Jump to content

Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5


Diplomatic Recognition

"The State of Palestine is not recognized by the UN or by any western country. "

I don't believe that this is right. Palestine was recognised by the UN in 1947 in the partition plan, and again in 2002 in resolution 1397.
Imc

The UN resolution from 1947 called for the creation of "an Arab state" in parts of former Palestine. It could not have referred to (much less, recognize)the "State of Palestine" - which was declared 41 years later.
Resolution 1397 ([1]) "Affirm[s] a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders".
This is a vision - that is talks about the future. It says nothing about the current status of the PLO self-declared "State of Palestine" - it does not even mention it.
uriber 21:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Another problem with that, however, is "any western country". The term has several senses, but certainly Austria and the Vatican count, even if former Soviet-bloc countries are excluded; likewise, one might argue that Sandinista Nicaragua was not "western", but that raises questions about how up-to-date or otherwise reliable the source is.
BTW, this article, even if it is to be restricted to the declared state, is grossly inadequate in failing to at least offer a top-of-page dab link to wider coverage of Palestinian-Arab national aspirations, with discussion of
  • the relationship to the Arab uprising against the Ottomans in WWI,
  • the Turkish expulsion of, IIRC, both Arabs and Jews from Jerusalem during that war, and
  • the various accounts of just how an Arab state in Palestine failed to be declared in 1949 pursuant to the UN resolution.
--Jerzy (t) 06:22, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

AFAIK, diplomatic recognition by UK, France etc is of the PLO, not of the state of Palestine. Should it really be cited here?Palmiro 12:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no - the diplomatic recognition is not of the PLO (because it's not a government), nor to the State of Palestine, but what these countries did in response to the declaration of the State of Palestine was to upgrade the missions of the Palestinians from a "PLO office" to the "Palestine Representative Commission" or something like that in order to create some official diplomatic status for it without calling it an embassy. Those countries that did not want to make the gesture, including the United States, still maintain PLO offices which do not have a diplomatic status officially. Ramallite (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Recognition Count Tool

By keeping this list in synch with the one in the article, the count of recognizing countries can be quickly checked at any point. (Remember that additions and deletions will show up as diffs in the history.) I built this list by doing global replacements, so it matches the article's list as of this edit. (Exception: Brunei alphabetized here by hand; i'll make that change to the article as well.) (Notations like "(fr As)" are explained below.) --Jerzy (t) 06:22, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Africa
  1. Algeria
  2. Angola
  3. Benin
  4. Botswana
  5. Burkina Faso
  6. Burundi
  7. Cameroon
  8. Cape Verde
  9. Central African Republic
  10. Chad
  11. Comoros (fr As)
  12. Republic of the Congo (fr As)
  13. Democratic Republic of the Congo (fr As)
  14. Djibouti
  15. Equatorial Guinea
  16. Ethiopia
  17. Gabon
  18. Gambia
  19. Ghana
  20. Guinea
  21. Guinea-Bissau
  22. Libya
  23. Madagascar
  24. Maldives
  25. Mali
  26. Mauritania
  27. Mauritius
  28. Morocco
  29. Mozambique
  30. Namibia
  31. Niger
  32. Nigeria
  33. Rwanda
  34. Sao Tome and Principe
  35. Senegal
  36. Seychelles
  37. Sierra Leone
  38. Somalia
  39. Sudan
  40. Swaziland
  41. Tanzania
  42. Togo
  43. Tunisia
  44. Uganda
  45. Zambia
  46. Zimbabwe.
    Americas
  47. Cuba
  48. Nicaragua.
    Asia
  49. Afghanistan
  50. Bangladesh
  51. Bhutan
  52. Brunei (fr. Af)
  53. Cambodia
  54. China (PRC)
  55. India
  56. Indonesia
  57. Korea (DPRK)
  58. Laos
  59. Malaysia
  60. Mongolia
  61. Nepal
  62. Pakistan
  63. Philippines
  64. Sri Lanka
  65. Turkey (fr Eu)
  66. Vietnam.
    Europe
  67. Albania
  68. Austria
  69. Belarus
  70. Bulgaria
  71. Cyprus
  72. Czech Republic
  73. Hungary
  74. Malta
  75. Poland
  76. Romania
  77. Russia
  78. Ukraine
  79. Vatican City
  80. Yugoslavia (but not present-day Serbia and Montenegro).
    Mid-East
  81. Bahrain
  82. Egypt (fr Af)
  83. Iran
  84. Iraq
  85. Jordan
  86. Kuwait
  87. Lebanon
  88. Oman (fr Af)
  89. Qatar
  90. Saudi Arabia(fr Af)
  91. United Arab Emirates(fr Af)
  92. Yemen
    Oceania
  93. Vanuatu.

Note that this is 93, not 94. The 94 figure was added in the 19:43, 2005 Apr 18 edit; the list of names has changed since then only as to order: Mostly, countries have been moved out of mistaken continents into arguably better ones; as an aid to seeing clearly that no countries have been added or deleted, i have indicated next to them what continent they were previously listed with. For instance, the Comoros (which are in the Indian Ocean northwest of Madagascar) are labelled "(fr As)" because initially they were listed as being in Asia rather than Africa.
This implies that the count of 94 has always been inconsistent with the list, since the number "94" was introduced to the article as the first number more specific than the false "about two-thirds of the world's countries recognize it today". It appears likely that the list got miscounted, rather than a country being left off when a list that did contain 94 was transcribed: the list had 93 countries on it before the number "94" was added to the article. (But if do we find the 94th country, we can add it in both places and make 94 legitimate. For now, i am changing the count to 93 so the article is self-consistent.)
--Jerzy (t) 06:22, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

So how come some European countries (e.g. Greece) recognise the State of Palestine, but others (e.g. France, Germany, UK) don't? I didn't think religious views were that different between such countries. Is it a religious thing or something else? --Rebroad 08:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove Yugoslavia, its no longer a country.

I think the Venezuela is your 94th country.


Umm... Israel recognizes Palestine now right? How can they sign a peace treaty with a country they don't recognize?

Either way, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...*shrugs* Recognition does not change the nature of the beast-i.e. calling a cow a sheep doesn't make it a sheep. It's still a concept Palestinians hope for in the future so do we make a distinction between the ideal and reality? Do we rename the article/open a new one for 'State of Palestine' and set up a disambig page? I honestly don't know. I have a preference, but not one that doesn't show my POV. Angrynight 06:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Argentina recognizes the State of Palestine, or if it has relations, but the fact is that Argentina has an Embassy in Palestine, and Palestine has an Embassy in Argentina. Here's the web site, for further information http://www.palestina.int.ar/

Further information if you happen to read español, that is. I don't see a button to press for a version en inglés. 6SJ7 00:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland is missing from the recognition of General Delagation section. please amend editors on my behalf MarkStreet 25th Oct

Does not recognize

I removed Canada from the list. Given the UN and USA's stance, I don't think it's likely Canada recognizes the State of Palestine. Also, they don't have an embassy.ehudshapira 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Canada [2]

They planned an embassy in East Jerusalem (checkpoints made work impossible), and then Ramallah, where the office (not embassy) is:

    Representative Office of Canada

    12 Mahfal Street

    PO Box 2286

    Ramallah, West Bank

Changes in Canada in 2004/6 made the future uncertain. See Toronto Star & Canadian Dimension.--MrLou 22:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Big rewrite plan

I'd like to rewrite this article -- tomorrow or the next day, if that's not too soon.

I'd like to start with the simple bare facts of how it was declared and who "recognized" it.

After that, I'd like to write about objections (like it had no land?) and any POV or argments ABOUT the facts.

And I hope someone can tell me what relationship, if any the State of Palestine has to:

  • the PLO
  • the Palestinian Authority
  • Palestinian nationalism
  • the establishment of a "Palestinian state"

Help me to be accurate and unbiased. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Info table

I removed all the "physical" attributes (map, area, population, largest city, etc.) from the info table. The "State of Palestine" does not actually exist as a physical entity. It most certainly does not cover an area of ~27,300 sq. km. (the area shown in the map).

I hesitated about the international dialing code (which is allocated to the Palestinian Authority, not to the "State of Palestine") - but left it anyway. [3]

Same goes for the internet TLD, which is allocated to "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" - not to the "State of Palestine".[4]

Also, IIRC, Yasser Arafat signed a letter in 1994, in which he agrees not to use the title "President of Palestine" (but only "Chairman of the PLO"). I'm not sure if he kept his word on this, so I left the "President" row in the table. [5]

Generally, I thing that using the standard "state" template for something that is not an actual state is highly misleading.

-- uriber 20:39, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

The point is to describe the State of Palestine as it was proclaimed. The accompanying text makes it quite clear that the land was claimed, not taken.

