Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

PNA seeking UN Recognition

In 1998 the privileges of the Permanent Observer for Palestine were enhanced when UN member states introduced a resolution and 124 states voted to adopt it. At the time, Palestine could not introduce or co-sponsor resolutions, so other states acted on Palestine's behalf in putting the proposal on the agenda. Israeli Ambassador Gold complained that it was a unilateral act that violated the Oslo principles.[1]

The representative of Palestine, Mr. Al-Kidwa, said that it was astonishing when a party claims that a certain act constitutes "unilateral action" at a time when 124 states support the act.[2]

The PNA is seeking multilateral recognition of its statehood in the UN and has pledges from as many as 150 states. [3] The state of Palestine was declared in 1988 and the Palestinians do not need to make any more "unilateral" declarations. The PNA leadership, including PM Fayyad, have stated that a unilateral declaration is not, and will not be, part of their thinking, e.g. 'We want a state, not unilateral declaration,' Fayyad says [4]

I removed this unsourced editorial because it deploys the "unilateral" propaganda trope:

<snip>Planned declaration of statehood in September 2011 Following the impasse in the peace process under the Netanyahu government from 2009 onward, the Palestinian leadership implied it would seek UN support for unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state at the opening of the General Assembly session in September 2011, if no agreement with Israel is reached by then.[citation needed]</snip>

harlan (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever is added should only be done so if a source can be found. Nightw 11:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually the unsourced text matches [5][6] about PNA declaring a state in Sep2011 and many recent articles about Obama potentially supporting some UNGA resolution in Sep2011. If by "unilateral" you mean PNA+UNGA vs. Israel, then yes it would be unilateral. Anyway, I'll leave to the editor who added this note to arrange its sources, because it seems we are bordering WP:CRYSTAL here. Alinor (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, the author, Elior Levy, is the only person in the YNet piece who even employed the term "declaration". The term "unilateral" does not appear in the YNet piece and the Eurasia Review article doesn't mention a "unilateral declaration" at all. I notice that you quoted an editorial comment from Amira Hess the other day as if she were the spokesperson of the Palestinian government. Now you are quoting Elior Levy instead of the Palestinian who was interviewed. The use of the term "unilateral" in article talk space when neither source mentions that word wasn't bordering on WP:CRYSTAL. Its was over the line WP:Synth. harlan (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding synth - I already said - I leave to the editor who added the material to arrange its sources - if he does that we will see whether the material has a source or not. Currently this is irrelevant because the article doesn't include this text.
I'm not quoting anything here - I just say that the content above matches some sources "in sense". Whether there will be unilateral declaration, declaration by PNA+UNGA vs. Israel or no declaration, etc. is an issue for the future, that's why we come close to WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, maybe PLO would arrange a merge between SoP and PNA, so without "new unilateral declaration", maybe the UNGA will make some important non-unilateral resolution, maybe UNGA will simply make another of their routine "we support the PNA goal to establish a state in the future, we condemn Israel continuing occupation" resolutions, all this is speculation and WP:CRYSTAL. Alinor (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This has been readded by an IP. Any objections? Nightw 08:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Official name

The article currently starts with:

  • "The State of Palestine, officially simply Palestine ..." - this has two references. I think to add [need quotation to verify] tag there, because it seems that here are mixed the issues of "official full name", "official short form", "common/unofficial name used". It seems that the 'official full name' is "State of Palestine", the 'common/unofficial usage' is of course of "Palestine" - but I don't see a source showing that 'official short form' is "Palestine". Also, it should be mentioned that infoboxes should display the "conventional_long_name" - not a short form - even if it's official.
  • Looking at the Palestinian Declaration of Independence I see references to "Palestine, the land", "Palestine/Palestinian territory/territories", but when it comes to the state that is established I see "State of Palestine" and nothing like "officially simply Palestine" or similar.

Other countries official names also include the "State of" - some examples are below:

  • "Brunei, officially the State of Brunei Darussalam ..." - Brunei
  • "Eritrea, officially the State of Eritrea ..." - Eritrea
  • "The State of Kuwait ..." - Kuwait
  • "Papua New Guinea, officially the Independent State of Papua New Guinea ..." - Papua New Guinea
  • "Samoa, officially the Independent State of Samoa ..." - Samoa
  • "Vatican City or Vatican City State, officially Stato della Città del Vaticano, which translates literally as "State of the City of the Vatican" ..." - Vatican City
  • "Qatar, also known as the State of Qatar or locally Dawlat Qatar ..." (infobox with "State of Qatar") - Qatar
  • "Israel, officially the State of Israel ..." - Israel

I assume that the convention used in other countries Wikipedia pages "Palestine, officially the State of Palestine ..." is not used, because the first word of the article would become different from its name (and it has to be different, because of the special case we have here - as discussed in the previous section of the talk page), but as we see above in the case of Kuwait we already have an example of lead starting not exactly with the article name. So, I propose that (unless we have a source showing something else) we change the sentence to:

  1. "Palestine, officially the State of Palestine ..." or
  2. "The State of Palestine ..." (without "officially this/that") - with an appropriate mention of "The State of Palestine is referred to with the short form name of Palestine" (or whatever the quotations of the sources show) - somewhere later in the lead. Alinor (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you're still trying to discredit reputable sources with your presumptions and speculations. A bad habit, that one. Nightw 11:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't try to discredit the sources - I ask what they really said - because I think that the editors that used the sources maybe have made a mistake.
And what is more reputable for the "official full name" than the declaration of independence itself (there is no constitution or other "basic document" yet)? Alinor (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you find quotations from the sources so that we all can check what's written there? Alinor (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
They're both fact-file country guides. Google books has a hit here for Baroud, if you wanted to take a look. Nightw 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
From the link you gave it's not clear if this is "official full name" or "official short form name". Let's leave aside that "State of" is an easy-to-miss part in a list "of states". So, this link doesn't help to clear the issue. Alinor (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it even actually the "State of..." or is the scope of the article instead possibilities for a legal entity throughout history with prominence given to certain recent aspects that include official names and separate entities but not necessarily something called the "State of Palestine"?Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is about the "polity"/entity/state (a state without control of its territory and operating by government-in-exile, the PLO) established in 1988 by the Palestinian Declaration of Independence - and the official full name that I see there is "State of Palestine". General article about all possible arrangements for Palestinian state are described in the Proposals for a Palestinian state article. Alinor (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Regarding the infobox - most of the country infoboxes have three name fields: "common_name", "conventional_long_name", "native_name". The Wikipedia articles on states (see examples above) follow the convention of using: short English name for "common_name", full official name in all native languages/alphabets for "native_name", full official name in English for "conventional_long_name".

In some infoboxes I also see "conventional_short_name" for official short form name in all native languages/alphabets - this will be "Palestine" written in Arabic (according to this provided by Night w above). "common_name" is obviously "Palestine" and "native_name" would be the "State of Palestine" written in Arabic (see Egypt).

So, in the field "conventional_long_name" we should enter "State of Palestine" (according to this). Somebody to disagree/have another source showing some different "long name"? Alinor (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "according to this"? Where in the declaration does it state that the official name of the state of Palestine is the "State of Palestine"? It needs to be explicit (like "Official name: ..."). It could be that there is no established official name. A previous discussion is located in the archives. Nightw 12:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is no established official name, then we should remove current claims to the contrary from the article (that claim "Palestine" to be the official name).
The discussion you point to is inconclusive at most.
The only name that we see in the Declaration of intependence (source above) is "State of Palestine". And this is the only official source that we have. Do you have link to any other document of the Palestinian National Council (SoP legislature), PLO Executive Committee, PLO Chairman (SoP President) or any State of Palestine institution (if there are such other than the listed here)?
If there isn't any other name (as you ponder and speculate that "It could be that there is no established official name") then we should use what we have in the declaration - SoP. As you see above it's not uncommon for a state to have such official name. Alinor (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is no established official name, then we should state that there is no established official name, but I haven't seen a source that suggests that. The only sources I have seen state that the official name is "Palestine". The declaration does not seem to dictate on what the official name of the state is. Nightw 09:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The single source you gave above is from a "fact-file country guide" and I would like to see how it presents the other states that I gave as example in the start of this section. And official names of states are decided by their institutions, not by "fact-file country guides".
How do you decide that there is no "established official name"? From the Declaration: "The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem." (emphasis mine). The same name (State of Palestine) is consistently utilized in all paragraphs. No other name is used to refer to that state. Alinor (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Alinor, but using a primary source document to make a conclusion about what the official name is, is problematic. "Palestine" is the official name that was adopted in the UN for the PLO observer there following the declaration and not "State of...". With contradictory information from two notable primary sources, and making an WP:OR conclusion in favor of one or other would be unwise. Luckily, we do have a reliable secondary source that says explicitly "Official name: Palestine" (page 161 of Middle East Review [7]. Without another source that explicitly contradicts this one, I think we should go with what the reliable secondary source says. Tiamuttalk 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
UN PLO observer designation and the "fact-file country guide" source you give show the short form - this should be used for "conventional_short_name" (arabic) and "common_name" (english). But for long/full name we don't have any other name than SoP - both the 1988 declaration and the UNGA resolution that you cite [8] use "State of Palestine" for the full name. See the opening comment of this subsection.
I gave multiple examples above of countries with full/long form name "State of XXX" - do you have any source showing the "State of Palestine" is different from them about its long form name? Alinor (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It does not show the short name. Compare its page on Jordan. Nightw 12:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this source about the 1988-declared "State of Palestine" or about the 1994-established "Palestinian National Authority"/"Palestinian territories" or about the PLO-"Palestine", the UN observer entity? Because it doesn't say anywhere (at least in the links you give) that it is about SoP - on the contrary - it makes reference to "President of the Palestinian Council: Yasser Arafat (since 1996)" - and since he was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (since 1969 - long before 1996), assumed the title "President of Palestine" (since 1988), and President of the Palestinian National Authority (since 1994 according to that page - maybe Wikipedia wrongly reports the year of Oslo Accords instead of 1996?). Alinor (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. Lead first sentence - related to below discussion - let's avoide making controversial claims not backed by source (official full name, official short name) - and use what we have (officially declared as ...)
    1. "The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين, dawlat filastin), officially simply Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, filastin),[1][2] is a state that was unilaterally proclaimed in exile in Algiers on 15 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) National Council (PNC) adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence."
    2. "Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, filastin),[2][need quotation to verify] officially declared as the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين, dawlat filastin)[3] is a state that was proclaimed in exile in Algiers on 15 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) National Council (PNC) adopted the unilateral Palestinian Declaration of Independence."
    3. "Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, filastin), officially declared as the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين, dawlat filastin)[3] is a state that was proclaimed in exile in Algiers on 15 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) National Council (PNC) adopted the unilateral Palestinian Declaration of Independence." Alinor (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between the last two? Nightw 10:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The 3rd is without 'need quotation to verify' tag on the offline source - because it doesn't include it. Alinor (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Why would we remove it? And why would there be a "need quotation to verify" tag on there? You've seen the source. It says "Official name: Palestine". Nightw 15:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing the Bissio and the Baroud sources. The Baroud source is the one that you provided link for and it doesn't seem to be about SoP - see 17:11, 16 January 2011 comment above. The source in variant2/3 here is the Bissio source. I haven't seen quotation from it - but in case we select version2/3 I don't think we need such. Alinor (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bissio source says the same thing. Your later variants would technically violate WP:BOLDTITLE but as long as you leave both sources in, I don't have a problem with it. Nightw 07:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
So, OK, for the time being I will implement option2 with both Bissio and the Baroud sources. "Need quotation to verify" will remain after the Bissio source (we don't have link/quote for it yet).
Also, Baroud source doesn't refer to SoP - see 17:11, 16 January 2011 comment above. Alinor (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the proposal for Infobox change at Talk:State of Palestine/Infobox. Alinor (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to delay my response to your proposal here, pending the resolution of your edit-warring. Nightw 08:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The edit-warring is as much mine as it is yours. Alinor (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If nobody objects I will put the proposed infobox in the article. Alinor (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w edit of 14Jan2011

Night w, you made this edit with explanation: c/e: grammar; duplicate links; rmv OR + general mess; no source states the official name is "state of palestine".

  • "c/e: grammar; duplicate links" - such things can be easily corrected without deleting/etc. where are they?
  • "rmv OR + general mess" - would you specify what parts of the edit you find to be such?
  • "no source states the official name is "state of palestine" - actually, as discussed above this is not so - see [9]. Quite on the contrary there is no official source showing that the "full long form name" is 'just Palestine'. In addition the edit that you made changes the name in two places: "conventional_long_name = State of Palestine" and "officially declared as the State of Palestine". And both of these are supported directly by [10].

