Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 2

Restored Article, wide discussion proposed

I just restored the latest complete version of the article, minus the AfD notice. The recent disputation over where the redirect should go is another piece of evidence that an independent article is indicated. Planned on doing it later, after I beefed the article up with some stuff from the Sanford Silverburg edited book Palestine and International Law (which I think Harlan has too). As I stated above, I believe the AfD discussion and closure was wrong to redirect, contrary to policy and based on inaccurate "facts." This is a matter that deserves a full length discussion among many interested editors, here (or wherever). I will try to alert them in the proper places and hope others do too. (Note - an AfD closing in merge is no more binding than any other normal editing decision.)John Z (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The community previously agreed to redirect the article to Proposals for a Palestinian state, and, as you acknowledge in your comment, a subsequent full length discussion has not taken place. Articles may be recreated, but it seems kind of disruptive to go against a near-perfect consensus before initiating a discussion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I and others engaged in discussion in various places, e.g. the Proposals talk page, here, user talk pages, etc. Most favored restoration of an independent article. So I believed the most practical way to effect wider discussion was to be bold and restore. (DRV is not really the place for an unmerge discussion.) So far, the restoration of an independent article (not recreation) has received what seems to be silence = consent, no substantive objections. The merge / redirect (a kind of "keep') was so clearly imho against standard practice dealing with states, (declared or partially recognized or unrecognized), bogging down in irrelevant issues, like the "existence" of the article topic, not even mentioning the usual fodder of AfD discussion - notability and reliable sources, that it seems to me to have been strongly contrary to larger consensuses. The AfD nomination was also defective in that it called this a "Duplicated entry " where "All the information appears already on the article Proposals for a Palestinian state", whereas the duplicated material was mainly originally here and cut-and-paste-merged (frowned on) into the proposals article.John Z (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that the community consensus was wrong is not pertinent; that's what it means when they say that Wikipedia is a community project. If you think there were procedural problems with the AfD, you can bring it to DRV, where even "keep" decisions can be overturned on procedural grounds, and certainly redirect decisions. I'm not convinced that "most" of those who discussed the issue favored restoration. I see that you favor it and harlan is supporting it as a second-choice compromise, while 6JS7 opposes it, as does okedem on the Palestine talk page, if I understand his comments correctly. That's not enough to unilaterally overturn a near-perfect consensus. In any case, what's done is done. We'll consider this the beginning of the full length discussion you seek. I'll put in my two cents by saying that if the idea which the restoration of this article depends on were correct, namely that there actually is a State of Palestine, then this article would be a content fork of Palestinian National Authority, as both articles descibe the same administration governing the same population; furthermore, Proposals for a Palestinian state would have to be merged into a history section in this article/Palestinian National Authority, as there would be no point in having a separate article for proposals for a state that already exists. But the idea is not correct, as can be seen with a simple google search or by reading newspapers. The "State of Palestine" is not at all similar to true partially recognized states (e.g. Kosovo), for at least three reasons: (1) there is no one government that controls the purported territory of the state (control is split between the PNA and Hamas); (2) the entity's leaders do not call it a state (or a republic, etc.); and (3) the entity is involved in negotiations to become a state. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, Lucideer, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, MeteorMaker , eleland (probably), anons, Ark0queen (probably), from their statements at Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state have favored an independent article. 6SJ7 was the only voice raised in opposition recently. Ceedjee was recently convinced of the existence (apparently enough for wikipedia work) of the State of Palestine, here. The facts are extremely confusing, and your position above seems to be based on natural but indisputably false impressions, not matters of scholarly or international dispute; a major function of this article should be to correct them.

The restoration of this article does not at all depend on there "being" a "State of Palestine." Does our article on Narnia (world) mean we believe in the "existence" of world called Narnia? It is beyond question that the PNC of the PLO declared a "State of Palestine" in 1988. No one has ever disputed this, and that is the topic of the article, this declared state, which quickly achieved substantial international recognition, was the subject of a UN resolution, and which is the subject of scholarly works, e.g. in the book mentioned above. This is in no way a content fork of the later Palestinian National Authority, as they are and were designed as completely different entities. That the state of Israel already exists in no way precludes articles on earlier Zionist efforts (see British Uganda Programme, History of Zionism, Madagascar Plan, etc) or on Eretz Israel, similarly, if this develops into a UN member state, the Proposals article would not become inappropriate. Answering the numbered points: (1) Complete control of claimed territory has nothing to do whether something is a state or not. (2) The entity's leaders do call it a state and have called it since 1988. See the article's links for official declarations with Arafat as President. (3) Obscure relevance.

Last, this was the old version I restored, it may be clearer on just what the topic of the article is. It had some questionable uncited words in the lead ( "not .. sovereign..", "proposed"); the latest versions could be criticized from the opposite POV. But the current state of an article has little to do with whether it should exist (independently). Regards,John Z (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, while I parked myself comfortably in my La-Z-Boy recliner here, there is a pretty active relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Palestine, which I didn't notice til just now. Best,John Z (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos does understand my comments correctly - I oppose this move.

But to our discussion - the article, as it stands, is terrible. It flatly declares that a state exists, is located so and so, etc. That's false. The version you originally restored might be acceptable, but certainly not the current one.

As in the discussion you linked to, we can see that the "State of Palestine" exists as a mere concept. The need and/or right of the Palestinians to have such a state is what is recognized by many states, and its implementation is the goal of many, like the UN, US, EU, etc. However, an actual state, what we normally refer to as a state, with sovereignty, effective control, and all the other markings of a real country - does not yet exist. I'm reposting a couple of links I presented at that discussion, regarding your claim that "The entity's leaders do call it a state":

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said, on 22 June 2009, that "A Palestinian state will be established in two years' time". "I call on all our people to unite around the project of establishing a state and to strengthen its institutions ... so that the Palestinian state becomes, by the end of next year or within two years at most, a reality," he said. "Achieving this goal within two years is possible." (from: here, story also reported here, and here, and in other places). I've presented three very different sources, just to show this isn't a bad translation/quoting issue

And another one - Abbas Zaki, Fatah representative in Lebanon, said "A Palestinian state should be established..."

These quotes are not hard to come by. They are the standard language of the Palestinians, and also of the various powers involved (again - US, EU, UN, Russia, and, for the most part, Israel) They all call for the establishment of a state - recognizing the need for one, perhaps the legitimate right for one, but never claiming it actually exists yet. I'm not denying that sometimes Palestinian leaders have claimed that they head a state, but I think the meanings are different - an existing recognized concept and right, versus what we normally call a sovereign state. When they speak of rights etc, they say they have a state. When they are talking about reality, facts, what should happen in the future - then they talk about the state in a future tense. okedem (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things you said in the other discussion indicated to me that you might support the existence of this article, I'm glad you think that the earlier version is acceptable. Whether one thinks it is a mere concept or not, it is clearly a notable concept, and thus deserves an article. Again, real world existence of a state, something about which there are multiple POVs and extremely confusing intricacies (confusing even to the legal scholars in the Silverburg book}, is not really relevant to article existence. Where are we going to treat these intricacies except here? (I tend to agree with the current status of the Palestine article being focused on geography and history. I think that is the most standard approach in such cases, and it is already too big.) I again think it is important to have this article to distinguish it from the PNA, which is not at all the same thing and "is in some sort of non-parallel universe" {see the talk archives}. I do not believe that Salam Fayyad formally holds any office under the "State of Palestine", while Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor, does, as the president of the State of Palestine. Like it or not, what many states have formally recognized, is legally much more than the "need and/or right of the Palestinians to have such a state." These states are saying that, according to them, the State of Palestine exists. Just as the US recognized the independence and former governments of the Baltic states for decades when they were annexed by the Soviet Union, the State of Palestine has unquestionable legal existence in these states, and acquired e.g. Sovereign immunity when it was recognized. Diplomatic recognition has real world effects. I'll try to neutralize the lead later, but that may take time.Regards,John Z (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Technical comment: the users listed by John, with the exception of meteormaker, have not expressed support for John's course of action, and Tiamut has advocated a course of action incompatible with his. Substantial comment: John's response to my comments, which includes the idea that neither lack of control over territory nor involvement in negotiations to become a state are relevant to whether an entity is a state or not, is intelligence-insulting, and indicates, at least to me, that this is currently a show discussion. So I'm out, but I'll keep following to see if others have any input. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I should also note, to avoid a possible misunderstanding of what I said previously, that even the Republic of Kosovo does not have its own page; rather it is a section in the article Kosovo, which discusses all the POVs regarding the entity's status.

I disagree about the technical comment and the users listed, the support I suggested was before my action, most of them have not commented since; Tiamut explicitly said since she was glad that the independent article was restored in the IPCOLL discussion, as she had clearly supported several months ago. I do not intend to insult anyone's intelligence. Concerning point (1) above, the way Jalapeno phrased it, India, China, and Pakistan shouldn't be considered states. What is often/ usually considered important for definitions of "State" is control of some territory, not undisputed control over all territory claimed. (The state of ) Palestine clearly failed the former in 1988. Now - Not so clear. Again, where are we going to explain such complexities? My main point is that We are not here to decide whether things "really are" states or not. That's what reliable sources are for.. (3) is obscure partly because it is not clear whether and how the "State of Palestine" is involved in negotiations at all - how much should one identify it nowadays with the at first clearly distinct PNA?. Sanford Silverburg, in his paper in the Palestine and International Law book, argues that Palestine is not a state (rather a state in statu nascendi), (and uses quotes similar to Okedem's). John Quigley argues the opposite. Others are in between. The SoP is a topic of scholarly and international interest and importance. It is weird not to have an article on it. The article should not be used to argue either that it "exists" or "does not exist" as that is a subject of scholarly dispute.John Z (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful reply John Z. To confirm, I am in total agreement, particularly with the sentiments expressed in your last posting. Tiamut^talk 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm glad the page was restored. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but statehood is a legal status that has already been conferred on Palestine by scores of other countries. When the General Assembly adopted "Definition of Aggression", UN GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) (1974), it guaranteed that communities may not be targeted for aggression or threats by simplistic claims that they are "unrecognized". According to the General Assembly, any entity which is the target of aggression may be legally termed a State - without regard to recognition or UN membership - and benefit from the protections contained in article 2(4) of the UN Charter. see The recognition of states, By Thomas D. Grant, page 21 Therefore, the fact that Costa Rica and other countries have deliberately chosen to recognize Palestine as a "State" cannot be dismissed as merely "symbolic". Recognition means that Costa Rica accepts that Palestine has the same legal rights, protections, and obligations as every other state.

For example, the PA went straight to Geneva and told the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that Palestine was "a legal state" in the immediate aftermath of Operation Cast Lead. The PA officials said that they represent the Palestinian Territories - a well defined populated area. They presented evidence of war crimes (article 8 of the Rome Statute) and crimes against humanity (article 7 of the Rome Statute). They requested an investigation - not only of the operation in Gaza, but of events going back to the year 2002. That was not a "symbolic" gesture, since it means that the Palestinians themselves are amenable to prosecution under complimentary or universal jurisdiction if they fail to investigate and prosecute violations of international law in their own courts. I don't think it is an accident that the references to that declaration are being deleted.

It is WP:Synth for editors here to declare that a particular state or entity "does not recognize the State of Palestine", since state practice provides a number of examples of confidential or retroactive grants of de jure recognition. In the case of the Soviet Union, both the US and UK granted retroactive recognition more than two decades after the fact in order to pursue legal claims. The fact that there is universal jurisdiction and no statute of limitations for war crimes makes it possible for the State Palestine to be recognized retroactively by states with unresolved claims. That sort of paradox rendered the "constitutive doctrine of recognition" and "partial recognition" legally and logically irrelevant. In 1988, the ICRC could not confirm the accession of Palestine to the Geneva Conventions. Today it has become customary to err on the side of caution and call on partially recognized states and non-internationally recognized states to accede to international treaty agreements. see for example article 3, 6, and 10 of the "Declaration" regarding the "Deed of Commitment under Geneva Call for Adherence to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines".

The IDF recently praised the work that PA Security Forces are doing in their own cities. The PA also announced that it was releasing Hamas operatives from its jails in the West Bank ahead of conciliation talks. An entity that has its own government, cities, laws, courts, police, and jails can certainly be thought of as a State.

One meaning of the word "Establish" is "To cause to be recognized and accepted". The State of Palestine was declared in 1988, and the Palestinian Officials at Geneva presented documents to establish that other states consider Palestine to be a legal state. The Forward magazine article cited in the Palestine article said PA officials are working on getting other countries to recognize Palestine as a country. When Fayyad says he wants to establish the state within two years it does not prove it doesn't already legally exist or even that it doesn't have a well defined territory.

