Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about State of Palestine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Prime Minister?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Arabic Artical say that the Prime Minister position is disputed between Salam Fayad and Ismail Haniya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.20.60 (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See Leaders of Palestinian institutions - SoP doesn't have a Prime minister. The disputed Prime Minister is of the PNA. Alinor (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Updates

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Many of the figures regarding recognition are outdated. Updated figures as follows:

More than 100. Source: Israeli PM Netanyahu via The Australian;
112. Source: Riyad Mansour via Associated Press;
118. Source: Caroline Glick, columnist at The Jerusalem Post;
130. Source: Pres. Abbas via Haaretz.

In the last instance, Abbas is speaking about recognition at the General Assembly in September: "We have more than 130 nations set to recognize the Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and even if we make no further efforts, that number could be increased to 140 or 150." I think replacing some of the older, more outdated claims with these would be helpful. Nightw 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All of these are about future PNA-based state. There are some indications that it will be somehow linked to the 1988-declared-SoP[1][2] that's described in the article here - but in order to know what will happen we have to wait until the Constitution Committee takes its decision or until the Sep2011 UNGA event.

I don't object mentioning these sources in the "Sep2011" subsection of the "PNA" section. Actually I think they should be mentioned and the Sep2011 event should be described to the biggest detail we can find in the sources - it seems that it will be a major event in relation to Palestinian statehood. But I object using these figures for states that recognize the 1988 declared State of Palestine - this is not what the sources are about.

When Sep2011 comes, and if PNA and SoP are somehow merged - then the SoP-only information (for the period 1988-2011 + and maybe also pre-1988 history) should be preserved in some historical article. Alinor (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what the September thing is about. It's not another declaration, they're simply going to the UN to gain admission as a member state and thus gain a binding resolution recognising the already-declared state [3][4][5][6]. Whatever changes to the government come with that (e.g., the PNA replaces the PNC) would be purely statutory, but would not replace the current state with a new one (same with Libya—a new government does not mean a new state). That's why South American states are recognising the "State of Palestine" and not saying that they will recognise a (different) state come September. Nightw 02:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No. All these are related to the initiative to increase PNA administrative and institutional capacity so that it's ready to become the foundation of a state in Sep2011 (see sources from comment 08:23, 15 April 2011 and the previous onehere). Whether it will merge with the SoP or another state will be declared is a separate issue (and frankly, few of the sources discuss it and even those that discuss it don't go into details, but from what I've seen so far I assume that it will be merged with SoP somehow - but nobody has confirmed or denied this yet). The statements like "we don't need another declaration" are in the sense "there is no use in more declarations if we remain under Israel occupation - we need real independence, not empty words/declarations".[7]

That's why many of the recognition statements are about "a Palestine state" (instead of "the State of Palestine") - they leave the issue to the PNA authorities to sort out whether their future state will be based on current 1988 SoP or something else/new. Especially the recent South American recognitions (Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Uruguay). Alinor (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not under occupation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The text "and its claimed territory remains under Israeli occupation."^[1] was changed repeatedly to "and much of its claimed territory remains under Israeli occupation."^[1] with the explanations "Rafah and many other towns are not under occupation" and "not accurate since "Zone A" created under Oslo accords and Gaza diengagement". I see that the issue is already elaborately discussed in the archive and in the article itself - with plenty of sources showing otherwise.

Military occupation and Occupied territory have specific meaning and according to the available sources Israel is still occupying power of both Gaza and the West Bank, including all of their areas, zones, etc. This doesn't mean that there is Israeli soldier at every or any junction in Rafah. For sources about that see the article here, the archive, the article about Zone A, B and C, the article about Gaza disengagement, the article about Israeli-occupied territories.

In addition the notion that some parts of the claimed territory are not under Israel occupation is contradicted by the source right after the sentence in question. Japinderum (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge Request with Proposals for a Palestinian state

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While there is doubtless space for the history of the State of Palestine, this article seems to currently represent a content fork, and should be united in this article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion that rejected this proposal at Talk:Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state#Merge. This is not a content fork - this article is about the State of Palestine as far as it exists from 1988 onwards - it describes the historical background and then the present institutions that currently aren't implemented on the ground and don't control any territory, but have diplomatic recognition by and have established diplomatic relations with many states around the world (like a government in exile). This is related to the Proposals for a Palestinian state in the sense that the State of Palestine is one of these proposals - the one that has gained so much recognition so far, that it's notable enough to have its own separate article. So, I'm opposed to such merge. Japinderum (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of recognizing countries

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, this source has the PLO saying that the number of states recognizing Palestine is 139. This is more than the number currently in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

The infobox has some conflicting items. I corrected the name (it showed the short name in the tag for long name), but others remain - there is no Prime minister of the state - the two persons mentioned are prime ministers of the Palestinian Authority (and the government type obviously isn't semi-presidential as there is no prime minister); a wrong speaker of parliament is mentioned - the speaker of the Authority parliament instead of the correct one - Salim Zanoun; it's not obvious from the infobox that the state is under occupation. Japinderum (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with comments. DGtal (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, if you want to update names that's fine, but as you know we've had this discussion over the government type before. "Occupied territory" is not a form of government. Please refer back to the original discussion we had for sources. Nightw 11:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's me who opened this section and it's not exactly related to discussion you participate above about sources giving the number of recognitions. It seems you are opposed to mentioning "occupied territory" at the government line. Fine, but then don't revert my whole edit. And where should we mention this defining property of the State of Palestine - that it's under occupation? Japinderum (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Where you've put it is fine. Nightw 01:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The State of Palestine currently does not have a prime minister or semi-presidential system. Its governance system is defined in the declaration of independence ("parliamentary democratic system of governance") - not yet enforced drafts of various documents don't change that. I don't know which institutions you refer to as "institutions are all implemented" - the latest State of Palestine institution to be established is its Presidency back in 1989. Institutions that are implemented in practice on the ground are only the interim administrative institutions of the Palestinian Authority - there is a possibility that those will be subsumed by the state, but this isn't yet a done deal (Hamas non-participation in the PLO and state institutions doesn't help). In any case, the remark "not implemented" on the event line "Effective" is related to the implementation of the Declaration of Independence (the previous event - "Declared") and it clearly isn't yet implemented since its territory is still under occupation. And what's the problem with the link to Occupied territory? Also, why remove "by Israel" after "territory still occupied"? Japinderum (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Not yet implemented" bluntly implies that the declaration has not been implemented, which is false. The parliament is established, the presidency is established, its foreign relations are established. You added it back without consensus after an editor disputed it—please see our editing policy, which you are more than familiar with. Either remove the note (and the pointy "proclaimed" on the type of government) or I'll revert back to this revision and it will stay there. You won't last long here if you continue to disrespect collaboration. Nightw 13:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And why would you revert to a version that you and DGtal already agreed to be incorrect? Is this an example of the "collaboration" you strive for? Why don't you revert to your version right before the edit you dispute?[8] I think this shows an attitude of attacking nature and non-cooperation. Please don't issue such misguided threats.

The declaration is not yet implemented in that (very important) part that is after the dash - implementation on the ground in the physical territory. Also, the parliament was already established years before the declaration (the declaration is issued by the parliament) - but most importantly the territory is still under Israeli occupation. This is what prevents the State of Palestine from taking effect on the ground. The state institutions and foreign relations are prepared, yes, and when the occupation ends these institutions will get to be implemented in practice. But you can't have both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine controlling the same territory. This is acknowledged by Palestinian officials.[9] "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". Abbas also made similar statements lately.[10] "Abbas acknowledged that a 'yes' vote at the UN will not immediately change life in the West Bank or Gaza" (anyway, I think State of Palestine observer or member status at the UN should be mentioned as second "event" in the infobox (between "Declaration" and "Effective") - when it gets such status). What do you disagree here?

Also, what date would you suggest putting at "Effective" if is already implemented? Isn't this the date of ending Israeli occupation and State of Palestine assuming control over the territories (with whatever final borders are agreed or enforced)? If you think it's better instead of "not implemented" we can put "not implemented yet", "not fully implemented" or something like that - but I thought that the "territory under occupation" right afterwards is enough as clarification and lengthier wording is unnecessary.

