Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Re: Palestine is currently recognized by 97 countries but not the United Nations

With respect to a comment that appeared in a previous thread that Palestine is recognized by 97 states, but not by the UN. It is difficult to estimate how many countries recognize Palestine. In some situations, recognition of other states is implicit. Many countries have a standing formal policy of only extending tacit recognition to other states, but not to their governments. In actual practice many states no longer make formal declarations regarding recognition. see for example pages 3-4 of Recognition of governments in international law, By Stefan Talmon

Despite the opinion of political pundits, there simply is no such thing as collective or universal recognition of states by the UN. There never has been any binding legal criteria that says that a UN member state must be sovereign or independent state either. Several of the founding members of the United Nations expressed concern over the use of the term "state" in article 4 of the Charter, and suggested that the term "nation" be substituted instead. The League of Nations had been open to membership by states, colonies, and commonwealth dominions. The independence and sovereignty of several countries at the San Franciso Conference was doubtful at best. In 1945 the Philippines and India were still months away from independence, and France was still occupying Lebanon and Syria. In fact, it still considered them to be under mandate. The two Soviet Federal Republics, Belorussia and the Ukraine, were not widely considered to be independent or sovereign either. Although the term "state" was retained, it was left undefined. Member states are under no obligation to recognize new members, even after they have been admitted. In actual practice many member states do not recognize each other.

When the juridical status of Palestine and the nascent state of Israel was questioned in 1948, the representative of the "Provisional" Government of Israel pointed out that:

• The Juridical status of Palestine mandate was the result of a decision of the General Assembly.
• That the Charter did not require universal recognition of a state.
• That the UN had no say in the matter of recognition of states:

  "The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State." Mr Eban S/PV.340, the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, 27 July 1948

In 1950 a suggestion was made that UN membership be adopted as a form of legal collective recognition, but the Secretary-General and Legal Affairs section advised that such a measure would require the adoption of an amendment to the UN Charter. Several of the modern members have been labeled "states for UN purposes only". They have been admitted despite treaty agreements or other conditions that are generally recognized as an impairment of their sovereignty, e.g. Monaco, Bhutan, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and etc. In some cases these members have only been recognized by four or five foreign diplomatic missions from other states. see pages 39-48 of Statehood and the law of self-determination, By D. Raič or page 46 of UNESCO's International Law.

Conversely, the General Assembly, Security Council, UNESCO, and UNHCR have established a number of special organs, such as Commissions or Committees, for the express purpose of establishing the State of Palestine, and to look after the "inalienable rights of the Palestinian people" - including the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the natural resources of their territory. So, it is difficult to simply say that the UN has not recognized Palestine. harlan (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Harlan: by your own admission, you say that the UN has not recognized the establishment of the State of Palestine. As you say, they have established a number of special organs for the express purpose of establishing the State of Palestine. Similarly, were I, the UN, or anyone, to found an organization and organs for the establishment of the State of Meah Shearim (which I would gladly participate in), that does not mean that I, or those organizations and organs, thereby recognize its existence! In other words, intending to found a state does not equal having founded it. Nobody is disputing that the UN, US, EU and others (including myself, by the way) support the founding of a State of Palestine. We are merely disputing your allegation that it already exists. It does not exist, as yet. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify things a bit, the "allegation" that Palestine exists originates from scores of verifiable published accounts, not from me. The reports say that dozens of sovereign states have made the necessary legal decisions in that regard. Sir Hersh Lauterpacht taught international law, served as a legal adviser to the Jewish Agency for Palestine, served as a Judge on the International Court of Justice, and wrote a volume devoted to the topic of Recognition of states in international law. In his view: "a State is, and becomes an International Person through recognition only and exclusively." See "D. Constitutive Theory" in International Law Reports By E. Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, page 400. That being the case, you'll have to take up your "dispute" over the definition of statehood with the responsible state authorities. In the meantime, everyone should be able to read what they have to say on the subject right here in Wikipedia.

The Commission that was created to establish the State of Palestine was the result of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. It was relieved of its responsibilities on 14 May 1948. I never suggested that the UN has not recognized the State of Palestine because that now-defunct organ has an on-going, unfulfilled purpose. Perhaps you were too busy reading between the lines, but I explained that the UN does not have the vested authority to recognize entities as States.

On 15 November 1988, the Palestine National Council declared the establishment of the provisional government of the State of Palestine all by itself. The Council invested the PLO with the prerogatives and responsibilities of a Provisional Government. The General Assembly adopted a resolution, 43/177 of 15 December 1988, in which it acknowledged the proclamation of the "State of Palestine" in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II), and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. A numerical majority of the members approved that resolution, and many have separately recognized the State of Palestine.

The 1989 Israeli Yearbooks on International Law contained many articles from experts discussing the implications of the Declaration. L.C. Green noted that previous precedent had ruled that El-Fatah militias were illegal organizations because they had not been recognized by the government of Jordan. That situation had changed after the Declaration of the State of Palestine, and its recognition by so many States. He reasoned that if the PLO declared their militias the army of the state, it might be difficult for Israel to deny them combatant status. The possibility was also mentioned that Palestine might accede to the Geneva Conventions, and that such an action would require the application of all the provisions of the Conventions in the Occupied territories. Dr Green also noted 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 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0792304500.

The government of Israel subsequently signed a self-government agreement with the PLO, with complete knowledge that it was dealing with a Provisional government representing the State of Palestine. That agreement allowed for the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel dismantled its settlements, and withdrew its forces from Gaza, but has conducted major military operations against the area. In January of 2009, the Palestinian Authority presented evidence that 67 States legally recognize it as a State with jurisdiction over Gaza. They accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, and insist that responsible Israelis and Palestinians are amenable to trial and prosecution for war crimes committed in their State. harlan (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

An offer of assistance

Regarding the disagreement over the sourcing and description of factors following the second World War, would it possibly help if I created a subpage with relevant quotes from a random sampling of reliable sources? I have decent library access and it seems the best way to settle the issue would be to follow what reliable authorities have said on the matter. Thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It can't hurt, though I am not sure that this is what will help settle the disputes which are quite unclear. Mashkin (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer. I have no objection to the presentation of Zionist views of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict, but I do object to the deletion of references to published views of the British government and the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine. I really don't care if the attacks on Palestinians had anything to do with British Imperial calculations, there is already another article about that topic. Wikipedia isn't intended to single-handedly settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just to report the significant views that others have published on the subject. Controlling information -Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression or hasbara - is an integral part of the conflict itself. I have sources for this material and would like to mention the jist of it along side Mashkins material. After 1937 there attacks against Arabs and creeping expropriations in rural Palestine. That was done as part of the effort to establish the borders of the future state despite the fact that many settlements were placed in so-called forbidden zones.

• Many sources (Flapan, Ben-Ami, and Pappe) say the Zionist enterprise was always an enterprise of planned military conquest after 1937, and that it included acts that were considered atrocities and war crimes at that time.

• Herzl: proposed the establishment of a chartered company to colonize Palestine. The King-Crane Commission reported that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.

• Raphael Lemkin: studied both early and modern instances of colonialism and came to the conclusion that the practice is inherently genocidal. He coined the term genocide to describe foreign occupations that destroy or permanently cripple the subject population. He said that the use of propaganda to rationalize the crime; appeal to popular beliefs and intolerance and conceal reality was an integral part of the process.

• David Ben Gurion's book "Letters to Paula and the Children" contains an explanation written for his son in 1937 which said that partition was really just the first phase in the process of redeeming the whole of land of Palestine. Ben Gurion said he planned on building a first-class fighting force to permit settlement in the remaining territory with the consent of the Arabs, or without it.

• Schlomo Ben-Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the "Field Battalions" under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the "Avner Plan". It ignored any proposed boundaries contained in the Peel partition plan, and envisioned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. Ben-Ami said that after the Arab Revolt had ended, it was a new offshoot of the Haganah, the "Poum" that led what became almost routine reprisals and collctive punishments against Arab villages.

• In "A History of Zionism", Walter Laqueur said that Jabotinsky was unhappy about the murder of women and children, and asked the Irgun leaders to warn the Arabs in time for them to evacuate the areas that were to be attacked. That was the customary thing for belligerents to do according to the existing laws of warfare. The Irgun commanders replied that they were not willing to do that. Laqueur's report is in general agreement with the account provided by J. Bowyer Bell, in Terror Out of Zion, He mentions the practical problems of limiting reprisals to the guilty parties.

• Simha Flapan wrote that after the 1939 White Paper restrictions on immigration and land purchases went into effect the Haganah concentrated its efforts on illegal immigration and establishing overnight "instant" settlements in forbidden areas all over the country. He also wrote about the use of propaganda. He cited the discontinuity between the Founding Myths of Israel and the accounts contained in Ben Gurion's war diaries and the declassified files of the Central Zionist Archives.

• Ilan Pappe states that Palmach's efforts were directed against Palestinian rural areas, and that from 1944 onwards, until they were disbanded in 1948, they were the main pioneering force in building new settlements. He goes on to say its members were highly active in carrying out cleansing operations. He accuses the Jewish militias and the IDF of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

• Issah Nakhleh cites 1946 War Office reports including clashes between Arabs and Jews as a result of Jewish attempts to found colonies during the night under the guard of armed Settlement Police. The Preface of The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, 2 Volumes (Hardcover), by Issa Nakhleh, Publisher: Intercontinental Books (January 1, 1991) explains that the purpose of the work was to prepare an authentic record of terrorist crimes, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and genocide that had been committed against the Palestinian people. The author was the Senior Legal Advisor to the UN Palestine Delegation of the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine, a member of the American Society of International Law, and the International Law Association of London. The contains two forewords written by well-known authors who are both professors of international law, John Quigley and Francis Boyle.

• Schlomo Ben Ami said that in December 1947 the Haganah responed to Arab encirclement of Jerusalem by attacking Arab towns and villages and expelling the inhabitants. British High Commissioner Cunningham believed that the disproportionate reaction by the Yishuv led to the escalation of the conflict. In February 1948, Ben Gurion told a collegue that Jews no longer needed to purchase land, because they could take it by conquest. Ben-Ami says Aharon Cohen of the MAPAM Arab department was ashamed and afraid at the deliberate eviction of the Arabs, and that his leader Yacov Hazan warned about the widespread robbery, killing, expulsion and rape of the Arabs. Ben Ami writes that the purpose of Plan Dalet was to target and occupy Arab villages beyond the partition borders and link them and the isolated Jewish settlements to the Jewish State. In November 1948 Aharon Zisling said Jews too have committed Nazi acts.

• The British High Commissioner wrote that he was concerned about the possibility that the Jews would "continue their policy of blowing up innocent Arabs", and mentioned military "operations based on mortaring terrified women and children".harlan (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Name also

"During the 19th century, the "Ottoman Government employed the term Arz-i Filistin (the 'Land of Palestine') in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922". Neville J. Mandel (1976) The Arabs and Zionism Before World War I University of California Press, ISBN 0520024664 p xx, taken from References of Musa Alami page.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.213 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• see section The Name , Palestine, [1],

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.213 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion of these issue with this reference. The Alami page should be corrected, given that Ard i Filistin it was not a clearly defined concept. Mashkin (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Period following WWII and US - Mandate relations

In the period following WWII there were no (significant) attacks or reprisals of the Irgun and Lehi and the Arabs. Also there were no attack on international delegates.

Another issue is the relations between the British Mandate and the US. It is simply completely out of place in such a general article to devote so many paragraphs to the issue. Mashkin (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, lets deal with one issue at a time. The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, by Issah Nakhleh contains a very long list of entries from British Foreign Office files, Colonial Office files, and War Office files stored in the National Archives, Kew Gardens, Surrey England. The list gives the Public Records Office file numbers for each entry and covers the period 1939-1948. It lists numerous attacks against Arabs conducted by Irgun and Lehi. Those attacks were carried out with submachine guns, home made bombs, hand grenades, and truck bombs.

The British were responsible for maintaining law and order while they were dissolving their mandate. Attacks against Arabs carried out by illegal Jewish militias under Plan Dalet were a massive failure of law and order. See Sten Guns and Barrel Bombs in The case for Palestine, By John B. Quigley

The British High Commissioner reported that in the period from 30 November 1947 to 1 February 1948 there had been 427 Arabs killed and 1,035 wounded. UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION, First Special Report to the Security Council, The Problem of Security in Palestine, A/AC.21/9 16 February 1948

During that time the Commissioner warned that the Jewish militias had adopted a policy of blowing up innocent Arabs. On 5 January Haganah blew up part of the Semiramis Hotel killing 14 civilians including the Spanish Consul. The Commissioner labeled the attack an offense against civilization. see page 136 of Theory and practice in the history of European expansion overseas, By Robinson, et.al, Routledge, 1988, ISBN 0714633461

The same book provides another example:

The British High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham, noted in his reports that by late April the Jewish attacks had led to a crisis with ominous and intolerable implications for the British:

Recent Jewish military successes (if indeed operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children can be classed as such) have aroused extravagant reactions in the Jewish press. . . .Jewish broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany. . . .on the roads, Hagana armoured cars are increasingly impudent and intrusive. . . . The Arabs of the large towns, who have borne the brunt of recent Jewish offensive action are . . . bitter against the British. . . .They must pin the blame on someone, and who [are] more deserving than the British?

--Theory and practice in the history of European expansion overseas, By Robinson, et.al, Routledge, 1988, ISBN 0714633461, page 142

Your personal opinion that those post WWII attacks conducted during the British mandate weren't significant is WP:FRINGE. harlan (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand what this section is about. The discussion is what caused the British to leave. The relevant period is from the end (or towrds the end) of WWII and the Partition Resolution. Please restore the article to the way I have edited it. Currently it is simply wrong and misleading. Mashkin (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Section is titled "British Mandate (1920–1948)" and discusses the tenuous nature of Britain's control over Palestine during that period. The references that I added are completely relevant to both the time period, and that topic. Your edits and comments here are tendentious because they trivialize the deaths of thousands of Arabs. I would suggest you drop the matter. harlan (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks! The sentences in question clearly discuss the period after WWII and before the partition resolution (after which there isn't the issue of the British Mandate remaining. So what should be mentioned are the attack on British rule. All the rest (say the 1930's or the Civil War are unrelated to the issue). Mashkin (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin don't try to portray honest criticism of your inappropriate edit summary and talk page comments as a personal attack. You said there were no (significant) attacks on Arabs after WWII, but you and I have had extensive discussions about that subject already on the Plan Dalet article talk page. You deleted the reference to the assassination of Count Bernadotte because it happened after the termination of the mandate, then made the overly-broad claim here on the talk page that there were no post-WWII attacks on international delegates. As I noted above, the Spanish Consul was one of the fatalities of the Haganah bombing of the Semiramis Hotel during the mandate. The French Consulate, located next door to the King David Hotel, was contacted minutes before the blast and given one of the bomb threats, and several Greek and Armenian bureaucrats were killed in that attack. US Consul General Thomas C. Wasson and US Navy Commander Herbert M. Walker were both killed by snipers in separate incidents, on 21-22 May of 1948. That's plenty of post-war violence against international delegations.

This part of the article deals with the period between the World War II and the Partition resolution and deals with the reasons that the British decided to quit the Mandate. during that time you have various attacks against British related installations and individuals, not against Arabs. I have added a whole section regarding the Arab revolt, where such attacks are mentioned. Plan Dalet has nothing to do with this period. Mashkin (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that you deleted the references to the files from the British National Archives/Public Records Office, and didn't include them in your new section about the Arab Revolt. Those disprove your fatuous claim that there were no attacks against Arabs. I also notice that you've deleted the reference to the Haganah bombing of the Semiramis Hotel that killed the Spanish Consul, and etc. It looks like you deleted things you didn't like, complained on the talk page that those things never happened, and then repeatedly deleted several more well-sourced references which established that those events did indeed occur.

