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 was within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
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.

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)

1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg
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)
The current map of the state of Palestine is wrong and misleading in the level of a crime. The map should show The areas of the Palestinian National Authority because this are the acual areas that the State of Palestine controll. The State of Palestine by the way, is a name that has been used by Palestinian leaders to describe the Palestinian National Authority. When they were accepted to the UN as a non-member observer, the acual thing that joined was the Palestinian National Authority (as named by the Oslo accords, who created this entity). Currently the PNA, has controll on some areas, who are somewhat under their sovargion territory (Esspecially Area A) but mostly it is Area B who is under Palestinian civil administration, but also under Israeli Army control. Therefore, the Palestinian Territories should be showen on the claimed territory of the State of Palestine, or in other words, on the green line. In my opinion, This map shows the best picture, cause it shows De-Facto controll on De-Jure claimes. bolter21 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC+2)
Zones A and B in the occupied palestinian territories.svg
Sounds reasonable to me. The article says "Following the successful passage of the 2012 United Nations status resolution which changed Palestine's status at the UN to that of observer state, on 3 January 2013, Abbas signed a presidential decree 1/2013[112] officially changing the name of the 'Palestinian Authority' to the 'State of Palestine' ", which I understand to mean that the state actually controls areas A and B. The new proposed map shows both the actually controlled area and the claimed area. The caption should clarify what is visible in which color.WarKosign 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly written below that this is part of the territory claimed by the State but it is clear it is just a claim today. But I disagree as well with what you write regarding Areas A and B. The best solution is indeed just to remove the map from the infobox.
I add nevertheless that "The current map of the state of Palestine is wrong and misleading in the level of a crime" followed by "Sounds reasonable to me" disqualify you for any comment. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 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 --85.181.38.187 (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 85.181.38.187, 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)

Sweden and Palestine[edit]

Has Sweden really recognised Palestine as a sovereign state? The current government under Löfven has, but they hold a minority of the seats and afaik the parliament does not recognise Palestine. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

According to BBC on October 3 2014 "Sweden is to recognise the state of Palestine" "without giving a timeline for the recognition". If I understand it correctly, it means that Sweden decided to recognize the state in some unspecified point in the future and not that it has already recognized it.
The guardian (and others) reported on October 30 2014 that it has already happened. WarKosign 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sweden retracted their recognition of Palestine, learn more through a simple search. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Description of the territories in the lead[edit]

