temperance here may be recommended as appeals are still active, and the teeth are rather loose in the gum.
That said, it's up to you - I'd like it if you outline your proposed reverts below just so the rest of us can have clarity on what you're looking to restore. Mistamystery (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mistamystery, I had given a breakdown of the changes above, should I provide direct quotes instead? Users can see the revert (which I am proposing to undo) directly in the link I provided. The page hasn't changed since the revert, so the diff is still up to date. DMH43 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed change 1:
The Gaza Strip was governed by Egypt but conquered by Israel in 1967. Israel governed the region until it withdrew in 2005. Hamas seized power after winning the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. The Gaza Strip has since been blockaded by Israel and Egypt.
to:
The Gaza Strip was governed by Egypt but conquered by Israel in 1967. Israel governed the region until it withdrew in 2005; although it is still considered to occupy Gaza.[1][2][3] Hamas seized power after winning the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. The Gaza Strip has since been blockaded by Israel with support from Egypt.
DMH43 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed change 2:
This Partition Plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs.
to:
This Partition Plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the native Arab population on the basis that in addition to the Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands.[4][5]
DMH43 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

- "Invaded by arabs", might be useful to mention that before that happened 250,000 Palestinians were already expelled with notable massacres like Deir Yassan. The phrasing is slanted and doesn't represent the Palestinian side, which is best put as the word "Nakba".

- Rearrange to mention oslo earlier, as it is most relevant to the make-up of Palestine

- I think saying "hamas seized power" is fine, but you should mention the attempted coup that their seizure was in response to. There's just a trend of only showing Israeli side of events and omitting key events.

-Hamas should never be mentioned before oslo as well, otherwise this article is just in service of "news" rather than historical continuity Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories". Amnesty International. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
  2. ^ "Gaza: Israel's 'Open-Air Prison' at 15 | Human Rights Watch". 2022-06-14. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
  3. ^ "SPOKESPERSON's DAILY HIGHLIGHTS". United Nations. Archived from the original on 8 May 2012. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  4. ^ Eugene Rogan (2012). The Arabs: A History – Third Edition. Penguin. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-7181-9683-7.
  5. ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. pp. 66, 67, 72. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 24 July 2013. p.66, at 1946 "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a "unitary" state, with an Arab majority and minority rights for the Jews." ; p.67, at 1947 "The League's Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called "aggression", "without mercy". The League promised them, in line with Bludan, assistance "in manpower, money and equipment" should the United Nations endorse partition." ; p. 72, at December 1947 "The League vowed, in very general language, "to try to stymie the partition plan and prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine&oldid=1196022024"