I believe you are taking too much advantage of an unnecessary and unsourced editorial comment, i.e. "In the years following World War II, Britain's control over Palestine became increasingly tenuous." That statement indicates that British control over Palestine had already been tenuous. This portion of the article is about the entire period of the Mandate, not just the post-war period. You are deleting relevant material that undermined British home support because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and using that statement as your pretext. The article cites a quote from a lecture delivered by L. G. Archer Cust that Menachem Begin used in his book "Revolt", but Archer Cust was the leading British proponent of cantonization. He thought the Mandate was unworkable. The Peel Commission cited a lengthy memo he authored on that very subject in 1937. see for example Mandated landscape, By Roza El-Eini, page 317. Begin traced the origin of the problem to the ineffective British response to the Arab revolt of 1936-39 - when the Revisionists thought it was necessary to found I.Z.L. See Revolt page 40.

harlan (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not too enthusiastic about this comment, which is quite popular in Wikipedia - it is a wrong analysis by one involved party citing another one. I kept it here since it reflects sentiment. Mashkin (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The impending failure of the British mandate was evident to the Peel Commission, which was convened during the Arab revolt of 1936-39. The British government sent in troop reinforcements, and still had to arm Haganah units in order to quell renewed Arab violence in the wake of the Commission's recommendation on partition. The British issued the 1939 White Paper because the government in London and the public were alarmed at the extent of Arab opposition and needed Arab support for the War against the Nazis, more than they needed Jewish support. see for example page 431 of A history of the world from the 20th to the 21st century, By John Ashley Soames Grenville.

The Irgun committed acts of violence against Arabs from its very inception. John Quigley traces the "Collapse of the Mandate" to the period of the 1936-39 Arab revolt. see page 23 of The Case for Palestine. Quigley, Simha Flapan, David Hurst, and a host of others cite the Irgun bombing of an Arab bazaar in 1937. J. Bowyer Bell cites an incident on 14 March 1937 when Arieh Yitzhaki and Benjamin Zeroni tossed a bomb into the Azur coffee house outside Tel Aviv. He also cites a meeting in Alexandria in July 1937 between Jabotinsky and Irgun commander Col. Robert Bitker and chief of staff Moshe Rosenberg. Ze'ev listened, while the two explained the need for indiscriminate retaliation due to the difficulty of limiting operations to only the "guilty". see Terror Out of Zion, pages 35-36. harlan (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Try and limit the length of your responses and in particular make them to the point. Mashkin (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The material is entirely to the point. It's your tendentious use of a bogus timeline to make well sourced material completely disappear that needs to be limited. The Jewish Revolt started during the war, on 1 February 1944 at the latest, and the mandate was terminated on 15 May 1948, not in 1947. harlan (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror Attacks Against Arabs

You have not pointed out a single attack on Arabs at the said period (45-47) - I looked up your references.

You are also inventing history as you like it. E.g. extending the period where British control was tenuous.

Note that the fact that the Irgun attacked Arabs in mentioned in the Ara Revolt section. The Semiramis Hotel is irrelevant for two reasons: it is part of the war following the partition resolution (which is covered next) and not the period leading to the end of the mandate and it is is not a deliberate attack on international delegates. You are taking a really out of place sentence the ascribed the Bernadotte Assassination to this period and trying to justify it. Mashkin (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

However you rearrange the article, you are going to get "edited mercilessly" if you try to delete the material about the assassinations of Lord Moyne, Viscount de Tapia, and Count Bernadotte - or forget to mention the terror attacks that were carried-out against Arabs right up til 15 May 1948.

The reference above was simply an overview of the period from 1939-1945 which illustrated that the Stern Gang did NOT agree to stop making terror attacks during the war, and that the British could not put a stop to the Zionist Revolt against the Whitepaper. see pages 317-318 of Saving the Jews, By Robert N. Rosen The Irgun officially re-launched their attacks on 1 February 1944. During the Anglo-American Commission hearings in 1946, Jewish leaders themselves admitted they could not halt the violence. see Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Appendix V Palestine: Public Security

Here are the detailed references for the period you mention from "Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem". Next time use the table of contents yourself:

• Reports From 31 OCT 1945-26 APR 1946
• Reports From 14 MAY 1946-08 OCT 1946
• Reports From 08 OCT 1946-30 DEC 1946
• Reports From 02 JAN 1947-02 MAR 1947
• Reports From 02 MAR 1947-05 JUN 1947
• Reports From 05 JUN 1947-29 SEP 1947
• Reports From 30 SEP 1947-31 DEC 1947

In many cases Arabs lost their lives, or were wounded, as a result of attacks that were directed against the general population. Such as:

• Bombing of the King David and Semiramis Hotels
  
• Bombing of railway stations, placing bombs on railway lines or on trains
  
• Placing bombs in buildings, markets and mining roads
  
• Placing bombs in Government offices which damaged them and adjacent buildings
  
• Placing boobytraps and package bombs
  
• Placing trucks or cars filled with explosives near crowds or buildings
  

Some attacks were directed specifically at Arabs:

• Placing incendiary bombs in Arab markets.
  
• Throwing bombs from passing cars into Arab crowds
  
• Assassination Arab police officers.
  
• Killing Arab children.
  
• Kidnappings of Arabs.
  
• Placing bombs in Arab cinemas
  
• Placing bombs in Arab cafes
  

There were hundreds of terrorist attacks during the post-war period. Here are the reports from the UK National Archives for the attacks against Arabs that occurred during the period that UNSCOP was studying the Question of Palestine:

20 MAY 1947
At 20.15 hours on 20th May at Fajjeh near Petah Tiqva a number of armed Jews entered an Arab cafe and searched the occupants. On leaving they placed a mine in the building and fired a number of shots killing one Arab, seriously wounding three other Arabs and slightly wounding four Arabs. The mine was later detonated by Military completely wrecking the cafe. At 2100 hours on 20th May about 25 armed Jews entered Arab Serwarkeh Encampment near Petah Tiqva and opened fire on the inhabitants killing one Arab. A land mine was later found in the village.
FO 371/61776
21 MAY 1947
Jewish thugs beat up Arab Cafe near Fujja 14101660. Cafe demolished. 2 Arabs killed. Jews entered cafe at 2045 hours, ordered Arabs to stand and opened fire. Jews left mine in cafe which was detonated by Royal Engineer, wrecking cafe. WO 261/568
21 JULY 1947
At 0120 hours a military camp in Haifa was attacked with grenades and machine-gun fire. No damage or casualties to security forces. One Jewish attacker fatally wounded. At 0350 hours a military installation in Haifa was attacked and radio equipment was destroyed by explosives. Four Palestinian S.P.'s injured, none seriously. One Arab civilian seriously injured by a mine. There was also extensive road mining.
FO 371/61776
13 AUGUST 1947
At 16.30 hours on 13th August a car containing two Jews deposited on a road near Petah Tiqva the body of an Arab as yet unidentified, possible Egyptian, who had been shot.
FO 371/678
13 AUGUST 1947
On 13 August, 50 armed Jews set fire to an Arab market in Abu Qabir. They razed the market to the ground. There was no resistance, and no casualties have been reported. Disturbances continued on 14 August in which casualties were inflicted by both sides. A Jewish timberhouse was set on fire, and a bus and several cars were burnt. After 2300 hours, all was quiet, although tension still existed. Total casualties up to morning of 15 August were 8 Jews dead and 25 wounded, 9 Arabs dead and 46 wounded. These figures include the Hawaii Cabaret incident.
WO 275/64
14 AUGUST 1947
At 23.00 hrs. 14th August an Arab watchman at a factory in Ramat Gan was abducted by Jews. His body was found in an orange grove at the rear of the factory at 09.00 hours 15th August. He had been stabbed to death.
FO 371/61783
15 AUGUST 1947
01 -20 hours on 15th August a party of 30-35 Jews in khaki shirts and shorts and armed with automatic weapons approached an Arab owned building in an orange grove near Petah Tikvah. 16 Arabs were sleeping in and around the building. As the Jews approached, they split up, several entering the building, and all firing indiscriminately. The Arabs scattered, but four (2 Egyptians, 1 Palestinian and 1 Hedjazi) were shot dead. At 01.47 hours the building was almost completely demolished by an explosion, probably electrically detonated. 3 males and 4 females are believed to be buried in the debris.
FO 371/61783
15 AUGUST 1947
At 09.30 hrs. 15th August near Jaffa, a party of Jews stabbed and killed two Arab watchmen, one of whom was a boy aged thirteen. At 17.00 hours 15th August in Jaffa, three Jews entered an Arab grocer's shop, damaged interior fittings and poured paraffin over the contents. They were then prevented from setting fire to the shop by local Jewish residents. FO 371/61783 15 AUGUST 1947 At 0935 hours on 15th August at Kilo 54 on the Jaffa- Jerusalem road an Arab in a car was attacked by Jews. He was not injured but his car was burnt out.
FO 371/61783
17 AUGUST 1947
At 1550 hours 17th August an Arab was attacked by Jews in a cafe in Tel Aviv near the Jaffa border. He escaped into the street where he was attacked by other Jews, stabbed and fatally injured. At 1915 hours 17th August an Arab was attacked by a Jew on Tel Aviv sea front and slightly injured. FO 371/61783
29 SEPTEMBER 1947
On the morning of 29 September, the Irgun Z'vai Leumi carried out a fiendish attack on the Central Police Station at Haifa as a reprisal for the deportation of the "Warfield" and "Farida" passengers. At approximately 0600 hours, a civilian truck came momentarily to a standstill against the perimeter wire of the Police Station, and from a specially constmcted ramp built at right angles to the truck, a composite charge on wheels consisting of approximately 500 lbs of explosive was released. After clearing the wire, the bomb came to rest by the wall of the Police Station; and a few seconds later exploded with tremendous force, severely damaging the Police Station and shops in the vicinity. The casualties caused by the outrage were: 4 British Constables killed, 2 Palestinian Constables killed, 2 TACS killed, 4 Civilians Killed, 13 British Constables seriously wounded, 16 British Constables slightly wounded, 14 Jewish Civilians injured, 11 Arab Civilians injured.
WO 275/64
6 OCTOBER 1947
On 6 October, a party of Jews attacked an Arab encampment near Petah Tiqva, killing two and wounding four others. It is believed that the attack was in the nature of a reprisal for the murder of two Jews in the same area on 4 October.
WO 275/64
13 NOVEMBER 1947
4 British civilians shot at when getting out of taxi in Hadar Hacarmel, Haifa. 4 British civilians killed. 1 Arab injured. British civilians belonged to oil companies in Haifa.
WO 261/571
20 NOVEMBER 1947
At Ra'Anana 137176, a party of 5-8 Jews took 5 Arabs from their home and, after questioning, shot them. 4 Arabs murdered, 1 seriously wounded.
WO 261/571 harlan (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

perfect example of OR by Harlan. If you claim that there were significant actions against Arabs and that these weakened British rule AT THE SAID PERIOD you will have to bring a reliable history book that claims. You throw in a bunch of incidents, about which there is very little inforamtion and want to make this conclusions. Very sad. Mashkin (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no orginal research involved, simply an overwhelming compilation of facts related to the subject, something you haven't brought to this discussion so far. Where exactly are YOUR CITATIONS by the way??? I provided a number of sources which illustrate that the British were broke and that they couldn't even control the violence after they had deputized the Jewish Agency's own militia.

Here's a list of items you've deleted from the article:

• The references that said the Temporary Additional Constables program was expanded after the Arab revolt started, because the British Military had asked for a reduction in expenditures. see Uniform and History of the Palestine Police.

The sentence does not any significant information Why include it? Was this the only reason to use the Notrim? As for the source, it is a commercial one and not appropriate. Mashkin (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is comprised of non-commercial historical information, and is third-party verifiable. harlan (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• The references which explain that Lehi continued to carry out attacks after the revolt was over, and throughout the war. see, pages 317-318 of Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust, By Robert N. Rosen, Thunder's Mouth Press, 2006, ISBN 1560257784 and The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, by Issah Nakhleh

I have added material about the Irgun announcement of the Revolt. We can a few words on Lehi. The references you bring are not appropriate for the task. Mashkin (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable. You have been deleting large chunks of well-cited material, and haven't been forthcoming with any verifiable references to support your opinions. The fact that Lehi carried on operations throughout the war is third party verifiable from multiple sources. see for example Walter Laquer's "A history of Zionism", page 377. harlan (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are are arguing somethign that is not controversial. Try lowering your tone.

There is currently a statement about it.

• A reference which explained that by the time the Arab Revolt was over Great Britain was bankrupt, and couldn't even pay for the supplies and munitions it had ordered from the United States in November 1940. see page 190 of No ordinary time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt : the home front in World War II, By Doris Kearns Goodwin, Simon and Schuster, 1995, ISBN 0684804484.

This is the effect of WWII and not related to Palestine. Why are you inserting such confusing claims? Mashkin (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Palestine went in the hole every year after the Arab revolt, and ran through its uncommitted surplus paying down the excess cost of the British Forces temporarily sent to Palestine to deal with the disturbances. see the ECONOMIC AFFAIRS section of the LoN report for 1936. By 1940 Palestine was just as broke as the Exchequer.

The source you gave was regarding Britain in WWII. What are you trying to argue wrt the Arab Revolt? That putting it down required a lot of effort, including financially?Mashkin (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• A reference which said that British Foreign Secretary Bevin candidly admitted the British were bankrupt, their Empire was collapsing,, and that they had been "vainly trying to contain the Jewish Revolt since 1944". see page 562 The Rise and fall of the British Empire, By Lawrence James, page Page 562

I have incorporated this reference into one of the points that existed before.

• After the ineffective joint British-Haganah ["Hunting Season" of 1945, the Jewish leadership admitted to the Anglo-American Commission that even THEY couldn't put a halt to the violence. see Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Appendix V Palestine: Public Security harlan (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you call the Arab uprising a revolt, but call it something else when the Zionist do the same thing? Even the main article that you linked to is titled the Zionist Revolt. harlan (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is how the Arab uprising is called. The Jewish one in 1945-1947 is not called this way. Begin's uprising is called "The Revolt" and it is mentioned now. Mashkin (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an easily verifiable published historical analysis from an Israeli academic about the detrimental impact of the Jewish underground movement after 1939. This obviously isn't WP:OR:

"As a result of the Arab Revolt and the Jewish Underground operations after 1939, the situation became unbearable to the British. Palestine became a millstone around their neck. The financial burden of Keeping 100,000 soldiers in a hostile area was enormous, especially as the British economy was almost bankrupt. The pressure of the British public to "bring the boys home" was great. They therefore elected to withdraw their forces and return the mandate to the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations." see page 78 The Agony of the Promised Land, By Joshua Levy, iUniverse, 2004, ISBN 059532133X

You have a tendency to emphasize the ethnicity of the historian. It is irrelevant and annoying. Please stop. Mashkin (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LoL. You have a tendency to dissimulate when you run out of reasonable excuses for your deletions.

Again, a personal attack. Please stop. Mashkin (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take the time and trouble to look all of this up and post it, just so you could ignore it and make remarks about my tendencies. I think this much referenced material from WP:RS sources belongs in the article, not just on the talk page. What are your thoughts about that subject? harlan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "Israeli" is supposedly a nationality in proper English usage, but it is not an ethnicity. For example, last week the Jerusalem Post reported (yet again) that there are still some Israeli children who can't get into the state-sponsored schools in Pita Tikva because they are considered "Ethiopian", and that "Arab" members of the Israeli Knesset were upset over the proposal for an anti-Nakba bill. A couple of years ago, the news was full of reports about Israeli members of Jew-ish families who were having difficulties with their post-aliya absorbtion because they were considered "Russian" (and neo-Nazi). harlan (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Highly irrelevant. Mashkin (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your theory is obviously more than a little bit lacking. harlan (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I m not sure what you "my theory". Do you want to include the period of WWII in the end of British Mandate? It does not make much sense, since the forces and influences were quite distinct in the war and afterwards. The current explanation for the British desire to leave mentions that running the country required a large force. Only Jewish actions are mentioned specifically, since they were the significant ones at the time. Mashkin (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The nationality of historians is highly relevaqnt if the nation concerned is in breach of multiple UN resolutions concerning the events under discussion. Please tell us what outsiside interest you have that might be incompatible with editing this article. Templar98 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC) - Banned user

Sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia works. Mashkin (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Christison writes for anti-Jewish, anti-Israel webzines, WHY is she quoted in a section in which she has ZERO background?