Hello. You reverted one of my recent edits here but thank you for providing a detailed summary. Ordinarily I would agree enough not to have made the change in the first place. The basis for my phrasing is down to the State's undisputed legality. That appears to be the way it is treated on the site because the opening line defines it as a de jure sovereign state; Israel's own withdrawal from Gaza is inconsistent with any nation's position of territorial integrity. As such, the State only claims as much as any other sovereign entity claims its land. I can see how in some respects the term "claim" alludes to not having full control, but one would still speak of the Donbass republics and Crimea as constituting Ukraine, rather than Ukraine claiming control over Donbass (Lugansk and Donetsk) and Crimea. With his is mind, I feel we should reword it but I'd like to hear your views. Incidentally, I need to mention this to avoid accusations of forum-shaping, I am involved in a conversation at Talk:Kosovo whereby I oppose its addition to the category for countries in Europe. This topic may loosely fit into the other so I'm just being cautious. Thanks. ---- Oranges Juicy wrote this on my talk page, I'm moving it here so more people could participate in the discussion. WarKosign 17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion it is factually wrong to say that any territories compose the State of Palestine. The only territories the state arguably controls are A and B territories, and control of these was granted by an agreement between Israel and PNA, State of Palestine was not a side to these agreements. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and the rest of the West Bank is controlled by Israel. The state claims ownership over all of West Bank and Gaza, but it's not the same as actually owning these territories. Its legality is most certainly not "undisputed", and a de jure is by definition not a sovereign state.WarKosign 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Gets more confusing!! I see from your user page that you are a native of Israel which makes you better placed to comment than I am - I don't claim expertise in Middle Eastern affairs anyhow. So in reverse order, the term de jure is taken to mean "by law" as in Latin, and is normally used in contrast to de facto. For something to be de jure and de facto anything at all (say a head of government), then there would be no need to list both since one would simply call the person "head of government" and then proceed to discuss the power he wields. Now, forgive me if the following information is not 100% accurate though this is how I interpret the essentials. Yes Hamas controls Gaza while if I am not mistaken (as it has been a few years since I last followed closely), the rival Fatah has authority in the West Bank. Hamas some time ago won elections though Fatah is the favoured entity in the international community (and indeed Israel) and subsequently, Fatah and Hamas have exchanged warfare with one another and have left Palestine as uncertain with regards who forms the legitimate government. Israel maintains a presence in the West Bank (though I do not know whether Israel administers or simply presides over Mahmoud Abbas who in turn governs the West Bank as part of the PNA represented by Fatah). Either way, if Israel has annexed the West bank and continues to see the territory as Israeli while admitting a de jure Palestinian state limited to Gaza then that makes your argument wholly valid since even some of the recognising countries may recognise Palestine's integrity as Gaza only (but somehow I doubt it, that would just be strange). It is as good a reason as any to postpone full recognition though. Is that the situation? Or is the West Bank itself subject to a further dispute with Israel accepting some of it as forming Palestine but not all? I mean I know Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital and that is within Israel, or most of it is. Can you explain the full situation albeit briefly, it will help. Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. In 1988 a State of Palestine was declared "on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem". This state did not control any territory.
  2. In 1993 Oslo Accords were signed, creating Palestinian National Authority which was granted control over some parts of the territories. The final borders were to be set by negotiations.
  3. In 2005 PNA gained full control of Gaza, but in 2007 Hamas captured it.
  4. In 2013 PNA changed its name to State of Palestine. Opinions differ whether this action translated any agreements Israel had with PNA to the state.
Israel never annexed the West Bank (except East Jerusalem). It was stated many times by Israeli politicians that the final borders are to be settled by negotiations, and that they will probably include much of the territories within current green line, with some agreed upon corrections. The State of Palestine claims Gaza and West Bank, a claim that is backed by most of the international community and many fractions in Israel, but in reality it only controls a little portion of this territory, so it's wrong to say that the state is located in Gaza and the West Bank. WarKosign 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
All right, I didn't say that last part. My edit was that West Bank and Gaza constitute the State of Palestine, I know Palestinian authorities do not administer the whole region, so I based my edit on the approved legality of the proclaimed state. Where I jumped the gun is when not realising that the final borders are as yet unresolved as disagreements between Palestine and Israel exist. The scenraio still bears similarity to Ukraine though the phenomenon in each case is manifested very differently. For outsiders it is extremely confusing. Nobody I have met in the 15 years I have lived in Britain understands a fraction of the situation and admit that they have found it hard following the news (Palestinian Authority, PLO, PNA to State of Israel Palestine since 2013, State of Israel Palestine from 1988, what was Gaza & West Bank before 1967? etc.). Even I am not 100% clued on the who-is-who affair. Your third point is what may baffle others the most. "In 2005 PNA gained full control of Gaza, but in 2007 Hamas captured it.", that to my knowledge was an ideological rift. Hamas believed after the 2006 elections that it achieved the right to govern the proposed territory, so the forceful takeover of institutions in 2007 in Gaza if anything created two separate factions claiming to be the continuation of the then-PNA, with most of the world recognising the Fatah remnants in those parts of the West Bank. My confusion is how come Hamas was not involved in any armed conflict on the West Bank given it clearly had popular representation there on account of the elections. Furthermore, another unexplored subject concerns present-day Gaza; if the PNA of the West Bank changed its name to State of Israel Palestine per the 1988 declaration, how do the authorities in Gaza identify? If they continue to use PNA then it is not as defunct as is made out, just subject to the internal dispute. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You wrote "State of Israel" in a few places where I believe you meant State of Palestine.
As far as I know Hamas has little military presence in the West Bank, possibly due to Shin Bet actions. For recent example see Operation Brother's Keeper which some consider the trigger for Hamas' 2014 escalation in Gaza. You can read about Governance of the Gaza Strip. Before 1967 West Bank was occupied by Jordan, Gaza was occupied by Egypt.
You did not write that the state is located in Gaza and the West bank, but you wrote they "constitute" it. When a certain land area constitute a state in my opinion it means that the state both controls the land and claims legal ownership over it, which is common for a state located in certain area. Since this is not the case, we should make clear that the state claims ownership over the land without executing effective control over it. WarKosign 13:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update links. I think we're agreed that "claims" works best in these circumstances, and I have now struck out "Israel" since your own post would appear strange if I simply made changes. That was embarrassing (once ok, but three times?) as I clearly was not thinking as I wrote, but at least you knew precisely what I meant. Cheers. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015[edit]