If it bothers you so much I agree with removing "proclaimed" on the type of government (I put it there because I expect that when effective implementation time comes it will be changed to semi-presidential or presidential). Japinderum (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The declaration doesn't mention any specific territory or borders. Also, if territorial control is the only thing left to implement from the declaration, then it's mentioned quite clearly and doesn't need to blanket statement next to it—which is incorrect anyway. Nightw 07:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the opposite - the main thing that's needed to implement the declaration is territorial control. That's what "independence" means. The fact that this isn't accomplished should be clearly shown (presently there isn't ANY territory controlled by the State of Palestine, so the lack of specific borders is irrelevant). The declaration is either implemented or not. Independence is either achieved or not. So, the Palestinian Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1988. When did it came in effect? When has it been implemented? Currently it isn't. Do you agree? Japinderum (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly shown. It reads "Territory still under foreign occupation" in plain English right there, with a footnote explaining it even further. How is adding "not implemented" above that going to make it any clearer??? Saying that the declaration as a whole is "not implemented" is incorrect, given that the institutions it mentions are in effect. So it's both unnecessary and incorrect. Nightw 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The declaration is not implemented. The institutions are ready-for-implementation, but they aren't implemented yet. We speak here about state institutions, not about the Oslo interim administration institutions operating in territories over which Israel is responsible as occupying power (Gaza, West bank Area A, B, C). Do you agree with the last sentence? Japinderum (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Do you agree that both the parliament ("parliamentary democracy") and the presidency are in effect? Nightw 10:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The parliament and presidency are not in effect on the ground - they don't have control over any permanently populated territory. Territorial control is one of the defining properties of any state - so lacking it means that the declaration isn't implemented yet. Japinderum (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As you probably know some states refuse to grant diplomatic recognition and to establish diplomatic relations with entities lacking territorial control - governments in exile, Holy See during the period when it lacked territory, etc. Japinderum (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. Are they or are they not established institutions? Nightw 05:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Institutions are as established as the institutions of any government in exile - without having control over the territory their state claims. The 1988 declaration of independence is still not in effect in Palestine. Institutions are prepared and functioning abroad, but not inside the territory of the state itself. Japinderum (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously incorrect. Nightw 04:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What's incorrect? The institutions meet in places located inside the claimed territory (just as any group of individuals meets privately), but their decisions are not enforced in that territory (and actually, they don't take decisions about day-to-day governance inside the territory - their decisions are in the diplomatic realm - trying to persuade Israel and the rest of the world to allow these institutions to control the territory; decisions about day-to-day governance inside the territory are taken by Israel and by the PNA in cases where Israel agrees - not by the institutions of the State of Palestine) - because the territory in question is still occupied by Israel. Japinderum (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A fact duly noted right there. Implementation and affect are two different things. There is a president and a legislative body who preside over the dealings of the state. What those dealings affect on the ground has nothing to do with implementation. Nightw 08:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what "independence" means. I think that a "declaration of independence" that isn't followed by actual control over at least some part of the territory claimed (e.g. maybe most of it, but with a border/territorial dispute over some areas) can't be considered to be "implemented" or "in effect". It's more of an "announcement" of intent for future achievements/actions. For some (most?) of the governments around the world this may be enough (combined with all other details surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) for them to start dealing with the "announcers" as equal partners such as granting diplomatic recognition to their "government in exile" (yes, technically it's not "in exile", I know), etc. But this doesn't make the "independence to be effective" or "implemented". Japinderum (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like the following added to the lede - "As of 2024, 146 (75.6%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations,have recognised the State of Palestine. Their total population is over 5.2 billion people, equalling 75 percent of the world's population.^[2]"

Done. Nightw 06:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What possible relevance does that figure bring to the table? Just because a country's gov't officials vote to recognize something, does not mean they speak for all of their citizens. To my knowledge, no extra-Palestinian, large-scale vote has ever taken place in any, let alone all, of these countries. This seems to be POV-pushing, as in "look-75% of the world agrees to a Palestinian state" - when, in fact, this isn't true. You would get supporters, non-supporters, and a very large degree of indifference is such a tally were actually taken. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

intro

Please change the beginning of the last sentence of the first paragraph from "It claims" to "The PLO claims". The pronoun use is currently confusing. — Reinyday, 07:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is this shit? The section on etymology does not answer the question on were the name Palestine comes from, it seems to be the recent Zionist propaganda that begun in the 21-century. Not that there is anything wrong with Zionism but propaganda should not be overwriting facts in an encyclopedia. Im from Sweden and I know of many older Swedish mentions of Palestine than the Palestinian mandate, and during those times Sweden was a very very long way from Palestine. Examples: In "Nordisk Familjebok" from 1856 its mentioned that Swedes took part in the crusades during the 12th century. Vikings visited "Jorsala" (Jerusalem) during the 7th, 8th and 9th century, and found it being located in "Filaland" (Philistea) witch was a part of "Särkland" (Arabia, literary land of long shirts) an was reached by Swedish vikings by going from Russia (Gårdarike) and Greece (Miklagård). But that is nothing because the Romans called the land Palestine a thousand years before that and the Egyptians called it Palestine a thousand years before the Romans.

Please don't remove sourced content relevant to the article. Obviously the section could do with expanding, but removing it entirely is not helpful. If you have something to add, please do so—with a source of course. Nightw 12:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The current etymology section begins "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". This statement is problematic in so many ways that I agree we would be better off completely without it. Either someone expands the contents greatly or we just leave the "Further information" links. The current status is extremely problematic. DGtal (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Small change: Outdated number of nations who has recognised Palestine

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The introduction of this article reads: "As of September 2011, 127 (65.8%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine."

This number might be outdated, as it is incongruent with the following article: International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.145.23 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Small change: Outdated number of nations who has recognised Palestine

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The introduction of this article reads: "As of September 2011, 127 (65.8%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine."

This number is incongruent with the following article: International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine, and also incongruent with the source linked earlier in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.145.23 (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Language

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The offical language of palestine is Arabic, not Palestinian Arabic, whihc is the spoken form. Ybgursey (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed again today. I think it is extremely unlikely (though not impossible) that a local variation of Arabic would be specified as the official language. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Zahar

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

[11] "'Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,' Zahar said." Retrieved from Ma'an News Agency, January 5, 2012

This statement was deleted from the article, on the premise that Zahar also said "since we are resisting occupation, we should use all means including armed resistance." But the full paragraph in which he says that is:

"We can't use the same means seen in Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia because they are inappropriate in the West Bank. Egypt got rid of the British occupation with arms, and since we are resisting occupation, we should use all means including armed resistance."

He is saying that the West Bank is occupied, not Gaza. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think he is making a statement about the legal status under international law or a statement about whether it is physically occupied by settlers and soldiers in front of which Palestinians could demonstrate ? It's the ambiguity and the decontextualizing I have a problem with and the use of a cherry picked half quote from an op-ed by an pro-Israel advocacy organization. It's propagandistic. Hamas makes propagandistic statements about peaceful vs armed resistance. They are cherry picked and turned into other propagandistic statements by the other belligerent. They then get transformed into Hamas says "Gaza is no longer occupied" and they get added to an encyclopedia where occupied has a specific legal meaning when it's used by sources like the UN, HRW, the EU etc. The context of the statements are attempts to persuade Hamas to agree to adopt "non-violent popular action in favor of armed struggle" which they claim are of no use in Gaza because there is no one to demonstrate against. To me, it is unreasonable to transform that statement into "However, the co-founder of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar, has stated that Gaza is no longer occupied since the Israeli withdrawal" (as you did in the Palestinian territories and Gaza Strip articles) when it not clear whether he is using the term formally i.e. belligerent occupation (via effective control for example as others claim) or informally as in physically occupied. I'm not against including something from the Ma'an source but I think it needs care. I think what you have done in this article is particularly problematic because oddly you have allowed a single statement by Hamas to decide the entire international community's view on the legal status of the territory when you surely know that it is far more complicated than that. Gaza is still regarded as occupied by many. You say it isn't. I see you have posted to several talk pages. I'll just respond here to avoid repetition. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, these articles are covered by WP:1RR so take care not to break that. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he's making a statement about a fact. It's pretty obvious that it isn't occupied. The definition of occupation that some people use to say otherwise isn't used for any other place in the world. If the US blockades Iran, no one says that they're "occupying" Iran. It's a special use of a term just for Israel, sort of like the way the term "refugee" gets used for Arabs whose families have been living in the US for three generations.

Criticizing the quote as "the use of a cherry picked half quote from an op-ed by an pro-Israel advocacy organization", particularly after I've replaced that quote with the original from Ma'an seems a little disingenuous. As it turned out, the quote was 100% correct.