More to the point, we need to do some merging here. It's ridiculous the way that information about Palestine, in the sense that most people mean it, is split between so many articles. - Mustafaa 11:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The text says "the whole of Palestine", meaning the British Mandate of Palestine, but the map shows only the the non-Jordanian portion of the mandate. Is this a deliberate trick, or just sloppiness? J. Random User

No - it's correctness. The British Mandate only included Jordan for two years. - Mustafaa 00:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a problem with some of the details in the table:

  • "Area" entry is problematic - as stated in the article itself (first paragraph), the proclamation of the state was lacking a controlled territoy, therefore including the "Area" criteria is problematic, since no area exist, unless we're talking about "Proclaimed Area" or something like that.
  • The proclaimed area includes all of Mandatory Palestine (1923-1948), therefore if we keep the "area" entry (by renaming it), we should include all proclaimed territory - which includes modern-day Israel. (current listing includes only WB & Gaza). If this is too-controversial (although reflects the facts behind this state-proclamation), we should consider removing the entry.
  • internet TLD (.PS) & Dialing code 970 were assigned to the Palestinian National authority by the UN telecommunication agency (as others wrote) back in 1998. Let alone the fact that this 'state' is not recognized by the U.N, those codes were allocted to the Palestinian national authority, not any other entity. Thus, including them in this table is wrong.
  • Daylight Saving Time - this 'state' hadn't published a policy of using DST; in fact, many states around the world does NOT utilize DST summer-time. Therefore, unless declared, any state has only one timezone. One could say that the PNA is using DST- that's true, but not connected to this article.


This is a new user speaking now. I would like to include a link to an article in a neutral internet journal by an expert on middle east politics.

Here is bio of him. David Storobin is a New York lawyer who received Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Rutgers University School of Law. His Master's Thesis (M.A. - Comparative Politics) deals with Extremist Movements in the Middle East and the historical causes for the rise of fundamentalism. Mr. Storobin's book "The Root Cause: The Rise of Fundamentalist Islam and its Threat to the World" will be published in 2005.

THE ARTICLE http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=132


Existance of this article

Is this a legitimate article? If we are to make an article about every group that proclaims a new state on some territory, it will take up alot of space. Physically, the "state of palestine" does not exist. What exists is a proclamation by the PLO. Shouldnt it make more sense to reform this article about the proclamation instead of using the same template as we use for those of actual countries?

Also, is the diplomatic recognition stated in the article, actually given to the PA instead of the "State of Palestine" and the author has confused it, or what? It looks like this article is overly messy.

Guy Montag 18:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course this is a legitimate article - on a highly notable subject, as well. And yes, the diplomatic recognition in question is accorded to the State of Palestine, not the PNA. Just ask the PNA - or the states in question. - Mustafaa 18:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


I created this article (about two years ago), and I believe it is legit. However, I totally agree that the "country" infobar should not be used here, as this article is not about a real country. I tried to argue this before, but with no success. The population and area figures certainly do not belong here, as the SoP never had sovereignity over any population or land.
The part about diplomatic recognition does, indeed refer to the SoP, not to the PA. Most of these countries "recognized" the SoP shortly after it was declaired in 1988, well before the PA even existed. This is part of why I think the existance of this article is justified. -- uriber 18:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


Of course the article is legitimate. As Mustafaa says, the subject is notable and of interest to many people. The state of Palestine exists, if only in the 'minds of men'.
The quibbling on such items on what body it was that was recognised, or who the internet TLD was allocated to illustrates only a problem with Wikipedia. The understanding is clear, that the recognition was for Palestine as a country, and the internet TLD was for Palestine as a country, whether or not it was in control of a territory. I'm sure that if we looked in other countries, we will find numerous instances of not just ministries, but semi official agencies, or other bodies acting for the government and the country, instead of the titular head of state. We accept them as representing the country. Imc 19:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I made some messy changes to the article. I do not believe that the PA coat of Arms, population, calling number or website belong in this article. Could someone add those changes without compromising the integrity of the article? Thanks.

Guy Montag 18:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Theoretical population?

The "Theoretical population" is quite problematic; it assumes that the SOP will consist of the current inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, minus the Jews who live there. However, the area assumes that the State of Palestine encompasses the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel; this is both internally inconsistent, and also inconsistent with the claimed area for the State of Palestine. What are the assumptions here? That Israel will be ethnically cleansed of all inhabitants, including non-Jews? That none of the Palestinian diaspora are citizens of the State of Palestine? I'm going to remove this section of the table, as I don't see any way of rationally estimating this population. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually very good points. Particularly the point on the DIaspora. 82.81.175.10 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

President and PM

The Fatah elected Mahmud Abbas as president of the SoP a few months ago

Can you provide a reference? -- uriber 17:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Al-Jazeera has

Area, Time Zone, ETC

  • Area: should be the one proclaimed in February 2005. All the proclaimations should be updated to the ones of 2005.
  • President: Fatah chose Mahmud Abbas as the president of the SoP in Spring 2005
  • Prime Minister: I don't think Qurei is not the PM of the SoP because Abbas will need one
  • Population should be the Palestinian population in the GS and the WB
  • Time Zone should be the actuel time zone policy of THE GS AND THE WB, I think the DST is availible in the GS
  • WEB TLD AND CALLING CODE SHOULD BE THE ONE GIVEN TO THE PA which will administer the SoP
  • This arricle should be a merging of the contents of the articles about the Gaza Strip and the West Bank
  • The table should include everything that a normal country contains with the word proclaimed added
  • East Jerusalem is currently proclaimed as the capital and LArgest CiTy

(Comments above were made by User:62.84.76.18).

  • Area: should be the one proclaimed in February 2005. All the proclaimations should be updated to the ones of 2005.
Please provide a source regarding any proclamations made by the SoP in February 2005.
  • President: Fatah chose Mahmud Abbas as the president of the SoP in Spring 2005
True, it appears that Abbas was named president by the PLO Executive committee (not the Fatah) on May 8, 2005 [6]. However, there seems to be despute as to whether the Executive Committee had the authority to do so. See [7].
  • Prime Minister: I don't think Qurei is not the PM of the SoP because Abbas will need one
The fact that you think that Abbas would need a PM doesn't make Qurei, or anybody else for that matter, the PM.
  • Population should be the Palestinian population in the GS and the WB
No, it shouldn't.
  • Time Zone should be the actuel time zone policy of THE GS AND THE WB, I think the DST is availible in the GS
No, it shouldn't.
  • WEB TLD AND CALLING CODE SHOULD BE THE ONE GIVEN TO THE PA which will administer the SoP
This article is about the present, not the future, and, in any event, I doubt your ability to predict the future accurately.
  • This arricle should be a merging of the contents of the articles about the Gaza Strip and the West Bank
No, it shouldn't.
  • The table should include everything that a normal country contains with the word proclaimed added
No, it shouldn't.
  • East Jerusalem is currently proclaimed as the capital and LArgest CiTy
It's not the proclaimed capital according to the 1988 declaration (Jerusalem is). Proclaiming a "largest city" seems silly to me, and I don't believe any proclamations about this were ever made by the SoP.

-- uriber 12:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Area claims

A serious problem about this article is that it simply states that the 1988 Declaration laid claim to the whole area of 1948 mandatory Palestine. This is not really true, and in fact reverses the universally accepted historical meaning of the declaration, as retreating from this demand. It was rather understood at the time, by those voting, e.g. Edward Said, and most of the international community, as implicitly claiming only the Palestinian territories, by its references to UN resolutions, the UN charter, and "other states". The USA had long required acceptance of SC 242 and recognition of Israel as a condition for dialogue with the PLO. At the time, the USA felt the declaration was ambiguous, though certainly consistent with this interpretation, as was shown by the US acceptance of Arafat's Geneva statements only a month later as fully satisfying these conditions. This dialogue commenced immediately, and Israel itself started talking to the Palestinians only a couple years later in 1991 (which showed it by then construed the declaration the same way everybody else did). Also, there should be something about other documents i.e. the "Political Statement" calling for a UN conference adopted at Algiers at the same time, that clarified the declaration somewhat. I'll see if I can dig up a link.--John Z 10:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the 1988 declaration what ambiguous regarding territory, and was thus open to interpretation. I suggest removing the map and "area" figures from the infobox, and discussing the matter in the body of the article (John Z's analysis is a good start). -- uriber 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uriber and Guy, please note my latest edit, where I try to give an NPOV view of the generally understood meaning of the declaration. [8] at the Israeli government website says it "proclaimed the independence of Palestine without defining its borders with Jerusalem as its capital." I'm not wedded to any particular wording; just want to get the complicated, confusing and ambiguous, as usual, facts and interpretations more or less right. The text of the simultaneous Political Resolution also at that page refers to Israeli withdrawal from Arab (i.e. East) Jerusalem only, so taking the two together, one could argue that only East Jerusalem was intended as the capital. Uriber, glad I just saw that we more or less agree. I also think the map and area issues are too confusing to put in the box. Thanks for cleaning up the confusion I created on the talk page. --John Z 14:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just added the Political Statement link. There's also a Palestinian Declaration of Independence article which now has nothing that is not here. Perhaps the two articles should be merged and redirected? --John Z 22:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

SV says: "deleting it because it's repetition; see directly underneath for who does and doesn't recognize it". Repeating broad points made in more detail further on (in this case, five paragraphs later) is the primary purpose of introductory paragraphs. They're meant to summarize the article. Moreover, the point is needed to explain the present-day relevance of the State of Palestine. - Mustafaa 22:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, directly underneath, Mustafaa, and still in the intro, we say broadly who has and hasn't recognized it. That's why I moved those paragraphs up, so they were higher in the intro, which meant we didn't need that last sentence hanging off the end of the first paragraph without really saying anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
No point having "However, a large number of nations continue to recognize the State of Palestine in the interim" when directly after it, you've got: "The State of Palestine was recognized immediately by the Arab League, and about half the world's governments recognize it today. It maintains embassies in these countries (which are generally Palestine Liberation Organization delegations). The State of Palestine is not recognized by the United Nations or by any Cold-War-era NATO country. However, some European Union countries, including the United Kingdom, maintain diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, established under the Oslo Accords." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I hadn't noticed where you had moved that sentence. - Mustafaa 23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed section