Please change this paragraph:

East Jerusalem, the proclaimed capital of Palestine, is administered as part of the Jerusalem District of Israel, but is claimed by Palestine as part of the Jerusalem Governorate. It was annexed by Israel in 1980,[1] but this annexation is not recognised by any other country.[2] Of the 456,000 people in East Jerusalem, rough 60% are Palestinian and 40% are Israeli.[1][3]

New text of the paragraph:

East Jerusalem, the proclaimed capital of Palestine, is administered as part of the Jerusalem District of Israel, but is claimed by Palestine as part of the Jerusalem Governorate. In 1980 the Israeli Knesset passed the Jerusalem Law, making East Jerusalem part of the Jerusalem municipality. This action has been called annexation,[1] but there are differences; for example, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem were not granted Israeli citizenship. The Jerusalem Law is not recognised by any other country.[4] The boundaries of the Jerusalem municipality have been extended since 1967 and now reach almost to Bethlehem and Ramallah. Of the 456,000 people in East Jerusalem, rough 60% are Palestinian and 40% are Israeli.[1][3]

These changes make the description of east Jerusalem in the State of Palestine article more consistent with the East Jerusalem article. Jarnon (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's too detailed for an article not dealing primarily with East Jerusalem.WarKosign 07:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with WarKosign. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that I'm autoconfirmed, I can make the edit, but I removed the unnecessary details. — Jon Arnon, 13 June 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Jon Arnon, please try to build consensus for your proposed change. That's the way Wikipedia works, especially in contentious areas. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Zahriyeh2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Kelly, Tobias (May 2009). Von Benda-Beckmann, Franz; Von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet; Eckert, Julia M., eds. Laws of Suspicion:Legal Status, Space and the Impossibility of Separation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling: On the Governance of Law (Ashgate Publishing). p. 91. ISBN 9780754672395. 
  3. ^ a b Jerusalem, Facts and Trends 2009/2010 (PDF) (Report). Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. 2010. p. 11. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 July 2014. Retrieved 8 August 2014. 
  4. ^ Kelly, Tobias (May 2009). Von Benda-Beckmann, Franz; Von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet; Eckert, Julia M., eds. Laws of Suspicion:Legal Status, Space and the Impossibility of Separation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling: On the Governance of Law (Ashgate Publishing). p. 91. ISBN 9780754672395. 

Edit request - remove the section on tourism[edit]

As it stands now, the section is: "Tourism in the State of Palestine is becoming popular in recent years[when?] due to the natural beauty and historical background of the area. Every year Palestine receives more than one million international visitors.[citation needed]"

All three claims here are either baseless or unencylopedic: 1) There is no reliable source for the growing popularity of tourism, and until one is produced such claim does not belong in the article. 2) "due to the natural beauty and historical background of the area" is a subjective and self-promotional statement which, again, does not belong in an encyclopedic article. 3) There is no reliable source for one million international visitors, and until one is produced such claim does not belong in the article.

As such, I believe these two sentences are to be removed and replaced with a link to the general article on tourism in the Palestinian region.