Here is an example. The Jerusalem Post said Reuters had reported that: Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine'. The article said the first thing Solana wanted to do was recognize a Palestinian state even without a final-status agreement regarding borders between Israel and the Palestinians. The Reuters headline had said nothing about creating a state: EU's Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state. harlan (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For the billionth time - stop presenting OR. Primary evidence, and the way you choose to interpret and analyze them - are meaningless here. Present experts, not recognition this or that, which, as I've already explained to you, is but one part of statehood.

And your interpretation of Fayyad borders on the absurd. okedem (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are NOT subject to WP:OR wikilawyering. There has never been any WP:OR involved in the article content that you've complained about anyway. Deleting well-sourced content on the basis of your own parsing and rationalizations about Fayyad statements more than borders on the absurd, it violates Arbcom guidance.

There is no WP:RS source which can claim to know that Palestine is partially recognized. The Tinoco Case mentioned on pages 36 and 37 of Grant's "Recognition of States" discusses Great Britain's refusal to recognize a Costa Rican regime that came to power after overthrowing the previous government. The Tinoco regime lasted only a few years. The successor declined to honor Tinoco's debts to Canadian and British banks. That's when Great Britain asserted retroactively that the Tinoco regime had been the only de facto and de jure government during the period in question, and demanded international arbitration of its claims. [1] I mentioned a similar case, "The Litvinov Assignment", involving claims against the government of the Soviet Union. The United States retroactively recognized the USSR two decades after the fact in order to seize extraterritorial assets in this country that the Soviets had attempted to nationalize.[2] Great Britain retroactively recognized the Communist regime in China effective as of the date of its initial declaration. That case resulted in claims from the business clients of the de jure nationalist regime.[3].

The 30-year US government declassification schedule resulted in the release of documents which revealed that the US Government had accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho, Ramallah, and Nablus Conferences of 1948; had recommended the incorporation of the bulk of Arab Palestine with Transjordan; had extended de jure recognition to Israel and Transjordan on the same day; and had approved of the subsequent political act of union adopted by the Jordanian Parliament.

The declassified 1950 US State Department Country Report on Jordan said that the US and UK had both approved the action, and a footnote explained that the US had advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that "it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people."

President Truman told King Abdullah "I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation.

After the Six Day War Secretary of State Rusk stressed to the Government of Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it gave Jordan some special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as "Jordanian territory". see Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 765-766, Document 411 [4] The absolute immunity (an attribute of sovereignty) of purely Muslim holy places was supposed to be guaranteed in perpetuity under the terms of article 13 and 28 of the Mandate. UN resolution 181 said that existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired. Israeli Ambassador Harmon said the Israeli position was that Jerusalem should be an open city under unified administration but that the Jordanian interest in Jerusalem could be met through arrangements including "sovereignty". Rostow said the US government assumed (and Harman confirmed) that despite public statements to the contrary, the Government of Israel position on Jerusalem was that which Eban, Harman, and Evron had given several times, that Jerusalem was negotiable. see Foreign relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Volume XVIII Arab-Israeli Dispute, page 996, Document 505 [5]

The union between Palestine and Jordan was dissolved a few decades later. The Arab League, including Jordan, "affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". King Ḥussein dissolved the Jordanian parliament, renounced Jordanian claims to the West Bank, and allowed the PLO to assume responsibility as the Provisional Government of Palestine.

Professor John Quigley recently noted "The statehood declared by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new statehood. Rather, it was a declaration of an existing statehood. That fact strengthens the Palestine claim to statehood, as requirements for an existing state are less rigorous than those for an entity purporting to be a new state. see http://www.lawrecord.com/files/35-rutgers-l-rec-1.pdf page 8 THE PALESTINE DECLARATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: THE STATEHOOD ISSUE, by Professor John Quigley, The Internet Journal of Rutgers School of Law harlan (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think harlan raises some important points. There is a a lot of scholarship dealing with the legal status of Palestinian statehood that predates the 1988 declaration. I think a lot of this would be better covered in an article on the Legal Status of Palestine (which I hope someone as informed as harlan will write - hint hint ...) But some of it should certainly be covered here. Perhaps a section on "Legal interpretations" or "Legal scholarship" would be in order? Tiamut^talk 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material

The following keeps getting deleted without discussion and I am repasting here so that we can discuss what if any parts are relevant to this article. Perhaps we should consider creating a Legal Status of Palestine page too, where some of this and other related information could go.

The Israeli military still occupies portions of the Palestinian Territories. The commander exercises usufructuary rights in accordance with international law, but is not the legal sovereign of the occupied territory. The permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the natural resources of the territory has been recognized by 164 countries. Under agreements reached with Israel, the Palestinian Authority exercises de jure control over many of the natural resources, while interim cooperation arrangements are in place for others.

Tiamut^talk 10:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one removing this material, because I can't see it's relevance to this article. Let's take it sentence by sentence:

The Israeli military still occupies portions of the Palestinian Territories.

This talks about the so-called "Palestinian Territories". The leading paragraph already says that the SoP has no control of any territory (the PT, or portions of them, included). Saying who does control portions of one territory is out of place here.

he commander exercises usufructuary rights in accordance with international law, but is not the legal sovereign of the occupied territory.

This is just bizarre. Who is "the commander"? Also, apparently this is an attempt to expand on the previous sentence, which, again is irrelevant to this article.

The permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the natural resources of the territory has been recognized by 164 countries.

This is unsourced (and seems more like an interpretation than like a verifiable fact), but again, does not discuss the SoP.

Under agreements reached with Israel, the Palestinian Authority exercises de jure control over many of the natural resources, while interim cooperation arrangements are in place for others.

Again, this discusses an agreement that the SoP is not a side to (these are between Israel and either the PLO or the PNA), and the wording is again confusing and strange. What is "de jure control over natural resources"? And what's this focus on "natural resources" in an article dealing with a purely political entity? -- uriber (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding the proposal to create Legal Status of Palestine: We already have Palestinian_territories#Legal_status and Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Do we really need another article on the subject (never mind the inaccurate proposed name)? -- uriber (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, you are deleting material related to the "Palestinian territories" on the basis that it is unrelated to a discussion of the State of Palestine; on the other hand, you are claiming that the Legal Status of Palestine can be discussed in an article on the Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There seems to be an internal contradiction there that you might want to clarify.

You see, that's the problem when using an ambiguous term such as "Palestine". I was assuming from context, and from the fact that the material I deleted only deals with the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, that you were referring to the legal status of these areas. An article about the "legal status" of an ancient geographical region (Palestine) seems weird. Obviously different parts of this land had different legal status (under different legal systems) throughout history. However, the material I removed doesn't actually discuss any of this. -- uriber (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the material being deleted itself, I think it needs to be reorganized and cited to its sources, which should be discussing it explicitly in connection with the issue of the State of Palestine. Sources which make links between the issue of Palestinian self-determination, its recognition and the recognition of statehood should not be hard to find given the close interdependence of these issues.

If you can find sources discussing it explicitly in connection with the issue of the State of Palestine, please use them for adding information to this article. However, I doubt that you'll find many, since the SoP had and has little to do with the physical or legal situation of any territory. -- uriber (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Status of Palestine is a related but different subject that both predates and goes beyond the geographical scope of the Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I think we should try to cover some of the legal status of Palestine in this article (as it pertains to the State of Palestine), but it will likely need its own article to do the subject justice. Tiamut^talk 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Uriber, there are a number of sources. For example, Silverburg recalls that the right of self-determination was invoked by the Palestinian authorities in their declaration of statehood and consituted the legal basis for their claim, with the factual basis being their continued habitation in the land and their status of the majority population prior to the immigration of Jews in the 19th century.

In The Reality of International Law, the relationship of self-determination to statehood is discussed in detail. Indeed, the author notes that the non-fulfillment of Palestinian self-determination forms the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further notes that while self-determination and statehood are not synonyms, the first generally leads to the second.

Hiller writes that even those states who did not immediately recognize the State of Palestine, recognized the Palestinian right to self-determination, and that they withheld recognition primarily because they believed that a comprehensive Middle East peace was a necessary precursor.

In short, there are hundreds of reliable sources that discuss self-determination and statehood, and others which discuss the issue of occupation and its impact on declared statehood. I will be adding information in the days and weeks to come. Tiamut^talk 10:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Nominal state"?

I changed the description of the "State of Palestine" in the first sentence from "partially recognized nominal state" to "proposed state", which is what it is, but (as I expected) it was reverted. I suspect from past discussions that the current version of the first sentence meets with the approval of a number of people around here, so I have a question for all of you. Leaving aside (for the moment) the question of what "partially recognized" means in this case (in other words, partially recognized as what?, which I have asked before and never gotten a good answer to), a newer and perhaps more interesting question is this: What is a "nominal state"? I have never heard or read that expression before, I don't see a source for it in the article, there is no Wikipedia article on the concept of "nominal state", and I don't know what it means. What does it mean? And I guess a follow-up question, this being Wikipedia and all, is: What's the source for your answer? 6SJ7 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognized as what is simple: over 100 states recognized it as an independent state, what else? That's what "recognition" always means when one says X recognizes Y, which declares itself a state. Just the same way the USA recognized Israel in 1948. Just as France recognized the USA before it was definitively independent from Britain. "Partially recognized" here means that it is not universally recognized as a state, not that it was semi-recognized (but see below). The somewhat unusual thing is that Palestine at the time controlled no territory, but that is not unheard of. The US recognized governments of the Baltic states with no control over territory; The government of Namibia was admitted to international organizations as a state before it controlled any territory, etc. Here is what French President Mitterand said at the time: "Many European countries are not ready to recognize a Palestinian state. Others think that between recognition and non-recognition there are significant degrees; I am one of those." On the other hand, the USSR explicitly did not recognize the State of Palestine, nor did the USA; a federal court declined a Palestinian claim of sovereign immunity based on the 1988 declaration in the Leon Klinghoffer case. (sourced from the Silverburg book, papers by Silverburg, Quigley and Joel Singer.). "Declared state" might be better than nominal, or just avoiding the issue entirely might be best - "the PLO declared the State of Palestine in 1988 ...". John Z (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not dealing with the recognition issue right now, and I'm dealing with the word that's there now, not some other solution. (And I think your solution is probably even less accurate than what is there now, and what's there now is meaningless, since I don't know what a nominal state is.) Anybody want to tell us what a nominal state is? 6SJ7 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Uriber is the one who added this description (I believe) and I assume that "nominal state" means a state in name only. However, without a source using that formulation, it is WP:OR. I think John Z is right that a simple descriptive regarding the declaration of 1988 serves us best until we can find a consensus among reliable sources on how to describe the state. Tiamut^talk 10:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it means, it is correct, it is a state in name only, with the "recognitions" just being political gloss that doesn't change anything. ("Nominal" doesn't really fit the purpose very well as it has several different meanings, at least two of which could apply here.) The intro really should go back to one of the older versions that focuses on the declaration (so we actually do seem to have partial agreement here) but makes clear that it is only a proposed state and that it has no sovereignty over any territory. (Like see this version from May 2006 when I rewrote the intro.) Actually it was much better when this was part of the Proposals for a Palestinian state. As I have said a number of times, if there is to be a separate article, it should be about the declaration (including the title, like Declaration of a Palestinian state), which is a historical event that merits an article, but not about the state that was supposed to result, but did not and has not. (Yet; although there is a serious question about whether the proposed Palestinian state that is the subject of current negotiations is the same one that was "declared" in 1988.) But whatever. I have been trying for more than three years (or so the above version-link would indicate) to keep this article from being a work of fiction, and there seems to be a resurgent trend toward keeping it a work of fiction, which little old me isn't going to be able to stop. I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time with it. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think going directly to the 1988 declaration for now is an okay temporary solution. However, when we a more developed article that discusses the various scholarly views on the issue, I think we can come up with a suitable opening definition. I don't like using "nominal" because I don't think its that accurate. Even without territory, Palestine is more than a state in name only, though certainly less than fully functioning state. My and your personal opinions aside, I think the complexities of what the State of Palestine is, in theory and practice today, can be covered for our readers when we start to probe the scholarship more deeply. Tiamut^talk 16:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you changed the opening sentence to "The "State of Palestine" [...] is a state [...]". This, in my opinion, is plain wrong, or at least highly disputable. According to most conventional definitions of a state, control over territory is a strict requirement. As such, the SoP is not a state. Flatly declaring is the opening sentence that it is, is plain wrong. Since you didn't like "nominal" (which simply states that it is a state by name, but does not offer an opinion on it actually being a state), How about "The SoP is a political entity partially recognized as a state", or something of this sort?