Her comments in the 19th century section should not be included for 2 reasons:

1. 1 - She wasn't alive during the 19th century and had never been to Palestine/Israel at the time. All of the authors that visited there during the 19th century paint a picture completely opposite of her opinions.

1. 2 - She clearly has racist tendencies with a hidden agenda against Israel. The majority of publications she writes for; EI, Counterpunch, etc., have disturbing histories of racism, anti-Semitism and plain old lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.159.59 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a policy whereby sources are excluded if you scream "antisemite" loudly enough. Try again in terms of WP:RS - and maybe read the whole subsection you're ranting about, which obviously puts the lie to your claim that "all of the authors that visited there during the 19th century" found an empty land. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, the sentences describing Kathleen Christison words should be deleted, since they deal mostly with current issues - how Mark Twain's description are being used or abused, which is outside the scope of the section and the article. The cited criticism of Twain regarding his visit to Nablus is not really notable or worthy of mentioning (of course you describe the novel aspect you see - where else can you see Samaritans). Mashkin (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with arranging related content topically. The use of chronology to delete material, rather than relocate it, is getting monotonous. Supporters of the Palestine Mandate Treaty cited Twain's description of Palestine way back in the 1920s. It is notable because authors like Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz are still using the account today to justify the dispossession of the indigenous population of Palestine. The similarity in those two author's passages about Twain's account led to charges of plagiarism in the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair.

"Palestine", By Karl Sabbagh, says that although Twain's observations have been refuted by every scholarly analysis, they are still used to bolster the Zionist cause. He mentions the fact that Senator Jim Inhofe cited the passage in 2002 as one of the seven reasons Israel is entitled to the land (page 73). "American Palestine", By Hilton Obenzinger said that even though it ought to be apparent that Innocents abroad was utterly fictive, Twain's representations of Palestine as a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land in sack cloth and ashes continues to be cited in descriptions of 19th century Palestine, but not because his observations were accurate (page 166). "The Bible and Zionism", By Nur Masalha says Prime Minister Shamir resorted to quoting Innocents Abroad in his address to the Madrid Peace Conference, and that Netanyahu used the same axiom to justify colonization of Palestine at the expense of the inhabitants(page 44). I could go on, but you probably get the point. The tendentious use of Twain's satire by Zionists has become fair game for inclusion because it is a notable published fact in and of itself. harlan (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

States that legally recognize the West Bank and Gaza as the Country, or "State of Palestine"

Many countries, including the United States, have diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, and have recognized the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as a "Country" for legal, economic, and political purposes. Dozens of other States have gone one step further and legally recognized that same national entity as the "State of Palestine". There have also been published reports of Israeli's who have accepted Palestinian citizenship and passports. see Israeli pianist Daniel Barenboim takes Palestinian citizenship.

All of that information is notable and applies to the "Current Status" section of this article, since it is NOT a proposal. An edit summary which simply claims that "there is no such place" is fatuous and unsupportable for the following reasons:

• Legal Decisions Respecting Recognition and Rights of States

In the public international law of the Americas, recognition is strictly a bilateral agreement between two states. The parties to the Montevideo Convention On Rights and Duties of States, and the Charter of the Organization of American States have a conventional agreement that:

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.

Last year the Forward Magazine reported that the Palestinian Authority had been working to expand the number of States that recognize Palestine as a Country. The State of Costa Rica went a step further, and opened diplomatic relations with the "State of Palestine". See Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’. Article 2 of The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations stipulates that the establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent, so this wasn't merely a unilateral declaration on the part of the State of Costa Rica. The Palestinian Authority accepted the duties and obligations of a State when it signed the agreement.

There have been many other published, verifiable reports from WP:RS sources which explain that dozens of States in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe have recognized the country of Palestine as the "State of Palestine" too. For example, Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan filed war crimes complaints against Israel with the International Criminal Court last January. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki announced that he had submitted documents to the ICC which proved Palestine was recognized as a "legal state" by 67 other countries, with the corresponding right under international law to accept the jurisdiction of the court, and request an investigation. see ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe.

The power to legally recognize any entity as a state is vested exclusively in other States. Disgruntled Wikipedia editors, Op-Ed pundits, and private political action committees have no legal standing to contest the matter. UNESCO's volume on International law explains:

there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision which depends on the judgment of the recognizing government. see "IV Recognition of States", beginning on page 47 of International Law

• A Country with a well-defined territory

US law and regulations provide a legal definition of the term: 'Country. "Country" means the political entity known as a nation.' See for example, 19 C.F.R. PART 134.1 Definitions. The US State Department has determined that the West Bank and Gaza are a single political entity that satisfies that definition.

On October 24th, 1994, the Department of State advised the Department of the Treasury that, in view of certain developments including the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, the primary purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1304 would be best served if goods produced in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were permitted to be marked ‘‘West Bank’’ or ‘‘Gaza Strip.’’ US Customs acted on that advice from the Department of State, and made a determination regarding the ‘‘country of origin’’ for those goods for marking purposes. Customs notified the public in T.D. 95–25 that, unless excepted from marking, goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza Strip shall be marked as ‘‘West Bank,’’ ‘‘Gaza,’’ or ‘‘Gaza Strip.’’ The T.D. further stated that the country of origin markings of such goods shall not contain the words ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘‘Made in Israel,’’ ‘‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’’ or words of similar meaning.

The President subsequently declared duty-free treatment for products of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Presidential Proclamation 6955 dated November 13, 1996/ In a letter dated January 13, 1997, the Department of State advised the Department of the Treasury that the Palestinian Authority had asked that the U.S. accept the country of origin marking ‘‘West Bank/Gaza’’ so as to reaffirm the territorial unity of the two areas. The Department of State further advised that it considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. see DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Customs Service, T.D. 97–16, Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza.

The EU also considers the West Bank and Gaza to be a Country. see EU Neighborhood Policy, Country Report, Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The U.K. plans to introduce requirements to properly label West Bank produce for country of origin. A BBC report stated that

the British Government believes that Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal. So does every other government in the world, except for Israel. For that reason goods produced on settlements in the West Bank are not supposed to benefit from a free trade agreement between the EU and Israel. They are supposed to be subject to import duty. see Concern over Israel settlement exports

Nothing prevents individual States from recognizing that country, or political entity, as a State.harlan (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

States can choose to recognize whatever political body they choose, but the fact remain that there is no Palestinians State. There's a weak autonomy over a small area, which changes constantly. This supposed state doesn't have control over currency, borders, airspace, maritime region, etc. It doesn't exercise the one condition which is the best characteristic of states - a monopoly over the use of force in its territory. Your quotes regarding the EU/UK do not show that they recognize "Palestine" as a state, but only that they do not accept the West Bank as a part of Israel - legally, they say, products from the West Bank can't enjoy the free trade agreements between Israel and the EU. Fine, but that says nothing about what the West Bank actually is.

Nope. Not yet a state. Not legally, and not practically. okedem (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, lets resolve one issue at a time. The Treasury Department issues announcements, rules, proposed rules, and legal notices in the Federal Register, an official U.S. government publication that is published daily by the National Archives and Records Administration. T.D. 97-16 was a legal notice which established the fact that the West Bank and Gaza are a legally recognized Country of Origin. The EU Country Report (at the link you deleted) states that the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and Gaza is part of the Euromed process, and that there is a bilateral autonomous Association Agreement with the EU that includes duty free trade with the Palestinian Territories.

Israel maintains it is not responsible for implementing the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the West Bank and Gaza, because those territories are located outside of Israel's sovereign territory and jurisdiction. see CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2

Naturally enough the BBC article explained that goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories don't qualify for customs exemptions under the Israeli agreement, because they are located outside of Israeli territory. Many States insist that a determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal cannot remain without consequences. Ha'aertz reports that the matter of customs fees is a legal crisis related to enforcement of the existing trade agreements. They are not a philosophical question that Israeli businesses can simply ignore. See Israel infuriated by U.K. plan to label West Bank produce. So yeah, Palestine includes two Countries, Israel, and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Your personal opinions are really not appropriate subject matter for the talk page or the article. Please keep the discussion on topic and include verifiable published material from WP:RS sources. harlan (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Okedem is right.

Writing "a future Palestine State" has nothing pejorative and it is clear there is today no State named : Palestine

Ceedjee (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter is not so clear. There is no doubt that Palestine is legally a State in the legal systems of the significant number of states which recognize it. Wikipedia is not supposed to state something as a fact when there is a dispute; we should try to avoid the matter or be completely neutral about it. Cf " . . . the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".[2]. So I changed the lead, which is mainly about geographical usage.John Z (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the link with the '49 Geneva Convention ?

There is no uncertainty. Numerous countries recognize the Palestinian Authority as the official representative of the Palestinian People. Because there is a Palestinian Nation.

But we hear enough that there are discussions and debate between parties. Some argue for a One-State solution. Other for a Two-State. And there is still no solution. The argument : "A people without a state" sent back to pro-Israeli is also enough to illustrate this.

That somebody comes with a WP:OR to proove the contrary is not enough.

If there is a Palestinian State, WHERE IS IT ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Swiss government and the ICRC did see uncertainty - cf the phrase quoted above from the bottom of that page. (No direct connection to the 49 Geneva Convention) Where is the Palestinian State? - Arguably on the ground in whatever areas the PA/PLO/Hamas control. Unquestionably, on paper in various legal systems. Many countries do more than recognize the PLO as "the official representative of the Palestinian People" - Israel does that. They go further and recognize a State of Palestine, i.e. say the "State of Palestine" exists (legally, in their legal system). Regards,John Z (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that particular ICRC statement was made in 1989. The PLO had been declared the sole representative of the Palestinian people, but it was still a provisional government located in Tunisia at that time; The legal status of the ICRC is that of a registered Swiss private organization. Since it isn't a State, it cannot extend legal recognition to States. In the intervening years, the Oslo Accords were signed between Israel and the PLO permitting the establishment of a self-governing Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and Gaza. In 1999, the ICRC and the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions affirmed that Conventions apply, and that the territories are occupied, and Palestinian. In June 2006, at the 29th Conference of the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the Israeli Magen David Adom (MDA) and Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) were recognized as National Societies. Article 4 of the Statutes of the Movement, reads as follows:

“In order to be recognized in terms of Article 5, paragraph 2 b) as a National Society, the Society shall meet the following conditions:

1. Be constituted on the territory of an independent State where the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field is in force.

2. Be the only National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society of the said State and be directed by a central body which shall alone be competent to represent it in its dealings with other components of the Movement.

3. Be duly recognized by the legal government of its country on the basis of the Geneva Conventions and of the national legislation as a voluntary aid society, auxiliary to the public authorities in the humanitarian field.

4. Have an autonomous status which allows it to operate in conformity with the Fundamental Principles of the Movement.

Ceedjee, there really is no WP:OR involved. Books on International law, and the law journals have been full of this material for years. Legal scholars have been writing about the existence of the State of Palestine since the 1997 Hebron agreement. see for example Palestine and the Law, by Musa Mazzawi,or John Quigley's revised and updated 2005 edition of The Case For Palestine. I'm simply compiling the facts found in those sources with related information from John Quigley's article on the Issue of Palestinian Statehood and the ICC in the Rutgers Law Record, the Forward magazine account, the Federal Register public notice, and etc. The mystery is how anything as well documented as this can be excluded from an article on the subject of Palestine. harlan (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself - all matters of custom, etc, are irrelevant - all they say is that WB and Gaza are not part of the sovereign territory of Israel. That's true regardless of any self-rule in those areas. That was true the day the Six-Day War ended. Just because the territories aren't part of Israel, doesn't mean they're an independent state. Note all the commotion now about Netanyahu refusing the accept the two-state solution - if there were two states already, that would be meaningless. The PA does not exhibit the characteristics of a state, not de-facto, and definitely not de-jure. The fact that some states "recognize" it, to express their support, means nothing; just like the facts that some states refuse to recognize Israel doesn't mean that Israel isn't a country. okedem (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, don't bother repeating yourself, unless you have been published. This isn't a chat room. You keep giving us your own private opinions about so-called "facts", while ignoring notable published opinions from competent legal representatives of sovereign States. They represent hundreds of millions of people who have a very different view of the situation. Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability see WP:NOTE. We are well beyond that point in this situation. There are dozens of countries that have recognized "Palestine" as an existing Country or State with the right to self-government. It has been that way for more than twenty years, and "There's no two ways about it." We are all subject to the same general I/P sanctions. The guidance that I've read from Arbcom recognized the fact that attempts to control information itself is an integral part of the Israeli-Arab conflict. I'm going to be bold and edit this article as if the policy contained in WP:NOTCENSORED applies, and see what happens.

Statehood of a Country is an international legal status. It is conferred on a reciprocal basis by any member of the group of other political entities that already enjoy that status. Only states can recognize other states. The fact that Israel demanded that the Palestinian entity recognize it as a Jewish State, and granted it self-government over populated areas, means that it has already been dealing with Palestine as another State. That's why there's a uproar over Netanyahu's remarks. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable, and that act constituted tacit recognition. A non-derogable or inalienable right cannot be subjected to acceptance by a third party: 'As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a "Palestinian people" is no longer in issue. Such existence has moreover been recognized by Israel in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between Mr. Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, lsraeli Prime Minister.' See paragraph 118 of the ICJ Adivisory Opinion, The Palestine Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue, John Quigley, Rutgers Law Record and Articles 6 and 7 of the Montevideo Convention.

Recognition of the State of Palestine by other States is neither solely, nor exclusively, a matter falling within Israel's domestic jurisdiction,or the authority of the so-called "Quartet". The Palestinian people, Palestinian government, and West Bank-Gaza territories are all located beyond Israel's own sovereign territory and jurisdiction (by its own written admission).

International law is the standard of conduct for relations between States. Some international law norms protect State interests (e.g. respect for territorial integrity), while others protect human persons (e.g. prohibition of apartheid). see Barcelona Traction, (Belgium v. Spain). Israel uses a set of formalistic arguments to avoid the application of either. It says that Palestine is not yet entitled to the legal protections afforded to it through recognition by other states, and that international humanitarian law only applies selectively in these (admittedly) foreign territories on a "de facto", but not a "de jure" basis. The community of nations has repeatedly declared that situation to be flagrantly unlawful. The moment that Palestine was recognized by other States the legal principles of the UN Charter became applicable. Those legal principles were codified in the DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

The four criteria outlined in article 1 of the Montevideo Convention are only desiderata. The Convention uses the term "shall" more than a dozen times, but NOT in article 1. It says "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a permanent population; a defined territory; government; and capacity to enter into relations with the other states." I've supplied several publications on international law which explain that those are not legally binding criteria. The terms "sovereign" and "independent" do not appear in the Montevideo Convention, in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the U.S Constitution, the so-called Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC, Part IV, Chapter 97, or article 4 of the UN Charter. That's because those abstract notions are legally irrelevant to the existence or recognition of States. Australia was established as a colony. Chief Justice Evatt of the Australian High Court (and Chairman of the original UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question) summed it up best, "Sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all. What does arise is always a question whether a given authority may lawfully perform some act within the mandated territory or affecting it." International Law and the Protection of Namibia's Territorial Integrity: Boundaries and Territorial Claims, page 40 The agreement on self-government granted municipal jurisdiction to the Palestinian Authority.

