Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 3

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)

article move to "Palestine"

This has been spoken to before, but the context was incomplete and confusing. I propose moving this article to "Palestine" and the current article by that name to "Palestine (region)" or "Palestine (Region)". This is the common name of the country, and when it is used it is most often used in reference to the country (or semi-country), not the region which includes, among others, modern Israel (ie. they are not including Israel in a reference to Palestine.) In addition, all United Nations actions refer to the country as Palestine. Agree/Disagree/Comment? Int21h (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Palestine article isn't about a region. It is either about the Ottoman era country or the State of Palestine. The rest is simply an anachronistic regurgitation of History of the Southern Levant. During most of the periods mentioned in the article, "the region" wasn't known as Palestine.

I started some threads about that on the Palestine article talk page: |The_Statehood_Issue |Palestine (country)

harlan (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger

I think the article "Palestinian National Authority" should be merged with this one.99.247.60.143 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Partition Plan

If we want to start adding explanations as to why the Arabs rejected the plan, we can't only mention the "unfair partition" claim; we'll also have to mention that they categorically rejected any sort of partition. They opposed any Jewish state on any part of Palestine, no matter how small, and refused any plan to make Palestine anything less than completely Arab. For instance, they rejected the Peel Commission (1937), which suggested a very, very small Jewish state.

So, we can add all these things, and make the background section long and irrelevant for this article, or we can just keep the stable version phrasing - there was a plan for two states, Arabs rejected it, only the Jewish state came to be. This isn't saying anything about why they rejected, or if they were justified in doing so, and the interested reader can go to the relevant article to find out. okedem (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "IF" about it. Articles on Wikipedia grow and get broken down into multiple articles all the time. This article is subject to general sanctions. You are not going to delete published information by reliable sources about the Palestinians and the Palestinian leaders who accepted partition, so that you can say "the Arabs" rejected it. The UN Security Council also rejected the partition plan according to the Assistant US Secretary of State. Other editors DO NOT have to clear the inclusion of well sourced material from published sources through you.

You are misquoting your sources too. John Wolffe says that while Zionists have attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to intransigence, others have argued that it was rejected because it was unfair. Mehran Kamrava also said the plan was one-sided. I don't even know why this article cites Rubin, his area of expertise is Arab Theater, and that is the subject of his book. None of those authors said that ONLY the state of Israel emerged, talked about the Kings of Israel, and etc. There are a range of views. The union of the Kingdom of Palestine and Transjordan was formally recognized by other governments, and even the Gaza government was formally recognized by other Arab League member states. You do not get to sweep that material aside. harlan (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quoting any reason for rejection from the sources I added, so your claim is false. If I wanted to quote, I could explain that they opposed any partition at all. We're not discussing the merits of the plan, just what actually happened - the Arabs rejected it, in full. I'm sure some individual Arab supported it, but the leadership of both Palestine Arabs and the Arab League opposed. Are you claiming an independent Arab state emerged? The UNSC didn't reject the plan, it didn't vote on it at all.

An in-depth discussion of the plan belongs in the article about it, not here. okedem (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't read the article, John Quigley said the Palestinians based their claim to statehood on the law regarding the succession of states. There is a link in the article to a clipping from the Palestine Post about the Palestinians who said that "the Arabs" weren't their legal representatives, and that they wanted to save the remainder of their homeland by crowning Abdullah the King of Arab Palestine and making the two areas a "joint kingdom". That is exactly what happened. Jordan was a joint Kingdom of the East and West Banks, Palestine and Transjordan. see Jericho Declaration; and Hebron Mayor Challenges Egyptians to Tell the Truth [1]

You are not allowing your sources to speak for themselves. John Wolffe says that while Zionists have attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to intransigence, others have argued that it was rejected because it was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56 percent) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7 percent of it, and remained a minority of the population. Mehran Kamrava also notes the disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45 percent of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state. You have deleted that several times now, and I don't think your reasons are educational. harlan (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand something - when one cites a source, one does not have to repeat everything that source says. I cite these sources for the fact that the Arabs rejected the plan. I didn't go into the reasons for it, as this is not the place. Some claim it's because of unfair allocation, but the Arabs themselves (like the Arab Higher Commission) opposed any partition at all, on principle, which is why they also opposed the 1937 plan, which gave the Jews only a very small part of Palestine, much smaller than the 1947 plan. The place for reasons and motivations is the article about the plan, not this one.

I'm sure some Arabs supported partition, but minorities aren't the point - the leadership is. What the Arabs of Palestine wanted to do with regards to Transjordan isn't the issue here - we're discussing the partition plan, that they rejected. After their rejection backfired, and they ended up with much less of what they could've had, they wanted to "save" the remainder, but that's not the topic of this section.

As you seem to insist on these things, I've added the fact that they opposed any partition. It seems relevant to me, as you want more details in that section, but I prefer the original version - just citing the facts - there was a plan, Jews supported, Arabs rejected.

Anyway, for accuracy, I've clarified who exactly rejected the plan. okedem (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues for Moderation

I'm going to insist on a lot of things. There are a range of published views, like those of Simha Flapan in "The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities", which say that it is only a myth that the Jews accepted partition and that the Arabs rejected it. One of the sources that you introduced, Wolff, discusses Plan Dalet. You cannot decide to exclude significant viewpoints about such things by simply trying to bully other editors.

For example, Wahlid Kahlidi wrote that partition was simply the first step in Ben Gurion's plan for Palestine. Kahlidi said that Ben Gurion had adopted Avnir's plans to take over the rest of the territory by force. Two of his papers on that subject are available online: Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution and Plan Dalet Revisited. In 1937-1938 the Jewish Agency developed its own partition proposal. see Partner to Partition, Yossi Katz, Frank Cass, 1998. In "Letters to Paula and the Children (page 153), Ben Gurion wrote that he was in favor of partition because he didn't envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. He said that "What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish." He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country and complete the historic task of redeeming the entire land with or without the consent of the Arabs.

Where did you get the idea that a minority favored partition? The majority of the Arab citizens of the former mandate formed a state under the leadership of Abdullah. The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, 2nd Revised edition edition (1 Jun 2004), published by Macmillan Library Reference;ISBN: 0028657691, has an article on the All-Palestine Government. It says King Abdullah of Transjordan's plan was to accept the partition of Palestine with the Jews and to incorporate the Arab part into his kingdom.

You've deleted this information several times now: Ian Bickerton says that few Palestinians joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. Bickerton says for that reason many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state. See "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict,(4th Edition), Ian J. Bickerton, and Carla L. Klausner, Prentice Hall, 2001, ISBN: 0130903035, page 88. He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan. ibid, page 103 Abdullah appointed Ibrahim Hashem Pasha as the Governor of the Arab areas occupied by troops of the Arab League. He was a former Prime Minister of Transjordan who supported partition of Palestine as proposed by the Peel Commission and the United Nations. Fakhri Nashashibi and Ragheb Bey Nashashibi were leaders of the movement that opposed the Mufti during the mandate period. Both men accepted partition. Bey was the mayor of Jerusalem. He resigned from the Arab Higher Committee because he accepted the United Nations partition proposal. Fu’ad Nasar, the Secretary of Arab Workers Congress, also accepted partition. The United States declined to recognize the All-Palestine government in Gaza by explaining that it had accepted the UN Mediator's proposal. The Mediator had recommended that Palestine, as defined in the original Mandate including Transjordan, might form a union. See memo from Acting Secretary Lovett to Certain Diplomatic Offices, Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI, pages 1447-48 Bernadotte's diary said the Mufti had lost credibility on account of his unrealistic predictions regarding the defeat of the Jewish militias. Bernadotte noted "It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan." See Folke Bernadotte, "To Jerusalem", Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112-13

You also deleted this statement and left the reference dangling: "Avi Plascov said that the Palestinian Congresses were conducted according to prevailing Arab political custom, and that contrary to the widely held belief outside Jordan, the representatives did reflect the feelings of a large segment of the population." See "The Palestinian Refugees In Jordan 1948-1957, Routledge, 1981, ISBN: 0714631205, pages 11-16 harlan (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not answering to the point. Whatever reasons or motives the Jews had for accepting the plan are not relevant here; the fact is - they accepted. The Arabs, though perhaps not as coherently led as the Jews, still had some leadership, in form of the Higher Committee. That body vehemently rejected the plan, and rejected any form of partition. Did some Arabs dissent? Sure, just like some Jews dissented. But did those Arab dissenters do anything about it? Did they form an alternative government? Any sort of movement to accept the plan? Of course not. They continued to stand behind the Mufti, even after his collaboration with the Nazis, calling for the eradication of all Jews. Apparently, Palestine's Arabs didn't find that too sensational.

If the only leadership they had at the time rejected the plan, and no alternative voices gained popular support, saying "the Arabs rejected the plan" remains accurate. Regardless, I have clarified this in the text.

The Arabs of Palestine might have wanted a State under the leadership of Abdullah, but they wanted that state to encompass all of Palestine, not just the 45% allocated in the plan. What they did after the war isn't the issue here, but their reaction to the 1947 plan. You say that "King Abdullah of Transjordan's plan was to accept the partition of Palestine", but that's inaccurate. He wanted to take over the territory, and was willing to share it with a Jewish state, but he, too, opposed a new independent Arab state in Palestine. Officially, he opposed partition, along with the other Arab leaders ([2]). okedem (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem it is a misuse of the talk page to continue to discuss verifiable published material from reliable sources that represent a range of opposing viewpoints. Abdullah was declared the King of Arab Palestine by a Palestinian Congress. That was an act of state that happened before any annexation or union with Transjordan ever occurred and it is reported by a host of reliable sources. WP:NPOV says that significant published viewpoints must all be fairly represented, as far as possible, without bias -- and that is NON-NEGOTIABLE. John Quigley, Dean Rusk, Simha Flapan, David Ben Gurion, The Palestine Post, The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, and Walid Khalidi are sources that meet the burden of proof (verifiability) for inclusion in THIS article. The policy says that if a section of the article gets too big, it gets spun-off and linked back to the main article. See WP:SUMMARY harlan (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, your post is so confused I don't understand what you want. What point are you arguing? What phrasing would you like to change? What is this related to? okedem (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dean Rusk memos

Okedem keeps saying that it is important to say "the Arabs" rejected partition to explain why no Arab state was established. He has deleted references to the official historical record published by the U.S. State Department, even though it is part of a narrative about the U.S., British, and French-backed plan to partition Palestine on a de facto basis between the Jewish Agency and Transjordan.

Future Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs during the Truman administration. He reported that the United Nations Security Council refused to accept the General Assembly resolution on partition as the basis for Security Council action. He said that the majority of the members indicated that they would never vote for partition. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, page Page 750

The UN Security Council members were NOT intransigent "Arabs". Rusk commented on the Jewish Agency's refusal to accept on-the-spot truce negotiations by the UN on May 3, 1948. He also commented on reports that had been forwarded from Palestine, written by U.S. Consul General Wasson, and the Commanding British General Officer about the probable course of military events after British withdrawal on May 15 1948. He also mentioned an earlier report about a plan for de facto partition:

If these predictions come true, we shall find ourselves in the UN confronted by a very anomalous situation. The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the SC in scarcely ten days' time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.

The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack. ...

...Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3 of USUN's telegram [549], May 2, which has been drawn to your attention. See Memo from Rusk to the Under Secretary of State Lovett, May 4, 1948, Subject: Future Course of Events in Palestine. Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848

If we are going to pillory "the Arabs", then I'm going to insist that this published viewpoint also be included. harlan (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Both you, and, earlier, Tiamut, made a sin of omission. Mention the partition plan for two states, and then say only the Jewish state emerged. Careful to omit the fact that the Arabs (both the Arab Higher Committee in Palestine, and the Arab League) rejected the plan categorically (opposing it on principle, not on points of exactly how much land was allocated to each). By this tactic, you'd like the reader to assume that only a Jewish state was created because the evil Jews wouldn't let the Arabs create their state. Extremely deceitful, and unacceptable.

The relevant sides here the Arabs and Jews, not the security council, which simply didn't discuss this. Maybe if it had, it would have rejected it, and maybe not (perhaps the Soviet Union, the US, and France, all supporting the plan, would have managed to convince other members). As they didn't discuss it, "what would have been" is a matter of scholarly debate, and ridiculously far outside the scope of this article.