Also, I find "also simply Palestine" to be somewhat misleading, as it is relatively rare that the SoP (being a somewhat obscure entity, to the point where until recently it was considered unworthy of a Wikipedia article of its own) is referred to as simply "Palestine". I think there is much confusion in the general public's mind between Palestine, the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian territories and (to the extent it's even known) the State of Palestine. We should strive to make these distinctions clearer, and the phrase quoted above certainly doesn't help doing that. -- uriber (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate the relative insignificance of the SoP compared to the PLO and PNA, I note the fact that the position of President of the State of Palestine was vacant between Arafat's death in 2005, and the time when Mahmoud Abbas was formally elected to this position in November 2008. When Abbas was finally elected to this post (after serving as cahirman of the PLO and President of the PNA for over 3 years), this was seen as mostly a tactical move to strengthen Abbas' position within the PNA [6], and was barely even covered by international media. -- uriber (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uriber about the first paragraph. A few quick points: (1) Using the word "state", unqualified, is obviously wrong and makes this version worse than any other I can recall over the past three years; (2) using "Palestine" as an alternate name is incorrect, confusing and POV; (3) I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but what does it mean to say that the "state" has "no direct control" over any territory, as opposed to just "no control"? Direct as opposed to indirect? I am not sure what either of those would mean; (4) Calling it a state "with limited recognition" is misleading and I note with some rueful amusement that there is an article List of states with limited recognition (which, disturbingly, is a "featured list" that violates just about every rule in the Wikipedia book, including SYNTH/OR and POV) that includes both Israel and the "State of Palestine", though in different categories, and it makes me wonder whether some attempt is being made to equate the two for obvious political reasons; that is, a real state (Israel) and a non-state (the "State of Palestine"), by calling them both "states with limited recognition"); (5) Tiamut's mention of "scholarship" in this area raises a real red flag for me (red signifying neither Communists nor Republicans (U.S.) in this case). There is a really fine line (if there is a line at all) between scholarship and political posturing on this subject. This is not chemistry or botany, it is not even history, and it is "law" only in the most tenuous sense. I know all about law journal articles, an opinion piece with a lot of footnotes and citations is still an opinion piece; these are even more prevalent in "international law" than in other areas of law. So let's not place too much faith (so to speak) in "scholarship" on subjects like this. Empty conferrals of "recognition" do not provide the answer either -- in practical terms they consist mainly of issuing credentials to a diplomatic delegation, but fancy documents with wax seals and cute ribbons do not make a state either. A more practical place to look would be the U.N., which contrary to one of the comments somewhere up above, does "recognize" states, in the form of admitting states to membership, and giving non-state entities something less than that. In this case the U.N. has done exactly that, giving the Palestinian delegation only observer status, not membership. You can be sure that if there were any excuse, any tiny slender reed of justification, for admitting that delegation to membership in the U.N., it would be done "yesterday." Most member states of the U.N. would love to have a Palestinian entity as a member state, but they recognize that at this point, it is not one. (As opposed to other instances such as the Republic of China (Taiwan), where the non-membership is consistent with the political views of most member states, and even to some extent the views of the current government of the RoC, which still holds that there is only one legitimate government of China.)

Well, that's enough for now. I am sure I have missed a few points but will have to get back to them at another time. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've mae some changes in response to the concerns you both raised. Let me know if there are still problems you feel need to be addressed. Tiamut^talk 21:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to assume that this is a good-faith effort to resolve the issue, but I am not sure which of my concerns this new version is intended to address. Could you identify them by number? It seems to me that this makes it worse. How about a first sentence that starts: A (not The) State of Palestine was declared... (and then go into the basic facts of the declaration, which are now in the second sentence. Then we could say something like, Controversy exists over the result, with some considering the result a state, which has limited international recognition, and others noting that no Palestinian entity currently holds sovereignty over any territory. Then I would add another sentence, which I think would clear up a lot of the confusion that people have on this subject of "Palestinian statehood": The Palestinian National Authority, which exercises some governmental functions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (with different leadership in each region), is designated by the Oslo Accords as an interim administrative authority and not a sovereign state.

The wording of the above isn't perfect, since I've just kind of rattled it off on the spot. I realize the second sentence ("Controversy exists...") is subject to criticism under usual Wikipedia writing style, but I think it is both true and appropriate in this unusual case. Why not tell people there is controversy? Personally I think that is POV in and of itself. There really is no grounds for controversy, as there is no state there, regardless of who recognizes what. But I could live with something along the lines of what I have suggested. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the changes I made addressed point #1 (I used the wording proposed by Uriber for that). Point #2 is contradicted by the sources cited (among others). The UN changed the name of the observer representatives for the Palestinian people at the UN in the 1990s to "Palestine" from the "PLO". They did not change it to "State of Palestine". In fact, if you truly believe that there is no State of Palestine, the short-hand Palestine might be seen to be preferable, no? About #3, I took it out entirely because I'd like to see what phrasing the sources use. Regarding #4, consensus in the Wikipedia community seems to indicate that a state with limited recognition is a valid concept. About #5, of course all scholarship expresses a bias. Our job is collect from the best sources a variety of significant POVs on this subject to bring this article in line with NPOV. That's an ongoing struggle.

About your latest suggestions, I have to say honestly that I don't find them necessary. The literature uses "The State of Palestine" and not "A State of Palestine" (generally-speaking). Our version currently uses both formulations. "Controversy exists ..." is not a good way to describe the debate over the status of the State of Palestine. When we amass more scholarship, we can map out a summary of the different positions. Most scholarship examines the claim to Palestinian statehood against the 4 criteria outlined in the 1933 Montevideo conference. Some scholars argue that Palestine fulfills this criteria, some say it does not, some say it does partially and that the criteria itself has evolved with new legal precedents provided by Western Sahara or elsewhere. We need to represent these arguments.

Your last suggestion regarding the PNA though is a good one I think. I would like to add it to the current text alongside what is there. Tiamut^talk 08:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your edits made the first paragraph worse than it was in the first place. I see Uriber has edited the first paragraph to re-insert the issue of control over territory, which is essential. My concern was over the phrase "direct control", as opposed to "control", so taking it out altogether obviously did not address the issue. Now you have introduced a new concept, over which I have a major concern, and which Uriber has left in place, and that is the phrase "political entity." What "political entity" are you referring to? A piece (or pieces) of land? If so, what land? A government? If so, what government? Or governments? Or political parties, or factions? Pieces of land, governments, political parties and factions can all be referred to as "political entities", but I can't identify any such "entity" that would be equivalent to a currently existing "State of Palestine." Maybe you meant something else. I think the problem here, as it has always been with this subject, is that this article really is not about a state, or a nominal state, or a political entity, but about the concept that there should be a Palestinian state, and also somewhat about the fact that the 1988 declaration was an attempt to turn that concept into a reality, which has not yet come to fruition. So let's write about the concept, as a concept, about which there is already an article, Proposals for a Palestinian state. Or if this must be a separate article, let's write about how the 1988 declaration does (or does not) relate to the practical reality of what exists today. Or if we can't even do that, let's recognize there is a controversy. But let's not make Wikipedia the encyclopedia of hopes and dreams, when it is supposed to just be an encyclopedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Under international law a state is a state

The Inter-American System of public law incorporates the Montevideo Convention and the Charter of the Organization of American States. Those multilateral treaty agreements are valid and still in force. They say that recognition confers legal rights, and that all states are juridically equal. I notice that 6SJ7, Uriber, and Okedem are not providing any third party verifiable WP:RS citations to customary or conventional international law to support their positions.

The theory that recognition is mere political gloss doesn't hold water. Both treaties contain contractual agreements regarding the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES: Article 10 "States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and have equal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof [i.e. sovereignty], but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law." Article 12 "The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever." Article 14 "Recognition implies that the State granting it accepts the personality of the new State, with all the rights and duties that international law prescribes for the two States."

Many countries viewed the DOP as an invalid agreement ab initio because it violated the principles of customary law contained in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. In the aftermath of the Six Day War, Foreign Minister Abba Eban said that Israel had given thought to establishment of a separate, autonomous Palestinian state on West Bank, but that the days of autonomous dependent regions had really passed. see Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 442.[7] The DOP represented an attempt to turn back the clock, and impose hieratical forms of statehood once again.

The term "nominal states" was applied to the South African TBVC States (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei). They were racial enclaves that were supposed to satisfy the right to self-determination of black South Africans. They received absolutely no international recognition because they were tools of apartheid. Palestine by contrast has been recognized by more than 100 countries. The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) is the statutory research agency of the national parliament. It recently completed a 15 month-long study of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in collaboration with Adalah, Al Haq, the Minerva Center at the Hebrew University, and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of London. The report, "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?", explains that the Bantustans were nominal states (on page 78 of 302).

The same HSRC study found that Israel had systematically violated international law in order to colonize the West Bank. The prohibition against the transfer of settlers to occupied territory was confirmed as an international crime in 1998 by its inclusion as Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That fact was acknowledged at the time in a statement made by Judge Eli Nathan, the head of the Delegation of Israel to the Rome Conference. UN Human Rights Rapporteurs have documented numerous other treaty violations in the occupied territories and have submitted reports to the appropriate monitoring bodies. The HSRC also found that Israel's practices violate the Apartheid Convention in several respects. Denial of nationality, interference in the right to self-determination and in the formation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were specifically cited by the HSRC as violations of the convention. Individual responsibility for the crime of Apartheid is covered in Article 7 of the Rome Statute. State responsibility is determined by the ICJ and the HSRC has recommended that an advisory opinion be obtained.

There are a number of international human rights conventions which have become a recognized part of customary international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that many non-derogable international human rights laws are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) on the basis of the fact that the inhabitants are the lawful residents of the territory of a state. harlan (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a law journal, much less a journal of alternate realities. We should be writing about reality here, not philosophical fantasies. If you insist on keeping the philosophical fantasies, let's at least have some balance, with the reality also stated, but you don't even seem willing to do that. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ENOUGH! May I please remind everyone of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. Please stop the explicit and implicit accusations of paid editing, unpaid editing, pro-Palestine, pro-Israel, pro-Football, pro-Phylactic, anti-whomever edits and stick to content. I am collapsing this unfortunate foray into ad hominem accusations from whichever side they may be, and hope that y'all can get back to sourced and cited content, portrayed as best possible per guideline and policy. -- Avi (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)'