The reason there's an uproar over customs is because taxes are never irrelevant. The ancient Kingdom of Israel and the United States of America were both founded as the result of tax revolts. Famed international jurist Sir Hersch Lauterpacht's first professional opinion was written at the request of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. It discussed the legal status of the country for the purposes of applying for most favored nation trading status with League of Nations member states, and the British Crown's Royal Preferences system. see International law, By Hersch Lauterpacht, and Elihu Lauterpacht. harlan (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're not making a coherent case here. Rights (self-determination, etc) have nothing to do with this discussion. We're not talking about what ought to be, but about what actually is. De-facto there is no Palestinian State. Not de-jure either, as Israel is the military sovereign (and constantly criticized for the being the occupying power), all the authority of the PA stems from the agreements with Israel, granting it some level of autonomy. An autonomous region is not a state. It has no legal authority of its own, and certainly exercises few to no powers. Your claims on taxes are, again, irrelevant. All the evidence you've presented shows that the territories aren't considered a part of Israel, but that's true for any timepoint, including the day after the 1967 war. okedem (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who is not very coherent. This talk page and the archives are full of ad hominem attacks, attempts to bully other editors, and good old fashioned information suppression on this topic. I've asked you several times to stop posting your personal opinions, and to provide citations to published and verifiable material that can be used to improve the article. You say the Israeli military is the sovereign of the occupied territories, but the Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that the military commander is NOT the sovereign of those territories. see HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel. You say an autonomous region is not a state, but autonomous regions have long been recognized under customary international law as a type of State with restricted or limited sovereignty. In the case of Elon Moreh College Association v. The State of Israel, April 3, 2006, the Jerusalem District Court admitted that the Palestinian Authority meets the legal criteria for statehood: see J'lem court: Palestinian Authority meets criteria to be classed as a sovereign state. The Supreme Court heard the appeal, in Mis. Civ. P. (Jer) 1008/06, Elon Moreh College Association v. The State of Israel [April 3, 2006] and didn't disagree with the facts or the law, but held that the legal authority to recognize another State resides in the political branch, and should be handled by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, not by the Courts. Prime Minister Netanyahu proposed the creation of a autonomous region with limited sovereignty that he calls a Palestinian State. Surely then, the possible existence of such a state is well beyond dispute by you or anyone else on this talk page. The Prime Minister explained why Israel is withholding recognition, but none of the considerations he mentioned negate the legal recognition that other states have already extended to Palestine.

In their relations with other peoples during the colonial era the Concert of Europe adopted a fundamental legal principle that the supreme legal authority, or "sovereignty", lay outside the indigenous nations. The native populations were deemed to be savages devoid of any rights "civilized" nations were required to recognize or respect. That situation resulted in the creation of a large number of dependent states with restricted sovereignty or limited autonomy. See Talk:List of sovereign states in 1919#Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy for a long list of non-sovereign "States". There have always been examples of nominally sovereign and independent states that were forced to accede to treaties that made them dependencies of their more powerful neighbors. That sort of situation was recognized as an abuse of power by the 1860s, and in the modern era it was addressed by Chapter XI of the UN Charter. See sections 8, 9, and 10 on pages 187 and 188 for a discussion on mid 19th century legal norms: International Law, By Henry Wager Halleck

Various terms were used to describe different types of dependent states, such as condominium, mandate, protectorate, colony, and vassal state. After World War II there was strong international pressure to eliminate dependencies associated with colonialism. Israel has a binding legal obligation under Chapter XI of the UN Charter to assist the Palestinians achieve their independence and exercise their right to self-determination. See American Law Encyclopedia Vol 3, Dependent States, The Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories, in Chapter XI of the UN Charter, and The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

The US has given public notice that the State Department already considers the West Bank and Gaza as a political, economic, and legal entity that constitutes a country. In his 4 June 2009 Cairo address, President Obama said "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." harlan (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're simply filling the page with red-herrings and irrelevant claims. The European Colonialism mention is irrelevant here, as is the court case. "Right to exist" does not imply existence, but only "right to exist". If there already was a state, there wouldn't be any pressure on Israel to agree to the "two state solution". No one would be bothered when Netanyahu offers a future, possible, demilitarized state. The pressure would be, perhaps, to give the state more territory etc; not to allow for its very existence. Reality clearly flies in the face of your claims. No matter how hard you wish it, no Palestinian State yet exists. okedem (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have an incurable case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Under customary international law the existence of a state does not depend on recognition by other states, or the absence of occupying forces. The British didn't go home on 4 July 1776, but that's still Independence Day in the US. The numerical majority of states have exercised their legal prerogative to recognize the existence of the State of Palestine, and the legitimate sovereignty of the Palestinian people over their territory. You have the right to include references to verifiable published sources that support your point of view. You don't have the right to issue no edit orders to other editors, or to delete material that represents opposing views from notable sources that are considered credible and verifiable. Most commentators say the pressure that is being applied to Israel is the result of its failure to observe international norms, freeze settlements, withdraw from the occupied territories, or fulfill its international obligations with respect to the refugees. harlan (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

John Quigley's article on the Issue of Palestinian Statehood and the ICC

In the many documents given by Harlan Wilkerson here above, there is this article John Quigley's article on the Issue of Palestinian Statehood and the ICC it is written :

In 1988, statehood was declared for Palestine by its representative body, the Palestine National Council. It was that declaration that provided the basis for the approaches both to the W.H.O. and to the Government of Switzerland. The 1988 statehood declaration proclaimed “the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.”[20]. As a result of the declaration, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat was invited to address the UN General Assembly.[21] The General Assembly then adopted a resolution in which it "acknowledg[ed] the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988," and, further, decided that "the designation 'Palestine' should be used in place of the designation 'Palestine Liberation Organization' in the United Nations system."[22] One hundred and four states voted for this resolution, forty-four abstained; only the United States and Israel voted against.[23]

It refers to the GA resolution 43/177, U.N. GAOR, 43d Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/43/177 (Dec. 15, 1988), available here.

This resolution states indeed that :

The General Assembly (...) Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988.

So, even if WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it is particular to acknowledge the proclamation of a State without precise borders (we just know they are inside the former Palestine), that's it : a Palestinian State exist. (NB: GA didn't acknowledge the choice of Jerusalem as capital).

Ceedjee (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a national authority in the territories with municipal lawmaking powers, and Israel was instrumental in establishing it there. Despite the fact that the interim agreement expired, the Palestinian National Authority has continued exist. It has obtained international recognition and powers that were not envisioned in the Oslo accords. At the moment, there is a caretaker government in place, with a US-trained police force, and its own courts. Those are organs of State. Israel has intentionally created a situation where a "conflict of laws" exists by allowing settlers to live in the occupied zone and making its laws applicable to them on an extraterritorial basis. see the discussion on pages 117 and 118 under the heading "II Definition of State in the Conflict of Laws, Independent Definition for the Conflict of Laws", from New Political Entities in Public and Private International Law, By Amos Shapira.

The exact boundaries of the territory is a very well known fact. Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip either have to move to the occupied territories, or live apart from their husband or wife. Israel taxes exports from Gaza, and collects customs duties on behalf of the Palestinian National Authority from products destined for the West Bank.

When disputes in the realm of private international law arise, Israeli Courts have no choice but to treat Palestinian Courts as organs of a foreign state, with a definite territorial jurisdiction. How else can Israeli Courts and Palestinian Courts handle enforcement of one another's civil judgments? In the case of Elon Moreh College Association v. The State of Israel, April 3, 2006, the Jerusalem District Court admitted the obvious: see J'lem court: Palestinian Authority meets criteria to be classed as a sovereign state. The Supreme Court heard the appeal, in Mis. Civ. P. (Jer) 1008/06, Elon Moreh College Association v. The State of Israel [April 3, 2006] and didn't disagree with the facts or the law, but held that the legal authority to recognize another State resides in the political branch, and should be handled by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, not by the Courts.

Once again, it is a mystery to me why we even bother to discuss the notability of verifiable published accounts from WP:RS sources like this. harlan (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

why we shouldn't quote Sachar on population

Howard Sachar's book on page 87 says the Arab population in 1881 was 470,000. On page 167 he says in 1882 the Arab population "barely reached 260,000". Did 210,000 people leave or die in one year? Also on page 167 he says "the increase between 1922 and 1946 was 118 percent, a rate of almost 5 percent annually" but 118 percent in 24 years is only about 3.5 percent annually. Then he makes, perhaps as a result of this mistake, an unsourced claim about immigration. Clearly Sachar has his numbers all in a knot and quoting him on population is silly. Zero^talk 14:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Zero^talk 10:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) Legal Study

A group of notable legal scholars and practitioners, including the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, concluded that Israel's practices in the Occupied territories of Palestine violate international law norms regarding colonialism and the crime of apartheid as defined in international law. Their published report is notable. It called on Israel to correct the situation, and suggested that an advisory opinion of the ICJ be urgently requested on the question. The crime of apartheid is an indictable offense, which is subject to universal jurisdiction in many other states.

This study was commissioned and coordinated by the Middle East Project (MEP) of the Democracy and Governance Program, a research program of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, (HSRC). The HSRC is the state of South Africa's statutory research agency.

The Council conducted a 15-month long review of Israel's practices in the occupied territory of Palestine. The study was conducted by a team of international legal scholars from the law faculties of a number of institutions that are WP:RS sources: the Minerva Centre for Human Rights, Hebrew University (Jerusalem), the University of London's Middle East, School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), the South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and International Law (Johannesburg), the Center for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Government of South Africa (Pretoria). Many legal practitioners from organizations such as Adalah – The Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, and Al-Haq (West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists) also consulted and contributed. harlan (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not clear why of all the writing on the middle east this one should be mentioned. Did it have any influence? Mashkin (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The report was just released. It's a major scholarly resource that Arab human rights groups can use for legal advocacy. The US Supreme Court recently turned down an attempt to bar the South African Apartheid class action lawsuits. Those were filed under the US Alien Tort Act. The boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement can use this report in support of their campaign, and to assist Arab groups in filing complaints against corporations doing business with Israel. At the last policy conference AIPAC Executive Director, Howard Kohr, spoke about the success of the movement to impose sanctions on Israel, and said he was worried that it might fundamentally change US government policy. harlan (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was just released, I suppose it has yet to have any real influence. Anyways, this is a very specific point, and even if this is a very important study, it still doesn't belong in such a broad-scoped article. okedem (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it confirms the systematic failure to enforce international law in the territories. That fact had already been addressed in the Sasson report, the Yesh Din "Exceptions" report, and an article devoted to the case study of The Shooting of a Handcuffed, Blindfolded Palestinian Demonstrator, by Orna Ben-Naftali and Noam Zamir. It appeared in the Journal of International Criminal Justice. The EU conditioned the upgrade of its relations with Israel on democracy, basic human rights, improvements in the daily life of the Palestinian population, and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. see Council Conclusions Strengthening of the EU bilateral relations with its Mediterranean partners - upgrade with Israel. This article has a subsection devoted to Infrastructure and development during the Mandate era, it can accommodate some reporting on the current political climate. harlan (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment did not address what I had said. First, the importance of this report is unclear. Second, I see no reason to report it specifically, when there are literally thousands of studies and opinions in this field. If you want to discuss some topic, it needs to be done using several sources explaining the varying views, not a single, one-sided, source. Third, as I said, this is way too specific for this article. The "Current status" section covers everything from 1948 to today in 8 paragraphs, and one research organization's opinion cannot receive an entire paragraph. The section already covers settlements and political status. Present the facts (settlements, etc), instead of some people's opinions of them. Mind you, this article never even mentions issues like terrorism (the main reason for many things Israel does, like checkpoints, the fence, etc). Hamas is never mentioned. This is just a bird's eye view, and opinions on specific issues don't belong here. okedem (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've obliged, and added information about the multiple reports, the global BDS movement, and the EU and US statements about basic human rights and further colonization of the West Bank. Your personal preferences about what is "too specific" for an article on the subject of Palestine has nothing to do with any Wikipedia policy so far as I can see. You are just deleting a paragraph of well-sourced material that deals with the "Current Status". The "birds eye view" includes a discussion about Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi and that seems pretty specific.

Regarding one-sidedness, international law is the standard of conduct that states expect from one another. A broad consensus exists that Israel is violating peremptory norms. Individual states can't elect to simply ignore their obligation to comply with customary or criminal laws, and then complain when they are asked to correct the situation. harlan (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Overview on Colonialism and Apartheid

This is your bias - your turn every article into an international law one. Do not turn the article on Palestine into an article on what Israel is doing in the occupied territories. There are plenty of articles for that. Mashkin (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Harlan, there are enough article that can deal with the legality of settlements or Israel's actions in the territories. An article has a certain scope, and you're trying to skew that scope to allow for information of a certain kind. Not all sourced material can be written in every article. This is why why have more and more specific articles. This article is very bird's-eye, dealing with a region of land for several millenia. Now, unless you want to double that section with information about terrorism, you might like to acknowledge the idea of scope, and leave this one. okedem (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you mention it, I've looked through this talk page and the archives. I see no evidence of any consensus to support the proposition that this article can only discuss the geographical region. In any event the majority of the material is about ruling regimes. Everything after the advent of the 20th century is about the modern country and its partition.

Regarding my alleged bias concerning international law: The delegates of the First Zionist Congress said the aim of Zionism was the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine, secured by public law. The 1856 Treaty of Paris declared that the Sublime Porte had been admitted to participate in the Public Law and System (Concert) of Europe. That system of law governed territorial accessions and the creation of new states.

After the Russo-Turkish Wars in 1878, Russia and the Ottoman Empire concluded the the Treaty of San Stefano. Because it modified the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, the other signatories called for a Congress to obtain its revision. The Treaty of Berlin of 1878 was the result. Montenegro, Serbia, and Romania were recognized as new independent states on condition that religious, political, and property rights were guaranteed on a nondiscriminatory basis.

The practice of securing protections for minority and religious communities in newly created states became a part of customary international law. During the Versailles Peace conference a single committee handled the creation of new states and minority rights. Here is Clemenceau's memo that was attached to the Polish Minority Rights Treaty:

This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created, or when large accessions of territory are made to an established State, the joint and formal recognition of the Great Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such States should, in the form of a binding International convention undertake to comply with certain principles of Government. In this regard I must recall for your consideration the fact that it is to the endeavors and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is being restored over the territories in question, and that the inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated into the Polish nation.... ...There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State.' Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93

The Zionist organization helped draft a "declaration of sympathy" for Zionist aspirations, and then arranged to have it incorporated into the terms of an international legal mandate. A year after the British Mandate went into effect, a member of the Zionist Executive publicly outlined the role it would play in establishing a system of separation and colonization. Jabotinsky said that the organization had nothing to offer the Palestinians, except an impenetrable iron wall of bayonets. He said that the Balfour Declaration and Mandate were intended to provide the conditions of security that would permit Zionist colonization without any interference from the Palestinians. He admitted that the Palestinians were a nation, and said the only purpose of colonization was to transform their national homeland into the Land of Israel. Similarly, David 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. That certainly corresponds to Raphael Lemkin's view that colonial regimes inherently set out to destroy the indigenous society and its people.

In 1947, the Jewish Agency based their demands for the creation of a Jewish State on international law. see Speeches by Jewish Agency representatives in the General Assembly, May 1947. One of the senior legal advisers of the Jewish Agency, Jacob Robinson, even published a book that explained the Zionist legal brief the Agency presented to the UN during the Emergency Session: "Palestine and the United Nations, Prelude to a Solution", Public Affairs Press, 1947 (reprinted by Greenwood Press, 1971- ISBN: 0837159865).