I thought I would put this (very long and POV) section here, for eventual NPOV-ing and future inclusion Tedneeman 08:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Palestine

Ted, I've removed it again. It was added by an anon who added similarly long personal essays to other pages, probably copyvio, and it's a bit long for this page. It's in the article's history (and this history too now) if anyone wants to read it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

State based on Palestinian Authority

This statement, that the future state will be based on the current Palestinian Authority, is fictitious. I've seen it mentioned on a few sites but it's factually incorrect. According to the Oslo accords, the Palestinian Authority was set up as an interim transitional body while final status talks were being worked out. It was not designed to last more than 5 years, which is one reason it's been crumbling for a while now. A Palestinian constitution is being worked on that is based on sovereignty, something which the PA clearly is not. The PA is severely restricted in its functioning and its power by Israel, and this is true regardless of the Intifada. Most of the current institutions, even the position of prime minister, were "patches" designed to keep some semblance of a functioning authority that are purly there for transitional purposes and would have no place (or at least, no logic) in an actual sovereign independent state. Whoever made that statement about The State of Palestine being based on the PA was purly speculating.

Falseness

This is in the first paragraph:

Currently, the Palestinian National Authority [...] envision the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all or part of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, living in peace with Israel under a democratically elected and transparent government.

In the Palestinian Covenant, palestinian maps, symbols, coats-of-arms etc., you can see a big red Land of Israel united under Palestinian rule, with no mention of the State of Israel.

The land of Palestine is not the same as the State of Palestine. Until there is a sovereign independent state, the coat of arms / emblems of a liberation movement should not be confused with that of a state. What you call "Eretz Israel" is also called "historic Palestine", or just "Palestine" by Palestinians. This is not a political statement as much as it is sentiment.The current Road Map, accepted fully by the PA but "with 14 reservations" by the government of Israel, is for two democratic states living side by side in peace. Ramallite (talk) 6 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
This I did not know. Thank you for the corrections. Volland 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

The PA doesn't recognize Israel, and calls it a "zionist invasion".

The PA would not exist if it did not recognize Israel, as the exchange of letters between Arafat and Rabin clearly indicated. Ramallite (talk) 6 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
So to make things clear: does the Palestinian Covenant recognize the existance of Israel as a legitimate state, or not? Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a Hebrew translation, and I'm unable to read Arabic. Volland 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
What you refer to as the Palestinian Covenant is actually the PLO covenant, there was never such as thing as a 'Palestinian Covenant'. In 1996, the Palestinian National Council (a PLO parliament body of over 400 members, not to be confused with the PA which is strictly an Oslo body) convened in Gaza and voted to delete all articles of the covenant that contradict the Oslo accords (see [9]). This was high in the news at the time. Shimon Peres was happy with that meeting, of course, Bibi was not. The link above is a letter from Arafat to Clinton in 1998, two years after the vote, during which many in Israel believed the covenant was not annulled properly because the PLO failed to disclose which specific articles were cancelled. The letter in 1998 clarifies this, although to what extent it satisfies Israelis or makes a difference to Palestinians living under occupation, I have no idea.

So that neither is the acclaimed future land is correct (not the west bank and the gaza strip, but rather all the land from Jordan to the Sea) nor are the future relationship with Israel. Please remove this section promtly. Volland 6 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Your statement is your own opinion, but does not reflect reality. Also, let's not forget who occupies, suppresses, and humiliates who. Ramallite (talk) 6 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
I never intended to get into a political debate here. If I was mistaken, I apologize. By the way, I've read your bio, quite interesting. Volland 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
No need to apologize, there is much that is misrepresented between the two sides. As my uncle Sally used to say, baruch atem she ochlim falafel bli hummos be Ramat-Gan o be Schem. I never quite understood what he/she exactly meant by that though.... Ramallite (talk) 7 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)


Bless those who eat falafel with hummos in Ramat Gan or Schem? I think its a general play on bless those who live normal lives during times of great peril. Those who can live normally sorrounded by hostile people are a special breed of their own.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

umm... okay... it's actually "without" hummos - bli - but in any case, I hope you are not talking about Israelis living normally surrounded by hostile people - as long as Palestinians are an occupied people BY Israel, it is a falsehood to say that Israelis live "normally". Have you ever read Asterix? It's a pun-filled comic book set in 50 BCE where the hero is a Gaulish warrior living in a village in Roman occupied Gaul. I always remember a comment by a Roman centurion in one issue of the comics, it went something like "I don't understand these Gauls. We occupy them, destroy their property, kill their leaders, and rule over them, and then they just turn against us for no reason at all !!" Have you made Aliya yet? I think you will get a much better sense of what I'm talking about once you do (at least kach ani mekaveh). Ramallite (talk) 7 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)


I haven't read the comic. It appears that my mistranslation adds another layer into the text, but the same meaning. I am not going to have a political debate on wikipedia, although you are welcome to email me if you wish to discuss anything. It would certainly be an interesting experience. You know my position already, so I am not going to repeat it. As for Aliyah, I should make it by the end of 2008. There is very little chance of my perceptions changing, but there is a very good chance of my convictions intensifying when I move there. I'll have the privilege to live out my ideology.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I have to agree that that sentence is false, particularly with the word currently. To say that Hamas envisions living in peace with israel or to say that it envisions less than all of the territory currently occupied by israel is best classified as hallucination. savidan(talk) (e@) 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why its wrong for a people who were living by themselves in a land to want ALL of it back from people who arrived in the late 1800s to steal it from them by force? 82.81.175.10 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

States that don't recognize the State of Palestine?

Would it be useful to list the states that don't currently recognise Palestine? Otherwise might someone looking at the article wonder, for example, "does Australia not recognise Palestine, or is its stance unknown?"? Andjam 11:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a similar section at Israel? Marsden 15:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Foreign relations of Israel has an estimate of how many countries recognise Israel, but it'd be better if the countries were listed. Andjam 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

===>I wouldn't think so Since the majority of states don't recognize Palestine, it's a simple matter of deleting the ones that do from the list of sovereign states. In the case of Israel, there are only a handful of states that don't recognize it. I don't think that information is in any article, but I certainly wish it was. Justin (koavf) 16:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But do you see the point I was trying to make? Andjam 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq?

It seems highly unlikely to me that Iraq - under U.S. occupation - currently recognizes Palestine as a State. Can anyone source this? freestylefrappe 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That recognition was probably given by pre-invasion iraq. Although I don't know if that means that recognition went away. The new iraqi government certainly hasn't rescinded recognition. savidan(talk) (e@) 14:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Capital (disputed)

Why is "disputed" included in the designation of Jerusalem as the the capital of the State of Palestine when the same label does not appear in the similar table on the Israel article?--DieWeibeRose 09:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Receiving no reply to my inquiry, I have removed "disputed" from the sidebar to this article--DieWeibeRose 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me assume good faith on your side. I guess no one responded because you have mixed fact and opinion. Let's not hurry: this is a claim and not a fact. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hoping it can help to improve consistency between different pages of the Wikipedia, I shall note that on Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the capital section of the infobox reads as follows (indeed the precise legend of this line is not Capital but Capital and largest city) : (العيون) - Arabic translitteration -- El Aaiún - Spanish translitteration -- Laâyoune - French translitteration; Bir Lehlou, temporary capital. French Tourist 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite follow Humus Sapien's reasoning. Both capitals are disputed. One is the effective capital of a real state; the other, not to put a tooth in it, the paper capital of a paper state. But both are disputed. If we are to have an article about the State of Palestine despite the fact that it doesn't really exist as a State in the normal sense, then I don't see why we shouldn't state what its capital is. The capital is hardly much less real than the state itself. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Humus sapiens, I asked a question. I waited four days for other editors to weigh-in on my question--none did. You, on the other hand, simply decided to remove the capital from the info box without any consultation or wait. I'm reverting your edit.--DieWeibeRose 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Since this whole article is about a political entity that has yet to become reality, it really doesn't matter what's in the infobox - this article is about a proclamation made in 1988 that included proclaiming independence (that date is in the infobox) and proclaiming Jerusalem as the capital (which is in and out of the infobox depending on peoples' moods, evidently). Edit warring over the contents of an infobox about a theoretical situation is not worth it. In fact, perhaps the infobox shouldn't be there at all... Ramallite (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe the argument of Humus Sapiens is indeed an argument against the very existence of this article. It is obvious - and it is clear from the article - that the State of Palestine is a very special state, because of its lack of international recognition and lack of real power over its entity. With this in mind we should of course give the basic facts - the capital, the president etc. Humus Sapiens, if you want a deletion of this article, let's have a discussion about that - but when we have the article it seems pointless to remove info on basic features of the subject. Bertilvidet 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I have never made "an argument against the very existence of this article." Of course it has a merit to exist in accordance to WP policies. As some correctly pointed out, the State of Palestine lacks a few essential characteristics. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I am aware that you didn't. But your argument that Jerusalam is simply claimed to be a capital is connected with the fact that the State of Palestine lacks a few essential characteristics as you correctly say. I am glad that we agree on the merit on this article, but with these problems in mind I don't see any argument for not noting Jerusalem as its capital. Bertilvidet 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What would be the basis for that, other than a hollow claim made from far-away place? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the claim is made from Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank and has been made from inside Palestine for a long time. "Hollow" or not it is factual that the national parliamentary bodies of the Palestinian people have repeatedly declared Jerusalem as their capital. There is no dispute over that. From the rest of the article it is clear that Palestinians do not enjoy full sovereignty over the rest of their territory, let alone Jerusalem, so why did you feel compelled to delete the designation from the infobox?