Cheers, --~There were better times. (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Eyal3400: Your edit also fixed another problem: Palestinian Territories and State of Palestine are two distinct entities: first is a piece of land claimed but not actually controlled by the second, therefore a link to Tourism in Palestinian Territories that was called Tourism in State of Palestine was misleading. Now the link to the main article is titled correctly. WarKosign 18:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Bolter21, Israel does not claim the whole of the West Bank, only East Jerusalem. In addition Israel occupies the whole of the West Bank, not just the area highlighted on your map, although the Palestinian National Council administers that part. Rob984 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Israel claim, This is a map of The State of Palestine. The State of Palestine has the areas they claim and areas they hold. The State of Palestine is a name of The Palestinian National Authority (And it's a shame that Wikipedia show it as if The Palestinian National Authority reformed into the State of Palestine). The PNA is not a sovargion entity but an Authority of the PLO goverment on certain areas in Judea and Samaria. Israel does not occupy the whole of the West Bank. The Area is Devided into Area A, Area B and Area C. Area A and B are the areas where the Palestinian Law applies (Dark Green) while Area A is under full Palestinian controll (Civil and security) while Area C is under Direct Israeli controll and where all the settlements are.
In addition, Israel does not have a rule or a constitution that defind what Israel claim and what not. They have laws that apply only for East Jerusalem and the Golan Highets. Israel has only two defined international borders, between Egypt and between Jordan. The border with Jordan goes through the Jordan river inside the West Bank. Israel don't claim the whole West Bank but they also don't claim Tel Aviv.
And accuarding to international law, the West Bank has the status of disputed and not occupaid because:
1) Israel conquered the area from Jordan and not from Palestine. In 1988, Jordan relinquished all claims to the West Bank.
2) The State of Palestine lacks the recognition needed to become a legitemete state.
3) The Areas claimed by the State of Palestine were never held by a legitemete sovargion state under the name of Palestine.
Bolter21 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You need a source to claim it is "disputed" with Israel, not occupied. A number of states don't control all of their territory due to occupations by other states, terrorists, etc; for example Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Somalia, etc. We do not indicate this territory on their maps because it is not formally claimed by any other widely recognised state. The State of Palestine is recognised by 135 UN member states. For comparison, Israel is only recognised by 160 UN member states. Both are widely recognised states and therefore "legitimate". Rob984 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The territories are listed in List of territorial disputes. You can also look at Political status of the Palestinian territories, it opens with "... is one of the most violently disputed issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict" and does NOT use the word "occupied" to describe the territories. WarKosign 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
They are occupied and it is the neutral description of the status quo. It is not only wrong, but impertinently contrafactual to keep insisting against all the evidence.

26.The Occupied Palestinian Territory is comprised of the West Bank, including East-Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. The Government of Israel adopts the position that since it withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 during the “disengagement”, it no longer has effective control over what happens in Gaza and thus can no longer be considered as an occupying power under international law. The commission agrees that the exercise of ‘effective control’ test is the correct standard to use in determining whether a State is the occupying power over a given territory, but notes that the continuous presence of soldiers on the ground is only one criterion to be used in determining effective control

.

27. International law does not require the continuous presence of troops of the occupying forces in all areas of a territory, in order for it to be considered as being occupied. In the Naletelic case, the ICTY held that the law of occupation also applies in areas where a state possesses the “capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make its power felt.” The size of Gaza and the fact that it is almost completely surrounded by Israel facilitates the ability for Israel to make its presence felt. This principle was confirmed by the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which stated:

It is clear that the German Armed Forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German Armed Forces of its status of an occupant.

