Talk:State of Palestine

This article was nominated for deletion on November 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state.

You Have seemed not to have anything about Palestine pre-W.W.II, so it didn't exist as a nation after the War? What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Choose which of their solutions ars right, not that {United States}, the allies had choosen to play little TIN God in the first place . . . That Nazi Germany had in fact invaded the Middle East expressly to destroy Israel, therefore they were returned their home lands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.48 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"a sovreign state" - factual undisputed error

the first sentence in the article states that "The State of Palestine is a sovereign state in the Levant" regardless of any political opinions one may hold, this is simply wrong. the PA holds control over ~40% of the west bank while israel holds the rest, and the gaza strip is ruled by hamas, a rival organization. how can this be called a *sovereign* state? it is quit the oposite... I strongly believe that this prhasing must be mended. no other state article has an explicit mentioning of the state's sovereignity in its opening line, so why should this clearly not-sovereign state have one? 93.172.163.255 (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

agree! --46.120.228.203 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In agreement! --192.197.82.203 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a de jure sovereignty [1].

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

fixed. IRA (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, this article is not talking about its total claimed territory, only the parts shaded in green. Those certain parts are indeed sovereign and not controlled by any "foreign power". It is different from the Palestinian territories or Palestine articles. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Parts shaded green" ??? The article is not talking about green "parts". Also, if I take map and color (green) the USA and Russia, it would be correct to claim they are not controlled by a foreign power. It would be INCORRECT to claim that they comprise a (single) soverign state. English 101.173.189.78.173 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1947-1948 War in Palestine

The section titled 1947-1948 War in Palestine does not include any war from late 1947 to when the Arab armies came in May 1948 but there certainly was a war going on. The Israelis/Jews were forcing Palestinians off their land.300,000 Palestinians were forced out by Jewish terrorist groups.That should obviously be included as it is the history of Palestine. GGranddad (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Demographics

This is a joke. Leaving aside what the UN means by the "state of Palestine", leaving aside the agreements reached between the PLO and Hamas this year, the failure of Demographics to describe any subcategories makes the entire section virtually useless. Obvious candidates categories include: Gaza/W.Bank, Males/Females, Young/Old, Races, Ethnicities, Languages, Religions...173.189.78.173 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All articles are in a state of development and can be improved by anyone, including you. Zero^talk 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Opening section and the article's map

1. Sorry if you'll find any grammatical mistakes here; English is not my native language. Hope it will be understandable. :) 2. Oslo Accords (1993) signed by Israel and the PLO clearly states that the political status of Judea - Sameria (West Bank) and Gaza strip, shall be a subject to a negotiation between those sides. And only by them. The agreement approved by the international community; Even Europe countries and USA guaranteed it. Back to our days - the General Assembly, by the UN's charter, has no power to accept a new state when it breaks the previous decisions of the Security Council. Till now the Security Council has never cancel or change it's only recognition to the Oslo Accords. Even Non.M.-Observe State's status cannot create de-jure (nor de-facto) state, without S.C. permission. The G.A. can only create Non.M.-Observe State. So if the article wants to be more accurate please change the opening section to something more like this: "Palestine is a Non.M.-Observe State by the POV of the UN Assembly, without any de-jure or de-facto recognition from the Security Council that has the rights to approve any new state when its conflict with the previous agreement". 3. You've marked the Gaza Strip in green, as if it was part of PLO (so-called: "Palestine") territory. Do I really have to inform you that this land is under Hamas government, for a very long time, and not under the PLO rules who's sitting in Ramalah? 4. In this very map you've mark the entire Judea and Samaria area (West Bank) in green, as if it shows the actual effective ruling of the PLO. It's seems like you prefer again and again an imagining map rather than a real one. In this case - Judea and Samria is under a deep disputation between Israel and PLO, so even de-jure map is irrelevant here. And seriously - why an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, prefers systemically a de-jure maps rather than de-facto ones? At least puts those two maps together in the article so the objective POV will remain.

Thanks a lot, --46.121.74.82 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read some books on international law. The UNSC does not create states. UN membership is not the definition of statehood. A place is a state if the community of states recognises it as a state. Zero^talk 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fix me if I'm wrong, but the UNSC is the supreme body for a binding decisions within the UN organization. If it decided to adopt the Oslo Accords (With their content about not creating a "Palestinian State" without a negotiation) then this decision is upper than any other decision made by the UNGA. Including the one who had changed the PLO position from an Observing Entity to a None Member-Observing State. All of these could mean nothing to me (as you said - this is not claiming nothing about statehood), But surprisingly, after the UNGA decision, all over Wikipedia ENG the term "Palestine" starts to treated like a real state (de-facto rather de-jore - like the article itself mention). In the "Israel" article one of the borders it shares is with "The State of Palestine". the article about "Mandatory Palestine" says that the land is now part of Israel and "Palestine" etc... From all of this it seems like Wikipedia ENG treat to the "Palestine State" throughout the Articles as a de-facto state rather than de-jore. I won't fight with each article about this mistake - They're many and they all directing to here.

46.121.74.82 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Statehood as a concept in international law has existed since centuries before the United Nations existed. Also the Oslo Accords were a bilateral agreement, not a UN decision. Anyway, recognition of an entity as a state by most other states makes it a de jure state (which is generally just called a "state"). A de facto state is an entity which has some of the properties of a state but is not generally recognised as a state. See the paper for a discussion of the difference between a de-facto state and a state which has achieved international recognition. Zero^talk 00:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to the lead

I have good faith reverted this edit to the lead. There are many reasons. See MOS:LEAD. Basically the first paragraph should provide the definition. After that, can come the history, and evolution. The new edit

• It makes the initial paragraph too long and less precise
• The earlier version contained the statement: "Most of the areas claimed by the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War.", which is not present. It is a crucial statement.
• The new sentences added from the section below, is talking about procedural issues about executive committees and Palestinian national council. The lead should basically focus on the PLO as a whole. The details should be discussed in the body. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a racist and anti-Semitic article.

There is no such thing as a state of "Palestine." Judea and Samaria will always be Jewish land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.89.112.168 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This article, despite its flaws, mostly describes historical changes in how the State of Palestine has been viewed and ruled- since 1946 in any case ! It is hard to see how an account of how the State was formed, viewed, occupied, fought over or ruled can be construed as racist or anti-Semitic. Please explain your conclusion.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to feed nationalistic troll rants.TMCk (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tumadoireacht: The state that this article deals with was declared in 1988, not 1946.

According to some people the mere hint that the disputed territories may eventually not be a part of Israel is a verbal attack on Israel, therefore is antisemitic. “WarKosign” 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Levant

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)

Spain and France

In 18th November. In spanish Chamber of deputees (Congreso de los diputados) the State of Palestine has recognised as an independant state.http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/11/27/actualidad/1354027320_326946.html The same in France.

The French vote will be on November 28th. The vote is not about actually recognizing but applying pressure on the government so it will recognize the de-jure state. Same in Spain. “WarKosign” 21:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As WarKosign says, neither Spain nor France has recognized IsraelPalestine and the votes are non-binding.Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Surely you meant "State of Palestine" and not "Israel". Even though the vote is non-binding it may be notable enough to mention. “WarKosign” 19:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:, thanks! Mistake corrected. And yes, the votes could definitely be mentioned though we cannot of course include Spain or France among countries having recognized Palestine.Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Who decided it's palestine ant not the palestinian authority ? it's the palestinian authority by any means.

Palestine refers to the land of israel ,it means both state of israel ,gaza,judea and samaria. so what is the state of israel ? the rest of palestine ? it's flawed. please fix