I've added another couple of sources about the Arab response. Don't like - tough. I've also added a source explaining the painfully obvious to everyone but harlan - no Arab state was created in Palestine following the war. okedem (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's you that's being decietful, attempting to phrase the narrative in the propaganda terms of one side. There are lots of reasons why no Arab state was born, but the rejection of the partition (by both sides) doesn't appear to have much to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.70.117 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss anything with someone so disconnected from reality (rejected by both sides? Rejecting a plan for establishing an independent state is unrelated to not establishing one?). okedem (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, the Arab communities of Palestine were recognized as an independent nation in 1920. The record of the 1947 General Assembly special session on Palestine states a very obvious legal fact: "The Egyptian representative explained, in reply to various statements, that the Arab States did not represent the Palestinian Arab population." see YEARBOOK of the UNITED NATIONS, 1946-47. [3]

After the Mandate was terminated, the Arab Higher Committee advised the Security Council that it formed a coalition that represented the local districts.[4] The Mayor of Hebron and the Jericho Congress were on very firm legal ground when they asserted their own independence; denounced the other Arab States and the "Gaza puppet government"; and said they were going to pursue a peaceful solution. See the Palestine Post article "Hebron Mayor Challenges Eygptian Government to tell the Truth." [5] West Virginia did the same thing during the US Civil War. The same newspaper clipping reports that Abdullah, the King of Transjordan, had just been declared the King of Arab Palestine and a joint kingdom was under consideration. That means a change of sovereignty had already legally occurred in Central Palestine, before the union was formed and the territory was annexed. Jordan was a new Arab state that was formed by the communities of the Palestine mandate.

The source you were citing, Don Rubin, did not say many of the things that were attributed to him. The Google search terms embedded in your subsequent links indicate that you simply looked for any source that said the partition plan was rejected. However, you keep deleting the statements made by Wolffe and Kamrava which say the terms of the partition plan were unreasonable. Don Rubin, John Wolffe, and Mehran Kamrava did not mention the Arab Higher Committee or the Arab League. harlan (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The only recognized leadership of Palestine's Arabs at the time was the Higher Committee, and they rejected the plan. I've yet to see a single source of any notable Arab leader saying - "I support the UN partition plan". Privately, some said other things, but their public statements are what matters, and those were all terribly negative of partition.
2. We're discussing the reaction to the UN plan, approved on 29/11/1947. Whatever happened in the middle of the war, as your clipping reports, and as you discuss in your second paragraph, has no bearing on the subject. Please keep your comments confined to the subject at hand. I must also note that your use of primary sources, like newspaper clippings, or letters, is strictly forbidden WP:OR. We are not qualified to judge such sources, and must rely on experts, like historians, to analyze them, and publish their opinions.
3. I don't recall citing Rubin, actually. I cited Wolffe, Plascov, Bovis, Kamrava and Golan (and Robins on the talk page).
4. I just included those terms so it would highlight the relevant paragraphs, to make it easier for the readers to check that the source actually supports the assertion, and find the relevant pages of the book; I try to search for things like "Arab reaction", etc. But that's irrelevant - are you disputing the veracity of the sources? Can you provide books that say the Arabs accepted the plan (I'll save you the trouble - I tried to find such books, and failed)? This is a complete non-issue.
5. I deleted their statements because there's no need to discuss the reasons. In this article, it makes much more sense to stick to the cold, hard facts - they rejected the plan. I don't want to discuss why - sure, you can claim the terms were unreasonable, though even that's debatable - you count the contemporary Jewish population of Palestine, but don't take into account that the Jewish state was supposed to be the home of millions of Jews who would emigrate to it, drastically changing the composition. The Arabs also rejected the Peel partition plan, which gave Jews much less land; they actually rejected any partition, on principle, so the details of the plan aren't even the issue. Maybe they rejected because their leader, Haj' Amin, was essentially an honorary Nazi. Could be many reasons, and I'm not judging them here - and neither should you, by trying to rationalize and provide excuses for them. The discussion of this (using secondary sources, I remind you), belongs in the article about the partition plan.
6. Some of the sources don't explicitly discuss the Committee, because they don't delve into details of this. That's why I added two other sources, Plascov and Bovis, who explain it more deeply. What's the problem with that? Are you denying that the Committee rejected the plan? Or are you just trying to sideline the discussion? okedem (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In the reply to the UNSC that harlan provided above, the Arab Higher Committee says "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit". That sure sounds like a rejection of the Partition Plan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In Secretary Lovett's memo to Diplomatic Offices declining recognition of the All-Palestine government, he noted: '"Govt" apparently being set up without prior consultation wishes Arab Palestinians.' Conversely, the State Department told the British and French Foreign Ministers that the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan "represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people." harlan (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved for discussion

Neither the Montevideo Convention nor the Foreign Relations Law of the United States require that a State actually conduct its own foreign relations. They only require that a state be capable of conducting its own foreign relations. Nothing prevents states from recognizing the PA as the government of the State of Palestine.

I moved this here for discussion:

Created by the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the PLO, the PA is not a synonym for the government of Palestine, though it is associated with it.

Other states and international organizations have recognized the Palestinian Authority as the government of the State of Palestine. The Forward article [6] said that the Palestinian Authority has been working to expand the number of countries that recognize Palestine as a country and that "Costa Rica, a small Central American country, decided to open official ties with a “state of Palestine” through a document signed February 5 by Costa Rica’s ambassador to the United Nations and Riyad Mansour, the P.A.’s U.N. mission chief."

The Today's Zaman article [7] said the Palestinian Justice Minister and Palestinian Foreign Minister announced that "the Palestinian Authority submitted documents recognizing the ICC's authority."; and also announced "that they had submitted documents to Moreno-Ocampo that proved Palestine was a legal state".

During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, the US Ambassador explained:

[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." See page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948[8]

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 harlan (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Comments Made by Kamrava, Flapan, Weizmann, Khalaf, Caplan, and etc.

Okedem you cannot use the neutral voice of the article to make a controversial statement of opinion. You have to attribute it to the author. You certainly don't get to delete material and references that support any opposing points of view. harlan (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the Arabs rejected the plan is well sourced. Even the source you mention, Wolffe, doesn't dispute that the Arabs rejected the plan, but only says they did it because it wasn't fair, not due to "intransigence" - and our article doesn't claim any such thing anyway. okedem (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed the arbitrary deletion of sourced material which expresses the published view that Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection of partition is a myth. I've asked you to attribute the comment to an author, and to stop speaking about non-factual matters of opinion in the voice of the encyclopedia. harlan (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a controversial statement of opinion. It is recognized fact. The authors you wish to source as definitive statements of fact are indeed the controversial deviants from the historically accepted sequence of events. If you wish to present their opinion, it needs to be presented neutrally, by stating that the authors stated that the evil Zionists made up the scheme to blame it on the Arabs, blah blah blah. The current version of the article does this appropriately. In terms of the fact that the Arabs rejected the plan, this is not controversial, it is widely accepted and as such widely sourced, and it is completely inappropriate of you to be editing the article to make it seem as if it is a deviant claim made by an individual source. Breein1007 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That statement has not changed, but it has been challenged multiple times. Okedem has attributed it to several different sources, but it turned out they said nothing of the kind. Several of them actually labeled it an outright myth. So it certainly is a controversial opinion. The article also references several sources including the US State Department and Palestine Post that noted the announcement of Abdullah as the "King of Arab Palestine" and a subsequent union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. It also cites several sources which say that many states extended de jure and de facto recognition to the union. So, you need to specify which sources say no Arab state materialized and attribute that opinion to the author in the text. The Wikipeda policy contained in WP:CITE#CHALLENGED requires you to make your writing verifiable by attributing controversial opinions to their authors in the text:

find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text.

Okedem is currently citing Bovis, page 40, completely out of context as if he were talking about the UN partition plan. He is actually talking about the British proposal that the Jewish Agency rejected. His statement in that connection is noted elsewhere in the article and attributed as his opinion.

In 1937 the US Consul General at Jerusalem told the State Department that the Mufti refused the principle of partition and declined to consider it. He said the Emir Abdullah urged acceptance on the ground that realities must be faced, but wanted modification of the proposed boundaries and Arab administrations in the the neutral enclave. The Consul also noted that Nashashibi side-stepped the principle, but was willing to negotiate for favorable modifications.[9] Abdullah and Nashashibi were Arab leaders. harlan (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Political

All these entries ride rough-shod over international law and treaties. The entire entry is political and not about the legal entities. The Arabs were given land east of the Jordan for the Arab state in Palestine and the Jews all the land west of the Jordan for their state in Palestine. There is no Palestine as an entity save for that invented by Arafat in 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.163.1 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this question has been asked before but...

This article seems to suggest that there is a state called the State of Palestine. If so, why do Palestinian leaders "threaten" to declare independence, as written here [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]? DrorK (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine existed for 25 years before the Zionist Executive threatened to declare their independence in part of it. In the jurisprudence of the United States and most other countries a state does not cease to exist simply because its territory is occupied. harlan (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine you refer to was declared in Algeria. You mean it was occupied by Algeria? Does the English Wikipedia have an article about the Republic of Quebec? Padania is not mentioned in en-wp as a sovereign country even though it declared independence from Italy. Does this article try to convey knowledge or make political statements? DrorK (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I've noticed you consider Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Areqat, Salam Fayad and other Palestinian officials as Zionist. Did you mean it as a compliment? DrorK (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Correcting and NPOVizing the lead

1. The geographical area known in English as Palestine includes areas in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Lebanese Republic and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since the Palestinians do not claim territories within these countries, the term "former British Mandate of Palestine" is much more accurate.
2. The State of Palestine is not a state in the regular meaning of the world, because it controls no territory. Even the territories claimed by it and internationally considered occupied, were captured from Jordan and Egypt and not from the State of Palestine. Hence, it is important to emphasize that there is no territory in which the declared state could exercise its claimed sovereignty.
3. It is important to mention that Jerusalem serves as the Israeli seat of government. People may think we are talking about two different cities with the same name.
4. It is important to mention that the countries that recognized Palestine did not take any steps to actually promote the materialization of it. For example, no sanctions were imposed on Israel.
5. Some of the countries that have diplomatic delegations in Ramallah do not recognize the State of Palestine. DrorK (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

One other thing - there is no need to reiterate the explanations about the status of Jerusalem already explained in other articles. It is enough to direct the readers to these articles. DrorK (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. It already explains the legal aspects of state succession and occupation with references to the US State Department Digest of International Law, the Permanent Court of International Justice, and the International Court of Justice.

You don't seem to be familiar with the applicable customary law regarding governments in exile or under occupation. The article cites the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States which covers customary state practice, Stephen Talmon, John Quigley, an several other legal scholars on that subject. The article mentions a number of steps that have been taken to help the State of Palestine by the EU and USAID West Bank and Gaza, the Quartet Roadmap, the UN recognition of permanent sovereignty, and etc. The international community didn't do anything to make the Baltic States "materialize", they considered them occupied and illegally annexed.

The states of Palestine and Transjordan were legally recognized by two international courts in 1925, they were not merely geographical areas. The Arab Congress at Jericho declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and proposed a joint kingdom through a union with Transjordan. The US State Department and the Palestine Post took note of those acts of state, and the union was recognized by other other countries. The political union was dissolved after Israel invaded and occupied the territory, but a confederation was proposed. Delineation and recognition of the international boundary between Israel and Jordan was delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate. But, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Under international law a state does not cease to exist simply because its territory is occupied, and the acquisition of territory by war is prohibited.

Some of the states with delegations in Ramallah have publicly stated that their policy is not to make formal declarations regarding recognition. Talmon explains that rather than formally announcing their recognition of a new government, States following this policy, as a rule, implicitly recognize a new authority in power as the government of a foreign State by dealing with it as such. L.C Green and Ruth Lapidoth have explained that recognition of successor governments is a political act that 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. Some states do require that a government exercise control over its territory, but the majority do not. harlan (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary assumes bad faith and the lead is making editorial statements that are not supported by actual state practice or the law. harlan (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what kind of legal education you possess before suggesting I am ignorant? And what does a legal interpretation have to do with this article? Wikipedia is not a legal site, but an informative site. BTW, wasn't it you suggesting that the president of what you refer to as "exiled government" (which in fact lives in Ramallah) was a Zionist agent? I have no choice but to revert your reversion, as you clearly try to make political statement instead of trying to provide information. DrorK (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

One other remark, the British Mandate of Palestine was established based on the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It was indeed recognized as a political entity (not an independent state), and the League of Nations granted the UK the mandate to administer it in order to fulfill the commitment to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine: "...the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...". The Hebrew official name of the Mandate was "Palestina-Eretz-Yisrael". Palestine is not listed as a sovereign state on Wikipedia's list, and there are at least two other articles Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian Territories that contradict the original phrasing of this article. What you're doing is basically a violation of the "No Original Research" Rule and the common sense that Wikipedian articles must not contradict one another. DrorK (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to apply the sync tag to the other articles for you. Statehood is a legal status that is governed by customary and conventional international laws. Reciting the terms of the Mandate really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Palestine was legally recognized as a state by other states.

