Wikipedia

Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 7

< Talk:State of Palestine
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Alinor in topic Leading paragraph
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

OIC membership

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The OIC website explicitly says state of PALESTINE, recognised 1969 and gives its national day, National Day 1/1 (1 January 1969), not 15 November 1988. And this in addition to what it says in Palestinian National Covenant (no books used!) that "Following a 1963 Draft Constitution the first version of the Charter was written by Ahmad Shukeiri, the first chairman of the PLO, using the slightly different name al-Mithaq al-Qawmi al-Filastini, meant to reflect its origins in Nasser's Pan-Arabism.[1] The first official English translation rendered al-Mithaq as "covenant", while later versions have tended to use "charter." (The word changed in 1968 in the Arabic name is translated as "national" in either English translation.)" All the ingredients of a 'state': a dictator, a following ready to terrorize opponents, a Charter that spells only a war of national liberation so popular in the 60s, and a recognition by a group of states created same year.

To me this is the recognition you were talking about, illegitimate or not. However, you clearly think that PALESTINE spells PLO, and since there is this magic 1RR rule that in one swift swoop allows one editor to undo about 4 hours of research of another, than I leave you to your own devices. It seems to me that ironically the state of advancement towards peace in the real world is very much reflected by the goings on in Wikipedia's subject area. Its full of people so passionately devoted to Wikipedia that they are happy to proverbially 'shoot' another editor's brains out to prove their dedication to administrative policy over article quality.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above OIC 1969 membership is of PLO (organization) and not of SoP (state). SoP was established in 1988. In 1969 there was no Palestinian state declared (unless you consider Jordan or Israel to be Palestinian). There were intentions and wishes about Palestinian state (as you point out - in the PLO covenant - and in other places), but none was established yet.
The OIC website shows that currently SoP is a member and that it took over the PLO seat and that PLO was member since 1969.
I don't "think that PALESTINE spells PLO" - actually I have argued many times that we should refrain from using "Palestine" without specifying what we refer to - PLO, SoP, PNA or something else. Alinor (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New proposal regarding Palestine

Latest comment: 13 years ago36 comments5 people in discussion

Merge all articles which include the word Palestine in them that refer to the administrative organization entity into an article named Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority as per the document that established this entity (Article III, Paragraph 1., THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP, Washington, D.C. September 28, 1995)