I will put back the content along with slight changes - so, if you find something to be "a mess" - please use the talk page and explain what the problem is. Alinor (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, you reverted it again (WP:1RR), without caring to even say something here or to explain reversion on in the edit-line comment (other than "revert: no consensus for this; please adhere to editing policy").
Would you care to explain what you object in these changes resulting in this version? Alinor (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:EP: If your edits are challenged, you go and seek a consensus on the talk page before repeating them. You're well aware of this. There was absolutely no consensus for the changes you made, and you were well aware of that also. I'm quite happy to reveal what I think was wrong with your edits, and how they might be improved, but repeating the same edits that were rejected less than 9 hours prior is being purely disruptive. Keep your arguments about the official name in the appropriate thread, and I'll respond there shortly, when I have the time.
This edit, among others, was original research. You provided no reliable sources as required by WP:V and WP:NOR.
Grammar correction? "...quite widely recognition by other states" → "...quite widely recognised by states" would be an example. I made numerous other corrections to your grammar and punctuation, such as the addition of commas on lines 232 and 233, and the addition of the word "had" on line 97. I removed duplicate links to Palestinian Authority, Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian Legislative Council, Jerusalem, and on common words like "constitution". Does this explain things for you, or do you have more issues about this particular edit? Nightw 09:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
When I made the second version I opened this talk discussion. Why haven't you joined when you reverted the 2nd time?
The edits I made say "officially declared as the State of Palestine" (per [11]). The above thread doesn't contradict that.
Sources for the "edit, among others" that you mention were added in my second edit (see link above).
I tried to do the grammar corrections that you mention in my second edit. If I missed some - let's correct them. Anyway, I don't argue about these. Duplicate links can also be dealt additionally.
Yes, I have more issues with your reversions. Besides the name issue - what other non-grammar objections do you have to these changes resulting in this version? Alinor (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the portions with which I generally agree. The only major issue I had (apart from the name change) was with a large section lacking comprehensible prose and proper sourcing. It follows the wording "While Israel currently occupies the Palestinian territories..." The footnote is without proper sourcing, and I would avoid using little-known terms like "Areas A and B" and stick with "Gaza and the West Bank". Describing difference between certain institutions and certain laws is fine, but avoid making claims that some are confused with others unless you can attribute that claim to a reliable source.
There was also a statement about the PLO at the UN, which was already discussed a few sentences later. If that is to be restored, it should be incorporated into the relevant sentence extant. Nightw 07:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, [12], so let's see where we differ (below I make some changes - in order to take into account comments above):
  1. Lead first sentence - related to #Infobox - let's avoide making controversial claims not backed by source (official full name, official short name) - and use what we have (officially declared as ...)
    1. "The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين, dawlat filastin), officially simply Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, filastin),[1][2] is a state that was unilaterally proclaimed in exile in Algiers on 15 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) National Council (PNC) adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence."
    2. "Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, filastin),[2][need quotation to verify] officially declared as the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين, dawlat filastin)[3] is a state that was proclaimed in exile in Algiers on 15 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) National Council (PNC) adopted the unilateral Palestinian Declaration of Independence."
    3. "Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, filastin), officially declared as the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين, dawlat filastin)[3] is a state that was proclaimed in exile in Algiers on 15 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) National Council (PNC) adopted the unilateral Palestinian Declaration of Independence."
  2. limited recognition - another user reverted your deleting of 'limited recognition' - I just try to put it in more appropriate place (where recognition is mentioned)
    1. "The State of Palestine is quite widely recognised by states,"
    2. "The State of Palestine has limited, but quite wide recognition by other states,"
  3. At the UN - you made some changes concurrent with mine - I don't fully agree with these - and I make below some other changes (following the chronology of UNGA resolutions on PLO representation) - compare:
    1. "The PLO has had observer status at the United Nations as a "non-state entity" since 22 November 1974,[4][5] which entitles it to speak in the UN General Assembly but not to vote. In the United Nations the PLO is classified as a limited self-governing body.[6]" In the list of "non-member states and entities", Palestine is categorized under "Other entities having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and are maintaining permanent offices at Headquarters".[7] After the Declaration of Independence the United Nations General Assembly officially "acknowledged" the proclamation and voted to change the name of the PLO permanent observer to "Palestine".[8][9][10]"
    2. "The PLO has had observer status at the United Nations as a "non-state entity" since 22 November 1974,[11][5][12] which entitles it to speak in the UN General Assembly but not to vote. In the list of "non-member states and entities", the PLO is categorized under "Other entities having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and are maintaining permanent offices at Headquarters".[13] After the Declaration of Independence the United Nations General Assembly officially "acknowledged" the proclamation and voted to use the designation "Palestine" instead of "Palestine Liberation Organization" when referring to the PLO permanent observer.[14][9][15] Despite of the designation change the PLO does not participate at the UN in its capacity of State of Palestine government.[16]
  4. reference note about seating/arrangement - why do you object this? without the note it's not clear that Palestine is before the other observers.
    1. "UN observers: Non-member States and Entities."
    2. "UN observers: Non-member States and Entities Palestine is listed immediately after non-member States (on the same page) and before the other observers (that are on the next page)."
  5. PNA description; we should use the appropriate terms, regardless if they are little known or not - PNA doesn't operate in the whole WB/GS, especially in Area C. See revised proposal below.
    1. "No reference is made in the Accords to the 1988 declaration of a state of Palestine. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA or PA), was established by the PLO as a result of the Oslo Accords and is an interim administrative body that exercises some governmental functions in parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[17]"
    2. "While Israel currently occupies the Palestinian territories[18][19][20][21][22][23] as a result of the Oslo Accords it allowed the PLO to establish an interim administrative body, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA or PA), that exercises some governmental functions in Areas A and B of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The PNA was made accountable to the PLO Executive Committee and the PLO is the ultimate authority of the PNA.[17] No reference is made in the Accords to the 1988 declaration of the State of Palestine."
  6. Institutions paragraph
    1. "The current President of Palestine is Mahmoud Abbas, serving in his capacity as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization."
    2. "The State of Palestine is currently in exile and consists of the following institutions:
  7. link that you changed - Israeli-occupied territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights) include more than the Occupied Palestinian Territory (West Bank, Gaza Strip) so the status quo link is more appropriate
    1. "The United Nations General Assembly has recognised the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem as a matter of international law."
    2. "The United Nations General Assembly has recognised the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem as a matter of international law."
  8. Capital footnote - PLC Basic law is not about SoP - so this either should be clarified (variant2) or not mentioned at all (variant3)
    1. "The Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaims the "establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif)." The Palestine Basic Law, approved by the PLC in May 2002, states unambiguously "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine".[26]"
    2. "The Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaims the "establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif)."[3] The same decision is taken also by the PLC of the PNA in May 2002 when it approved its Basic Law that states unambiguously "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine".[27]"
    3. "The Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaims the "establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif)."[3]"
  9. New addition that I propose - to be placed after the 'institutions; declaration, charter, basic law' paragraph:
    1. "—"
    2. "Palestine" is officially used as short form reference to the State of Palestine,[2] but this should be distinguished from the homonymous usage of the reference for the PNA,[1], the PLO as UN observer entity,[28] the Palestine as region or territory, and the other ideas about establishment of and proposals for a Palestinian state. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The first point needs to be discussed separately, in the designated thread above. The second point is fine, considering my grammatical corrections. In the third point, the arrangement of Palestine within the General Assembly is an entirely different thing to its arrangement on the UN website. Sources should directly support the statement in question, and should not require further explanation. This one would be better. In the third point, you're free to remove the quote from Tal Becker, but the source should be removed with it, since you left it attributed to a statement to which it does not relate. The only other differences I can see is a superfluous elongation of the last sentence, which is unnecessary, and an additional sentence on the end of that, which is fine.

In point number five, a comma needs adding after "territories", the comma after "body" needs to be a colon, and the last sentence is unnecessary. If these will not be the first instances of these terms in the article, none of them should be bluelinks. There needs to be citations that provide for the claim that a) the Oslo Accords allowed for the establishment of an interim administration, and b) said administration exercises some governmental functions in Gaza and the West Bank. Avoid using terms that few people know, such as "Areas" named within the Oslo Accords; instead perhaps use "in parts of".

Point number seven is well taken, but you can remove the link altogether then since Palestinian territories is already linked to prior. As for the other points, I shall review those shortly. Nightw 09:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The second variant of the eighth point is fine, but the PLC has already been explained prior, so "of the PNA" is unnecessary, and bluelinks on "PNC", "Jerusalem", and "Palestinian territory" are duplicates, and should be removed. Nightw 10:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so - point1 - posted in above section; point2 - variant2; point3 - so we remove Tal source, but prefer "voted to change the name of the PLO permanent observer to "Palestine" instead of "voted to use the designation "Palestine" instead of "Palestine Liberation Organization" when referring to the PLO permanent observer."? The second variant is more close to p3; point4 - variant1; point5 - the a)b) statements that you mention are not added by me and are in the article since long time. About "Areas A and B" - this isn't "Wikipedia for Kids" or something similar - why shouldn't we use the proper term? Everybody can click on it and see what it means; point6 - variant2?; point7 - it is maybe linked, but not the as OPT; point8 - I'm leaning more to variant3, but 2 is also OK; point9 - variant2? Alinor (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't have an objection to your proposal in the last point. I'll get back to you on point number six. Point three uses PLO twice in the space of five words, which doesn't read well, but I don't care enough to keep arguing about it. Still opposing the use of obscure legal designations in your point five, and still opposing the addition of duplicate links, including redirects. I won't be swayed on either issue. Nightw 23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
about point5 "Areas A/B" vs. "in parts of" - I don't agree with your reasons, but as compromise I propose "in parts of"?
About the point7 - OPT link - WP:REPEATLINK - "There are exceptions to this guideline...where the later occurrence is a long way from the first.". So, Palestinian territories are linked near the top of the article - the other link is near the bottom - almost the whole article will be between these two. Alinor (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, linking on "in parts of" is fine. Not on the other. It's a footnote that is linked to from the top of the article, where the link is already present. Nightw 11:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
On the "institutions" section, providing that there are no repeated bluelinks added, this is fine. However, there is a sourcing issue with the attribution "government-in-exile". The source provided does not say that the PLO, or any of its derivitives, form a government-in-exile. And this is a problem that is now spread throughout the article, with every mention of the word "government-in-exile" attributed to this source, which doesn't directly support any of those claims except one. Nightw 11:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "it's a footnote"? The point7/OPT link is in the "International recognition and foreign relations" section - way below the lead - and not in a footnote.
GiE. The source says "The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established." - if you want we can rephrase bullet3 of point6 to:
Would you also look at the name section above? Alinor (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Never mind point7 - the text before/after the link has some other rough edges - the resolution actually concerns both OPT and Golan, thus link from variant1 is better. Alinor (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's fine. I'll comment in the naming thread shortly. Nightw 11:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done these here. But the "quite wide" recognition seems inappropriate IMHO. Should we put such qualifiers here? What about using a slightly different adjective:

  1. "The State of Palestine has limited, but quite wide recognition by other states"
  2. "The State of Palestine has limited, but substantial recognition by other states" Alinor (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w - WP:REPEATLINK

Night w, I think "remove duplicate links" should be applied more reasonably, especially in long articles and in cases where the links are not just navigational help, but also have explanatory functions. Alinor (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Any specific examples? Nightw 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem especially for the different uses of "Palestine" and "Palestinian territories" that can mean different things - so that's why a wikilink to the appropriate article is used.

You also recently made some changes that go against the agreement we just have reached about points2-9 above. Alinor (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Such as? Nightw 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I will get to this, but in the meantime will you comment about point1/name - as you said (11:07, 19 January 2011 in section above)? Alinor (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." Alinor (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I implemented all points (1-to-9) as per above/below talks: [13]. Here I will explain some additional changes that I propose (such as the History summary - you made some edits on it, that I want to discuss; etc.) If you want other changes - please explain them too.

  • infobox - government type. Template:Infobox country doesn't say that this should be one of the form of government type. The current variant1 is just a copy from the PNA infobox. PNA is not SoP. SoP doesn't have a Prime Minister, etc. this is simply wrong. Also, many of the state infoboxes list for "government" something that is not from form of government. I propose that we put here variant2. GiE is much more correct description of the situation. And we should mention somewhere in the infobox that SoP doesn't control any territory - having GiE as government type will do this.
    1. Semi-presidential; Parliamentary democracy
    2. government-in-exile
  • History summary
  1. "two state solution" - why remove link? It can't find it linked even once, not to mention near this point
  2. "... in the remaining territory of the mandate." - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away; explanatory function
  3. "Britain" - why remove link? It can't find it linked even once, not to mention near this point
  4. "Arab Higher Committee" - why remove link? the only other link is sections away
  5. "1948 Arab–Israeli War" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away
  6. "Egypt" - why remove link? the only other link is two sections away
  7. "Transjordan didn't recognise it[clarification needed] and instead ..." - I propose this to be changed to "Transjordan didn't recognise the All-Palestine Government and instead ..."
  8. "ended with significant territorial gains for Israel," vs. "ended with significant territorial expansion by Israel," - the second reads more like "Israel expanded" (e.g. new territories are part of Israel), where the first reads more like "Israel gained control" (e.g. new territories are occupied by Israel, but not part of it). Thus I propose to keep the initial wording.
  9. "including the whole of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away
  10. "... still remain under Israel ..." vs. "... remain under Israeli ..." - I propose to keep the "still" word, so that it's clear that this continues to the present time
  11. "Palestinian people" - why remove link? the only other link is sections away
  12. "PLO legislature" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away; explanatory function
  13. "Palestinian Declaration of Independence" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away
  14. "without specififying whether this covers only the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, or both these and Israel itself." vs. "without specififying further." - we should somehow describe what is there to further specify (e.g. whether SoP claims 'Israel-proper' or not)
  15. recognise, recognised, recognising - isn't "recognise" the only grammatically correct?
  16. "as its territory only the Occupied Palestinian territory" - I propose to keep the link, the nearest link shown-in-the-same-way is sections away; explanatory function
  17. "Oslo Accords" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away
  18. "control of the Palestinian territories from Jordan and Egypt" - I propose to keep the link, the nearest link shown-in-the-same-way is sections away
  19. "... in the Israel's Southern District." vs. "... in the Southern District." - clicking on the link would show that this is Israel's district, yes, but I propose that we keep "Israel's" so that it's clear even without clicking.
  20. your redaction "... in the form of the PNA." - I propose to change this into "in the form of the Palestinian National Authority." - this is the first time PNA is mentioned in this section; the nearest link is sections away
  21. your redaction "It was given civilian and/or[which?] security control in some areas." - to be changed to "In some areas it was given civilian and security control, in others only civilian and in the remaining areas - none at all." - this is the first time Area classification is mentioned in this section; the nearest link is sections away
  22. "PLC of the PNA" - I propose that we don't remove link (the abbreviation is not shown before this moment, so without link it is unknown) and "of the PNA" clarification (so that readers know what this is without clicking on the link)
  23. "(and the rest of the PNA institutions[citation needed])" - I propose to change that to "(and the rest of the PNA institutions located there)"
  24. "... the West Bank by the Fatah-led PNA institutions." - why remove "PNA institutions"? Alinor (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. see point2 - "limited" is here since long time, another user disagreed with removing that. I disagree too. You agreed above on the variant that includes it. Reply to my 14:33, 19 January 2011 comment above if you want to change this.
  2. SoP claims the "Palestinian territory", not the Palestinian territories as you write. The difference is substantial - your is defined (by usage of the UN and other states), the other isn't.
  3. Infobox names - Template:Infobox country - "native_name = Long-form name in native language", "conventional_long_name = Conventional English long-form", "common_name = Common English name". I propose "State of Palestine" (long form) and "Palestine" (common name). Also, I'm yet to see any source showing a different official name (Baroud is not about SoP; no quotation/link for Bissio yet).
  4. "observer status at the United Nations" - why remove the direct link to Palestine section?
  5. "when referring to the PLO permanent observer" - We already agreed on this - see point3. I disagree with changing to "when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer".
  6. "While Israel currently occupies the Palestinian territories" - in number2 here we have to remove the link, so there is no problem with keeping it here (and its usage here is correct - in contrast to number2).
  7. "The State of Palestine currently doesn't have control over any territory" - see point6. Why remove that? If you think it's incorrect - please respond to my 18:29, 22 January 2011 comment in section below.
  8. "President of the State of Palestine" - why remove link? The only other place linking to this is in the infobox. WP:REPEATLINK exception "where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content."
  9. "legislature" - why remove link? it isn't linked anywhere else. We already agreed on this - see point6.
  10. "Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization" - why remove link? no link is shown-in-the-same-way; explanatory function. Also, it's better that this list of institution-bullets remains with links (this applies also to the PNC)
  11. "extensive foreign relations network" - why remove link? no link is shown-in-the-same-way; explanatory function.
  12. "These should be distinguished from the following unrelated Palestinian National Authority institutions:" vs. "These should be distinguished from the following institutions, which are instead associated with the Palestinian National Authority:" - We already agreed on this - see point6. Anyway, I could agree on some rephrasing if it makes clear that PNA is unrelated to SoP such as "These should be distinguished from the following institutions of the Palestinian National Authority, that is unrelated to the State of Palestine:"
  13. "British Mandate of Palestine" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away
  14. "1948 Arab-Israeli War" - why remove link? yes, the nearest link is in the section above, but the result of this war defines the whole section (it's not coincidence that the text starts with it)
  15. "State of Israel" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away
  16. Note describing Israel control. We already agreed on most of this in point5, further rephrasing was done in order to accomodate your additional redactions. Now, in a short period of time, we get (again) to it.
    1. "Palestinian territories" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away; explanatory function - so that it's clear what the whole note is about
    2. "special area classification" - why remove link? the nearest link is sections away; explanatory function - this is one of the two main themes of the note
    3. "minimal interference" - why remove link? no link is shown-in-the-same-way; the nearest link is sections away; explanatory function - this is one of the two main themes of the note
    4. "beyond internal waters" why remove link? It can't find it linked even once, not to mention near this point; explanatory function
    5. "and maximum in "Area C" vs. "and varying degrees of interference elsewhere." - you can't both remove the AreaA/B/C link and remove "Area C". This is a proper term, defined in the agreements accompanying the Oslo Accords. If you think it's needed we can link "Area C" to here.