The UN Partition plan contained a minority rights treaty that is still in force today. It placed minority and religious rights in Palestine under the permanent protection of the United Nations. That subject and allegations of apartheid both were discussed during the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the legality of The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel in 1977. Two of the witnesses were experts in international law, Dr. Yehuda Blum and Dr W. Thomas Mallison. Dr. Blum disputed the Palestinian territorial claims on the basis of his "Missing Reversioner" legal theory. Dr. Mallision disputed Israel's claim on the basis of the legal requirements of the UN resolution. Dr. Israel Shahak testified that society in Israel and the occupied territories was based upon a system of apartheid. Dr. Mallison stated that territory was only allocated by the UN on condition that certain duties imposed upon each state to be established in Palestine were carried out. Among those legal obligations, section 10(d) of part IB was particularly important. It provided that each of the states to be set up in Palestine shall have a constitution which includes provisions: "Guaranteeing to all persons equal and nondiscriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association." Dr. Mallison stated:

In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements of the Palestine partition resolution, its main claim to title, puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited territory allocated to it by the resolution.

You say there are plenty of other articles for this information, but you don't explain why it's not appropriate to mention the governing regimes or the legal basis of the territorial claims to modern-day Palestine in this article. There are sections in it already that discuss the McMahon-Hussein and Sykes-Picot treaties, the League of Nations Mandate, the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and the UN Partition plan. Those are all relevant international legal instruments and undertakings. Please review Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression, because I'd like to include the jist of this information. harlan (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained why. Posting yet another 8kb comment won't change this - not every article can deal with everything. There are specific articles for these issues. Don't try to turn this one into yet another discussion of Israel's wrong-doings. okedem (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article already discusses these issues. The Mandate and UN Partition Plan are most certainly about the modern country of Palestine to boot. You seem to be ordering me not to edit this article in a certain way. That looks like a "no edit order, or Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. There is very little left to discuss. A truckload of legal scholars and Zionist officials have written extensively about issues that are mentioned in this article, and their published views are not represented at all. harlan (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no "modern country of Palestine", so your comment is already false. But beyond that - the last 61 years are covered in a single section, of 8 short paragraphs. The occupation of the territories, and the establishment of multiple settlements, are mentioned. The entire last paragraph is devoted to the status of the PLO. That's enough. You want to delve into the details of the legal status, and this simply isn't the article for it. okedem (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your private opinion about the status of statehood, but I don't think you are entitled to spoil the editing environment or delete well-sourced article content on that basis. The talk pages and archives contain dozens of requests that this article be treated in the same manner as the articles on other countries, like the State of Israel. That article does not begin with 100K of anachronistic stone age history. If this article gets too long, then I propose that the ancient history be moved into separate articles. In some cases those articles already exist under much more appropriate names.

During his previous term as Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu warned that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would stop the peace process. After years of delay and the recent attacks on Gaza, the Palestinian authorities went ahead and made a formal declaration of statehood to the International Criminal Court. They also provided bilateral declarations that proved dozens of other states had already recognized the State of Palestine. The Prosecutor's Office website says their officials are currently conducting a preliminary analysis of situations in a number of countries - including Palestine. see ICC - Palestine. Those facts are really no longer debatable.

The international community of nations deals with Palestine on the assumption that either a de facto or de jure partition has occurred. It also assumes that Palestine is the legitimate sovereign in at least some of the territory of the pre-partition era country of Palestine. Recognition does not require that there be formal declarations or certainty about the borders of a state. Israel is also recognized by many states, although its borders are not defined, and its own territorial claims are widely discounted. The bottom line is: that there are millions of Palestinians; they have their own national authorities; they own land and property; Israel has stated that they legally reside in territory beyond its sovereign jurisdiction; and nothing in the world prevents other states from recognizing that political, economic, and legal entity as the State of Palestine. You can read all about that in the Rutgers Law review article and in the other publications I've mentioned. If you'd like to keep this fruitless discussion going, then I suggest we move it into dispute resolution or Arbcom. harlan (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, this article isn't about any state or country. Palestine is the name of the geographical region now containing the State of Israel, the Israeli-occupied territories/PA-administered territory, and, to some extent, Jordan. The very first words of this article are: "This article is about the geographical area", "Palestine...is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region that was earlier called Judea, which spreads between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River... In its broader meaning as a geographical term".

Until 1948, this entire region was called Palestine. This article is about the region. Since the region also inhabits Israel, this article cannot be about just the supposed Palestinian State. If it is about that state, then, pray tell, where is the article about the geographical region?

No. This is not the appropriate article for the material you want to push, and your claim that this article should be about the Palestinian State is absurd. There's an article for that, and it is the right place for these legal discussions. okedem (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There's already a disambiguation page, and there are separate articles on the British Mandate of Palestine, the State of Israel, Canaan, Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), and etc.

The article Proposals for a Palestinian State says that over 100 countries have already recognized the State of Palestine and entered into bilateral relations. That information presents the reader with a logical contradiction. It makes Wikipedia look fairly inept. I'm willing to bet the idea get's tossed-out during the "laugh test" portion of the Good article review process. The archives show that particular article is the result of a series of acrimonious "scope" arguments and some malicious page moves, page merges, and page deletions. That's why I'm going to ignore any unofficial determinations regarding "scope". I'd rather put my efforts into improving this article.

I'd suggest that Proposals for a Palestinian state be renamed in any event. The zero sum nature of the territorial concessions involve two states, not one. It's really just an article about the proposed partition of the "geographical area". harlan (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of Proposals for a Palestinian state is a matter to be discussed elsewhere, but this article is about the area, just like the article North America is about the continent, and not about the US or Canada. Seeing as this region was known by the name Palestine for some 2,000 years, that takes precedence over some possibly-existing state that might be over some of it for a few years, and maybe just in the future. If anything, if you want this article to be about a country, it should be about Israel, as that's the country that's been in this region for 61 years, over a larger portion of it than the PA, and with no dispute over its existence. okedem (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out earlier that Wikipedia policy says no one owns the articles or the term "Palestine". I've gotten tired of the merry-go-round nature of the discussion with you. If you want to add material from a reliable published source that's fine, but your attempts to issue "no edit orders" leave me underwhelmed. harlan (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist this around. I never gave any "no edit order", and you know it. What I said was that you're trying to add information way beyond the scope of this article. In fact, you're trying to change it completely. For that, you'll have to get consensus here, to turn this article into one about the supposed state, instead of the region. okedem (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Palestine is a Country situated in the Geographical area called Palestine

Okedem, Palestine is a Country situated in the geographical and historical area called Palestine. That is a notable and verifiable published fact. It is the homeland of an internationally recognized Nation. This article mentions the other countries (the British Mandate and Israel) and their associated categorizes, like Zionism. There is no valid reason not to mention the country or state of Palestine and its associated categories. Continued attempts to delink the articles and categories without obtaining a consensus from the members of the Palestine Project, or the Outline of Knowledge Project seem pretty dubious. You continue to make edits that are vouched only by your own personal say-so, although you have been repeatedly asked to provide verifiable published sources to support your edits. NPOV says 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. Your personal opinion has been given WP:UNDUE weight.

Recognition is a legal status. The published sources that I cited do not say that the State of Palestine was "partially recognized", so they do not support your WP:Synth revision.

The State of Israel agreed that the West Bank and Gaza would be treated as a single territorial unit as part of the Declaration of Principles (“DOP”) on Interim Self-Government. The US government granted a request from the Palestinian National Authority for recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as a country in view of developments which included the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. The Department of State advised the other agencies of the Executive branch that the West Bank and Gaza Strip were considered one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. That policy is reflected in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, but it was not limited solely to the sphere of tax collections.

The US Library of Congress (LOC) lists the Occupied Territories, West Bank, and Gaza as a Nation. The LOC's Multinational Legal Guides lists the jurisdiction as "Palestine" and provides information on the Constitutional history back to the mandate era in "Constitutions of Dependencies & Special Sovereignties", 1975 (with supplements through 2008).

Many parastatial and international organizations followed the DOP guidelines and recognized the territory as a country. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has established .ps as the top-level country-code for "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". The ISO Maintenance Agency lists the country name and country elements as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", Alpha-2 code "PS", Alpha-3 code PSE, numeric code 275. The International Olympic Commission and FIFA formulate their own codes and names that differ from the ISO codes in many cases. The IOC has recognized the National Olympic Committee of "Palestine", Country Code "PSE", since 1996. The FIFA Integration Guidelines, Country and Confederation codes, lists "Palestine" and "PLE". harlan (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your supposed sources don't say what you claim they do, or say the opposite. You cherry-pick dubious sources (a graduate thesis, for instance) to show what you want (even when they really don't support your claim).

I say again - there's an article (even several) concerning the supposed state/country - Proposals for a Palestinian State, State of Palestine, Palestinian territories. This article is about a geographical region, home to at least one country (Israel), and possibly more (Palestinian State, by your view; maybe also Jordan by some definitions). Thus, it cannot belong to any category of countries, much like Central America cannot. We don't have a single country category here, and there's no reason to.

Any discussion of the supposed state belongs in the relevant article, and the placing of the "Arabic speaking countries" category can be considered in those articles, not this one.

And just to counter your claims - if there really was a Palestinian State, there wouldn't be any pressure on Israel to agree to the "two-state solution"; there wouldn't be a need to pressure Israel to move towards the creation of such a state. Partially recognized is obvious - many countries don't recognize it, including the UN. Your own sources (like the customs one you so like) doesn't mention any "Palestinian State", but simply a region.

Enough of this. Stop pushing your own views into every single article here. okedem (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN does not recognize states, that is something that is reserved for other states. nableezy - 16:13 10.07.2009 (UTC)

I've provided more than enough sources that say there is already a legally recognized country, nation, and state of Palestine located in the Occupied territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The proposals for a final settlement don't alter that legal status. This article discusses the geography and political history of that region. Those are published facts, not my personal views. If any of my sources say the opposite, then you ought to be able to provide at least one published cite in support of your POV. The US government granted a request from the Palestinian National Authority for recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as a country. Published accounts say that those same authorities claim that region is "Palestine", and that it is a legally recognized state. See ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe. That's notable and third-party verifiable. You can hardly accuse me of cherry picking sources, when you don't cite any pertinent sources that I've overlooked.

The UN does not have a direct role in the recognition of states. At the same time it cannot legally ignore the existence of one, once 140 of its members have acknowledged its declaration of independence. The ICJ indicated that Israel had already tacitly recognized the representatives of the Palestinian people, and mentioned a bilateral agreement in that connection. The ICJ took notice of Israel's claim that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not apply in the occupied territories. Israel had reported that they were not subject to its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. The court nonetheless said that Article 12 paragraph 1 applied in the occupied territories, i.e. because the Palestinians "are lawfully within the territory of a state". see paragraph 128. Legal Consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

I didn't invent the idea of indexing Wikipedia through the Outline of Knowledge, develop the Outline for Palestine, or come up with the idea of indexing and linking pages of Palestine-related articles. None of that is going to just go away because you object. The text of this article mentions several other countries, and it is relevant to the history and geography of the nation and country of Palestine.

For your information, I've listed the Palestine article on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues and explained that a few editors keep deleting well-sourced material and replacing it with nothing more than unreferenced and unverifiable personal opinions.

I had already mentioned this issue on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines page which is being watched by the ARBCOM committee - and I've requested that an IPCOLL WikiProject be established to resolve this specific issue. harlan (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this. You seem set on not understanding what I'm saying, and focusing on irrelevant claims. You cannot place a country category here, and I've explained why. This is about a region, not a country. Any other discussions regarding a possible country belong elsewhere, not here. Once you recognize this, then we can move on to discussions about the status of the Palestinian territories.

The ICC article only mentions a Palestinian official's claim, nothing more. I've said this before, and will say it again - you're cherry-picking sources, and over-interpreting them. A simple customs directive is not recognition, and doesn't even specify any "Palestine", "State of Palestine", etc. It just lists the factual place of origin, doesn't recognize any state. If the US wants to recognize a state, it'll do it for real, not in a custom's directive. If you want to find real scholarly sources (not dissertations; real experts), that's fine, but don't pick irrelevant sources because they suit your claims. The dissertation source didn't even conclude it's a country, so that's useless anyway. You have yet to provide any real, scholarly, source concluding that there is such a state. If you want low-importance sources - here two for you, saying it's not a state - [3], [4]. And I add, that sovereignty is in contradiction of the Oslo Accords (see also [5]). okedem (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, about.com and Kavitha Giridhar have no legal standing to recognize states. I've given you cites from government sources that do have that authority, but you've ignored those. You have also introduced a genetic fallacy into the discussion in the form of "my dissertation source". That reference has been in the lede ever since the 4th of April of 2008, when User:Tiamat added it to the article.Diff She only used it to illustrate the fact that "Today, Palestine can also be used to refer to the State of Palestine, an entity recognized by over 100 countries in the world, whose boundaries have yet to be determined." The author of the dissertation has an LLM degree and he was quoting a snippet from a peer-reviewed law journal article written by Professor Francis Boyle. He was the legal adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Provisional Government of Palestine: "Francis A. Boyle, The Creation of the State of Palestine, Eur J Int Law 1: 301-306". Boyle is a Professor of Law, A.B. University of Chicago; A.M., J.D., Ph.D. Harvard University. He also obtained a J.D. degree magna cum laude and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in political science from Harvard University. A quick check of the Oxford Journals (Google the phrase The Creation of the State of Palestine Francis A. Boyle Over 114 states have already recognized the newly proclaimed state of Palestine) reveals that Tiamat erred on the side of caution.

Many editors think that the PNA doesn't claim to be a state. The ICC articles prove that they do claim to be a state. The articles also say the Prosecutor was not willing to investigate, until he received the bilateral agreements from 67 other countries that have recognized the state of Palestine. The country outlines were moved to article space in May. The Outline for Palestine is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. That's not my doing. The Federal Code defines the term Country, and the US government does legally recognize the West Bank and Gaza as a country as a direct result of developments stemming from the Interim Self-Government agreement with the PNA. The ICC article mentions that the PNA officials call it Palestine, and that they say it is a legally recognized state.

Many governments have a declared policy of making no express declarations of recognition. There is no legal requirement for the US government to make any either. see pages 3-4 of Recognition of governments in international law, By Stefan Talmon Despite that fact, many articles on Wikipedia jump to the unwarranted conclusion that very few states recognized the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. That's WP:Synth.

Declassified records in the public domain revealed long ago that the United States accepted the principles of the Jericho Conference resolutions. That Palestinian conference explicitly adopted the principle of Jordanian sovereignty over Central Palestine and a union with Jordan. Both the US and UK approved of the incorporation of the bulk of Arab Palestine in Jordanian territory. See the discussion at Talk:Palestinian people#Jordan not a "newly created state" After the Jordanian Parliament adopted a resolution forming a union between Central Palestine and Jordan, the US advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that the US approved, and 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."