Since the 1890s, the American States have repeatedly affirmed that international law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations, and that international order consists essentially of respect for the personality, sovereignty, and independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from treaties and other sources of international law. They believe that recognition of governments is discretionary, but that recognition of states is a legal obligation.

They also believe that States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and have equal duties. They think the rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof, but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law. See the OAS Charter [17] and the The Inter-American System of Agreements and Conventions [18]

None of the material I've cited contains any information that originated with me or Wikipedia, and all of it can be independently verified in tertiary sources like The American Society of International Laws' Restatements of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States and secondary sources like John Quigley, and Francis Boyle. So, it isn't original research at all. Palestine was a newly-created state. Many of the founding members of the League of Nations were Latin American or Caribbean states. The members of the Inter-American system were former colonies. Their own "mother countries" refused to recognize their independence, so they adopted a system of public international law that did not mention sovereignty or independence as qualifications for statehood. They insisted that the existence of a state did not depend upon recognition by other states at all. They formally rejected the notion of a hierarchy of states in the Montevideo Convention, and only listed qualities that an entity should (not shall) possess as a person of law. I hope that answers some of your questions about the relevance of the law. harlan (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the lead as it was before Drork's changes here. I find the commentary that was inserted to be POV and misleading. There is no need to replace the link to Palestine with one to British Mandate Palestine. I prefer we retain the link to the geographical region page, rather than invoking a defunct political entity. There is dispute over whether or not the State of Palestine does control some of the territory it claims as its own, and this depends on how you define the government (as including the PA or not and to what degree). I'd prefer we not place OR and disputed claims such as "it controls no territory" in the lead. There is no need to mention that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. No one is goin g to be confused and if they are, they can read the Jerusalem article. Similarly, there is no need a for a mention of the other two points raised by DrorK. If these issues are discussed at length in the main body, and are presented in an NPOV fashion there and are not in dispute, we can consider including sme of the points in the lead. But the lead is a summary of the article, not a place to set the tone to one's liking. Tiamut^talk 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

From a strict informative perspective, the fact that the declaration proposed to use a capital that is already the capital city of an existing state is very notable and relevant. It's not about setting the tone; it's just about including important information that will help the reader develop a more complete grasp of the basic situation. Breein1007 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Breein1007, but I don't agree with that and reverting it to restore it twice while there are stated objections on the talk page isn't very respectful. As I wrote in my edit summary, the statement "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is in fact disputed, and the information surrounding the dispute is already mentioned in the footnote. Based on lengthy discussion at the article Israel, it was decided not to give undue weight to the issues of that dispute in the lead. And making disputed statements in the lead that aren't even mentioned in the article goes against lead. So I'd appreciate you removing it. Tiamut^talk 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My revert was only in response to your revert with summary "per talk" which I found to be equally disrespectful. I'm glad you recognized that it wasn't appropriate to act in that manner. There was an ongoing discussion here about the issue with no consensus reached, and the only reason it was ever removed from the article after being originally inserted was because the IP pointblank reverted all the changes with an explanation that they are "OR and BS". I undid this revert because it was inappropriate (and deleted sources), and then you came in and redeleted the line about Israel's capital even though the discussion here was ongoing. So really, please, don't try to make it seem as if I am the one who was disrespectful. Because that is the exact way I felt when you came in with your edits. In terms of the "dispute", you aren't really understanding it (or admitting to understand it) correctly. There is absolutely no dispute that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The only dispute of this would have to be internal (ie: in Israeli law). A country chooses its own capital; this is not an opinion. It is supported by law and on Wikipedia. There is nothing in Israeli law disputing that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is clearly set out in plain language that Jerusalem shall be the capital of the State of Israel. Therefore, at Israel's selection (just like every other nation gets to choose its capital if they choose to), Jerusalem is the undisputed capital of Israel. What IS disputed is international recognition of this. That is a different issue. And if you take a look at the Israel talk page, you will see a lengthy discussion dealing with this very issue. If your issue is that it is only mentioned in the lead and nowhere else in the body of the article, we could take a look and find some place to insert more information in the body. We could have a brief paragraph about Jerusalem; it is fitting. Breein1007 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me break it down for you, Breein1007: The lead summarizes the content of the article. If there is no paragraph on Jerusalem being the capital of Israel in this article, there should be no mention of this issue in the lead. There is no such paragraph because it was decided that the dispute surrounding Jerusalem is not the central subject of this page, which deals with the state of Palestine (the relevant info here being that it is proclaimed capital of that state). So, the information about the dispute over Jerusalem is discussed in two footnotes appended to the two places where Jerusalem is mentioned. Including the statement "capital of Israel" in the lead, a disputed statement by any measure, fails to abide by lead because it includes 1) a controversial/disputed statement that no space can be given to cover there and 2) a subject not discussed in the body of the article. Please remove it. Tiamut^talk 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the lead to say "The declaration designated Jerusalem, which Israel also claims as its capital, as the capital of the state". It's still grammatically a little awkward, but conveys the (to me) important point that two countries (potential countries, whatever) claim the one city as their respective capitals. Hence much woe and gnashing of teeth has come about, so it seems worth saying. I do wish Breen would stop pushing a point of view quite so hard here and elsewhere and write an encyclopedia. Newt ^(winkle) 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Newt: try to focus your comments on content, not contributors. See WP:NPA. Please stop edit-warring your weaasel-wording about Israel "claiming" that Jerusalem is its capital. Nobody out there says that Israel doesn't see Jerusalem as its capital.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::@Brewcrewer: Nobody out there says that Israel doesn't see Jerusalem as its capital. Well, that is certainly true, and no one, especially me, is trying to say otherwise. However, this article is on the State of Palestine, not Israel. Regarding claims on Jerusalem, there is a whole article on the topic, but there also also these citations: 1) Israeli claims to Jerusalem as its capital: [19][20][21]; regarding similar Palestinian claims: [22][23]. Here's one (from the BBC) that says "the international consensus is that the status of Jerusalem has yet to be decided."[24]. Here is Israeli newspaper Haaretz saying (non-editorially) "The competing claims to East Jerusalem remain the most intractable issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."[25] But of course sending me out for sources is a deliberate time-wasting effort (though these sources are so easy to find it seems pointless). The point is this: It is undeniably true that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. It is not undeniably true that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as that position is refuted by most of the world. Both of those positions can be said to be true of the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem. Your and Breen's edit-warring to make the statement, in the article on the Palestinian state that Jerusalem is in some way definitively recognize as the capital of Israel is simply carrying a torch for a political cause, not editing an encyclopedia, however much mud you choose to throw at me. I will make a final revert, and then I am done with this BS for a considerable time. Edit: Some IPs (no pun intended) are now going at it, so I'll leave it alone, for now. Newt ^(winkle) 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the links above don't exactly prove what it seemed like you set out proving that it is not undeniably true that Jerusalem [b]is[/b] the capital of Israel, as that position is refuted by most of the world. Lets have one source for that please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::::(sigh). "the international consensus is that the status of Jerusalem has yet to be decided."[26] Goodbye. Newt ^(winkle) 07:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your playing games. We all know that "the international consensus is that the status of Jerusalem has yet to be decided." That's because Arabs want it. What we don't know, but what you're neverhtheless trying to shove into this article is that 'it is not undeniably true that Jerusalem [b]is[/b] the capital of Israel, as that position is refuted by most of the world. We're still waiting for a source for the latter. Until then, please stop adding your OR weasel-wording about Israel "claiming" it to be the capital. Other countries may not like it, but states must be recognized by international law, not capitals. States decide where they have their capitals and there's nothing anybody can do about that. Israel is not "claiming" Jerusalem is its capital, it is its capital.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not comfortable with including a disputed statement in the lead of this article when its not really related to the subject matter. I can accept Newt's formulation because its not disputed. No one disputes that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. However, international consensus is that its not. So please respect that there are many objections here to your formulation and refrain from restoring it again. If you feel the current wording is objectionable as well, we can simply remove it altogether, since the dispute is covered in a footnote and that's really enough for a page where this is not the subject of discussion. Tiamut^talk 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that at Talk:Israel#Request for Comment/Jerusalem we have the same exact discussion and there is an overwhelming consensus not to weasel-word about Jerusalem being Israel's capital. You were involved in that discussion and hence aware of that discussion so its kind of unfortunate that you couldn't tell me about it. Its also unfortunate that you claimed a consensus for the weasel-wording was reached in between yourself, some recycled editor, and some Spa-IP-meat/sockpuppet when there is a clear consensus to the contrary at another talkpage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a rule on Wikipedia that says "No original research". An original research can be based upon sources, that's basically what academics do - write an innovative idea and base it upon previously suggested theory. Your definition of a state is an original research, and in any case it is incompatible with the criteria used in other Wikipedian articles. From what I understood, you see the State of Palestine as a country that was established with the British Mandate, than "occupied" by the Zionists, redeclared as an Arab state in 1988 and stayed under occupation ever since. This is the common sense of what you've written in this article, and yet it is not supported by any source. It is supported by certain users' interpretation to sources they read which are not even mainstream sources. The fact these users persistently reject any change to the article casts a dark shade on the method of writing of this article.

As I mentioned earlier, the declaration in 1988 was in Algiers, not in the West Bank or Gaza. It had no practical meaning. Palestinians kept carrying Jordanian passports or Israeli lessez-passer after the declaration, the "exiled government" was in fact the PLO leadership with different titles, this "government" did not issue ordinances or regulations to its alleged citizens. Also, the countries that recognized this state did not start to recognize the population of the WN&Gaza as Palestinian citizens. They gave Yasser Arafat the title "President", but none of them suggested there were Palestinian citizens. The British Mandate of Palestine was not an Arab state under British guardianship. Its founding document said explicitly that the Mandate's goal is to establish a Jewish homeland while catering for the rights of other communities in Palestine as well. The fact that it was called Palestine (or Palestina-Eretz-Yisrael in Hebrew) doesn't make it a predecessor of the declared Palestinian Arab state. It was a different entity altogether.

You could say, in a way, the the Palestinian Authority established in 1994 is a kind of state - it has a government, an legislative body, a police, it issues passports to its subjects (these passports are recognized by about 50 countries) etc. But then again, harlan himself claimed the legitimacy of this entity was questioned in the eyes of the Palestinians, and they certainly do not enjoy full independence as they have to get an Israeli approval for most of their actions. Furthermore, there is already a special article about the PNA.