Any articles that refer to political and jurisdiction use of the word Palestine merge to Gaza Strip and West Bank articles (Article I, Paragraph 7., THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP, Washington, D.C. September 28, 1995) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You realize that the whole world is not put into this document, right? This document can be used only about the PNA (or PISGA if you prefer) - but not for the articles that have topics other than PNA. Alinor (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The whole world? There are severe problems with this article and your understanding what its all about.
How do other large articles work? There is a main article, and where there is insufficient space, daughter articles are used.
This article is about PISGA as defined in the Oslo Accords.
As I see it the PISGA article has not followed the fairly standard structure used for state articles anyway.
It seems to me that articles relating to defined international entities should follow an article template which should have a logical progression (not uniformly followed)
  • Geography - location (affects history)
  • History - sources of discrete popular identification (affects diplomatic relationships)
  • Diplomacy & International membership - regional and global relationships (affects demographics)
  • Demographics - population distribution (affects culture)
  • Culture - identifiers of discreteness (determines symbols)
  • Symbols - tingible representations of self-identity (affects sociology)
  • Sociology - discrete set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices (affects politics)
  • Politics - form of domestic representation (affects judicial system)
  • Law - jurisdictional authority (affects economy and trade)
  • Economy (domestic) & Trade (international) - income generation and technology use (affects military)
  • Military - ultimate means of conflict resolution and preservation of discrete identity
Compare below with Switzerland as example
SWITZERLAND PLO PISGA NOTES
1 Overview This is supposed to be the Introduction
2 Officials Political offices, so why is this needed?
1 History 3 History
1.1 Etymology
1.2 Early history
1.3 Old Swiss Confederacy
1.4 Napoleonic era
1.5 Federal state
1.6 Modern history
2 Geography
2.1 Climate
2.2 Environment
Swiss law 5 Law
6 Crime and law enforcement Part of Law
3 Politics 4 Politics and internal structure i.e. PISGA
3.1 Direct democracy 4.1 Political parties and elections
3.2 Administrative divisions 7 Administrative divisions Part of Politics
Cantons of Switzerland West Bank and Gaza Strip belong here
3.3 Foreign relations and international institutions 8 Foreign relations Properly, Diplomacy, not Politics
3.4 Military Palestinian Liberation Organisation
4 Economy 10 Economy
Banking in Switzerland 9 Financing This is still Economic income
4.1 Education, science, and technology
4.2 Switzerland and the European Union
4.3 Energy, infrastructure, and environment
5 Demographics 11 Demographics
11.1 West Bank Not demographic entity but administrative
11.2 Gaza Strip Not demographic entity but administrative
5.1 Health
5.2 Urbanization
5.3 Religion
6 Culture
6.1 Literature
6.2 Media
6.3 Sports
6.4 Cuisine
7 See also 12 See also
8 References 13 Notes and references
14 Bibliography
9 External links 15 External links
As I see it there are serious deficiencies in the PISGA (PA) article, but editors want to go and create more articles that have even less justification for being in Wikipedia
Strictly speaking though the PISGA article represents the public administration of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and therefore can not be either a state or a region by definition
Properly speaking it belongs in the 3. Politics section of the PLO article which currently doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the 'PNA' article is merged into the PLO article as subsection 3.1 PISGA which would follow the convention used by every other such entity found in Wikipedia.
Palestine is a defunct term that was used by the British during the Mandate period of its public administration of the former Ottoman territory
The term now (curiously) has meaning only within the OIC, but OIC states themselves are dependent on The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (followed by the Badinter Committee in Europe) that codified normative international law as saying that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. This is known as the “declarative theory of statehood” and in the Montevideo Convention statehood is defined in this way: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Currently the public administration PISGA (PA in the Gaza–Jericho Agreement) entity can't claim all four qualifications, or any since it is only an administrative organisation of the PLO
This discussion should really be taking place in the PLO talk page
Wikipedia editors inventing such an entity therefore constitutes WP:OR of a rather large order Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
PS. As of today 93 states are in contravention of The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States which is fundamental in that, the conditions of article 1 are limited by article 11, which forbids the use of military force to obtain sovereignty, i.e. per the PLO Charter. Article 11 reflected the contemporary (1933) Stimson Doctrine, and it is now a fundamental part of international law through Article II Paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
If a majority of the members of the United Nations dismiss the Charter (93 is 47.9%), the UN can probably be considered null and void since national identities will no longer depend on the Charter definition, and resolutions of its Security Council (or so it seems) will have no application in respect to use of force
The Convention was one of the building blocks of the League of Nations, but I'm not sure if there would be retrospective legal consequences Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
PPS. It just occurred to me that recognition of PALESTINE as a state is not binding on any member of the UN because it constitutes a legal fiction since there is no such legal person, PLO having the 'observer status' and not PALESTINE (in caps), and therefore the added suggestion is that the article Palestine be merged into the section on PLO, Culture Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:TLDR. Please try to be more concise. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I was Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Koakhtzvigad, I try to understand what you want to say, but it seems you mixup different issues. You mix real world issues (what is legal, what isn't, etc.) with Wikipedia article issues (article names, content merge/arrangement, etc.). Also, I don't agree with some of your statements about the real world issues (you don't provide sources for these). Also, I don't agree with your suggestions about content arrangements - mainly because it seems that you speak about articles without taking in account their topic.
Your POV seems to be "Palestine is not a state" (without taking any care what entity "Palestine" word in this statement refers to) and while this is true for PNA and PLO, by definition this is false for SoP. The issue of who recognizes SoP, whether this is legal, breaks some convention, isn't supported by the UN, doesn't have any practical meaning, etc. - regardless if these claims are true or not - the SoP is a state. It may be illegal unrecognized fictional state - but this doesn't matter - it is notable and that's why it has Wikipedia article about it - otherwise we would have a "speedy deletion AfD" instead of this discussion.
I have seen a user with the opposite POV such as "Palestine is a state" (again, without any care about what entity "Palestine" word in this statement refers to) - he was doing the opposite of you - claiming his POV in all articles remotely related to SoP or even entirely unrelated. He gives multiple external sources with each of his comments - most of the time unrelated to the particular topic, but showing that "Palestine is a state". Alinor (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Now, I would try to address the issues you raise above:
  • There are severe problems with this article and your understanding what its all about. - THIS article is titled and has as topic the State of Palestine as defined by the 1988 declaration of independence issued by the PNC of the PLO. That's what it's about. This is different from Proposals for a Palestinian state (describing idea the general idea of a second state next to Israel on the territory of the former British mandate west of the Jordan river). This is different from the PLO and PNA/PISGA. And before you start with "there is no SoP" let's clear this up - it may be illegal/unrecognized/fictional (depending on who you ask) - but it's still notable. If it was just the 1988 declaration by PLO it can be represented as "event" in the PLO article. But since it got recognitions by many states around the world - its notability increases and it has practical real world influence (appointing and receiving ambassadors, visits, etc. foreign relations activities). I agree that the content of State of Palestine article is somewhat wrong - editors try to make it look like any other state and don't take into account that SoP actions are only in the foreign relations sphere - and there are other shortcomings - nobody cares to describe anything about the day-to-day workings of the SoP, but instead present unrelated content that is more appropriate for PNA, PLO, Geography of Palestine, History of Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other articles. Maybe you got confused by these shortcomings of the SoP article, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. Summary - 1988-SoP focused content is too big to be put as section in the PLO article - but this will be inappropriate anyway because 1988-SoP is a state (regardless if legal/illegal, etc.) and PLO exists since before 1988 and has functions other than to be the SoP government-in-exile - so both entities need to have separate articles. Alinor (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I had already added to the State of Palestine introduction that it was recognised as a state in 1969 which is way before 1988. I assumed OIC didn't really care in the wake of 1967. PLO ambassadors were sent to every then member of OIC, mostly as 'fund raisers'. The issue from Wikipedia content point of view is that the 1988 was just that, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, which is of course wrong, because as soon as PLO was recognised as a state by OIC, it had by default declared its independence. This is not my POV issue but the other editor's lack of history and application of logic. This however doesn't change anything. This declaration, whatever the year or legality, represents a functioning organizational entity, the government, and that was PLO. No one can point to any other organisation and say, that was the government of Palestinians. There is no source that says Government of Palestine prior to 1988, is there? Here is but one Article from the revised PLO Charter of 1989 (?) Article XXV: For the realization of the goals of this Charter and its principles, the Palestine Liberation Organization will perform its role in the liberation of Palestine in accordance with the Constitution of this Organization. PLO was, and remained the government of Palestine as it defined it, and until Oslo. PA is its legal successor, and it operates not because of its recognition as a state by other states, but because of the negotiated process with Israel. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No. PLO joined OIC in 1969, not SoP. Do you have a source about "as soon as PLO was recognised as a state by OIC, it had by default declared its independence." - we don't even have a source that "PLO was recognised as a state by OIC" in 1969 (they maybe recognised PLO right to establish Palestinian state - but such wasn't established, even in-exile, until 1988) - let also anything about a principle such as "default delcaration of independence".
Then we continue with "PA is its legal successor" - successor to what? "the government of Palestine"? Do you have a source for that? PLO Executive Committee is the government-in-exile of SoP (source in the article), so now you claim that PNA is successor of the PLO or its executive committee or to some different "government of Palestine"? Alinor (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not too big. There are many articles that include a snippet intro in the main article, redirecting the reader to the daughter article either through out-text or in-text links. There are now literally a veritable cloud of articles that is almost impossible to fit conceptually into a coherent cognitive framework due to their sheer quantity. One has to be an expert on 'Palestine' BEFORE one starts reading! Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that some overview article about all of these would be appropriate - see Passionless comment above from 22:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC). So far we have Palestine (disambiguation) and Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian. But this overview article can't be the PLO article.
I agree that you seem confused and didn't managed to fit conceptually into a coherent cognitive framework the different concepts, entities and the links between them.
Things are something along these lines: Arab-Jewish conflict is since before 1948 during British rule. Transjordan gains independence in 1946 as state. In 1948 Israel is established as state. No Palestinian state is established in the remaining of the territory of the British mandate and Egypt/Jordan occupy it. In 1964 PLO is established as organization. In 1967 Israel occupies the remaining of the territory of the British mandate that Egypt/Jordan had occupied until then. In 1969 OIC admits PLO. In 1974 PLO is admitted as observer entity (not state) in the UNGA. In 1976 AL admits PLO. In 1988 the PNC of the PLO issued the SoP declaration of independence without having any control over any territory (in-exile). Many states recognized the 1988-declared-SoP. OIC and AL recognized SoP. PNC appoints the PLO Executive Committee as temporary SoP government-in-exile. UNGA decides to use "Palestine" when referring to the PLO representatives/delegations. PLO begins to participate as observer entity in various international organizations. More states recognize SoP. In 1994 Israel, PLO, USA, Russia sign the Oslo Accords. According to this agreement the PLO establishes a local governing authority - the PNA. Israel allows the PNA to operate in Areas A and B of the territory of the British mandate that Israel occupies. This local governing authority is commonly referred to as PNA (but you provided link showing that it's name according to the agreement is "Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority"). PNA is represented abroad by the PLO. Talks between Israel and PLO about the final settlement continue. PNA is NOT realization of the SoP (and the territories PNA operates into are still under Israel occupation) and SoP continues to be in-exile. Alinor (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The term now (curiously) has meaning only within the OIC. What term? "State of Palestine"? What about the non-OIC states that recognize it? It has meaning to them too. Alinor (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No, Palestine. Yes, I know it has meaning to them. The PLO charter says Article II: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. These included Jordan, hence the conflict Jordanians had with PLO in the 1970s. Since Israel will never accept this, effectively 'Palestine' has no border. It is therefore a virtual state as framed by the PLO Charter, regardless of the meaning it has for those that reside there under its administration. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Jordan is in the OIC - it's not "non-OIC state". Again, in your comment it's not clear what do you mean by 'Palestine'. SoP is in-exile, you can call that "virtual" if you prefer. But SoP is not framed by the PLO Charter, but by the 1988 Declaration of Independence. These are different documents and only the 1988 declaration establishes a state. PLO is an organization - it doesn't have borders. SoP is a state, but it's in exile and its borders are not defined. I don't know of border argreements between SoP and Israel, Egypt or Jordan. I think that most states that recognize SoP (including Egypt and Jordan) generally accept that it has the borders of the territory of the British mandate outside of Israel/Jordan - the territory occupied by Egypt/Jordan before 1967 and by Israel after 1967. Of course, until there are SoP-Jordan, SoP-Egypt and most importantly SoP-Israel border agreements the borders of SoP remain "unknown". Alinor (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Montevideo Convention contradiction. I don't agree with your interpretation that the convention forbids recognitions. Also, it doesn't seem binding to so many states. Anyway, any statement such as "Recognition of SoP by Argentina is illegal according to international law." IMHO needs a more specific source that reference to Montevideo Convention + interpretations by Wikipedia editor. Alinor (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't make it clear, but its not the original Montevideo Convention thats the issue, but the incorporation of its principles into the UN Charter. And this is what I meant about recognition of 'Palestine' by anyone. Since it is not a legal entity, any sate can recognise 'Palestine', or the 'Kingdom of Palestine', or the 'Emir of Palestine', the 'Palestine Sultanate', or whatever other name PLO/PA desires to adopt. Mostly it has public relations value for OIC. Every country that has accepted the State of Palestine has international lawyers of their own, and I'm guessing that this was their advice also, but who will say... Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "SoP it is not a legal entity"? SoP itself claims to be a such entity - a state. Some other entities (states) agree with this claim. Some other entities (states) don't agree. Some organizations (OIC, AL) agree, others don't. Of course most of these agree/disagree actions have PR effect - since SoP is in-exile and doesn't control any territory these actions obviously aren't because of trade, finance, economic or such reasons. For this discussion it doesn't matter WHY a state recognizes another state, but we also don't have sources answering this WHY.
"whatever other name PLO/PA desires to adopt." - SoP is not a name adopted by PLO - it is an entity (a state in-exile) established by the PLO. SoP is not a name adopted by PNA and has no relation to the PNA whatsoever. Alinor (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not quite "about the territory geography, history, etc. - and covers both Israel and WB/Gaza." It is mostly a fork of History of Israel with a greater emphasis on the Islmaic history. Just look at the History section and its dozens of subsections. It is for all intents and purposes a history article. Israel is covered by the '1948 to present' paragraph. In reality though, despite the redirect to Palestine (region), there was never such a geographic region. The History of the Southern Levant is far more correctly titled, at lest for the English language reader. The statement plagiarized from the referenced website that "As a geographic term, Palestine can refer to "ancient Palestine," an area that today includes Israel and the [2] Palestinian territories, as well as parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria." is supported by one other reference, discussing the Apartheid Wall! At the same time it directs the reader to another fork Southern Levant. There is however no mention that the source is Herodotus, and that there are some questions about his Histories. Palestine is everywhere in the article, taking gross liberties, as in the case of this reference Niels Peter Lemche. "On the Problems of Reconstructing Pre-Hellenistic Israelite (Palestinian) History". Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. that has Palestinian in brackets. Why in brackets? Because there he is at pains to point out that Palestine is the south-western area through which the Egyptian army approached, and says that "Herodotus simply states that Palestine is the part of Syria that is situated between Lebanon and Egypt." referring to modern states for the contemporary reader. Of course at the time it was an administrative part of the Assyrian Empire, as the source says. Yet, in the article everything is transformed to 'Palestine'. Even before then "Archaeology as well as other non-biblical information about ancient Palestine will tell us that Palestine in the late Bronze Age (roughly the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E.) was an Egyptian province ruled by local princes who looked upon themselves as faithful vassals of their patron, the Pharaoh.", so not a geographic region at all. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It is mostly a fork of History of Israel with a greater emphasis on the Islmaic history. - oh, c'mon, it seems I waste my time answering to you. Do you claim that "Israel = all of British mandate Palestine without Jordan"? Even Israel itself doesn't claim that. That's why they signed the Oslo Accords - they don't claim ALL of this land. Alinor (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
c'mon what? How do you think the British 'Mandate' borders were derived? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want to prove? That "Palestine" name for the region is a recent invention from the mandate times? And that previously this region was called Southern Syria or something else? So what? The fact is that from the British Mandate for Palestine (the last "non-controversial status") territory emerged the following: Jordan, Israel, "the rest" (referred to currently as "Occupied Palestinian Territories" by the UN). And yes, the border between Israel and "the rest" is disputed (between Israel and PLO that wants to establish a state there - and even proclaimed it in 1988, but in-exile, because PLO doesn't control "the rest" territory). Currently "the rest" is controlled by Israel, but even Israel itself doesn't claim ALL of "the rest". Alinor (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually kind of agree with the statement that Palestine article is a fork of the history of the Southern Levant. My thoughts are that Palestine is a biblical (read religious) term for the Southern Levant, which is why I started the debate on the naming. Very thoughtful insight. I have started a merge discussion on the matter. Int21h (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 93 figure. I don't know where you got this, but I can give you sources for more: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I don't "like" these particular sources (mainly because they don't specify the names of the states), but anyway for the purpose of this discussion these show for example 106 and 130. This is 55% and 68% of UN members (but even if it is 100% or 1% - so what?). Alinor (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not all recognise. Some have 'General Delegations' from the PLO but call them General Palestinian Delegations, while Brazil and Switzerland allow PLO representation protected by the immunities of another Arab Mission. I have not kept up with the numbers, so it needs to be better verified, hence I have not added this to the article.
If the recognition is fictitious, then so nothing. On the other hand if these states consciously contravene the principles of the UN Charter, there maybe so something. I haven't as yet had the incination to see what that 'so' might entail, have you?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Who "not all"? You refer to these 93 wrongly counted as 94. Some of them really don't recognize SoP (this source you refer to not only counts wrong, but also includes wrong claims about some states) - but this list is outdated. Since then there are more SoP recognitions (as you can see in the sources I gave - including about Brazil that you mentioned in your comment - so obviously you didn't opened the source I gave). Currently the number is at least 109 (and up to 118/more than 130). The 109 are very well verified IMHO - we have 109 names with sources for each of them and even dates of recognition for most of them.
What "principles of the UN Charter" are contravened when a UN member state recognizes a state non-member of the UN? Does this "breach" apply to other non-members of the UN such as the Vatican City, Cook Islands, Niue, Kosovo, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Republic of China/Taiwan, Sealand and others? Obviously not, so you need to be more specific about the principles that apply to SoP (and maybe some others?), but not to the other non-members of the UN.
Anyway, I don't see why you raised the issue of UN-members-%. Maybe you thought that it's less that 50% and this was going to be some argument about "majority", but since it's above 50% it doesn't matter anymore. Alinor (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Correction: No state is in contravention of the Montevideo Convention, as that convention has never been ratified, and was only ever signed by a total of 19 states, only 10 of which have recognised the State of Palestine. Nightw 09:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, correct, but its the incorporation of the Montevideo Principles into the the UN Charter via the League of Nations that may give pause Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Any source about that? Alinor (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? First off, the Oslo Accords only referred to a future PNA, the Gaza–Jericho Agreement authorized it, and lastly the PLO established the PNA. This "Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority" calls itself, and is called by others, the "Palestinian National Authority" or the "PNA", which could be called an administrative organization entity. The term jurisdiction is usually defined by law, and has little meaning outside of laws; ie. it is ambiguous. All these things are political. I am also gratuitously using bold typefacing for no reason, other than to point out that your use of bold typesetting is unwarranted and quickly looses its effect when used too much, much akin to using all caps. And I still don't understand anything that I interpret as a reasonable proposal. I suggest rewording your proposal. Int21h (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so from all that I decerned that you assert the PNA and PLO "can not be either a state or a region by definition". I agree with that. The Economy and Demographics sections should be moved in the SoP or Palestinian territories articles, or both. I have made a proposal for that. See Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Economy_and_demographics_belong_in_State_of_Palestine. As of yet, no one has said a word about it. Int21h (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I use bold for three reasons:
  • To identify key concepts within the text that my posts are focused on
  • To identify proposals based on these key concepts
  • To make identification of my replies in this long section easier to locate when scrolling
Many English language, and European language sources on the subject use Palestine gratuitously as if that was the only name for the area under discussion. ALMOST ALL these sources when closely examined feature in them at least one map that prominently says (in caps) MAP OF PALESTINE. Most of these maps are pre-20th century, arcane, colorful and lithographed. However, what few readers, and seemingly few authors of these books realise is that maps, as all published works, from inception of European printing were required to conform to Index Librorum Prohibitorum. While I'm currently unable to prove this (since I can't find anyone having already done the research to date), maps, and particularly maps of the disputed Holy Land (in Christian conception, not the Jewish Eretz Kodesh; disputed with the Mamelukes and later Ottomans) also had to conform to the Church's, and later churches' theological interpretation of that geographic region. For example many very early surviving maps included depiction of the supposed location of Mt Sinai in the southern Sinai Peninsula, but this was eventually removed as much due to internal Vatican politics as for the undesirability of reminding Christians where the Bible came from and to whom it was given. Only in the late 19th century do we see emergence of printed historical maps that deal with periods other than that of the formation of Christianity, which was of course the time of Roman occupation and wholesale renaming of anything Hebrew to Latin. However, lithography being what it is, for economic reasons many old plates were reused repeatedly by publishers.
Forcing remaining 'Jews' to say Palestine was an excellent rub-in-the-wound given the widespread knowledge of the past victories over the Plishtim recorded in TaNaKh in the 'Jewish' population. I believe its called Political psychology. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As I asked below - what do you propose to change in the articles? Alinor (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Currently the picture in the infobox is taken from Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority - File:Palestinian National Authority COA.svg. Do we have a source describing this image as PNA Coat of Arms (then it shouldn't be in the SoP infobox) or it is a 'common Palestine symbol' like the flag? Do we have a source showing that this coat of arms is officially adopted by the SoP (e.g. by PNC/SoP legislature, PLO Executive Committee/SoP GiE, PLO Chairman/SoP President)? If it is for the PNA only, then we can use File:Plo emblem.png or none at all.