Night w, is it so hard to use the talk page and discuss the changes you want to make? At least after they get reverted. I know WP:BRD is not a policy, but a guideline, but it is a useful guideline. Most of the above changes you make were already reverted multiple times, and will be reverted again - unless we discuss and agree on them. Your pushing and pushing of the same changes without discussion only hampers other unrelated edits (because everybody has to keep track of intermediate revisions, etc.) Alinor (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already commented directly below yesterday. Putting a new comment in after mine and not following the proper order won't make your accusations of "undiscussed" changes any more truthful. Nightw 08:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I was editing this page during your commenting, that's why these are so arranged/timestamped (it's strange how this happened, but anyway). And some of the changes are really undiscussed. In your comment below you don't speak about these. Alinor (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that what that "History" section is? A summary? Randomly slapped in the middle of the Background section? I finish reading about the occupation up until 1967, and then suddenly I'm back to reading again about Transjordanian independence in the '40s! Who decided to put a summary right in the middle of an actual chronology of events?
You cannot justify absurdly overlinking and repeating links by labelling them as "expanatory functions". That is not the purpose of a link, and creates a ridiculous amount of WP:EGG links. Maybe you should learn to walk before you walk, to paraphrase the proverb. In other words, maybe you should read up on editing style before you actually go and edit. There were far too many blue links before. It's an eyesore to try and read. Hardly surprising, though, as your definition of "sections away" seems to be about six lines... Keep pushing though, I'm sure I'll stumble upon something else that's been linked once too many. Nightw 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The summary is only the text in the main part of the History section - afterwards come the detailed History sections about each period/event. Even if you remove the "summary" text I added you will get the same "I finish reading about the occupation up until 1967, and then suddenly I'm back to reading again about Transjordanian independence in the '40s!" - see the next section - "Arab state under the UN Partition Plan". I agree that Background/History/Legal status sections contain some overlaps - but I didn't want to change the status quo (enough edit-warring with you about other things).
"sections away" seems to be about six lines" - if you care to discuss your edits, as I did above, maybe I can see what you are referring to. Alinor (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You should move that history summary to either the bottom or the top of the background section. It interrupted a perfectly good read. I can't really discern what actual improvements you're debating about, because you've mixed them all up with these repeat links you keep pushing (which I won't respond to anymore; it goes against MOS, and you can lodge a complaint there if you disagree with it).
...So you'll excuse me if I've missed a few, but I see issues related to overlinking on common words (e.g., "legislature"), poor grammar and writing style (e.g., "still remain"), and a couple of genuine concerns that actually may be worth discussing. So, might I suggest, you strike through some of those "why remove the link?" so that we might address any content issues.
And no, "government-in-exile" is not a form of government. If it's not a presidential republic, then find a source and change it to what it really is, but "government-in-exile" refers to a government's capacity, not its style, which is what the parameter is for. Nightw 08:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"which is what the parameter is for." - it's not written so in the template description.
Do you have a source for 'semi-presidential; parliamentary democracy'?
"I can't really discern what actual improvements you're debating about" - is it so hard to just read the above numbered points and say what you think about these? And, OK, skip the duplicate links. Comment on content.
About the history summary and your claim that "It interrupted a perfectly good read."
  • without it the article goes in the following way (commans on section breaks): lead, background-summary, 1915, mandate, 1947, 1948-1967, 1988/1993/2005 (very brief), 1946-1949, 1967, 1988, 1994-2008, legal status sections, foreign relations, population.
  • with it the article goes in the following way (commans on section breaks): lead, background-summary, 1915, mandate, 1947, 1948-1967, 1988/1993/2005 (very brief), history-summary, 1946-1949, 1967, 1988, 1994-2008, legal status sections, foreign relations, population.
In both cases we have this turn back from 2005-to-1946, don't you see? Alinor (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that it's a parliamentary democracy. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence, Article 5 of the Constitution, and I can quote any number of authors and legal scholars. Point number 21 seems to be fine, as long as all subsequent links of the same kind are removed. Regarding the last two points on the PNA, if I'm not mistaken, Hamas does not recognise Fatah as the leader of the PNA. In that context, I think NPOV requires the removal of any superfluous reference to it. The clarification of the second-to-last point should be fine, but will still need a citation.

Point number eight is fine to change back if you insist, and number seven you can scratch, as I've removed the tag on it. Your answer on number fifteen is a negatory. I haven't take a look at your second list yet, but this should fix a few in the first. I'd ask you to strikethrough the issues that have been resolved, so that I can distinguish the ones needing further discussion. The placement of that summary is a separate issue, that will no doubt be brought up sometime in the future. Nightw 14:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I will get to distinguishing and commenting on the rest later, just a quick note - "the Constitution" that you mention is not of SoP, but of PNA. And that's what I'm saying the current 'semi-presidential, parliamentary democracy' is just a copy from PNA - it's not about SoP. But I took a look at the 1988 Declaration as you suggested - and it really says "parliamentary democratic system of governance". But I don't know if this is "envisioned" (as Jerusalem is envisioned as capital, but this is not in effect currently) for a future SoP legislature, or describes the current PNC. So what about writing there:
  1. "parliamentary democracy (proclaimed); territory claimed is under foreign occupation"
  2. "parliamentary democracy (proclaimed); government-in-exile"
  3. "parliamentary democracy (proclaimed); no territory controlled"? Alinor (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No... again, it is not about the capacity of the government, it's about the style. The PNC is the working parliament of Palestine, so as long as it functions alongside the presidency, "semi-presidential parliamentary democracy" is true enough. Apologies on the constitutional reference, I had actually meant to cite the 2001 draft constitution. Nightw 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
About the 2001 draft constitution - if it's a draft, I don't think we should use it (drafts are prone to be changed) - but I'm interested in reading what's there - can you provide a link?
"semi-presidential" is not just "it has a president + it has other things". Semi-presidential is a specific term - "a system of government in which a president and a prime minister are both active participants in the day-to-day administration of the state." - but there is no SoP prime minister. Also, the PLO Executive Committee (SoP GiE) including its Chairman (SoP President) are appointed by PNC - this also goes for Parliamentary system and not for semi-presidential. PNA is semi-presidential (both PLC and PNA President are directly elected) - and because the infobox copied many data from the PNA - that's why it's written so there.
capacity or style, the template doesn't specify. And we should somehow mention that SoP has no control/its claimed territory is under foreign occupation. Alinor (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it does. In the example given at the bottom, and in every country article I've happened to come across. I'm also not convinced that capacity needs mentioning in the infobox. I don't have any sources for "semi-presidential", but parliamentary democracy needs to stay (another source here). Nightw 08:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The source you give hides some pages, so I can't check for sure whether they refer to SoP, PNA or something else. On the page that "parliamentary democracy" is mentioned it's written only "Palestine", so this doesn't help at all.
"In the example given at the bottom, and in every country article I've happened to come across." - yes, because there are not too many such cases. In any case the lack of control over any territory (something that is taken for granted for all states) should be mentioned somehow in the infobox. The government_type line seems a good place, but maybe we should use infobox similar to the one here.
"parliamentary democracy needs to stay" - in all of my 08:00, 24 January 2011 proposals it stays, right? (it's supported by the 1988 declaration) I don't suggest removing it. Only the semi-presidential should be removed. Alinor (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
? "Palestine is a democratic State...", is what the source says. I'm not sure the term "government-in-exile" really applies here in any case, as its government functions from within the claimed territory and is therefore not a term that is technically attributable to the State of Palestine. However, if you're able to find a couple of reliable sources stating that it is a government-in-exile despite the term's meaning, then I would prefer a footnote. The {{Infobox Former Country}} is not acceptable. Nightw 12:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The source says "Palestine is a democratic State," (up to here, no use - it is unknown what "Palestine" refers to - for example Koakhtzvigad argues that PLO or PNA are states; but even if we assume it's about SoP - "democratic state" is not a form of government) and then "ruled by a democratic parliamentary system" (that can be used - it corresponds to the "parliamentary democratic system of governance" in the 1988-Declaration). I don't argue against that - as you can see all of my proposals include "parliamentary democracy (proclaimed)".
The government maybe "meets" within the claimed territory, but it doesn't FUNCTION there. Its actions are relevant only abroad (to embassies, foreign relations, etc.) The SoP government has no control over that territory. For example, it can not arrange popular elections. Whether this strange situation can be called "government-in-exile" or not is a semantic issue, but we definitely should mention somehow that SoP itself is in exile/doesn't control any territory (even if its government members "live and meet" in its claimed territory that is controlled by Israel). Alinor (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
...Again...as long as you can provide a couple of reliable sources that claim what you do, this is no problem. Nightw 05:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Source for what? "parliamentary democracy (proclaimed)" - 1988-Declaration; Israel occupation - many; No SoP control of any territory - see below section. Semi-presidential - none. The question is what of the 3 options from 08:00, 24 January 2011 - or some 4th to use. Alinor (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well we wouldn't use any of those options. As I said before, the parameter is about government type. If capacity needs to be described, it can be done in a footnote. And I wouldn't accept "proclaimed" as the source I provided indicates that the parliamentary system is functioning. Nightw 09:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's leave aside the issue of exile/no control for the moment ("capacity") and focus on "proclaimed". From the link that you provided it's not clear if it describes the PNA or SoP. It looks more like PNA, because two paragraphs before the quote about "parliamentary system" there are some references to "ministry". PNA has ministries, the SoP doesn't. Also, in the pages before and after the page linked the references are to the PNA, not to SoP. And the section where this quote is made is "Minority Education in the Palestinian Authority" (page 149). So, all this is unrelated to SoP (and this is not strange at all - because SoP doesn't have control over any population territory it doesn't need to have any education policies to apply to the education of any population. In contrast to the PNA that is tasked with the education of the population in Areas A/B of Israeli-occupied territories.
Also, the PNC meets very irregularly and in different places (see Palestinian National Council) - [14], [15], [16] - last meetings are in 1996 (Gaza) and 2009 (Ramallah). The PLO EC I found a meeting in Ramallah (unknown date) - [17]. But that doesn't make Ramallah "capital of SoP" - it is just the last location of the long line of locations were PNC/PLO meet.
About the "capacity" - I don't see why you object using {{Infobox Former Country}} - it has some fields that are highly relevant in this case and that are missing from the standard {{Infobox Country}} (that is tailored at states who have control over populated territory, with or without recognition; unlike the SoP that is a state recognized as state by another states, but without control over populated territory). In fact in this case something along the {{Infobox Future Country}} or {{Infobox Proclaimed Country}} or {{Infobox Country without territorial control}} would be more appropriate, but of course we don't have such template - maybe because SoP is one the only such example having recognition by other states. Anyway, if eventually SoP gains control over a territory - we will still need to keep the current format of the article (and with {{Infobox Proclaimed Country}}) for the period 1988-20xx. Also, I'm not sure that we should include area/population/other statistics of the Palestinian territories in the infobox - we don't know for sure if SoP doesn't claim additional parts of Palestine (region).
And because we don't have a suitable template I will try to make two examples of infobox-without-template - one with OPT statistics, the other without (but I will need some time for this). Alinor (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox proposal is at Talk:State of Palestine/Infobox. Alinor (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You've attempted to push through those same edits again. Please stop being disruptive, it's getting very old. If you wish to discuss them, that's fine. You've listed most of them above and that's good. Are there any in particular that you'd like me to comment on? I can't really tell which are still unresolved though, as none have been struck through. Nightw 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No. My recent edit [18] deals only with the second list of changes - your changes ("Night w, why are you re-opening things that we just agreed at Points 1-to-9 of the above section?") and this is explained in the edit-line description "see talk 21:37, 22 January 2011 comment points: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16". You can explain here why do you want to change each one of these. Until you do this I will restore them (again).
Please, take a look also at the infobox proposal.
In the meantime I will try to go trough the other list (about the history overview) and to separate the resolved from the unresolved there. Alinor (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask you to please undo this edit. You're perfectly aware that there is no consensus for these. Please revert yourself, and we'll discuss the changes you want to make before you make them again. Nightw 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "no consensus"? As already pointed above - these are things that we had long discussion and already agreed at Points 1-to-9 of the above section. I find it very disturbing if you make such U-turns in your position so quickly. Would you comment in the above section cited what of your comments there I should not take into account anymore? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, you added a "lead too long" tag, but supported a similar (if not longer) lead at List of states with limited recognition. I will try to reformulate/rearrange things at both articles. Alinor (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Revert the change, please. Discuss the changes you wish to make before you make them. Nightw 06:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Arrangement/Shorting-the-lead is unrelated to the Points 1-to-9 of the above section that we agreed (but you now object, maybe?). For these changes - see above.
If you don't like the arrangement I made in order to take into account the "lead too long" problem you raised, then you can make another arrangement to make the lead shorter - either directly or by discussing here; taking as base either the previous arrangement or the current amended version (the re-arrangement I made). Or you can restore to a version with "lead too long", but I don't see this as constructive - it's better that you either say what you don't like in the re-arrangement I made or propose/make your own re-arrangement. Alinor (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember voicing my opinion in favour of the new edits by Alinor and Eliko, but I am in favour of them. Passionless -Talk 21:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't you remember? Eliko (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, well that was just me putting back information removed without an explanation, this is a much larger change. Though I do agree with it, so it's all good. Passionless -Talk 22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I do object. It unbalances the entire article and places undue weight on minor etymological issues by the rearrangement of sections. The last stable revision, if it must go back so far, would be the revision before you made those "points 1-9" edits, because you didn't just do what we agreed on in that edit. You also decided to change the name of the country, and a bunch of other things that were not agreed upon. So don't try to claim innocence. Did you not also make extra changes in that same edit about issues that had not been resolved? Once you've reverted to that revision, you can bring up the changes you wish to persist with again, and we'll discuss them. Nightw 08:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any not-agreed changes in [19] (unlike you claim), but OK, if you insist we can revert to some older version - but I have to find such version that includes neither mine nor your edits (I don't know if the version you linked is such, I have to check this additionally). Alinor (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"It unbalances the entire article and places undue weight on minor etymological issues by the rearrangement of sections." - I don't agree with "unbalances the entire article" - what is your proposal? Where should we put the sentence about "Palestine" meanings? (I assume that moving this sentence upwards is what you refer to)
About the name of the country - see your comment from 07:33, 22 January 2011 - have you changed your mind or what?
Other things changed - these are in subsequent versions, no in the points-2-to-9 version. And you have also made subsequent edits and unlike me it seems that you claim your edits to be the "stable version"...
I don't have the intention to do any reverts currently, we have more than enough AN/I already. I suggest that you and I don't make any edits to these two articles, make a list of all changes (compared to the real stable versions), discuss and hopefully agree (with the involvement of another editors), then implement only what's discussed, then we will know what the "new stable" version is, then we can discuss further changes. Alinor (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, making a list of all changes is a good idea. Nightw 15:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Night w, as I've said in other places - I'm not against discussing changes while the article is in non-consensus/non-stable state - but now I see that you pushed again and reverted to a version with your changes (instead of a version with neither mine nor yours changes) - and haven't posted any comment here on the talk page. I hope that this is because of lack of time and not because of lack of willingness to discuss. I will refrain from reverting your version and I hope that I won't read in the future that the current non-consensus version is a "stable" one, regardless of how much time will pass before you post on the talk page and before we reach consensus.
A side note - we have a 3rd (and 4th) opinions, but I know that you don't like 3rd opinions not matching yours (judging from one of our other discussions). Alinor (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice. Nightw 15:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I suggest that we put back [20] that is supported by all editors above, but you. Then implement Yobot changes. Then continue the above two discussions (sections for infobox, "limited recognition" - 14:33, 19 January 2011) and anything else (I assume that you want the sentence about "Palestine" meanings to be somewhere lower, and I'm fine with that, but please say where you think is a good place for it), including some changes to the History section that I would like to do (I will propose these later). Alinor (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the plan was to revert to the stable version? I'm certainly not okay with your rearrangement of the article. Minor intermediate edits can still be accounted for. Nightw 15:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is the stable version, but yes we can revert to some older version. But since the version I linked is supported by more editors than myself I thought we can work on it and address any problems that you see.
Regardless what version we "restore and then amend" - please say what problems you see in [21] (you can consider this as "proposal for change" or as "base over which improvements should be made"). Alinor (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If you don't find any problems in this version anymore I will implement it. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I quite obviously have problems with it or we wouldn't have this ridiculously lengthy discussion thread. You had proposed to revert to the stable version and then make a list of changes that we each wanted to make. I told you I thought that was a good idea. That's the only path I'm agreeing to. Nightw 13:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I said that I will check if this is the stable version - and as I look at it now I see that it doesn't include some changes that we agreed and implemented already (points-2-to-9). I haven't checked if it includes some of your changes that I object. Anyway, this is not the stable version. I can accept using [22] as "stable version" (but I don't say it is the stable version - I haven't checked it in detail - so don't get over the board if it includes some "Alinor changes" that are not "stable") - what do you think?
I don't understand your stubbornness and why do you refuse to say your opinion about that version (a proposal for changes that I want to make). And the list of changes is right here above. The change not included in the list is the re-arranging of content so that it complies with an issue that you raised - "lead too long". Alinor (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you just revert to the older version, and make a list of changes you wish to make. I don't see the issue with this... The above list is a mess, and I don't have time to pick through silly things like overlinking that I'll never agree with, looking for comparatively reasonable bits that I might be able to work with. That older version is the only stable revision in my mind, unless you want to go back further. Nightw 11:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
In any case you will have to bring the changes you want to make to the discussion page as well.
If we are going to do a revert first, then it should be to [23] or another version that already includes changes we agreed on in the upper discussion section (not this one) and implemented. Is this OK? Alinor (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, stop pushing that version. I don't agree to alot of the things it adds and subtracts. If I did before, I'm afraid I don't anymore. I will make a list of changes I will want to see made to the stable version I've identified, and you can make a list of your own. You can even make a sandbox if you wish. Nightw 08:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Night w, we've gone trough a lengthy process of discussion and improvement of proposals and finally reached consensus, agreed and implemented some changes. I don't find anything in the version that I linked that is outside of the agreed changes - if you do - just say so and it will get removed. But retracting agreement we just reached in the above discussion section is very disruptive - we can't go back-and-forth in this way. I don't oppose further changes, but these should be discussed first. Alinor (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
In any case I don't agree with reverting to the version you picked because it includes non-consensus changes, so any list of changes should use as a base either the current version (not stable - the non-consensus changes that it includes can be ignored/reverted to a "neither Alinor nor Night w" state - this doesn't prevent us from using it as a base for discussion of other changes) or this. Alinor (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that an older version contains "non-consensus changes" simply because it doesn't have your edits in it. From a cursory glance, your version that you've hand-picked has the following things to which I disagree:

  • Hatnotes are moved under the infobox in the markup, which stuffs up the view of the page.
  • There's a change to the description of its recognition that isn't backed up by the source it's attributed to, and which I disagree with. It also has a random link to an unrelated list of states.
  • There's a section which, again, uses that "Area C"-type technical terminology, which isn't properly explained and is arguably unnecessary, since simpler language could be easily used and would even get the message across better.
  • It brings up that dubious "in exile" issue again, a contentable claim that is, in most cases, unsourced.
  • There are also a few grammatical errors, which I'd probably be obliged to fix up myself. For example: "Despite of" should be either "In despite of" or "Despite".
  • Palestinian territories, Gaza strip, West Bank are overlinked, as is the "institutions" section, which links to Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization twice in the space of five words. Links to Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Foreign relations of Palestine are also repeated.
  • The institutions section is also poorly sourced.
  • This remark brings no improvement to the article: "...the Palestine as region or territory, and the other ideas about establishment of and proposals for a Palestinian state."

I think I've brought all these up before, but hey it's not like I value my time or anything... Nightw 10:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hatnotes - OK, lets place them on the other side.
  • description of its recognition - you made a change that was rejected by another user (not me), then I made the change you refer to in order to combine your change with the status quo as reverted to by the another user. If you insist we can go back to the status quo that doesn't include your change - but in the above section you already agreed (09:00, 17 January 2011) with the compromise arrangement.
  • "Area C" is mentioned only once, in a footnote. And the same footnote contains a wikilink to the article about it. And we already have a revised version of the same note. What about:
Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification. Israel maintains minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air,[29] sea beyond internal waters,[30][29] land[31]) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C".[32][33][34][35][36] See also Israeli-occupied territories.
  • Exile. Yes, because this is a slightly older version. I think we both agreed to the re-wording and additional sources given in [24] about the issue of exile/control/etc. These could be restored easily.
  • Grammar. If you point these or give a history difference link where these are fixed I can correct these if you don't want to.
  • Overlinking. This can be corrected where it's justifiable, and is related to the next point.
  • Institution section. Again, this is a slightly older version. I think we both agreed to the re-wording and additional sources given in [25]. Where it's placed is another issue that can be discussed (in the newer version I moved it out of lead, because you complained that the lead is too long).
  • The remark you refer to is part of the following sentence: "Palestine" is officially used as short form reference to the State of Palestine,[2] but this should be distinguished from the homonymous usage of the reference for the PNA,[1], the PLO as UN observer entity,[26] the Palestine as region or territory, and the other ideas about establishment of and proposals for a Palestinian state. - the remark explains what related topics are referred to with the same word. And having in mind the big chunks of talk page space devoted to explaining this - it is clearly an explanation beneficial to the reader. And we have agreed on including it before (see your 23:28, 17 January 2011 comment). Alinor (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The items above are not too many, but in order to avoid misunderstandings, would you like for us to do a Sandbox based on [26] and/or [27] - and changing it taking into account the above issues. Then, after we finalize the Sandbox - implement in the article as "stable"? Alinor (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You've asked me what I disagree with in your revision, and I've shown you. I suggest reverting to the version before your changes, and then going from there. For example, first point: great, that's a revert from your version. The overlinking was made in the diffs between your hand-picked version and the older, more stable version. I don't have an issue with the section, but I do with the links, so either remove the links, or revert to the stable version where the section isn't included at all. Second point: it's still not appropriated by the source, so if it's to be restored, it'll have to be tagged aswell. Third, fourth and seventh points: no, just revert to the older version, and discuss these changes you want to make afterwards. The last point is irrelevant. I don't care what I agreed to before, I don't anymore. These are the issues I have with your version. I suggest reverting without these changes included, and then addressing the issues afterwards. There are many improvements by other users that have also been made in the meantime, that should also be restored after the revert. Nightw 05:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK - keep in mind that duplicate links are allowed "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first."
On point2 - if you insist we can restore the version before your change that the other user reverted to.
"I don't care what I agreed to before" - it will be very difficult/impossible to do any progress if you change your opinion right after we reach agreement on something. Alinor (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't care whether you think the links need to be duplicated. If that's part of the disagreement, then revert to when the section wasn't included at all. On the second point, that's fine, as long as it's tagged for WP:V. Are we ready for revert? Nightw 08:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
duplicated links. I don't know about what section you speak - my WP:OVERLINK remark was in general, not about a specific link you strive to delete.
I'm not sure we are ready for revert, because obviously neither you nor I have given a suitable version to revert to. It seems we both want different things altered in the respective revert versions. Maybe we should prepare a couple of sandboxes... Alinor (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

SoP is not in control

Recently some dubious/citation needed tags were added to statements like "State of Palestine doesn't control any territory" and "State of Palestine is in exile". While the 'state in exile' may be technically incorrect (states are not in exile, their governments are; PLO Excom/SoP GiE may meet in SoP claimed territory, but this doesn't mean that SoP has control/sovereignty over this territory. See GiE talk page about such special case of not-exactly-in-exile. Israel currently has the final control there.) - the more important part "State of Palestine doesn't control any territory" is 100% true. See for example [28] "The Palestinians already declared independence unilaterally on Nov. 15, 1988. The declaration was recognized by dozens of countries, but never implemented on the ground." and a slightly longer summary of the situation [29]: "The state of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988, but in exile. A declaration of a "State of Palestine" was approved on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The declaration was ignored, and eventually rejected, by the State of Israel. Israel controls the territories since 1967 Six-Day War when it captured them from Egypt and Jordan. Currently, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) envision the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, living in peace with Israel under a democratically elected and transparent government. The PNA, however, does not claim sovereignty over any territory and therefore is not the government of the "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988. Enough said."

Do we need more sources showing that control of the WB/GS is in the hands of Israel and not of SoP?