The main problems here is are both "original research" and misleading readers to think that a Palestinian state already exists. Someone who reads about the vehement debate whether or not the Palestinians should declare independence, comes here and sees that this state already exists, as if Wikipedia lies in a parallel universe. DrorK (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the archives. We already had this discussion. Your opinion, while welcome, is not the material from which this article is written. If there are specific sections or sentences that you feel exhibit OR, please tag them or bring them here for discussion. Making generalized statements about how the reality on the ground does nto match what is it in this article does no one any service. There is much more information that can be added here, such as information on the obstacles to Palestine exercising sovereignty over the territory it has declared as part of its state. While the state is already declared, been reognized by the majority of the world, and does exist, its border remain a soruce of dispute, and its attempts at independent management over its territory have been frustrated by the Israeli authorities. We need more information on these issues from reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 09:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't it become a trend on en-wp? A group of editors starts an article which is not compatible with the state of affairs in reality. They object any attempt to improve the article, and send anyone who tries to do so to the archives where he would find long tedious discussions conducted between the small group that initiated the article. Your saying that "making generalized statements about how the reality on the ground does not match what is it in this article does no one any service" actually means that Wikipedia may have articles that do not describe reality. This is not in line with the goals of this project. I am deeply sad to see such an inspiring project turned into another political forum like thousands of useless sites throughout the web. DrorK (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Drork, if you want to improve this article, please find reliable sources that speak to the reality you would like to represent. No one is stopping you. However, it is quite objectionable for you to come along, express a lack of interest in taking the time to review previous discussions in the archive or do some real research. Adding your own unsourced WP:OR analysis into the introduction of an article is not improving the article. Its using the article as your own political forum. Tiamut^talk 11:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources to what? To the fact that the proclaimed State of Palestine never issued passports? That it never managed a registrations of its citizens? That it never issued ordinances as a normal state does? How can I bring sources to something that never existed. It is you who need to bring sources to prove that the proclaimed state did all that. Diplomatic recognition is not enough to make a declaration a state. For example, in May 1948 shortly after its declaration of independence, the State of Israel started to register its citizens, issued draft call for the newly established army, issued ordinances about the legal system, appointed judges, imposed taxes and so forth. I've brought you an evidence that the British Mandate was not an Arab country in any way, hence it cannot be regarded as a predecessor of the 1988 proclaimed state. As for the rest, it is your duty to prove that the declaration had some practical effect beside turning PLO representations into embassies in certain countries. Even an exiled government has some kind of power over its citizens and some kind of relations with them. Here, you claim that a state was born in 1988 but bring no proof that this step has any practical meaning. It's like saying a baby was born but you cannot see it nor feel its movements. When I say maybe nothing took place, you ask me to bring proofs that there is no baby. DrorK (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, have you read the article? Some legal scholars' opinions that echo your own are mentioned in this section. Other scholars cited there disagree with the opinion you have expressed. I'm sure you can find more reliable sources that agree with you as well and you can include their opinions if you feel that the section is currently unrepresentative of the different views. Contrary to what say above, there is a huge body of literature discussing those very issues. Its not hard to find. I encourage to go about doing so, if your interest in improving this article is genuine. Tiamut^talk 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One minute, is this an article about the concept of a Palestinian state or the idea to establish a Palestinian state? If so, its name should change. The existence of a state is not a matter for scholars, either you see it or you don't. Indeed, there are borderline cases such as Kosovo, Somaliland, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and others. As I said you can even consider the Palestinian Authority as a borderline case or maybe even the Hamas government in Gaza Strip, but this article either of them. The state that you describe here is a smile without a cat (to cite Lewis Carrol), and you entitle it a state per original research. DrorK (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the archives, as I suggested? I think you'll find some of the answers to your questions there. Furthermore, I have no objection to changing the title of this article to Palestine (state), to differentiate it from Palestine (region). After all ,the official name of the state is simply "Palestine". The reason it is named state of Palestine is to disambig it from Palestine, which people there object to renaming Palestine (region) and since "State of Palestine" is used by a number of of reliable sources, that title is just fine too. But read the archives, and this talk page above. We don't need to rehash everything simply for your benefit if you're going to make no effort to understand what transpired previously.Tiamut^talk 14:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All I'm asking is several simple things:

#A reader of this article must not get the impression that a state called Palestine already exists in practice. Otherwise he would never understand what the Israelis and Palestinians have been discussing for the past 16 years, why so many Palestinians have to wait in line at the Israeli Ministry of the Interior's offices to get a lessez-passer, why so many of them are defined as refugees with no nationality, why so many Palestinian localities in the WB are administered by UNRWA, why the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was considered problematic and so forth.

The article explains that statehood is a legal status accorded by other states, and that in any event the General Assembly definition of Aggression allows any entity to be considered a state without regard to recognition or UN membership. The ICC cites the General Assembly resolution in the final draft of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression. [27] It also contains provisions that would allow ICC prosecutions without a referral from the Security Council, although that is already possible in the national courts of countries exercising universal jurisdiction.

Many of your questions were addressed in the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion. It found that Israel had severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments by destruction and requisition of property, restrictions on freedom of movement, and the impediment to the exercise by those concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living. The court found that those breaches could not be legally justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.

Security Council resolution 1544 (2004) called on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law, and to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law. The Security Council insisted, in particular, on Israel's obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law. In 2009 a UN Fact Finding Mission reported widespread destruction of residential housing in the Gaza Strip caused by air strikes, mortar and artillery shelling, missile strikes, the operation of bulldozers and demolition charges. The mission also reported that Since 1967, the Israeli authorities have demolished thousands of Palestinian-owned structures in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including an estimated 2,000 houses in East Jerusalem.

This is your personal interpretation of the international law, which presupposes that a Palestinian state always existed. The UN itself, whose resolutions you mention, never recognized an Arab state called Palestine, it merely recognized the Palestinian right for self determination. Self determination and statehood are not the same things. Furthermore, it presupposes an Israeli aggression, a thing that was never claimed by the international community except the Arab League countries. UN resolutions 242 and 338 clearly talk about the responsibility of both parties to the conflict, and do not accuse Israel of an aggression. It also conditions Israeli withdrawal from territories it captured on the other side's recognition in Israel within secure borders. Furthermore, the General Assembly is not in a position to recognize countries according to the UN rules, and it is also worthwhile mentioning that a country may exist when the UN does not recognize it (e.g. Taiwan, Somaliland) and vice versa. The Goldstone report you refer to is highly controversial, and it also lays responsibility on both parties (Hamas is scathingly criticized there). And yet, this is totally irrelevant. There is no question about Saddam Hussein aggressions towards the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan. Does it make Kurdistan an independent country? DrorK (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Many, if not most, of the members of the ICC Assembly of States already recognize that the state of Palestine exists, and that much of its territory is under an illegal form of military occupation. The Jerusalem Post reports that some Israeli officials have started to worry about that. See "A real threat of ICC prosecution." [28] harlan (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The General Assembly

#The British Mandate of Palestine cannot be presented as a predecessor of a Palestinian Arab state. The fact that the Mandate charter so evidently refers to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as the basis of the Mandate, makes such an interpretation an absurd. There are a lot of scholars claiming all sorts of things. There are suggestions that the Palestinian are actually Canaanites, there are suggestions that the Proto-Semitic language was actually Arabic, and that all Semitic peoples are actually Arab descendants, there are theories claiming that Palestinians are actually converted Jews. At least in this case we have an explicit source that overrules this non-mainstream theory.

That is a common misconception. The United States was a party to the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Treaty. It recognizes and treats Palestinian nationality as a federally protected characteristic. See for example:[29] Many states have laws which make it a crime to harass another person on the basis of ethnicity, see for example: [30] Like all "common carriers" Wikimedia Foundation has a policy prohibiting the harassment or intimidation users on the basis of any legally protected characteristic.

The Anglo-American Committee suggested a Jewish-Arab federated state. This proposal never materialize, and it was eventually replaced by the 181 Partition Plan resolution, which in turn was not materialized mainly due to strong Arab rejections. Arab newspaper published in Jaffa on November 30, 1947 announced that the Arab League planned to take control over the Mandate territory in order to prevent the implementation of the plan. DrorK (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The UNSCOP Commission found that the term Jewish national home had no meaning in international law, and that the term had not been defined in either the Mandate or the Balfour Declaration. They concluded that it was employed because there wasn't adequate support for the establishment of a Jewish state. See paragraphs 140-144 of the UNSCOP report UN Doc A/364 of 3 September 1947 [31] In any event, the San Remo Resolution, of April 25, 1920 contained a provision which said the mandate would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The recitals in the preamble of the Mandate alluded to that fact, and several articles of the Mandate contained safeguarding clauses for "existing rights" and "immunities". The ICJ noted that some of those rights were contained in Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin 1878. It guaranteed the non-Jewish communities complete equality and non-discrimination in all religious, political, and civil matters. [32]

Very well then, but does it determine that there was a decision to establish an Arab Palestinian state? Let's say for the sake of argument that there was no intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, does it entails that there was an intention to turn the Mandate into an Arab state? And who says that this document you cite is better than other document that contradict it. Once again you suggest an original research.

The article already cites reliable sources which explain the application of the laws of state succession with regard to treaties, and the mandate era laws. It also explains that the UN Mediator proposed a union of the Arab portions of the Mandate, and that many countries did in fact recognize Arab Palestine and its union with Transjordan. harlan (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source? What if the mediator suggested that, does it mean that it was realized? Does Jerusalem become a corpus separandum according to the UN recommendation? Would you like to write in the lead of the article about Jerusalem that it is a UN-controlled territory per UN resolution supported by many countries? BTW, the UN GA resolution 181 was not enough to account for recognition in Israel and membership in the UN. There was a long process of recognition and admition. You suggest Palestine is a sovereign state based on UN and certain countries non-materialized proposals. DrorK (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

#It is very important to mention that the recognition issued by 110 countries following the 1988 declaration in Algiers was not accompanied with practical measures. Those countries that hosted a PLO delegation named it a Palestinian Embassy, but beside that nothing happened, even in Arab countries. For example, I cannot recall a call on Palestinians to register as Palestinian citizens and receive proper documents on behalf of the new state. Surely, many Palestinians living in Arab countries could do such thing. The Palestinian State could have even issued them passports and ask the 110 countries to honor them, but nothing of this kind had been done. The whole issue remained purely declarative. DrorK (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add information on the number of countries that have either hosted peace conferences, or mediated negotiations with Israel regarding the State of Palestine.

And yet, none of them ended in the establishment of a Palestinian state. DrorK (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just added information on US funding of development projects in Arab Palestine. The article already mentioned funding for democracy and governance projects through the USAID West Bank and Gaza and the EU. The 192 members of the United Nations are represented in the Middle East Quartet. Quartet Envoy Tony Blair, President Bill Clinton, President Obama's National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones, and former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski have endorsed a NATO force to assume responsibility for the occupied territories.[33] The Foreign Minister of the EU recommended that the Security Council go ahead and impose a territorial settlement in the event that the parties concerned fail to conclude an agreement. [34] Those things are not merely declaratory. harlan (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, all you said above is irrelevant because it constitute an ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It is a very interesting original research, and yet Wikipedia is not the place for it. The fact that no one noticed it so far is just a matter of luck. Actually, I am more encouraged by explanation, because I know sooner or later someone with more weight than I would notice the serious problem here and profoundly change this article. The problem is even more serious, because this is a politically motivated original research. I know that because you revealed you motives above, and I quote: The State of Palestine existed for 25 years before the Zionist Executive threatened to declare their independence in part of it. In the jurisprudence of the United States and most other countries a state does not cease to exist simply because its territory is occupied. You said "Zionist Executive" referring to the government of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. I asked you how this article complies with the recent news about an intention of the PA to declare independence, and this was your answer. Furthermore, your responses to my questions entails that you regard "Palestine" as an everlasting political entity that was occupied since the establishment of the State of Israel. This is a political approach that is tolerable in a blog, not in Wikipedia. DrorK (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyone who is reasonably well read is routinely accused of WP:OR, but you haven't mentioned any information or analysis in the article that originated with me or Wikipedia, or which can't be verified using the sources that are cited. Unlike most editors, I supply links to published sources for what I say on the talk page, even though discussions here are not subject to WP:OR policy. I'll provide the necessary sources when I include the information in the article.

I was referring to the Zionist Executive and the Declaration of the State of Israel in part of Palestine. I did not mention the Palestinian Authority, you did. The United States Government has two political branches (some say three). If you don't like their published views, you'll have to take it up with them.

Robert Donovan wrote that Under Secretary Lovett gave the President's Legal Counsel, Clark Clifford, a copy of an advisory opinion written by a senior legal counsel at the State Department, Ernest Gross. It was used by the President and his staff in making decisions regarding US recognition of the newly partitioned states in Palestine. It was decided that neither state would be recognized if it attempted to form a unitary state governing all of Palestine. Abdullah advised the State Department he was willing to negotiate. There are a number of published accounts which say that Ben Gurion and the Provisional Council had decided to leave the matter of borders "open to developments". Simha Flapan wrote that Ben Gurion was very displeased when he discovered that Elihu Epstein's request for US recognition contained the stipulation that Israel had been established within the boundaries of the 29 November UN resolution. Years later Clark Clifford, wrote an account for the JCPA explaining that he had insisted upon that written clarification regarding Israel's borders:

Epstein was ecstatic. He did not realize that the President had still not decided how to respond to the request I had just solicited. It was particu­larly important, I said, that the new state claim nothing beyond the boundaries outlined in the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, be­cause those boundaries were the only ones which had been agreed to by everyone, including the Arabs, in any international forum. [35]

The article says that two international tribunals ruled that Palestine was a newly-created successor state of the Ottoman Empire as of 1920, with responsibilities for a share of the Ottoman public debt and its concessions. Those facts and a very extensive analysis regarding the legal status of the "A" Mandates was published in the US State Depart Digest of International Law. The Digest, and FRUS, also contain information and analysis about the partition of the Mandate; the armistice agreements; US recognition of Israel; and US recognition of the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Even the Palestine Post reported that Abdullah had been declared the King of Arab Palestine and that a proposal for a joint kingdom was under consideration by the parliament of Transjordan.