Although Israel exercises sovereignty over Jerusalem, it is well-established that the Israeli designation of the city as its capital is disputed, too. Would you like a disputed tag in the Israel infobox, too, or how about we just take it out altogether? I support listing Jerusalem as the capital in the infobox for both articles without any annotations. Whatever qualifications are necessary can go in the body of the respective articles.--DieWeibeRose 11:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the proclamation of 1988 was made from Tunisia. If we are to rely on "the national parliamentary bodies of the Palestinian people", those made many curious declarations over the years. For example, the Article 24 of the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 stated: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."[10]. Why should we trust one hollow declaration and not the other? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, the claim of Jerusalem as Palestinian capital is the official policy of the PA. Who else can have the authority to design a capital??? Bertilvidet 11:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but the PNA and the State of Palestine are two totally different things. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK tring to sum up a few opinions of mine, endorsing the position of DieWeibeRose (note that I am just passing by for a few days on this page, no special passion of mine for Middle-East).

  • Consistency : as can be checked on the List of countries one and only one entity, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic bears two strong similarities with the State of Palestine : it is recognised by a fair amount of foreign states, though a minority ; it has little or no control on the territory on which it claims sovereignty. Including a de facto Moroccan town in the "Capital" line of the infobox seems not to have caused havoc there ; including a de facto Israelian town in the infobox should be consensual here.
  • Texts are facts : opponents of the mention underline that this mention is only founded on a 1988 proclamation. See for instance in page history, They can name their capital "the moon" if they want. In the end it is just a declaration without recognized value (edit by User:Guy Montag). After browsing through other pages of WP, I note for instance that one reads on the page Babar's Kingdom the sentence The capital is Celesteville, which was built by Babar and named after his Queen., which is founded only on children's books. That is even if one thinks that State of Palestine is a fancy state, as long as a page about this fancy state is relevant in the WP, the mention of its capital is relevant too.
  • About the mention Disputed near the name of the capital : I don't think this wording is precise enough. As concerns the State of Palestine, there exists a minority of countries who recognize it as a sovereign state (and as far as I know none of them discusses which town is its capital), and a majority who does not recognize it at all. So the disputed thing is whether Palestine is a sovereign country or not, but not the name of its capital. (This is quite dissymetrical of the Israel situation, where a few countries recognize Israel and act in such a way to prove they consider Jerusalem as capital, most states recognize Israel but take care not to endorse the Israeli view about Jerusalem, and another smaller bunch of countries don't recognize Israel at all - but anyway I would be against any inclusion of a caveat in either infobox, the place to explain all that is the article, or even secondary articles about Jerusalem or diplomatic relations).
As Humus Sapiens was the only one arguing again against including the capital in the infobox I allowed myself to restore it. Because of the nature of the State of Palestine all infos can be argued only to be 'claims' (the stated president of the State is actually president of PNA). In line with the arguments of French Tourist I believe that we can include these informations, of course keeping the character of the state in mind. Bertilvidet 09:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Bertilvidet, we didn't finish the discussion. Remember, first you falsely accused me in being "against the very existence of this article", and your latest and greatest argument was that the claim to Jerusalem is the official policy of the PA. I replied that the PNA is not the same as the SoP, and now you are putting their hollow claim to look as a fact. Perhaps the Western Sahara article has problems, but two wrongs don't make it right. A good encyclopedia should inform (and not misinform) the reader. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Humus sapiens, I didnt accuse you of anything, and I am sorry if you interpreted me so. However, it still seems - to me at least - that the logical consequence of your argument is questionning all the information in the info-box and the existence of the very article. As stated above in this discussion, PNA is far from the only Palestinian institution claiming Jerusalem as capital. Bertilvidet 10:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think French Tourist's remarks are very salient. This is an article about, essentially, an imaginary state, so the fact that its capital is imaginary too should hardly be cause for surprise. If we aren't to say that the capital is Jerusalem because Jerusalem is not in reality the capital of a Palestinian state, why on earth does this whole article exist in the first place? After all, the Palestinian state does not. Palmiro | Talk 11:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of Capital (disputed), I propose Capital (proclaimed) since the state is based on the 1988 proclamation resolution document. Also, since the article makes clear that it is generally agreed that the SoP claims only pre-1967 Arab East Jerusalem as capital, I changed the name from Jerusalem to East Jerusalem, which is a separate article which includes substantial material about the territorial dispute. The complete deletion of any mention of the capital is ridiculous and POV.--AladdinSE 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. I do not question "the existence of the very article." I still maintain what I said earlier: the SoP deserves an encyclopedia article. I think it properly belongs to Category:Proposed countries. BTW, I don't see infoboxes in other proposed states listed there (I didn't check them all). Are they also "ridiculous and POV"? BTW, we do talk about their claim in the article's text.
I do question at least some information that has been inserted in the infobox, such as bluntly saying that the SoP's capital is Jerusalem, or showing maps - implying that the SoP possesses territory and has borders. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you do not question the very existence of the article, I didn't say you did. I haven't seen any of those other proposed country articles or examined their info boxes, I don't know if they contain POVs. In any case, lumping the SoP with "proposed countries" is tricky. It has been proclaimed, not merely proposed, and has acquired diplomatic recognition from more than half's the nations of the world, or close to it. In any case, do you at least agree tot he compromise formulation "proclaimed" and "East Jerusalem"? --AladdinSE 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the wording proclaimed, as meaning that the only foundation of the inclusion of this capital in the infobox is a reading of the 1988 proclamation. I disagree with the "East Jerusealem" wording : the "East" word can not be found -even in an implicit form- in the proclamation, but only more or less subtly deduced from ulterior diplomatic gestures by Palestinian leaders. So the only NPOV formulation is "Jerusalem" as it is a simple copy-paste from the declaration, not requiring any subsequent analysis of other texts or events. French Tourist 12:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it cannot be both proclaimed and East Jerusalem...If agreement is reached on this compromise (proclaimed capital Jerusalem) I will accept it. But howcome it is just the capital that poses a problem - you can as well argue that anthem, president and even official language simply are claims! Bertilvidet 13:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, colleague. I guess proclaimed is the best we can do for now. It seems that the role of the infobox in this article was to add legitimacy to the SoP, but in reality it adds controversy. I'll leave it up to you. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that everything in that infobox is 'proclaimed'. The "declaration of independence" was 'proclaimed' in 1988, but that's also an illusion. Mahmoud Abbas is not the president (proclaimed, elected, divinely appointed, or otherwise) of the "State of Palestine", but of the PNA and is the head of the PLO executive committee. Arabic is also the 'proclaimed' official language in the constitution of the 'State of Palestine' but that has not been ratified because of a lack of a country to perform the ratifying. Realistically, Jerusalem as the capital is the closest thing to reality after the time zone, there are many Palestinian institutions there and it just happens to have the largest Palestinian population - more than any other city. I fail to understand two things: The sole obsession with 'Jerusalem' in that infobox, and the reason the infobox exists in the first place. Ramallite (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that since the whole concept of the SoP is proclaimed, "Capital" ought to be able to stand alone without qualifiers or caveats. I proposed "proclaimed" as a compromise; it is far better than the exclusion of all mention Jerusalem in the infobox at all. As for the infobox itself, it seems right for it to exist, in my opinion.--AladdinSE 21:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently we have to have infoboxes on articles like this, presumably because 1. they are ugly and take up lots of space, 2. they give editors something to play with, and 3. they serve the useful purpose of providing information to people who go to a page on X but don't want to read an article about it. Ideally, of course, they should be coupled with at least three templates all positioned near the top of the article. Once any actual text has been banished to not less than seven centimetres below the bottom of the screen, one may think about applying for featured article status. Palmiro | Talk 16:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Proclaimed" is fine. But does the PLA claim all of Jerusalem or just East Jerusalem? savidan(talk) (e@) 14:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

State of Palestine and Proposals for a Palestinian state should probably be merged. The declaration of a state in 1988 is part and parcel of that article. 129.170.107.243 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordan and the British Mandate

The following sentence poses a problem:

While the declaration concerns Palestine as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, it is generally interpreted to have recognized Israel within its pre-1967 boundaries, or was at least a major step on the path to recognition. (underlined for talk page)

The parenthetical phrase includes Israel, the West Bank and Gaza seems to exclude Jordan from the British Mandate of Palestine. Was this what the author intended? And if so, is this correct? The territory comprising Jordan was all or mostly within the British Mandate, wasn't it?