I wasn't aware of the 1RR. Thanks for letting me know. I assume that means I can expect you to revert the edits again tomorrow? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see Lisa's point, but as an RS Maan or Zahhar are good for nothing, except their own opinions. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but Zahhar's opinion isn't like mine or yours. The guy is a co-founder of Hamas. His opinion is far more relevant, and I think the article would be flawed by omitting his position. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm commenting here about my edit at Palestinian territories, which was original research. From WP:NOR:

Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. [emphasis in original]

The source did not support the article's assertion that "Mahmoud Zahar has stated that Gaza is no longer occupied since the Israeli withdrawal." It was an inference on the part of an editor that what Zahar said had that meaning, and that's original research. If Zahar has stated that, it shouldn't be hard to find a source that says so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Suppose instead of saying "Mahmoud Zahhar has stated that Gaza is no longer occupied", I'd written "Mahmoud Zahhar has referred to the Israeli occupation as something in the past"? It's a mouthful, and it's terrible writing, but it wouldn't make the "inference" you mention. But the truth is, that's not original research at all. Let me give you an example. Suppose there's a metal which is commonly believed to have only 3 stable isotopes. And suppose a researcher publishes an article claiming to have found a 4th stable isotope. Do you think it would be "original research" to write on Wikipedia that "This metal has only 3 stable isotopes, although Professor Whoever has published a paper in which he disagrees"? Reliable sources don't have to be quoted exactly in an article. Normal inferences that anyone would make are not original research. I could poke around right now and find any number of cases on Wikipedia where inferred statements appear, but like this one, they aren't convoluted inferences at all. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, in no way did Zahhar "state that Gaza is no longer occupied". A better formulation might be to quote the article directly: "According to the Maan News Agency, Zahhar 'stressed the situation in the Gaza Strip is different to the occupied West Bank'". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Zahar said "Such resistance would be fitting if Gaza was occupied" [12]. Meaning that according to him (among others) Gaza is not occupied. I don't see how you could read it any other way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; sure looks like Zahar is clearly stating Gaza is not occupied and West Bank is. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay again, is he making a statement about the presence of settlers/IDF or a statement about the legal status of the territory with respect to GCIV ? Lisa has said he is making a statement of fact. What is the fact that he is making a statement about given that "Hamas considers all of Israel to be occupied land"[13] and Hamas' prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh said just a few weeks ago "We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the sea to the river," he said. "God willing, Hamas will lead the people ... to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine."[14] This is an encyclopedia. It's not a place to engage in the propagandistic word games. If people want to describe Hamas' and the PA's views on what is occupied, do that and do it properly as an encyclopedia should. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, this is an encyclopedia and you should stop engaging in propagandistic word games. Zahar said what he said. Your interpretations are irrelevant, not to mention illogical. That they want to "liberate all of Palestine" doesn't mean Gaza is occupied. Apparently Zahar thinks they liberated that part already. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made any interpretations (...I can't, which is kind of my point) and I haven't added any content. I've reverted a bold edit, asked questions and raised concerns. I'll say again, if people want to describe Hamas' and the PA's views on what is occupied e.g. all of "Palestine" as the source I cited says or specific parts, do that and do it properly as an encyclopedia should. Of course Zahar said what he said. That doesn't get us very far. Let's be clear about what happened here. An editor used a statement by a member of Hamas made in response to calls from both Hamas and the PA to use peaceful protests in Gaza to change the article to "and the Gaza Strip, which was occupied until the Israeli withdrawal in 2005". Now, we all know that it is more complicated than that. This is the kind of nonsense that ends up at AE. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the quote doesn't directly support putting a date on the withdrawal, but trying to interpret what Zahar is saying based on what some other Hamas member said in the past is not allowed, as I'm sure you're very much aware. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the only source in the world. The majority of sources say that Gaza is occupied. Whether this person is saying that is in dispute here, not what the majority of sources say. FWIW, it's in my view quite clear that he's referring to the fact that there are no soldiers present against which to demonstrate. I agree with NNMNG in that instead of propagandistic words games, we should go by what the sources say in the matter. Having this comment discussed in the article in the terms discussed here could easily confuse readers. That isn't the purpose, I'm sure? --Dailycare (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources that were there prior to this, and they actually say that the question is a matter of dispute. So frankly, even before Zahhar's statements, calling Gaza occupied as a point of fact was already incorrect. May I suggest that instead of arguing about whether Zahhar said it isn't (he did), we find a way to revise the text of that section to present the question of whether Gaza is or is not occupied any more as the open question that it is? Certainly, no one can argue that Zahhar making these statements isn't a radical about-face in what has been a fairly monolithic Arab position until now. Excluding it doesn't seem like something Wikipedia should be doing. I made a stab at editing the paragraph, but I'm open to other editors improving it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well, the Hamas Government see themselves as liberators, who made success in Gaza, and want to expand this to the West Bank and the "rest of Palestine". This is a notable stance, as much as the Hamas government is notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why no "Geography" section?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I wanted to look up the name of a city I heard but can't spell, so I came here, but there is no "Geography" section, which is quite unusual for such articles I think. A geography section usually includes climate, moutains&waters information, environment, administrative divisions. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably because this is a "State" without recognized boundaries. Perhaps one of the other Palestine articles will have what you are looking for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia often treats information about the areas occupied by Israel as if they are part of the State of Israel. It's a problem that needs to be resolved. All attempts I've seen have failed. See Geography of Israel and Tourism in Israel for example. You may find some information in Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I've tried to stay out of WP:ARBPIA territory, as I would be perceived as being pro-Israel. I don't think this is the right article to have a geography section, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Leadership dispute?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hasn't the presidency and the prime ministership of the State of Palestine been disputed between Abbas and Fayyad (Fatah) and Duwaik and Haniyeh (Hamas) since 15 January 2009 when Abbas' term in office formally expired? --Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the Russia today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 02:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Palestine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dublicity with Palestinian Authority

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

After comparing the article on Palestinian National Authority with this article on State of Palestine, one can easily spot both articles are basically twins. Indeed PNA claims to represent the State of Palestine and quiet many countries relate to PNA accordingly, rather than just an authority. But do we indeed need two articles on the same entity, considering there is already an article on the 1988 Palestinian declaration of independence? Seemingly, the State of Palestine article claims to be on the "state in absentia" declared in Tunisia in 1988 and not yet recognized by the UN. On the other hand, this article also claims than PNA is carrying the de-facto representation of the State of Palestine, and all statistics and data of this article are copied from PNA article correct for current times (not for 1988 Palestinian State in absentia, as the hatnote claims). I think it would be much helpful to merge this article into PNA, and write in the lead section "Palestinian National Authority", recognized by xx countries as the "State of Palestine" and expand the background of the PNA to the declaration of 1988, which was an immediate background to the establishment of the PNA. This is not yet an official proposal - just an RFI, any ideas on this behalf of other editors would be appreciated.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Both the State of Palestine and the PNA are established by the PLO and that's why there are many cases where the three entities inter-mix with each other, e.g. right now the President of the Palestinian National Authority, President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization are titles given to the same person. But the PNA doesn't claim to represent the State of Palestine. PNA is established by the PLO according to the Oslo Accords signed by Israel, PLO, USA, Russia. State of Palestine is established according to a declaration of independence adopted by the PNC of PLO. The State of Palestine article is about the declared, but not yet effectuated state. It's not yet effectuated because of lack of control over all of its claimed territory (it's controlled by Israel or by Israel and Hamas - depending on who you ask), not because of UN position on Palestine statehood. This isn't about 1988 - it's about 2012. Not being effectuated on the ground in Palestine doesn't mean that State of Palestine institutions (such as parliament and president) don't "work". For example they conduct diplomatic relations and have embassies in many countries. PNA doesn't represent the State of Palestine - the PLO does (and this is clearly stated in the article). PNA is not recognized by anyone as a state - PNA itself doesn't claim to be a state. The State of Palestine is declared as state and recognized as state by xx countries.

Good answer unnamed user. --Mor2 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

TLDR - PNA and State of Palestine are different entities (albeit both are established by the PLO) - both alive and active in 2012 - and their articles shouldn't be merged. Japinderum (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think i get you - you mean State of Palestine is the "state-to-be", which might in some near future become reality instead of the now-existing Palestinian Authority. Both have some kind of representation, though PNA is more recognized.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that UN General Assembly calls it a "non-member observer state"

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

[Note I wrote this forgetting this is page where saw original discussion on it being a state directly above.] So now that UN General Assembly passed United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member state" does this mean we use phrase in article "State of Palestine" from now on?? (Also asked at Israel-Palestine collaboration wikiproject, fyi.