So we have three options: PNA coat of arms, PLO emblem, none. Alinor (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor factual correction: the picture in the infobox is not taken from Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority: The banner on the image in used reads "Palestine", whereas the one on the PNA CoA reads "Palestinian Authority". The PNA one is used on http://pmo.gov.ps/Default.aspx which is as official as it gets, I suppose. -- uriber (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are right - the link is to the PNA Coat of arms, but the picture is File:Palestine COA (alternative).svg.
The site you give is about PNA and uses the PNA Coat of arms. The question is whether the other coat of arms is adopted by SoP or not... Alinor (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, can't help with that. The SoP is such a virtual entity that it has no official website, and any "official" information about it (beyond the declaration of independence) is very hard to come by. (This, by the way, is why most of the information in this article does not actually apply to the SoP but to other entities, and therefore should not be here). -- uriber (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The Background section currently reads:

The Levant formed part of the Ottoman Empire from 1518. In 1917, it was occupied by Britain during the First World War. However, there was no administrative unit under the Ottoman Empire corresponding to what came to be known as Palestine and the boundaries were determined as part of the process of formation of the British Mandate of Palestine after the War.[15] Since the British Mandate, the term Palestine has been associated with the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,[15] though the British Mandate also covered present day Jordan.

In my opinion, shortcomings which should be fixed include:

  • There should be a description on how the name Palestine came into existence and the regions it has historically been used to define.
  • In the Mandate era, despite the fact that the mandated territory included Transjordan and that the mandate was called the Mandate for Palestine, Transjordan wasn't seen as a constituent part of the region meant by Palestine (at least, to the majority).

As a point of comparison, this is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says:

The term Palestine has been associated variously and sometimes controversially with this small region, which some have asserted also includes Jordan. Both the geographic area designated by the name and the political status of it have changed over the course of some three millennia. The region (or at least a part of it) is also known as the Holy Land and is held sacred among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Since the 20th century it has been the object of conflicting claims of Jewish and Arab national movements, and the conflict has led to prolonged violence and, in several instances, open warfare.



The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BC occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza. The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century AD in “Syria Palaestina,” designating the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era. After Roman times the name had no official status until after World War I and the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain; in addition to an area roughly comprising present-day Israel and the West Bank, the mandate included the territory east of the Jordan River now constituting the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, which Britain placed under an administration separate from that of Palestine immediately after receiving the mandate for the territory.



The name Palestine has long been in popular use as a general term to denote a traditional region, but this usage does not imply precise boundaries. The perception of what constitutes Palestine's eastern boundary has been especially fluid, although the boundary frequently has been perceived as lying east of the Jordan River, extending at times to the edge of the Arabian Desert. In contemporary understanding, however, Palestine is generally defined as a region bounded on the east by the Jordan River, on the north by the border between modern Israel and Lebanon, on the west by the Mediterranean Sea (including the coast of Gaza), and on the south by the Negev, with its southernmost extension reaching the Gulf of Aqaba.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction between the two. Also, I think elaborations on this issue are more appropriate for Palestine (region) and not for this article. The State of Palestine article should deal with information about the claimed borders of SoP (their are not defined, but different opinions are stated by different parties - for example some states that recognize SoP explicitely refer to "1967 borders"), not about current/historical borders of Palestine (region). Alinor (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Palestine (region) = Wikipedia fiction Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A state is a historically dynamic concept also. At various times, the 'state of Palestine' was:
  • State (polity), an organized political community, living under a government (Central Committee with a Chairman) from 1964 formation of PLO (then, a few hundred terrorists)
    • as PLO Member state, a member of an international organization, the OIC (now state of PALESTINE, only a name change) from 1969
    • Federated state from 1948 to 1970, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign kingdom of Transjordan (Jordan) until its expulsion
    • Rechtsstaat, the legal state (constitutional state, state subordinated to law) in philosophy of law and as a UN Charter principle after it formulated its national constitution in 1988
    • Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in international public law after the 1993 Oslo Accords created PISGA, i.e. a public administrative and legislative functions of a political entity of PLO
    • Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation that PLO has been trying to prove the Arabic population of West Bank and the Gaza Strip are
And this is why you can't have this article as a separate one to the PLO article. PLO is the state Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
PLO isn't and doesn't claim to be a state. It even contains "organization" it's name! Wikilinks to general topics that you use don't fit with the descriptions you put after them. For example you continue to claim that State of Palestine existed in 1969 (why this isn't true - see above). Also, PNA/PISGA is not and doesn't claim to be a state. "legislative functions of a political entity of PLO" are vested in the Palestinian National Council and not in the Palestinian National Authority as you claim. Also, PNA has a separate legislature - Palestinian Legislative Council. Your comment is full of such inaccuracies. Alinor (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It is immaterial whether a claim of statehood is made or not by the PLO. If it quacks, its a duck. In terms of international law if an entity behaves like a state for the most part, it is one, and PLO has very many state-like functions. It just chooses not to advertise this for reasons of its own.
You are mistaken. The Palestinian National Council is immaterial to the discussion. It predates PLO, and later became the internal political organ of the PLO, sort of like the Communist Party to the Politburo. It had no jurisdiction over the WB&GS populations, and the Council I refer to is the one established under the Oslo Accords which by the ARTICLE IX LAWS AND MILITARY ORDERS
  • 1. The Council will be empowered to legislate, in accordance with the Interim Agreement, within all authorities transferred to it.
...and therefore conduct popular elections and not elections of the political faction representatives (many of which emerged in the popular elections as contenders for parliament also). Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"In terms of international law if an entity ...." - this contradicts both the declarative and constitutive theories of statehood, so this is obviously some other - any source describing it?
PLO is not a state, because it A] doesn't control any territory/population and B] doesn't claim do be a state and nobody recognizes it as state. By your logic SMOM is also a state. For detailed description see below.
PNC predates PLO by little, but it is material, because you claimed that "legislative functions of a political entity of PLO are vested in the PNA" - but they are not and are vested in the PNC instead. And yes, PNC has no jurisdiction over the WB&GS. PNC has jursidiction over the State of Palestine, but it controls no territory. Jurisdiction over WB&GS (but only over their Areas A and B) has the PNA (as Int21h has explained above the PISGA term you referred to was about the "to be established" entity, that became officially the PNA) and the PNA legislature - the PLC (the Council you refer to)
Obviously you mix the Palestinian National Council (legislature of PLO, SoP; controls no territory) and the Palestinian Legislative Council (legislature of PNA; has limited control over Areas A and B of the Palestinian territories). Alinor (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is a related discussion - About this. The first part about the origin of the name Palestine, the land laws there, etc. is interesting. It is relevant about discussion about the topic/scope of Palestine (region) article, about whether Palestine should contain the text or redirect to Palestine (region) or redirect to Palestine (disambiguation), etc. It is relevant about some article dealing with the current land laws there, settlements land, public land, private land, etc. But I don't see what it has to do with State of Palestine.

The second part about PLO seems written in negative tone towards the PLO, so if it is to be used it should be edited in more NPOV way. You try to make a point that "PLO is a state" (even a terrorist state). You claim that it has all the features of such state - but the PLO itself doesn't claim to be a state - and nobody recognizes it as state - so it is an entity similar to a state, but not exactly a state (this is best shown by its UN status - "entity right after the states and before the other entities and the international organizations"). And again, all this is relevant to the Palestine Liberation Organization article.

But State of Palestine article topic is not "PLO state-like features" - the scope of State of Palestine topic is more limited - it deals with the 1988-declared SoP, not just any Palestinian state (past, present, future, virtual, terrorist, state-like-organization, interim authorities, etc.). There is some overlap with PLO - because the PLO Executive Committee is the SoP government-in-exile, the PLO Palestinian National Council is the SoP legislature, the PLO Chairman is the SoP president. But only those acts of these institutions that are taken with the "SoP hat" are relevant to the SoP (when a person shares two or more posts he acts with different "hat" according to the issue at hand - e.g. "in the capacity of SoP president, John Smith complained against Israel Wall" is SoP hat, but "in the capacity of PLO chairman, John Smith ..." is not SoP hat). Because such detailed references are seldom made it is not so easy to distinguish in practice between the actions of PLO and actions of SoP (but this is not so big problem in practice - because SoP doesn't control any territory and doesn't have any activities outside foreign relations - unlike the PLO that trough its 'proxy' PNA/Oslo Accords administration has actual influence both de jure and de facto). But de jure these are different. That's why PLO is accepted by all (?) as UN observer, participates in many international organizations, etc. and SoP is not accepted anywhere except OIC, AL and some organizations of developing countries like NAM/G-77/etc.