Night w, you already argued that Gaza is not under ultimate Israel control and then agreed that it is. And Gaza is the territory with slightest Israel interference (only borders/airspace/territorial waters). If we don't argue even about Gaza I don't see where you think that SoP has control. Alinor (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that. We had a discussion about whether Israel still occupied Gaza... I remember that one. Don't remember saying that Israel "controlled" Gaza. Nevertheless, I'm happy to be proven wrong. And yes, that will require sources. Nightw 10:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Mh. By "control" I speak about "sovereign", "ultimate", "final" control - e.g. whether these are occupied or not. I don't speak about "day-to-day administrative actions" (but SoP doesn't do even those).
So, we both agree that WB/GS are occupied by Israel, right? And that's what "Israel ultimately controls these territories", "State of Palestine doesn't control any territory", etc. similar phrases mean. And the two sources I gave above show the same thing.
You can see also [30]: "Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence,"
SoP doesn't hold any territory and even the PNA authorities (that also don't hold any territory, but at least execute some functions in Israeli-held territory) are not realization of the SoP, but a separate entity established by the PLO.
I don't understand what you disagree with and why. Alinor (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You do understand. You understand perfectly fine. But I'll play your little game if you insist: the most common understanding of the word "control" in such a sense as this is political control, which implies exercision of the law, collection of taxes, etc; and, in this case, military control. Neither is true in this case. Citizens in Gaza are not subject to Israeli authority at the moment. Suggesting the opposite would be false. Leaving it open to interpretation would be a mistake. Using a term like "control" is not okay in this context. Pick a different word. Nightw 15:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"Citizens in Gaza are not subject to Israeli authority at the moment." - depends on how you define "Israeli authority". Anyway.
OK, so a different word. What about:
  1. The State of Palestine currently doesn't have control over any territory
  2. The State of Palestine currently doesn't have any degree of control over any territory
  3. The State of Palestine currently doesn't have full control over any territory
  4. The State of Palestine currently doesn't have ultimate control over any territory
  5. The State of Palestine currently doesn't have final control over any territory
  6. The State of Palestine currently doesn't have sovereign control over any territory
  7. The State of Palestine claimed territory is currently occupied by Israel
  8. The State of Palestine claimed territory is currently occupied by or part of Israel
  9. The State of Palestine claimed territory is currently under Israel ultimate control
  10. The State of Palestine claimed territory is currently under Israel final control
All of these are true, but options3/4/5/6/9/10 give the wrong impression that although SoP doesn't have full/ultimate/sovereign/final control it maybe has some control (civilian, military or whatever lesser degree of control). And this is incorrect. Alinor (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather than leaving this to your own original research, why don't you show us some sources that have given you this conclusion? Or are you just making this all up? Nightw 07:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
All of the above is backed by all sources we have. For example the source/quote about occupation that I gave in comment 11:32, 21 January 2011 above. [31] "We are under Israeli occupation". Of course this is not exactly the same words as option7. Option7 replaces "We" with what it refers to - the "already declared independence in 1988." from the previous sentence.
Do you claim that something of that above is not true? Alinor (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"All of the above is backed by all sources we have" ... ? No it isn't. There isn't a single source attached to the statement. Nothing is backing it. And I wonder why:
  • "...the Gaza Strip, an area controlled by Hamas." (Source)
  • "...Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas." (Source)
"Of course this is not exactly the same words..." No, you're right. It isn't. Nightw 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is Hamas part of SoP government? I believe that the GOP is connected to the PLO of which Hamas is not a member. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Night w - No More Mr Nice Guy is correct - do you see any connection between Hamas and SoP? But this is irrelevant, because I thought you agreed that Gaza is under Israel occupation? You should make difference between "full/ultimate/final" control (Israel) and "limited" control (PNA, Hamas - those have as much control as Israel decides to give them at this moment in time - whether trough Oslo Accords or unilaterally as in Gaza).
What do you don't agree in option7: "The State of Palestine claimed territory is currently occupied by Israel"? It is almost the same with what Saeb Erekat says in the source, just slightly rephrased with less words. Alinor (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"...it's claimed territory remains under Israeli occupation" will be fine, as long as it's backed up by a source. "Occupation" is a legal term, "control" is not; anyone properly educated in English will know that they refer to entirely separate things. Nightw 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
So, option7? "as long as it's backed up by a source" - Saeb Erekat quote [32]? Alinor (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, not "option7". The version I proposed 5 minutes ago. Are there any issues with that? Nightw 15:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it the same? You don't give the full text and I thought they are. Would you write the whole sentence of the version you propose? Alinor (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing: "At the time of the 1988 declaration, the PLO did not exercise control over any territory, and it's claimed territory remains under Israeli occupation.", citing Erekat at the end. Nightw 16:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. For the other case of the same I utilized option1. See point6. Alinor (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We can of course instead adapt some modification of option7/your version. Alinor (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually fail to see the relevance of that information in that particular sentence ... especially when it would only be repeating what is said at the beginning of the same section. Nightw 21:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the number of confused Wikipedia editors it seems to be pretty relevant. If you don't object its meaning, why do you object its inclusion? Alinor (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed confusion is rife because will so much information derived from online sources few editors seem to have a good dictionary by their side.
Control is exercised over any individual or groups only when something is enforced. That something is called laws. This can be police enforcement of laws as part of public administration, or a military one when the population is under administration though military law.
For the military forces to exercise enforcement, they have to literally occupy the area placed under jurisdiction of a military command/control, that is they deploy and secure it, usually to prevent civilian use of firearms. This requires, as the military call it, boots on the ground http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_boots.pdf, i.e. a certain minimal ratio of military personnel to civilian population in the occupied territory. This is a military operation (such as Operation Defensive Shield), and not some vague political catch-cry.
Civilian policing is advantageous because it is far cheaper. For example the New York City has 19,006,798 metropolitan population with a density of 2,828.4/sq mi (1,092/km2). The New York City police has jurisdiction only over 468.9 square miles (1,214 km2) with the population of 8,274,527. To control the crime, they employ 34,500 (2010) Police Officers 4,503 (2009) Auxiliary Police Officers and 5,147 (2009) School Safety Agents; about 44,000 personnel in all, or a ratio of one law enforcement officer for every 187 civilians, or about five police officers per 1,000 of the population. On the other hand [this report http://www.llewellyn.co.nz/ProspectsforIraq.pdf] states clearly that in stability operations "...restoring and maintaining order and stability typically requires a “force ratio” of 20 or more security personnel per thousand head of population." Not only is there a four-fold requirement in personnel, but unlike police forces, military personnel are far more expensive, including their equipment, to maintain during such operations over long periods of time. This is PARTICULARLY true in the case of Israel that doesn't have a professional army as such, and would require long term denial of labour to its economic sectors.
West bank alone has a land area of about 5,600 km2 and a population of 1.35 million (not the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 1997 projection). This would require 67,500 IDF personnel to occupy the West Bank, an equivalent of about four infantry divisions! In fact, as far as I can tell the current IDF "occupation" is carried out by just six infantry battalions, or a single understrength infantry division.
Currently, in real terms, most of the civilian population of WB&GS are under PA legal control; largely inefficient and incompetent PA policing. Israel conducts patrolling (some with PA police) and traffic control operations around the Jewish settlements, which is not the same as deploying and securing the area of WB&GS. In fact it is Israel that is under occupation because only in Israel is the jurisdiction applied to military law as much as civilian law, and troops are routinely deployed to secure areas not under police control. There is an article describing IDF military operations
In a purely conventional sense, there is a distinction between occupation and operation in the military that has exactly opposite the meanings in the civilian application (in English).
For the military, occupation means something that is of prolonged term, often of initially indeterminate duration, while operation usually has predetermined objective and schedule. In civilian usage an occupation refers to the sort of work one is occupied with, usually in the immediate present. It often refers to project work. On the other hand operations refers to ongoing and continuous work performed by an enterprise as its usual means of production, with no predetermined set time for completion. While the project will function subject to its charter (setting out personnel, budget and time of completion), operations are based on the company constitution (setting out structure, policies, financial management, etc.).
Because the Israeli military and civilian economy are so intricately linked, prolonged occupation by Israel is almost unthinkable economically, and was the reason for the Gaza unilateral withdrawal that eventually just didn't make economic sense, never mind that Israel lacked historical claim to that strip of land.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Koakhtzvigad, sorry, but what you say is basically "I declare as 'occupied' a territory that has X/person foreign troops. Israeli troop statistics in the West Bank are Y/person. Since X is bigger than Y, I declare that 'West Bank' is not occupied." This can be your opinion (let's assume that the numbers you give are correct). But the opinion of the international organizations and of states around the world is that WB/GS are two of the Israeli-occupied territories - the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There are no 'permanently populated territories' in the World without a state 'responsible' for them under international law. OPTs are no exception - Israel is responsible for them as 'occupying power'.
And because you like the UN and terminology of international law - see map of the World (showing the OPT) and "occupying power". Being 'occupying power' brings some responsibilities under international law. And according to all intentional organizations and states that I have readed about Israel is considered as 'occupying power' of both WB and GS. I think that even Israel accepts that - regardless of Gaza "disengagement". Alinor (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Firstly I can't see anything on that map to suggest Israel is an 'occupying power'.
Secondly, and as much as it may discomfort you, militaries the World over work on numbers, not words. The two documents I supplied should have made this very clear. And, it doesn't matter the size or the sophistication of the military. Its not my opinion but a historical truth. For example Armenians revolted when the Ottoman forces were stretched fighting on three fronts (1916-17), and militia headed by regional police officers had to drafted in as impromptu 'divisions' just to get the numbers of Turkish troops up in the area. In Sri Lanka the Tamils were defeated by an army equipped for 1960s, but they just could not match the numbers. Its called a Principle of Mass. Unfortunately most of the writers who write for international organisation about occupations have either never served in the military, or had not spent enough time to appreciate how they work (and try not to).
"There are no 'permanently populated territories' in the World without a state 'responsible' for them under international law." - this is your opinion, or a fact you can source? There isn't a government in Somalia that you or I would recognise. There may be a new nation soon called South Sudan. Its hard to say if Iraq is really the 'responsible' state in Kurdistan which has own armed forces.
Then there is the rule that, for every rule there is an exception. Based on what I have seen, or actually failed to find, Israel's government has washed its hands of Gaza, and are only patrolling West Bank to ensure safety of its citizens in the settlements there. If they didn't have to go after terrorist cells from time to time, I'm sure no Israeli would bother to venture into the Arab-populated areas. Does the Wall tell you nothing!? What occupying power builds a wall to separate itself from those it occupies? Can you see the lack of logic in the argument?
Now I'd be most interested if you could provide a source that cites some obligatory document accepted by anyone in the Israeli Government that says Israel accepts himself being an "occupying power". Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You should refer to UNSC/UNGA resolution about OPT - there are plenty of these (some are present at the articles linked above). Also, the map shows the OPTs as "occupied" and who do you think is the "occupier" if not Israel?
Calculations about forces/etc. are irrelevant here. If OPTs were not occupied the Palestinians would have made a state there already. Isn't this obvious? They even declared this state in 1988, but it can't "come to rule" there. I don't understand what do you argue? That the West Bank is not occupied by Israel? That the Gaza Strip is not occupied by Israel?
Yes, Somalia government may have very weak control over the territory, but in the eyes of the UN/AU/etc. this is its territory. There is a Somali Civil War going on there, that's why the government doesn't have control everywhere.
South Sudan is still part of Sudan and Kurdistan is still part of Iraq. When/if these become independent - they will be the newest non-member states of the UN and maybe later - the newest member states of the UN. I don't see any analogy between these and OPT.
Israel hasn't washed its hands of Gaza - it still controls its coast, airspace and borders. It may not care exactly what happens inside, but hasn't relinquished the overall control. Same for the West Bank - it may give Area A to limited PNA control, it may build separation wall, it may disengage from areas beyond the wall, but this isn't relinquishing of the overall control.
"I'm sure no Israeli would bother to venture into the Arab-populated areas." - the question is not if Israelis want to venture there, but if they CAN venture there WITHOUT agreement of the whatever the 'authorities' in these areas are. As occupying power Israel currently can venture in any place in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, whenever they wish, without asking neither Hamas, nor PNA, nor PLO. And they do it, "from time to time, to go after terrorist cells" (such as Gaza War, Gaza flotilla raid) Alinor (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
About PNA not having final/ultimate/full control over any territory, and about the sense of "control" when we speak about territorial control - "[PNA] It neither de facto, nor de jure, controls any territory whatsoever." (page10). Israel is controlling WB/GS - PNA is just allowed to do some administrative functions in Areas A/B (including police/security in Area A). Alinor (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The UN can make as many resolutions as they wish, it will not change the reality. The reality is that security is only derived from enforceable laws, something the UN is particularly bad at.
The occupier is whoever is "occupying". If as I showed to you there is no occupier, calling someone occupier is not going to make them one :) Aside from labeling, there is also the mater of physical proof.
There is no analogy between other "emerging" states and the WB&GS. However, there is a contradiction in that there emerging states have claims to ethnic/linguistic/societal and territorial distinctiveness from their neighbours spanning centuries, perhaps a millennium. The population of WB&GS do not. And they lack social cohesiveness.
The UN is blind, so there is little point in discussion what is in it's "eyes"
Sadly I am coming to a realisation that you don't understand what you are talking about. Israel controls the entire eastern Mediterranean coast, airspace and borders. The Turkish navy may contest this in its own territorial waters, but the maritime and airspace of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt would be under Israel's command, control, communication and intelligence management if there were hostilities. This doesn't mean they are in control of those countries, but simply have the defense capability to assume such control should they be required to do so.
So what do you mean by "overall control"? Israel does not exercise any jurisdiction other than that under the Accords. The reason they can go in any time, is because the PA doesn't have the will or the capability to eliminate terrorist groups within the territories. Other than that PA performs all public administration tasks, i.e. it exercises control.
Going after terrorists is covered in the Accords. If they didn't like those conditions, they didn't have to sign.
Do you understand the significance of territorial control? Why do states have territorial control? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The reality is that OPT are under Israel control/occupation. For example, Israel is controlling the airspace and territorial waters of Gaza RIGHT NOW, not in some hypothetical conflict like you say for Lebanon/Syria/Egypt. So, OK, if you think that there is already a conflict under way your interpretation may be taken for correct. OK, so in this conflict - Israel has already taken over Gaza and the West Bank. In fact the name of the conflict is Six Day War (1967).
It seems that you want to interpret Israel control as "controlling only Israel settlements in the West Bank" (and you make various comments about troop numbers, terrorist fighting, PNA weak capacity, etc.), but you should take in mind the Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords - Area C is 72.2%, Area C+B is 97,3%. So even by your interpretation Israel is controlling almost all of the territory. What I say is (because this is the opinion of the UN, of other international organizations, and of Palestinians/PLO) is that even the other 2,7% (Area A) are under ultimate Israel control. page10.
The other result of your interpretations is that the 2.7% (Area A) that you claim to be outside of Israel control represent some kind of terra nullius (e.g. they are not controlled by any state). If this is the case - then why hasn't SoP taken control over this territory? (it has already made a claim over it) The answer - because this is not true and all of these territories are under ultimate Israel control. PNA operates there only to the degree allowed by Israel, the current ruler/occupier force. Alinor (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Some Proposed Corrections and Updates

A: Issues that have nothing to do with Statehood:

Tony Blair and PM Netanyahu are in the news discussing areas already under PA control; turning over even more territory; and the terms for recognizing the government of the State of Palestine this year. Nonetheless there is a lot of irrelevant discussion going on here regarding effective control.

In 1932 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution that established the criteria for the termination of a mandate regime and independence. The majority decided that "effective control" over territory and "territorial integrity" had nothing to do with the a ability to defend against a foreign military invasion or occupation by a stronger country. The Council noted that many existing states lacked such a capability and that was why Article 10 regarding mutual defense against external aggression was included in the Covenant. Palestine was one of the mandates they were discussing. See Luther Harris Evans, The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 [33]

When discussing aggression, the General Assembly declared that “the term ‘State’ . . . [i]s used without prejudice to questions of recognition.”(see United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974) According to the General Assembly, an entity may be termed a state-and thus benefit from the protections against aggression accorded by UN Charter Article 2(4)-whether or not it is recognized by others. See Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, ISBN 0275963500, page 21. [34]

60 percent of the territory of the State of Israel was comprised of the Negev. The Provisional Government of Israel said that they considered it uninhabited and that no effective authority had ever existed there. See S/766, 05/22/1948 [35] Syria invaded portions of the territory of Palestine that had been allocated to the proposed Jewish state. Then it questioned Israel's qualifications for statehood, its recognition, and requested that an advisory opinion be obtained from the ICJ. Abba Eban said

"the theory that the Charter forbids acts of aggression only against States is utterly without foundation. Indeed, neither Chapter VI nor Chapter VII, in defining threats to the peace or acts of aggression, shows the slightest interest in the juridical status of the victim. The word "State" does not occur in either of those chapters. There is no provision whatever that the attacked party must be universally recognized as a State before an armed attack upon it can be determined as an act of aggression. ... ..."The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter forbids the use of force not only if it is directed against the integrity of a State but also if it is used "in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations". See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12 [36]

Many of the recent edits to the article are original research regarding "sovereignty". The San Francisco organizing conference of the UN and the ILC studied hundreds of authorities and reported that "sovereignty" is "jurisdiction", e.g. "The tangible manifestation of sovereignty is jurisdiction."; "Article 4 deals with the exercise of independence, or, as it may sometimes be put, the exercise of sovereignty, or the exercise of jurisdiction." For a full discussion see the 231-page memorandum submitted by the Secretary-General on the "Preparatory Study Concerning A Draft Declaration On The Rights And Duties Of States", A/CN.4/2 [37] or the UN Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1949. [38]

B. Jurisdiction, UN Observer Rights, and Belligerent Recognition

The 1995 Gaza Jericho Agreement specifically stated that the Palestinian Authority exercises both criminal and territorial jurisdiction. Israel merely retained criminal jurisdiction over Israeli citizens "in personam" and exercises its jurisdiction through its military commander "in accordance with international law". The latter only recognizes Israel as a belligerent occupant. The Ottoman Empire did not cease to be a state because it allowed western countries to exercise criminal jurisdiction in personam in their consular courts; or when it allowed religious communities to govern the personal status of their members through their own religious courts. The Foreign Ministry of Israel has consistently maintained that Israel cannot be held internationally responsible for observing human rights covenants in Gaza or the West Bank, because those areas are not part of Israel's sovereign territory and jurisdiction. It said that responsibility belonged to the PA. See for example CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, paragraph 8

At the time, Israel claimed that the Palestinian Council "did not represent a State", but that is incorrect now. Editors here have asserted that the PLO does not claim to be the government of the state of Palestine, but that is also incorrect. Both the PLO and PA have full powers to ratify treaties on behalf of the State of Palestine (see below). Article 2 & 5 of the 1988 PNC Declaration of the State of Palestine delegated the powers and duties of the Provisional Government of the State to the Executive Committee of the PLO. See Anis F. Kassim, The Palestine Liberation Organization: Claim to Status: A juridical Analysis Under International Law, 9 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Winter 1980) at 1-33, specifically p. 15. When the PLO subsequently established a headquarters and several departments in the Orient House in East Jerusalem, the Israeli government claimed that the move prejudged the final status agreement - a claim that they based upon the fact that the political departments of the PLO are those of a State. In any event, the new PLO headquarters is located in Ramallah, Palestine. They are not "in exile" and are not "performing the functions of a government in exile". [39] and [40]

UN General Assembly resolution 52/250 (1998) established Palestine's current level of participation in the UN. It recalled the 1988 Declaration of Statehood; the fact that the Palestinian Authority was established in 1996 on part of the occupied Palestinian territory as a result of democratic elections; and the fact that Palestine is a full member State of several international organizations and a UN regional group. The organizations mentioned in the resolution include the Asian Group of States, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the League of Arab States, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Group of 77 and China. The membership of the latter has grown to 131 member States.