Thought-police is here? You three fellows are awfully busy trying to prove that there is no country or state of Palestine despite published reports to the contrary. You don't seem to be following the non-negotiable WP:NPOV rules which say that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. In fact, you guys aren't providing any third-party verifiable WP:RS sources to support your views at all. For quite a long time now I've patiently explained that statehood is just a legal status bestowed on communities exclusively by other states. That legal status affords them protection from aggression and non-negotiable guarantees of fundamental human rights. Nearly every entry on this restored talk page mentions the fact that third-party verifiable WP:RS sources say the Palestinian Authority has presented bilateral treaty agreements which prove that it has been legally recognized by dozens of other states. It has done that in order to request a war crimes investigation of the attack on Gaza and events dating back to 2002. Those same articles also say it's officials have turned over evidence to the ICC Prosecutor concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity. An international group of legal experts working with a state research agency have reported that Israel has implemented a system of illegal colonization and apartheid in the OPT. They also want their day in court and recommend that an advisory opinion be obtained. see Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid - Full Study. The examples of abuse they cite include denial of nationality, interference with self-determination, and interference with the establishment of a Palestinian State. The President mentioned Israeli settlements and denial of Palestine's right to exist in his Cairo speech He said: "At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." 6SJ7, your reaction "we are writing about reality here, not fantasy." is insulting. Publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) when they are directed against Palestinians is an acknowledged form of hate speech according to the EU Framework on Racism. The United States is a contracting party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It took a reservation to the prohibition contained in article 4 to the extent that its efforts to prohibit propaganda activities are circumscribed by the protections provided in the Constitution for individual freedom of speech, expression, and association. The United States reports that it can, and does, give effect to article 4 in numerous areas. There are restrictions on tax exempt organizations that limit their ability to carry on sustained political propaganda campaigns. There seems to be guidance from Arbcom consistent with that policy in an earlier case that you were involved in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Principles If a request for clarification becomes necessary, I will point out that the Israeli courts say Judea and Samaria are occupied, not disputed. People living in occupied territories share a number of legal protections under customary international law. They feel intimidated when those are characterized as "very controversial" or made the subject of unwarranted disputes. Even though Israel claimed the OPT was not subject to its sovereign jurisdiction or territory, the ICJ ruled that non-derogable human rights law does apply there. They explained that the inhabitants are the legal residents of the territory of a state. The Israeli courts say unplanned or unauthorized settlements are illegal because they violate the provisions of customary international law. Finally, any settlements built after 2002 violate the Rome Statute and the responsible individuals can be prosecuted in a number of countries. see the Database of National Implementing Legislation. Apartheid is now viewed as a violation of customary international law in this country and an Apartheid class action lawsuit is going to trial. It seems that the Wikimedia Foundation aims to treat all people with respect, and to foster a productive environment free of harassment, intimidation and discrimination. It prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users on the basis of national origin or any other legally protected characteristics and says that those policies may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. harlan (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC) No one cares about your analysis of the situations, your opinion about the legality of settlements, and least of all your analysis of pieces of evidence to conclude that a Palestinian State exists. Since you simply refuse to provide expert opinion to that end, I can only conclude you failed to find any. But all of that doesn't matter. In resorting to what is effectively legal threats, you have lost any right to be heard by your fellow Wikipedians. From now on, I will simply ignore your scrolls of irrelevant claims, and I urge others to do the same. okedem (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I don't see any legal threat in harlan's comments. The responses to his comments are another matter. Failing to engage the arguments of your fellow editors is disruptive. It's also rude. harlan has raised a number of relevant points. He doesn't have to cite every comment he makes on talk pages and those familiar with the literature know that his summaries are accurate. I have added some cited material addressing some of these issues and will be adding more. I hope that those pretending that this information is not relevant will respect the additions and read them. They will help us to draft an appropriate introduction. Those who don't read material from scholarly sources will be of little use in drafting an intro that is in line with NPOV and V. Tiamuttalk 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) If you don't see it, I guess you need to re-read his comment. Saying that another user's comments are "Hate speech", and that Wikimedia is under certain legal obligations is a legal threat ("There are restrictions on tax exempt organizations that limit their ability to carry on sustained political propaganda campaigns"). Also, saying (that's what he's doing - read the link in his title) that other users are paid campaigners is unacceptable. His claims aren't gaining support, so he's personally attacking the other users. And I'll say this again - Harlan likes to discuss numerous points, usually irrelevant, to "prove" his points. Unfortunately, as we've tried to explain to him, what he's doing is original research - examining evidence (recognition, diplomacy, statehood criteria etc), and drawing conclusions from them ("Palestine is a state"). These issues are for legal scholars, not Wikipedians. I don't care how compelling the evidence might be, or how illegal the settlements are (completely irrelevant to this discussions, as many of his other points). Harlan is not a legal expert to be used as an RS. He should present actual experts, real sources, that support his claims. He refuses to do so, and so his arguments become meaningless. You're free to make your choice, but you actually should know better than this. okedem (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC) He's familiar with the literature. Read John Quigley's latest article on Palestine's application to the ICC for example. He discusses many of the same points harlan is. I think harlan is wrong to waste his time trying to explain all of this to people who don't want to hear it, but what he is saying is not OR and its not irrelevant. Its what most of the scholarship of the subject is saying. I would encourage harlan to spend less time writing this stuff on the talk page and more time writing it into articles, with citations to the sources expressing these arguments of course. If you are having trouble finding the cites, let me know and I will add them to your text. They are not really that hard to find. All it requires is a little good faith. It sure looks like a legal threat to me. In fact, I see at least two. I would ask for a neutral third-party admin to take a look and give an opinion, but I am not sure where to find one who, on one hand, will actually be neutral, and on the other hand, won't be attacked for agreeing with me. And by the way, to Harlan: You are accusing me of propaganda? You're joking, right? And not only that, you seem to be suggesting that I am violating U.S. law by expressing my opinion about what should be in a Wikipedia article. I have to tell you, I do know a little about my country's Constitution, and I'm not worried. But you have still violated Wikipedia policy against making legal threats. With that, I am finished with this article, for about the tenth time in the past three years. My ability to express my opinion is being chilled by legal threats. Perhaps more to the point, this discussion is futile, because certain editors have decided they "own" the article, and I have neither the time or energy to stop them. It's pretty sad that a few intensely involved people, one of whom is an expert at filibustering and pseudo-legal analysis, can take over an article and make it a work of fiction. But I'm done with it. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Tiamut, I don't care how familiar Harlan might be with the literature, and neither should anyone else. That's not the point. We use sources to cite articles, not original research, which is what he's doing. If his claims are widely accepted by the experts in the field, he ought to provide their opinions - but he refuses to do so, and you're supporting him. And I see you completely ignore his threats, and his attacks on users like 6SJ7 and myself, claiming we're paid campaigners. You know, there's a certain difference between some users and others. I, for instance, don't have a problem criticizing users if they're editing incorrectly (OR, POV, etc), even if they're supposedly from "my" position ("pro-Israeli"). I regularly revert edits that skew articles towards an "Israeli POV". I don't shy away from arguing with them, and have gotten into huge debates with them. If such a "pro-Israeli" user starts threatening people, or attacking them personally (not saying their claim are idiotic or something - that's still legitimate; but claiming they're, say, paid government agents or whatnot), then I have no problem going after them, and supporting measures against them. I don't automatically provide support to disruptive, threatening, personally-attacking users, just because they're close to my position. It's a simple matter of decency. But that's just me. okedem (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

De facto recognition?

Tiamut, you wrote in footnote 3 "While the majority of the states who have recognized Palestine have afforded de facto recognition...". However, the article on Diplomatic recognition says that "de facto recognition is more tentative and relates more to recognizing that a government exercises control over a territory". I find it hard to believe that the majority of states recognized the fact that the government of the SoP exercises control over a territory, given that it never exercised such control. Can you explain? -- uriber (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a rather lazy edit that attempted to reconcile the difference between the 67 states figure of de jure recognition. Accoring to this source, the terms are rather out of vogue and have a tendency towards misapplication. I think the information about bilateral relations is better placed in another part of the article as text. My addition to the beginning of that sentence should simply be thrown out. Tiamut^talk 21:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. However, this leaves us with the conflicting figures, and the main text simply ignores this conflict, stating "more than 100 countries" as a fact. Frankly, I'm very suspicious of that figure. If we're going to give only one number in the main text, I think it should be 67, since that comes from the most recent and reliable source. Either that, or we should restore my wording (that you removed), stating the various figures with references to their sources. What would really be nice is having actual per-country reference (coming from a source in the recognizing country), as we have e.g. in International recognition of Kosovo. -- uriber (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone with the information in the most authoritative source. The number of 67 given in this article does not seem to be referring to the total number of states which have recognized Palestine. Rather, it refers to the documents al-Malki presented to the ICC proving de jure recognition by 67 states. Besides this source which gives a number of 94 (the lowest), most others place the figure at over 100. For example, Anat Kurz gives a figure of 117, the IMEU gives a figure of about 100, this UNESCO document from 1989 (a year after the declaration) gives a figure of 92, this book from 2003 gives a figure of over 114 whereas a book from 1996 gives a figure of some 90. The discrepancies have to do with the fact that as time goes on, the number changes due to new recognitions (like that of Costa Rica in 2008) or to the dissolution of states which did recognize Palestine (like the GDR) and recognition afforded by newly created states (like the Czech and Slovak Republics). Unlike Kosovo, whose recognition came very recently, initial recognition for the Palestinians began even prior to 1988. Its hard to find online sources for each individual recognition (though I have been working on that at List of diplomatic missions of Palestine). I suggest that we write "about 100" for now and discuss the varriations in footnotes, citing the year of the source and the figure and explaning some of these issues if necessary. Cluttering up the text with different figures from different sources, some of which are outdated, seems WP:UNDUE and unnecessary. Tiamut^talk 07:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Country infobox

May I please remind everyone involved that this article is under the general ArbCom Sanctions, and the back-and-forth changes aren't helping anyone. On a personal note, I do not think the box is a problem, but I understand how some will; there are reasons to both have and not have it, and the standard RfC will just have the regulars lining up on either side, so I am at a loss for a good solution. Anyone? -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Avi, but it should definitely stay. Palestine should not be treated any differently than any of the other disputed political entities. See Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus (which by the way, is recognized only by Turkey) and Somaliland. Please, I'm really getting tried of people being able to push their personal POV to the fore and try to erase Palestine from Wikipedia. We have a bunch of ridiculously named articles because of this, with people arbitrarily replacing "Palestine" with Palestinian National Authority or some other non-synonymous terms. Its got to stop. Tiamut^talk 16:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The examples you provide are real entities, that control territory. The "State of Palestine" controls nothing, governs no-one. If those are you best examples - that's a problem. okedem (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The relationship of the State of Palestine to the PLO and the PNA is a complex one. I have not been able to add all the relevant information to this article, because I spend an inordinate amount of time fending off commentary from editors whose sole interest in this article is to make sure that it doesn't offend their POV.

The PNA forms part of the government of the State of Palestine. Since it controls territory in Area A, arguably, the State of Palestine does control territory. [8]

Further, the State of Palestine is recognized by many more countries than any of the examples cited above and is a member of more international organizations. Instead of gutting the infobox, why don't you do some reading and try editing the article so as to improve it by reflecting what reliable sources have to say, rather than what you think it should say? Tiamut^talk 17:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't have it both ways. When I pointed to the fact Salam Fayyad, PNA PM, said a Palestinian State will be established in two years, I was told (also by you, I believe), that he has nothing to do with the Palestinian State. Now you say that the PNA is a part of that State - but the PM of the PNA says that state doesn't exist yet. You've reached a paradox, I'm afraid. okedem (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Life is not black and white Okedem. Fayyad doesn't represent the State of Palestine, but the PNA is related to the State of Palestine. As I said, if I had more time to read scholarly sources and write them into the article, these issues would be clearer. Perhaps you would like to try writing something? This is the encyclopedia that anyone (committed to core policies like NPOV) can edit. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's either yes, or no. As the PNA PM says a Palestinian State is only in the future, it cannot possibly have a capital today. It also doesn't fit the very definition of that word, due to a lack of government offices there. Sorry, we can't use words that mislead the leader. The Palestinian bodies can claim whatever they want. But to tell the reader that Jerusalem is their capital is simply false. okedem (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Per NPOV, we have an obligation to tell the reader that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine or that Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital. These are both true statements. In short form, in the infobox to represent this, we can put "Proclaimed capital: Jerusalem" and this would be a correct statement. In the article, we can explin that while East Jerusalem is overwhelmingly made up of Palestinians who do not hold Israeli citizenship and while the PLO has enjoyed limited official representation in the form of government offices there Orient House being one of these), it does not control territory in this area. Like I said, life is not black and white Okedem. There is no one WP:Truth. There are only viewpoints and its our job to make sure we represent all significant ones. The Palestinian viewpoint that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine is a significant one in an article on the State of Palestine. Its not very hard to understand that if you try. Tiamut^talk 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Being so keen on shades of gray, you should be the one opposing use of the template. Templates dictate a black or white world - either it is the capital, or it isn't. Either it has so and so many people, or it doesn't. This isn't unique to this article. We've had problems with templates in Hebrew Wiki as well, since they leave no room for nuanced (and accurate) phrasings. What can easily be dealt with in the text (like: "The State of Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital, though it currently has no control over it, and the city does not house any official functions of the State of Palestine") is reduced to a yes or no question in a template. "Proclaimed capital" is enigmatic - what does that mean? Israel also "proclaimed" Jerusalem its capital a long time ago, but Jerusalem actually is Israel's capital, in the normal sense of the word. That doesn't hold true for the Palestinians, with their non-existent state (sorry, I prefer Fayyad as an expert, over you). You want complexities - stay with article text. You want template - we reach black and white. okedem (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• And by the way, it is wrong of you to remove the information regarding Jerusalem: [9]. It is the declared capital of Palestine, not of the PNA, and that information is very relevant to this article. Again, try to put your POV aside and respect that Wikipedia is not a place for you to carry out your battles against Palestine. Its a place to edit and improve articles. Try to improve the article, not gut it. Tiamut^talk 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Claimed as capital, for the future. Isn't actually the capital, as it's home to no Palestinian government.

We can both play the POV-accusation game ad-nauseum, but that won't get us anywhere, so I suggest you stick to the facts. okedem (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources say its the capital. Your OR opinion is of no value here. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, if all you are relying on is what Salam Fayyad said to say that the state of Palestine is not a "real entity" then you need to reevaluate that statement. You have been provided with a number of rock solid reliable sources that say without any ambiguity that it is a real state, that it isn't Salam Fayyad that determines what a state is but rather it is other states that make that determination. You have also been provided with sources that say Jerusalem has been declared as the capital of that state. If you want to add a note that says "designated" in the infobox next to the word "Capital" feel free. But your revert is unjustified and your own opinions on the existence of said state pale in importance to what reliable sources say. nableezy - 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, I have to agree with Nableezy on this one. The state as an entity, while its existence is not recognized by all, is recognized by enough countries that their designation of a capital should be accepted for what it is. Now if the infobox had entries like square mileage, that would be problematic, but it does not. For better or for worse (and there are plenty who would clearly stand on either side) it is no longer 1975; it is 2009. The final resolution of the situation, where the state will actually be situated, what will be its actual capital, remains to be decided, but until such point, I think it is not inappropriate to have the box. Its status is clearly stated in the first sentence which says: "but has no control over any territory," so there is a clear explanation of the situation. As an aside, that happens to be in direct contradiction to the first sentence of Sovereign state, but I am no geopolitical jurisprudential scholar, nor do I play one on the radio, so I'll leave those issues to more appropriate people :) -- Avi (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a political entity, but doesn't actually have a capital in the normal sense of that word (seat of government). As I said, that's the problem with infoboxes - they demand yes or no phrasings, no nuance. If the infobox had a field for "City they want as capital", we wouldn't have a problem, but it doesn't. If some users want to use the infobox, they have to accept that not all of its fields apply. The very use of it is basically claiming that it really is a state, whereas the text doesn't say that.