The Digest, the FRUS, Allan Gerson, Raja Shehadeh, and John Quigley each discuss the 1950 act of union and the fact that it contained provisions for the emergence of a Palestinian State. The article cites an Arafat interview in the NY Review of Books and a Brittanica article with regard to the proposal for a confederation between Jordan and Palestine, and the eventual dissolution of the union. Thomas Grant's book on Recognition of States includes a chapter on the General Assembly's Definition of Aggression. Judge Jessup's speech regarding Israel's membership in the UN has been cited and analyzed in other articles,[36] but speaks for itself. Quigley and Dugard both wrote articles about the Declaration the Palestinian Authority submitted to the ICC, and the Statehood Issue. Quigley said Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. He cited the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine, and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power". harlan (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that you clarified your previous statement, I see we are in much worse situation than I thought. Your interesting lecture above is YOUR ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION giving UNDUE WEIGHT to minority opinions. You consider British Mandate Palestine to be an Arab territory under foreign influence. This statement is contradictory to the Mandate's official documents. The fact that certain tribunals recognized it as a successor of a department of the Ottoman Empire doesn't make your personal interpretation convincing, because the Ottoman Empire was not Arab either, and because these tribunals' rulings were probably related to a certain specific issue. Again, the fact that you base your personal arguments on scholars' opinion does not make it less original. Any academic thesis is based on scholars' opinions. Had you found a reliable source saying: British Mandate Palestine was in fact an Arab state under heavy British influence (like Egypt at that time, or like the Emirate of Transjordan), that was another story, but you bring no source of the kind. You just bring various claims that could be interpreted in several ways, and force your personal interpretation upon them. Your interpretation of Quigley is also extremely problematic. Did he refer specifically to a Palestinian state? If so, then he suggested that Israel was an illegitimate state occupying the territory of another state. This position is held today only by the Iranian government, Hamas, Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda. If he referred to WB&Gaza then his interpretation is extremely unusual. First of all, the 242/338 resolutions clearly overruled any claims about Israeli aggression or illegal occupation. According to these decisions the Israeli occupation is legal as long as the relevant countries do not recognize Israel in secure borders. The ICC is not in a position to establish states or recognize them, and even if it were, so what? Kosovo is in much better position than proclaimed Palestine in terms of recognition and exercising its authority on the ground, and yet it is still not considered a state in the usual meaning of the word, and the Serbian claim for this territory is very significant. DrorK (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm citing and quoting the official US Government publications and the explanations they contain or the interpretations of Sanford R. Siverburg, Allan Gerson, Thomas Kuttner, Joseph Weiler, and the others I've already mentioned. For example, Joseph Massad said that the members of the Arab League granted de facto recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan and that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem. See Joseph A. Massad, Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001),ISBN: 023112323X, page 229

The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 713

In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a memorandum of conversation that took place on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation. Here is a verbatim quote: "In response to Mr. Rifai's question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union." --Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

That's the information as it is provided in the article. There is no personal interpretation involved. If you disagree with each of those authors and the US State Department, you should write them about it, not me. harlan (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Extremely interesting information and totally irrelevant to the subject of this article. The linkage that you make between this information and the alleged existence of a state called Palestine is the original research, which is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. This article used to be part of Proposals for a Palestinian state after a long fruitful debate. Why was that decision overridden in July 2009? DrorK (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Extremely platitudinous, inaccurate, condescending, and repetitive. harlan (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I have a serious response from you? You seem to be incapable of dealing with my comments. Apparently you have a thesis which you are very anxious to introduce to Wikipedia no matter what. DrorK (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "thesis" is the topic of the Rutgers law review article by John Quigley, and the section of the Third restatement of the US Foreign Relations Law that he quotes in that work applies to existing states that are occupied. He also wrote a chapter in the Silverberg book that is listed in the bibliography regarding the existence of the state of Palestine.

And another remark - you misread the memorandum which you quoted. By saying "Arab Palestine" the US official didn't mean "an Arab state called Palestine" but rather "those areas of the former British Mandate of Palestine that came under Arab control", namely the West Bank. It is very clear from the context. I doubt if this memorandum ever became an official position of the US (As far as I know, the US never officially recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the WB), and yet you just prove my point - the US did not assume that an Arab Palestinian state should be established. They were happy with the situation in which Israel (a Jewish state) became the main successor of the British Mandate, and the Arab-populated area are annexed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (an Arab kingdom). To sum it up, not only is you thesis original, it is also groundless, because it is based on misinterpretation of the text. DrorK (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You very obviously have not read the State Department Digest of International Law. Territories don't have resolutions or make proclamations that "King Abdallah Bin Hussein is the constitutional King over Arab Palestine", governments do. The Jericho Congress proclaimed that fact, and the US government accepted the principle contained in the Jericho resolutions. That was an act of state that had immediate legal effect, even before the Transjordanian Parliament began deliberating the measures required for a joint kingdom. The Jewish Agency for Palestine and the National Council of the Jews of Palestine (Vaad Leumi) had declared themselves the Provisional State Council and the Provisional Government of the State of Israel in the same fashion.[37] Although the Jericho resolutions provided the legal basis for the union of Central Palestine with Transjordan, it applied to all of Arab Palestine. Sandra Berliant Kadosh wrote an article that presented an analysis of United States policy toward the West Bank in 1948, based largely on the Foreign Relations Documents of the United States. She noted that the US government supported the union of "the greater part of Arab Palestine" with Transjordan and accepted the underlying Principle contained in the Jericho resolutions. She said that the delegates claimed to represent 90 percent of the population, and that they ridiculed the Gaza government which, they asserted, represented only its eighty-odd members. See United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252.

The US State Department says the Foreign Relations of the United States series is the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions that have been declassified and edited for publication.[38] [39] I also have a published secondary source, Joseph Massad, who said that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem. See Joseph A. Massad, Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001),ISBN: 023112323X, page 229.

I am amazed at the fact that you yourself apparently don't read the links that you present here. You've brought a link to Jessup's statement, but that statement does not entail an existence of Palestinian state in any way. Quite the contrary. According to the article in which the citation appears, he reiterated the conditions stipulated in the Montevideo Convention of 1933. The writers of the article raise the question whether a territory is an essential criterion and quote Lauterpacht saying it is. They say, however, that fixed borders to this territory are not an essential criterion. Now, the proclaimed Palestinian state does not even have a population registry that says exactly who is entitled to a Palestinian citizenship, so they fail to comply with another criterion. No land, no defined population, only some form of international relations and a kind of government. This kind of state resembles the "Sovereign Order Malta" or the Baha'i community's representation. Now, don't get me wrong, there are many people in the world, including Israelis, who deem the establishment of a Palestinian state a much-needed step, and then again, this is the very proof that such state does not exist yet. DrorK (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir Hersch Lauterpacht rather famously noted that "A State is, and becomes an International Person through recognition only and exclusively." See Oppenheim vol 1 page 125. The Montevideo Convention represents the competing declarative theory of law which holds that a states' existence does not depend on recognition by other states. In any event, Montevideo is a treaty agreement between state parties, not people. There is no disagreement between the two competing theories of law regarding the matter of recognition: only other states can deduce the existence and recognize another state. The decisions of other states are legally binding and irrevocable. So, the majority of states have already decided that Palestine has an adequate government, territory, and population.

I'm very familiar with Jessup's remarks. He said Israel only needed to be considered a state for the purposes of the UN Charter. The State of Israel announced its independence. It had been recognized within the boundaries contained in the resolution of 29 November 1947. A representative of the United States government told a member of the Jordanian Legation, "The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area." President Truman told King Abdullah that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine had been stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by the American representative. On that occasion, Dr. Jessup had endorsed the Mediator's plan for a union between the Arab portions of the former mandate, including Transjordan. Truman said the US supported Israeli claims to the boundaries set forth in the UN General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, but believed that if Israel sought to retain additional territory in Palestine allotted to the Arabs, it should (not shall) give the Arabs territorial compensation. That presented the Ad Hoc committee with a problem during the membership hearings because Israel didn't have a defined territory. You added an unsourced reference that implicitly acknowledged the ambiguity <ref>While the West Bank and Gaza Strip are included in the claimed territory, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, Israeli sovereignty is contested in areas within the Green Line</ref> [40] harlan (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very eloquent, and yet your theory is not supported by reality, so I find it hard to believe that you cite the sources accurately. Here's a simple example you are probably acquainted with: Iran was one of the first countries to recognize Israel, and the two countries had productive mutual relations until 1979. In 1979 Iran revoked its recognition in Israel. Not only did it cut its relations with it, it revoked its recognition. In the eyes of the Islamic Republic's regime, there is a place called "occupied Palestine" run by the illegitimate "Zionist regime", but no State of Israel. This is not in line with the quotes you mentioned above about a recognition being irrevocable. Now, "international Person" is not a sovereign state. The Order of Malta is also an "international person", so is the European Union, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the United Nations and many other organizations. Lauterpacht rightfully stated that a state turn into "international person" by recognition. He did not say that recognition makes an "international person" a state. Once again you misinterpret the source so it would comply with your views. Your information about Truman's recognition in the annexation of the WB to the Hashemite Kingdom is very interesting, because in all sources I checked so far, it said that only Britain and possibly Pakistan recognized the annexation (the Arab League rejected it strongly). It is possible that the US recognized this annexation too. Israel recognized it de facto only after capturing the territory, by acknowledging that the law in this territory is the Jordanian law. However, all this information just proves my point - you cannot claim that a proclaimed Arab state of Palestine is the successor of the British Mandate. It is an unsupported opinion. I added two "controversy templates" to the article in order to encourage more input from other users. DrorK (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rejecting edits and revision is one thing, removing a template is another. I gave a very serious explanation why many paragraphs in this article seem more like an academic thesis than an encyclopedic article. I expect a much more productive discussion about this issue, and in the meantime, the least we can do is to inform the readers about the controversy. DrorK (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I am wondering whether the problem of this article is "synthesis" or "undue weight". There are clearly some problems with the neutrality of the introduction. As for the rest of the article, i am not convinced that harlan's interpretation of the sources he brings is correct, and I think he might have been using them to establish ideas not originally intended in the sources. However, even if he is right in his interpretation of the sources, these are still marginal views. DrorK (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

All you have demonstrated is that you haven't read the sources cited in the article, and that you don't know the damn difference between recognition of an entity; recognition of a government; recognition of a State; and diplomatic recognition. You can't even cite a published source to support your story about Iran's withdrawal of diplomatic recognition. If anyone is engaging in unpublished synthesis and WP:OR around here it's very definitely you. The burden of proof for inclusion is verifiability. That is why your edits were reverted. The majority of States legally recognize Palestine as a state. So, your opinion that it isn't one should be characterized as the minority view.

