Talk:Palestinian Prisoners' Document

untitled

Regarding the ambiguity of the recognition of israel ive added: I only ask you to read the actual document and ask yourself if it mentions a two state solution or an implicit recognition of israel. The purpose of the document was to unite the palestinian people warring factions against a common foe and create their own state in the 67 borders. I would love nothing more than see hamas actually embracing a two state solution, however, i feel that the complete picture must be put forward and show that there was indeed a media spin and Hamas's own words prove it. I wonder if something positive will actually come out of the inaccurrate media reporting on the subject. --Nightybeta

There seem to be multiple pages on this. Btw, the eventually signed agreement was modified before signing, and a Hamas spokesman explicitly declared that it does not recognize Israel.

Re: Nightybeta's comments:

The PD does not need to recognize Israel to explicitly forfeit the idea of a Palestinian State on Pre-48 Borders, which it does, from Point 1: "The Palestinian people in the homeland and in the Diaspora seek ...to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967"

People need to stop confusing a failure to recognize the Israeli government, and its justification on Zionist principles, with a failure to acknowledge the existence of the Israeli state at it's pre-1967 borders; hence the forfeiture of Palestinian claims (particulary of Hamas') of a state on pre-48 borders cited above.

Thus it is not "spin" to suggest the latter, which is what most media analysts I have read seem to have in mind. Hence Nightybeta's reference that the Prisoner's Document does not recognize Israel (presumably the government) is a moot and largely irrelevant point. S/he is right in that it does not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli government. But should we really expect a people whose history views the seizure of their historic homeland by a Zionist government (and the values that are attached to that political-religious philosophy) as "legitmate"? Rather, it is reasonable for them, as a matter of political pragmatism, to forfeit their claim to a portion of that homeland where that same Zionist government exists, which is what the PD commits Hamas to for the very first time.

Instead of wasting energy on so-called ambiguity regarding Hamas' failure to recognize the Israeli government's "right to exist" (which the PD does not approach at all), perhaps the greater point would be to add to the article the PD's forfeiture of a Palestinian state on pre-48 Borders, and Hamas' newfound (and historic) political commitment to that principle. --JRL

Content

Does anyone know what the 18 points actually are? --AndrewRT 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference to poll

The Reference to the Poll seems to be a broken link: "Poll: Only 47 percent of Palestinians would vote for prisoners", Ha'aretz 19/06/2006

At least I just get an advert on that page... If I do a quick search I find this document: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=723105&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

But that seems to show the support for the Prisoner's document as 77%, not 47%. Unless document in the original link can be found, then we should show the degree of support as 77%... or at least state that the degree of support is in dispute and provide more than one working link.

Xagent86 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What the polls showed is that most Palestinians support the document itself (up to 80%), but less than half would have voted in that referendum that Mahmoud Abbas was planning for late July because Palestinians saw the calling for a referendum as another example of factional bickering of the sort they were fed up with. Too bad the link is broken. Ramallite ^(talk) 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging this page into Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Any opposition? Shalom11111 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Coverage of the prisoners document in the main article seems about right as it is. There are more than enough RS discussing this specific topic to warrent a stand alone article (e.g. [1]) What is the basis for your suggestion? Dlv999 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

While the subject of the article seems notable and there are some sources on the web about it, I think it'd be best to cover in the main article of 'Palestinian prisoners in Israel'. Currently, this article has a very short section there which doesn't discuss important key points, so instead of expanding that section, we should merge this article into it and let it have its own, well written section there. That article is not particularly long at all, with only 53,887 bytes. Shalom11111 (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that the topic is notable. In Wikipedia notable topics warrant their own article. I have no problem with you expanding the section in the main article, but you haven't given any policy based reasons or evidence that would support removing the stand alone article on this topic (which you agree is notable). Dlv999 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, I have no specific policy based reason for this merge proposal of this article, which we both agree is notable. It could be more of a preference type of thing, I assume. I just think that in most cases, including this one, we should aim at making the main article ("Palestinian prisoners in Israel" in this case) as inclusive as possible and discuss sub-topics in a thorough way only in those main articles, even if that subject may meet the WP:N guidelines. It's more organized this way and gives readers a better view on the coverage on the entire subject in one article. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you're the only user objecting this proposal, Dlv999, I just want to ask it one last time before I leave this: have you changed your mind or do you still oppose this merge? Shalom11111 (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't provided policy/evidence based arguments for the proposed changes so my objection remains. Having said that, your suggestions to include more material in the main article can be done without deleting this one and I would encourage you to carry on with that part of your proposal. Dlv999 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree article should be kept and the templates removed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palestinian Prisoners' Document. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060629044743/http://www.capetimes.co.za:80/index.php?fSectionId=330 to http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=330&fArticleId=3286997

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)