AFAIK there are two theories about "what is a sovereign state?":

  1. Declarative theory - Montevideo Convention with 4 requirements: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
  2. Constitutive theory - states exist even without recognition, but "International Law" takes notice of them as "legal person/subject" only if they are recognized by other states (even without recognition the state exists, but has no rights/obligations related to "International Law")

Here we may argue whether there is additional "obvious" requirement - that the entity itself claims to be a sovereign state. PLO doesn't claim to be. SoP claims to be. But, taking in account the main two criteria gives us three options:

  1. common case - a state that satisfies both Declarative and Constitutive requirements (this doesn't mean that it's recognized by ALL other states, but only by SOME)
  2. a state that satisfies Declarative requirements only, but isn't recognized by ANY other state - one of List of unrecognized countries
  3. a state that satisfies Constitutive requirements only, but fails some of the others (mostly territory/population) - one of government-in-exile

So, let's check the PLO and the SoP.

  • SoP
    • Declarative requirements: has government (the PLO Executive Committee serves as SoP GiE), has relations with other states - but doesn't control any territory/population
    • Constitutive requirements: is recognized as state by many states
  • PLO
    • Declarative requirements: has government-like institution (the PLO Executive Committee), has relations with other states - but doesn't control any territory/population (even if we consider PNA to be "part of PLO" all of the territory is still under final Israel control - PNA acts only as much as Israel allows it and where Israel allows it)
    • Constitutive requirements: is not recognized as state by any state

So, PLO fails both Declarative and Constitutive requirements and SoP satisfies most of these with the exception of territory/population control - a typical setup for a government-in-exile situation.

But, OK, what are we discussing here? What changes do you want in which articles? So, far I remember one change that seems reasonable - to mention on the PNA page that its name according to the Oslo Accords is PISGA. (Int21h comment above from 09:22, 13 January 2011 explains why PNA is OK) Alinor (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ZScarpia, my question here is about above section of Koakhtzvigad.
ZScarpia, about the two shortcomings you mention - "description on how the name Palestine came into existence" - Koakhtzvigad has such information - and while I don't agree with some of his mixed-up statements about the present time his info on this historical question may be useful.
the mandate era - Transjordan was part of the mandate, but was administrated separately from the rest of the mandate, e.g. the mandate for Palestine contained two parts - Transjordan and what is now Gaza+Israel+West Bank. And I think that because Transjordan has a separate name, but the rest doesn't - the mandate name "Palestine" get used to refer to these territories (Palestine (region)). Alinor (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is confusion about which Council we are talking about. PNC is not a national legislative organisation. In fact it parallels Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in that it serves to legislate the PLO 'party' processes. The member organisations of the PNC, later mostly incorporated into the PLO, were not so much interested in legislature as in operative recruiting. For all intents and purposes the PNC was an internal political organ of a single-party state until the Al-Fateh vs Hamas split.
On the other hand The Council, as outlined in the Oslo Accords, does have legislative jurisdiction over the wider WB&GS population (but currently constrained in GS), and was able to conduct elections, in which PNC members ran as factional representatives.
Transjordan was not a new mandate territorial creation, just a new name. There is no Wikipedia article for the old Seljuk Kingdom of Kerak, thats all. It was named Transjordan to prevent any hereditary claims from Turkey to the territory.
MANDATED TERRITORY IN ASIA: TRANSJORDAN
Transjordan, This territory, which roughly corresponds to the area of the old Seljuk Kingdom of Kerak and of the Lordship of Montreal or Oultrejourdain in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, is governed by a local Arab Administration under His Highness the Amir Abdullah Ibn Hussein, K.C M G,, G.B.E., born in Mecca, 1882, second son of ex-King Hussein of the Hijaz and elder brother of King Feisal of Iraq [Mesopotamia in 1920], who became its ruler in April 1921 and is assisted by an Executive Council. The country is covered by the Palestine Mandate, but the clauses relating to the establishment of a national home for the Jews are expressly excluded from operation therein. In April 1923 a Declaration was made that, subject to the approval of the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government will recognise the existence of an Independent Government in Trans-Jordan, under the rule of His Highness the Amir Abdullah, provided such government is constitutional and places His Britannic Majesty's Government in a position to fulfill its international obligations in respect of the territory by means of an Agreement to be concluded between the two Governments. This agreement was signed in Jerusalem on February 20, 1928, and having been accepted by the Legislative Assembly set up under Article 11 was ratified by the High Contracting Parties on October 31, 1929. The Organic Law has been published, and the Legislative Council assembled for the first time in April 1929. In 1928 a separate commission was issued to the High Commissioner for Palestine appointing him High Commissioner for Trans-Jordan; he is thus High Commissioner for both areas. STATESMAN'S YEAR BOOK,' 1929, p.194
For the frontiers of Transjordan, see the STATESMAN'S YEAR BOOK,' 1929, pp. 191-2.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Transjordan. I haven't said that Transjordan was a "new mandate territorial creation", but that there were two separate administrations inside the "British mandate Palestine" - one for its sub-unit, the Transjordan, and a second - for the rest (covering current Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip). And because this 'the rest' had no other name designated - it became referred to simply as 'Palestine' (borrowing from the name of the whole mandate that covered todays Israel+West Bank+Gaza Strip+Jordan) - and that seems to be the current (not historical) meaning of Palestine (region) - former mandate territories other than Transjordan.
You are confused about the PNC and PLC:
I think we could communicate better if you don't use "the Council", but use instead the specific PNC or PLC - depending on what you speak about.
You didn't reply anything to my explanation above of the obvious "why PLO is not a state" - but if you still have doubts about that - see here by the PLO representative at the UN: "Moreover, we are confident that in the near future we will truly be able to join the international community, represented in the Organization as Palestine, the State that encompasses Bethlehem." (emphasis mine) - this "Palestine, the State" is not a random phrase - he uses it, because the PLO is represented at the UN as non-state entity referred to as "Palestine" - thus he wants to make a distinction between "PLO/Palestine, the current UN observer and non-state entity" and "Palstine, the State" (State of Palestine as declared in 1988 and recognized by many states -or- a proposed future state as agreed in 1994 Oslo Accords). Clearly, nobody considers the PLO to be a state - it is state-like in many aspects (as I explained above), but still not a state.
Again, I don't see what you want to prove/change in the articles. Alinor (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

move template

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The move discussion finished, right? Should we remove the template from the lead? Alinor (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Government-in-exile status

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments2 people in discussion

Please see here http://fichasmarra.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/recognition-of-states-and-governments-in-international-law/ a simple explanation on state recognition, including that of government-in-exile. This was confirmed here http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000827/082713EO.pdf shortly after the said declaration (with explanation)

In addition, a government-in-exile can only be formed by former citizens of a state from which they were exiled. As far as I know most members of the then-PLO in Algiers did not hold Palestinian citizenship since such a state had not previously existed. They did in fact hold citizenships of other states, Arafat being a Egyptian citizen, and therefore incapable of participating in such a government-in-exile even if such a thing was possible. We will never know who else was in this "government" because the declaration was delivered as a letter (i.e. a mandate) by a Jordanian citizen, unsigned http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6EB54A389E2DA6C6852560DE0070E392

We know that Arafat was involved in composing the mandat (the legal term), because his name is in it.

We also know that it was drafted with the support of two intellectual luminaries: the late poet, Mahmoud Darwish (an Israeli citizen), wrote the original text in Arabic, while the late academic, Edward Said (a US citizen), was involved in the English translation. Both were members of the PNC at the time. Maybe if they had a solicitor also....