There's a lot of Cable TV on "what this means" so I guess there will be a lot of new info on "what this means" for this and other articles. Something to study. CarolMooreDC 23:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No. After the dust settles it will be clear that Palestine is still not a state. It all boils down to two facts: First; that the General Assembly does not have the authority to admit states to the UN without a prior Security Council vote. Second; that the UN does not have the power to recognize states even if the Security Council is in favor. Even the UN website states "The United Nations ... does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government". - Hoplon (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine was a state before this vote, by virtue of having been recognized as a state by other states. That's why the UN website says that it doesn't have the authority to recognize states or governments, because that authority is solely held by other states. nableezy - 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because some people believe in an imaginary country doesn't make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwemnid (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly what makes it true. All states are imaginary. The existence of all of the states on the planet is based on what opinions exist in the heads of people. For Palestine, 67% of all UN states, which represent 80% of the world population, have recognized the State of Palestine. This opinion is clearly in the majority, while the opinion that Palestine is not a state is clearly in the minority. Trinitresque (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Political science contains two theories of statehood. The declarative theory holds that a state is sovereign the moment it declares itself to be a state, as sovereignty in no way can depend on the actions of other states. The constitutive theory, in contrast, holds that a state only becomes a state when recognized by other states. Either way, the current content of the article is wrong. The actions of the UN General Assembly today cannot be correctly characterized as the State of Palestine being "recognized in 2012". Neither the United Nations as a whole, nor the UN General Assembly itself, has the authority to recognize states. Palestine has been recognized by some states since 1988, while it remains unrecognized by some states today. Trinitresque's comments about a "majority" are interesting, but have no direct bearing on statehood as statehood is not decided by any sort of majority vote. To clarify the specific problem with the page as it currently stands; nothing happened today that in any way makes Palestine any more "officially" a state than it was yesterday. It remains in the same status as always; a self-declared state that is recognized by some states and unrecognized by other states. The only path for UN membership for Palestine involves going through the Security Council and not the General Assembly, as the General Assembly cannot admit states to the UN without prior Security Council approval. - Hoplon (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This topic of this article is about the "State of Palestine", as declared in 1988. Of course in the appropriate places it is noted that not everybody recognizes this state. The term "State of Palestine" is utilized inside the article regardless of UN resolutions and positions (of 2012 and earlier). The change that the 2012 resolution requires is to mention it prominently as one very important diplomatic event, maybe the most important so far. Nothing more, nothing less. Japinderum (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The UN, or others dont designate a state, see List of states with limited recognition and youll find even unrecognised states there. In this cas w should have State of Kosovo as well. At any rate, both state of isael and this page should be direc states (though i understand the need for the historical nations of palestine/isael.)(Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)).

Yes, Kosovo is a good example where we have Kosovo (the region) and Republic of Kosovo (the state) and APKiM (the Serbian province). Japinderum (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Will there be other political power it can have from being a non UN member now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

First this whole discussion needs WP:RS and all I see on a number of article talk pages including this one is WP:OR discussions.

Second, there is no reason to delete the vote totals and other wp:rs info from the text. One sentence? On 29 November 2012, Palestine was recognized as a state by the UN General Assembly, although it was not made a member?? Especially when 2011 vote has many paragraphs? Hopefully someone will put in some content so I don't have to...

CarolMooreDC 18:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this comment "nothing happened today that in any way makes Palestine any more "officially" a state than it was yesterday" is going a bit too far, since according to sources: The United Nations general assembly voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to recognise Palestine as a state and a certain implicit degree of statehood recognition. So it does appear that something did happen that made Palestine more of a state today than it was yesterday. While the UN cannot recognize states, the voting parties in the GA are states and their actions can be seen as explicit or implicit acts of recognition. The legitimacy of Israel's establishment stemmed from a General Assembly resolution. In any event, I have a bottle of Lanson cooled to celebrate this diplomatic breakthrough (in the Guardian's words) ;). --Dailycare (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so just to be clear - is this discussion about the following change:

This article is about the entity proclaimed in 1988.
This article is about the state proclaimed in 1988.

If so, I proposed "This article is about the partially recognized state proclaimed in 1988." [15], but it was reverted. Strange, since we use "partially recognized" for all similar cases such as Kosovo, Taiwan, etc. - as an NPOV adjective. Japinderum (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues in the lead

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

This section of the lead: "Though recognized by the United Nations General Assembly as a state on November 29, 2012, its territory has been occupied by the neighbouring state of Israel since 1967. The United Nations 193-member General Assembly voted overwhelmingly (138 in favor, 9 opposed, 41 abstentions) to upgrade Palestine from an "observer entity" to a "non-member observer state".[7]"

'Though' violates WP:SYN, combining the two parts of the sentence not in away presented in the source, implying something else.--109.186.17.8
'recognized by the United Nations General Assembly as a state' - The UN doesn't recognize states [16]: "does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government."
'its territory has been occupied by the neighbouring state of Israel', In light of UN recognition of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people, isn't that make the Hamas rule in gaza strip occupation as well?--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree and remove "though". --E4024 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the culprit for both of the first issues is in the first part of this edit [17], I suggest reverting those changes and adding a link to Partially recognized to clarify its status.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you need to read WP:OR. Several sources say the UN vote was either recognition, de facto recognition or a form of implicit recognition. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a recognition of something, but as you seen in the link 'UN doesn't recognize states'. I doubt that you wish to start an article arguing what the UN vote means(after all there many sources saying the vote is not a recognition of state [18] [19]) after all 'state of palestine' don't need the UN vote, since it was already recognized by large parts of the world even before the UN vote.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues one and two are fixed, but I am not certain about three. Does anyone know what is Hamas status in Gaza strip post 2007 conflict in gaza(btw is plo is still in a state of emergency?)--Mor2 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional issue, I think it is important to add the date in which PLO established its first interim administrative body PNA(1994), while details like seating arrangements and vote specifics are irrelevant in the lead i.e. "From 1998 to 2012, the PLO was seated in the UN General Assembly immediately after non-member states, and before all other observers.[17][18]" and "passed resolution 67/19 by a vote of 138 in favor to 9 against (with 41 abstentions),[19] changing..." (passed is passed regardless if its 69% or 100% move it to the body).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The vote count not only pointless but also mentioned twice in the first and sixth paragraph, make it unnecessary repetition as well.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead (geography) is not well-written: "Exclave of territory", "land areas" etc. --E4024 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be merged(the lead is quickly becoming an article in it self). The only problem is that state of Palestine don't have recognized boundaries, only declared ones based on the UN 1967 armistice line.--Mor2 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have indeed seen the "the UN doesn't recognize states" but, still, this page should be edited based on what sources say about Palestine, not what sources say about the UN. One way around this would be to say e.g. "Palestine achieved what was seen as de facto recognition of statehood on Nov. 29th, 2012 ..." using e.g. the Independent source already in the article, and the Jerusalem Post (in the wake of the Palestinians winning de facto UN recognition of statehood) as well. I think that based on the volume of reporting on the UN vote, it's a key aspect of Palestinian statehood and belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Protection?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone please put this article under some level of protection? If you check the history out, you'll see that all day people have been doing edits that keep having to be reverted. 198.72.204.107 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an attack by one user (or a number of coordinated users) with various IP addresses.... 198.72.204.107 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Article semiprotected and other measures taken. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

...and talk page semiprotected for the same reason. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues that should be addressed

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

In Legal status section it says: "In mid-September 2011, it was reported that 126 (65.4%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations had recognised the State of Palestine. Their total population was over 5.2 billion people, equalling 75 percent of the world's population.[136]" It is not clear that General Assembly does not have the power or the authority to establish states. Also law is not popularity contest, please remove the second part that seems to be there to push a certain POV.

I have updated it using neutral language. This section should probably be followed by the 'Declaration and Act of State Doctrine' as those are the two sections that deals with recognition of Palestinian statehood.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The section title 'Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter' should be tweaked. Also the whole section is dubious, instead of dealing with Palestine status it deal with Israel application. I suppose its purpose is to compare and imply that statehood can be granted offhand or what? Which is not the case there are several basic qualification that you need to pass to be considered, please add those or remove these POV leading section. Also "Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan had provided proof to the Prosecutor" - its a weasel statement, which proof? so we can be reviewed and added to other section and/or addressed.