Paper State of Palestine?

I disagree with people that say the SOP is just as imaginary as the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital. I think it is strange nobody has yet to mention de facto control. There are still areas under the de facto control of Palestinians (which Palestinians is kinda difficult to say right now) so saying that Jerusalem as the capital is just as real as calling Palestina a state seems kinda erroneus. Isn't there a de-facto capital for all intents and purposes? maybe wherever most of the administrative work goes on?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See Palestinian Authority. The State of Palestine is quite a separate thing - it is the independent state declared by the PLO in 1988. The Palestinian Authority is not a state, and it is not in any way officially related to the State of Palestine (as far as I know). Palmiro | Talk 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite aware of the difference. But look at the country of Somalia. They have no de facto government, but nobody says that the country itself is only on paper. They have no unity of course, but it is still a country run by somalians (albeit these particular somalis are regional warlords).
My point is that there is a de facto country of Palestine, it is much smaller than the Palestine on paper, but as long as Palestinians have control over any part of the region, their country will be more than just paper.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite get you. A country is not the same thing as a state, to start with (cf Cyprus, one country but two states). And while the Palestinian Authority certainly acts as a government, thereby performing many of the roles of the state, this article is specifically about the State of Palestine as established by the PLO in 1988, which has its own various organs, diplomatic delegations, etc, and is quite a distinct entity from the PA, so what the PA does isn't that relevant to this particular article. Palmiro | Talk 11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So how is there not somewhat of a de facto state?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You could certainly argue that the PNA is a de facto state in some aspects, but this article is about a different entity. Palmiro | Talk 13:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Explain.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The Palestinian Authority is not a de-facto state (yet). They do not have control of their land, air, and sea borders. They do not have a unified police force and unified army- only various militant factions, which pretty much do what they want. Their economy is completely dependant on foreign aid. They still have some way to go before the PA is considered a 'State', wither de-facto or de-jura.
-Sangil 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean but in my opinion while there isn't yet a de jure state, there is a de facto state in some of the areas that they control. Of course this de facto state is extremely tenuous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Two topics here. First: The state proclaimed in 1988 in Algeria (which this article is solely about, and not about anything else) has never materialized. The Oslo process and the Palestinian Authority it produced were in some sort of non-parallel universe (yes, not even parallel). This is especially true as Arafat had threatened to declare statehood (this time for real, evidently) in 1999 at the end of the 5-year interim period, but was placed under intense pressure from the Clinton Administration to not even think about it or else. Second: Under no circumstances can the PA be called a state, not de facto, de jure, or de Mornay. The PA was specifically created on the condition that it not be a state. The definition of a state is 'sovereignty', which is something Oslo insisted that the PA not be allowed to exercise. Furthermore, most people don't realize that the whole PA concept was developed as an INTERIM stage, i.e. a stage where Palestinians move in and start to assume some control. The FINAL STATUS stage was the part about how Israel moves out. So what happened is that the Palestinians moved in, but Israel never moved out. The result: Every aspect of Palestinian life is ultimately still controlled by Israel. Example: My Palestinian passport is invalid unless its number is entered in the Israeli border computer system because they control entry and exit. My Palestinian ID card (whose number is pretty much the equivalent of a US social security number, you need it to open a bank account, get a drivers license, get a passport, request a travel permit, request export of merchandise, request a building permit to renovate the kitchen - you get the idea) is issued by Israel, not the PA. The ID card itself is issued in Arabic and Hebrew, but it is imperative that the Hebrew be accurate, not the Arabic. This is all according to the Oslo accords that created the PA, and had to be followed to the letter. It was critical to the Israeli position that the interim period not be one where the Palestinians could have any semblance of statehood. Ramallite (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We whould merge all article talking about Paletine in an article called Palestine (Country)

since the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not part of Israel and are Palestinian territories. There's no territory that is countryless and the WB and GS are the remaining of Palestine. Robin Hood 1212 14:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"There's no territory that is countryless"? does this includes oceans? Psychomel@di(s)cussion 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Who says there's no territory that is "countryless?" What sovereign nation are the West Bank and Gaza part of? None, that's which one. There is no "State of Palestine" and the continuing pretense to the contrary is turning Wikipedia into a joke. 6SJ7 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. There has yet to emerge a State of Palestine, so it should not be included in Palestine (country). This article would be more accurately characterized under Palestinian Authority or Future Plans for a Palestinian State. (Elie_friedman)

Introduction

Although I agree that this article should be merged into something else, I have heavily edited the introduction to reflect that there is, in fact, no "State of Palestine." Many of the facts that I base this conclusion on are mentioned by Ramallite in earlier discussions on this page. (I strongly suspect that he and I differ on what the borders of an independent Palestinian state should be when such a thing comes into existence, but we seem to agree that it does not exist now.) An alternative would be to re-name this article something like "Palestinian proclamation of statehood, 1988" something that clearly did occur -- but it did not result in a "State of Palestine." And, when there eventually is such a state, it will not be the result of a proclamation in 1988. 6SJ7 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Info box

I know this has been discussed before, but the info box really needs to come out of this article. It is based on the fiction that there is a State of Palestine, and meanwhile, it seems almost (not completely) identical to the info box in the Palestinian National Authority article. The latter is where it belongs, because it is the PNA that has the limited powers of self-government over portions of the "occupied territories," whereas as the "State of Palestine" has no sovereignty, no autonomy, no powers (limited or otherwise) over anywhere on the Earth, and it never did. The "State" has no "territory," no "President" or anything else. So I am going to give this a day or two and then delete the info box unless someone comes up with a good reason for it to remain. (By the way, I realize this may all become moot if the article is merged, but I don't see a consensus as to where it should be merged. Perhaps whittling the article down to what really belongs in it (such as by removing the info box, for example) will remove some of the practical impediments to a merger. As I say above, I think this article could remain separate under a title such as "Palestinian proclamation of statehood," but I don't feel too strongly between that and a merger.) 6SJ7 21:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree.
-Sangil 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I added an infobox, which now has been removed. What is the logic behind this? The "State of Palestine" was indeed declared and as of today recognised by 93 nations(composed of the territories allocated to the Arabs within the old UN lines), and has observer status in the United Nations. In comparison, the Republic of China(recognised by 25) and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus(recognised by 1) articles have their own infoboxes (both without UN statuses). The "State of Palestine" is a state declared by the "Palestinian National Authority", just as the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is a state declared by the "Polisario Front". It does contain physical territories those declared by the Palestinian National Authority, and recognised by 93 nations(with Russia, India, China, putting the total population and area recognising the "State of Palestine" well beyond those not recognising the "State of Palestine"). Is this not a fact and how is this not a neutral point of view? Therefore, I strongly believe that we should bring back the infobox, perhaps elaborating somewhat on actual de facto control(area/population) and those theoretically (area/population) declared by the PNA organisation. --69.138.13.236 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of merge request

I direct readers to the page List of unrecognised countries. While I recognise the issue of Palestine and Israel creates strong emotions and convictions it must be remembered this is an encyclopaedia and therefore a neutral forum. With many other articles on states that are not recognised creates a precedent and pattern that allows an article to be named specifically as being about that state, regardless of its international status. I ask that all keep calm and not politicise this page. Wikipedia is non-partisan. AntonioBu 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Flag

Hi, just thought I'd add the Palestinian flag to this article.

wrong thought. -- tasc talkdeeds 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but why was it a wrong thought? The article is titled 'State of Palestine' so I thought the current flag that represents the

State of Palestine would be appropriate.

We already have Image of Palestine.svg

Robin Hood 1212 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

'citation needed'-overkill

Having 'citation needed' after every country makes it a bit hard to read and it is unnecessary. For every citation added there would be an external link, so that keeps track of which ones have been checked. Also, visually, it makes it look like loads more countries acknowledge the state than actually do. DirkvdM 07:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Diplomatic represantation of Palestine to Greece :

REPRÉSENTATION DIPLOMATIQUE DE LA PALESTINE


ATHÈNES

13, rue Giassemion Fonctions consulaires 154 52 P.Psychico assurées par la Représentation Tél.: 210.67.26.061-3 diplomatique Fax: 210.67.26.064


I have also added the reference for Cyprus.

However, you shouldn't write for every country the same thing...