The ESCWA is part of the UN Secretariat. Its rules stipulate that Palestine is a member state.[41] The Secretary General acting as depositary has accepted ratifications, and accessions from Palestine for several treaties that are open to ESCWA members and other states. The UN Treaty organization notes that either the PLO or Palestinian Authority have full powers in that regard

"Agreements adopted under the auspices of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) are open for signature by the members of ESCWA. Palestine was admitted to membership in ESCWA pursuant to ECOSOC resolution 2089 (LXIII) dated 22 July 1977, which amended paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Commission. Full powers for the signature of the Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." [42]

Here are links to some of the deposit notices:[43] [44] [45] [46]

In 2004, the Holy See announced that it was considering full membership in the UN. After many months it “settled” for an upgrade to the same rights of participation enjoyed by Palestine. Compare the rules annexed to <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/52/250">A/RES/52/250 (1998)</a> with those annexed to <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/58/314">A/RES/58/314 (2004)</a> See also: <a href="http://www.seechange.org/media/News%20Releases/UNfulfilled.htm">"The Holy See backs off from its claim for full membership of the UN, settling for the rights already held by Palestine."</a> So, for several years Palestine enjoyed more rights and privileges than a Permanent Observer Non-Member State. Now they have the same rights.

The U.S. State Department has a <a href="http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1861_timeline/prevent_confederacy.html">web page</a> which explains that blockades have historically resulted in belligerent recognition, because they are "a weapon of war between sovereign states." The Israeli Supreme Court held "that between Israel and the various terrorist organizations active in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip (hereinafter "the area") a continuous situation of armed conflict has existed since the first intifada." See the subsection of the ruling under the heading <a href="http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.HTM">"The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict"</a>

The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §201.(h) says: “Determination of Statehood: Whether or not an entity satisfies the requirement for statehood is determined by other states when they decide whether to treat that entity as a state.” That includes belligerent recognition, which entitles a blockaded entity to the rights and duties of a State as they concern war and commerce. Wikileaks recently <a href="http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/06/07TELAVIV1733.html">revealed</a> that Israel's Military Intelligence Director, Amos Yadlin, told US officials that Israel would be “happy” if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a "hostile state". The Washington Post and other sources have <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102934.html">reported</a> that an Israeli spokesman had cited the San Remo Manual to support a claim that Israel had been clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying “any state has the right to blockade another state in the midst of an armed conflict.” Professor Anthony D’Amato commented that Israel was quoting the provisions of the laws of war that are only in force in situations “between states”. Other legal scholars have made the same observation. See for example <a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/">“Why is Israel’s blockade of Gaza Legal?”</a>, at Opinio Juris. Kevin Jon Heller noted that Israel’s defense of its blockade creates a serious legal dilemma for it. harlan (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, you seem to mix PNA, PLO and SoP. While some of these are related to each other you kind of lump them all into one single "Palestine" pot. This article here deals only with State of Palestine (as declared in 1988). Not with PLO, PNA or the Proposals for a Palestinian state that is envisioned to be the PNA successor per the Oslo Accords.
Please keep in mind that the UN doesn't deal with SoP. It deals with the PLO that is referred to as "Palestine" in the UN.
"Both the PLO and PA have full powers to ratify treaties on behalf of the State of Palestine" - no. [47] "Agreements adopted under the auspices of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) are open for signature by the members of ESCWA. Palestine was admitted to membership in ESCWA pursuant to ECOSOC resolution 2089 (LXIII) dated 22 July 1977, which amended paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Commission. Full powers for the signature of the Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." - and here "Palestine" is not about "State of Palestine", but about PLO.
PNA is not related to SoP and also doesn't claim to be a state - so the degree of "criminal/judical/etc. control" between PNA and Israel is irrelevant. And as you see in Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords the areas with most PNA control are only in patches consisting 2.7% of the WB/GS.
Your link about PLO headquaters in Ramallah is a nice addition. But this doesn't mean that PLO, PNA or SoP have control over the territory. Israel is still the occupying power over the whole of West Bank and Gaza Strip.
"Palestine is a full member State of several international organizations and a UN regional group." - the question here is who is the member - PLO, SoP or PNA. For example: SoP is member of OIC and AL; PLO is member of Red Cross, ESCWA; PNA is member of Asian Parliamentary Assembly, International Organization for Standardization, Union for the Mediterranean.
Do you have sources showing who (PLO or SoP or PNA) represents "Palestine" in Inter-Parliamentary Union, Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77, World Tourism Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, UNESCO? Alinor (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, you are obviously ignoring the status of the PLO as the Provisional government of the State of Palestine and the fact that the PLO negotiated and signed the agreements which established the PNA. I already cited a law review article and the 1988 Declaration of the PNC which explain all of that. Palestine, not the PLO, is a member "State" of the United Nations ESCWA. See the rules of the ESCWA [48] The State of Palestine has deposited several international treaty agreements with the Secretary-General of the UN in his role as depositary. So yes, the UN and the UN ESCWA do deal with the SoP. In order to sign treaties on behalf of a State, a diplomat must present evidence of his plenipotentiary powers. The UN Treaty Organization note that I quoted above explains that the "Full powers for the signature of those SoP Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." So, no, I'm not mixing up the PLO, and PNA. They are the source of the plenipotentiary powers of the SoP. The decree of the State of Palestine cited in the article was signed by the "President of the State of Palestine, President of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee, and the President of the Palestinian National Authority" See pdf file page 66 of 72 [49] That decree was deposited with the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations by the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority see pages 63-64 and constituted the official follow-up of Palestine to the United Nations.
FYI, several of the written statements submitted to the Prosecutor by legal experts noted that the Oslo Accords were: never fully implemented; violated by both sides; and lapsed in 2000. See for example the memo of ICC visiting scholar Errol Mendes [50] and the Al Haq position paper [51] Prime Minister Sharon declared the Accords null and void and Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared in an Israeli news report bragging that he had killed the Oslo Accords.[52] In any event, the Oslo Accords never created legal obligations for non-signatory third-party states or international organizations. Since 2000, the PA has been represented in the UN mission by the "Permanent Observer of Palestine". He has signed bilateral agreements on behalf of the State of Palestine with other countries. For example, Costa Rica opened official ties with the State of Palestine by signing a bilateral agreement with "the PA UN Mission Chief Riyad Mansour". [53] So, there is no necessity to conduct original research for your pet project to distinguish between the capacities and powers of the various agents of the government of Palestine when they participate in its foreign relations to determine if they are "SoP", "PLO", or "PNA". For example, the article notes that the Justice Minister and Foreign Minister of the "Palestinian Authority" delivered an Article 12(3) Declaration to the Prosecutor of the ICC in Geneva and at the same time delivered evidence that Palestine was a legal State capable of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court. The two ministers also said "We represent the Palestinian occupied territories." [54] The Declaration itself was signed in the Netherlands on "Palestinian National Authority" letterhead by officials acting as "the Government of Palestine".[55]
P.S. I'm also going to start incorporating information from John Quigley's "The Statehood of Palestine", by Cambridge Universty Press. harlan (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I know that PLO is the GiE of SoP and that PLO has singed the PNA agreement with Israel. But there is no relation between SoP and PNA. See also 11:32, 21 January 2011 comment above.
"See the rules of the ESCWA" - could you point me a page/quote to look for?
Please keep in mind that the UN doesn't deal with SoP, but with the PLO. The UN uses the designation "Palestine" for the PLO since 1988 [56] - not as state, but as PLO observer non-state entity [57], [58], [59].
Maybe the reference to the PLO as "Palestine" in the UN is the reason why you mix SoP with PLO. For example - member of ESCWA is PLO/"Palestine" and not the 'State of Palestine'. [60]
"Full powers for the signature of those SoP Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." - where is this quote from? Does it use 'SoP' or 'Palestine'? The quote and source I give you above are different - they are about PLO/"Palestine", not about 'State of Palestine' - UN Treaty Database.
[61] use of SoP is not by the UN, but in attachment that the PLO and PNA send to the UN. The 1988 SoP Declaration of Independence was also send to the UN, but this doesn't mean that SoP and the UN have any relations.
The sending of some document to the ICC by the PNA, PLO or SoP doesn't mean that ICC recognizes any of these or the document itself.
Whether Oslo Accords lapsed in 2000 or not is not so clear, but it's also irrelevant for the issue we discuss.
The PNA is represented at the UN by the permanent observer mission of the PLO (that is called "Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine" per the resolution I gave above) since the establishment of the PNA (before 2000).
Many states recognize SoP and have relations with SoP/PLO, PLO, PLO/PNA or all three of these. Each of these three entities is commonly referred to as 'Palestine'. And since PLO represents all of these abroad 'in practice' the countries deal with a 'single Palestine'. But when it comes to treaties, membership in organizations, recognition by states, etc. - we need official sources showing with whom the relations are.
Anyway, please explain what changes are you proposing to make to the article - because we discuss many topics above, but none of them seems like a proposal to change something. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, I've given you the link to the ESCWA rules two times already and the Table of Contents says that the Rules for Membership are on printed page 1. There are no non-state observers or "organizations" (i.e. PLO) in UN regional groups: "MEMBERSHIP - ESCWA comprises 13 States, viz., Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen." [62] See page 5 of 28. I gave you links above to the UN Treaty Organization notices of deposit for Palestine's ratification/accession to several ESCWA treaties that were open to ESCWA members and other states. I also quoted the Note about "Full powers" verbatim from the schedule contained in the UN Treaty Organization Historical Information database for those particular instruments and gave you a link to that too.
Ever since the ICJ ruled that Israel was illegally violating the right of the Palestinian people to self determination - and that the ICCPR applied in the territories - the Palestinians have had the right under Article 1 to determine their own political status (i.e. statehood) and conduct their foreign relations however they please. Nothing prevents a PLO representative from being a PNA representative. The current "President of the State" is the "President of the PLO Executive Council" and "President of the PNA". Here is a link to the first Al Haq Position paper from (2009) which explains that the PNA has signed international agreements; joined international organizations; and that PLO reps have been designated as PNA reps: [63]. Paragraph 26 starting on pdf file 12 of 22 explains:

Since the Oslo Accords the distinction has been exponentially blurred in practice, and the reality is that the PA has entered into various agreements with international organizations and states. It has been noted by Israeli officials that: (1) the PLO representative in Egypt is designated as a PA official, in violation of Article IX(5)(a) of Oslo II; (2) that a PLO representative signed a protocol on security cooperation with Russia in the name of the PA, despite security cooperation arrangements not being listed in the various categories of international agreements which the PLO is permitted to sign for the PA under Article IX (5)(b), and; (3) the PA joined the International Airport Council as the PA, also in apparent violation or disregard for Article IX (5)(b). More than violations of a treaty, these instances of foreign relations undertaken by the PA also signify that the Interim Agreement is part of a larger ongoing peace process, and that the restrictions on the foreign policy operations of the PA conflict with the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, now a norm with a nature of jus cogens, which includes a right to engage in international relations with other peoples.