The 'Consequences of the occupation' seems like a big "quirky" POV statement. That at no time in history has there been an Arab Palestinian state or similar Arab Palestinian political entity exercising any form of national sovereignty over either parcel of land is a fact. (not some quirky PR of pro-settlement community in Israel) The rest of the section revolve around the idea that Israel don't recognize the territory as their own, but that doesn't imply 'State of Palestine' legal rights to it! Other than the second paragraph which deals with the question of claim and principles of self-determination this whole section should be purged.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This section (and 'State succession' section that chronologically should come before) seem to touch on the question of self-determination. The problem is that its all about comparison of several Israeli views on Palestinian 'self-determination'(nothing about dealing with Palestinian, UN etc view), considering the title 'Consequences of the occupation'(under legal status), I expect to see some legal consequence but if it there, no one bothered to spell it out. --Mor2 (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In the 'Decisions of international and national tribunals' section, please explain how the US/UK ruling in regard to Palestine mandate relates to 'State of Palestine' legal status. Honestly it seems like someone copy/pasted random sections from some work on Palestine, and this exactly how it reads, without context its just random text that doesn't add up to anything in regard to 'state of Palestine'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarly the History, it seem as if someone just dumps new sections without integrating them into the text. --Mor2 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

misc responses

None of your requests are going to be approved, they go against Wikipedia's policies of neutrality. You can't push your blatant POV here. sorry. 69.231.44.149 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid from nonconstructive comments and explain point by point your opinion. At best those section only imply as to the Palestinian Legal status and in a non natural way at that.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take the help offered about how to avoid possible POV pushing. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any help offered, if you have ideas on how to improve those sections please offer your "POV", otherwise take note of my previous comment.(and the notice on the boards) --109.186.17.8 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Independence from whom

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The 1988 declaration is about independence from whom? Keeping in mind that at that time Israel was considered illegitimate Zionist entity by the PLO and the PNC - from whom did they declare independence? The rulers of the Palestinian territories before Israel 1967 takeover were Jordan for the West Bank and Egypt for Gaza. The declaration was adopted after Egpyt and eventually also Jordan relinquished their claims over Gaza and the West Bank. So the independence declared is from them, correct? Japinderum (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The independence is from Israeli occupation. It is possible to declare independence from a rule you consider illegitimate. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Any source for that? As I said at that time Israel was considered illegitimate by the PLO and also the declaration of independence "waited" for Jordan to relinquish its claims over the West Bank. Japinderum (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Declaration and Act of State Doctrine

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the purpose of this 'Declaration and Act of State Doctrine' section? Note that The Act of State Doctrine states that every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts will not sit in judgment of another government's acts done within its own territory. (In light of other assumptions I'll note that A AND b -> c =/= C AND A -> B)--Mor2 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine portal split

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recently user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman proposed to split Portal:Palestine and create Portal:Palestinian territories (see Portal talk:Palestine#Content split), with the rationale that Palestine is a geographic area without specific association with any people or politics, while Palestinian territories is about Palestinian people and modern Palestinian politics. Emmette also has already created a twin template to template:History of Palestine, named template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 to demonstrate this concept. Editor opinions are welcome on the issues of:

Portal:Palestine content split (at Portal talk:Palestine#Content split)
Whether template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 should be separate from template:History of Palestine (at Template talk:Governance of Palestine from 1948#Merging with History of Palestine template).

Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite my rationale. My rationale is the same rationale that Palestinian territories and Palestine are separate articles, that they are not the same thing. Also formal template merge discussions are supposed to take place at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not yet

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The infobox says: Statehood effective: not yet - territories claimed are under Israeli Occupation I believe that the 'yet' should be deleted, as it is not clear at all whether Israel will ever stop claiming and occupying the Palestinian territories. FranziJoJO2 (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "yet" implies that it's highly probable to happen in the future. But simply deleting the word will make the sentence "Statehood effective: not" which doesn't sound a correct English to me. Maybe it should be "so far, not - territories claimed ..." or something like that? Japinderum (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Demographics section

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Doesn't the "Demographics" section belong in the Palestinian territories article? It was previously moved from Palestinian National Authority here per this discussion, but the Palestinian territories article seems like a much better fit. I'll invite the participants in the previous discussion (minus Alinor who hasn't edited sense 2011) to this one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. So this issue has arisen before, that is to say when 2 or more entities refer to the same geographic territory (or at least roughly overlap) then any or all can be used for data related to that geography, namely demographics and economic data. Here, though, 1 of the 2 refers to the geographic context (the Palestinian territories), while the other refers to the political context (the State of Palestine). And its obviously more complex than that, given that almost all data sets we work with are defined about a geographic context, but which do not always sync with named entities available on Wikipedia (Wikipedia articles).

So the question becomes: what is a better superstructure (parent article) to demographic data (and any sort of geographically linked data like economic data), a named political entity or a named geographic entity? Now that I am older and more experienced, and I have a reasoned basis for doing so (my political/geographic argument), I concur with your assessment that it should be moved (or at least copied) to the geographic entity's article, i.e. the Palestinian territories article, along with related data, such as economic data.

And there is of course a simple solution: give the subject its own article and allow any article to reference it. This is what I did with Taxation in the Palestinian territories. Int21h (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sense there's no objection to the movie I'll implement it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a kind of not smart doing this, because since tomorrow the State of Palestine will be recognized. You are fighting a lost battle.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in move the section. It would be moved again in few hours.--Sal73x (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't been following the news when I moved it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to follow, the Palestinian or rather the PA(WestBank)status in the UN was upgraded, it doesn't change Palestinian official status at all. Todo so they will first need to join forces with Hamas(gaza) or throw them under the bus(both very unlikely)--109.186.17.8 (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sense the RM failed and it looks like this article won't be merged with Palestinian territories (which presumably would have happened if the RM had passed) I take it that we can remove the section now. That section in on the Palestinian territories article now and there's not much point in duplicating content. This article otherwise deals specifiably with Palestine as a state, not just anything to do with the West Bank and Gaza, the article for that is Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been no objections so I'll go ahead and remove it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this I thought that waiting two days would be enough, concerning I originally waited five days and got no objections, then moved it. That first removal was then reverted, but the only objections were related to the UN vote, and that vote hasn't caused us to do something like merge this with Palestinian territories. Maybe I was a bit hasty there, I'll give it more time to see if there are any objections to removal. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's been 7 days and no one has objected I'll remove the section. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no need to duplicate that content here. Also, the article already mentions Palestinian people multiple times already, but if needed one more reference to that can be made. Japinderum (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - section restores, since the State of Palestine now rebranded official statistics under the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics (State of Palestine) [22].Greyshark09 (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the restore. Whatever the name of the bureau conducting statistics of the people living in the Palestinian territories under the administration of the Palestinian National Authority under military occupation of Israel. No reason to duplicate the content here. Japinderum (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the source have to do what article we include this in? If we used a UN source would we add this to the UN article? 13:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs)

Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter

Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments2 people in discussion

Recently I have removed the paragraph[23]:

The UN Charter protects the territorial integrity or political independence of any state from the threat or use of force. Philip Jessup served as a representative of the United States to the United Nations and as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:

"[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law."

Because it doesn't says not one word about 'State of Palestine', Palestinians or any variant of the word Palestine and I don't think it bare relevance to 'State of Palestine' legal status in the UN.

To which Japinderum (talk) responded:

The section is not about "Palestinian legal status in the UN" (e.g. what status Palestine has in the UN), but about "Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter" (e.g. whether Palestine should be considered to be a State according to the criteria defined in the UN Charter). The paragraph you remove is notable not because it mentions US and Israel, but because it's a quote from ICJ judge statement during UN Security Council discussion on membership application - the quote elaborates exactly on the statehood criteria, their relation with the UN membership, etc.

Response: I see what you want and I have no problem to elaborate one the statehood criteria for the UN charter. However, I have to insist on this paragraph is still irrelevant, as it doesn't elaborates on the statehood criteria, but try to imply other things. It can be summed up to: past members excepted who do not possessed "full sovereign power to form their own international policy"(which means?) and that UN definition of a "State", may not be wholly identical with the term "State" international law(or at least its 1948 classic text book variant, which is?). Both can be replaced with a much more relevant and informative excerpts from the Member states of the United Nations and Sovereign state articles.--Mor2 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not what I want, but the reason why this paragraph is part of the status quo since ages. You still haven't restored it despite that I asked you to do so on your talk page - per WP:BRD. Afterwards we can discuss what changes are needed. Otherwise I have to revert your removal first.

"full sovereign power to form their own international policy" means New Zealand, Belarus and others who weren't fully independent states at that time. And that's why UN definition differs from textbook definition. That are quotes from a notable source - those can't be replaced by excerpts from Wikipedia articles.

If you think there are other notable issues about the UN Charter statehood - no problem to add such sources from other articles.

And what do you think the paragraph implies? Japinderum (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem to discuss this, after you provided a reason why this should be part of the section(a section that I worked on).

I know that 1945 five of the founding members, were not sovereign(2 were part of the league beforehand and autonomous, and 3 were the ~result of the ww2 and qualified partially), though I am pretty sure that since then no other nation was accepted to the UN which wasn't consider to possess sovereignty.