The US government didn't announce that fact publicly because it wanted to avoid any direct involvement in inter-Arab and inter-Jewish community disputes. Bernadotte had been assassinated, and Mr. Eban observed the "striking coincidence" that nearly every Arab leader who dealt with Israel in the Armistice negotiations ended up being assassinated - Nokrashy in Egypt, Zaim in Syria, Riad Solh in Lebanon, and Abdullah in Transjordan. harlan (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote 4 long paragraphs, but failed to address most of what I said. I'm getting a sense of deja-vu. Forget the country/no country issue for a second. This article is about a geographical region, not a country. If the name is confusing to you, think about articles with the same name, but different topics (when we use disambiguation pages). Thus, it cannot be part of any country category. If you want the categorize anything as "arabic speaking country", the State of Palestine article would be much closer, and there the discussion might be about whether it's fully a country yet. You did not show that the federal government recognizes anything, other than the need for a name on goods from the West Bank or Gaza, for which it chose the geographically descriptive and accurate "West Bank/Gaza", and not any supposed "State of Palestine". You believe this constitutes political recognition - good for you, but that's OR, which is forbidden, as I'm sure you know. If actual sources would build a case for statehood, and use this as evidence, that's fine. But not us. You need to provide good sources saying that a State of Palestine exists, not cite what you think is evidence to that end. okedem (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that would you favor moving this article to "Palestine (region)" and having a disambig page for "Palestine" linking to "State of Palestine" and "Palestine (region)"? nableezy - 21:04 10.07.2009 (UTC)

Most definitely not. That would be rewritting history. The name "Palestine" has been used to refer to this region for some 2,000 years, and still does today. The name "Palestine" for a state is used by only some people, for only a few years. The main article is obviously the one about the region, and to prevent confusion, we have a link at the top of it to the political meaning. okedem (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that this is an article about the region but do not want the title to reflect that? Yes, the name Palestine has referred to this region for 2000 years. Today the name "Palestine" means more than the region, it also the name of a state that has been recognized by around 100 other countries. Why should the title be ambiguous? If this article is specifically about the region then have the title be "Palestine (region)", if not then allow Harlan to add well sourced material about the state. nableezy - 21:36 10.07.2009 (UTC)

There's a fine clarification at the top of the page: "This article is about the geographical area", a link to the Palestinian territories, and a link to a disambiguation page for other uses. That's more than enough. The main usage is for the region, and it should clearly receive the priority over a political entity with unclear status that has been around for a few years. (Even Harlan claims the name for that body is "State of Palestine", so we don't even have an identical name issue). okedem (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the PNC named the PLO the provisional government, and the UN named that entity Palestine. The archives show that several editors have complained because "State of Israel" redirects to Israel. With Palestine we get a disjointed grab bag of slap-dash articles. harlan (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"State of Palestine" is a formal name, sort of like the "Arab Republic of Egypt". What we have here is a term, "Palestine", that can be used to refer to more than one thing. If this article is specifically about the region why not make the title of the article consistent with that? nableezy - 22:01 10.07.2009 (UTC)

"If this article is specifically about the region then have the title be "Palestine (region)", if not then allow Harlan to add well sourced material about the state". I think this is a more than fair point. The remit of any WP page is surely restricted only by its title. "Palestine" ought to allow for all material that is about "Palestine", whether we mean by that a region, a state, a prospective state, a historical province or whatever. Seems to me that if there is a view that the ambit ought to be restricted, then the title needs to be changed to reflect that. --FormerIP (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I only used the Federal Register to demonstrate that the area has been designated as a Country. All of those are located in some geographical region - without exception. The ISO, IOC, and etc. are secondary sources that confirm that it is a country. As the Countries cat and the Federal Code of Regulations explains, many countries, like the British mandate, are territories or dependencies. The Forward Magazine article in the same footnote demonstrated the recognition of the "State of Palestine" by the State of Costa Rica. It didn't use the term "partial" or rely on statements by PNA officials.

Reading the public notices that appear in the Federal Register, and citing what the State Department and Treasury Department have to say for themselves in a footnote is not a violation of WP:NOR. Similarly, the definition of the term "Country" that they used comes from the applicable preamble of the Federal Code of Regulations subsection that they were quoting. Their statements and that definition did not originate with me, or any other Wikipedia editor. WP:NOR says that primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia. The Treasury Department says that the territory has been legally designated as a Country of origin, and that the State Department says the West Bank and Gaza Strip are considered one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. The Library of Congress also cites several secondary sources for the jurisdiction of Palestine and lists the Occupied West Bank and Gaza, including the areas under the control of the PNA as a "Nation". The Federal Code says:

(a) Country. “Country” means the political entity known as a nation. Colonies, possessions, or protectorates outside the boundaries of the mother country are considered separate countries.

(b) Country of origin. “Country of origin” means the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States. & etc...

I'm not aware of any policy which states that country categories can't be linked to geography articles that mention the history and geography of countries in their wikitext. In fact, I think that is the criteria for cat tagging such an article. The country of Palestine is located in this geographical region. Israel, the British Mandate, Palestine, and etc. are (or were) Arab speaking countries. harlan (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Find me examples of geographical region articles categorized as countries, and then we'll talk.

To the other points - no. This page will not be used to rewrite history and take over the common meaning of the word "Palestine". Note that that's not in any way even an official name for the supposed state (Palestinian Authority, State of Palestine, West Bank/Gaza, according to harlan's favorite customs source). It doesn't even have any defined boundaries (their people keep expressing their intention to take over Israel as well).

Whatever the Palestinian entity is, or will be, the name Palestine belong to a region which is home to two peoples, not just one, regardless of the name one of those take for themselves. okedem (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

rewrite history and take over the common meaning? When people refer to "Palestine" today, they are not referring to the entire region. There is more than one meaning for the word Palestine, and your stubborn attitude (just saying "no") notwithstanding, the word "Palestine" is also used for a state that has received recognition from around 100 other countries. Harlan has provided a number of sources that show the name "Palestine" is used by this state. I am going to go ahead with a RfM and see what consensus is here. nableezy - 21:32 11.07.2009 (UTC)

Okedem, please drop the hyperbole about "rewriting history". Even if there were a hard and fast policy which backed-up your belief that country cats shouldn't ever be tied to regional articles, that wouldn't alter the fact that Arabic is one of the official languages of every country in the region. It also wouldn't settle the article naming and content issues like the Outline of Palestine problem. If this article is too long, why does it spend so many kilobytes on ancient history? History of Palestine doesn't even link here, it's a redirect to History of the Southern Levant. There are similar snafus with Geography of Palestine, Landforms of Palestine, and etc. There is at least one editor who has deleted published historical information from this article because it supposedly "dealt with the region, but not with Palestine." Here is a very good example: [6]

It is an undeniable published fact that one of the most common applications of the term "Palestine" is in references to the modern Nation. The President used the term in that sense during his recent Cairo address. For more than a year now, the lede of this article has said that one meaning of the term is State of Palestine (albeit in a somewhat "on again-off again" fashion thanks to you). There is an IPCOLL discussion taking place right now about placenames, and there is an Arbcom request over the weight that should be given to the so-called "controversy" regarding the legal status of the occupied territory. There have been scores of threads about that same topic in the archives of this article. I've noted that there is no article at State of Israel. It's just a redirect page. Here is an observation about the situation from back in 2004:

"Why...does Israel direct straight to the modern nation-state, while Palestine directs to this hotchpotch of borders, refugees, and history? The commonest referent of "Palestine" in modern discourse is far and away the nation and would-be state, as a quick Google check [7] confirms; and "Israel" has at least as much historical ambiguity to it as "Palestine" (see Israel (disambiguation)), so that's not a reason. I suggest applying the same solution as in the case of Israel: adding a disambig page and reserving this page for facts the modern-day State of Palestine and Palestinian Authority. - Mustafaa 09:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)" from Talk:Palestine/Archive 6#Why...

I tend to agree. This article could be renamed Palestine (region), Palestinian Territories could be renamed Palestine, and State of Palestine should be redirected at it. The lede of that article could include the explanation that some states, international organizations, and parastatial organizations consider it a state, while others only consider it a country. That article already mentions the occupation and settlement negotiations. The UN first recognized the PLO as a National liberation movement. Later, after it had been designated the provisional government and declared its statehood, the UN designated it "Palestine". The legal counsel of the PLO at that time was Francis Boyle. He has earned doctorates in both political science and law from Harvard. He published a paper in the European Journal of International Law which said that 114 states had extended recognition to Palestine. The American public didn't even know that the US government had suggested and approved the annexation of the West Bank by Transjordan, until it finally started declassifying the records thirty years later. I'm inclined to think that Professor Boyle's numbers are correct, and that they include several states that have chosen not to make a public declaration. In any case, your objections to the "graduate dissertation" are inapplicable to the paper published by Dr. Boyle. harlan (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew name of the country ארץ ישראל

Some time back there was a long discussion about this. THE Hebrew name of the COUNTRY -- not the future name of the future state -- is ארץ ישראל . This is true for any form of Hebrew for more than 2000 years. The easiest way to check is to click on the link for "'ivrit/עברית" on the left of the article "Palestine". the complicated way is to read the discussion in the archives.

If anyone has a new (or good) argument against puting the proper Hebrew name at the beginning of the article (instead one of two common transcriptions of the Latin name), I am eager to read it. 85.178.115.110 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an easy way to check if what you say makes any sense. Go over to Land of Israel and insert the text "Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn" into the tranlation bracket in the first sentence. Then come back and tell us what happened next. --FormerIP (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I should probably add, to avoid any uncertainty as to whether I'm being rhetorical or not: No, actually, don't do that under any circumstances.--FormerIP (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I restored the most commonly used name in Hebrew (ארץ־ישראל) to the opening paragraph, and left the less-common, antiquated, name (פלשתינה) as a secondary version. If anyone needs examples from modern literature (and other places) where "ארץ־ישראל" is used as the Hebrew equivalent of "Palestine" (or vice versa), I can provide a few. -- uriber (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Palestine → Palestine (region) — As editors have repeatedly removed information on a state that has received recognition from around 100 other countries and representation in a number of international organizations (see above section), I propose moving this page to Palestine (region) and having Palestine be a disambig page to both this article and State of Palestine and Palestinian territories which are the three most common meaning for the word "Palestine" - nableezy 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as the discussion above makes clear editors are determined to not allow discussion of the state into this article. If the article is limited in scope to the geographical region as Okedem has maintained I see no reason to not make that scope clear in the title of the page. nableezy - 21:39 11.07.2009 (UTC)
• Support per nableezy and my previous comments. --FormerIP (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PS the request is listed as "malformed" at WP:RM, so someone might want to see to that. --FormerIP (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

resolved, my use of a nonstandard timestamp was the problem. nableezy • 04:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The name Palestine has been used to refer to this region for some 2,000 years, and is now home to at least one state (Israel), a Palestinian entity (authority, autonomy, state), and, by some definitions, another country, Jordan. Today, even the Arabs use the name "Palestine" to refer to the entire territory now under Israel's control, and not just their future state. A simple Google search for "Palestine" makes that abundantly clear. Some examples - Britannica, UN, "Palestine remembered" discussing the entire land (including Haifa, Beersheba, etc.). There needs to be a huge shift in the usage of this term to warrant a move, and that has not occurred. For any misunderstandings, we have a link at the top of the page. But the main meaning is the region, not some half-existing entity. okedem (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Okedem. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Tentatively oppose. The question is, do people use the word "Palestine" significantly more often to refer to the geographic region than to any of the other uses of the word? (Does anyone dispute that this is the question?) As far as I know, they do, and Okedem's Britannica link seems to confirm that. If someone could show me that they don't, I would support the move. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't think this is the right question, actually. This isn't a case like New York vs New York (album), where we are dealing with two entirely distinct things and one has clear primacy. In the case of Palestine, we have a number of overlapping and inter-related geographic entities. There may be a legitimate case here that this article is about only one of those, and that the contents should be accordingly restricted. However, the proper place for this restriction to be expressed is in the title of the page. Otherwise, it seems to me, the page is just going to act as a magnet for edit-warring. --FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this article is about the region. Otherwise we wouldn't be having a discussion on whether to rename it "Palestine (region)". And on principle, I don't accept the idea of renaming articles to avoid edit wars. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It isnt to avoid edit wars, it is to properly define the scope of the article. nableezy - 05:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, that's your reason, and I was responding to his. Re yours, the lede is for defining the scope of the article. For example: it's not obvious when the Gaza War started and ended, but we don't name that article Gaza War (27 December 2008-17 January 2009 conflict). Also, your proposal goes beyond clarifying the article's scope in the title; you're also suggesting turning Palestine into a disambiguation page. (You could have suggested making Palestine a redirect to the article Palestine (region), and have the latter article begin with a link to Palestine (disambiguation). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the standard, Macedonia excepting, that geographical regions take preference when identically named states claim part (e.g. Ireland) or all (e.g. China) of the region. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not remarking on the argument, but I never noticed that China doesnt direct to the state, that just leaves me dumbfounded. nableezy - 05:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It's probably because there are anyways two countries named "China": the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Still, I think when people say "China" they are usually referring to the PRC and not to the geographic region or to Taiwan, and if it were up to me I would have China be a redirect to People's Republic of China. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • However you will note that China is move protected, indicating a dispute over naming. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The region is by far the most common usage of the term "Palestine", and the only undisputed one. See e.g. the list of nearly 4000 articles linking to this one. -- uriber (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Frankly the discussion has drifted sideways into flawed rationalizations. 114 countries legally recognize part of the region of Palestine as the State of Palestine. That fact is going to get mentioned in the lede no matter what you rename the article, or the disambiguation page. The Palestinians were redesignated "Palestine" after their 1988 declaration of statehood, but there's no rush to rename articles like Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations in order to conform to the official UN designations. Another problem with the UN analogy is that the Question of Palestine dealt with the disposition of the Mandate. The law library at the Library of Congress says those were States, not regions. The American Law Encyclopedia Vol 3. entry on Dependent States says the same thing. According to Palestine Remembered, that's also the juridical setting for the Nakba (e.g. Deir Yassin happened April 1948). That means two out of the three examples you employed are states called Palestine, not regions.

Between the 5th and 6th talk archive listing above, there is a merge with: Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive. That archive contains this entry: Renamed: Region of Palestine -> Palestine (region). The notion that the article can't be renamed Palestine (region) by an ordinary user begins to look pretty farfetched. There was an article here about Palestine before that merge, and it wasn't limited to regional topics. The same editor who announced that move, also said he saw no reason to have a Palestine disambiguation page at all. In Talk:Palestine/Archive 5, Using the most current definition of Palestine he said this article ought to be merged with History of Palestine. That page used to have material forked from this article, but nowadays it's just a redirect page for History of the Southern Levant. The Outline of Palestine uses that page as a result of the redirect. No one seems to mind the "huge shift in usage" after 2000 years of consistently calling it Palestine, Southern Syria, Eretz Yisroel, or the dozen or so other terms listed under names and boundaries in this article. A couple of weeks ago, the same editor said that 'The "State of Palestine" has precious little to do with Palestine.'[8] I can only conclude that he or she isn't really very familiar with the most current usage.

After wasting 200K of talk page space claiming that everyone thinks of Palestine as a region, Okedem now claims that appending the term parenthetically (once again) requires some sort of huge shift in usage that hasn't occurred yet. He still says that a "Palestinian entity (authority, autonomy, state)" is an integral part of the region, so I don't think renaming the article will change the current situation. In international law there are very few (if any) universally recognized states. That only leaves non-state actors, internationally non-recognized states, and partially recognized states. Both Palestine and Israel are legally members of the latter category for treaty purposes and that can be verified by most of the Arab League states. harlan (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making little sense, and refuse to address the question at hand. Can you, or can't you show that now "Palestine" is used to refer to the political entity, more-so, or on par with, the region?