• Talmon explains the difference between recognizing a government (conditionally) and a state (unconditional) "With regard to US recognition of Israel, Dr Jessup, Deputy US Representative in the Security Council, informed the Security Council on 17 December 1948 that 'so far as the Provisional Government of Israel is concerned, the United States did extend de facto recognition to that Provisional Government of Israel.' In this connection it is also of interest to note Dr Jessup's telegram of 13 July 1948 to Secretary of State Marshall stating: 'it is our understanding that US recognition of State of Israel is unqualified, that is, de jure, while our recognition of PGI [Provisional Government of Israel] was a de facto recognition of government [of] that state. Is this interpretation correct?' The Department, on 15 July, stated its agreement with New York's understanding and set forth its belief that 'in case of recognition of new states as distinguished from new governments no question of de facto as against de jure recognition is involved'. --Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 62
• Talmon illustrates that recognition of a state is not the same as diplomatic recognition: "Another case concerning the recognition of Israel is also informative. On 25 January 1964 the Republic of Ireland disclosed that it had granted de jure recognition to Israel 'some time ago'. However, it was not until 12 December 1974 that the Irish Republic and Israel announced that they had agreed to establish diplomatic relations." --Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 72
• In 1987 the United States repeatedly criticized the Soviet Union for withholding 'diplomatic recognition' of Israel. Diplomatic recognition in this context referred to the unwillingness of the Soviet Government to re-establish diplomatic relations which had been severed in 1967. The USSR had been the third State, after the USA and Guatemala, to recognize 'officially' the State of Israel and its Provisional Government on 17 May 1948--a recognition which had never been withdrawn.--Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 111
• Israeli forces had shot down a British aircraft over Egypt in January 1949. Despite nonrecognition, Britain addressed to Israeli authorities Britain's intention to seek compensation. Britain dealt with unrecognized Israel as if the country possessed international legal personality. --Thomas D. Grant, The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999) page 20 harlan (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Let me bring you back to our discussion. You claim that the very fact that 110 countries extended their recognition following the 1988 declaration in Algiers was enough to determine that there is an Arab state called "The State of Palestine". This is an interesting thesis that is not commonly supported. I saw the source you've brought and I am convinced now that you didn't make this claim up, and yet it is a very unusual view. You try to back it with other sources, but you misinterpret them. True, a state needs international recognition in order to become an "international personality", but that doesn't mean that declaring a state and getting recognition is enough to say that the body in question is a sovereign state. This is not in line with most of the sources you've brought and the mainstream view about the subject.
2. I brought the example of Iran's recognition in Israel to show you that you rely to much on legal interpretation and try to manipulate them in order to make them valid for this article. You brought a source saying a recognition is irrevocable, but we both know it is not true. In 1950 Iran extended a de facto recognition in Israel. In 1960 it extended a de jure recognition. And yet, in 2008 the official representative of Iran in Argentina says "We do not recognize Israel as a state. For us no such country exists" [41]. A slip of the tongue? Hardly, because Iranian passports bear an inscription saying that the passport holder may not visit "occupied Palestine". I strongly doubt if they mean any other place but Israel, but they avoid mentioning it by its name (it is a bit like calling the US "the former British colonies in North America"). So, please don't be too quick to rely on an academic paper that claim things that are not compatible with reality.
3. You also claimed that an Arab country called Palestine always existed. This is another claim not supported by mainstream views. The Ottoman Empire was not Arab, the British Mandate was established upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917, you can even look at McMahon–Hussein Correspondence and see that the UK official position was that Palestine was not Arab. The fact that the US said in its letter of recognition that Israel was a Jewish state established in Palestine, doesn't mean it recognized Palestine as an Arab country. Quite the contrary in fact. So basically, you bring one or two marginal views and base an entire article on them.
4. I updated the templates. I think two solutions should be considered: (1) revising the article so it will not imply that an Arab Palestinian state already exists. (2) Changing the article's title into "Views about Palestinian statehood" or something similar. DrorK (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are bringing up the usual nonsensical issues that have already been discussed on the talk page above, and you are not citing what published sources have said, you are discussing what you'd like to say.

The sources that I cited in the article very specifically stated that the post war treaties provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates, and that the boundaries of two new states were laid down within the territory of the Palestine Mandate, i.e. Palestine and Transjordan. You are suggesting that I said the new mandate era state of Palestine was a continuator state of the Ottoman Empire, but I never said that and the article doesn't either. Please stick to discussions of the article and cite previously published sources.

You have still NOT provided a published source to support the claim that "In 1979 Iran revoked its recognition in Israel." That's when Iran's Imperial government went into exile, and was replaced in the aftermath of a revolution by a new government, with a new constitution. The customary rule on recognition of successor regimes founded by a revolution is the "clean slate" and the test of continued relations with existing states. The source you cited doesn't establish that the new regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, ever recognized Israel in the first place, or that it desired continued relations. It claimed to the successor in interest to the assets, property, and claims of the former Imperial regime in other states, but those claims and counterclaims were the subject of international adjudication and arbitration.

In the case of an established revolutionary regime or continuator state, the governments are not new. A government is one of the elements that comprise a state as a "person of law". In practice, International Tribunals use the terms "state" and "government" interchangeably when treating an existing or established regime. They apply the laws of succession to determine ownership of assets and responsibilities for the international obligations of the former regime. This article cites the decisions of two international tribunals involving Palestine and the British and US law digest analysis of the legal status of Palestine and Transjordan. The determinations of tribunals regarding the succession of responsibility in the case of Iran have filled volumes. For the purposes of our discussion, see "What constitutes a State?" on pages 179 and 180 of "The International Law of Expropriation As Reflected in the Work of the Iran-U. S. Claims Tribunal (Developments in International Law, Vol 17), By Allahyar Mouriexample [42]

The declassified War Cabinet and Peace Conference documents regarding Palestine and the McMahon-Hussein agreements contradict your thesis. They were published in the official Documents on British Foreign Policy series edited by Woodward & Butler, and were also compiled and analyzed in "Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict", by Doreen Ingrams. Balfour was present at War Cabinet and Peace Conference meetings where the Cabinet discussed the fact that Great Britain had made "a general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future." See Palestine Papers, 1917-1922, Doreen Ingrams, page 48, Minutes of the 41st meeting of the Eastern Coommittee, EC-41, December 1918, UK Archive files PRO CAB 27/24.

Balfour himself wrote Nº. 242, Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia' [132187/2117/44A] from the Paris Peace conference which said the Arabs had been promised their independence in 1915, and that "In 1918 the promise was by implication repeated; for no other interpretation can, I think, be placed by any unbiased reader on the phrases in the declaration about a “National Government’, and “an Administration deriving its authority from the initiative and free choice of the native population’." He went on to say "In our promises with regard to the frontiers of the new Arab States we do not seem to have been more fortunate than in our promises about their independence. In 1915 it was the Sherif of Mecca to whom the task of delimitation was to have been confided, nor were any restrictions placed upon his discretion in this matter, except certain reservations intended to protect French interests in Western Syria and Cilicia." See EL Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), 340-348. harlan (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, let's make one historical fact clear. Henry MacMahon, who negotiated with Sharif Hussein ben Ali of Mecca send a very clear message to him:

"The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded." (A letter from McMahon to Husayn, October 24, 1915).

MacMahon, like many other people at that time, did not bother to distinguish Syria from Palestine (as geographical regions), and it is very clear that when he said "west of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" he meant the region later designated as the British Mandate of Paletine. So there is no need to search declassified archives, the facts are on the table (unless you want to investigate the problems of communication within the British government of that time).

(outdent) The British government apologized because the language used in the McMahon correspondence was unclear "His Majesty's Government regret the misunderstandings which have arisen owing to the lack of precision in the language used in the correspondence." See CAB/24/285 CP. 79 (39).

In any event, there were no "problems of communication" between Foreign Secretary Grey and McMahon. Their telegrams regarding the clause you just mentioned dated 19 October 1917 have been declassified and published in UK National Archives CAB/24/214, CP 271 (30). You are also ignoring the fact that Balfour admitted, in writing, that the Arabs had been promised their independence; that Hussein was supposed to lay down the boundaries; and that the Arabs had been double-crossed.

The declassified British Cabinet Papers revealed that Sir Henry McMahon had telegramed the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey, requesting instructions. McMahon said the clause you mentioned had been suggested by a man named al Faroqi, a member of the Abd party, to satisfy the demands of the Syrian Nationalists for the independence of Arabia. It wasn't discussed during the negotiations with Mecca at all. Faroqi had said that the Arabs would fight if the French attempted to occupy the cities of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, but he thought they would accept some modification of the North-Western boundaries that had been proposed in the letter McMahon showed him, from the Sherif of Mecca. Faroqi suggested the language: "In so far as Britain was free to act without detriment to the interests of her present Allies, Great Britain accepts the principle of the independence of Arabia within limits propounded by the Sherif of Mecca." Lord Grey authorized McMahon to pledge the areas requested by the Sherif, subject to the reserve for "the Allies" (NOT just France).

In the areas with Maronite, Orthodox, and Druze populations the Great Powers were still bound by an international agreement regarding non-intervention, the Reglement Organique Agreement of June 1861 and September of 1864. The French plans for Syria contradicted the plans and war aims of the other Allies for liberation of the Arab peoples in Lebanon and Syria. See UK National Archives CAB/24/143, Eastern Report, No. XVIII, May 31, 1917. During a War Cabinet meeting on policy regarding Syria and Palestine held on 5 December 1918, it was stated that Palestine had been included in the areas Great Britain had pledged would be Arab and independent in the future. The Chair, Lord Curzon, also noted that the rights that had been granted to the French under the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement violated the provisions of the Reglement Organique Agreements and the war aims of the other Allies. Balfour attended the meeting. See UK National Archives CAB 27/24, EC-41. The publication of the Sykes-Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. See CAB 24/271, Cabinet Paper 203(37)

The British Foreign Secretary also published papers which explained that the British government's legal arguments were completely unsupportable:

• (i) the fact that the word " district" is applied not only to Damascus, &etc, where the reading of vilayet is at least arguable, but also immediately previously to Mersina and Alexandretta. No vilayets of these names exist. It would be difficult to argue that the word " districts " can have two completely different meanings in the space of a few lines.
• (ii) the fact that Horns and Hama were not the capitals of vilayets, but were both within the Vilayet of Syria.
• (iii) the fact that the real title of the " Vilayet of Damascus " was " Vilayet of Syria."
• (iv) the fact that there is no land lying west of the Vilayet of Aleppo.'

The analysis concluded "It may be possible to produce arguments designed to explain away some of these difficulties individually (although even this does not apply in the case of (iv)), but it is hardly possible to explain them away collectively. His Majesty's Government need not on this account abjure altogether the counter-argument based on the meaning of the word "district," which have been used publicly for many years, and the more obvious defects in which do not seem to have been noticed as yet by Arab critics." See UK National Archives CAB/24/282, Cabinet Paper 19 (39) All of that is explained in the articles on Sykes-Picot and the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. harlan (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very much in line with the 1917 Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate granted to the UK by the League of Nations:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" [43].

Note the distinction between "a national home for the Jewish people" vs. "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities".

So we have a very serious problem with John Quigley's view, with all due respect, unless he does not regard "Palestine" as an Arab state, but then again, the 1988 declaration refer to Palestine as such. While we can write an article about the view of Quigley regarding Palestinian statehood, I am not sure it is notable enough as a subject. I believe Quingley's opinion receives undue weight in this article.

(outdent) No, you have a very serious problem. The Anglo-American Committee and the UNSCOP Committee both concluded that there was no requirement to establish a Jewish State in either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate. The UNSCOP report noted that the 1922 White Paper had placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement excluded "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization. In fact, Nahum Sokolow had denied that a Jewish state in Palestine was even a part of the Zionist program in 1919, and the Anglo-American Committee noted that Chaim Weizmann had denied it as recently as 1932. The Palestine Mandate article contains a section on the Jewish National home which explains all of that.

The resolution of the San Remo Conference reserved the political rights the non-Jewish communities. This article and the section on Arab Political Rights in the British Mandate article explain that fact. The majority of the UN member states view self-determination and statehood as an inalienable right of the Palestinian people. There are UN subsidiary organs devoted to efforts to assist them in exercising that right. For example, General Assembly resolution 48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations should guarantee "arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 harlan (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• John V. Whitbeck's opinion about Palestinian statehood is based upon an allegation that the proclaimed Palestinian state gained control over territories in the WB&Gaza. He identifies the SoP with the PNA. However, he ignores the fact that the PNA control is very limited, and is even less effective than that given to autonomies like Greenland. The pro-Palestinian-statehood Israeli B'Tselem organization scathingly criticizes the Israeli government's refusal to allow Palestinian independence and listed the strict limitations imposed on the PNA, also by internationally recognized agreements (such as the various "Oslo accords" and the "Paris protocol") and not necessarily by ad hoc policy or military force [44]. So, once again, we have a very problematic view which is given undue weight.