More importantly I still fail to see how the paragraph is relevant to the topic. You said that it "elaborates exactly on the statehood criteria" but all I can see is one vague criteria that wasn't not part of the UN statehood criteria in 1945. With no apparent way to apply it to 'State of Palestine' unless you are planing some WP:SYN.--Mor2 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly this vagueness is what the issue is about - the precedent where in 1945 the UN founders allowed this vagueness in UN Charter interpretation. And the relevant conclusion is that from the quote "UN definition is different from textbook definition" (that's important for the State of Palestine because it lacks one major property of textbook states - control over populated territory) - WP:SYN would be to extend that into "UN members can decide - for political reasons - to allow whoever they want - even by twisting/vaguely interpreting the Charter - there is a precedent for that". Japinderum (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph says nothing about vagueness in the definition, only provide a vague and out of context none criteria from 1945. While the rest is even more not relevant, since this is not an article about the UN charter, we don't care that "UN definition is different from textbook definition", we want to know what is the UN definition i.e. "elaborates exactly on the [UN] statehood criteria" for state of Palestine, which it fails todo.

Furthermore on the topic in general, I suspect that your assumptions about the meaning of the UN statehood criteria are wrong. It seems that in 1945 he would refer to the 'Constitutive theory' not 'Declarative theory' i.e. recognition by other states not being a criteria, which is what those members didn't have at that time and the only thing that 'state of Palestine' have... that is if those members were evaluated by those standards and not just slipped in 1942 into the signing ;) Regardless, its not up to us to speculate, do WP:OR or play legal consuls, if you have RELEVANT sources that elaborate on the UN statehood criteria, just add them in.--Mor2 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph explains that "UN criteria is different from textbook criteria" and that's highly relevant for Palestine as it doesn't cover all of the textbook criteria. About what the criteria are there are [24] and [25]. "[states which] in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." and my assumption simply extends "judgment of the Organization" into the more frank "UN members can decide - for political reasons - to allow or exclude whoever they want". But my assumption is irrelevant here - I don't propose to add it in the article. And yes, non-sovereign members of 1945 lacked one thing and Palestine of today lacks another - I didn't say otherwise - I just say that the principle is the same - somebody may be allowed in even if it lacks over some part of the textbook criteria - if he has sufficient support of the UN members (9 in Security Council without veto, 2/3rd in General Assembly). I also would like to have more sources elaborating on the criteria/procedure and also specifically on Palestine - after the 2011 and 2012 applications (for member in UNSC, for observer in UNGA) I think that in both cases reports were prepared - are those public?[26] Japinderum (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted my edit, while we was discussing the subject and your continued insistence that the paragraph is relevant because your assumption of what it implies rather than provide the actual criteria and from that link you provided I see your agenda so I just cut it short and added the criteria.--Mor2 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mor2, see WP:BRD - you made a Bold change, I Revert, then we Discuss. During the discussion remains the status quo before the bold edit. Instead of that you made your change again - I asked you multiple times to revert yourself, but you didn't - that's why I had to revert you again. And I don't have any "agenda". I'll see your new bold edits, but please keep in mind that especially for long time texts it's good to first propose the changes, discuss and then do it, not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find the quote "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" in the source (but maybe I missed it?) - so I'll reword the section (restoring more of the status quo text). Also, it's not the the UN who "does not consider them to possess sovereignty" - that's the individual UN members' position - and if those are numerous enough (or have veto power), then membership is denied. Japinderum (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Found it (capacity to conduct foreign relations). But it's not the "problem" criteria for SoP - for SoP the problem criteria is the control of populated territory (e.g. ability of the SoP government to enforce SoP laws there). For example on p10/11 of the source: "has a government...have a legislative body...have a judicary...have an executive, which carries out the laws and has at its disposal a considerable force responsive to its will." - in the case of SoP the territory it claims (regardless of undefined borders) is under Israel occupation/control. All other criteria are more or less satisfied - PLO-EC is SoP provisional government in exile, SoP has established diplomatic relations with many other states, SoP has diplomatic recognition by many other states, SoP accepts the membership obligations and has submitted membership application. The rest of the criteria depend on the judgment of UNSC and UNGA - whether SoP is "peace loving", whether SoP is "able and willing" to carry out the membership obligations. Even if it's deemed "peace loving and willing to carry out the obligations" the "problem" criteria is whether it's "really a state" (because it doesn't have control over populated territory) and the related whether it's "able to carry out the obligations" (because a state needs control over populated territory, otherwise it functions only in the diplomatic realm as a government-in-exile and doesn't have the ability to do anything on the ground). Of course, if the majority of all UNSC permanent members and 2/3rds of the UN members want - for political reasons - they can grant membership to a GiE (turn a blind eye to the lack of territorial control or resort to some reasoning that it's able to comply and only the foreign occupation prevents it, but that occupation is declared illegal by this and that UNSC and ICJ acts, so they won't take it into account, etc.)

Do you insist on adding such OR/SYN unsourced analysis? Unfortunately we don't have the UNSC 2011 report that maybe deals with those issues. Japinderum (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

BRD is a recommendation. I had a valid reason to remove that paragraph, on the section I was working on. Once you provided your view on the content the section should contain, I had joined discussion, but since you decided to go ahead and going without your grandiose WP:OR I seen no reason to continue it. This what I said.

As for the rest, you are going to look closer because the "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" is a direct quote from the source as I provided in my edit summary [27], while the later part was ".." several paragraphs away. However, it seem that you finally found it, but removed it regardless, adding instead the meaningless statement i.e. that UN "State" definition may not be the same as the classic text book. Since we don't know to which classic text book he refereed, this irrelevant and not informative and overall violates WP:SYN as you try to imply that its the definition discussed before.

Furthermore you butchered the neutral statement from the Member states of the United Nations article, with a highly POVized one. Added a statement about 'state of Palestine' compliance based solely based on your OR here and expanded the current legal status at the UN with irrelevant info repeated and covered in other sections. So I am reverting your edit, and you will have to make one edit at time with convincing summaries or state your case here. --Mor2 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

procedural: when you can do whatever bold change you want, but when it gets reverted you enter into discussion and don't push it until finished. The status quo version remains during that time. Otherwise editing becomes an edit-war. You are the one initiating the changes without a source here, so do not mock of grandiose WP:OR. I didn't reverted all of your edits and made some edits on my own - as a way of continuing the discussion directly trough article edits (since you didn't utilize the talk page, but started doing edits directly). I don't say that my recent edits should stay, but neither should yours. Both are OR/SYN-tish and unsourced - and unlike you who reverted only mine recent edits (instead of imporving over them as I did over yours) - I will restore the status quo, so that we can continue the discussion only here and not in the article. And since you lecture me how to edit (despite most of your complaints being dealt with in my post above) allow me to suggest that if you want to make changes to the status quo you should describe those changes on the talk page along with explanation and sources.

Also, no need to attack me with on OR grounds - I myself explicitly pointed it out in my last sentence above: "Do you insist on adding such OR/SYN unsourced analysis? Unfortunately we don't have the UNSC 2011 report that maybe deals with those issues." - so if you think we should not add it without a source - just remove it.

Generally I think the pitch of our discussion (or edit-war?) should be lowered substantially.

now on subject: Japinderum (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarify

By looking at your edits in that section I gather that your opinion is the following: "even if a state covers the Montevideo criteria [Declarative Theory; territory, population, government, capacity to engage in diplomatic relations] it may not be accepted in the UN because of opposition of UN members who don't recognize it diplomatically as sovereign state [Constitutive Theory; diplomatic recognition]" (first paragraph of your edit) and of the whole Jessup source you choose only one particular note as relevant: "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world [diplomatic relations] is not an essential requisite of United Nations membership".

I don't gather what's your point with those as they are not complementary and are not related to the case of Palestine - the first is clear "A state covering Declarative Theory has the capacity to engage in diplomatic relations, but when no other state recognizes it (thus it fails the Constitutive Theory criteria) this capacity can't be utilized. Similar to what can happen at the UN - "the state covers Montevideo, but isn't allowed in because of lack of recognition". Then the Jessup quote you choose (and your pointing out that some of the initial UN members "got advantage" of exactly this circumstance) is about another hypothesis - "A state doesn't cover the fourth Declarative Theory/Montevideo criteria as it doesn't have the capacity to engage in diplomatic relations [because it's not "fully sovereign" in the sense that officially and institutionally somebody else is responsible for its foreign affairs - the case for colonies, protectorates, dependencies, autonomous regions, sub-federal units, etc.], but it's nevertheless allowed in the UN".