--Zito ta xania 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


It seems to be an attack as most of them were already cited in ref UN. Nevertheless, I added citations for each one of them, but I seem to have ran out of citation space! Gerash77 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

New info box

The new info box is not quite as bad as the old one, since it is shorter and has less fictional information, but it is still a work of fiction. Mahmoud Abbas is not the president of any entity that declared independence in 1988 -- he is the president of the PNA, which is not a sovereign state. 6SJ7 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit trickier, according to a news report by Xinua agency (May 8th 2005) : «"The executive committee of the PLO is authorizing Mahmoud Abbas to act as the President of the State of Palestine, and therefore, he has to handle all competences of the head of state," said a PLO decision.»
So it seems Mr Abbas is slightly less than president but clearly more than non-president. If someone finds useful to modify the infobox to take care of this subtlety, good luck ; I don't see the point to try to work it out. --French Tourist 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, right now the PLO is just one of several political organizations seeking to represent Palestinians, and while it holds the presidency, it does not have a majority of the legislative body (whatever its name is.) And note that the latter has occurred since the date of the Xinua report that you mention, so while the PLO might have had the practical ability to authorize this at that time, I am not sure they have it now. 6SJ7 14:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am noticing that this info box more and more resembles one that would be for a sovereign state, which the "State of Palestine" is not. Doesn't it bother anyone that Wikipedia contains this work of fiction, when it is supposed to be an encyclopedia? 6SJ7 00:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of who recognizes what, there is an real-life entity that is currently known as "Palestine". People live there, it is not a part of Israel, and it should have its information recorded as such. Other de facto states such as the Western Sahara or Sealand have similar infoboxes as well. Political recognition is not really relevant here. Tarc 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Palestine" is not a de facto "state", meaning, sovereign state. By agreement, it has been granted autonomy, within the continuing occupation by Israel, or if you wish, within its continuing status as a disputed territory. As is made clear on this talk page, one of the provisions of that agreement is that the Palestinian National Authority is not a state and does not claim to be a state. The president and prime minister of the PNA are just that; they are not the president and prime minister of a state. That is my objection to the info box.6SJ7 07:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said; politics are irrelevant. It walks like a duck... Tarc 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
My point is not that there shouldn't be an info box, my point is that the information in the info box should be correct, and should not imply "facts" that are incorrect. This particular info box fails on both counts; it explicitly states information that is not correct, and also implies thangs that are not correct. The box says there is a "State of Palestine" and strongly implies that it is a functioning, sovereign state, when in fact the "State of Palestine" exists only on paper. The box states that Abbas and Haniyeh are president and prime minister of the "State of Palestine," when in fact they are not. They hold office not of a sovereign state, but of the Palestinian National Authority, which expressly acknowledges that it is not a sovereign state. That is my problem with the info box. It adds together two sets of facts, one regarding a sovereign state that was proclaimed but does not exist, and the other about an entity (the PNA) that holds limited powers in certain areas, but no sovereignty, and the result is a work of fiction. It may walk like a duck, but it is Daffy Duck; it does not really exist. 6SJ7 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of Israel

For some time this article has contained:

Most Palestinian groups and parties have described their intent for a Palestine that includes all of today's Israel and all of Jerusalem as their capital. In fact, the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, all include the entire region pictured on their official emblems, and have refused the idea of a state living alongside Israel.

Surely Fatah, if not also the broader PLO, has recognised Israel and advocated a two-state solution (in some fashion, and in some form of words), and is currently squabbling over that very point with Hamas? I missing some nuance implied by the above? (And is this article even the place for this sort of laundry list?) Alai 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This, like the peculiar and contextless reference to article 24 of the 1964 PLO covenant, is an anachronism, referring quite obviously to a period prior to the proclamation of the State of Palestine and not directly relevant for this article unless the article is going to go into more comprehensive detail regarding the political background - but really that's a matter for the articles on the PLO and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've taken the material out. I've also caught and eliminated several factual errors, especially pertaining to the PNA (to judge by the reference to Leila Shahid being PNA representative in France since 1984 some of the previous editors appear to have believd that the Palestinians had invented time travel, which might also explain the presence of the anachronistic items you have picked up on). Palmiro | Talk 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hamas as the largest party

Under Majority Political Party, it lists: "Hamas (not recognised as a legitimate political entity by western nations and Israel.)" Either Hamas is the largest party or its not, recognition from other nations surely shouldn't have anything to do with it. Mikebloke 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, but that might be included elsewhere in the article.--Gerash77 02:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

IRISH RECOGNITION

I note from the main page that the Republic of Ireland is missing from the list of countries that afford the State of Palestime "General Delegations Status'. I can confirm that the Republic of Ireland has granted the State of Palestine' this status and this is been the position for many years. the contact details of the delegation are 00353 16618028 if confirmation is required. May I ask one of your editors to amend on my behalf please .MarkStreet 25th 2006

Infobox

I've taken out the infobox. It doesn't add anything to the article except a number of misunderstandings. If someone wants to write a new one that is really about the State of Palestine and not about the PNA or the Occupied Territories, feel free, though I still don't really see what is to be gained from it. Palmiro | Talk 23:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so "misunderstanding" about the infobox on the state that is largely recognized. And I don't know why the word "Palestine" and "Palestinian" irritates certain people. Instead of removing infobox you might look at the article Jerusalem where adding a [neutrality is disputed] tag to the claim of "largest city of the State of Israel" is met with anguish.--Gerash77 01:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro is actually very Pro Palestinian. Amoruso 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
While I will agree that Palmiro is pro-palestinian, I will also say that I have nothing but respect for him as a wikipedian.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Saying that he's pro palestinian doesn't imply any disrespect. Amoruso 02:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
On wikipedia, being so is considered a "state of inferiority" - at least among certain people!--Gerash77 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You should always WP:AGF. Amoruso 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think your contributions to the Palestine-related article provides enough evidences to stop assuming things.--Gerash77 03:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and be civil, having a different pov from someone is not reason enough to ignore policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The infobox had a lot of information in it before that clearly related to the PNA, not to the State of Palestine. Most of that information had been taken out by the time it last appeared on the page, leaving only three or so substantial pieces of information: the national anthem (Biladi - I have no reason to doubt this, although I don't know myself whether the State of Palestine ever actually decided on a national anthem); the names of the president and prime minister - Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyyeh respectively; and the capital, which we are told was Jerusalem officially but Ramallah de facto. Now Ismail Haniyyeh has nothing to do with the State of Palestine, he is prime minister of the PNA and nothing else. Equally Ramallah is the de facto capital of the PNA, but has no particular importance to the State of Palestine. I can't see that once we take all this out we are left with anything useful. Of course by all means let's have the symbol and logo, but an infobox with inaccurate information and lots of empty spaces isn't doing any good. I should add that I am somewhat biassed in the matter though, as I generally don't think much of infoboxes. Palmiro | Talk 19:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the info box; it was a work of fiction, as I stated several times on this page (see "New Info Box" above.) I did not delete it because when it was deleted in the past, it was always reverted. Although there was a brief flurry of reverts this time also, hopefully the deletion will stick. What the many nations of the world have really "recognized" is that there should be a "State of Palestine", and some of them have accorded full diplomatic status to representatives of that would-be state, but none of this changes the fact that it is not a state at present. 6SJ7 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

States that recognize the State of Palestine

The heading "States that recognize the State of Palestine" is very misleading. The list is just all the countries were the State of Palestine has an "embassy". This doesn't mean that the country that the "embassy" is in recognizes the State of Palestine. For example, the United States and Australia do not recognize the State of Palestine, but are on the list. – Zntrip 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and as a result I have just removed the entire list as well as the map, which also was misleading. I tried to figure out which version from the past is correct (if any), but I could not because there are many inconsistencies. The current list claims a total of 78 states (per the intro to the section; I did not count them), but the old list claimed a total of 100 that "recognize" the "State of Palestine" and another number that recognize special delegations, etc. Clearly there is something wrong here, so unfortunately I think that those who want to have a "recognition" list are going to have start over, and find proper sources. The list at http://www.palestine-un.org/dir/emb.html, which was cited as the source for the list, is not such a source. It does not refer to the "State of Palestine" at all and includes a number of states that do not recognize the "State of Palestine" but rather recognize "delegations", "representations", "special delegations" and other formulations, which refer to "Palestine" but not to the "State of Palestine." Presumably those countries where "Embassy of Palestine" is listed do recognize the "state", but even this is not stated. The United States is listed, but apparently does not "recognize" "Palestine" in any sense other than hosting an office of the PLO. So this list includes a number of countries that should not even be mentioned in connection with the "State of Palestine." The caption of the map probably could be re-written to be correct, but as I said, I think there is going to have to be some new research to verify all of this, because what I removed clearly had a lot of incorrect information. 6SJ7 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The text and title of that section have been improved with regards to accuracy to address the concerns expressed above. --64.230.125.2 19:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7's removals

6SJ7 has repeatedly removed this map and list of states that have relations with the state of palestine. Why he is removing these things is questionable, it seems to be based on anti-Palestinian feelings. What do others think? (The section and map 6SJ7 dislikes is below.) --64.230.125.2 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

States maintaining relations with the State of Palestine

Map showing nations which have recognized or have special diplomatic arrangements with the State of Palestine.

According to the official Palestinian-UN web site [1], there are 78 states that maintain diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine, in form of embassies, missions, general delegations and special delegations:

Additionally, there are delegations and missions to the League Of Arab States (in Egypt), the United Nations (in USA, Geneva and Vienna) and Unesco (in France).

