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)

Talk page discussions are NOT subject to WP:OR wikilawyering. There has never been any WP:OR involved in the article content that you've complained about anyway. Deleting well-sourced content on the basis of your own parsing and rationalizations about Fayyad statements more than borders on the absurd, it violates Arbcom guidance.

There is no WP:RS source which can claim to know that Palestine is partially recognized. The Tinoco Case mentioned on pages 36 and 37 of Grant's "Recognition of States" discusses Great Britain's refusal to recognize a Costa Rican regime that came to power after overthrowing the previous government. The Tinoco regime lasted only a few years. The successor declined to honor Tinoco's debts to Canadian and British banks. That's when Great Britain asserted retroactively that the Tinoco regime had been the only de facto and de jure government during the period in question, and demanded international arbitration of its claims. [1] I mentioned a similar case, "The Litvinov Assignment", involving claims against the government of the Soviet Union. The United States retroactively recognized the USSR two decades after the fact in order to seize extraterritorial assets in this country that the Soviets had attempted to nationalize.[2] Great Britain retroactively recognized the Communist regime in China effective as of the date of its initial declaration. That case resulted in claims from the business clients of the de jure nationalist regime.[3].

The 30-year US government declassification schedule resulted in the release of documents which revealed that the US Government had accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho, Ramallah, and Nablus Conferences of 1948; had recommended the incorporation of the bulk of Arab Palestine with Transjordan; had extended de jure recognition to Israel and Transjordan on the same day; and had approved of the subsequent political act of union adopted by the Jordanian Parliament.

The declassified 1950 US State Department Country Report on Jordan said that the US and UK had both approved the action, and a footnote explained that the US had advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that "it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people."

President Truman told King Abdullah "I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation.

After the Six Day War Secretary of State Rusk stressed to the Government of Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it gave Jordan some special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as "Jordanian territory". see Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 765-766, Document 411 [4] The absolute immunity (an attribute of sovereignty) of purely Muslim holy places was supposed to be guaranteed in perpetuity under the terms of article 13 and 28 of the Mandate. UN resolution 181 said that existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired. Israeli Ambassador Harmon said the Israeli position was that Jerusalem should be an open city under unified administration but that the Jordanian interest in Jerusalem could be met through arrangements including "sovereignty". Rostow said the US government assumed (and Harman confirmed) that despite public statements to the contrary, the Government of Israel position on Jerusalem was that which Eban, Harman, and Evron had given several times, that Jerusalem was negotiable. see Foreign relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Volume XVIII Arab-Israeli Dispute, page 996, Document 505 [5]

The union between Palestine and Jordan was dissolved a few decades later. The Arab League, including Jordan, "affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". King Ḥussein dissolved the Jordanian parliament, renounced Jordanian claims to the West Bank, and allowed the PLO to assume responsibility as the Provisional Government of Palestine.

Professor John Quigley recently noted "The statehood declared by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new statehood. Rather, it was a declaration of an existing statehood. That fact strengthens the Palestine claim to statehood, as requirements for an existing state are less rigorous than those for an entity purporting to be a new state. see http://www.lawrecord.com/files/35-rutgers-l-rec-1.pdf page 8 THE PALESTINE DECLARATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: THE STATEHOOD ISSUE, by Professor John Quigley, The Internet Journal of Rutgers School of Law harlan (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think harlan raises some important points. There is a a lot of scholarship dealing with the legal status of Palestinian statehood that predates the 1988 declaration. I think a lot of this would be better covered in an article on the Legal Status of Palestine (which I hope someone as informed as harlan will write - hint hint ...) But some of it should certainly be covered here. Perhaps a section on "Legal interpretations" or "Legal scholarship" would be in order? Tiamut^talk 16:30, 18 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 focuses on the declaration (so we actually do seem to have partial agreement here) but makes clear that it is only a proposed state and that it has no sovereignty over any territory. (Like see this version from May 2006 when I rewrote the intro.) 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 (including the title, like Declaration of a Palestinian state), 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 more than three years (or so the above version-link would indicate) 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)