The first hypothesis you choose to include is not applicable to SoP - currently it doesn't control any territory and thus fails the first Montevideo/Declarative Theory criteria. The other hypothesis you included is also not applicable to SoP - diplomatic recognition is commonly followed by establishment of diplomatic relations and State of Palestine has plenty of both since decades. The State of Palestine is declared as independent state, it has a legislature and a government who engages in diplomatic relations, exchanges ambassadors (duly accredited with the host states), etc. - so the Jessup quote you choose is not applicable to SoP. The fact that there are states who don't recognize SoP (and don't have diplomatic relations with it and don't exchange ambassadors, etc. all aspects of "do not diplomatically recognize SoP as sovereign state") is not related to what you choose of the whole Jessup source (the note about colonies and similar entities joining the UN in the 1940s - nobody claims SoP is a colony or protectorate of somebody else and nobody claims somebody else is responsible for SoP foreign affairs) - States that do not recognize SoP have this position mostly for political reasons and/or because they have a policy of not granting diplomatic recognition and not establishing diplomatic relations with governments-in-exile as those don't cover the first Montevideo/Declarative Theory criteria.

So, please clarify why you add those paragraphs. Japinderum (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your initial rational, that this section need to cover the legal aspects of admission into the UN. However, after hearing several times your arguments for that paragraph, explaining the relevancy of what is not a requirement for UN charter and what the UN charter may define diffidently than classic law, when we the section deals with what is the requirement and doesn't contain not a single word on what are those requirements/definitions and after reading your elaborate WP:OR /WP:SYN. My opinion is that you have a single minded approach and that its a waste of time. So my point was to provide a basic framework of what is the requirements, provide the PLO application and provide legal commentary. For that I used a neutral summary from the UN charter(+sources to back it up). Moved the PLO application for full membership(the subject) up and expanded based on the provided sources(+new one that gave a little more detail on the comity) and bellow put the PLO statement about its recognition that might be relevant for when we expended the section further. With my summary of the paragraph that started all of this(even though I still think it is relevant, but I left it there for your benifit, since I didn't want to argue about). Most of this can be gathered from my multiple edit summaries I left.

Now I would kindly request you not to remove sourced material and revert the whole section. If you want to make changes please do as the rest of us do. Make small constructive changes, with edit summary and back it up with sources when needed. So that other can also review it and judge it, because honestly I don't understand that wall of text you built, in fact If you still have issues I would suggest we bring a third party.--Mor2 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you insist on your changes please address the problems I identified in them. Also, you say you added sources to the "basic framework", "legal commentary", "neutral summary" you add, but actually the sources in your revision were either taken from the status quo, added by myself, not supporting the specific claims made or not relevant to the topic.

I explained to you multiple times that I'm not against expanding the section to include "word on what are those requirements/definitions" (and below you can see the relevant quotes from the source about exactly that issue). I already said to you - "my OR/SYN" that you refers to was only an attempt to edit your changes in a compromise to both of us way - if you don't agree, then the status quo should be restored and we have to sort out our differences here - before editing the section.

I also explained above and below what the problems are with the bold changes you introduced and I reverted. You should not place them back until a consensus is reached.

Please make a proposal for changes by contrasting with the status quo - not with subsequent intermediate edits of you or me. Japinderum (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to 03:00, 22 December 2012

Criteria and Jessup source paragraph

Let's see what we have in the source - on page 9 begins analytical consideration of the membership application [I will mark with "..." places that I'm shortening/paraphrasing].

Reduced to their essence, these requirements are...: The applicant must be a State...peace-loving...accepting Charter obligations...able and willing in the judgment of the UN to carry out these obligations

I think that's a good quote for the section we discuss - right on topic. And I did a similar thing with the sentence "Admission of a state to the UN requires the approval of the Security Council and the General Assembly, where the members make a judgment whether the applicant is a "peace-loving state...able and willing" to carry out the membership obligations [source: UN Charter]". The pre-discussion status quo also has a sentence about the obligations themselves: "The UN Charter protects the territorial integrity or political independence of any state from the threat or use of force." - you deleted it, I restored it.

To be a State (Q1)

While there are traditional definitions of a State in international law, the term has been used in many different ways...Under the traditional definition of a State in international law, all the great writers have pointed to four qualifications: ...people, territory, government, capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world

- Capacity to enter into relations...

Here comes the first part of the pre-discussion status-quo quote: (Q2)

...we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.

And the text continues: (Q3)

I do not dwell upon this point...in this respect Israel is free and unhampered...unanimity that Israel exercises complete independence...in...its foreign affairs.

Then comes the second part of the pre-discussion status-quo quote: (Q4)

The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.

He underlines that UN definition is not identical with textbook of international law definition (for the definition see Q1 "the traditional definition...in international law" - in your comment you ask about that). And underlining that fact of definitions difference is the only reason to mention (Q3 "I do not dwell" and Q4 "the reason to mention") the fact that some initial UN members (colonies, sub-federal units, etc.) did not posses full sovereign capacity in foreign relations (see Q2) - it's only an example (pre-Q2 "arguments can be and have been made") and not relevant for the particular case (Q3 "I do not dwell...anyone has ever questioned...unanimity"). And that fact of definitions difference is the most relevant part of the source for the section we discuss. That's a general issue and not related to Israel (over which the source is focused on). That's why I restored that part of the pre-discussion quote - you removed the whole of it and I restored only the most relevant part instead of the whole as compromise with your removal. As for the quote you added instead ("capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" not being required for UN membership) I explained above that it's not relevant for SoP (and neither is for Israel as stated in the source - Q3 "I do not dwell" and Q4 "the reason to mention").

- Government

Again referring to the "non-UN definition" - traditional, classic, textbook, international law: (Q6)

...other classic attributes of a State

Then we get to section I already pointed you to in my previous post: (Q7)

has a government...have a legislative body...have a judicary...have an executive, which carries out the laws and has at its disposal a considerable force responsive to its will.

Emphasis is mine (and note also Q3 "free and unhampered" and "complete independence") - the relevant issue here is who's in control, who can enforce his decisions and laws on the ground, in the real world - without having to consider foreign opinions. The term "controlling power" (whether in a case of Military occupation or "administering state responsible for a Non-self-governing territory").

- People

Again the definition: (Q8)

According to the same classic definition...

And the requirement: (Q9)

...the State of Israel has a people...full of loyalty and of enthusiastic devotion to the State

- Territory

Point relevant for both Israel and Palestine: (Q10)

...One does not find...insistence that the territory of a State must be exactly fixed by definite frontiers... existence of the USA was not in question before its final boundaries were determined.
The formulae...vary,... but do not necessarily include precise delimitation of the boundaries...

And as follow-up to Q3 and Q7 he came to "control" again: (Q11)

The reason for the rule...a State...shall possess territory is that one cannot contemplate a State as a kind of disembodied spirit...there must be some portion of earth's surface which its people inhabit and over which its Government exercises authority.

Wikilink and emphasis are mine - that's the essence of Montevideo/Declarative Theory - those who claim statehood should have control over permanently populated territory. As seen in Q3 and Q7 that's also core part of the government and capacity for foreign affairs requirements. See also Q13.

To be peace-loving

Describing 1947 and 1948 events about that.

Able and willing to carry out Charter obligations

About "willing": (Q12)

...in the terms of its application for membership has indicated its acceptance of the obligations... The willingness...to carry out these obligations is made clear in its letter of application for membership.

About "able": (Q13)

...ability...to carry out the obligations... is a functioning political entity with firmly established governmental institutions exercising effective internal administration and able to conduct the foreign relations of the State.

Here the source finalizes with the criteria analysis (see Q17). I would like to see your opinion about which of those points are relevant for SoP and which aren't.

One more point

Then the sources elaborates on diplomatic recognition: (Q14)

...relationship between action taken by the UNSC or the UN on an application for membership, and the problem of recognition of a Government or State.
...there are UN members who do not maintain diplomatic relations with other UN members. Co-membership in the UN does not necessarily involve bilateral diplomatic relationships among those Members.

And it's not only about Israel: (Q15)

...the same problem has come...in connexion with...various political entities

And continues: (Q16)

...existence of diplomatic relations among UN members on a bilateral basis is not a feature inherent in co-membership..., so the question of the extension of bilateral diplomatic recognition or relationship between a UN member and a new UN member is not a question which lies at the root of action upon an application for membership...that issue is not one which should confuse UNSC consideration of the applicability of Article 4 of the Charter to any applicant for membership.

Mentions the criteria analysis conducted above: (Q17)

I have discussed the question of the application...for UN membership in terms of legal analysis of the provisions of the Charter

Involves the "political" part of the members judgment: (Q18)

...something more than questions of legal concepts and of provisions in a document is being dealt with...
...dealing...with the desire of a people, who...constructed a community, an authority and, finally a Government operating in an independent State...
...supports the application...not merely because we consider that...fulfills the technical requirements of the Charter..., but because...