We can easily write, in the text, "The State of Palestine declared Jerusalem as its capital, but the city doesn't serve as such, and isn't under its control". Can you fit that in the infobox?

Nableezy - again, like others, you provide your own opinion, that recognition is the one and only condition for a state. Again I'll say - it's not, and that's not for you to say. Provide expert opinion that it's enough, and then we can discuss it. Otherwise, especially as we have statements from Fatah officials saying a state doesn't exist, we can't claim it does. Look at the phrasing we have in the lead, which we managed to agree upon, and see how different it is from just bluntly claiming it's a state. okedem (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It isnt my opinion, it isnt even an opinion, it is what RSs say. As nobody has yet to join you in objecting to the infobox I will be reinstating it, but I will add a note that says Jerusalem is the "designated" capital. nableezy - 12:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you never bring sources to these discussions, so don't accuse others of not doing what you do not. This source explains some of the issues at hand here. Note the following:

• "In fact, whether or not Mr. Netanyahu agrees to it, and whether or not Mr. Arafat and his supporters fully realize it, the State of Palestine already exists, and Palestinian statehood is not even an issue in the "permanent-status" negotiations which began this May [1996] and must reach an agreement not later than May 1999."
• "While extending diplomatic recognition to foreign states lies within the discretion of each sovereign state, there are, as a matter of international law, four customary criteria for sovereign statehood: first, a defined territory over which sovereignty is not seriously contested by any other state; second, a permanent population; third, the ability and willingness of the state to discharge international and conventional obligations; and fourth, effective control over the state's territory and population. Judged by these customary criteria, the State of Palestine is on at least as firm a legal footing as the State of Israel."
• "The weak link in Palestine's claim to already exist as a state was, until recently, the fourth criterion, "effective control." When the state was proclaimed, its entire territory was under the military occupation of another sovereign state. (For seven months, Palestine and Kuwait had that much in common.) Yet a Palestinian executive and legislature, democratically elected with the enthusiastic approval of the international community, now exercises "effective control" over a portion of Palestinian territory in which the great majority of the state's population lives. It can no longer be seriously argued that Palestine's claim to exist falls at the fourth and final hurdle."
• "Accordingly, as a matter of customary international law, if not yet of general public consciousness, the status of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 is today clear and (with the exception of expanded East Jerusalem) uncontested. The State of Palestine is sovereign, the State of Israel remains the occupying power in a portion of Palestinian territory and UN Security Council Resolution 242, explicitly premised on the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," and explicitly cited as the basis of the future permanent-status settlement in all the Israeli-Palestinian accords, is the internationally accepted basis for terminating the occupation." Tiamut^talk 09:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... So why does Salam Fayyad disagree? I'd think he knows about this more than John V. Whitbeck, "adviser to various Fatah committee", who had his license suspended because of "money laundering he engaged for his employer, a Saudi Arabian company."

So, make up your mind, please. Is the PNA the government of the "State of Palestine"? If it is, and Fayyad speaks of the state only in the future tense, than we have a problem. If it isn't, than that entity has no government or control over any land (last part is written in the current lead), and so cannot possibly be considered an actual state. Remember that the President of that "State" is a different post from the president of the PNA, for instance. okedem (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You answered your own question Okedem in the last sentence. The President of Palestine is the Chairman of the PLO (currently Mahmoud Abbas). Fayyad is the Prime Minister (also disputed, since there in Ismail Haniya) of the PNA. The PNA is related to the State of Palestine (the nature of that relationship is the subject of much scholarship) but it does not represent the State of Palestine. I understand that its hard to wrap your mind around complexities when your worldview is black and white, but try. Tiamut^talk 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And again I say, for complexities there are nuanced phrasings in the text, as we currently have. A template is the opposite of complexities, and demands yes or no answers. If you want to accurately describe this entity, stick to the text that actually allows for such complexity. If you want to flat-out claim that it's a state, you're doing the opposite of accepting complexity - you're presenting a black and white view. You can't limit the idea of complexity to the PNA-Palestinian State relationship, but throw it out the window when it comes to the question of statehood. okedem (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to find solutions for including complexities in infoboxes you can. Take a look at Abkhazia again. There is nothing preventing us from adding extra sentences or agreeing to the addition of a word like "proclaimed" or "designated" before "capital". The infobox is going to stay and the information relevant to this article will be in it. I suggest you think of ways of including this information that (beside not offending your POV) is in line with what the reliable sources have to say. Tiamut^talk 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia is basically a functioning state, with land, economy, etc. It is closer to the PNA, than the "State" discussed here.

You're trying to hold the stick at both ends, but it's getting ridicules. okedem (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what is ridiculous? This game that you are playing here and at Talk:Jerusalem. No clarification at all that a large portion of Jerusalem is outside the borders of Israel when declaring it the capital on that page, but here needs all the clarification in the world. Changed to match Avi's original suggestion there as "designated" capital. nableezy - 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-)I think that the designated term in the capital field is sufficient, and that the fact it is named capital is not misleading. However, I have commented out the image for now, as there is no physical location yet, from what I understand. However, I may be wrong. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the map being left out for now as we all know that the boundaries of the State of Palestine were not declared in 1988 and that they have not been definitively defined since. We might consider including some kind of map in the future that outlines where the West Bank and Gaza are and closeup maps of them that show where the PNA exercises its limited civil administration. That should be done only when we have sources that explain how the PNA is related to the State of Palestine. (I'm reading some now, but its pretty damn complicated which is why I have held off adding things for now.) I see that Okedem has opened an RfC on this issue. I hope those participating will consider that an infobox on Wikipedia is not a declaration of statehood. However, even if it were, a state of Palestine was declared in 1988, is recognized by at least 114 countries, holds membership in international organizations and enjoys representation at the UN, the Olympics, etc, etc. These facts, however much one protests, cannot be denied. Tiamut

• By the way, this source has an entry on "Palestine" and gives the land area, GDP, population centers, among other figures. The claim that Palestine controls no territory is turning out to be absolutely false. Tiamut^talk 18:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolution 181

This clause in the article caught my attention: "the [Palestinian] declaration [of Independence] invoked the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in support of its claim to a 'State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem.'" As far as I understand it, Resolution 181 does not support a State of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital in any sense. Does the Palestinian declaration misquote the resolution or is Wikipedia misquoting the declaration? --GHcool (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That is worded awkwardly. The relevant text is

Whereas the Palestinian people reaffirms most definitively its inalienable rights in the land of its patrimony: Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland; In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organisation since 1947; And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory, The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).>

It earlier invokes 181 and the Treaty of Lausanne saying that

And it was the Palestinian people, already wounded in its body, that was submitted to yet another type of occupation over which floated the falsehood that "Palestine was a land without people.’’ This notion was foisted upon some in the world, whereas in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) and in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), the community of nations had recognised that all the Arab territories, including Palestine, of the formerly Ottoman provinces, were to have granted to them their freedom as provisionally independent nations.
Despite the historical injustice inflicted on the Palestinian Arab people resulting in their dispersion and depriving them of their right to self-determination, following upon UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.

So it uses both the treaty and the resolution in support of its proclamation. But doesn't explicitly invoke them when declaring Jerusalem is the capital. I think this can probably be reworded better. nableezy - 01:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

General Assembly resolution A/RES/43/177, dated 15 December 1988 acknowledged the Declaration of the State of Palestine as being in line with General Assembly resolution 181(II). The resolution was adopted by a vote of 104-2-36. Nothing in the partition plan prevented either state from retaining its political offices in Jerusalem, or placing new state institutions there.

The EU insists that conducting meetings with foreign diplomats at Orient House, the Palestinians' political headquarters in East Jerusalem are part of its longstanding formal support for Jerusalem's internationalization as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II).[10] The partition plan and the Roadmap do not envision unilateral annexations or claims of supreme law making authority over the undivided city. harlan (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GHCool, would you mind not repeatedly deleting the reference to 181? Quigley says that 181 was invoked or recalled in the declaration. The declaration itself mentions it. So we have one secondary source and one primary source that discuss 181 in relation to these issues. Please stop deleting it and claiming its not relevant or correct. The sources disagree with you. Tiamut^talk 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, this edit is a great improvement. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do what I can do when I can do it. nableezy - 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Statehood and usage of Country infobox

The "Country" infobox was recently added to the article, implying Wikipedia claims the State of Palestine is an actual state. This raises several issues, mainly because, as opposed to the nuanced text of the article itself ("The State of Palestine...is a political entity that enjoys limited recognition as a state, but has no control over any territory."), the template mostly demands yes or no answers, with little room for good phrasings.

Should the template be used here? Should it include population and economy figures from the Palestinian National Authority? Given that the text itself says the State controls no territory, can it have population and an economy? okedem (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. The unilateral claim of statehood actually fully contradicts statements by Palestinian National Authority officials like Salam Fayyad, speaking of the state in future tense only - "A Palestinian state will be established in two years' time". "I call on all our people to unite around the project of establishing a state and to strengthen its institutions ... so that the Palestinian state becomes, by the end of next year or within two years at most, a reality," he said. "Achieving this goal within two years is possible." (from: here, story also reported here, and here, and in other places). To this issue supporters of the infobox claim Fayyad doesn't hold any position in the State of Palestine, yet, as that entity controls no territory, they use figures of PNA territory for population and economy. The infobox flatly says the state was "Established" in 1988, again in contradiction of Fayyad's statements, which, to me, seem to carry more weight than Wikipedians' claims. The template seems to confuse the PNA with the State, and the planned future State with the current purely political entity. okedem (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - It is not a "unilateral claim". See #Country infobox. There has been a lot of discussion with sources presented to Okedem showing that a state of Palestine does exist, is recognized as a state by over 100 other countries, has membership in a number of of international organizations. "Supporters of the infobox" have not claimed Fayyad doesntt hold a position. Instead we have repeatedly said, backed by sources, that Fayyad does not determine what is a state. Other states make that determination. It isnt the UN or some official of the PNA that decides what is a state. That is a responsibility that is exclusively for other states. nableezy - 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not that Fayyad doesn't want a state, I'm sure, but it seems to me that he might understand the situation better than you, and is able to judge the evidence on the various criteria of statehood (yes, there are others, not just international recognition). okedem (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Every other disputed state has a country box (See Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus which is recognized ONLY by Turkey, and Somaliland). Palestine should be treated no differently. While some people may not like it, a State of Palestine does exist. To what degree it is a functioning state is another question, that has nothing to do whether or not we can use an infobox. Tiamut^talk 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And I've explained that those function as states, even without recognition. You're only proving my point - recognition isn't everything. Northern Cyprus functions as a state, even though it doesn't have recognition. The State of Palestine has recognition, but doesn't function as a state. okedem (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes My personal on the matter notwithstanding, I do not beleive that usage of the "country" infobox on wikipedia gives the State of Palestine any more or less legitimacy than it already has. As long as the infobox information (capital, largest city, etc.) does not contradict the text (including consensus wordings) I do not have an issue with what is meant to be a synopsis of main points of the text. The wording now does not contradict the text and the current status, and, as regards wikipedia, I do not think that there is any POV or OR violation to using the box. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What about the use of economy and population statistics, when this entity controls no territory? And the claim "Established", when it clearly wasn't established yet, only declared? okedem (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Please provide a reliable source for the claim that Palestine controls no territory. It's more complicated than that Okedem, as I have tried to explain to you a number of times. Tiamut^talk 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The "it's more complicated" bit only works a limited number of times, Tiamut. For complications - use article text. If you want a template - we stay with clear-cut issues. I've read you claim regarding this, and the source you provide doesn't show the State controls anything. Actually, it shows the opposite, stating that the State was created by the PNA and PLO to represent them internationally, while the PNA is the one administering the territories - thus, with the population and economy. okedem (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes Okedem cannot overturn the legal determinations of sovereign States with a Wikipedia RfC. The power to legally recognize any entity as a state is vested exclusively in other States. Wikipedia editors don't get a vote, much less a veto. Okedem's personal take on the meaning of an unofficial account of the Prime Ministers remarks is not evidence. The unilateral declaration was accompanied by dozens of bilateral treaty agreements between other countries and the State of Palestine. Those were presented as legal exhibits to an international law tribunal. They don't contradict Mr. Fayyad, because the bilateral treaties were obtained under the auspices of his "Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (PRDP)". It calls for recognition of statehood and bilateral trade and development treaties with other states as a precursor to the final settlement with Israel. By definition, treaties are agreements between States. see article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. If the Declaration of Principles regarding self-government is an enforceable treaty, the PLO must represent a State. If the DOP isn't a treaty, it cannot create rights or obligations that bind third party states. Dr. L.C. Green explained that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government." see page 135-136 of the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0792304500 and article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. Those third party countries have deposited billions of dollars into the World Bank account of the State of Palestine. Mr. Fayyad has been disbursing funds from that account to the state's institutions, so he must be a representative of that State and its institutions. Those third party countries have concluded off-shore oil and gas development treaties, developed state infrastructure, and have helped setup those state-owned institutions. They hold regular International Donors’ Conferences for the Palestinian State. The editor of the government funded al-Hayyat said Fayyad's speech was important "because it told us that completion of the institutions of the Palestinian state is at hand." Fayyad's response to Netayahu's speech didn't mention any two-year delay. He said that the only thing Netanyahu needed to do was to recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and with it Palestinian sovereignty and statehood. He also claimed to be in control of public security in the population centers. [11] It might take Netanyahu two years to finance and relocate disgruntled settlers who aren't willing to stay behind when the IDF withdraws. harlan (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes per Avi, though I do not have a strong opinion either way. I do, however, think the wording in the "capital" section is misleading and must be changed (or, preferably, deleted entirely). --GHcool (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well, given the opinions voiced here, I withdraw the RfC on this point. Actually, I really shouldn't have opened it, as I don't have a real problem with the use of this infobox itself, but the content within it. If the purely hypothetical State of Jefferson can use that infobox, I don't mind it here. Sorry for wasting your time, and let's move to content. okedem (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statement - "controls no territory"