And spare us the "114 countries legally recognize..." bit. That's not the focus of this discussion (by the way, a source you used and defended, "Today's Zaman", quoted a Palestinian official saying 67 states recognize them, so I guess he's wrong). Beyond this - firstly, recognition isn't the only component needed for a state, just like not recognizing a state doesn't mean it isn't one. Even if all countries is the world recognize Narnia as a state, it still wouldn't be one. These questions are more complicated, and are not for you or me to resolve. Citing primary evidence (recognition, territory, etc) and concluding about statehood is WP:OR, which is, as you know, not allowed. For the tenth time - if you want to claim it's a state, find scholarly sources, political science experts, analyzing the situation, and concluding it is a state. okedem (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are talking past each other. Obviously there is an embryonic/future/hypothetical/whatever state called Palestine, and the article State of Palestine is about that. There is also a geographic region called Palestine/Land of Israel/south Levant/Cisjordan, and this article is about the region. The suggestion Nableezy raised is whether we should rename this article about the region to "Palestine (region)". A discussion about the theoretical vs. real nature the State of Palestine belongs on that article's talk page, not here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a remnant of another discussion, which, as I said above, indeed does not belong here. okedem (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

settle down boys and girls, lets stay on point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
comment while not remarking right now on the merits of this name change, or jalapenos' argument, i would like to point out that he was selectively canvassed here by okedem. untwirl(talk) 18:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC) As anyone (like you) can easily see, I asked for his involvement in the discussion that was here, long before the vote. Thus, your accusation of "canvasing" is simply off the mark. I don't go around recruiting voters. I've seen jalapenos engage in these discussions with useful comments and a good cooperative attitude, and thought he could contribute to this discussion, especially as I find myself with little time to invest in this. If you'd like to contribute to this discussion, please do, but save us your accusations. okedem (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) i'm sorry that you feel offended, but the wording, "Harlan keeps confusing the claims, and misusing sources" seems to be a non-neutral attempt to sway an editor's opinion. i believe in disclosure and transparency with these issues, and that is why i made that remark. untwirl(talk) 20:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Wow, untwirl, that was a really disgusting accusation, even more so given that you're unwilling to retract it or apologize. Okedem asked for my input in a discussion before this poll existed. He was perfectly entitled to tell me his opinions on the way the discussion was going. Doing so is normal communication between wikipedians and not canvassing. I suggest you apologize to Okedem. If you're planning on arguing about what exactly you did in order to avoid apologizing-- I'm not interested. The comments are right here, and anyone who cares can decide for themselves. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC) well, i'm afraid i'm going to disappoint you, jalapenos. the timing of this "poll" has no relevance on the nature of his request to you. perhaps next time he will phrase his request neutrally and you will disclose that you were asked to comment and then no one will feel "accused" of something "disgusting". thanks. untwirl(talk) 04:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Untwirl, when I want advice on how to address fellow wikipedians, you'll be the first one I go to (well, not even then, but let's pretend). Until then - keep your nose out of other people's affairs, and don't try to tell me what to do. I'm not a neutral referee here, and am under no obligation to speak "neutrally", as you say. okedem (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major issues with this article

This article pretends to be about a geographical region named Palestine. There is however, no information on the geography of this region in the article. Instead, we have a huge section devoted primarily to the political history of Palestine. We also have a huge section on Demographics (which should be its own article Demographics of Palestine as discussed above).

I would like to propose a massive reorganization of this article. AllMost of the information pertaining to Palestine's history should be moved to History of Palestine (which was rather strangely unilaterally redirected to History of the Levant in December 2008 without any discussion). The demographics material should be moved to Demographics of Palestine. This article, if indeed it is going to be confined to a discussion of Palestine as a geographical region, should feature information on the geography of Palestine, including Flora and Fauna, ecoregions, etc, etc.

Are there any objections or suggestions on alternate ways to reorganize this subject? Tiamut^talk 11:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object to this. An article discussing a geographical region is not limited to geography (like a country discussing a state isn't limited to discussing politics). The article should contain information about geography, but also about history, demographics, etc, much like South America. If any one section is too long, it can be shortened and the information moved to a sub-article (History of Palestine), with a briefer section remaining in this article (again, like in South America). okedem (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, in archive 9 you agreed that the information on Demographics could be moved to its own article with a summary here. That's all I'm proposing for the history section as well. Are you against including geographical information here (of which there is currently none)? And if this article can include things other than geography, why can't we mention that Palestinian consider Palestine to be their homeland? We mention that a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine was promised by the British. But you and other editors have deleted references to Palestinians, their national aspirations and statehood hopes for Palestine a number of times, claiming this is an article about a geographical region only. Can you explain the apparent discrepancy in your position? Tiamut^talk 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no discrepancy in my position. You just suggested: "All of the information pertaining to Palestine's history should be moved to History of Palestine" - notice the "all", here. I'm saying - no, it shouldn't all be moved. If the history section is too long, we should copy it to the sub-article, and leave a shortened section here. Likewise for demographics. Same as in other region articles, which I've linked to.

Don't hold me accountable for actions of other editors. I have no objection to mentioning the Palestinians' position, in the appropriate section - demographics, most likely. But note that we don't mention the Jews position in the lead, either. What some editors tried to do (maybe you, maybe others, I don't remember) is to make this article about the Palestinians and their supposed state, and that's no what it's about, just like it isn't about the State of Israel. okedem (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear and for misunderstanding your position. Note that currently we do mention that Jews call Palestine the Land of Israel in the lead, so there should probably be something about what Palestinians call it or feel about it too.

Frm your comments I gather that I can go ahead and begin farming material out of here to the spin-off articles, while retaining summaries of the subject here? And can I count on your support when information on Palestinian aspirations for a homeland in Palestine are added to this page? Thanks for clarifying Okekdem. Tiamut^talk 09:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I hope we're more in sync now. Yes, sub-articles are fine - some sections really need it (like demographics, which is a real mess to look at now). Under demographics, I suppose, a discussion of both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are in order. As long as we keep both short and to the point, that's fine.

The "Land of Israel" mention is simply part of mentioning different names, and doesn't talk about aspirations or feelings. Palestinians use the name Falastin/Filastin, etc, which is already listed in the very first line. The article is named after a version of that name (Palestine), and not "Land of Israel", which is mentioned just as an alternative, less widely used name. okedem (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay great. I will start with the Demographics section, since we are in total agreement on that point. I'll tackle history a little later on. About the rest, we can work it later too. Thanks for your comments Okedem. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

History - Hebrew Bible period

The first paragraph there: "Though the Biblical tradition holds that the Israelites arrived in Canaan from Egypt, archaeological evidence suggests that if there was in fact a United Kingdom of Israel in this early period, it must have emerged from among the local population existent there at the time.[54] Excavations have established that the late 13th, the 12th and the early 11th centuries BCE witnessed the foundation of perhaps hundreds of insignificant, unprotected village settlements, many in the mountains of Palestine.[55] From around the 11th century BCE, there was a reduction in the number of villages, though this was counterbalanced by the rise of certain settlements to the status of fortified townships.[55]".

This entire paragraph doesn't make any sense now. The first sentence used to make sense, but doesn't any longer. I'll explain:

• According to the bibilical timings, there are some 300 years between the arrival of Israelites from Egypt to the United Monarchy. No one says there was a United Monarchy in the 13th or 12th centuries BC. The exodus took place at about 1300 BC, meaning they arrived at Israel at about 1260 BC. That was the time of settlements and wars against the Canaanites, with separate tribes settling independent areas, and working pretty much alone. At about 1200 BC begins the time of the Judges - still no monarchy or real central authority, but something closer to it - the Judges ruling in disputes between tribes and uniting the tribes to fight against external threats. At about 1030 BC begins the United Monarchy, with king Saul. You can find various dates from various sources, but the point is that there are some 200-300 years between the Israelites arrival, and the United Monarchy, which means the monarchy did "emerge[d] from among the local population" (which arrived centuries earlier).
• The other sentences also make no sense - the excavations show the foundations of hundreds of villages in Israel, right during the time of the settlement - when the Israelites arrived. That's reasonable. They also show larger, fortified towns in the 11th century - a feature consistent with advancing to more central control, with resources to maintain fortified towns. This seemed to really strengthen the case for the biblical story, not weaken it. okedem (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I suggest removing the first sentence altogether. Tiamut^talk 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And moving the oher sentences to the section above.Tiamut^talk 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, that would solve this. Those sentences would do well after (or in) the paragraph that begins: "Developments in Palestine between 1250 and 900 BCE...". To the beginning of the "Hebrew Bible" section we need to add something about the Judges period, as the biblical story didn't begin with the United Monarchy. Maybe something from History of ancient Israel and Judah#Period of the Judges, though that's hardly sourced right now. okedem (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move the sentences as you suggested. I'll also try to find some sources discussing the period of the Judges and add something about them to the article. It may take me until tomorrow since its not a subject I'm familiar with, but I'd be interested to learn more anyway. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved the sentences to the paragraph above that one, which I think works a little better. I'm going to start reading up on the Judges period and try to have something for you soon. Tiamut^talk 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Masoretic dating of the exodus places it at 1312 BCE with arrival into Israel at 1272 BCE. -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Can you recommend any good sources on this subject that may help in composing the section in question? (Preferably online ones for ones you have digital copies of. No libraries in Nazareth means no regular access to new good books.) Tiamut^talk 18:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Online, not really. Most of my Masoretic knowledge comes from the original Hebrew texts of the TaNaKh and their Rabbinic commentaries; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. I'm reading Dever right now on google books, and http://books.google.ca/books?id=yTMzJAKowyEC&pg=PA121&dq=%22iron+age%22+israelites+philistines#v=onepage&q=%22iron%20age%22%20israelites%20philistines&f=false this] on Ancient Israel and Canaan is also very good. I think though that it will be quite challenging to get into the details here. Perhaps all we need for this article is a quick reference, one sentence to the period of Judges with the link to our article Okedem gave above. There, we can develop the page with better sources and citations. I've started to do that Philistines right now and may take a crack at Israelites too. Tiamut^talk 18:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful to not present Dever's opinions as accepted fact. Actually they are somewhat controversial and heated clashes between Dever and other people like Yisrael Finkelstein are a regular spectacle. What we need is a published summary of what the main points of agreement and disagreement are. Summarising the opinions of the various individuals correctly seems quite difficult for a non-specialist. Zero^talk 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as claims are properly sourced, there should be no issue. Of course there will be conflict between those who believe the archeology supports the Biblical claims and those that do not believe the archeology supports the Biblical claims; it's just another area of battle in the overall conflict, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

were the jewish population higher in 1914 than in 1922 ??

it isnt even a country, why is there an article, someone show me where palestine is on a map please!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr spork32 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither are the Balkans. Or Kaukasus. Or The Middle East. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.43.102 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't a country. It is the historical name of the land on which Israel and the Palistinian Authority is found. The Palestinian Authority is recognised by roughly 100 nations, and is an observer nation to the UN. A map of the of that is here. And something does not have to be a country to be found on a map. 'Utah' isn't a country, neither is 'Siberia' or the 'Thames', yet one can still identify them on a map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.41.42 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Spork, this area is not for discussion of the subject of the article, but discussion of the article itself. Political opinions are not appropriate. nut-meg (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

according to the figures here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Demographics_in_the_late_Ottoman_and_British_Mandate_periods the jewish pop where 94.000 in 1914 and only 84.000 in 1922. I find that a bit hard to believe. According to Justin McCarthy there were about 59,000 Jews in Palestine in 1914, and 657.000 Muslim Arabs, and 81.000 Christian Arabs.--Ezzex (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yehoshua Porath credits the population decrease on WWI, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Ottoman Turks, in "The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929," pg. 17. (pub. 1974)

Unlike the European Jewry moving into Palestine, many Palestinian Jews (Yishuv) were about as dirt-poor as the Arab Fellahin.

Actually, Jordan is also part of historic Palestine. That's changes the whole story now, doesn't it? Jordan is occupying Palestinian land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.101.34 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The British imperialist bigots partitioned the middle east (and Jordan). With a common school ruler it seems. 84.215.43.102 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lassner and Troen, 2007

This book is used as a citation in the Origin of Name section. If possible, I would like to know what is the specific text in those two pages of the book that are used as a citation that bases the claim about "Muslim geographers". Thanks John Hyams (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are three sources cited for the section on the Arabic name for Palestine. The first from the Marshall and Cavendish Corporation notes that Palestine is "Philistine" in Arabic. The Moshe Sharon source attributes the Arabic form Filastin to adoption of the Roman name with Arabic inflection. The third source, the one you are asking about, states:

The historic jund of al-Urdunn may have contained parts of the West Bank, but the jund of Filastin, whose name Muslim geographers traced back to the Philistines of the Bible, was an adminsitrative district of geographical Palestine that extended as far as Amman.

Your repeated efforts to erase "Philistine", referred to by the first source, and to distort the meaning of text that follows, are uncalled for. Please stop it. Tiamut^talk 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Illan Pappe

Is absolutely a reliable source. A full professor at a major university with the book published by reputable publisher is a reliable source. There is also a noticeboard discussion where nearly every uninvolved editor agreed he is a reliable source. Please dont distort policy around your political feelings. nableezy - 07:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A political activist is not a reliable source.

And anyway, the paragraph you inserted makes claims regarding several people, without presenting a single source. Find a source, then we'll discuss it. okedem (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is not very good. The information is rock solid, but Pappe didn't have much to do with exposing it. I don't think Pappe is needed here. The basics of the story have been known for ages (eg "O Jerusalem", 1972) but Avi Shlaim in his book "Collusion across the Jordan" was the one mostly responsible for tapping the archival sources. I'm out of time today but if nobody else gets to it first I'll replace the text by a more precise account with one or two better sources. So don't waste time over the existing text. Zero^talk 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the claim (regarding Abdullah) itself. I know there were talks between the sides, so it wouldn't surprise me; however, there was intensive fighting between the Israelis and the Jordanians (Arab Legion), so it seems whatever agreement was reached, no one abided by it.

Anyway, I just want good text, with good sources, also explaining if this is controversial, or a widely accepted claim, and what happened to any such understanding (like - why the two sides fought so hard if everything was agreed upon). okedem (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is more than 1 way to cite a source and when the book and documentary are explicitly referenced in the text that is providing sources. And no matter what you think of Pappe he is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. nableezy - 15:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, have you read the paragraph you keep adding? It mentions other historians as well, though it's so badly written it's hard to understand what is being said of them, and what of Pappe. There's no source for the claims regarding the "Many historians", no explanation of the meaning of this supposed partition, no explanation of why it obviously didn't occur in reality (as I've explained above).

And Pappe is a joke. Find real historians. It shouldn't be too hard - you claim Morris dealt with it - let's use him, and not the fringe political activist.

Now, instead of edit-warring a problematic paragraph into the article, why don't you present the sources here, and we can try to find a well written phrasing, in place of the current enigmatic claims? okedem (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you have reverted the material out more times than any one single editor has reverted it in. I'm glad to see you self-reverted yourself last time, but really. It would help if you would not make false claims about Ilan Pappe. He is certainly a reliable source. I almost reverted you the first time you deleted the info simply because of your edit summary impugning his reliability. I decided against it only because a) someone beat me to it, b) like Zero, I think the paragraph needs a little work. Tiamut^talk 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When a controversial addition is made to an article, it customary to revert, and discuss it on the talk page, to work on it and gain support, not use numbers to stick it in there, regardless of veracity, sources or language. It's a shame your only contribution to this talk is an attack on myself, instead of something useful. Pappe, I repeat myself, is a political activist, with little care for what actually took place, using his position to further his case, instead of investigating actual event. There are actual historians out there, and we can use them as sources, especially seeing the new paragraph claims they dealt with it as well. okedem (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not customary to WP:REVERT. It is customary to improve problematic additions, per WP:PRESERVE. That is what you have been doing in your last few edits since you self-reverted your 4th revert of this material (I guess to avoid being reported for WP:3RR, which you had violated). Instead of knee-jerk reverting from the outset, you could have made the edits you made just now, and avoided the revert war that followed.

And again, you opinions as to Pappe's reliability are not shared by the Wiki community. The consensus was clear: he is a reliable source. You may not like it,but that is not a valid reason to delete material attributed to him. In this case, if he is not the source, that's one issue. But don't mix that up with your personal grudge against him. Tiamut^talk 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition is still crap. It's unsourced, makes peculiar claims, and fails to explain why, in reality, there still was terrible fighting between the sides. Oh, and would you like to provide a link to that "clear consensus" in favor of this guy? :::::::Oh, and it's a rather nonsensical claim anyway - the Jews very clearly accepted and supported the partition plan, so any why would there even be a need for secret agreements? This new addition is really useless from an information stand-point... okedem (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, its crap now, but it can be improved. The claims are not at all peculiar. As Zero pointed out above they have been made by a number of historians. In Pappe's, The Israel/Palestine question, Avi Shlaim notes this was the thesis of his book Collusion across the Jordan, and that though he was not the first to make these claims, his book received heavy criticism from both sides of the Jordan river. I'm still looking for more sources on the issue and will add them as they come in.

About Pappe being an WP:RS, Nableezy linked you to the noticeboard discussion where every non-partisan editor (i.e. every editor who did not edit at I-P articles on either side) said he was clearly an RS, based on his work being published by academic publishers. His biases, which he holds just as anyone else does, do not disqualify us from using him as a source. Tiamut^talk 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then. If you agree it's crap - why aren't you removing it? We don't have to keep crap on the article, you know. If something isn't good enough for the article, we should work on it on the talk page, and only place it there when it's ready, if it's even within the scope of this. Considering the entire section on partition and war is 5 paragraphs long, this seems a bit too specific, if even true and perfectly sourced. It looks like something that might belong in the article about the war itself.