I explained earlier why I removed it. I removed it because the source http://www.palestine-un.org/dir/emb.html does not support the text of the article. Notice its title, "Embassies, missions, general and special delegations of Palestine abroad" and that it is a publication of the "Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations." It does not refer to the "State of Palestine." It includes nations which neither "recognize" nor "have special diplomatic relations with" the "State of Palestine", including the United States and many nations in Europe. Notice that in the map, the U.S. is in grey and yet they appear on the list in the article. Why? I assume the reason is found in the source document: The U.S. has a PLO office, but not a delegation of "Palestine." France, on the other hand, hosts a "General Delegation of Palestine" and the U.K. credentials a "Palestinian General Delegation." These are not the "State of Palestine". What I object to is the constant insertion of pure fiction into this article. What I am now going to do, however, is to put back in a different list, from the November 23 version of this article, that makes the distinctions among the various countries. I am going to change the caption of the map, as well as take out the number "100" which I do not think is accurate (without actually counting. But at least this will now be accurate based on the sources cited, and not fiction. If you want to put the flags in, be my guest, but only in association with what each country actually does. Personally I think the flags are just meaningless decoration in this context and serve only to make the page difficult to load for some people. And by the way, if you are going to add a disputed section to a talk page so people can see what the dispute is over, I think it is customary not to also add the section back into the article itself. Now this fiction is on Wikipedia twice. 6SJ7 20:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
6SJ7 (why not a more memorable name? really?) is basically right concerning the article's contents. I would suggest that the map be reinstated but noting only those states that grant diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, as such. The list should also be amended as he/she suggests. Any objections? Palmiro | Talk 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro, I am pleased we could agree on something. The map actually is still there, but it does not have exactly the same caption that the version on this page has. I changed the caption to indicate that not all of the nations in color recognize the "State of Palestine." That actually is explained in the legend on the map, but that is difficult to read. As for the list, I have already made the change. While I agree that it is cumbersome to have several different sources for the list, which was one of the objections in the past, that is better than using the list from the Permanent Observer Mission, which includes many nations that do not have any relations with the "State". 6SJ7 01:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Lesotho according to that map doesn't recognise palestine, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesotho it does.

Anyone know which it is? Restepc 01:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox again

Why has it been removed? If such a wide variety of entities from the Republic of China (de facto state) and Somaliland (de facto state) to the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (government in exile with no real power) and Sealand (joke "state") get infoboxes, I think it would certainly be relevant here (consider how widely accepted it is when compared to other entities with articles on Wikipedia with infoboxes).--Domitius 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All of those have government details etc. If you can find sources for the assertion that Haniyeh or Abbas are involved, or for any of the other bits of information included, we can work from there. As it stands the template doesn't make very much sense. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian embassies that are not named here

I found this

http://www.embassyworld.com/embassy/palestine2.html

It has a list of palestinian embassies. Should I start adding these countries to the list? And should they be in alphabetical order? And how do I edit the map so that it shows these countries.--Llama ruler 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed merge proposal

I don't think this article should be merged into "Proposals for a Palestinian State" because this article is about the declaration of independence that proclaimed the "State of Palestine." It has enough content to standalone and is independently notable from the various other proposals, most of which didn't get this far off the ground. --Abnn 21:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

list of recognition merger

It is probably useful to merge the list of states in which there are diplomatic missions/embassies with the main article entitled Diplomatic_missions_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority. I suggest that this article remain, but without the big list of countries in which there are embassies as it is best to centralize them into one article. I've already started copying over many of the references as the other list wasn't properly referenced. --Abnn 22:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also some obvious cut-and-paste copying going on between State of Palestine and Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority too. Thus the current situation is that there is significant duplication in the following three articles:
  1. State of Palestine
  2. Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
  3. Diplomatic_missions_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
I'm going to think about this for a bit and read a bit about how other countries handle such a situation before deciding on a course of action. --Abnn 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which countries recognize a State of Palestine?

As far as I can tell, every single reference used in this article regarding states that recognize a "State of Palestine" is original research. Which sources from the countries themselves, other relevant sources, state "Country X recognizes the State of Palestine"? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We have the UN source. It should suffice.Bless sins 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Which one is that? Please be specific. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations".Bless sins 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, we need neutral sources that state "Country x recognized the State of Palestine". Please provide them. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To Humus Sapiens, the source you reverted was an academic journal published by the University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies.Bless sins 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article; it was pure speculation from 1988. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Does the content violate any wikipedia policy?Bless sins 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me your burden of proof that you place is too high since you want an exact wording. By your standards it would be difficult to prove the USA exists. A country housing an embassy from Palestine is diplomatic recognition of its statehood. Please consult WP:COI. It could perhaps pertain. Shia1 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have to have some sort of relevant wording, and it can't consist of the kind of original research you are talking about. I'm not sure how COI would pertain; are you suggesting that because your user page says you are a "patriotic and loyal Palestinian", that therefore your statements should be discounted? Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how pointing out an embassy exist in a country and thus by definition there is state to state contact is original research. I'm suggesting that perhaps you being very Zionist is clouding your view so that, it seems, of the entire article - most of which has no sources EXCEPT for this section - only this part seems to bother you. (BTW - I did not make any changes to this article except to remove one obvious piece of vandalism, because I am a Palestinian and it would be COI. Rather I limit my contributions to suggesting changes that people with clearer heads can weigh. I humbly suggest that you also do the same thing, as well as all other Jewish editors, and most Arabs. Certainly Israelis and Palestinians should show the humility to bow out of the active editing.) This article should be very simple to write. There are facts. They are discoverable quite easily. The reason it and all such articles keap degenrating is because people will edit it in a nonsense fashion and then, upon looking at their user pages it either seems they edit entirely on Jewish subjects or Muslim subjects. People should realize WP:COI exists for a reason and act properly. If I go to the Hasbara article, it tells me the vast majority of Jews support Hasbarah. I assume that is correct. If I go to the AIsh.com I find they have asked people who support Hasbarah to bring that to wikipedia. It would be better for wikipedia if we could all be sure their evil request has been denied, and thus all Jews should stop editing these articles. ALso, I think most Muslims should also, because I know there are also very very very strong emotions on the subject. WIkipedia would be better for it. Shia1 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shia1. You seem to be focusing on editors, rather than article content - claims like "you being very Zionist" have no place on the Talk: page, as they are violations of WP:CIVIL. I didn't bother reading past that; if you wish to restate your issues referring only to article content, not your suppositions about other editors, I'll be glad to read such comments. Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out someone is very Zionist is only against WP:CIVIL if one regards a Zionist as something intrinsically negative. It is equally civil to pointing out that someone has very Republican or very Socialist views. It is certainly no less civil than your comment above my previous one, or your present one. WP:COI calls on us to examine to an extent other editors and ourselves. When the discource degenerates to the extent where the mere pointing out in polite terms of a conflict of interest causes one editor to place his metephorical fingers in his ears, it is near certain evidence that WP:COI does deserve some attention. I advise you to perhaps look at it and decide for yourself if the views you express here are what you believe to be fact or are driven by an emotion based conflict of interest. Shia1 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claiming that someone is "very Zionist" is indeed a violation of WP:CIVIL; focus on the edits, not the editors. I wasn't able to read the rest of your comment because of that violation. Please try again, referring only to article content. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Both Shia1 and Jayjg might enjoy a story involving two Rabbonim and foie gras. Foie Gras is a French delicacy that is made through force feeding corn to a duck over the period of a few weeks, then killing the duck and turning its liver into a delicious smear (I have never had any, but I am told it is delicious). In the 1800s, this became very popular even amongst Jews in Eastern Europe. One Chassidish Rov ruled that that Foie Gras was not kosher, because the process so endangered the duck's health that the duck ceased to be kosher (the rule is that if an animal is in such a state that it cannot live for a year, it cannot be kosher). A German Rov ruled that the duck was fine and the foie gras was therefore acceptable and kosher. The two Rabbonim decided to put their theory to the test to determine which one was right. Both Rabbonim force fed a duck this corn for a year to determine if the duck could last that long (if so, it is Kosher, and foie gras could be assumed to be kosher. If not, then no). The Chassidish Rov's duck died before the year was up. The German Rov's duck survived. The "moral" of the story is that biases tend to change morethan our mere perception of the reality...
I would submit that Shia1 is right about WP:COI, but that limiting this article to non-Jews, non-Israelis, non-Muslims and non-Palestinians would turn it into a short article indeed. But I, for one, am smarter than to opine about this issue... --Meshulam 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:COI only applies if you have a financial interest in editing, or something similar. Please quote the specific section of WP:COI you think applies. Jayjg (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It could be argued (and I think that Shia1 has indeed argued) that the relationship between a Zionist and the State of Israel is such that there is someting akin to a financial interest in editing (or, rather, a deeper interest in some ways). But I was just making a pithy comment. I wasn't fighting anyone's battles. I'm sitting this one out. --Meshulam 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd still be interested in the specific part of WP:COI that applies. Obviously one could claim that anything is "like" a financial interest, but that's neither true nor relevant. Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jayig. I'd like to respectfully suggest that you review the policy before dismissing my claims. You see, the COI is not just for Financial Intersts, rather, to quote the policy, "Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest," and more specifically in the section on Close Relationships, "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal."

My suggestion is that your conflict of interest is religious and political because of your strong Zionist feelings. Also I feel their could be a possible problem with Campaigning. I'll quote the policy again, "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." My reading of the Hasbarah article and common sense and genral experience tells me that the vast majority of Jewish and Zionist groups and individuals support Israel advocacy, and from reading your own thoughts on the subject, it seems you do too.

That is fine, and is your absolute right; the problem is only that on Wikipedia it causes a conflict of interest. I'm suggesting it could be best for you to take to heart the policies and edit articles unrelated to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the possible exception of geographic articles.