(outdent) Whitbeck's 1996 article is somewhat dated, since various governmental and intergovernmental agencies, including the state of Israel, have made statements that affirm the views he expressed. He pointed out that extending diplomatic recognition to foreign states lies within the discretion of each sovereign State. Since 1996:

• The ICJ noted that a number of agreements have been signed since 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and that those agreements required Israel to transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities exercised in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by its military authorities and civil administration. The Court said that Israel is under an obligation not to raise any obstacle to the exercise of such rights in those fields where competence has been transferred to Palestinian authorities. See paras 77 and 112 of the Advisory Opinion
• The majority of States have recognized the Palestinian people's permanent sovereignty over the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
• Israel’s representative at the United Nations said that under agreements reached between the two sides, the Palestinian Authority already exercised jurisdiction over many natural resources, while interim cooperation and arrangements were in place for others. [45]
• The Israeli High Court has ruled that Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have not been annexed to Israel; that the military commander is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation; and that the military commander's authority is derived from the provisions of public international law governing belligerent occupation. See HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel

[46]

• The Courts of Israel have ruled that the Palestinian Authority satisfies the legal criteria to be classed as a sovereign state and that the decision to recognize it as a state lies within the discretion of the political branches of the government of Israel. See Elon Moreh College Association v. The State of Israel, April 3, 2006 and Mis. Civ. P. (Jer) 1008/06, Elon Moreh College Association v. The State of Israel [April 3, 2006] [47]
• PM Netanyahu has expressed a willingness to recognize the State of Palestine if it will agree to forgo taking effective control of its airwaves, airspace, military defense, and not enter foreign alliances with Israel's enemies.
• PM Netanyahu recently requested that Palestine recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people

• In the section about Palestinian passports, it is implied that an Arab Palestinian state should have succeeded the British Mandate's government. This is false. The UK canceled all aspects of the Mandate by adopting the "Palestine Act, 1948". Passports and other official documents of the Mandate became null and void on midnight May 15, 1948, and the UK did not specify any body to which it ceded its authorities. It simply said it was no longer responsible for governing the territory. The current Palestinian passport are issued by the PNA. According to the PNA agreements with Israel, it may issue passports only for WB&Gaza residents. Israel has full control over the definition of WB&Gaza residency. this article explains this state of affairs elaborately, and note, that it refers to "Palestine" as a state-to-be, not as an actual state, based on both Palestinian and international sources.

(outdent)When the European University starts stamping visas in passports I'll let you know. The Passport section of the article doesn't say anything about State succession. Israel does its best to create the impression you are talking about though. The US State Department advises its citizens that Israel reserves the right to make native born US citizens with one or more Palestinian grandparents obtain PA travel and identity documents and enter the territory from Jordan. Israel signed a Treaty agreement with Jordan which said that the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, does not alter the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.[48] From time to time elected officials of the government of Israel still assert that "Jordan is Palestine",[49]; that the West Bank and Gaza should be part of "The United States of Jordan".[50]; or that Palestinians worldwide who want a State of their own need to satisfy their national aspirations in the West Bank and Gaza.[51]

The United Kingdom actually recognized the United Nations as the successor government for the non-self governing portions of Palestine. See UN Document PAL/138, 27 February 1948. Great Britain also recognized the Act of Union that was adopted by the representatives of Transjordan and Palestine. See British House of Commons, Jordan and Israel (Government Decision), HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41.harlan (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• One thing must be stressed - as long as the article bears the title "State of Palestine" it CANNOT rely only on the LEGAL interpretations regarding Palestinian statehood. You can entitle this article "Legal positions regarding Palestinian statehood" or "The Palestinian state in view of the international law" or "International legal aspects of Palestinian statehood" or "The controversy over Palestinian independence" or any similar title. The term "state" is not confined to the juristic field, and you cannot treat it as such. For example, your distinction between "government" and "state" (or better say "regime", because "government" can be interpreted in several ways) is purely juristic and have little relevance, if any, to the common person. Since Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of law, you cannot base an article upon legal interpretations or opinion of jurists alone. Iran's (non-)recognition in Israel is perhaps the best example to your approach that sees legal interpretation as all-inclusive. You imply that if something can be explained with legal interpretation then it is valid and verified. This is not the case, because law is only one of many aspects of real life.

(outdent) The sources cited in the article explain that States are legal entities. The majority of other States have made calculated political decisions to recognize the State of Palestine, and those formal political declarations have legal consequences. You may not have noticed, but I have cited the decisions of the PCIJ, ICJ, and international arbital tribunals that were established to resolve disputes regarding succession to ownership of state assets and state responsibilities in the cases of Palestine, Transjordan, Israel, and Iran. Whether you like it or not, international law did govern the actions and relations between those States, and that is the viewpoint held by the majority of States. I've also cited sources such as the Foreign Relations of the United States series, the Palestine Post, and etc. regarding historical political decisions and events. There are a variety of secondary sources and authorities who analyze and comment on that material from a political science perspective. harlan (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• To sum up the problems (again): (1) This article gives undue weight to creative legal interpretations, which are not supported by historical documents / recent reliable reports and the mainstream interpretations given to them; (2) this article draws comprehensive conclusions from juristic views and interpretation, while dealing with the subject that has many other aspects (namely, statehood, its meaning and applications). DrorK (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To sum up your problem: (i) You are not really trying to summarize the existing contents of the article in the lede. (ii) The majority of States do view Palestine as a State. (iii) You have an unhistorical view of the Balfour Declaration and Mandate that is contradicted by the actual published records of the British Cabinet, the resolution of the San Remo Conference, the report of the Anglo-American Committee, and the report of the UNSCOP Commission. (iv) You haven't cited any significant published sources that support the unsourced editorial comments and weasel words you tried to insert in the article, despite having ample opportunity to explain.[52] (v) This article cites and quotes verifiable and reliable published sources and represents viewpoints that have been discussed by the mainstream in mainstream publictions. harlan (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are not willing to work collaboratively and respect the fact that you are biased. This is not how WP works. You are using this site to promote political views which is explicitly forbidden. DrorK (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Drop the personal attacks about bias and start citing relevant reliable published sources that meet the minimum burden of proof for inclusion. The material in the lede summarizes the content of the article. The unpublished opinions of Wikipedia editors, like yourself, as to whether, or not, the indigenous population, their government, and the territory that they inhabit exist as a "person of law", a country, or a State are not a suitable subject for the encyclopedia or the talk page.

The existence of a state of Palestine, although controversial, is nonetheless a reality in the opinion of the many states that have extended recognition, and accepted letters of credence and ambassadors from the State of Palestine. You have not explained how the title can be considered "biased" in light of those facts, and you have not suggested any serious alternatives that are currently under discussion.

I've been editing an article about a legal entity, a State, that has been recognized by the majority of other States in accordance with international law. The article says that there are a variety of views on the subject, and there is an entire subsection which explains that a state may only exist for the purposes of the UN Charter. Nobody is stopping you from adding material that represents other significant "published" views. The article cites a number of relevant legal, political, up-to-date, and historical sources regarding the subject, and it says the majority of other states have recognized the State of Palestine. The thesis and points you presented at the head of this thread do not change the facts or circumstances. You still have not bothered to support them with citations to WP:RS sources, and have not made a good faith attempt to incorporate them into the body of the article. That after all is the real reason your edits were reverted. harlan (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, because you are the one who presents a controversial thesis based on weak sources. So far you failed to justify your edits. I am not the one who has to do the work for you. A state called Palestine is a proclaimed state, not an existing state. I can easily prove it to you - let's call the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and ask it to grant both of us a Palestinian citizenship. You will find out that there is no process of becoming a Palestinian citizen. You have to be listed in the Israeli registrar as a resident of the WB or Gaza, and then you can become a subject of the PA. The Palestinian Authority granted symbolic passports to certain people in the past, but they have no practical value - there is nothing you can do with them. There are many other examples on why Palestine is not a state. In fact, most of the countries you cited as recognizing Palestine, recognize it only symbolically or as a state-to-be, not as a real actual state. It is often said that WP is not about truth but about verifiability. You took this principle into the extreme, and suggest that a list of weak sources can overcome common sense. It is a bit similar to the claim that Creationalism is science. You could cite many sources claiming so, but the common sense and healthy thinking don't allow us to trust these sources. Now, I can tell you support the creation of a Palestinian State, and I do not condemn you for that. I just suggest that you won't use WP as a tool in this political campaign. DrorK (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to take a look at this interesting document [53]. Apparently even countries the 1988-declared Palestine cannot guarantee that they would regard a Palestinian passport as an evidence of Palestinian citizenship, and the PA representative admits they have to respect Israeli limitations on issuance of passports. That doesn't sound like an independent state to me. I have never heard of an independent sovereign country that cannot issue passports or another proof of citizenship freely. Even governments in exile can issue documents of citizenship recognized by other countries (my grandfather used to be a citizen of a government in exile back in the 1940ies). DrorK (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you show no will to discuss the problems in the article, and you try to silence those who object your opinions. May I remind you that this is not a private page of yours. DrorK (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, I'm going to be restoring this edit which you reverted. there is nothing wrong with it. I will also (if you don't beat me to it) be adding some of the information you provided in the link above about the limitations surrounding the recognition of the declaration of Palestine. I wish you would add such information to the article, instead of deleting the contributions of others and arguing here on the talk page. It would do much more toward addressing te POV concerns you raised in any case. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That won't do. You cannot present a proclaimed state as an existing state. It is would be like spitting in the face of WP's users. All the sources brought by Harlan to support his thesis are very weak and I explained why. He looks at the issue through the prism of international law, while we are dealing with a case that has numerous aspects, of which international law is one and not the most important one (the question of actual control of territory and population, the question of de facto functioning as a state is much more important). Even when considering the legal information given in this article it is indeed sourced, and yet based on exceptional interpretations often biased. I don't need to source my claims here, the person who bring an exceptional opinion is the one who should explain why it is a good source of information, and Harlan failed to do so. Furthermore, this article contradicts other article on WP. We have an article about the Palestinian Territories claiming they are occupied and cannot be regarded as a country. We have an article about the Palestinian National Authority that does not present it as an independent government. We have an article called Proposals for a Palestinian state that suggest by its very name that such state is non-existent. Do you really think this article respects WP? At least delete all other contradicting articles. DrorK (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlan brings sources, you bring none. Harlan's sources are of the highest quality. Again, you bring none. A state exists, according to the sources, when other states recognize its existence. If you would like to bring sources that contradict this feel free, but you cannot simply say that what the sources say is wrong. nableezy - 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I bring sources which you don't like (see above). Furthermore, Harlan doesn't bring sources of information. He brings theses and presents them as facts. As I said, this is the same as presenting Creationalism as science. There are plenty of pseudo-scientific articles suggesting creationalism is a fact. The fact such articles exist doesn't make them valid. You are abusing the notion of verifiability in order to promote political views. And you still refuse to address the problem of contradiction with other articles on WP. How can a Palestinian state be proposed if it already exists? Should we delete that article? DrorK (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No Edit Orders and other nonsense

Drork, the Palestinian territories article has an entire section which explains that the United States and other countries legally recognize it as a country. [[54]] I'd suggest you rename the "Proposals" article "Proposals for a final settlement" if it bothers you so much. Wikipedia editors do not determine whether or not states or governments exist in any case - they are supposed record what reliable published sources have said. Several of the sources that I've cited (Segal, Quigley, Boyle et. al.) have said that the intifadas gave local legal effect to the 1988 Declaration. Millions of lawful inhabitants of the territory let it be known, in no uncertain terms, that they would not acquiesce to permanent Israeli occupation or rule, and that they would only settle for self-government. BTW, the Israeli and other press have reported that there is no longer any local Israel government presence in Gaza, and that a Hamas-led faction of the Palestinian Authority is still exercising nominal control there.

Nobody is stopping you from adding material that represents other significant "published" views. You provided a link to a reply from the US Immigration and Naturalization Service "Resource Information Center" written in 2002. It contained several significant disclaimers. It stipulated that certain consular officials of three Middle Eastern states "were unable to say" whether their governments viewed Palestinian Authority passports as conferring any proof of citizenship or residency" and that "This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum." You have repeatedly asserted that I'm promoting a "thesis", when all I've actually done is cite or quote what published sources, like John Quigley, the FRUS, or Miriam Whiteman have said on this subject. You've turned the talk page into a general discussion forum for analogies to "creationism", and so-called "common sense and healthy thinking". You demanded the right to disappear on your talk page, and then complained when your tags were removed, as if there were still an on-going discussion taking place. Drive by tagging, personal insults, and ordering other editors not to edit the article in a certain way violates policy. See Making "no-edit" orders You can't delete sourced material and demand that editors go to ARBCOM, since they are not concerned with CONTENT disputes. harlan (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

According to most of the sources cited in this article (and most other available by scholars in the field), the State of Palestine does exist. It may not be independent, it may not be sovereign, and certainly does not exercise full control over its territories, most of which are occupied - that does not change the fact that it exists, by virtue of its declaration of independence and the recognition of that declaration by the majority of the world's states. I do think some of the other articles on WP need work (as does this one) so that they better represent this very complicated reality of a state that has been declared but whose independence has yet to be implemented. Palestine is in a transition phase though, so it makes sense that the articles on the subject and those related to it would contain some contradictory or at least confusing information.