I think going directly to the 1988 declaration for now is an okay temporary solution. However, when we a more developed article that discusses the various scholarly views on the issue, I think we can come up with a suitable opening definition. I don't like using "nominal" because I don't think its that accurate. Even without territory, Palestine is more than a state in name only, though certainly less than fully functioning state. My and your personal opinions aside, I think the complexities of what the State of Palestine is, in theory and practice today, can be covered for our readers when we start to probe the scholarship more deeply. Tiamut^talk 16:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you changed the opening sentence to "The "State of Palestine" [...] is a state [...]". This, in my opinion, is plain wrong, or at least highly disputable. According to most conventional definitions of a state, control over territory is a strict requirement. As such, the SoP is not a state. Flatly declaring is the opening sentence that it is, is plain wrong. Since you didn't like "nominal" (which simply states that it is a state by name, but does not offer an opinion on it actually being a state), How about "The SoP is a political entity partially recognized as a state", or something of this sort?

Also, I find "also simply Palestine" to be somewhat misleading, as it is relatively rare that the SoP (being a somewhat obscure entity, to the point where until recently it was considered unworthy of a Wikipedia article of its own) is referred to as simply "Palestine". I think there is much confusion in the general public's mind between Palestine, the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian territories and (to the extent it's even known) the State of Palestine. We should strive to make these distinctions clearer, and the phrase quoted above certainly doesn't help doing that. -- uriber (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate the relative insignificance of the SoP compared to the PLO and PNA, I note the fact that the position of President of the State of Palestine was vacant between Arafat's death in 2005, and the time when Mahmoud Abbas was formally elected to this position in November 2008. When Abbas was finally elected to this post (after serving as cahirman of the PLO and President of the PNA for over 3 years), this was seen as mostly a tactical move to strengthen Abbas' position within the PNA [6], and was barely even covered by international media. -- uriber (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uriber about the first paragraph. A few quick points: (1) Using the word "state", unqualified, is obviously wrong and makes this version worse than any other I can recall over the past three years; (2) using "Palestine" as an alternate name is incorrect, confusing and POV; (3) I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but what does it mean to say that the "state" has "no direct control" over any territory, as opposed to just "no control"? Direct as opposed to indirect? I am not sure what either of those would mean; (4) Calling it a state "with limited recognition" is misleading and I note with some rueful amusement that there is an article List of states with limited recognition (which, disturbingly, is a "featured list" that violates just about every rule in the Wikipedia book, including SYNTH/OR and POV) that includes both Israel and the "State of Palestine", though in different categories, and it makes me wonder whether some attempt is being made to equate the two for obvious political reasons; that is, a real state (Israel) and a non-state (the "State of Palestine"), by calling them both "states with limited recognition"); (5) Tiamut's mention of "scholarship" in this area raises a real red flag for me (red signifying neither Communists nor Republicans (U.S.) in this case). There is a really fine line (if there is a line at all) between scholarship and political posturing on this subject. This is not chemistry or botany, it is not even history, and it is "law" only in the most tenuous sense. I know all about law journal articles, an opinion piece with a lot of footnotes and citations is still an opinion piece; these are even more prevalent in "international law" than in other areas of law. So let's not place too much faith (so to speak) in "scholarship" on subjects like this. Empty conferrals of "recognition" do not provide the answer either -- in practical terms they consist mainly of issuing credentials to a diplomatic delegation, but fancy documents with wax seals and cute ribbons do not make a state either. A more practical place to look would be the U.N., which contrary to one of the comments somewhere up above, does "recognize" states, in the form of admitting states to membership, and giving non-state entities something less than that. In this case the U.N. has done exactly that, giving the Palestinian delegation only observer status, not membership. You can be sure that if there were any excuse, any tiny slender reed of justification, for admitting that delegation to membership in the U.N., it would be done "yesterday." Most member states of the U.N. would love to have a Palestinian entity as a member state, but they recognize that at this point, it is not one. (As opposed to other instances such as the Republic of China (Taiwan), where the non-membership is consistent with the political views of most member states, and even to some extent the views of the current government of the RoC, which still holds that there is only one legitimate government of China.)