In the introduction to our article, we say that the State of Palestine controls no territory. According to the sources we have cited in the article, this is not completely true. It was the PLO who signed the Oslo Accords and it is the PLO who represents the State of Palestine in the UN and in the international arena. The PNA was created as an interim administrative body as part of the Oslo Accords to implement the agreement signed between the PLO and Israel as regards civil administration of populated Palestinian centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As one of the sources cited states: Palestine can best be described as a transitional association between the PLO and PNA in which the former is responsible for representing Palestine on the world stage, while the latter is responsible for civil administration in the occupied territories.

In other words, for us to state in the introduction that the State of Palestine controls no territory is both false and misleading. I'd like to remove that sentence. Any objections? Tiamut^talk 15:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What you wrote here is nothing but your own opinion. Can you provide proof for that claimed relationship? And if so, why does Salam Fayyad claim there is no state? Doesn't he know about this "transitional association"? Did he get the memo about this? okedem (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article lately Okedem? Particularly the section on "Government Structure". These are not my thoughts, they are those of the source cited there. It would help a lot here if instead of responding in a knee-jerk fashion you actually read the article and the literature that is used to support what is written there. Please try to edit in good faith. Tiamut^talk 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's nice that ask if there are any objections, and then storm ahead and just remove the sentence without waiting more than 4 minutes.

I withdraw my criticism of that point, I misread you sentence, sorry about that.

But it's irrelevant - if the State is an association between the PLO and the PNA, it can't be said to control anything; your source says the State is "responsible for representing Palestine on the world stage", while the PNA "is responsible for civil administration in the occupied territories" - so the PNA is the one with the population and economy and all that, while the State is just a political entity for international relations.

Again I say - why doesn't Fayyad know of this? okedem (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I went ahead and removed it, because it is not sourced. If you have a source, I'd be happy to discuss it and how it should be evaluated in light of the other sources we have.

No problem about misreading, but please do be careful about attributing things to my opinion. I'm very careful to make sure that I say here is supported by reliable sources.

About the transitional association, please read the sentence in the article again. It says Palestine is a transitional association between the PLO and PNA. In other words, the PLO represents Palestine on the world stage and the PNA constitutes the local government of Palestine in the occupied territories.

Fayyad, like many others in the PNA, is not very sharp. However, (and this is my opinion, just to be clear) I assume that he is calling for the establishment of a state because even though the state has been declared and does exercise control over a limited territory, the territories remain occupied and the arrangement remains a temporary one until final status negotiations are completed. So Fayyad is asking for this temporary situation to be resolved, for borders to be defined, for a real and united government of the State of Palestine to be established, instead of a temporary transitional association that was only supposed to last five years. Capisce? Tiamut^talk 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, Fayyad is speaking of an actual Palestinian State, with territory, population, economy, ability to exercise force, and sovereignty. The "State of Palestine", from the time of its declaration in 1988, up to today, wasn't and isn't an actual state, but just a political entity for international relations, with an evocative name to promote the Palestinian cause.

Actually, to call the "State of Palestine" an association between the PLO and PNA is peculiar - it was "established", as you claim, back in 1988 - the PNA was only created after the 1993 Oslo Accords. okedem (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source that says that the State of Palestine is "just a political entity with an evocative name to promote the Palestinian cause" please provide it. Otherwise, I'm not interested in pursuing that line of discussion.

Things in life are dynamic Okedem. Yes, when the State of Palestine was declared in 1988, it controlled no territory and there was no PNA. Since then, many things have happened in this world. Israel recognized the PLO, they signed the Oslo Accords together and agreed to set up a temporary administrative body known as the PNA. This marked the beginning of the transitional association between the PLO and PNA that the author we have cited describes as Palestine. Its all very logical if you try to understand it, rather than fight it. Tiamut^talk 17:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Very logical if you contort the rules of logic very painfully.

Hold on, now. "the author we have cited describes as Palestine" - so, your source doesn't discuss the "State of Palestine", declared in 1988, but something else, some unclear "Palestine"? Or are they the same? If so, how is something "established" in 1988 an association between two bodies, when one of them was only created in 1993? okedem (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the official name of the State of Palestine is simply "Palestine". (Have you read the article like I asked you to, or are you still just commenting here based on knee-jerk reactions?) If you read the quote in context, it is clear he is referring to the state.

About the rest of your comment, if you don't want to understand or read the sources, I can't really help you any more than I have. Tiamut^talk 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tiamut, I know the article says "Palestine" is the same as "State of Palestine", but that doesn't help our chronological problem here. okedem (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your difficulties with chronology are not my problem. Tiamut^talk 17:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So, for you, 1993 comes before 1988? okedem (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling and try improving the aricle. Tiamut^talk 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Classy. Your various claims end up contradicting one another, and you accuse me of being a troll. Sweet. okedem (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed this footnote - irrelevant

I've removed this:

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki recently said that he and Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan had provided proof that Palestine had been extended legal (de jure) recognition as a state by 67 countries, holding bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. see ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe

al-Malki is not saying that the total number of countries to recognize Palestine is 67. He is saying only that Palestine presented proof of de jure recognition by 67 states to the ICC when it made application there to have a war crimes probe opened over the Gaza war. This source has been misinterpreted to state that 67 countries recognize Palestine, when in fact it is well over 100 (we have 114 sourced entries in our list and I suspect there are more). So I've taken it out. Tiamut^talk 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather shaky interpretation of that sentence. okedem (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No it;s not. Given that directly after the declaration of 1988, 89 countries recognized the State of Palestine (source:UNESCO) and given the other sources we have putting the number today at more than 100, this source can only be understood as referring to exactly what it says. al-Malki put forward evidence of de jure recoginition from 67 states to the ICC. He did not put forward de jure recognition from all the countries that recognize Palestine. Pretty simple no? Tiamut^talk 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another, equally reasonable explanation, would be that the levels of recognition other states gave wasn't the same. okedem (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, given the ambiguity surrounding its meaning and the existence in our article of other more reliable sources which give higher figures that generally agree with one another, I don't see why we should use this source. Its a newspaper article on the Gaza War crime probe request, and not a scholarly work on the status of the State of Palestine. There is therefore no need to include it. Tiamut^talk 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

outdent I'll add the material back in the legal status section and provide links to explain its importance. harlan (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Murky topics lead to works of fiction

I've mentioned before that Salam Fayyad himself, PM of the PNA, speaks of the Palestinian State in the future tense. Let me just strengthen that point, to make it clear:

• [12] - Saudi king: "I can honestly tell you, brothers, that even if the whole world joins to found a Palestinian independent state, and if we have full support for that, this state would not be established as long as the Palestinians are divided."
• [13] - Khaled Meshal: "We will accept a Palestinian state within 1967 lines"
• [14] - "Speaking at Khan Younis mosque, Hamas' prime minister in Gaza says 'we won't serve as an obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders'"
• [15] - Improving conditions for West Bank Palestinians shows that a Palestinian state can be "built from the bottom up while it's being negotiated from the top down," Quartet Mideast envoy Tony Blair said Tuesday.
• [16] - "Turkish President Abdullah Gul Friday cast doubt on a European Union call for a deadline for the creation of a Palestinian state, warning such a move could be counter-productive."

These quotes aren't cherry picked, and weren't hard to provide. I found these with a simple Google News search for "Palestinian State", and they're all within the last month. They faithfully represent discussion of this issue - while many state recognize the "State of Palestine", no one mistakes it for an actual state. They all know no such state exists yet, and work to establish it. They don't confuse the temporary somewhat-autonomous PNA, or the political "State of Palestine" with an actual state, and neither should we. okedem (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am planning on adding a section soon on the obstacles to Palestinian statehood that will discuss the difficulties in implementing the declaration of independece on the ground. Instead of using primary sources, like statements from PNA officials, I will be using reliable secondary sources. I encourage you to look for some too and post them here so that we can include them in the article. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"obstacles to Palestinian statehood" and "difficulties in implementing the declaration of independece on the ground" - so there is no statehood yet, and the declaration hasn't been implemented? Or were you speaking of historic difficulties? If so, how does that relate to the links provided, all from the last month, showing the Palestinian State is clearly in the future, and hasn't been established yet? okedem (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add reliably sourced information to the article (from secondary sources). Focus on improving the article. That's all I have to say. Tiamut^talk 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And that says it all. okedem (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Capital

The capital of the "State of Palestine" is "Al-Quds" in the infobox and then gives some lame, wishy-washy, weasel wordy explanation about how it actually isn't or something. Personally, I hope that one day a State of Palestine will exist with its capital in East Jerusalem, but as of this writing, no such state exists and its capital is not "Al-Quds." Ideally, I'd like this article to mirror the style of the article on the State of Jefferson. That article's infobox denotes the capital of Jefferson as "Yreka, California (proposed 1941)." Perhaps we can have something saying that the capital of the State of Palestine is "Al-Quds, Israel (proposed 1988)" or something to that effect. --GHcool (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the way we have it is just fine for now. Adding Israel after Al-Quds is not going to happen in this article. Its not necessary and will only invite edit wars. Tiamut^talk 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that not all of Jerusalem is inside Israel adding Israel after it would be inappropriate. Though I do think it should say "Jerusalem" instead of using the transliteration of the Arabic name. nableezy - 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

With that I agree. The text cited uses "Jerusalem" and not Al-Quds. The latter was added by the IP who added te infobox (to whom I grateful - thank you, whoever you are). Tiamut^talk 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Would you all be ok if we changed the whole shpiel to the more concise "Jerusalem (proposed 1988)?" --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we decided that "designated" is better than proposed and it is fine with me. nableezy - 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's rather silly. The State of Jefferson's capital is proposed, not designated, because the State of Jefferson doesn't yet exist. The State of Palestine is in a similar state of limbo. It should be "proposed," not "designated." --GHcool (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But the state is not just "proposed" a state of Palestine does exist. There should not be any confusion about that. What the permanent boundaries of that state is in limbo, but not the existence of the state. A state exists when other states recognize it as a state. Other states are the only arbiters on the actual existence of a state. nableezy - 18:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that business about East Jerusalem seems superfluous. I propose we delete that part. --GHcool (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I boldly made a change and invite anyone who disagrees to revert it [17]. The sources cited discuss "Palestine" as a state and place its capital as Jerusalem and largest city as Gaza. I moved the text about Jerusalem to the footnote in the infobox. I suggest we use the footnotes for any explanatory text. But I'm very open to having the text worked on. Sorry for being bold. No offense at all will be taken at a revert. Tiamut^talk 21:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And I was thinking that maybe we could add Al-Quds in brackets after Jerusalem? Tiamut^talk 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tiamut. This is reasonable. --GHcool (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so GHCool. I hope that others feel the same too. Of course, there's always room for improvement or revisitng. Tiamut^talk 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is good, it is pretty much what we had before a spate of "clarifications" earlier. nableezy - 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1 thing though, I think we should move the refs into the text. It isnt the best presentation to have botth footnotes in the infobox numbered and referendces linked elsewhere. The infobox should really just be a summary of topics covered in the article so anything that needs a source should be sourced in the main text. nableezy - 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Tiamut^talk 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

State of

Tiamut, have you read the declaration? It speaks of Palestine as the region, and the "State of Palestine" as what they're creating - "hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine", "The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be.", "The State of Palestine is an Arab state", "The State of Palestine affirms its obligation", "The State of Palestine proclaims its commitment to the principles", and so on and on. Not a "Wikipedia invention" as you so strangely claimed, but the name they chose in their declaration. okedem (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, try using logic and reading the sources I provided below. A declaration of statehood will generally involved the use of the word "State" to make it clear that statehood is being affirmed. That doesn't change the fact that reliable sources indicate that the official name is "Palestine". Instead of engaging in OR interpretations, respect the sources. Tiamut^talk 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument is weak. Have you read California's declaration? It speaks of a "State of California" as well. The title, however, is California. Why? Tradition, mainly, I'm sure. But also because the "State of" in the title would be superfluous. Are we to put all the Queen of England's titles in her page title as well?