The Jessup source is right on topic - it elaborates on all criteria, what they mean, etc. Of course the conclusions are about another state and not SoP, so that source helps in describing the process and the criteria, but not in giving us an evaluation of SoP compliance. For that we need additional sources.

My proposal is that you avoid WP:OR and providing legal commentary and find a WP:RS that says in a clear manner, whatever you think he meant or his words meant or better analyse of the process from a book and add it to the article. I assure you that if what you say make sense this time(tldr), you'll find at least one WP:RS, but the specific quote we spoke about in the previous section, didn't say what you wanted it to say. --Mor2 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above are just quotes from the source. And I don't suggest making any changes to the article, OR or not. I simply present here those quotes, because they are relevant to some questions you had above and to our discussion. You are the one proposing changes, so it's better that you search for sources. And if the above is TLDR, then read the other sub-sections below and above that you haven't actually answered on in your other reply. Please refrain from accusing me of OR, SYN or whatever as I'm not proposing any changes. Please make a proposal of what you think should be changed in status quo and why and we can discuss it. Japinderum (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you so insist - we can directly use all those quotes from the source above - as a "word on what are those requirements/definitions". As you can see the result will be quite different from your edit that's even contradicting some of those. Japinderum (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Japinderum, we only discussed the relevance of a specific quote, in the context of that section. I have never commented on the quotes above or anything else, only that one specific quote, arguing that it didn't explicitly stated what you want it to, thus asking you to avoid WP:SYN and WP:OR explaining me the background of that quote, just use WP:RS so if you found another quote/source add it with reference and the edit summary(though to avoid issues of interpretation, I highly suggest that you find a WP:RS from a legal book on UN membership admissions). As for the your objections to my edit(unrelated to that specific quote), I haven't dismissed them, I couldnt figure out what they were. I have explained my edits here [28] if you have further concerns, please avoid analysis of what you think, that I think, based on my edits and keep it simple and to the point(for example edit/quote X has problem Y, suggest Z). In fact, unless you have a problem with outline I suggested, you can make those edits directly, making several small constructive edits with informational edit summaries. --Mor2 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What's that you think "I want it to" state? As for my objections to your edit - I have replied to your post you mention above. As for making edits directly - we tried that and it resulted in edit war, so I suggested at 09:51, 31 December 2012 you make a sandbox starting with the status quo and we both will discuss here and edit there until it's OK to be copied into the article. Whatever objections I have to your proposals - I will voice each objection when you present each proposed change (assuming, as you say, small consecutive change proposals, each with explanation). Japinderum (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Other paragraphs

Another part of my edit you complain about is the chronological ordering. You put the 2011 membership application paragraph between the two paragraphs describing the general criteria. Then you put the 2009 recognition count paragraph. Then you put a mixed 1974-2012 paragraph. Also you deleted a sentence from the status quo describing the reason for 2012 observer application. What I did was to order those chronologically. You also complain that I "expanded the current legal status at the UN with irrelevant info repeated and covered in other sections." - it's your addition of a heading "Current status" (including 1974 and 2012 info) - I changed it into "Palestinian status" and moved there the chronologically ordered paragraphs. I'm not sure any of those "Palestinian status" or "Current status" headings are needed, since both are not about the "UN Charter statehood status of SoP" (which is maybe assessed in the unseen UNSC report on the membership application), but about "Status of Palestinian representation at the UN" (related, but different topic) - as I said on top of this thread - "The section is not about "Palestinian legal status in the UN" (e.g. what status Palestine has in the UN), but about "Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter" (e.g. whether Palestine should be considered to be a State according to the criteria defined in the UN Charter)". So, the "current status" is unknown - there is a non-public report and a membership application that isn't voted on yet. Also, the "current stathood status" according to "classic" criteria is the same as the status decades ago (SoP has not changed in that regard); according to UN Charter criteria it may be argued that there was evolution on the "peace-loving" and "willing to accept Charter obligations" criteria - but these issues weren't officialy assessed until 2011 (first UNSC report on SoP membership application) and we don't have unofficial sources (such as legal scholar describing what he thinks the UNSC and UNGA members judgment would've been in 2005 or 1990 or whenever) - so it's a moot point.

Finally, you complain that I "butchered the neutral statement from the 'Member states of the United Nations' article, with a highly POVized one." - the paragraph you refer to is unsourced and full of slightly incorrect statements. The first sentence I only shortened and de-complicated (removing the disputable part that was contradicted by the bracketed part). Second sentence was a real mess: mentions "sovereign/ity" too often where the UN Charter membership section doesn't mention it at all; "the UN does not consider them to possess sovereignty" (it's not the UN, but each of its members who consider individually for themselves, not only on sovereignty, but also other issues, including purely political, and then vote accordingly in the UNSC and UNGA); "a number of states that may be considered sovereign states according to the Montevideo Convention criteria" where "states that may be considered sovereign" is a wikilink to List of states with limited recognition that includes two types of states with limited recognition (see its criteria for inclusion) - such covering Montevideo/Declarative Theory and such covering Constitutive Theory. But your sentence mentions only Montevideo. That's especially inappropriate in the article here, because currently the only state on that list that's included only because it covers the Constitutive Theory (and doesn't cover Montevideo) is SoP; also most of the states with limited recognition haven't applied for UN membership (we assume they "want" it, but in any case they can't become members unless they first officially apply). Your sentence is also very convoluted: "Because UNSC and UNGA decide on membership, some states that maybe cover Montevideo criteria are not allowed, because the UN doesn't consider them sovereign, because lack of diplomatic recognition or opposition from some members." I tried to make that more comprehensible - first I added a sentence condensing the Charter criteria (similarly to Jessup source) - sourced from the Charter itself - and that sentence also clarified that this is a judgment of UNSC and UNGA members. Then in a separate sentence I describe the two relevant possible situations - state covering criteria not allowed in (pure logic - even if it covers the current members may "dislike" it and deny access - many examples in the 20th century with the USSR and USA as veto-holders blocking states supportive of the other side; your sentence also described that situation); state not covering the criteria allowed in (the colony/sub-federal unit/etc. example initial UN members - as described in the Jessup source). The other situations (covering the criteria allowed in; not covering the criteria and not allowed in) are not relevant here (but if you wish I don't oppose you to describe those too). I don't see any POV in my redaction of that paragraph.

Anyway, I don't say my redaction is the best. As I said - since you don't use the talk page to describe and discuss your proposals, but edit directly instead I did the same - my redaction is simply part of the discussion, an example. I don't say we should implement it in any case and as you see I'll restore the status quo before your and mine edits we discuss here.

So, please explain what's your proposal for changes. Japinderum (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My "complaint" was that you making section wide edit, based on your redaction of "our" discussion. My proposal was that you make small constructive edits, with informative edit summary, so that other who haven't read your wall of text, can review and judge it based on its merit. This way I could address specific issues, rather than continue this exercise in futility. --Mor2 (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Forget my edits, they were just an attempt for compromise with your edits. Please make explain what changes you want to make in the stats quo and we'll discuss those.

Alternatively, we can do "small" consecutive edits (hopefully converging into a compromise version) - but not on the live article (with edit-war, 1RR, etc.), but in a sandbox such as Talk:State of Palestine/Mor2 starting with the stats quo. When we finalize the sandbox we'll copy it into the live article. Japinderum (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mor2, you may find this source about statehood criteria interesting and also this source about Israel, which exercises military rule over the Palestinian territories. Japinderum (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Staff writers (20 February 2008). "Palestinians 'may declare state'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2011-01-22.: "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".
^ Staff writers (28 August 2011). "Three-quarters of world recognizes Palestine". Ma'an News Agency. Retrieved 2011-08-29.

[saeb-1] Staff writers (20 February 2008). "Palestinians 'may declare state'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2011-01-22.: "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".

[2] Staff writers (28 August 2011). "Three-quarters of world recognizes Palestine". Ma'an News Agency. Retrieved 2011-08-29.

[1]

[2]

Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 9

Contents

Prime Minister?

Updates

Not under occupation

Merge Request with Proposals for a Palestinian state

Number of recognizing countries

Infobox

Edit request

intro

Etymology

Small change: Outdated number of nations who has recognised Palestine

Small change: Outdated number of nations who has recognised Palestine

Language

Mahmoud Zahar

Why no "Geography" section?

Leadership dispute?

Rtnews template

Move discussion in progress

Dublicity with Palestinian Authority

Now that UN General Assembly calls it a "non-member observer state"

Issues in the lead

Article Protection?

Issues that should be addressed

Independence from whom

Other articles' naming

Declaration and Act of State Doctrine

Palestine portal split

Not yet

Demographics section

Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter

Clarify

Response to 03:00, 22 December 2012