Well, that's enough for now. I am sure I have missed a few points but will have to get back to them at another time. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've mae some changes in response to the concerns you both raised. Let me know if there are still problems you feel need to be addressed. Tiamut^talk 21:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to assume that this is a good-faith effort to resolve the issue, but I am not sure which of my concerns this new version is intended to address. Could you identify them by number? It seems to me that this makes it worse. How about a first sentence that starts: A (not The) State of Palestine was declared... (and then go into the basic facts of the declaration, which are now in the second sentence. Then we could say something like, Controversy exists over the result, with some considering the result a state, which has limited international recognition, and others noting that no Palestinian entity currently holds sovereignty over any territory. Then I would add another sentence, which I think would clear up a lot of the confusion that people have on this subject of "Palestinian statehood": The Palestinian National Authority, which exercises some governmental functions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (with different leadership in each region), is designated by the Oslo Accords as an interim administrative authority and not a sovereign state.

The wording of the above isn't perfect, since I've just kind of rattled it off on the spot. I realize the second sentence ("Controversy exists...") is subject to criticism under usual Wikipedia writing style, but I think it is both true and appropriate in this unusual case. Why not tell people there is controversy? Personally I think that is POV in and of itself. There really is no grounds for controversy, as there is no state there, regardless of who recognizes what. But I could live with something along the lines of what I have suggested. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the changes I made addressed point #1 (I used the wording proposed by Uriber for that). Point #2 is contradicted by the sources cited (among others). The UN changed the name of the observer representatives for the Palestinian people at the UN in the 1990s to "Palestine" from the "PLO". They did not change it to "State of Palestine". In fact, if you truly believe that there is no State of Palestine, the short-hand Palestine might be seen to be preferable, no? About #3, I took it out entirely because I'd like to see what phrasing the sources use. Regarding #4, consensus in the Wikipedia community seems to indicate that a state with limited recognition is a valid concept. About #5, of course all scholarship expresses a bias. Our job is collect from the best sources a variety of significant POVs on this subject to bring this article in line with NPOV. That's an ongoing struggle.

About your latest suggestions, I have to say honestly that I don't find them necessary. The literature uses "The State of Palestine" and not "A State of Palestine" (generally-speaking). Our version currently uses both formulations. "Controversy exists ..." is not a good way to describe the debate over the status of the State of Palestine. When we amass more scholarship, we can map out a summary of the different positions. Most scholarship examines the claim to Palestinian statehood against the 4 criteria outlined in the 1933 Montevideo conference. Some scholars argue that Palestine fulfills this criteria, some say it does not, some say it does partially and that the criteria itself has evolved with new legal precedents provided by Western Sahara or elsewhere. We need to represent these arguments.

Your last suggestion regarding the PNA though is a good one I think. I would like to add it to the current text alongside what is there. Tiamut^talk 08:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your edits made the first paragraph worse than it was in the first place. I see Uriber has edited the first paragraph to re-insert the issue of control over territory, which is essential. My concern was over the phrase "direct control", as opposed to "control", so taking it out altogether obviously did not address the issue. Now you have introduced a new concept, over which I have a major concern, and which Uriber has left in place, and that is the phrase "political entity." What "political entity" are you referring to? A piece (or pieces) of land? If so, what land? A government? If so, what government? Or governments? Or political parties, or factions? Pieces of land, governments, political parties and factions can all be referred to as "political entities", but I can't identify any such "entity" that would be equivalent to a currently existing "State of Palestine." Maybe you meant something else. I think the problem here, as it has always been with this subject, is that this article really is not about a state, or a nominal state, or a political entity, but about the concept that there should be a Palestinian state, and also somewhat about the fact that the 1988 declaration was an attempt to turn that concept into a reality, which has not yet come to fruition. So let's write about the concept, as a concept, about which there is already an article, Proposals for a Palestinian state. Or if this must be a separate article, let's write about how the 1988 declaration does (or does not) relate to the practical reality of what exists today. Or if we can't even do that, let's recognize there is a controversy. But let's not make Wikipedia the encyclopedia of hopes and dreams, when it is supposed to just be an encyclopedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Under international law a state is a state