28. This analysis also applies to the Occupied Palestinian Territory which is considered a single territorial unit by the international community, and by Israel in the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza, which recognized the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit.Report of the detailed findings of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict A/HRC/29/CRP.4

That commission also specifically mentions the State of Palestine, I.e., the state that is the, in international law, legal heir to the unified areas covered by occupied Palestinian territories. If political accords change this, fine. At the moment, as ever, this is the state of play.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
An unsourced statement on another article is not a reliable source. That map needs a reliable source that states that the area highlighted is disputed territory between Israel and the State of Palestine. Rob984 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem here, is really simple. There is a huge mistake Wikipedia did and It was transforming the PA to the State of Palestine, which never happened. Sure the goverment of the State of Palestine is the goverment of the PA but it does not change the fact that the only thing that changed after the acceptation of the PA as a UN observer member was that Abu Mazen changed the name of the Authority to "State of Palestine" for the political intrests of doing so. Physiclly, nothing changed, therefore, the State of Palestine is the PA and therefore the lands owned by the PA which are De-Facto sovargion needs to be showen alongside the Claimed Areas. Even if the land is occupaid or not, even if it's desputed or not, IT DOESENT MATTER. Wikipedia is a source that provides information, therefore, we should provide the information about what does the state we claim that exist as a sovargion state acually hold. Area A and B are under Palestinian rule, they are dependent on Israel but so do some other entities in the world. The State of Palestine is a goverment that was declared in 1988, it is still the same goverment, it's just that Isareli provided it with an authority in the West Bank and Gaza to govern the people and in the cities, also to provide security. The PA enclaves are the lands where the law of the State of Palestine apply, they must be shown!.
Not showing this can give the Idea that: The Palestinian has no controll over any area in the West Bank what so ever or that the Palestinians have controll over the area, depends on the person who reads it. Bolter21 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A huge number of states historically has had no control over the territory assigned to them because it is 'occupied'. That is not an argument. Israel has formally recognized that it is occupying another country, which the world, and the best legal sources, ICC et al., do not dispute is 'The State of Palestine'. The rest is politics.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Right.
"State of Palestine is the PA and therefore the lands owned by the PA which are De-Facto sovargion needs to be showen alongside the Claimed Areas."
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but, the State of Palestine claims sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank. 135 UN member states recognise this claim (some exclude East Jerusalem however). No other sovereign state claims this territory.
"Even if the land is occupaid or not, even if it's desputed or not, IT DOESENT MATTER."
Yes it does. This is Wikipedia convention. We do not indicate occupied land unless it is claimed by another widely recognised sovereign state.
"we should provide the information about what does the state we claim that exist as a sovargion state acually hold. "
In the article body, sure. But the map in the infobox is a locator map, for locating the State of Palestine. If the territory is not claimed by another widely recognised sovereign state, then there is no reason to indicate on the locator map.
"Isareli provided it with an authority in the West Bank and Gaza to govern the people and in the cities, also to provide security."
I agree. Israel occupies the whole of the West Bank and delegates authority to the Palestine Authority (now the Palestinian National Council). Another reason why your map is misleading. Allowing the Palestinian Authority to administer a number of small territories surrounded by Israeli military checkpoints does not seem to me like the Palestinian Authority has "control" over that territory.
Rob984 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
PNA a.k.a State of Palestine claims whole of West Bank and Gaza. Currently it has partial control over areas designated as A and B by the Oslo accords and Gaza. The map has to show 3 colors: controlled territory, claimed territory, and area neither claimed nor controlled. WarKosign 08:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It has to show the state's territory and disputed territory; just like every other country's article on Wikipedia. If you think we should show all uncontrolled claimed territory of states then you should propose that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries because it would affect a large number of articles and therefore require wide consensus. Rob984 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The locator map of Ukraine does not show the area occupied by pro-Russia rebels/Russia, that is not disputed with Russia.
The locator map of Syria does not show the area occupied by the Israel, the Free Syrian Army or Kurdish forces.
The locator map of Libya does not show the area occupied by the Libya Dawn Coalition.
The locator map of Nigeria does not show the area occupied by Boko Haram.