I understand that you were not editing malisciously but only because you were unaware of the full policy. That's why I want to invite you to join me in asking other conflicted editors - such as you and myself - to refrain from editing these articles for the sake of Wikipedia. Then maybe some of these POV tags can be removed and the articles can improve. Shia1 11:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fully aware of policy, so much so that I am quite aware that I have not violated WP:COI. Do not attribute "feelings" of any sort to me; rather, name the alleged "organizations" I am involved with that creates a WP:COI violation. Having an interest in a topic does not create a conflict of interest, and your recent prevarications regarding Daniel's most recent sockpuppet Rabbeinu removes all credibility from anything you say.Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, if the policy extended that far, there would be nobody to this article (or any other article) who knew enough about it to edit meaningfully. Tensions are high on this issue, and any edits are likely to be tinged with propaganda. But your suggestions are impractical. I also suspect that they are not coming from a true desire to see the rules of this forum upheld, but rather to clear the playing field so that another of your sockpuppets can edit this article "neutrally" in favor of all of your POV goals (or some such other fun plot).--Meshulam 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Meshulam, thank you for your opinion; but the policy does go that far. It is not very far. It simply states if you have religious or political beliefs that motivate you to edit in a certain way, you should set them aside or not edit those particular articles. I would like to bring in a neutral Administrator to examine the editing patterns of those involved in this discussion to see if perhaps they show a COI type pattern of editing for Israel advocacy. Would you be interested in that? I suggest we chose an Arab administrator and a Jewish administrator, and they chose the third administrator who will do the investigation.

YOur mention of sockpuppets is an error of logic. If a sockpuppet is used by anyone, that also should be addressed and taken care of. That does not have anytthing to do with the COI issue being discussed.

But having had it brought up, would you care to mention any articles my so-called "sockpuppets" edited together? There was one. Yhoshua Leib Gould. Only one other editor edited it, and their was no conflict except between two "sockpuppets," and that was resolved quickly. You see, I have roomates, and edit from a shared computer. We were careful not to do anything that would smack of sockpuppetry because of the confusion that can be caused by a shared computer. We edited an article about a prominant local individual. I invite you to also edit the article and see if it is unneutral. I think yu will find it well sourced and informative. But I was not given one of those sockpuppet trials. Instead my roomates accounts were banned and I got tagged with sockpuppet without evidence being given or defence being heard. I do suspect this very issue was at the heart of the way it was carried out. I would like the administrator we chose as mentioned above to also look into that situation. My deep suspiscion is that it was performed in a way that was against wikipedia policy and probably was an abuse of administrative privilages.

Where I sit it seems many of these articles are edited in a way that indicated Israel advocacy being performed against WP:COI; and when anyone else tries to edit it turns into bullying sessions by gentlemen with Hebrew handles, and finally, accusations of sockpuppetry when all else fails. Yes, I realize that "Bullying session" is a very strong phrase, but it seems to me to fit. I'm willing for there to be a neutral investifation. Are you gentleman also willing for that to happen? Shia1 19:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "COI investigation". Please desist from your ridiculous conspiracy-mongering. Comment on article content, not other editors. If you think there is a legitimate COI issue here, then take a case to the Arbitration Committee. I suspect that if such a case were actually accepted, it would only be for the purpose of examining your behavior. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

State of Palestine

The title "State of Palestine" is POV enough (we don't call Israel "State of Israel"). Please stop denying the existence of Palestine. It is recognized by a large number of countries.Bless sins 21:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving "State of Palestine" to "Declaration of 'State of Palestine'", is like moving "Holocaust" to "Claims of 'Holocaust'".Bless sins 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside the trollish nature of the comparison to the Holocaust, the plain fact is that there is no State of Palestine. Read the article on State to see what a "state" is, there is no Palestinian entity that meets the criteria. The other title was better, but I have no desire to get into a war over it. If other people are fine with Wikipedia containing works of fiction like this article, I guess I'll learn to live with it, at least for now. 6SJ7 04:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the title State of Palestine because Palestine can refer to the region of Palestine, historical Palestine, or various other interesting topics. I agree that the move would smack of possible racism and definitely of a view that is not worldwide. Most countries recognize Palestine as a State under occupation. That's the worldwide view. (I also am offended at the puting down of Palestine. Denying a people's existence is not so far from denying them the right to exist.) Shia1 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7, there are reliable sources that talk about the State of Palestine.Bless sins 17:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If these sources say there is a sovereign state of Palestine, they can't be reliable, because they are incorrect. 6SJ7 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This entry is referring to the declaration, and immediately discusses how there isn't actually a state. If and when such a state is established, this will still refer to the 1988 declaration, and would have to be moved then as well. TewfikTalk 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, by comparing this empty declaration with the Holocaust you lost. I am moving back to declaration, but without the quotes. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
6SJ7, you know wikipedia doesn't work like that. Basically you're saying that a reliable source that doens't meet your POV isn't reliable. Bless sins 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this move was inappropriate, certainly without a formal move proposal which as far as I can see there wasn't. The article is mainly about the State of Palestine, rather than the declaration. For example, it lists a considerable number of other states that recognize the State of Palestine now, in 2007, while the declaration was in 1988. More information about the institutions of the State of Palestine would also be a welcome addition to the article. Palmiro | Talk 14:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Palmiro, what state? What institutions? You have said several times on this talk page that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it is a "paper state". And you were correct. As for the recognitions, they really belong in the article about proposals for a Palestinian state (not sure about the exact title) because they are really expressions of support for creation of an actual state. 6SJ7 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It is indeed a paper state, but its name is still the "State of Palestine", not the "Declaration of the State of Palestine", so that's where the article should be. And the recognitions of it, while it would be perfectly correct to view them as expressions of support for the creation of a real Palestinian state in the 1967 territories, were also meaningful diplomatic steps in their own right.
There are other such cases of states recognized by other countries although not exercising any real sovereignty over their claimed territory, one well-known example being the Polish_government_in_exile, although naturally the parallel is not precise. Palmiro | Talk 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
But whatever the "State of Palestine" was intended to be, it has been superseded by the Palestinian National Authority, which have been very careful not to declare independence. Also, there don't appear to be many reliable sources that actually list which countries currently recognize the "State of Palestine"; most of the information was sourced to an ancient cached version listing a bunch of embassies that were claimed, but the current website makes no such claims. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you any reliable source for its having been superseded by the PNA? I am not aware of any such succession. Furthermore, the PNA was formed under the Oslo Accords which specifically prohibited it from engaging in foreign relations except in strictly limited circumstances, which suggests that such a succession would have been unlikely.
I seem to recall that that was a current version last time I edited this page, and that no-one objected to it at the time. Obviously some better source would be preferable, but it might be rather tedious going through the websites of the various Palestinian embassies and Ministries of Foreign Affairs concerned to see what they say. For what its worth (nothing in terms of reliable sources, obviously) I have seen a few buildings in various capitals with "Embassy of the State of Palestine" on their nameplate! Palmiro | Talk 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's going to a long-ago archived version of the webpage; the website has even moved since then. In any event, anyone can make any claim they like, but we need reliable 3rd party sources that state that "State X has recognized the State of Palestine". Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the PNA, it claims to be the representative of the Palestinian people. What is the State of Palestine, then? It used to be the PLO that was promoting it, so what is promoting it now? Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to my previous comment, the Government_in_exile page links to quite a few articles on states of a similar nature. Palmiro | Talk 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the Cubans still recognize it, or did in November 2004 anyway: http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2004/11/12/nacional/articulo17.html Palmiro | Talk 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There you go, that's one. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As you're the one objecting to the archived page as a source, would you perhaps like to look for some fair proportion of the rest? Sadly, I haven't the time... And what happens when Granma archives that page? Do we have to cut it out too? The problem is that that was about a good a source as one could hope for: the Palestinian mission to the UN, which would presumably be very well-informed as to the extent and manner in which various governments maintained diplomatic relations with the PLO/State of Palestine. Palmiro | Talk 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue wasn't just that it was an archived page. The problem is three-fold; first, that the Pal. mission to the U.N. is not a great source for these claims; third-party would be preferable. Second, the current page of the Palestinian mission to the UN doesn't make these claims any more, and there must be a reason for that. Third, that it's original research in any event; we need unambiguous statements that "Country X recognizes a State of Palestine", not an inference based on a claim on an page in a web archive. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to what Jay has said, it is significant that the document in question does not even mention the phrase "State of Palestine" nor does it mention recognition. It mentions "Palestine" but that is a term with several different meanings. It mentions "Embassy of Palestine" and presumably those are the countries that have been listed as "recognizing" the "State", but the document doesn't say that. Personally, I think that a bigger problem with this article is the recent removal of the statement that the "State of Palestine" is not an independent state. 6SJ7 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment 6SJ7. But does the fact that they are embassies not signify that the State of Palestine is recognized by the host government? However, unless we can clearly establish that that is indeed the case, then the objection stands. Palmiro | Talk 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tussling over the lead

There are apparently two points of view that are in conflict here; the declared state of Palestine vs. the reality that said state does not de facto exist. Both are equally valid, so I made an initial stab at blending the two points. Addition/expansion welcome, perhaps a line or so on Israel's claim to Jerusalem an so on. Tarc 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Norway

Didn't Norway recently declared recognizion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.175.236 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
  1. ^ Embassies, missions, general and special delegations of Palestine abroad, Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_1&oldid=1133827380"