Do I have to explain to anyone here the value of unsigned "legal" documents? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The PNC can claim to establish a GiE or to give mandate to the PLO executive committee to perform such functions. Whether the UN or somebody else recognizes such claim is irrelevant. Whether you call this "legal", "illegal" or whatever may be relevant if somebody refers in a court some act/document/etc. from the PNC or the GiE it claims to have established. Then the court will decide what to do with the act/document/etc. - whether it's applicable in the particular case or not, etc.
What the page describes is the State of Palestine. It is also not recognized by UN or by some states - but others do recognize it. I don't understand what you want to change. If it is this, then the question is "what is the official short form name of the State of Palestine?" Such is not written in the declaration that establishes SoP and is not given by the Baroud reference - but maybe it is in the Bissio reference. Anyway, this question is discussed above.
If you want to say that "State of Palestine" itself is unofficial/illegal/etc. - and have suitable sources for this - you can add it in the "Legal status" section - if it isn't already explained. Alinor (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can claim anything.
However, the ENTIRE point of establishing a state is to gain jurisdictional recognition within the community of states. This community functions based on legal frameworks developed just like the laws that citizens of their countries are obligated to uphold in their daily lives. No court can ever establish the legality of any document that is unsigned because A mark or sign made by an individual on an instrument or document to signify knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation. Note the number of signiatures on the United States Declaration of independence, or most other states, including Israel. However, the individuals in this case, even if they did not sign, were not witnesses either! And, anyone forming a government of a state would logically need to abandon their prior citizenship, which they had not.
No matter how one 'turns' this, the declaration, in fact a mandate (since it was handed over) was invalid through either design or ignorance of the participants as no Act of signing followed (?).
Its not officially, because that states that the process of declaration was officiated. For example, when an organisation is formed, it creates a constitution that may require a quorum of shareholders or members to adopt it. Its a process. In this case there was no process.
In the case of other countries the short and official names of the new state are stated in the declaration, but this is not the case here. All the PLO declaration says is "independent state of Palestine", and IF this was recognised, it would be recognised in EXACTLY the form stated, including the independent being spelled without the capital I. All I'm relating here are just legal conventions that have been applied to dozens of other states, so its not OR by a long shot. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"the ENTIRE point of establishing a state is to gain jurisdictional recognition within the community of states." - yes, and the State of Palestine is already recognized by many of the other states. We have sources showing the names of around 110 states ("around" because some are dubious) and similar number is given as total by various sources. You may be interested in these weakly supported by sources - if you can find sources that some of these don't recognize SoP we can remove them from the "recognizer" section. If you are interested in the opposite - finding more countries that recognise SoP - I can point you to another list of examples - where we think that they recognize, but don't have good sources yet and thus we keep these in "non recognizer" or "inconclusive". But I assume that you are more interested in reducing the recognizers list.
So, to clarify again this fact - the State of Palestine IS RECOGNIZED by many states. Regardless if you think that its 1988 declaration is unsigned (I actually don't see why do you think so. Whether the document sent to the UN to notify it about the declaration is signed is irrelevant - the question is whether the declaration itself was signed. Also maybe this is also irrelevant - if the operating procedures of the PNC - the institution who adopted the declaration - don't require signatures). To clarify another fact - existence of a state - or its recognition - DOESN'T depend on the UN. Yes, in practice it's almost the same. But there is no such law/convention or even custom.
"No court can ever establish the legality of any document that is unsigned" - I would leave that to the courts. But in this case I'm not sure that the 1988 declaration is unsigned. Would you please give again only the source where it's written than it is unsigned?
"anyone forming a government of a state would logically need to abandon their prior citizenship, which they had not." - I assume you refer to the PNC members that issued the 1988 declaration. I'm not so sure about what you say - both whether "they logically need to abandon" or about what citizenship all PNC members had at that time - even if this has some relevance. Some states allow double citizenship. Maybe the State of Palestine is one of those.
"since it was handed over"? What was handed over? The document notifying the UN about the declaration? Or the document notifying some other obscure organization about it? Both are irrelevant to the validity of the declaration itself.
"Its not officially ... In this case there was no process." - you want to say that the 1988 Declaration was not adopted by following the PNC operating procedures? Any source about that? I think there was a process - the applicable PNC process for adopting declarations.
"In the case of other countries the short and official names of the new state are stated in the declaration" - I'm not sure, but I agree that "official full name" and "official short name" have to come from relevant official document of the state in question - maybe a "declaration of independence", "law on symbols and names", "constitution" or whatever. In the case of SoP I know only one such source for sure - the 1988 declaration. As discussed above the Baroud source is about PNA. I don't know about the Bissio source - no link/quotation. But the 1988 declaration says: "The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif)." (emphasis mine). Thus non-capital letter on "state" and "independent" word are not there. It's official full name is "State of Palestine" - and MAYBE it's official short name is "Palestine" (per Bissio source).
"and IF this was recognised" - it was. See previous paragraph. I will give you just one of the many sources - Guyana.
Finally I want to note that the UNESCO report that you gave is interesting. Of the 5 criteria for statehood he reaches the obvious conclusion that SoP doesn't control any territory/population (these are inter-related - you need to control a territory in order to have defined population) and on the recognition/relations/government (these are inter-related - a state can recognize another entity as state and can have relations with its government - even if it doesn't control any territory/population - as 'in exile' government, e.g. as government that the first state recognizes to have the legal right to EVENTUALLY control the territory/population it claims) - it gives interesting details:
Algeria 1958 'GiE' itself claimed that to have "recognition 'on the basis of actual control and administration of part of the territory of Algeria'" (e.g. it was a GiE of "alternative" type - without prior control/deposition - see this discussion) and the SoP 'acknowledgement ambiguous - recognition of the declaration of independence - the position adopted, for instance, by the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Hungary' - if true, this is basically what recognition of GiE means - you recognize its right to eventually control its claimed territory/population - and thus to become not-in-exile government (and in the transitional period you treat it diplomatically as "state" or "state government", allow it to deal with its population on your territory - consular issues, issuance of documents, etc.). This was the case with many governments during the WWII and the Baltics GiEs during the Cold War. Alinor (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, please don't insult my intelligence. Recognition of a "state" that failed to submit a declaration of independence in any recognised form? Please!!! You go and buy something on credit, and you need to sign for it. If you have a credit card, there is a signature on it. Its a very basic concept, in all types of law, practiced everywhere. Ask any lawyer in any of the states that "recognised" PLO, and they will just laugh. So please spare me your "reliable sources". They are not going to put signatures on that mandate handed to Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. And this despite saying in the second section that it "affirms the determination of the Palestine Liberation Organization to reach a comprehensive political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of its essence, the question of Palestine, within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles and provisions of international legitimacy, the rules of international law", almost all of which involve acts of signing! (except some conventions)
And IF they recognised PLO as a state, who are its officers?
Claiming territory is more complex than you think. What territory did the PLO claim in its Declaration? The return to pre-1967 borders? Not at all. As it says "The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem."
And how were these borders established? Originally by, the British surveyors working for a Commission that reported on areas where there was CURRENT Arab population. It wasn't any "Palestinian national organisation" that determined the claim, but the simple ethnic/linguistic footprint! In other words the claim to territory was ONE GENERATION OLD.
Where it was older than that, it was almost always recognised by the State of Israel. However, the claim to 'all of former British mandated territory was pan-Arabic, directed at least initially from Cairo. As it says, "The State of Palestine shall be an Arab State and shall be an integral part of the Arab nation, of its heritage and civilization and of its present endeavour for the achievement of the goals of liberation, development, democracy and unity"
I urge you to read the declaration before you speak of it further. It is chock-a-block full of internal contradictions!
Although every other state produced its constitution after declaring independence, PLO had theirs in 1968, which made provisions for many things that states provision for, including sale of stamps! Except they called it Charter. No document named Constitution was produced until after 1995, so for 33 years the Charter was the effective Constitution of the "state". Have you read that? No wonder that 15 years later the "Palestinian People" only have a Third Draft of the Constitution! A draft is just that, and not a binding document. Which document is binding? It seems to me the Charter, though no one signed that either as far as I can tell. Who are the lawyers for the PLO? Arabic version of Blunder & Duffus, Solicitors?
It seems to me we need so synchronize our terminology.
  • Constitution (synonyms - laws, code, charter, canon, body of law, bill, statute, instrument of government)
  • the act of constituting or state of being constituted
  • The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
  • The document in which such a system is recorded, being a legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity
  • the fundamental political principles on which a state is governed, especially when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state
  • The most basic definition used to describe a constitution in general terms was "the arrangement of the offices in a state".
Would you like to compare the PLO Charter, or its Constitution to the Wikipedia article?
A Charter is even more narrowly defined as treaty, or agreement. Who undersigned to that?
Why am I asking for signatures? Because they represent a binding agreement in trust. If the signatories in any way brake the agreement, they will never be trusted again, making achievement of future goals even more difficult without change of personnel.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Because this is a bit convoluted I will reply inside your comments though this is discouraged.
"failed to submit a declaration of independence in any recognised form" - where is the World depository of declarations of independence and what is the procedure/"recognized form" there? I will answer you - there isn't such depository. The only place/procedure that the 1988-Declaration has to follow is the PNC procedure. Do you have any source showing that it WASN'T followed? Actually, have you any source showing that the 1988-declaration ISN'T signed? Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The process of declaration is not formally set out in public sphere it seems, but there is one. However, firstly you are correct in that the declaration is predicated on its recognition by other states. However, the recognition has to be legitimized. It can only be legitimized by those states through their jurisdictions, i.e. the courts, by recognizing the self-proclaimed entity as either one they had dealt with before and continue to recognise as the legitimate government in situ, or that they are going to continue to deal with in exile. In other words, each and every state that recognised PLO's declaration, also has to recognise PLO as a government in its court system. Has this been done? My research suggests that it has not. At least not since 1968, or 88. The PA may have received limited recognition based on the need to transfer funds. PNC procedure therefore has nothing to do with it. As far as the courts of recognising states are concerned, they recognise officers of the government as represented by their legal counsel in court. Who were the officers and under which law were they sworn into their offices? Which court holds them bound to their oaths of office? This is the process I was referring to. The actual declaration is in fact the LAST step in the process! Koakhtzvigad
"The process of declaration is not formally set out in public sphere it seems, but there is one." - yes, you can read about the different aspects of statehood and theories how states are defined, declared, etc. - here.
"It can only be legitimized by those states through their jurisdictions" - no, it can be legitimized by the institution that has the authority to recognize foreign states and by following the procedure as envisioned by the laws of that state - and these are different for each state. The courts will say something about it only if someone (that has such right - for example a majority of Parliament members or something like this) complains to the court about something like "The Government has illegally issued a statement of recognition of the State of Palestine on 1.1.2001. We want this act to be annulled by the High Court of Zambia. Our argument is that the Government hasn't consulted the Parliament as envisioned in 'Zambia law on recognition of foreign states'." (this is example, names and dates are not real).
"to deal with in exile" - yes, states that recognize SoP deal with it 'in exile' - they deal with it trough its embassies and their ambassadors accredited to SoP (such ambassadors are mostly based in Amman, Cairo, Damascus, Tunis, Tel Aviv).
"also has to recognise PLO as a government in its court system" - no it doesn't have to go trough courts for this. Courts deal only with issues brought to them by someone (whether a person, institution, state or whatever). Recognitions of states are not done by the courts - they can be only confirmed or rejected as illegal in the courts - but the recognition itself is done by another institution (Government, MFA, President, Parliament - depending on laws of the state giving the recognition).
"The PA may have received limited recognition" - no, nobody recognizes PNA as state. PNA doesn't claim to be a state. Also, the PNA is unrelated to the SoP (I see that you don't object this, right?). The only common thing between PNA and SoP is that both are established by the PLO and that both are represented abroad by the PLO.
Your comment about court of recognizer states and some officers, etc. - What do you ask? About some hypothetical situation of a court in state that recognizes SoP and where SoP officials are one of the sides in a court case? You ask who appointed the SoP officials? Obviously some of the SoP institutions according to SoP procedures. When two states recognize each-other and establish diplomatic relations - they establish a channel of communication between their governments. One logical arrangement is that the courts of the "recognizer state" would deal with these people that SoP Embassy tells them to be representing the SoP side. Of course each couple of states can decide between themselves how their governments, courts, etc. would communicate with entities of the other state. They can select to apply some convention (even if both have not acceded to it - they just agree - between themselves - "we will do as is written there") on diplomatic relations or make their own treaty or whatever they decide. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"that mandate handed to Javier Pérez de Cuéllar" - if this is the document notifying the UN about the 1988-declaration - this is IRRELEVANT to the validity of the 1988-declaration (see my post above). The RELEVANT things about the 1988-declaration are the PNC procedure and the positions of the states around the world about SoP-as-declared-in-1988-by-PNC. Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is irrelevant, why was it presented? If there was a PNC procedure (see above), when was it enacted, and by who? Positions of public administrations (governments) are only reflected by legitimacy of their establishment in national courts, which ideally should be independent. Agreed? Koakhtzvigad
It is irrelevant for the legality of the 1988-declaration. But it was presented to the UN/UNESCO/whatever, because SoP wants to participate in these organizations.
"If there was a PNC procedure (see above), when was it enacted, and by who?" - When - the PNC procedure was entacted on November, 15, 1988. By who - by a vote of 253 in favour 46 against and 10 abstentions. I don't know if the PNC procedure requires signatures of all voters, only those in favour, only of the PNC chairman, a stamp, signature/stamp of some other PLO institution, or whatever. Do you want to say that "the PLO and PNC procedures were not followed when adopting the 1988 declaration"??
I don't get it what do you want to say with the public administrations/courts comment. Positions of public administrations may be declared illegal by the courts, yes. I don't know for any PLO/SoP court that has declared the 1988-declaration illegal. I don't know for any court of SoP recognizer state that has declared the 1988-declaration illegal or that has declared illegal the decision of its state to recognize SoP. I don't know for any international court that has declared the 1988-declaration illegal (and I don't know if there is a court that has jurisdiction over declarations made by such entities as the PLO/PNC. If PLO/PNC makes some 'crime against humanity' or similar it may get under the universal jurisdiction of the ICC - depending on where/when/by whom the crime is made - but declarations of independence are not such crimes).
You seem to get confused about courts - they make a statement whether something is legal/illegal only if asked by person/entity allowed to ask by the court founding documents and procedures. No court goes automatically after every person or group that makes a declaration of independence or claims independence in the backyard of their leader. So, if you have a links to court opinions that the 1988-declaration is illegal - you can add these to the "Legal status" section. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"And IF they recognised PLO as a state, who are its officers?" - first PLO is not a state, doesn't claim to be a state, isn't recognized by anyone as state. I explained this in our previous discussions. So if you ask "And IF they recognised SoP as a state, who are its officers?" - what do you mean by "who are its officers"? The SoP legislature is the PNC. The SoP president is the PLO Chairman. The SoP government is the PLO Executive Committee. Does this answer the question? Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, the name doesn't matter. It could have been the Disneyland Gardening Organisation for all I care. The centrality is how the state is brought into being constitutionally. This constitutionality, as I argue, pre-existed through the PLO Charter that clearly outlines the public administration functionality of a state. It is not my fault that PLO failed to specify the name of the state, which by default assumes the name of the Constituting body, through direct vote as I understand, of the PNC. Since the Charter nominates an Executive Council, it has to have executive officers, usually called ministers in English. Who were these? However, ministers are only appointed by some independent authority, usually from the judiciary. What was the process of this appointment?