The Inter-American System of public law incorporates the Montevideo Convention and the Charter of the Organization of American States. Those multilateral treaty agreements are valid and still in force. They say that recognition confers legal rights, and that all states are juridically equal. I notice that 6SJ7, Uriber, and Okedem are not providing any third party verifiable WP:RS citations to customary or conventional international law to support their positions.

The theory that recognition is mere political gloss doesn't hold water. Both treaties contain contractual agreements regarding the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES: Article 10 "States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and have equal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof [i.e. sovereignty], but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law." Article 12 "The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever." Article 14 "Recognition implies that the State granting it accepts the personality of the new State, with all the rights and duties that international law prescribes for the two States."

Many countries viewed the DOP as an invalid agreement ab initio because it violated the principles of customary law contained in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. In the aftermath of the Six Day War, Foreign Minister Abba Eban said that Israel had given thought to establishment of a separate, autonomous Palestinian state on West Bank, but that the days of autonomous dependent regions had really passed. see Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 442.[7] The DOP represented an attempt to turn back the clock, and impose hieratical forms of statehood once again.

The term "nominal states" was applied to the South African TBVC States (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei). They were racial enclaves that were supposed to satisfy the right to self-determination of black South Africans. They received absolutely no international recognition because they were tools of apartheid. Palestine by contrast has been recognized by more than 100 countries. The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) is the statutory research agency of the national parliament. It recently completed a 15 month-long study of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in collaboration with Adalah, Al Haq, the Minerva Center at the Hebrew University, and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of London. The report, "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?", explains that the Bantustans were nominal states (on page 78 of 302).

The same HSRC study found that Israel had systematically violated international law in order to colonize the West Bank. The prohibition against the transfer of settlers to occupied territory was confirmed as an international crime in 1998 by its inclusion as Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That fact was acknowledged at the time in a statement made by Judge Eli Nathan, the head of the Delegation of Israel to the Rome Conference. UN Human Rights Rapporteurs have documented numerous other treaty violations in the occupied territories and have submitted reports to the appropriate monitoring bodies. The HSRC also found that Israel's practices violate the Apartheid Convention in several respects. Denial of nationality, interference in the right to self-determination and in the formation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were specifically cited by the HSRC as violations of the convention. Individual responsibility for the crime of Apartheid is covered in Article 7 of the Rome Statute. State responsibility is determined by the ICJ and the HSRC has recommended that an advisory opinion be obtained.

There are a number of international human rights conventions which have become a recognized part of customary international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that many non-derogable international human rights laws are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) on the basis of the fact that the inhabitants are the lawful residents of the territory of a state. harlan (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a law journal, much less a journal of alternate realities. We should be writing about reality here, not philosophical fantasies. If you insist on keeping the philosophical fantasies, let's at least have some balance, with the reality also stated, but you don't even seem willing to do that. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought-police is here?

You three fellows are awfully busy trying to prove that there is no country or state of Palestine despite published reports to the contrary. You don't seem to be following the non-negotiable WP:NPOV rules which say that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. In fact, you guys aren't providing any third-party verifiable WP:RS sources to support your views at all.

