Talk:State of Palestine

This article was nominated for deletion on November 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state.

The State of Palestine

Wikipedia policy regarding forks is very clear, information and references regarding the entity "Palestine" should be located in that article. The phrase "State of Palestine" should not be redirected to an article about negotiations for a final settlement on compensation, return of refugees, or delineation and demarcation of borders, when Palestine has already been extended de jure recognition by dozens of other states.

The Declaration of the State of Palestine was acknowledged by a numerical majority of the member states of the United Nations. The vote was 104 to 2, with 44 abstaining. Since then, the entity known as "Palestine" has been recognized as the "State of Palestine" by 117 countries. see Kurz, Anat N. (2005) Fatah and the Politics of Violence: The Institutionalization of a Popular Struggle. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 1845190327, 9781845190323, page 123.

The 1989 Israeli Yearbooks on International Law contained many articles from experts discussing the implications of the Declaration of the State of Palestine. Dr. L.C. Green explained that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government." see page 135-136 of Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0792304500.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki recently said that he and Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan had provided proof that Palestine had been extended legal (de jure) recognition as a state by 67 countries, and had bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. see ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe. harlan (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There currently is no political entity, "Palestine." The State of Palestine is a proposal. I redirected this page back to Proposals for a Palestinian state, where it belongs. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the best thing is to just restore the latest independent article version of "State of Palestine", perhaps with some more content and references, and was going to do it eventually. This seems to have more support than opposition at the Proposals page. As I said there, the AfD was mistaken and based on arguments not grounded in policy. A redirect to Palestine is problematic because the word has many meanings and that article is big, the Proposals article has most of the old content.John Z (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the deletion was appropriate. The article in question was, in most versions, a work of fiction. Wikipedia should have facts, not fiction. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no deletion, the article was merged and redirected. That is a type of keep. (The merge could have been made clearer in the AfD / history, almost all the content now under the heading in the Proposals article was originally from the SoP article.)

There was no fiction at all in the SoP article that I noticed, which was well enough referenced (e.g. by me). Whether and in what way the "State of Palestine" "exists" or not is utterly irrelevant to whether we have an article on it. The opposition to the article seemed to be based on misunderstanding of wikipedia policy and reading things into the article which were not there. "Palestine" should be treated the same way as other notable, reliably-sourceable, partially recognized "states", with an article of its own based on reliable sources. The "State of Palestine" was a proposal when it was debated in the PNC in 1988, once the declaration was made, and Arafat made the President, etc it was clearly more than that, an existent organization, laying claim to territory which it did not then control any part of. (Compare the Baltic states, say, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, whose paper governments would similarly have deserved articles on a 1980s Wikipedia.) By the time of the UNGA resolution recognizing it, it was clearly notable (third party RS) and deserving of an article since then. Harlan has adduced numerous new sources which have persuaded some on this issue.John Z (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

6SJ7, it is a verifiable published fact that the UN has already acknowledged "Palestine" (not Proposals for a Palestinian state) as a political, economic, and legal "entity". see Non-member States and Entities It is also a verifiable and published fact that same "entity" has been extended de jure recognition as "a State" by at least 67 other nations, and de facto recognition by 50 or more other nations. It was even recognized as a sovereign state in a ruling handed down by the District Court in Jerusalem, until the Supreme Court decided it was a matter of political discretion and handed the question off to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See J'lem court: Palestinian Authority meets criteria to be classed as a sovereign state. Therefore, it is "a fact" that one very NOTABLE meaning of the term "Palestine" is the existing political, economic, and legal entity known as the "State of Palestine". There is an existing article by that name, which mentions that "fact" with appropriate references in the lede and Current status sections. It also mentions the [Proposals for a Palestinian state] in line with the pre-1967 borders. That information takes up about 6 or 7 lines in the entire article, and about the same in the references section.

John Z, the political entity has already been added under the term "Palestine" on the disambiguation page. I have no objection to restoring a full-length independent article with links, and leaving a modest amount of information in the main article. In the mean time, the redirect to "Proposals for a Palestinian state" is definitely not appropriate, since "Palestine" is the most easily recognized name. harlan (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Even the UN source proves you wrong. They call it an "entity", not a "state", and it's clearly not a state. Please don't insist on making Wikipedia look stupid. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN itself explains in its volumes on International law that it has no authority whatsoever to recognize an entity as a state. The power to legally recognize any entity as a state is vested exclusively in other States.

Wikipedia editors, Op-Ed pundits, and private political action committees have no standing to contest those decisions. For example, UNESCO's volume on International law says:

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

I cited an expert opinion in my post above from Dr. L.C. Green which explained that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government.". In this case, even an organ of the State of Israel - the District Court of Jerusalem - disagrees with your assessment. It ruled that Palestine fulfilled the criteria for a sovereign State. Over 100 States have already recognized Palestine. I happen to think that an article titled "Proposals for a Palestinian State" which says that over 100 countries have already recognized the State of Palestine presents the reader with a logical contradiction that makes Wikipedia look very stupid. harlan (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored Article, wide discussion proposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted material

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

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

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

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

The Israeli military still occupies portions of the Palestinian Territories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Nominal state"?

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

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

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

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

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