In any event, standard practice is to give a Nation the short title. (See discussion on "United States" versus "United States of America" as title of article; it is very long and pretty much includes at least all my arguments. I think I should note that I too originally wanted the full title, but I have come around.) Only one user has objected (Okedem), so I think it should be moved to "Palestine" and the current page at that title to "Palestine (region)". (P.S. I am discussing the name of the page.) Int21h (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And I think it needs to be said with respect to WP:Naming conventions ("Use names and terms most commonly used"), "Palestine" is more commonly used to refer the country (not the region) than "State of Palestine". (I base this mainly off a Google News search for both phrases.) Int21h (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Official name is Palestine - not "State of"

I've changed the text to reflect this. Okedem reverted. I refer him to the sources cited that indicate that the PLO's observer status at the UN was changed to "Palestine" (not "State of Palestine"). There is also this source [18] which states very clearly "THE STATE Official Name Palestine Capital: Jerusalem (al Quds)." Perhaps we should consider moving the page to the name Palestine (state)? Tiamut^talk 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way Okedem, the official name of Israel is actually "The State of Israel" [19]. Perhaps we should move Israel to State of Israel? Tiamut^talk 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not discussing the name of the page, but the claim of "official name" in this article. In Israel's article it clearly states their official name is "State of Israel".

Anyway, someone should update the PLO on that little change - [20] - "Statement by H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas President of the State of Palestine" - official PLO page. Took me two seconds to find. okedem (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are using primary sources to make OR interpretations about what the official name is. Two secondary source are very clear: 1) its name in the UN is "Palestine"; 2) "Official name: Palestine. It doesn't get any clearer than that Okedem. Tiamut^talk 17:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OR? Reading what the PLO calls their own supposed state in OR? The UN can override the PLO? Reaching the bizarre. okedem (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, try to understand the distinction between primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are not used at Wikipedia except under very limited circumstances because they are open to interpretation (such as your interpretation that the usage of State of Palestine on the PLO website means that is the official name of the country, when it is not). We have a secondary sources that indicates that the PLO had its name at the UN changed to "Palestine" after the 1988 declaration. We have another secondary source which dispells any ambiguity by writing, "Official name: Palestine". It doesn't get any clearer than that. I don't know why its so harrd for you to understand. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's rich. Never seen such cherry picking and selective reading in my life.

You know what? You wanna make this article even more of a joke - go ahead. While the rest of the world is talking about the need to establish a Palestinian State, here in Wikipedia it already exists. I'll just call Obama and tell him - no sweat, man - your job here is done. Tiamut created a state for the Palestinians, it's all good. Gotta talk to some other people, too. Mashal, Haniya, Fayyad, King Fahed, Abdullah Gul, Tony Blair.

Man, I need to upgrade my international calls plan.

Of course, any reader getting here will understand that something is off - he hears in the media about the plans for a state, and suddenly we say it exists. Why the hell are the Palestinians killing Israelis for a state, he'll ask. They already have a state, so they should all just shut up now. Why are world leaders wasting time on this?

The reader will reach his own conclusions. Most likely they'll be about Wikipedia being fertile ground for delusions, where wishes and dreams come true, and reality is distorted for "the cause". This article will continue being a preposterous little bubble, disconnected from reality in every way. Editors will find the flimsiest excuse for a source to support their claim, while ignoring real sources. They'll completely ignore every link that doesn't support their view. And most of all, they'll invent their own fanciful criteria for little things like statehood, and apply them to get the intended result. The normal passage of time means nothing, official statements are discarded. Whatever it takes.

So go ahead. The state exists, it has territory, capital, economy, population. There's no reason for fighting in the Middle East, no rationale for "Resistance". All is well in the land of Wikipedia, and sorry for trying to mention reality. I'm joining a 12 steps program for that. okedem (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that it is hard for you to accept that many reliable sources indicate that a state named Palestine exists. I also realize that with you black and white view of the world, you have trouble understanding how other reliable sources can call for its establishment. Palestine is in a state of limbo, recognized to exist by many, but functionally unable to exercise its existence due to Israeli constraints - such as the Separation barrier, IDF checkpoints, among other things. Its really very easy to understand if you try. But you do not want to.

As I said, in the coming days, I will be creating a section that deals with the obstacles to Palestinian statehood and covers the literature that delves more deeply into how the declared state has yet to fully materialize and why. I hope it will meet with a better reception that the one you've given to the sources today. I'm sorry that these sources offend you, but per NPOV, all significant viewpoints should be mentioned in our article. Considering you did not want this article to exist, I can understand why you are having problems with everything about it. Tiamut^talk 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, do you know if the declaration was released only in Arabic or is there an official English translation that was released with it? Because if they capitalized State I would say the "long name" would be State of Palestine, like the long name of Egypt is the "Arab Republic of Egypt". If that is the case I think the infobox needs to have the long name "State of" and "دولة", see Egypt or Israel or Russia. I agree with the issue of the name of the article, I said I think Palestine should be moved to Palestine (region) and Palestine becomes a disambig page but that didnt find much support, but as far as the actual content in the infobox I think we need to find an official "long name" and use that. We do want this article to be treated the same as any other so the infobox should follow that consistency. nableezy - 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look for an official English translation and get back to you. Tiamut^talk 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy. After looking around a bit, I'm not sure there is an official English langguage translation for the 1988 declaration. The closet thing I found was this which specifically notes that it was an unofficial English translation circulated by the PLO after the declaration. About the official long name, I haven't found any sources that say its the "State of Palestine". The only sources indicating the official name are those cited in the article that indicate it is "Palestine" - full stop. Anyway, I'll keep looking and if I do find a source with the official long name, I'll be sure to provide it.

I think after we have looked for more sources, we can decide whether to re-open the naming debate. I'm quite sure this page should be titled Palestine or Palestine (state) to disambig it from Palestine (region). But I'll hold off on making such a formal suggestion until we are absolutely clear that there is no other name. Cool? Tiamut^talk 12:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Other sources

Okay, I've found some more, and the verdict is mixed. Besides the sources listed above and cited in the article saying "Official name: Palestine", there are also these. Note that half of them say "Palestine" and half of them say "State of Palestine"

• Official name: Palestine - this is the site of the 2010 Expo in Shanghai. Palestine is participating it seems.
• Official name: Palestine - an exporters site associated with the British Chamber of Commerce.
• Country name: Palestine; Country (official name): Palestine - FIFA's website
• Official name: State of Palestine - a media NGO working on radio projects in the Arab world.
• Official name: State of Palestine - a website on Islamic architecture
• Official name: State of Palestine - Al Jazeera English country profiles

So I don't know. Is this enough for us to designate the official long name as "State of Palestine" and official short name as "Palestine"? From these sources, both seem to be official names. Remember though, in the UN, its name is simply "Palestine", as it is in the Arab League, and most of the international organizations its a member of. I can't decide how best to proceed. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jabotinsky, Weizmann, Ben Gurion on the right of Palestinian people to self-determination

I've removed this:

It should be noted that early Israeli presidents Chaim Weizmann, Ben-Gurion and Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky have always recognized aspirations of the Palestinian people for self-determination as their inalienable right.

I don't think this accurately represents what the source cited says. Besides which, I fail to see its relevance to a discussion of the legal status of the State of Palestine. Can those who wish to see it in the article please explain? Tiamut^talk 13:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I don't thinks this accurately represents the source cited, nor is it relevant to a discussion on the leg

Here are the exact citations from the source Middle East Quarterly. Early Zionists and Arabs by Judea Pearl. Fall 2008, pp. 67-71. Retrieved on 8 August 2008.

Ben-Gurion: Palestinian Arab Rights
"Eretz Israel is not an empty country ... West of Jordan alone houses three quarter of a million people. On no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants. Only "Ghetto Dreamers" like Zangwill can imagine that Eretz Israel will be given to the Jews with the added right of dispossessing the current inhabitants of the country."

Weizmann: Arab Glory and Arab Rights
Perhaps anticipating future criticism that Zionism, while promising Palestinians human and civil rights, denied them national rights, Weizmann wrote in the newspaper Ha'aretz: "If indeed there is among the Arabs a national movement, we must relate to it with the utmost seriousness ... The Arabs are concerned about two issues: 1. The Jews will soon come in their millions and conquer the country and chase out the Arabs ... Responsible Zionists never said and never wished such things. 2. There is no place in Eretz Israel for a large number of inhabitants. This is total ignorance. It is enough to notice what is happening now in Tunis, Tangier, and California to realize that there is a vast space here for a great work of many Jews, without touching even one Arab."

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion's rival
"Every indigenous people, regardless of whether it is primitive or advanced, views its country as a national home and aspires to be and remain its sole and eternal landlord; it does not voluntarily agree to accommodate, not only new landlords, but even new partners or new participants. And our most misleading argument would be if we rely on the fact that our agricultural settlements bring them economical advantages; though this is an undisputed truth, there is no nation in the world that sold its national aspirations for bread and butter."

The sentence that I added is of a direct relevance to the article State of Palestine, and is perfectly fits into section on "legal status" since the concept of self-determination "is a choice of one’s own acts ... [for] the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state.. and is a complex concept with conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim [that] right." Besides, that Wiki is encyclopeadae, book of facts, the statement under discussion is well sourced. So, I do not see overwhelming reasons not to include the statement into the article.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Is the state of Palestine discussed in these quotations? I see a lot of references to Eretz Israel, but none to Palestine as a state. There are a lot of people who have discussed Palestinian self-determination. If we included mention of every one of them, this article would become unwieldly. Besides which, I am not convined that these statements are evidence of these individuals support for Palestinian self-determination. That of course, is another topic, unrelated to this article. Tiamut^talk 11:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I quoted earlier the right to self-determination is a legal preclusion to foundation of state. There is no OR in it, (pls read the article self-determination). Moreover the statement is well sourced (Judea Pearl, author of the article is a winner of the National Jewish Book Award), also please pay attention to the text of the article.

Ben-Gurion: Palestinian Self-Determination
In November 1930, about a year after the Arab riots that led to the Hebron massacre, Ben-Gurion addressed the First Congress of Hebrew Workers and delivered a lecture entitled "The Foreign Policy of the Hebrew Nation." In this lecture, later published in Ben-Gurion's first book, We and Our Neighbors, he not only acknowledged the national aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs but also recognized Arab self-determination as an inalienable right, regardless of its impact on the Zionist plan. There is in the world a principle called "the right for self-determination." We have always and everywhere been its worshipers and champions. We have defended that right for every nation, every part of a nation, and every collective of people. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Arab people in Eretz Israel have this right. And this right is not limited by or conditional upon the result of its influence on us and our interests. We ought not to diminish the Arabs' freedom for self-determination for fear that it would present difficulties to our own mission. The entire moral core encapsulated in the Zionist idea is the notion that a nation—every nation—is its own purpose and not a tool for the purposes of other nations. And in the same way that we want the Jewish people to be master of its own affairs, capable of determining its historical destiny without being dependent on the will—even good will—of other nations, so, too, we must seek for the Arabs…"

In all, I would agree to paraphrase the statement into:

Former Israeli presidents Chaim Weizmann and Ben-Gurion not only acknowledged the national aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs but also recognized Arab self-determination as an inalienable right.

-- Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, again, there is no mention of a Palestinian state here. This has nothing to do with a page on the State of Palestine. I can also find a million sources that state that Weizmann and Ben-Gurion frustrated Palestinians' right to self-determination. This is the opinion of the author based on isolated statements. I don't think is the place for this material. If you feel strongly about it, perhaps you would like to open an WP:RfC on the issue? Because I don't agree that the material is relevant to the article at all. Tiamut^talk 14:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In "Letters to Paula and the Children (page 153), Ben Gurion wrote that he was in favor of partition because he didn't envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. He said that "What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish." He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country and complete the historic task of redeeming the entire land with or without the consent of the Arabs.

The representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Mr. Shertok, testified to the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine that it had been determined that Palestine was not included among the territory in which the Arabs were to realize their national sovereignty. [21] The Foreign Relations of the United States reveals several proposals made by Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Goldmann, and Rabbis Silver and Wise for transfer of the Arab population.

Jabotinsky wrote "Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. ... ...All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall." harlan (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoring redirect per previous consensus

Sorry to stop the party, but I'm turning this article back to a redirect, based on the following reasoning.

• In 2007, there was a deletion discussion for this page, which resulted in a near-perfect consensus (18-2) to redirect it to Proposals for a Palestinian state.
• The policy regarding AfDs that result in redirect is stated on WP:GD: In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary.
• Two months ago, John Z overturned the decision to redirect and proposed a discussion on the issue. I argued that it was improper to unilaterally overturn the consensus decision before the proposed discussion, but accepted it temporarily pending the outcome of the discussion.
• The discussion has had two months to play out: it was very long and intense but got absolutely nowhere. In it, John himself, Tiamut and harlan supported an independent article, while okedem and I supported redirect. (In subsequent discussions, I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that Nableezy and Avi implicitly sided with the former, and uriber, 6SJ7 and GHCool implicitly sided with the latter, but none directly addressed the issue).
• An acrimonious discussion with 2-3 (potentially 5) editors on either side, where neither side succeeded in convincing the other of anything, is a failed discussion. Thus there is nothing to overturn the original broad consensus to have this page be a redirect, and that consensus has to be respected.

The discussion can of course continue, and it may eventually succeed in overturning the original consensus (I hope they establish an actual Palestinian state already and then the whole thing will be moot), but if someone reverts me based on an argument like "but my side was right-- look at X, Y, Z!", I would consider that disruptive editing, and I think everyone else should, too. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object. You cannot wipe out the last two months of editing citing a supposed previous consensus. Gain consensus for your action before carrying it out. Tiamut^talk 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did this discussion take place? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist is referring to this AfD discussion [22] from November 2007. Note that barely any policy-based arguments were made for the redirect. Most didn't make any argument at all. I do not think that this faulty debate from almost two years should erase the work of the last two months. Yes, the article needs more work, but it should not be summarily redirected to Proposals for a Palestinian state on the basis of an outdated, faulty AfD. Tiamut^talk 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume there's a procedure for restoring articles that were deleted/redirected? Could someone point me to that, too? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Never mind, I just realized Jalapeno posted it above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue was discussed above here. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding WP:GD correctly, this article can either be nominated for speedy delete (speedy redirect?) if the nominator thinks the reasons for the original AfD are still valid, otherwise it should go to regular AfD? Correct? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for the original AfD are not still valid. If you want to nominate this article for deletion, you are welcome to. I think though, that would be a waste of energy better spent on improving the article. Tiamut^talk 17:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to nominate anything. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a point in discussing it here or would that be a waste of time, procedurally speaking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No More, as I understand it, AfDs are for situations when an action requiring admin powers (deletion) is being advocated. Since the consensus was to redirect, which does not require admin powers, there is no point in initiating another AfD to enforce the consensus; even another AfD with the same outcome could be reversed unilaterally by any editor. I suppose the way to bring this to the attention of the wider community would be through a Request for Comment. Of course, if you want to advocate deleting the article without redirecting, you can start an AfD, but I don't think that course of action would get a lot of support.

Tiamut, if you think there were procedural problems with the original AfD discussion and its near-perfect consensus, you can bring it to Deletion Review. Otherwise you're just saying "I don't like the outcome of that AfD discussion so we should ignore it" Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, you are engaging in selective reading of the guidelines. It says: These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary. John Z clearly explained why he was overturning the decision when he in reinstated the article. We had a long discussion about it above. The article has changed radically since its restoration. The original reason for the AfD is no longer valid. You cannot breeze in here after weeks of not engaging in talk and announce that you are redirecting the article again. You either have to gain consensus for such an action here or you have to open a new AfD. I consider your twice having unilaterally redirected this page to be disruptive and provocative and it is likely to instigate an edit war. Please self-revert. Tiamut^talk 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, making it a redirect is ignoring the discussions that took place at IPCOLL and other places where a need for an article was accepted. An AfD resulting in a redirect is not binding in the way a deletion is, and even if it were an article that has undergone significant improvements would not be eligible for speedy deletion. Here is the diff between what was redirected and the current article. This article clearly has been improved in its sourcing and its overall coverage and I would bet even if it had been deleted the speedy category would not apply. A lot of work has been put in to making this a better article and I would hope that we can recognize that this article is not the same as the redirected one. And so the AfD would not apply. nableezy - 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, whether the article has changed is irrelevant, since the original AfD consensus did not depend on the state of the article at that time, it was an decision that the topic should be dealt with in a different article. That consensus needs a contrary consensus in order to be permanently overturned; we all patiently let the article sit here, waiting to see if that consensus would emerge, and it didn't. Sorry. This attempt now to say "oh, well there was a contrary consensus on IPCOLL, Proposals for a Palestinian state, etc. before John Z initiated the discussion here" is... well, let's put it this way: first, a consensus cannot possibly emerge either way from the pasting together of disparate discussions; but even if it could, it would not have in this case, since nobody convinced anybody and altogether there were about the same number of editors on each side. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, the AfD from two years was pretty much BS. But the page was redirected for a year and a half. Finally, after many discussions indicating interest in resoring it, John Z did. He was well within his rights to do that. Since then, the article has been expanded. There is more work to do. If you think your argument regarding its non-notability, or inappropriateness is so compelling, it can stand the light of a new AfD. Open one if you like. But you will not redirect this article using a 2 year old AfD as some kind of legal justification. No way. Tiamut^talk 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But the AfD does depend on the state of the article. Let us assume for a second that result was not redirect but a straight delete. WP:CSD#G4 specifically excludes "articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, articles that address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Is this article substantially identical to the prior version and has it not addressed the reasons for why the AfD ended the way it did? If the answer to those questions are "No" then the CSD criteria does not apply and the article can be recreated without going through WP:DRV. I think that is what we have here. An article that was recreated that does address the issues and is not substantially identical to the original article. That doesnt need consensus to overturn the AfD in that case, any user can do that. nableezy - 23:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't have advocated speedy deletion if this article had been deleted and then recreated in its current new form, but this situation is totally different. First, a consensus to delete can either be a decision that there should not be an article with this title or that there should be but the article as we have it doesn't fill the role; a consensus to redirect can only be the former. Second, obviously a speedy delete is held to more stringent standards than a redirect, both because a speedy delete irreversibly destroys the history and because a speedy delete has the available alternative of a regular delete. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But changing it back to a redirect is the same idea as a speedy, except we dont have a hopefully impartial admin to determine whether or not the speedy applies. My point is that the AfD ended in a decision, but that decision, if it is a delete, redirect, whatever, applies to the article as it was. If this article is substantially improved and addresses the reason for the AfD ending in whatever decision it did then that decision no longer applies. This article has much more in content and references and does not duplicate the information in Proposals for a Palestinian state. The reasons for that article to be redirected do not apply to this article, it is substantially improved from what was redirected. But I suppose we are either destined to continue this argument or try and bring in more people. Would you like to draft an RfC statement or should I or somebody else? nableezy - 04:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I support keeping this as an article, not a redirect. It contains material which doesn't overlap too much with Proposals for a Palestinian state. Several sections, especially the section about passports, seem to me to be more appropriate here than in the other article. It's a reasonably long article, therefore it doesn't need to be merged. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

keep. the afd from 2 years ago is irrelevant, and the reasons given do not apply here. this article is well-sourced, not a duplicate of the proposals article, and the "state of Palestine" is obviously notable enough for its own article. the pov of editors on one side that "it doesn't exist!" is irrelevant. reliable sources say it has been declared and recognized by many parties. editors trying to say otherwise should find some sources which say it doesn't exist and add them instead of trying to delete this article based on personal opinions. it meets WP:N (Substantial coverage in reliable sources) by a mile. untwirl(talk) 23:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Things work by consensus around here, last time i checked. There already was an admin-ratifed clear cut consensus to redirect the article. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor that wants to go agaisnt the consensus to show clearly that the consensus has changed. Nothing earth-shattering here, just elementary wiki-policy. Very interesting indeed, that the adherence to this policy has resulted in a tag-teaming brow beating. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nice that you choose ignore the comments of Coppertwig and untwirl below. This is not about me and Nableezy, not matter how much you want to make it so. Its about an out of process move by Jalapenos. He can't turn back the clock. The article now is a different one than it was 2 months ago. It has to judged on its own merits, not those of an AfD held for a different article two years ago. Tiamut^talk 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

redirects are not set in stone. even on the WP:Redirects for discussion page it says, "If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold."(emphasis added)

and, by the way, it is outrageously disruptive to blank an entire article with many editors working on it and try to edit war it into a redirect. untwirl(talk) 05:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have been requested to comment here, for what my comments are worth. My own political views about the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts notwithstanding, an AfD from two years ago whould not be the determinant for the state of the article now because both the article and the politics have changed in the interim. Thus the phenomenon/situation discussed in the previous article which resulted in the AfD ruling of "redirect" is not directly applicable to THIS article about the current status of the entity referred to as the "State of Palestine". If editors believe that this article as it stands fails various wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is nothing preventing the filing of a new AfD. Also, this article needs to be very clear about what it represents, and we have to be careful not to conflate the entity known as the "State of Palestine" with land known in antiquity as "Palestine" and now known as either "Israel" or "Gaza" or the "West Bank" or whatever other names these areas are called. However, that is something that must be done in the article, not a reason for it to be deleted outright. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the previous AfD was improperly closed. It was open for only 7 days and most of the votes came from the usual suspects who all arrived together. Specifically, after IZAK voted there were 10 more identical votes in less than a day. I know as a fact that IZAK ran a mailing list for this type of thing because I used to be on it. He took me off it when I voted opposite to how I was supposed to. I can't prove that this is what happened for this AfD, but the voting pattern is damn suspicious and the closing admin should have noticed that and left the AfD open for longer. (To make it clear, I don't have an opinion on what should happen to this article because I didn't study it yet. I just want to give my observation on the AfD.) Zero^talk 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

These are the kinds of concerns to bring up at DRV. Presumably, any discussion here regarding the original AfD could wait till DRV sorts them out. Not sure why you waited two years to bring them up, but I guess that's spilled milk. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone is always bound to bring up cabalism in one form or another here, Jalapenos. Raul has a bunch of rules that reference it. Articles should be discussed on their merits, and I would like to remind Zero that there are such things as "watchlists" and "project noticeboards" on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Avi, where could we go to get the procedural question answered by a wider audience, namely does the AfD apply to this page. RfC is an option but not the most appealing and it is clear that there is not agreement on that point here. nableezy - 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You could try on either WT:DRV or WP:ANI, I reckon. For what it is worth, many of us responding here are admins who are supposed to know these things :) -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Resumption of discussion on worthiness of the article (NB: same discussion as above but viewpoints express disagreement with Jalapenos so he moved them into their own section here)

(I created this new section for what were at the time comments by Coppertwig and untwirl, in order to separate the resumption of the stalemated substantive discussion, which I welcomed, from the procedural discussion regarding what to do given the stalemate.) Untwirl, welcome to this talk page. If you haven't read the previous relevant discussions here - and I'm guessing from your comment that you haven't - I suggest that you do so as not to have to reinvent the wheel. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

:I think what you have done here is wrong Jalapenos. Coppertwig and untwirl's comments were addressed to the issues raised above. Its not up to you to decide that they are unrelated and create a header segmenting them off. That has allowed Brewcrewer to add his comments, seemingly before theirs in the discussion now above. Unfair and misleading to eliminate the views of people who don't agree with you. Tiamut^talk 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

moved comments back to original location untwirl(talk) 00:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the comments on whether or not there should be a redirect or an article should be sectioned off. There are two topics here, does the AfD apply, and if it does is there consensus to restore the article. Mixing the two is just going to make things more complicated than it needs to be. nableezy - 08:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy. I don't think the two topics are that separate. Frankly too, I have to say that its obvious that the AfD does not apply. The article now is not the same article that was AfD'd. If people want to open a new AfD they can. But this page cannot simply be redirected citing an AfD from two years ago. Tiamut^talk 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

the "worthiness of this article" should be discussed at afd, not here. for example, a while back i participated in an afd for sheree silver (of wife swap or some such nonsense) and it was determined that she wasnt notable enough for her own page, so it was redirected to the page for the show. if next year she became notable for something, someone could recreate the article and flesh it out, no problem. in the same way, if this article was determined in the past to be a duplicate of info and therefore redirected, someone can recreate it as a notable, non-duplicate article and be perfectly within the rules. untwirl(talk) 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC) ps - thanks for the welcome jalps! although your assumptions are, once again, incorrect.