The locator map of Azerbaijan does not show the area occupied by Armenia.
The locator map of Somalia does not show the area occupied by the Republic of Somaliland.
Why should Israel's occupation of certain parts of the West Bank be shown on the State of Palestine's locator map?
Rob984 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, map of Ukraine shows occupied Crimea in a different color.
In addition, there is a big difference: the territories claimed but not controlled by State of Palestine were never controlled by the state, Israel did not occupy the state of Palestine, Israel occupied territories that at that moment were controlled by Jordan and Egypt and only later State of Palestine was formed and claimed the territories. Showing all of West Bank and Gaza as part of State of Palestine would be akin to showing ISIL territorial claims as actually being part of ISIL that is currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, etcWarKosign 17:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Crimea is a disputed territory. Russia and Ukraine both claim that territory. Parts of Donbass are occupied but not disputed. These are not shown.
No. The State of Palestine, recognised by 135 UN member states, is not at all comparable to ISIL. The historical situation is irrelevant.
Rob984 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that ISIL was a terrible analogy. AcidSnow (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what's so terrible about this analogy and am sorry if it offended someone, it was not my intention. Currently the article shows a map of the claimed territories and it is correctly labelled. In my opinion it would be useful to indicate on the map area where the claim already became a reality, but I am quite ok without it as well.WarKosign 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You didn't offend me but you probably did others (but it wasn't your intent and you did apologize) . Anyways, as Rob984 already stated, Palestine is a recognized country while ISIL isn't. But let's move on from this analogy lol. There's no need to focus on it. AcidSnow (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Offence isn't my problem. The analogy is just bad. Anyway...
The locator map has one purpose: to locate the state. Disputed territories are outlined because it is ambiguous as to whether they are part of the state being located. There is no ambiguity as to what state an "occupied territory" is part of. Hence the term "occupied". One state must be being occupied by another party.
For example, it is ambiguous as to whether Crimea is part of Ukraine. It is not ambiguous as to whether Donbass is part of Ukraine. This is for one simple fact: Crimea's status is disputed with another state, Donbass's is not.
I don't disagree the fact that Israel occupies and administers that part of the West Bank is important information and should be conveyed to the reader. I disagree that it should be indicated on the locator map, which should be used solely to convey the location of the state. This is the same reason why we don't show administrative boundaries, labels, etc on locator maps.
I would support adding a map to the body of the article to show what areas are administered by the State of Palestine, and what are occupied by Israel, ie an administrative map, as oppose to the locator map.
Rob984 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You are making an incorrect statement - these are not "occupied territories of State of Palestine" since they were not part of the state when they were occupied. The territories are considered under occupation and the state does claim them, but they were never a part of the state so they can't be occupied territories of the state. You can call them "occupied territories claimed by the state".WarKosign 06:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well who else does that territory belong to? Nobody? The State of Palestine is the only state that claims sovereignty over that territory, and the international community considers it to be "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Regardless, it isn't disputed territory either way. Rob984 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The territory does not belong to anybody. It is claimed of the State of Palestine, and is controlled by Israel. The name is misleading, but it is important to remember that for now State of Palestine and Palestinian Territories are two distinct entities.WarKosign 13:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The United Nations has recognised the right of the Palestinian people to "self-determination", "national independence" and "sovereignty in Palestine". It has also recognised the State of Palestine as "representative of the Palestinian people". And the United Nations regards the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian territory" and designates Israel as the "occupying power". In addition, as an observer state in the UN, the State of Palestine is permitted to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space; and has the right to sue in regards to its sovereignty over its rightful territory in the International Court of Justice, and to bring crimes against humanity and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawful occupation of the territory of State of Palestine, against Israel in the International Criminal Court. The UN does not regard the occupied Palestinian territory and the State of Palestine as "two distinct entities". In fact, the International Organization for Standardisation changed the designation in ISO 3166-1 from "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" to "the State of Palestine" in 2013. Rob984 