This article will better respect Wiki policies when people spend more time following them by adding reliably sourced information that is relevant and varied in opinion and less time squabbling on the talk page. Tiamut^talk 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This response of yours proves how poorly you know the facts. The US DOES NOT recognize a country called Palestine. It recognizes a self-governed territory called "The West Bank and Gaza" or "The Palestinian Territories" per the Oslo Accords.

You are generally on dangerous ground when you make assumptions about US recognition of other states. There are a number of examples where US recognition was asserted retroactively decades after the fact in order to pursue monetary claims or to seize assets located in the US. The article explains that the United States no longer makes formal announcements regarding recognition of statehood. It cites an announcement which said the United States recognizes the West Bank and Gaza as a Country of origin. The announcement cited "19 C.F.R. PART 134" [55] which says “Country” means the political entity known as a nation.

The West Bank and Gaza are considered to be a single territory (not "territories") for legal and other purposes by the United States. The USAID West Bank/Gaza has been tasked with "state-building" projects in the areas of democracy, governance, resources, and infrastructure. Part of the USAID mission is to help in the progressive development of a viable and independent Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States has also signed an international agreement that protects and encourages investments. It is the modern equivalent of a treaty of comity and amity between states, the “Agreement on Encouragement of Investment Between the United States of America and the Palestine Liberation Organization for the Benefit of the Palestinian Authority Pursuant to the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area” of 11 August and 12 September 1994.

The US State Department Digest explains that those sort of treaties are a hallmark of statehood: "A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties" See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223 harlan (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of State has determined that the Palestinian Authority Passport/Travel Document meets the requirements of a passport as defined in Section 101(a)(30) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and therefore is acceptable for visa issuing purposes and travel to the United States.

However, according to an official at the U.S. Department of State, the United States does not recognize Palestine as a country, and therefore the Palestinian Authority Passport/Travel Document does not confer citizenship." (a report on the UN Refugee Agency).

Now, your idea of a state without sovereignty is certainly an innovation. As I said, you can find thousands of articles claiming all kind of bizarre things. Some of them even gained some credit among certain groups, e.g. Creationalism or certain theories of Astrology. That doesn't make them reliable sources, especially when you interpret them so liberally. For example, according to the sources you bring, the Basque Country should be considered an independent state, because it has an autonomous rule and some of its residents struggle for full independence. With a few clicks on my keyboard and some logical fallacies based on weak theses I've created a new state in Europe, and grant it as a gift to Wikipedia. You also suggest that if a country does not know whether it recognizes a passport as an indication of citizenship, then it means it recognizes the issuing authority as a state. Another logical fallacy. A country usually knows well how to treat foreign official documents. If a state official says his country doesn't know what the meaning of a foreign official document is, it entails non-recognition and not the other way around. You either not serious or so politically motivated that you fail to see the facts. I'm sorry, but I thought WP was a source of information, not a playground. DrorK (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You cited an inconclusive RIC response to a question about refugees and asylum. If a foreign official says he cannot answer hypothetical questions about refugees, it usually means that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and that the approval of other departments is part of the decision making process. In the Vietnamese refugee processing centers, DoD, State, and INS all participated in the process. The bureaucrats that staff US government information centers do not represent foreign governments, exercise boundless regulatory discretion, or make legal determinations that are reserved for the legislative and judicial branches of the government. If you ever come up with some verifiable published information that is relevant to THIS article, feel free to add it.

The Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention of 1925 did oblige the United States to recognize Palestinian nationality. The United States was one of the Allied powers that negotiated and ratified the treaty of Lausanne which created the successor states of Palestine and Transjordan. The United States does recognize those as countries of origin for individuals born there, and it considers Palestinian nationality to be a legally protected characteristic under federal civil rights laws. The United States has always provided funding for Palestinian refugee camps, and has recently decided to resettle more than 1300 Palestinian refugees from Iraq in the United States. A state does not cease to exist simply because its territory is occupied. Israel and Jordan did not occupy or annex all of the territory of Palestine. See the section on Gaza and succession of laws there. harlan (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The lead is supposed to summarize the main article covering the main points. How is Jerusalem being the capital of Israel a main point in this article? Where in the main article is this discussed? Does the Israel article make any mention at all of Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine? This is both not relevant and not important enough for it to be in the lead of this article. If you would like to make a footnote similar to the one in the Israel article feel free, but Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not relevant to this article. nableezy - 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognition

Map showing nations which have recognised or have special diplomatic arrangements with the State of Palestine or other Palestinian delegation.

I just made edits to the list of states that recognise the state. See this talk page for more background. The number was 114 before, and I reduced it to 101. The source used for the previous figure didn't include a list of states, while the source for the latter does. The number 101 can be increased if other editors can find supplementary sources for each individual case, which--given the plague of conflicting sources regarding the figure--I think is the best way to approach the matter. I also removed the figure pertaining to the number of states with other kinds of diplomatic ties to the SOP. I did this because of inaccuracies regarding the aforementioned list, sources that don't link anywhere of value, sources with dead links, and contradictions with the map shown beside it (which are all still an issue).

The map now (and indeed also did before) shows data that contradicts the information in the list. This is probably due to the inaccuracies of the previous list, although it doesn't show 114 as having recognised. It needs to be updated to mirror the sourced information we have on the list, but I don't know anything about editing images on Wikipedia... so if anybody could lend a hand it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Night w (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for edits and comments. There is one thing though. You moved Turkmenistan out of the section of countries that recognize Palestine as a state. All member states of the OIC recognize Palestine as a state, given that it is a member state of the OIC itself. So I would like to move it back and add other OIC members that may not be listed there currently as well. Hope that's cool. Tiamut^talk 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you basing formal recognition by each individual government of the OIC on the fact that the organisation as a whole includes it as a member state? I'm all for increasing the number, but unless the source plainly states that all members of the OIC recognise the SOP's sovereignty, I think the one we have now could be viewed as WP:Synthesis or something... Also, I've readded the source you removed, as it's the most authoratative one we have on the subject. It's a government website, so it's certainly not based on Wikipedia ;P

I'll leave the OIC additions in, but I think if Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan all recognise the SOP, then we should be able to find some credible source plainly stating so. If not, I don't see any basis for keeping them on the list. Night w (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi NightW. I'm sorry I missed you question. Actually, I'm basing the inclusion of the four OIC states on my knowledge of OIC policy. I realie that's insufficient, so I looked for a source confirming that it is indeed the case that all OIC member states recognize Palestine as a state, and I found this: "The 21 other states of the Arab League, for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)." If you need a better source, let me know. For now I'll include it in the footnotes for those entries. Thanks for the question. Tiamut^talk 10:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Many states have a published policy of neither confirming nor denying their recognition of other states, and of NEVER recognizing other governments. Francis Boyle was the legal counsel to the PLO. He published an article which said the number of other states that had recognized the State of Palestine was 114. Under customary international law, diplomatic recognition and recognition of a government may be conditional or revocable. However, recognition of statehood (another people) is not. The Montevideo Convention reflects customary state practice "The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable."[56] You can't really lower Boyle's number without making some WP:Synth assumptions. harlan (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyle's article doesn't mention the names of any states, so we can't give the figure 114 and list 105 names. And if a state has not (to quote the clarifyer in the section we're talking about) "formally recognised" the State of Palestine--and thereby rendering any attempts to later confirm or deny neither necessary nor consequential (because, as you say, the act of recognition of statehood is irrevocable)--then it doesn't belong on the list. We need a reference that plainly states that the 4 aforementioned Central Asian states have formally recognised the State of Palestine. Even just details of an embassy or something would convince me, altho I can't speak for other editors. Night w (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me Tiamut! Thanks! Night w (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes we can. I'll cite and quote both Boyle and Talmon to explain that many states have adopted a policy against making formal announcements. harlan (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to edit the map? The following cases don't match up with the data we have in the article:

• Argentina — has General Delegation (source)---light green
• Peru — has Special Delegation (source)---brown
• Georgia — has diplomatic relations (source)---?
• Singapore — I can't find any sources showing any diplomatic ties... ---grey (at least for now)
• Bosnia — Embassy (source)---?

I've searched and searched for info on Palestinian delegations in the following two states, but I've come up blank. Does anyone know if either has a special delegate? Otherwise, I'd consider removing them.

• Bolivia
• Singapore

If anybody can help out with the map, I'd greatly appreciate it! I have no idea about editing images. Also, does anyone know why Ireland and Mexico are listed separately in the second list? Night w (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know how to edit the map. I think it has to be done by taking the file into a program that will allow for re-colouring of the bits that need to be recoloured and then uploading it as a new file.

I also can't find any sources about the status of Singapore's relationship with Palestine. And while I can find lots of articles about Bolivia cutting off its relations with Israel over the Gaza War, I can't find anything on what its relationship is with Palestine at present. So I agree with removing them both until sources can be found.

I think we are missing about another 20+ countries in our list. I've seen sources cite figures of 130 countries or 2/3 of UN members so I'm pretty sure we are missing those here. Its hard to find inidividual sources though. There is a "Palestine Diplomatic Handbook" dated 2009, which I wish I could my hands on since its likely to have a full listing of the countries with which Palestine has relations. Unfortunately, there is no preview function of it available on google books (and Amazon does not deliver here and no libraries around here would have it, I don't think). Anyway, I've added a few more entries that were missing and uppsed the number to 107. Thanks for all your input everyone. Tiamut^talk 16:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts Tiamut! Thankyou. Is it possible for you to cite in the footnotes a quote from Tessler regarding Greece? Do you know anything about Georgia's relationship? All I have is this, but it doesn't mean much. Also Eritrea might be one to look at. I'll continue in my search.

After those additions, the map needs the following corrections (sources above and within article):

• Argentina — has General Delegation ---light green
• Peru — has Special Delegation ---brown
• Singapore — no ties yet identified ---grey
• Kyrgyzstan — recognised ---dark green
• Guyana — recognised ---dark green
• Suriname — recognised ---dark green
• Cote d'Ivoire — recognised ---dark green
• Kenya — recognised ---dark green
• Greece — recognised ---dark green

Night w (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This doc says that e.g. Paraguay "supports" Palestinian statehood http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4962 I'm not sure if this means recognition or a different colour. --Dailycare (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant quote from Tessler, of whose book I can only see fragments, is: "Within two weeks of the PNC meeting, at least fifty-five nations, including states as diverse as the Soviet Union, China, India, Greece, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Malta, and Zambia, had recognized the Palestinian state."

I'll look into Georgia, Eritrea, Paraguay, etc., further ovr the next few days. Thanks to both of you for your efforts. Tiamut^talk 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tessler quote reminded by the way, that while I having difficulty finding info on Boasnia and Herzagovina, the states that were born out of the former Yugoslavia most likely renewed their recognition of Palestine upon independence. That was the case for states such as the former Zambia in any case. Tiamut^talk 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's Montenegro and Bosnia&Herzegovina:

http://www.mip.gov.me/en/index.php/Missions-to-Montenegro/palestine.html

http://www.mfa.gov.ba/HTML/Ambasade/AmbasadeUBiH_eng/AmbuBiH_Palestina_eng.html

The latter can be found via http://www.mfa.gov.ba/ ->Embassies&Consulates->Embassies in BiH and selecting Palestina from the drop-down menu. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DailyCare. I'll add Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro now and up to the total to 112. I'll also add the full quote from Tessler to the article itself, per Nightw's request. Wonderful working with you both to actually improve this article. Tiamut^talk 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tiamut, I reduced the figure back down to 110. I think you must have counted Montenegro and Bosnia-Heregovina as recent additions by Dailycare, but they were actually already on there prior to your revision anyway. Either way, the list only had 110 names when you updated it...the double-counting of the Yugoslav republics is what I've pinpointed the error as being. It's all good now though. Night w (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)