So, who were, in 1988:
  • judiciary of PLO
  • legislature of PLO
  • executive of PLO
Who was bound by some legal instrument to undertake activities commensurate with their offices, and in accordance with the government's (PLO's) policies? Koakhtzvigad
"This constitutionality, as I argue, pre-existed through the PLO Charter" - you argue, but will you give a source? I haven't seen a source stating (and explaining why) that PLO Charter is binding on SoP. Even if it is - I don't see what you want to prove with that?
"ministers are only appointed by some independent authority, usually from the judiciary" - I don't know where you live, but I think that in most countries around the world ministers are not appointed by the judiciary, but by the President/Head-of-state, by the Prime Minister/Head-of-Government or by the Parliament/Legislature. And what do you want to prove with all that?
If you ask about the exact names of members of PNC, PLO Executive Committee or another PLO unit - I don't know these names and don't see why this is so important for you. If you want to say that "these people were not entitled by anybody to make such decisions. They just play game of being a state" or something like this - then the answer is - yes, their decisions are irrelevant until the moment when they have either A] full/sovereign control of some territory (they still don't have such) or B] recognition by someone who has such somewhere (e.g. another state). Since SoP got such recognitions - the 1988-declaration and the SoP institutions are relevant - to the states that decided to recognize SoP (and of course to the people that declared the SoP and to these of the Palestinian people that support and agree with this action). Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Borders. Do you expect that declarations of independence to include GPS coordinates of the borders? It's not uncommon for declarations to be vague on borders. "our Palestinian territory + Jerusalem" is not untypical. There is only one question - does this claim cover Israel (as part of the non-Jordan territories of British mandate Palestine) or only the Occupied Palestinian territories. How old is the claim is irrelevant. Anyway, the recognition sources that I have seen either don't make any reference to borders or refer to "1967 borders" (these are not result of British surveyors, but of the 1948-1949 war) - thus it seems that regardless of what SoP claims those that recognize it recognize its claims only up to Gaza Strip+West Bank (including East Jerusalem). Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There were no GPS in 1988, so no. Common sense would have suggested that clear definition of borders would have been essential in this case. As it happens Palestinian territory has no clear definition. The persistence of claimant is important because it has application in law.
  • Animus derelinquendi. n. “Intention to abandon.” An intention to abandon something. In international practice, the thing abandoned is often territory, as when a state renounces sovereignty or control over territory.
  • Some land laws are derived from maritime laws, such as Res derelicta. n. “Abandoned thing.” Property abandoned by its erstwhile owner and currently belonging to no one, such as the wreck of a sunken vessel after any interest in the wreck has been renounced by its owner. It is often used in law with a word that most people do not realise the legal meaning of, Thesaurus. “Treasure.” Treasure or valuable goods, especially precious metals and money. The term has sometimes been used to mean treasure that has been abandoned or hidden by an unknown person and then discovered by someone else.
  • The reason Animus derelinquendi mentions territory is because it is often used with Animus manendi. n. “Intention to remain.” The intention to stay somewhere indefinitely. Animus manendi is generally considered a prerequisite in private international law for the establishment of domicile and is sufficient to establish domicile at the moment when the person’s residency in a state coincides with animus manendi. E.g., “In the first place, I would point out that, according to the case-law of the court, a person resides in the place in which he has established, with animus manendi, the ‘permanent’ or ‘habitual’ centre of his interests.” Opinion of Advocate General Mancini, Schaflein v. Commission, [1988] E.C.R. 4475, and this in turn affects claims of Animus domini. n. “Intention of the sovereign.” An intention to assert sovereignty or ownership over a territory. E.g., “[T]he possession exercised by the Netherlands was in no way a defective one and was based upon an incontestable legal title.…It was a possession exercised in all good faith, with the animus domini which characterizes a situation of this kind and which the law protects.” Sovereignty Over Certain Frontier Land (Belg. v. Neth.), 1959 I.C.J. Rep. 209, 255 ( Judge Morena Quintana, dissenting).
  • If one simply claims vacant land, its called, in law, Nuda possessio. n. “Naked possession.” Mere possession of property, not necessarily accompanied by legal title or right. This is distinguished from Uti possidetis (iuris). adv. (commonly used as a n.) “So that you may (rightly) possess.” (1) A modern principle according to which a change in sovereignty over a territory, especially due to independence following decolonization, does not ipso facto alter that territory’s administrative boundaries as established by colonial authorities out of respect for succession to legal title by the new sovereign. The doctrine has often been invoked to prevent a change in land and maritime boundaries of former colonies when they become independent states, especially in favor of the sovereignty of aboriginal populations over lands historically occupied by them, and has sometimes been applied aggressively in recent successionist controversies. The uti possidetis iuris doctrine has sometimes been contrasted with uti possidetis de facto, under which principle the operative boundaries are not the boundaries delimited by the colonizing states or their administrations but rather those actually administered by the colonial and post-colonial authorities. E.g., “[U]ti possidetis juris is essentially a retrospective principle, investing as international boundaries administrative limits intended originally for quite other purposes.” Land, Island, and Maritime Dispute (El Salv. v. Hond.; Nicar. Intervening), 1992 I.C.J. Rep. 351, 388, ¶ 43; “It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power. The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when in ependence is achieved.” Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 554, ¶¶ 20, 23. (2) An archaic doctrine according to which a belligerent state acquires sovereignty over all territory claimed and occupied by it at the termination of an armed conflict. (3) More generally, the well established possession of property. (4) In Roman law, a kind of preliminary injunction (interdictum uti possidetis) ordering the party in possession of disputed land or buildings who has not obtained such possession by force, fraud, or gratuitous revocable loan (nec vi nec clam nec precario) to remain in such possession without interference until the dispute over possession is resolved by the court.
In short, yes, I would expect borders. And, yes, what PLO calls 1967 borders, are not borders, but lines of separation following an armistice! They only have validity in a continuing conflict, which is by the way what the declaration restates as its political-military objective in 1988, so that is at least consistent. The call for the 1947 borders is not there. However the partition is recognised as being within the scope of "international legitimacy". Trouble is, one can't pick and choose what that legitimacy is based on PLO interpretation. Koakhtzvigad
And how do you exactly want that an unrelated-to-you group of people should write a declaration about what that THEY declare? They decided to use vague term like "our Palestinian territory". They know what they wanted to say - and maybe they will share this with the outside world. Maybe it is 1967 borders + Israel. Maybe it is 1967 borders (armistice, ceasefire line or whatever name you prefer - and it's not about 'validity', it's about what they claim - it's up to their neighbor and other states to recognize or not these claims). And it isn't 1947 borders as you say. There is no "rule for declaration of independence" that these should give such-and-such level of detail about the borders. Some are pretty vague, others are pretty specific (such as pointing to detailed UN or other maps).
Legality of the 1988-declaration doesn't depend on what territory the newly-declared SoP claims. USSR was recognized by USA even when USA didn't recognize annexation of the Baltics. USSR legality was not in question - only the disputed annexation. Many states recognize Israel even while they don't recognize annexation of Golan, East Jerusalem, No-man's land. In the same way many states recognize SoP even while they don't recognize SoP claims (hypothetical, actually stated officially or whatever) for territory outside the 1967-borders. They recognize SoP claims only over the 1967-borders. Another states recognize SoP without specifying borders (as the 1988-declaration does). This may be inconvenient for Wikipedia editors, but I don't think these governments care about it. If some state cares - it can bring the issue in front of the ICJ, UNGA, UNSC or other relevant authority (if there is such). Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"[1988-Declaration] is chock-a-block full of internal contradictions!" - that's your opinion and I don't find vague references about Arab nation brotherhood feelings and such things as "contradiction". These may be of small practical value, but don't contradict anything. Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to emotional outbursts, which have little place in such documents. Koakhtzvigad
And what are you referring to? Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Constitution. SoP has no constitution yet - AFAIK it will be adopted after it gains control over a territory (where this constitution can be in effect) and until then only drafts are made - so years since 1988 are irrelevant. PLO 1968 document (regardless if charter or constitution) is unrelated to SoP. And again - PLO is not a state, doesn't claim to be a state, isn't recognized by anyone as state. This is in contrast to SoP - SoP is a state, claims to be a state, is recognized by many other states as state. Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Adoption of a constitution does not require territoriality. I know there is no Constitution, but for a state, at least as defined by international law, to exist it has to 'walk' like a state, and 'swim' like a state, and 'quack' like a state, and one of these attributes is some constitutional definition of itself. If can be written on a roll of toilet paper, and can be signed with whatever mark is accepted for a signature in that culture, and by relatively few people, IMHO at least three, but its got to have the constitution just like other states. Until PLO has a document called "Constitution", what the other states recognise is the document called "Charter" (1968), by PLO (the only name on it, so there is no choice). PA is not a state but the administrative organisation of the population in a given territory. This is why no state has recognised the PA (or PNA as they like to style themselves). Koakhtzvigad
"Adoption of a constitution does not require territoriality." - yes, but obviously SoP decided to adopt such after gaining territory and not before. This is SoP decision, not ours.
"for a state, at least as defined by international law, to exist" - there are two options - here - either A] establish a government and control populated territory or B] get recognized as state by another state. No requirement for constitution. Also, I'm not sure that all states have constitutions (what about absolute monarchies, common law systems, etc.?)
Both PNA and PLO are not states, don't claim to be states and no state has recognized these two as states. In contrast SoP claims to be a state and is recognized by many other states as state. Obviously the authorities in these states don't agree with you and don't require "SoP Constitution" for the SoP recognition as state. PLO Charter may be binding on SoP institutions or maybe it isn't - but this is unrelated the recognition of SoP or to the relations between SoP and other states. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"Which document is binding?" I assume you ask "Which document is binding to SoP"? - the 1988-Declaration and subsequent acts of SoP legislature, SoP president and SoP government (when these acts are made in the name of SoP and not in the name of the PLO - because the institutions are double-hatted). Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The Declaration is not binding since its unsigned. Acts can only be enacted under the constitutional authority. One does not follow the other. However, in paragraph 17 of the Annex III (Declaration) it says "The State of Palestine shall be for Palestinians, wherever they may be therein to develop their national and cultural identity and therein to enjoy full equality of rights. Their religious and political beliefs and human dignity shall therein be safeguarded under a democratic parliamentary system based on freedom of opinion and the freedom to form parties, on the heed of the majority for minority rights and the respect of minorities for majority decisions, on social justice and equality, and on non-discrimination in civil rights on grounds of race, religion or colour or as between men and women, under a Constitution ensuring the rule of law and an independent judiciary and on the basis of true fidelity to the age-old spiritual and cultural heritage of Palestine with respect to mutual tolerance, coexistence and magnanimity among religions." Since such a Constitution did not exist, nor existed since that declaration, the "State of Palestine" is not in being by its own definition! This leads me to think that I am right in saying the old Charter of OLO is the de facto "constitutional document". Koakhtzvigad
Does the procedure of PNC require signatures? If it doesn't then such are not needed for 1988-declaration legality. And you still haven't provided a source showing that the 1988-declaration has no signatures.
The part of the quote you give related to constitution is the following: "Their religious and political beliefs and human dignity shall therein be safeguarded under a ..., under a Constitution ensuring the rule of law and an independent judiciary and on the basis of true fidelity to the age-old spiritual and cultural heritage of Palestine with respect to mutual tolerance, coexistence and magnanimity among religions." This only shows intentions that the future SoP constitution will safeguard human dignity/etc. I don't agree with your interpretation that "since no constitution is adopted SoP doesn't exist by its own definition" or that "because of that the PLO charter is the constitution".
Anyway, since SoP doesn't control any territory (e.g. does not satisfy A] theory for statehood) it exists only per B] theory for statehood - e.g. abroad as a GiE. And we have plenty of sources showing this existence of SoP - there are SoP embassies and SoP ambassadors around the world (and here I don't speak about PLO embassies/missions, but about SoP embassies officially acknowledged as such by the states that recognize SoP). Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"Who are the lawyers for the PLO?" - Francis Boyle is one of them. In 2010 tamilnet newssite quoted him claiming that UN members are 195. Go read and decide for yourself how reliable these are. Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Why doesn't that name surprise me :) If there are so many recognitions of the State of Palestine, why do I have such a hard time looking for them online? Boyle also wrote a ridiculous book on the subject. Koakhtzvigad
So, as aways, what do you want to change in the article? Alinor (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
For a start, can add the following:
The establishment of a 'puppet state' in the territory under belligerent occupation also does not lead to the extinction of a previously existing state. As a belligerent occupant does not acquire sovereignty by virtue of the occupation, it cannot transfer sovereignty to the new 'state'.(Stefan Talmon, p.503) Koakhtzvigad
Where do you propose to add this and how is it related to the SoP? Who is the 'belligerent occupant', who is the 'previously existing state', who is the 'new puppet state', where is the territory over which all this happens? Alinor (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me think about where to insert it. I decided to start a sandbox User:Koakhtzvigad/Palestine debugged where the above statement will eventually fit the legal section. I'm having trouble fitting SoP into a logical framework Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The sandbox you make may be appropriate for the Palestine (region) article, but it is not appropriate for this article here. It may be only mentioned VERY BRIEFLY and linked - somewhere in the "background" section
"I'm having trouble fitting SoP into a logical framework". Try the following:
  • "Statehood" is NOT a title given by the UN/some world court/some international organization. There are two theories of who of the polities/entities that claim to be "sovereign states" are really such - either A] those that are recognitized as such by other state or B] those that have full/ultimate/final/sovereign 'control of permanently populated territory'. In most cases A] and B] go together - but there are some cases, where we have A] without B] (State of Palestine; a 'state-in-exile') or B] without A] (Somaliland and depending on who you take into account - maybe also NKR and Transnistria).
  • PLO does NOT claim to be a sovereign state, is NOT recognized as such by any state
  • PNA does NOT claim to be a sovereign state, is NOT recognized as such by any state
  • SoP does claim to be a sovereign state, is recognized as such by some states (see A])
  • PLO/PNA/SoP do NOT have full/ultimate/final/sovereign 'control of permanently populated territory' (see B])
  • PNA has LIMITED 'control of permanently populated territory'. Full/ultimate/final control of this territory is held by Israel (without claiming sovereignty over it - as occupying/administering power only).
  • PLO/PNA/SoP have relations with foreign states. PLO represents abroad also the PNA and the SoP
  • The positions of the states around the world about the SoP-as-declared-in-1988 are one of the following:
    1. XXX recognizes SoP as state-in-exile, that is entitled to eventually control a territory/population, and until that moment it gets full diplomatic treatment as state, including embassies established in the name of the SoP GiE, etc. symptoms: references to "State of Palestine" in the embassies/ambassadors/relations/recognitions lists; National day: 15 November 1988 - Independence day
    2. XXX recognizes Palestine state right to exist, its entitlement to eventually control a territory/population, but until that moment 1988-SoP is not recognized as state, the SoP GiE is not recognized as representative of the 'eventual Palestine state'. Until that moment XXX deals only with the PLO/"Palestine, the UN observer entity" and with the PNA established by it - but not with "PLO-as-1988-SoP-GiE". symptoms: references to "Palestine"/PLO/PNA/"Palestinian territories" in the embassies/ambassadors/relations/recognitions lists; missing any Palestine/SoP reference from these lists; non-embassy/consulate mission types: delegation, mission, office, representation; National day: 1 January 1965 - Revolution day or other non-15.11.1988 day
I hope this helps. Alinor (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