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no contradiction between any of these statements and what I wrote - except your incorrect conclusion, of course. WarKosign 16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who said that "Israel does not claim the West Bank", I say it again, it doesnt change the fact that the PNA holds lands and don't hold other lands. I"ve been in both Area B and C, belive me, It's not just "occupaid land". There are settlements there that pay taxes to Israel and being provided with aid from Israel. it is one of Israel's provinces: Judea and Samaria Area. It is under the Millitary Law because Israel can't make the civil law apply in it becuase it will be seen as an act of annexation. Polititians in Israel did tried to inforce the civil law of Israel on the area. [1]. It is not black and white, "Palestinians claim the land, Israelis don't". There is dispution about lands in the area, about resources and about transportation, it is needed to show where does the "State of Palestine"'s law applies to and where it don't. Bolter21 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The international community regards the territory as occupied, not disputed. Settling in occupied territory is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Therefore this does not change the status of the territory. I realise the State of Israel does not regard the territory as occupied, however this is contrary to the view of the international community. Why should the State of Israel's point of view be conveyed over the view of the international community? See WP:NPOV. Rob984 (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No legitemte country claim the land. It is disputed. The settlements were built since the 70's when the land was still claimed by one party: Jorda. The thing is, the Jordanian occupation of the land was bearly recognized by any country nor any Arab country so also back then the land was disputed. In 1988, the PLO declared a goverment-in-exile for the State of Palestine and Jordan relinquished all of it's claims, the new party that now claim the land, but the State of Palestine lacks the international recognition to be considered legitemite. Not to mention, Palestine never held this lands as a legitemite state but as subjects of forgion rulers. This land, until the USA, France and UK will be "disputed" and not "occupaid" since there is no legitemite state to "occupy". The local people were given an Autonomy called "The Palestinian National Authority". Bolter21 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bolter21: The international community considers the territory occupied, Israel disputes this definition, and that's it. This is the state of affairs, this is what the sources say and this is what wikipedia reports, there is no point arguing who is right or wrong. WarKosign 13:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign:Alright then. The land is occupaid. The PNA is the State of Palestine. The PNA holds land an claim land. Why won't we show the lands they own and the lands they don't own? Sovargionity is about where you law and jurisdiction applies to, so the PNA's land are where the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Palestine is and therefore this is the land they own, the rest are under Israel's occupation and therfore this are the claims of the State of Palestine, why won't we show them both?
State of Palestine Lands and Claims.png
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Because it's not disputed. The international community regards it as "Palestinian territory" under Israeli occupation. This discussion is beginning to go round in circles. I'm not going to repeat everything I have already said. The State of Palestine is legitimate; it is recognised by 135 UN member states and has been granted observer state status by the UN. This is also the established consensus on Wikipedia. Rob984 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The state is recognized, its claimed territory is not. Current location map correctly shows the lands claimed by the state, it could show the actually controlled land as well but for some reason you insist to have less information in the article. WarKosign 15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984:So what if (parts of) the international community recognized it as occupaid? The State of Palestine is still not a legit state because they are rejected by another 58 memebers, how does a dispute start? -When people don't agree with each other! In this scenario we have 75% who don't agree with 25% but this 25% are all of Western Europe (exept for Sweden) and North America, this is an harsh dispute mostly between Western and Eastern (and should I remind that Palestinians always used Soviet made weapons?). Should we delete the article about Somaliland because no country recognize it as a legit state? Come on, it doesn't change anything. The State of Palestine is represented by the PNA (which also has no controll over Gaza) and the PNA holds lands and claim lands. Just because some politicians said they recognize something, doesnt mean we should hide information from people.
WarKosign, I don't insist on having less information in the article. I support adding a map to the body of the article to show controlled and uncontrolled territory, possibly under the Government section? I oppose showing uncontrolled territory that is not disputed in the locator map. Why? Because every other article only shows disputed territory in light green, not undisputed occupied territory. This is the convention. Surely it is misleading to show undisputed territory in the colour we use to show disputed territory?