For quite a long time now I've patiently explained that statehood is just a legal status bestowed on communities exclusively by other states. That legal status affords them protection from aggression and non-negotiable guarantees of fundamental human rights. Nearly every entry on this restored talk page mentions the fact that third-party verifiable WP:RS sources say the Palestinian Authority has presented bilateral treaty agreements which prove that it has been legally recognized by dozens of other states. It has done that in order to request a war crimes investigation of the attack on Gaza and events dating back to 2002. Those same articles also say it's officials have turned over evidence to the ICC Prosecutor concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity.

An international group of legal experts working with a state research agency have reported that Israel has implemented a system of illegal colonization and apartheid in the OPT. They also want their day in court and recommend that an advisory opinion be obtained. see Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid - Full Study. The examples of abuse they cite include denial of nationality, interference with self-determination, and interference with the establishment of a Palestinian State. The President mentioned Israeli settlements and denial of Palestine's right to exist in his Cairo speech He said: "At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

6SJ7, your reaction "we are writing about reality here, not fantasy." is insulting. Publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) when they are directed against Palestinians is an acknowledged form of hate speech according to the EU Framework on Racism.

The United States is a contracting party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It took a reservation to the prohibition contained in article 4 to the extent that its efforts to prohibit propaganda activities are circumscribed by the protections provided in the Constitution for individual freedom of speech, expression, and association. The United States reports that it can, and does, give effect to article 4 in numerous areas. There are restrictions on tax exempt organizations that limit their ability to carry on sustained political propaganda campaigns. There seems to be guidance from Arbcom consistent with that policy in an earlier case that you were involved in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Principles

If a request for clarification becomes necessary, I will point out that the Israeli courts say Judea and Samaria are occupied, not disputed. People living in occupied territories share a number of legal protections under customary international law. They feel intimidated when those are characterized as "very controversial" or made the subject of unwarranted disputes. Even though Israel claimed the OPT was not subject to its sovereign jurisdiction or territory, the ICJ ruled that non-derogable human rights law does apply there. They explained that the inhabitants are the legal residents of the territory of a state. The Israeli courts say unplanned or unauthorized settlements are illegal because they violate the provisions of customary international law. Finally, any settlements built after 2002 violate the Rome Statute and the responsible individuals can be prosecuted in a number of countries. see the Database of National Implementing Legislation. Apartheid is now viewed as a violation of customary international law in this country and an Apartheid class action lawsuit is going to trial.

It seems that the Wikimedia Foundation aims to treat all people with respect, and to foster a productive environment free of harassment, intimidation and discrimination. It prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users on the basis of national origin or any other legally protected characteristics and says that those policies may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. harlan (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No one cares about your analysis of the situations, your opinion about the legality of settlements, and least of all your analysis of pieces of evidence to conclude that a Palestinian State exists. Since you simply refuse to provide expert opinion to that end, I can only conclude you failed to find any.

But all of that doesn't matter. In resorting to what is effectively legal threats, you have lost any right to be heard by your fellow Wikipedians. From now on, I will simply ignore your scrolls of irrelevant claims, and I urge others to do the same. okedem (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any legal threat in harlan's comments. The responses to his comments are another matter. Failing to engage the arguments of your fellow editors is disruptive. It's also rude.

harlan has raised a number of relevant points. He doesn't have to cite every comment he makes on talk pages and those familiar with the literature know that his summaries are accurate. I have added some cited material addressing some of these issues and will be adding more. I hope that those pretending that this information is not relevant will respect the additions and read them. They will help us to draft an appropriate introduction. Those who don't read material from scholarly sources will be of little use in drafting an intro that is in line with NPOV and V. Tiamut^talk 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see it, I guess you need to re-read his comment. Saying that another user's comments are "Hate speech", and that Wikimedia is under certain legal obligations is a legal threat ("There are restrictions on tax exempt organizations that limit their ability to carry on sustained political propaganda campaigns"). Also, saying (that's what he's doing - read the link in his title) that other users are payed campaigners is unacceptable. His claims aren't gaining support, so he's personally attacking the other users.