States recognising the "State of Palestine"

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I can only find one statement of recognition, unsigned. Does anyone have an updated list of these states so I may go an look for such statements? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean you can only find the Guyana statement that I shown above? Of course it isn't signed - it's a statement/announcement shown on the MFA website - where do you expect to see signature there?
So, if you want more you can read [6], [7] and [8] (the last one has signatures - as you prefer it).
For even more - have you looked at the " these weakly supported by sources " link (and the Wikipedia article it is about - here) in my comment from 09:07, 20 January 2011 above? Alinor (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
HaHaHaHaHa - Abbas 'president of the state of Palestine'!!! And which document names it as such? I mean there are certain legalities to being a state, just like being a citizen of a country. If I arrive in UK, and ask a few dozen people if I would make a good UK citizen, and they agree, does that mean I can write myself out a UK passport by consensus (the word so loved in Wikipedia)? The reality is that the real World doesn't work by consensus. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Which document? This [9] clearly shows it. Do you mean "what SoP document declared Abbas to be SoP president?" I don't know, but I assume that you don't question the existence of PNC (SoP legislature)/PLO Executive Committee (SoP GiE) decision to title Abbas/the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee as "SoP President".
Your next comments show that you think "statehood" is a title given to states at some central location, maybe the UN. This is simply incorrect. If Dominican Republic recognizes Abbas as SoP president, then - for the purpose of relations with the Dominican Republic HE IS the SoP President. The same for the other states that recognize SoP. Alinor (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, which document names the State of Palestine as its legal name?
I do question the existence of PNC. There is only Palestinian Authority, by agreement with Israel.
No, "statehood" is a title given by the designated public administration (government) so the people can recognise what state they belong to! They do not get this information from the Dominican Republic's President. So where, in which document, does it say that the population of "Palestine" are citizens of the "State of Palestine"? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"which document names ...?" - again, are you asking "what SoP document declared Abbas to be SoP president?" (see 14:00, 22 January 2011) or you ask about SoP and not SoP President? (then see 1988 Declaration).
"I do question the existence of PNC." - why? Any source showing that it doesn't exist? We have numerous sources showing the contrary - that it meets, takes decisions, etc. One of its decisions is the adoption of the 1988 Declaration. PNC appoints the members of the PLO Executive Committee, that in turn "runs" an organization (PLO) that has diplomatic relations with ~140 states and is observer in many international organizations, including the UN. And you question its existence?
It is a separate issue whether some PNC decision is applicable somewhere or it's just an announcement like "We, PNC members, think that there should be SoP", "We, PNC members, think that all people should dress in white clothes". This depends on having 'control of permanently populated territory'. bullet5 of my 14:37, 22 January 2011 above.
"There is only Palestinian Authority, by agreement with Israel." - Really? Well, you can inform on that the UNGA that deals with the PLO since before Israel recognized it as representative of the Palestinian people and while Israel was still classifying it as "terrorist organization" instead. You can also inform on that the AL and OIC that deal with the SoP.
If you want to say that 'on the ground' only the PNA is allowed by Israel to perform some administrative tasks in specific areas, then yes. bullet6 of my 14:37, 22 January 2011 above.
"statehood" - see Sovereign state and bullet1 of my 14:37, 22 January 2011 above. SoP is currently in case 'A] without B] (state-in-exile)', because it doesn't have 'control of permanently populated territory'. What it does - bullet8,point1 of my 14:37, 22 January 2011 above.
"So where, in which document, does it say that the population of "Palestine" are citizens of the "State of Palestine"?" - the 1988 declaration says "The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be." Since currently SoP doesn't have 'control of permanently populated territory' this part of the 1988-declaration is so far applicable only in relation to consular protection and similar things for Palestinians that are in foreign states that recognize SoP (just as US citizens receive consular protection from the US embassies around the world). That's what "A]/GiE" means in the framework of international relations.
If you ask "Where does SoP have 'control of permanently populated territory'?" or "Where does SoP have 'limited' control?" - the answere is nowhere. That is irrelevant for A]. Alinor (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Time zone

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the info box the time zone appears to be off by one hour. Shouldn't it be UTC+2 in winter and UTC+3 in summer, like Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon? Indefatigable (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Leading paragraph