Your link doesn't work for me, unfortunately. Anyway, I'm still looking for an explanation of what were these "agreements", and why the Israelis and Jordanians still fought each other.

And now you've moved your goal-posts - not a clear consensus, but some people who probably aren't really well versed in this topic, think he's reliable. okedem (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not removing it because I think the information is generally correct and I think leaving it in with fact tags asking people to improve it will motivate people to improve it. I'm sorry the link I gave you doesn't work for you. Its very interesting information. I'll add from it and others soon I hope.

If you are suggesting that we need to go the reliable sources discussion board over Ilan Pappe again, I have no problem with that. I will let them know that you do not see a consensus in the previous discussion adn ask them to consider the question once more. Tiamut^talk 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, with your information source, can you explain the importance to me, explain why this deserves space in such a short summary section, and explain why, in reality, Israelis fought the Jordanians?

You can't just discount the opinion of some users because you disagree with them, and editing an article doesn't disqualify someone as a judge of what is or isn't an RS. It is clear that some view Pappe as an RS, and some don't. He's obviously very involved in the political aspect of this, and his work received heavy criticism from serious historians. If something is of note, we can cite good historians to support it. If he's the only one, than it's clearly a fringe opinion, to be considered only within the scope of a much larger discussion. okedem (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I should relist at the RS noticeboard about Pappe? Does it really matter anymore? Have you seen my last edit? You do realize that this a position held among the New Historians, and I've used Avi Shlaim now. (Do you have a problem with him too? Or just Pappe?) I think one sentence about it is relevant to a section discussing the partition of Palestine.

And by the way, a lot of what harlan has put forward below is relevant too. Maybe this article should not go into so much detail, but information on the restrained military manouvers of the Arab Legion under Glubb's command is mentioned by many historians. When Israel and Jordan did engage in battles, they fought as each other as enemies, as they were at the height of the war. But their relationship before and after it definitely affected the overall behaviour of at the very least the Jordanian side. It was not at all as aggressive as it should have been, if it was fighting to annihilate Israel, as some propagandists claim. It wasn't. Abdullah was ready to accept a Jewish state in exchange for the West Bank. Hussein only gave up Jordan's claims to it in 1988. Anyway, we can't cover everything here, but a sentence or two here and there would not be bad, linking to sub-articles where things could be covered in more detail. Tiamut^talk 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming into the talk page to thank you for your edit. It makes more sense now. I knew that the Jordanians mostly limited themselves to the designated Arab-state regions, with the notable exception of Jerusalem. Would you mind mentioning that? Does Shlaim explain that?

Forget Pappe for now. It doesn't matter anymore, and I haven't the time for a lengthy discussion. I can't say I particularly like Shlaim, but he seems significantly more credible than Pappe, who is simply unprofessional. okedem (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, Ilan Pappe is published by I.B. Taurus, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge. He is a notable bestselling author to boot. The works of the Kimche brothers, Morris, Shlaim, Pappe, Wilson, Rogan, and etc. which outline the agreement with Transjordan are taught in most Israeli university courses on the history, political science, and sociology. see for example "Doubting the Yishuv-Hashemite Agreement" starting on page 7 of "Refabricating 1948", by Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies.[9] The Wikimedia goal is to make the sum of human knowledge available, not just the parts you happen to agree with. The topic of ethnic cleansing should be included since a number of historians like Morris and Pappe have published notable accounts on the basis of Israeli State Archive materials. harlan (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Most of the authors were already listed in the Palestine Exodus sidebar. Flapan noted that the majority of Jewish casualties occurred outside the borders of the proposed Jewish state.

The individuals involved and other historians have also addressed the claim that no one abided by the 17 November 1947 agreement. Morris and General Glubb devoted entire books to the subject: The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, by Morris; and A Soldier with the Arabs, by John Baggot Glubb. Bevin told the Prime Minister of Transjordan, Abul Huda, and Glubb not to invade the territory of the Jewish state. The British threatened to withhold the 2 million pound subsidy they provided annually to underwrite the Arab Legion. The Prime Minister told Bevin that the 9000-man force couldn't hope to occupy all of Palestine even if it had wanted to do so. The British had failed to maintain law and order in Western Palestine when they had more than 100,000 troops at their disposal, including the Arab Legion. There was never any intensive fighting between Jordan and Israel in the territory of the proposed Jewish state. harlan (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Current status section - a mess

• Current status repeats some of the stuff in the section on the UN partition plan and 1948 war just above it. Anyone feel like tackling the problem or have suggestions on how to re-organize? Tiamut^talk 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

20th Century and Palestine Mandate Sections

From the 20th Century onward this article is really about the State of Palestine, not the geographical region. It should be labeled as such. A great deal of historical information regarding the region of Palestine was deleted: [10]

The Palestine mandate was a State. It was a signatory to several international treaties in its own right and under its own name. Article 46 of the Treaty of Lausanne provided that the Ottoman Public Debt "shall be distributed . . . between Turkey" and, among others, "the States newly created in territories in Asia which are detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty." (28 League of Nations Treaty Series 11, 37). That provision was applied to the areas of Western Palestine and Transjordan under the British Mandate. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice decided that concessions granted Ottoman authorities were valid under Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne which provided in part: "In the territories detached from Turkey under the Treaty of Peace signed this day, the State which acquires the territory is fully subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of the other Contracting Powers . . . who are beneficiaries under concessionary contracts entered into before the 29th October, 1914, with the Ottoman Government or any local Ottoman authority. . . ." ( 28 League of Nations Treaty Series 203, 211.) see Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, US State Department (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 651-652 harlan (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, and no it wasn't. The nonsensical claim "The Palestine mandate was a State" doesn't really deserve any further discussion. okedem (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You can take that up with the US State Department. Their 'International Law Digest' is an official publication. It says that the Palestine Mandate was a State, and the Permanent Court of International Justice Judgment in the Mavrommatis case said the same thing. The material and citation that I provided above come directly from the State Department Digest. I consider that to be a pretty reliable source of information on the subject. I notice that you didn't provide any citation to a verifiable or reliable published source to support your opposing viewpoint. The Statehood of Palestine before and after WWII is also discussed by John Quigley in Palestine and International Law, ed. Sanford R. Silverburg, McFarland and Co., Chapter 2, and the Rutgers Law Review article. [11] harlan (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a state. It had special status, but ultimately, the power lay with Britain, not with the people of Palestine, who had no central leadership or institutions. Of course, you trying to connect any of this to the modern entity "State of Palestine" is nothing short of ridicules, as no connection exists.

Forget it. I should have gone with my instincts, and simply ignored your fantasies. okedem (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Arabs of Palestine certainly had a government and institutions. The Transjordan area was not an independent state, it was only an area with an independent Arab government that was still subject to British tutelage. Even under the terms of the 1946 treaty, its foreign affairs and military remained under British control, and the Arab Legion was still used to provide public security in Western Palestine. When it suited the propaganda purposes of the Jewish Agency it was characterized as an indivisible part of the mandate. At other times it was characterized as an independent neighboring state. harlan (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 20th century section is one sided, because it seems to blame the indigenous Palestinians for the conflict between Palestinian Arabs and the Zionists and Jewish Settlers. The Mandate of Palestine is the last time the region of Palestine was entire (actually bigger than at any other time in it's history)so the comparison of Palestine to its political reality is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GCaisle (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming

I want to comment on the fact no single source in the naming section refers to a specific territory or the whole region nor it would probably be possible to mine it out of their context. this should be clarified. some regions names pillistine throughout the ages refereed to different areas depending on the political context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.167.90 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Was editor John Hyams blocked from editing and even seeing the article???

What is going on here? I added the meaning of the word פלשת in Hebrew to the article, and then "Zero000" violently deleted my edit without discussion and without providing convincing reasons for not including the current Hebrew translation of the word. Our short discussion was as follows:

Since it is you trying to add something to the article, it is you who needs to justify it. Your dictionary link does not justify it at all. Just because a word has two meanings doesn't mean that one of the meanings is derived from the other, nor does it indicate which is derived from which. It is just as likely that the 'invaders' meaning of the word is derived from the name of the people as the other way around, but there is no actual evidence for either. And if you look at Philistines you will see there are multiple theories of where the name "philistines" came from. There are more theories out there too. Zero^talk 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are more theories, then you can add them. I fail to understand your logic since giving the meaning of the word in Hebrew is in context and even if considering the baseless assumption that wasn't the "original" meaning the word, the current and known meaning of the word in Hebrew should be mentioned. Hebrew is a very old language, older than English, and there is no evidence to support your claim they the meaning of that word might have been different, since it's more or less the same language - back then (when the Hebrew bible was written) and today. The grammar may have changed, but the meaning of words has not. Therefore your point is not convincing, and you should start a discussion on the talk page and see what other people think. There is no point in trying to convince me further on this. John Hyams (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So without even opening a discussion on this talk page, I am now blocked from even seeing the article when I am logged in! What kind of behavior is this??? John Hyams without logging in 84.229.58.22 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, I (John Hyams) was the one who created that section in the first place! There was no "Origin of name" before my edits a few months ago. 84.229.58.22 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments. I did not do anything either to your editing privileges or to the article protection. I think you are just trying to edit a semiprotected article while not logged in. Zero^talk 23:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see the article while I am logged it, and that's a fact. It happened immediately after the reversal of my edits. Do you have privileges to deny other editors from editing or viewing an article? I just want to understand what happened here. 84.229.58.22 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know it is not possible to prevent a user from viewing an article, and the administrator logs for your account show nothing since January anyway. Maybe your browser is responsible. Zero^talk 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am now able to see the article. As for my points, I will open a another thread on this talk page later on. I do think the meaning of the Hebrew word should be mentioned, as I said on my talk page:

Whether dereived from the Hebrew word is irrelevant. What's relevant is the meaning of the word, and I wonder why you are afraid to include the meaning of the word in the article. It's simply a meaning in a certain language, and if you think it's not the source from which it was derived, OK, but still - the meaning of the word has to be mentioned, regardless of that. John Hyams (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Hyams"

But I have no time to deal with this now, I have bills to pay. 84.229.58.22 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding "The Big Map of the Empty Land" where ?

I found this article called: The Big Map of the Empty Land (originally publish in makor rishon Israeli newspaper) and was wondering where to put it into the article. I adding text to describe this finding (under the permission of the author) but am not sure where to add it into the article. please review and help fit this in Talgalili (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(add me to the article) A British survey of the Land of Israel

During the period 1871 to 1878 a British research mission conducted a survey of the Land of Israel and prepared a map . The scale of the map is 1 to approximately 63,000. Each centimeter on this map whose size is that of a large room, represents 630 meters in real dimensions. On the basis of this map one can determine which settlements existed in those years and their size. According to these details it is possible to estimate the size of the population there.

How the Map was Made: The Foundation of British Exploration of Palestine” created in 1865 by the elite of the British upper class of the time, Lords, academics, clergymen, and the very wealthy. The fund set up its goal to conduct researches in the fields of archeology, history, geography, and ethnography in what was then called “Palestine”. The expedition numbered several dozens of people, among them expert cartographers, and heading it were well-known people: Sir Charles Warren, Claude R. Conder, Horatio H. Kitchener. The project began in 1871 and completed in 1878. The production of the printed map lasted several years, and when it appeared it became the most detailed precise map of the Land of Israel. Due to its size, the map was printed in 26 separate sections, in four colors, by lithography.

What the map shows: The uniqueness of the map is that the British surveyors marked with great accuracy the borders of every settlement and noted in special colors the populated sections of the settlement. It is possible through this map to ascertain the size of each settlement in the Land during that period, from the Litani River in the north and as far south as Beer Sheba. The map represents by cartography what Mark Twain described in a literary form: a desolate arid wilderness, almost empty. Using a ruler it is a simple matter to determine the size of each settlement. When examining the villages we see that their areas are tiny. The largest of them are 150 by 100 meters. They comprise barely two rows of houses. The color legend indicates that Acre, for example, was then only partially inhabited. Entire areas were empty of people, exactly as we had learned in school, and likewise the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan Valley and all the areas that the Jewish pioneers later brought to life. Haifa is marked on the map by a rectangle of three by seven millimeters. Each millimeter represents 63 meters in actual terms. This means that the Haifa area was 190 by 440 meters in size. The German Colony is outside the Haifa perimeter, and each house is exactly drawn Nazareth was then a little larger than Haifa. Its shape is in the form of a gourd whose longer end is 600 meters and its smaller end some 300 meters. Even Tiberias is larger than Haifa – 300 by 600 meters. “Greater” Jaffa was only a little town – 240 by 540 meters. Shekh Munis, where the Tel Aviv University now stands, was a tiny village 90 by 180 meters. So, also, Usfiyeh, Yehud, and many other villages.

Jerusalem, within its walls, was, in fact, large – 1000 by 1000 meters. There was nothing outside the walls, and we know (not from the map) that within its walls there was always a Jewish majority.

We can't use any of this in the article. This is a blog by a journalist, which isn't what we call a Reliable Source. In articles, we should use papers and studies written by experts on the subject. This isn't one. If you can find analysis by an expert on this subject, we could work with it. okedem (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll contact the author and ask him. p.s: assuming the data is true, is it interesting ? Talgalili (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is in fact a ridiculous rant. This "rare" map is in fact very well known. My library has two copies and I have HQ scans. What it actually shows is that Palestine was covered by many hundreds of villages. The other assertions in the article are a joke. Claims like "there were about 100,000 Arabs in 1878" prove the profound ignorance of the author. We can't use such nonsense here. Zero^talk 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the author doesn't claim "there were about 100,000 Arabs in 1878", but cites several figures from several authors, this being one of them, listed as the lowest estimate. The point of that post is that all the existing settlements in Palestine were very small - no one is saying there weren't a lot of them, but that most were minuscule, and even the well known cities (Haifa, Jaffa, Acre) had very small populations. That said, even this post doesn't seem to carry this one step further - they say that the accurate cartographic information can be used to calculate the population (in contrast with other sources, such as censuses, which were rather rare at that time), but doesn't actually do it, or point to someone who does.

Zero0000 - do you know of any analysis of this map? How many villages, what area was populated, some suggestions of population size using these figures (+assumption of some reasonable population density for that time)? okedem (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a sequence of fat volumes published with the maps. The main three volumes are here: [12] [13] [14]. The number of villages is around 1000; I don't know the exact number. Most of the villages had been there since the 16th century at least (proved by Ottoman tax registers). As for "being fair", I think I am fair. In fact he does not cite any source at all for the 100,000. His reference to Maoz carefully avoids mentioning what time period Maoz is referring to (since Maoz is a serious scholar, it is completely impossible that he would propose 100,000 for the late 19th century). His reference to McCarthy (an American, not a Scot) avoids mentioning that McCarthy's figures come from actual censuses conducted by the Ottoman authorities. And his citation of the thoroughly discredited propagandist Joan Peters speaks for itself. What else? "Jerusalem ... within its walls there was always a Jewish majority" - no, there was a Jewish majority starting sometime in the late 19th century. Zero^talk 01:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What, for Maoz he clearly says "in Ottoman times"! Come on, what's 500 years between friends?

Don't worry, I'm not taking his post seriously, and am actually well aware of the numbers for Jerusalem (Jewish plurality at least from 1844, majority at least from 1893). Just wanted to clarify what you said (for the numbers being estimates he presents, and that he doesn't state any of them is correct). Never mind him.

Thanks for the links. I'll look at it a bit, just to satisfy my curiosity. I take you're not aware of any population analysis using this map, then. Too bad. It would have been interesting, if the map is really as accurate as is claimed. okedem (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments okedem, I am happily following this discussion :) Talgalili (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)