And I'll say this again - Harlan likes to discuss numerous points, usually irrelevant, to "prove" his points. Unfortunately, as we've tried to explain to him, what he's doing is original research - examining evidence (recognition, diplomacy, statehood criteria etc), and drawing conclusions from them ("Palestine is a state"). These issues are for legal scholars, not Wikipedians. I don't care how compelling the evidence might be, or how illegal the settlements are (completely irrelevant to this discussions, as many of his other points). Harlan is not a legal expert to be used as an RS. He should present actual experts, real sources, that support his claims. He refuses to do so, and so his arguments become meaningless. You're free to make your choice, but you actually should know better than this. okedem (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He's familiar with the literature. Read John Quigley's latest article on Palestine's application to the ICC for example. He discusses many of the same points harlan is. I think harlan is wrong to waste his time trying to explain all of this to people who don't want to hear it, but what he is saying is not OR and its not irrelevant. Its what most of the scholarship of the subject is saying.

I would encourage harlan to spend less time writing this stuff on the talk page and more time writing it into articles, with citations to the sources expressing these arguments of course. If you are having trouble finding the cites, let me know and I will add them to your text. They are not really that hard to find. All it requires is a little good faith.

It sure looks like a legal threat to me. In fact, I see at least two. I would ask for a neutral third-party admin to take a look and give an opinion, but I am not sure where to find one who, on one hand, will actually be neutral, and on the other hand, won't be attacked for agreeing with me. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

De facto recognition?

Tiamut, you wrote in footnote 3 "While the majority of the states who have recognized Palestine have afforded de facto recognition...". However, the article on Diplomatic recognition says that "de facto recognition is more tentative and relates more to recognizing that a government exercises control over a territory". I find it hard to believe that the majority of states recognized the fact that the government of the SoP exercises control over a territory, given that it never exercised such control. Can you explain? -- uriber (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a rather lazy edit that attempted to reconcile the difference between the 67 states figure of de jure recognition. Accoring to this source, the terms are rather out of vogue and have a tendency towards misapplication. I think the information about bilateral relations is better placed in another part of the article as text. My addition to the beginning of that sentence should simply be thrown out. Tiamut^talk 21:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. However, this leaves us with the conflicting figures, and the main text simply ignores this conflict, stating "more than 100 countries" as a fact. Frankly, I'm very suspicious of that figure. If we're going to give only one number in the main text, I think it should be 67, since that comes from the most recent and reliable source. Either that, or we should restore my wording (that you removed), stating the various figures with references to their sources. What would really be nice is having actual per-country reference (coming from a source in the recognizing country), as we have e.g. in International recognition of Kosovo. -- uriber (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone with the information in the most authoritative source. The number of 67 given in this article does not seem to be referring to the total number of states which have recognized Palestine. Rather, it refers to the documents al-Malki presented to the ICC proving de jure recognition by 67 states. Besides this source which gives a number of 94 (the lowest), most others place the figure at over 100. For example, Anat Kurz gives a figure of 117, the IMEU gives a figure of about 100, this UNESCO document from 1989 (a year after the declaration) gives a figure of 92, this book from 2003 gives a figure of over 114 whereas a book from 1996 gives a figure of some 90. The discrepancies have to do with the fact that as time goes on, the number changes due to new recognitions (like that of Costa Rica in 2008) or to the dissolution of states which did recognize Palestine (like the GDR) and recognition afforded by newly created states (like the Czech and Slovak Republics). Unlike Kosovo, whose recognition came very recently, initial recognition for the Palestinians began even prior to 1988. Its hard to find online sources for each individual recognition (though I have been working on that at List of diplomatic missions of Palestine). I suggest that we write "about 100" for now and discuss the varriations in footnotes, citing the year of the source and the figure and explaning some of these issues if necessary. Cluttering up the text with different figures from different sources, some of which are outdated, seems WP:UNDUE and unnecessary. Tiamut^talk 07:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)