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

This source is cited on the article: "Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. 'Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence'". So basically there are two views: Some Palestinian think the State of Palestine has not been declared yet, and some think it has been declared but not established de facto. In any event, it cannot be presented as a state, cf. the article about Western Sahara in which the territory is not described as a state, even though it was declared as such. Sirwal (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What an earth are you yapping about? "Western Sahara" has never been declared as a state. It's the name given to a disputed territory. Are you thinking of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? Nightw 08:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected, but it doesn't change the basic issue that the text contradict the sources upon which it is based. My changes were automatically reverted despite the fact that they better reflected the sources. If you use sources this way, you might as well say that Palestine is on the moon and cite Saeb Erekat to "support" that. Sirwal (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs a tune up, and it's in the process of being reverted to an earlier version. While the Erekat source will most likely get deleted in the process, your interpretations were not attributed back to a reliable secondary source. So I reverted them. Nightw 10:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow you. You mean Mr. Erekat is not a reliable source? Anyway, since the article defined the State of Palestine as a polity (according to the article's "history"), has anything changed? Has the Palestinian National Authority gained more power? Can you source such claim? I know a few countries in South America recognized the State of Palestine, but that changes nothing except the number of states that granted symbolic recognition to the 1988 declaration (and that number is not clear to begin with, as indicated by a reliable source mentioned in the article). So, in short, you defend a non-sourced version, while there used to be a better version. Why on earth would you do that? Sirwal (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The Palestinian National Authority is the government of the occupied Palestinian territories. It has nothing to do with the State of Palestine. For the record, the number of states that recognise Palestine as a state is over 110, and we have sources for each and every one of them, leaving the 80 or so that don't in the minority. When it comes to contentious issues, since WP:NPOV dictates that we represent all significant viewpoints fairly, proportionately, and without bias, describing the State of Palestine as "a proclaimed state" is easily justified. Nightw 13:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You are talking with a person who knows one or two things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The number you suggested is just an estimation, which is probably wrong (read the sources that this article brings, they are mentioned for a reason). I suppose this subject interests you, so let me tell you that many countries said they "welcome" the 1988 declaration or something similar, and this is not exactly a recognition in the diplomatic or legal sense. Furthermore, some of the countries that extended full recognition to the declaration do not exist anymore, for example the German Democratic Republic or Czechoslovakia. Anyway, recognition does not make a state. A state has effective control over a territory, a population and capability to engage in international relations. Of these three criteria, the State of Palestine has only one - the third one (again, read the sources brought in the article itself). To sum it up, you cannot define the State of Palestine as a state without misleading those people who are not fully acquainted with the delicate situation in the Middle East. Sirwal (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"You are talking with a person..." Oh, sorry, I'd mistaken you as being ignorant, since you made the simple mistake by describing the PNA as the government of the State of Palestine.
"A state has effective control over a territory, ...". That is one definition of a state. There is another, and WP:NPOV requires that we present both fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Nightw 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you consider me as an ignorant trying to teach me about theories in international law. Wikipedia, as far as I understand its rules and goals, do not take controversial theories as basis for articles. You cannot say "Palestine is a state" based on controversial theory about what state is. You can indeed say that according to certain theories of international law, the partial recognition in the 1988 declaration is enough to treat it as a state, and yet you cannot make a factual statement in the preamble based on controversies. You are building a roof of stone on walls made of paper. Sirwal (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Which of the two theories do you consider controversial? Both, or just the constitutive? Because you just cited the declarative as logic for Palestine not being a state. I'm confused by your one-sidedness... Nightw 12:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The very fact that you need a theory to justify the title "state" indicates that this word is wrong. I know very well the rhetorical method of blurring facts by talking about theories and isms. I'll give you an example from another field in order to make things clearer. Suppose I write that substace X is a medicine. You claim that it cannot be called a "medicine" because it is not regularly used to cure people or animals. I say that according to some medical theories X can be considered a medicine, hence the term is correct. Would you accept such an argument? Please be honest. Sirwal (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"A state has effective control over a territory, ..." Did you not just use a theory to discredit the Palestinian state? Still confused by your one-sidedness... Nightw' 10:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed that you stopped justifying your claim that Palestine is a state and stated to bring far-fetched theories or philosophical thoughts about my arguments. In short, you cannot prove your point. So, first of all, return the article to its last stable version. Secondly, bring serious evidence to your claim. If you mean that Palestine became a state because countries in South America recognized a Palestinian state, then I tell you that it is not enough. International recognition is only one element of a state. Wikipedia does not define the Sovereign Military Order of Malta as a state despite wide international recognition, and it does define the Republic of China as a state despite partial recognition. Sirwal (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't need to "justify" its status as a state. I'm not here for a debate. We just present what reliable, third-party sources say. Saying that this "is a state that was proclaimed" means that it's a proclaimed state, which is fact. It was proclaimed in 1988, and does claim to be a state. Whether it is or isn't is disputed, and that's demonstrated in the article. On the other hand, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has never claimed statehood, and it isn't recognised as one. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit more before you start talking about things you don't know anything about. I won't continue to debate this with you. If you want to get support for your edits, open an RfC. Nightw 13:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The International Law Commission has always refused to define the term "state" or to set forth qualifications to be possessed by a community in order that it may become a State. The Commission and Secretary-General have reported that it is a political question, not a legal one. States are abstract legal entities.
John Quigley has written: Israel negotiated an agreement with an entity that had been designated the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. Both sides agreed to establish a Palestinian government on part of the territory of Palestine. The Oslo agreements with Israel did not address the issue of statehood. Statehood is not one of the enumerated "final status issues". Borders are to be negotiated as a final status issue, but agreeing to negotiate borders does not mean that Palestine was not a state, any more than it meant that Israel was not a state. Only states negotiate borders. The Interim Agreement of 1995, which is the major post-Oslo agreement, specifies that neither party shall be deemed “to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions” (Art. 31-6). So, the 1988 Palestinian position on statehood was preserved. Netanyahu has proposed recognition of Palestine within interim borders. So its present qualifications for statehood are a political question, not a final status issue. harlan (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I've provided several sources which say that the PLO/PNA no longer pays any attention to the separation of labor contained in the lapsed Oslo Accords. "Palestine" is a "member state" of the ESCWA. It is a state party to agreements that are only open for signature to Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) member states or other states. Here is a link to the UN Treaty Organization page which says that full powers for the signature of ESCWA agreements on behalf of Palestine are issued by BOTH the PLO and PNA. [10] It is WP:OR to claim that PNA has nothing to do with SoP. harlan (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
See 10:35, 20 March 2011 comment above about ESCWA not referencing to the 1988 SoP, but to PLO. PLO is member of ESCWA, not 1988 SoP. No 'UN Treaty Organization' page shown so far makes reference to the 1988 SoP. Do you have any source showing that PNA has something to do with 1988 SoP? What change in the article do you propose here? Alinor (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to comment about the manner of the discussion here. Apparently, when someone doesn't like an argument made here, he strikes it out. This is a violent way to conduct a discussion, and unfortunately I saw it quite a few times on Wikipedia. As for the article, it says that "Palestine is a state", and yet this statement contradicts the words of the Palestinian National Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas to Al-Jazeera, see here: http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article240023.ece and here: http://www.politifi.com/news/Abbas-rules-out-unilateral-declaration-of-Palestinian-statehood-But-third-Intifada-could-result-if-no-progress-by-September-1763207.html for an English summary. A state cannot be declared several times, unless there was a period in between in which it stopped existing. So, according to the words of the Palestinian leader himself, there is currently no state called Palestine, and it will come into existence only per agreement with Israel. 109.67.115.45 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Abbas has recently opened several Embassies of the State of Palestine in Latin American countries in addition to the existing ones in Russia, China, India, and etc. The article already cites Abbas's explanation that Palestine is an existing state and that he is currently trying to get its borders recognized. There is no legal requirement for Palestine to obtain Israel's consent before it can come into existence. Palestine was already a state before negotiations began with Israel. Professor Quigley has written

"The post-Oslo agreements with Israel do not address the issue of statehood. Statehood is not one of the enumerated final status issues. Borders are to be negotiated as a final status issue, but agreeing to negotiate borders did not mean that Palestine was not a state, any more than it meant that Israel was not a state. Only states negotiate borders. The Interim Agreement of 1995, which is the major post-Oslo agreement, specifies that neither party shall be deemed “to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions” (Art. 31-6). Thus, the Palestinian position on Palestine statehood, far from being renounced, was preserved.

The Israeli press has been full of reports that Palestine is pursuing UN recognition of its statehood, and that there will be no new unilateral declaration. Half the members of the UN, including Israel, have disputed borders. That is not a criteria for membership. Several UN member states have been occupied, i.e. Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, that is not a bar to UN membership. harlan (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Any sources for these "several recently opened State of Palestine embassies in Latin America"? There are several recent announcements of Latin American states that they recognize SoP or that they recognize PNA right to establish a Palestine state. But I don't know sources about "several recently opened SoP embassies".
What the articles above and [11] and [12] clearly show is that there are expectation for the PNA to declare a state in Sep2011 - in the FUTURE. These articles don't explain what will be the relation between this future Palestine state (all or almost all states recognize PNA right to establish such an independent and sovereign Palestine state) and the PRESENT State of Palestine already declared in 1988 (currently recognized as state by between 60 and 117 states - we have official explicit sources for 60, the rest to 117 are less certain). My assumption is that the future PNA-declared Palestine state will be announced as successor to the 1988 PNC-declared State of Palestine - or 1988 SoP will be disbanded following the PNA declaration - but we will see.
"Abbass this, Abbass that" - remember that Abbass currently has three posts: PLO-EC chairman (acting since Oct2004, regular since Nov2004), SoP President (acting since May2005, regular since Nov2008) and PNA president (regular Jan2005 to Jan2009, disputed and acting until next elections - since Jan2009). So, you need to be more specific whether he speaks about PLO, SoP or PNA activities.
Quigley is PLO-affiliated and the quote you give is worded in such a way that it's unclear what entities he refers to in some parts of it. Anyway, it's unrelated to what we argue - yes, 1988 SoP is a state - according to those that recognize it (others don't recognize it, including Israel), but this is unrelated to the Oslo accords - they envision a two-state solution where borders will be negotiated between Israel and the PLO. Whether after eventual successful negotiations the PLO decides to "give" these negotiated borders to the SoP that it has declared in 1988 and with which it shares its institutions (PNC, PCC, PLO-EC) - or the PLO decides to establish another state (based on the PNA) and to disband 1988 SoP and the PLO itself (along with PNC, PCC, PLO-EC) - this will be an internal issue of the PLO.
Disputed borders and UN membership criteria are irrelevant to statehood and to territorial control, so I don't see why you mention these. Of course a state can have disputed borders. Of course a state with disputed borders can be UN member. A state without control over any territory may be a UN member - by exception if the other members recognize its government-in-exile - but SoP currently is neither UN member state nor UN observer state nor UN observer non-state entity. PLO is the UN observer entity.
"Palestine is pursuing UN recognition of its statehood" - what does this mean? There is no "UN recognition of statehood" and who is "Palestine" here? I assume you want to say "PNA is pursuing recognition by UN member states of its right to establish a Palestine state along the 1967 borders".
"there will be no new unilateral declaration" - what the articles say is that any future declaration should be made not unilaterally, but after agreement with Israel - because the previous 1988 declaration that was unilateral is useless, because Israel prevents SoP from controlling any territory, so unilateral declarations are useless if Israel doesn't accept them (or, I assume, unless the UN or other external actors "force" Israel to accept them). Alinor (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_7&oldid=1137203452"