Bolter21, Israel is only recognised by 160 UN member states. Is it illegitimate also? The states which do not recognise the State of Palestine still regard Israel's presence in the West Bank as an occupation. Numerous UN resolutions have shown that the international community regard Israel's occupation as a violation of international law. These resolutions have been supported by many western states which do not recognise the State of Palestine.
Also on Israel's article, Jerusalem is not shown as disputed when the international community does not recognise its sovereignty there.
Rob984 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with Rob984 and his recent edit seems to be an appropriate compromise. I don't believe one-sided pseudo legal arguments carry as much weight as a Wikipedia convention which have been applied to virtually every single country article. I don't see any real basis for why this article should be an exception. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Elspamo4:There you go:
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Donetsk People's Republic
Luhansk People's Republic
Novorossiya (confederation)
China (China's desputed areas)
Tibet (Same Idea of the Palestine, but here they show the De-Facto controll).
Iraqi Kurdistan
India
Pakistan
Russia and Ukraine (Crimea's desputed area, still a De-Facto controll).
Sudan
Morocco
Kenya (Second map on the border of South Sudan)
Spain (In morroco)
Ethiopia's and Somalia's border
Argentina (Falklands)
Georgia
Cyprus
Moldova (Transnistria)
Serbia
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Let me say another thing, You want to show in the main map all the lands the Palestinians claim without showing the Israeli controll over them... This is very misleading because it is wierd no to show the "Real Picture" of the State of Palestine. You are just hiding the most basic info: "Where is the State of Palestine"? -Not in all of the West Bank.Bolter21 (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't get it do you? Those are examples of disputed territories and unrecognised states. Undisputed occupied territory is not shown:
The locator map of Ukraine does not show the area occupied by pro-Russia rebels/Russia, that is not disputed with Russia.
The locator map of Syria does not show the area occupied by the Israel, the Free Syrian Army or Kurdish forces.
The locator map of Libya does not show the area occupied by the Libya Dawn Coalition.
The locator map of Nigeria does not show the area occupied by Boko Haram.
The locator map of Azerbaijan does not show the area occupied by Armenia.
The locator map of Somalia does not show the area occupied by the Republic of Somaliland.
Rob984 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Moldova is the exception. Russian occupation should not be shown there either. Rob984 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If Kosovo is an unrecognized State, Palestine is also an unrecognized State. Oh, and last time I checked, Turkey kicked some thousneds of people from Northen Cyprus... "Dispute". NKR kicked 700,000 Azerbijani people out of the land they conquered... Just because they have less recognition then Palestine so The win the privelege of showing the full picture?
THE STATE OF PALESTINE HOLD LAND AND CLAIM LAND
THE STATE OF PALESTINE IS ONLY PARTIALY RECOGNIZED AND ACCUARDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW: NOT A LEGIT STATE
THE STATE OF PALESTINE IS A NEW NAME FOR THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs) 01:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Try Azerbaijan, Armenia or Ukraine. The claim that Palestine is not occupied have been met with overwhelming rejection from the international community, including the UN. The occupation of sovereign nations, whether administered by the occupier or not, are not reflected in any locator map unless they have been annexed (only if the annexation was internationally recognized, i.e. not including areas like Crimea, East Jerusalem).
Re your most recent comment, Palestine is indeed a recognized sovereign state and is a non-member state of the UN. Kosovo is not. Neither are any the self-proclaimed countries you listed. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Correction on my comment about occupied territory not being reflected in any locator map - for some reason unfathomable to me, Cyprus' map seems to denote the occupied territory in the north. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
BUT WHY DOES IT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE ONLY LANDS THAT PALESTINE HOLD ARE LANDS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THEM FROM ISRAEL IN THE OSLO ACCORDS AND THE REST OF THE LANDS ARE "OCCUPAID" OR "CLAIMD"? THEY HAVE, FOR F SAKE, LANDS THEY OWN, ADMINISTRATE, GOVERN AND LANDS THEY DON'T GOVERN, THESES LANDS ARE HOME TO 300,000 ISRAELI CIVILIANS (AND ANOTHER 100,000 ARABS) WHO PAY TAXES TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND ADMINISTRATED BY ISRAEL AND THE IDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs) 12:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Bolter there's no point in continuing this discussion. I believe I have address some of the concerns raised by adding a map showing the area administered by the State of Palestine in the government section. We will never agree because you believe that territory's ownership is disputed while I believe it belongs to the Palestinian people. The difference is your view is supported by Israel only, while mine is supported by the vast majority of the international community. While the view of Israel should be portrayed, it should not be given undue weight. Regardless of what you think, that would be in breach of WP:NPOV. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)