So, the Israelis have some lapsed agreements with clauses that are no longer considered legally binding. I already gave you a link to a visiting ICC legal scholar's published opinion which explained that. Your research and imaginary compliance with rules on the division of labor between SoP-PLO-PNA under a lapsed/broken agreement is actually WP:OR that no longer has any basis in reality. I suggest that you drop that practice immediately because you've messed-up several articles.
I gave you a link above to a GOI report which said that security responsibilities had been transferred to the PA. Defense Minister Barak has praised the improvements they've made and said the situation is the best its been in years.[64] I also gave you a link to the Jerusalem Post article which says the PLO headquarters are in Ramallah, Palestine. It is NOT a government in exile. So, take a break from the circa 1988 talking points. The US and Israeli government have repeatedly claimed that the Hamas faction of the PNA "seized control of Gaza" and that they are the "de facto government" there. The PNA in the West Bank has 10 battalions in their Presidential Security Guard. I gave you a link above to the LoN criteria for statehood. "Effective control" does not include the ability to defend against invasion or occupation. The article already mentions that Israel is the occupying power, but it does not mention all of the the material that just went over (again). harlan (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
harlan, let's see what we have about ESCWA. Decision for PLO membership[65], general UN decision to use "Palestine" when it refers to the PLO[66]. These two got reflected in the "terms of reference of the Economic Commission for Western Asia". You look at its 1995 version[67] where there is a slight discrepancy - the quote you gave from page5 "ESCWA comprises 13 States, viz., Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen." and page7: "The present members of the Commission are: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Egypt and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were admitted by decision of the Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 2088 (LXII) and 2089 (LXII) of 22 July 1977.". The 2003 version[68] is slightly reworded exactly at the "States" (with capital S) part: "The Commission comprises 13 countries, namely, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen". There is no reference to the State of Palestine and the ESCWA member is 'PLO using the designation Palestine'.
The above is further underlined by the UN treaty database. There are only 3 treaties listed there for Palestine[69] - [70], [71], [72]. And the quote at Historical Information [73] is not as you say refering to the State of Palestine ("Full powers for the signature of those SoP Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." 14:09, 15 March 2011), but is in fact the following: "Palestine, Note 1., Agreements adopted under the auspices of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) are open for signature by the members of ESCWA. Palestine was admitted to membership in ESCWA pursuant to ECOSOC resolution 2089 (LXIII) dated 22 July 1977, which amended paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Commission. Full powers for the signature of the Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." - the resolution cited is [74] about PLO membership. And the powers for signature are by PLO chairman and PNA president. The "President of the State of Palestine" is not mentioned at all.
I think that the reason for your confusion is the fact that "Palestine" is used as designation for the PLO.[75] - so sometimes it's not so easy to check whether "Palestine" means PLO or SoP.
I know that the three positions of PLO chairman, SoP president and PNA president are held by the same person. Two of these are even combined (the PLO chairman is titled SoP president - but when the PLO Executive Committee selects a new chairman he automatically becomes SoP president. The PNA president is a separate issue - he is elected and sometimes the PNA president and PLO chairman/SoP president are two different people - for example between the death of Arafat in 2004 and the PNA elections in 2005). The official titles are "President of the State of Palestine", "Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization", "President of the Palestinian National Authority" (for example see [76] and [77]).
I know that PLO-EC performs the functions of SoP government, I know that PNA is represented by the PLO and I know 6 organizations where PNA is member/observer (ISO, ACI, APA, UfM, UPU, ECC), 5 where PLO is member/observer (WHO, ITU, UN, ESCWA, IFRCRC), 2 where SoP is member/observer (AL, OIC), 1 where a non-governmental Palestinian association is member/observer (ITUC), 6 where we don't have source about who holds the member/observer status (UNESCO, IPU, NAM, G77, UNWTO, WIPO), 3 sports organizations where we don't have source about who holds the member/observer status (IOC, IPC, FIFA). Also, you may be interested that the source we have point to 6 international agreements (or at least we don't have sources for more) - the 3 ESCWA-region agreements at the UN where the PLO (designated "Palestine") participates and signature powers are issued by PLO chairman and PNA president; and 3 interim FTAs with EU, EFTA and Turkey that are signed by "Palestine Liberaltion Organization for the Benefit of the Palestinian Authority" ([78],[79],[80]). Of course, in addition there are the Oslo Accords signed by Israel, PLO, USA, Russia.
So, there is no need to point me to these - I don't claim otherwise.
Now about the Oslo Accords "lapse" - this is irrelevant. SoP, PLO and PNA are separate regardless of the validity of Oslo Accords. There is no SoP, PLO or PNA decision stating something different. Yes, the non-state entities of these three - the PLO and the PNA - perform some state-like actions, but that doesn't mean that they are SoP itself. 1988 SoP is different from any potential future state the PNA structures may declare (they haven't done so yet - but there are indications for some announcement expected in September 2011 [81]). Maybe in the future there will be a decision about merging some of these three (or about PNA state succeeding the 1988 SoP) - but so far there is none. Of course in practice, since the PLO 'represents' all three there is already convergence/overlap.
About the "government in exile" - the exact word is not so important and neither is the location of PLO headquarters (albeit I already said that your source about them being in Ramallah should be added to the article). The important thing here is that all of the Palestinian territories are under Israel occupation and none of the PLO, SoP or PNA control these territories - PNA is simply allowed by Israel to perform some administrative tasks (including police), mainly in Palestinian urban centers and PLO has simply rented some office space in Ramallah.[82] Both PLO and PNA headquarters are in Ramallah and not in Jerusalem (East Jerusalem is not one of the urban centers that Israel allows the PNA to administer). About Israel occupation of all WB/GS see [83], [84]. Source about "exile" not from 1988, but from 2001:[85]; for 1988/1989 there are more sources. I haven't see any source stating that the "the State of Palestine is not in exile and currently has full control over the territory of XXX".
About Hamas, President battalions, etc. - Even Gaza, with all disengagement, etc. is still occupied by Israel and it retains control over territorial waters, airspace, borders. The disengagement means only that Israel doesn't interfere with Gaza internal administration and doesn't have settlements/soldiers stationed on the ground there (but still performs temporary missions/incursions/air strikes/sea blockade).
Please see [86] version of the article where I think most of these things about exile, control, etc. are described.
Why do you refer to "LoN criteria for statehood"? Do you think that PNA claims to be a state? The links above from Saeb Erekat and the PNA foreign minister clearly state that this is not the case (yet; maybe PNA will claim statehood later). Also you cannot have both Israel occupation and Palestinian state that is "not in exile"/"operating on the ground" (regardless if 1988 SoP or another one that is PNA-based). See [87] that gives an interesting description of 'statehood' related to 'control'. If you want to say that the definition of a state is "entity recognized as state by other states" (constitutive theory of statehood) - I don't argue with that - by this criteria SoP is a state, PLO is not a state, PNA is not a state. But this SoP statehood is different from "not in exile"/"operating on the ground". Here you seem to make the mistake of mixing SoP declared statehood (but not executed, because of lack of control over any territory) and the administrative tasks that Israel allows the PNA to perform in some parts of WB/GS while these are still under Israel occupation. Such mixing mistake is understandable, because SoP is related to the PLO and PNA is related to the PLO and PLO is recognized internationally as representative of the Palestinian people. But keep in mind, that even if SoP was related to the PNA (but it isn't - as sources given above and the Oslo Accords that are the foundation for the PNA show) it still will not be "not in exile" in the sense of "operating on the ground" as a "sovereign and independent" state (because PNA operates only as an administration performing those tasks that Israel allows it to perform). So, if we apply the definition of a state is "entity that has control over a permanently populated territory" (declarative theory of statehood) then SoP is not a state, PLO is not a state, PNA is not a state. And none of these could become a state unless Israel allows them to by ending its occupation of at least part of WB/GS (voluntary - by unilateral full disengagement or after negotiations) or unless the UN or other foreign powers force Israel to retreat and end its occupation.
Also, the LoN link that you gave doesn't give "statehood" criteria, but maybe "sovereignty" and "nation" criteria (that is related to the right of self-determination) and nobody disputes that the Palestinian people were recognized as having this right, that the Palestine region was placed under LoN mandate and administered by the UK. Related to this are also the interpretations of ICJ/ICC decisions/actions. Here you see to make the mistake of mixing Palestinian right to have a state with the idea that they already have such state operating on the ground. The arguments in the link you gave support their right - and are used for rationale of both the 1988 SoP establishment (still not enforced on the ground) and the current efforts of the PNA to establish a state. But there is no source stating that any SoP/PLO/PNA claim/declaration of statehood is executed and operating on the ground. SoP performs state actions abroad ("in exile"?) by having ambassadors, embassies, participates at OIC and AL. PLO performs state-like actions abroad too (in addition to ambassadors, embassies and other missions it participates in additional organizations (representing itself or the PNA). PNA performs some administrative tasks on the ground (to the degree allowed by Israel) that are also labeled as state-like.
Oslo Accords - these may be partly violated, these may have been expected to be succeeded by another agreement in 2000, these may be labeled "invalid" and "lapsed" by legal scholars - but the actual situation is that Israel, PLO and PNA act as if everything is fine and these are still in force. Maybe at some point PLO/PNA would use the arguments you gave to say "Oslo Accords are invalid, we unilaterally declare the "Republic of Palestine", a successor to the "State of Palestine", using the PNA Basic Law as temporary constitution until the Republic adopts its own" and then afterwards they start an armed struggle (with or without foreign intervention and support) in order for the new state to perform the actions that Israel doesn't allow the PNA to perform. Then we can say that Oslo Accords are no more in force. Currently, they are enforced and adhered by all participants - Israel, PLO/PNA, nominally also USA and Russia (and many other governments around the world routinely issue statements about support of the Oslo Accords).
The "Background" and "Legal status" sections already include many of the arguments you mention above.
Anyway, please propose below as text/quote what you want to change in the article, because the discussion above drifts to too many topics. Alinor (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor I'm citing published LoN criteria for statehood, because the LoN originally created the State of Palestine and it reflects the applicable treaty criteria that was utilized. The article already cites press reports from the President, the Foreign Minister, and the Justice Minister of the PNA who have announced publicly that the State of Palestine is a legal state that already exists. Nobody needs your permission to add well-sourced material to the article. harlan (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
harlan, I read all of your comments above and replied accordingly. Have you looked at the rest of my comment?
LoN. The [88] link that you gave doesn't give "statehood criteria", but speaks about "independent nations" (in the sense of people ethnicity) - in relation to the right of self-determination and eligibility to establish a state in the future. I'm well aware of these, but what changes in the article do you propose? Because I think it's already mentioned in "legal status" and "background" sections.
"LoN originally created the State of Palestine" - this is simply not true. The PNC of the PLO created the State of Palestine in 1988 (you can read about that event at [89]) - without having control over any territory. It still doesn't have control over any territory.
What LoN created is a "mandate" over the territory of Palestine. The mandate was given to UK to administer and was disbanded in 1948. So, aside from legal arguments about "applicable law", "right of the Palestinian people to establish a state", etc. this is irrelevant to the present day. And I think it's already mentioned in "legal status" and "background" sections.
"Nobody needs your permission to add well-sourced material to the article." - yes, I just ask what changes do you want to make, because most of the things you mention above are already present in the article. Even you say "The article already cites"...
"The article already cites press reports" - please, tell us which links you refer to.
"State of Palestine is a legal state that already exists." - yes, 1988 SoP is legal (according to the PNC and the states that recognize it) and yes, it already exists - in the sense that other states recognize it and have diplomatic relations with it and get visits from the "President of the State of Palestine" and are hosts of "Embassy of the State of Palestine", etc. It exists according to the Constitutive Theory of Statehood (criteria: recognition, regardless of its control over permanently populated territory). But the State of Palestine doesn't have control over any territory. It doesn't exist according to the Declarative Theory of Statehood (criteria: control over permanently populated territory, regardless of its recognition).
Take a look at Palestinians may declare state that says: Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence"
And at PA: 150 states to recognize Palestine by Sept. that says: In an interview with The Media Line last week, the PA foreign minister said the Palestinians were on track to declaring an independent state by September. "Yes we are ready (for statehood). Are we ready for September? Absolutely," al-Maliki said. "I think our issue will be raised not only by us but by the international community as a whole, including the United States of America."
What these sources show is that PNA goes around the world currently to gather support to declare an independent state in September 2011. And that is not the 1988 State of Palestine declared by the PNC. It seems that it will be another state (maybe it will be declared as successor to the 1988 SoP - or maybe it will disregard it entirely just like the PNA disregards it currently - we shall see what language the 2011 declaration of independence will use). Do you have any QUOTE (not journalistic or legal-advisor interpretations) of a PNA official mentioning the 1988 State of Palestine? I have seen PNA quotes only about "a Palestinian state" (not specified, for the future). Alinor (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor you are engaging in idle speculation about a "2011 declaration" and original research. I already cited John Quigley's book regarding the 1988 State of Palestine. It was reliably published by Cambridge University Press. Erekat, Fayyad, and Abbas have stated explicitly that another declaration of statehood is not and will not be part of their plans. Abbas says that it is only necessary for the Quartet to take measures that would “force Israel to end its aggression and occupation of our lands." Fayyad's plan also called for an end to the occupation & it was always based upon the 1988 declaration. In any event, Abbas is pressing ahead with efforts for full membership in the UN. [90] An occupied state is still a state, just ask Iraq and Afghanistan.
FYI, John Quigley; Palestine's Legal Secretary, Norman Bentwich; the PCIJ; a League of Nations Court of Arbitration; the Mixed Courts of Egypt; and the US Federal District Court for the District of Colombia all said that Palestine was one of the successor states created in the territories of the former Ottoman Empire in Asia in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne. For example, the US Court said "The contention of the plantiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations Mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit... ...Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nation provision in treaties of commerce." See Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. [91]
Case No. 34. Saikaly v. Saikaly 15 December 1925 ---Mandated States---National Character of Inhabitants--- Foreign Subjects In Egypt was an action instituted before the Mixed Courts of Egypt. The Court held that former Ottoman territories placed under a Mandate have the character of regular States, and their inhabitants possess the nationality of those States in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The plaintiff therefore has Palestinian nationality, and is a foreign subject in Egypt. [Reports: Gazette des Tribunaux - Mixtes, 1926, p. 119; 53 Clunet (1926), p.1069.] -- See Williams, John Fischer, Lauterpacht, Hersh editors, International Law Reports, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, 1929, ISBN: 0521463483, page 48 [92]
BTW, the text of the Mandate stipulated that the administration was to facilitate Jewish settlement on "state lands". Those were acquired under the The Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Ordinance 1925-26. Robert Eisenman explained that the British extended the concept of "State Domain" by defining a new category of "Public Lands" in the Palestine Order in Council of 1922 which was subject to control of the Palestine Government by virtue of treaty, convention, agreement, or succession, and all lands acquired for public benefit or otherwise. He observed in a footnote (17) that Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne vested all property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire in the governments of the relevant "successor states" and mentions that this was specifically applied in "Palestine" by the ordinances of 1925-6. See "Islamic law in Palestine and Israel: a history of the survival of Tanzimat and Sharī'a in the British Mandate and the Jewish state, Robert H. Eisenman, BRILL, 1978, ISBN 9004057307, page 139 [93]
The LoN article that I cited listed the criteria to be used for determining "the ability to stand alone" in order to terminate the mandates. It explicitly discusses the mandates as "new states" on pages 743-44 and the steps "a state just emancipated from mandate" would take to join the League on page 745.
Finally, I've supplied you with published third-party verifiable reports which say that the Oslo Accords have lapsed; that the PLO and PNA share representation abroad; that the PLO and PNA issued full powers to sign and ratify international agreements on behalf of the State of Palestine & that those instruments are on file with the UN Treaty Organization; The PNA has joined international organizations; and that the PLO & PNA have ignored the objections of the Government of Israel. That information is going in the article. harlan (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, have you see the source above that states "PA foreign minister said the Palestinians were on track to declaring an independent state by September."? I only said that whether this future declaration will make a reference to 1988 SoP or not is still unknown and we have to wait to see.
"An occupied state is still a state" - yes, in the sense of "in exile"/"without control over its territory". And I already explained to you that 1988 SoP is a state, according to CTS, as you say. And that it's not a state according to DTS. So, other states choose to apply one or the other statehood theory - some recognize 1988 SoP as a state, others don't - this is a decision by each individual state. I will disregard the "just ask Iraq and Afghanistan.", it doesn't seam relevant here. The link you gave about PNA president states that "He expressed hope that a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines would be declared by September" - again, eventually we shall see in September 2011 whether this "a Palestinian state" will have some relation to 1988 SoP or not.
next 4 paragraphs of your comment - I don't see what part of that information is not reflected in the "background" and "legal status" sections. Please specify what changes do you propose.
Oslo accords. Whether third parties consider those lapsed is irrelevant. Of course this can be mentioned in the PNA section of the article (e.g. "Scholar XXX thinks that the Oslo Accords have lapsed")
"PLO and PNA share representation abroad;" - the correct formulation is that PLO represents PNA abroad and I have shown you sources about that.
"the PLO and PNA issued full powers to sign and ratify international agreements on behalf of the State of Palestine & that those instruments are on file with the UN Treaty Organization;" - incorrect - the source we both use doesn't say "State of Palestine". I already told you this. Should I provide a screenshot or what? Where do you see "State of Palestine" in [94]?
"The PNA has joined international organizations" - yes, I gave you the full list of these organizations (as far as sources we currently have show). What about that? This is irrelevant to the State of Palestine article. And it's already mentioned in articles where it's relevant.
"the PLO & PNA have ignored the objections of the Government of Israel." - what objections? Any source about that?
"That information is going in the article." - what is going in the article? Would you care to explain what you actually propose to change? Alinor (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, Wikipedia doesn't have to wait to report what reliable sources have already said. You are entitled to include your views, but you are not entitled to govern how everyone else edits this article. Professor Quigley and Dr. Michael Kearney (Al-Haq) have been asked to participate in the discussions with the ICC Prosecutor concerning the Situation in Palestine. Quigley's response to Weston's Rutgers article already addressed the fact that the Palestinans can talk all they want about a future state that isn't occupied or has bigger borders. That doesn't not mean that they don't already have an existing state in the present occupied territory. See page 1 [95]
For the last time, I'm going to incorporate everything I've mentioned above. The ESCWA says that "Palestine" is a member state, not the "State of Palestine". Read the rules yourself on printed page number 1 (pdf file page 5). [96]. The UN Treaty organization note is discussing those rules and the deposit of 4 instruments of signature or ratification to ESCWA treaties by "Palestine". It says that the full powers for that were issued by BOTH the PLO and PNA. The fact that the PNA does engage in foreign relations on behalf of the State of Palestine was mentioned in the Forward article about recognition by Costa Rica, the Al Haq position paper, and in John Quigley's book. I already gave you a link to the published report about the Israeli government complaints which said that the PNA and PLO no longer observe the division of labor in foreign relations (twice). I don't care about your personal opinions and analysis. I'm citing published analysis that represents opposing viewpoints and they belong in the article.
P.S. The portion of the article you quoted was not the Foreign Minister speaking, it was the YNet reporter. The Foreign Minister said the Palestinians were on track to be recognized by 150 states. He did not say they were "ready (for statehood)". They are ready for recognition and an end to the occupation. harlan (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't govern anything - I just ask what changes do you want to make. Because most of the things you say above are already included.
You don't have "existing state in occupied territory" - you have "existing state claiming to hold the sovereign rights over an occupied territory, but not executing these rights there, because of current foreign occupation".
The "Palestine" that is member of ESCWA is not the State of Palestine. The link that you give is outdated. I already gave you a more recent link to the same ESCWA document [97]. It shows otherwise. And also in both links (on page7 of your link) it is stated that PLO got membership in 1977. And there is mention of the State of Palestine.
You claim that "the PNA does engage in foreign relations on behalf of the State of Palestine", but you also wrongly claim that [98] UN Treaties History notes say similar thing and this is simply not true. The sources that you give don't say exactly that either - they describe some event or discuss the legal status of the territories, etc. and from these you draw this conclusion. But it contradicts the official sources that we have - if I haven't already I can give you links to all (that the we know) of the international agreements where PNA participates and you can see that they are signed by the 'PLO-on-behalf-of-PNA' or by 'PLO and PNA jointly'. Anyway, SoP has nothing to do with these.
"Israeli government complaints which said that the PNA and PLO no longer observe the division of labor in foreign relations" - excuse me, but I haven't found these, would you give the links again? (or the timestamp of your comment where you gave them).
What do you mean 'is not said by the foreign minister'? Copy-paste: "Yes we are ready (for statehood). Are we ready for September? Absolutely," al-Maliki said. and the PA foreign minister said the Palestinians were on track to declaring an independent state by September. - yes, the second part is not a direct quote but begins with "the PA foreign minister said".
So, I don't agree with adding "the State of Palestine is ESCWA member", because this contradicts the sources. And I'm yet to see any indication that "PNA represents SoP abroad" - on the contrary, in states that recognize SoP there are "Embassy of the State of Palestine" and "Ambassador of the State of Palestine" (I can give you many such links if you want). Alinor (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course I don't object adding to the PNA section of the article relevant things like "Scholar XXX opinion is that the Oslo Accords have lapsed" or "Scholar XXX opinion is that the PNA is an implementation of 1988 SoP" - if these are backed by sources attributing such statements to Scholar XXX. Alinor (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You are still conducting original research in an attempt to create a non-existent firewall between the PLO and PNA. I gave you a link to the Al Haq position paper which explained that the Palestinians no longer observe the restrictions contained in the Oslo Accords. [99] It also cited Geoffrey R. Watson, "The Oslo Accords International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements", ISBN13: 9780198298915, page 245. Watson said the PLO and PNA always had overlapping functions under the terms of the agreement. I blockquoted the portion of it which highlighted several overlaps that Israeli officials claimed were violations of the agreement, i.e. the PLO representative in Egypt is designated as a PA official and that a PLO representative signed a protocol on security cooperation with Russia in the name of the PA. Al Haq said "this PLO-PA ‘division of labour’ with regards to foreign relations seems difficult to enforce given the overlap between the two organizations. Since the Oslo Accords the distinction has been exponentially blurred in practice, and the reality is that the PA has entered into various agreements with international organizations and states.
The fact that the PLO signs international treaties "on the PNA's behalf" is evidence of its statehood. Quigley and Whiteman's Digest both explain that other parties can sign on behalf of a state:

"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" Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223

I cited UN General Assembly resolution 52/250 (1998) which said that Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. The ESCWA rules of procedure at that time stated that Palestine is a member state. You obviously don't have a published source of analysis on that either. The UN ESCWA rules I provided are still available from the ESCWA website: http://www.escwa.un.org/about/rules-e.pdf
The rules you linked to still indicate that "Palestine" is one of the "member countries" - and one of the current "States Members" of the UN Commission. See paragraph 2, and footnote 2 on page 6 of 26 (printed page 3). The rules and the UN Treaty organization note cite Economic and Social Council resolution 2089 (LXII) of 22 July 1977. The UN Treaty Organization note states that full powers to deposit ESCWA treaty instruments on behalf of "Palestine" pursuant to that resolution were issued by both the PLO and PNA - which demonstrates their overlapping functions and powers. The "Memorandum Of Understanding On Maritime Transport Cooperation In The Arab Mashreq" was implemented "pursuant to resolution 309 of 23 March 2005, which was passed by the Council of the League of Arab States at the Summit level". Palestine is a full member state of the Arab League of States. In accordance with the resolution and memorandum Palestine agreed to establish "Port State Control" to ships in its seaports.[100]
The Foreign Minister of Palestine is an official of the PNA. President Abbas has announced that the PNA is going to seek recognition of the State of Palestine from the Security Council.[101] I cited a Forward article which said the PNA was seeking recognition from other countries and that Costa Rica had signed a bilateral agreement recognizing the State of Palestine with the representative of the PNA at the UN.[102] As I mentioned above, the Al Haq position paper pointed out that the PLO representative in Egypt is designated as a PNA official and that the PLO/PNA no longer observe the division of labor there. The Ambassador to Russia for the "State of Palestine" was sworn in by the President and Foreign Minister of the PNA. [103] His previous position was Advisor for Eastern Europe to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of PNA and Ambassador in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Palestine, Ramallah.[104] I've provided you with a link to the PNA Foreign Minister's statement at the Geneva Press conference where he said that Palestine is a legal state. Professor Alain Pellet pointed out to the ICC Prosecutor in his position paper that it could be argued that submitting a declaration to the Court was an act of state by the Palestinian National Authority. You are also still ignoring John Quigley's article which says that statements about a future state do not mean that Palestine is not currently a state.
You quoted an article where the Foreign Minister was discussing the fact that many other states presently recognize the existence of the State of Palestine and that by September the number of such countries would reach 150. By convention, the use of parenthesis indicates text that has been supplied by the author, not by the speaker. The Foreign Minister was discussing recognition, not current statehood. It is typical of Israeli press reports to equate recognition of an existing state with establishment of statehood in the future. For example when EU Foreign Minister Solona told Reuters that the Security Council ought to recognize the State of Palestine, Reuters ran the headline "EU's Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state" [105], but the Jerusalem Post article that cited the Reuters report had the headline: Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine' [106]. That only indicates that Israelis don't want to recognize the existence of the State of Palestine. The fact that Netanyahu proposes to recognize it in interim borders indicates it satisfies his criteria in other respects. harlan (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not creating any firewall between the PNA and the PLO. The PNA is established by the PLO, is accountable to the PLO and is represented abroad by the PLO. That's what the sources show and what I said to you. You say "Since the Oslo Accords the distinction has been exponentially blurred in practice" - but such statement is meaningless, because before the Oslo Accords there was no PNA at all. And anyway - nobody questions that there is a link between the PLO and the PNA. But no source shows a link between the PNA and 1988 SoP.
"The fact that the PLO signs international treaties "on the PNA's behalf" is evidence of its statehood." - while this is a very questionable statement, even if we agree with Quigley POV (he isn't a neutral source, because he is involved with the PLO) and that PNA is 'a state' (in fact, most sources show the opposite) - this is not the 1988 SoP. In fact, even the PNA foreign minister statement contradicts the logic that PNA is 'a state', because he said that a state will be declared in the future, e.g. currently this is not yet the case and he doesn't take into account the 1988 SoP declaration at all.
I gave you the links showing that SoP is not member of ESCWA, but member of ESCWA is PLO, the UN observer non-state entity designated "Palestine". This is the same "Palestine" that for UN grouping activities is considered part of the Asian group. This is not 1988 SoP, but PLO. About the UN asia group (this is not an organization, but just a grouping for voting and other purposes) I suggest that you look here.
Please stop with your OR interpretations of the list of ESCWA members. It doesnt mention SoP anywhere and you go to great lengths to convince yourself that it doesn't refer to the PLO/"Palestine" as it does, but to 1988 State of Palestine. I'm the one who gave you the links to the three Arab Mashreq agreements signed by PLO/PNA so you don't need to point me to these. No SoP is mentioned there either.
You got right only the fact that 1988 SoP is member of the Arab League - but I also said that - in one of my first replies to you.
Then you continue your OR mistakes by mixing SoP and PNA into one united creation of unknown type and structure - you are getting confused by the fact that PLO has relation to both SoP and PNA and that SoP embassies are staffed by PLO personnel and that the same personnel represents PNA abroad and that the same people are double or tripple hatted and that obviously the because of this the same mission represents all three entities - PLO, SoP, PNA.
"John Quigley's article which says that statements about a future state do not mean that Palestine is not currently a state." - first, Quingley is not a neutral source. Second, nobody claims that "SoP is not currently a state". What sources show is that '1988 SoP is currently recognized as state by other states, but doesn't have control over any territory' and that separately 'a future Palestine state may be declared by and based on PNA structures'. My assumption is that somehow the current 1988 SoP and the future PNA-based state will be merged - I gave you an example how this can be accomplished (and then your OR will become truth, but currently it's wrong). PNA currently acts in some circumstances 'as a state', but it isn't and doesn't claim to be such. We shall see what it will claim in Sep2011. And I don't see what's the solution to the issue of Israel occupation - as Saeb Erakat said - a second declaration of another Palestinian state will not change anything unless Israel occupation is terminated. Alinor (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no WP:OR involved. The quote about states concluding treaties through other parties comes from the U.S. State Department Digest of International Law (Whiteman Edition). The quote about the distinction between PLO/PNA being exponentially blurred comes from the Al Haq position paper. The quote that PLO/PNA have overlapping functions under Oslo comes from Geoffrey R. Watson. The quote that the PLO is the provisional government of SoP comes from the PNC, Anis F. Kassim, John Quigley, and many others. Cambridge University Press and John Quigley are definitely reliable mainstream sources. I'm going to quote the ESCWA rules and UNTO notes verbatim as well as the other sources and include the material in the article. If you persist in harassing me or other editors here with your flakey theory that we can't include published material that you oppose, I'll simply ask that you be blocked. You are pretty clearly violating the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. harlan (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The above comment itself looks like OR. And I already said that I don't dispute the PLO/PNA "blurr" and the PLO/SoP "blurr" (both are supported by sources showing that PLO represents PNA abroad and that PLO is tasked by the PCC to execute the functions of SoP GiE). The issue is that SoP and PNA are separate initiatives of the PLO (maybe these would converge into a single coherent entity in Sep2011). The 'quote about states concluding treaties through other parties' doesn't seem relevant here.
And that's the problem - why don't you just give example below of what changes to the text of the article you want to make? Currently you write long comments, that include both sources and your personal interpretations of various topics. I agree with some parts of them, disagree with other parts of them, but I don't see what you want to change in the article - so it's not clear if your changes will be OR or not.
If there is a "flakey theory" then this is yours theory. And you accuse me of 'harassment'? Maybe I should said at the beginning "make specific proposal for changes and stop filling the talk page with essays" and don't go into any discussion with you? Would you perceive this as better attitude?
When have I said that I oppose inclusion of published material? Have you looked at my comment above that I don't object adding to the PNA sections statements such as "Scholar XXX opinion is that the Oslo Accords have lapsed" or "Scholar XXX opinion is that the PNA is an implementation of 1988 SoP" - if these are backed by sources attributing such statements to Scholar XXX. Unless you provide a clear example of the changes you want to make I can't say much more about what I agree or what I oppose - because I don't know what your proposed changes are.
"I'm going to quote the ESCWA rules and UNTO notes verbatim" - if you quote ESCWA rules be sure to quote their most recent revision available - the 2003 and not the 1995 one. And keep in mind that both ESCWA and UNTO don't mention the "State of Palestine", but "Palestine"/PLO, the UN observer non-state entity - and I don't see a section in the State of Palestine article where these would easily fit - these can be added at Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian National Authority (if they aren't already included there - for example these things are already mentioned on the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization). Alinor (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll cite and quote both sets of rules which show that ESCWA has, a still does, refer to Palestine as a "member state" and "State Member" in the official rules on their website. That can go anywhere in the State of Palestine article. You are pathetic. harlan (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The older source is irrelevant and obviously contains technical errors that were corrected in a later issue of the same document. And the sources don't state that the "State of Palestine" is member. They clearly explain that in the footnote about PLO membership and we have other sources showing the same (the resolution where the decision is taken for granting membership to the PLO; the resolution where the decision is taken for using "Palestine" as designation for the PLO). Can you show a resolution about "State of Palestine"?
The State of Palestine article is not about PLO, the UN observer non-state entity designated "Palestine", but about the state declared in 1988 by the PNC of the PLO. And the place to note "Palestine" ESCWA membership is in the PLO foreign relations article (where it's already mentioned).
"You are pathetic." - is this a personal attack or what?
If what you say above is the change that you intent to make (add statement like "The State of Palestine is member of ESCWA") then I disagree and there is no consensus for that. I will revert such change and we will have to gather opinions of other editors over the issue. Alinor (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would you disagree with this? As harlan has stated, the rules clearly list Palestine as a "member state". Or is this part of your attempt to conclude that there are other states called "Palestine"? Nightw 09:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an outdated version of the file - see above for a more recent one, that is redacted in this spot. Also member of ESCWA is the PLO designated "Palestine" and not SoP - see above. And this article here is about SoP. Currently there is only one state called "Palestine" - the State of Palestine declared in 1988. Maybe in Sep2011 a second one will be declared, maybe it will be declared as a successor to the 1988 SoP, we shall see then what the PNA will do. But anyway, currently there are other entities (besides 1988 SoP) that are called "Palestine" - the PLO and the PNA. Alinor (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Alinor I gave you several published sources which establish beyond all doubt that the Palestinian National Council named the PLO as the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine, e.g. See Anis F. Kassim, The Palestine Liberation Organization: Claim to Status: A juridical Analysis Under International Law, 9 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy at 1-33, specifically p. 15 (Winter 1980). That declaration stated that it would remain in effect until the occupation is ended and a permanent government is established. The General Assembly resolution that acknowledged the Declaration of the State of Palestine redesignated the PLO as Palestine. That is the same member state mentioned in either version of the ESCWA rules you care to read. You keep making WP:OR claims that the PLO is not SoP, but you seem to be refusing to provide any published sources which actually say that. The talk page is not a general discussion forum for speculation about what "maybe" will happen in the future. Please provide a citation to a reliable published source which actually says that the PLO is not part of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. Please explain why opposing published viewpoints on that issue should not be included in the article. harlan (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you give incorrect claims above. Let's see what the sources actually show: "The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established." [quote from Sayigh, Yezid (1999)] - the PLO-EC functions as SoP government, not the whole PLO; and this will not be 'in effect until the occupation is ended and a permanent government is established', but until the PCC establishes a government-in-exile. Of course if occupation is ended a permanent government will be established - this is already envisioned in the 1988 declaration of independence.
UNGA acknowledged the 1988 declaration - this means it's informed about it and takes it into account - nothing more. This doesn't mean that "UNGA recognizes SoP". On the contrary - the UN continues to deal with the PLO as non-state entity and not with SoP. The UN uses the designation "Palestine" for the PLO, not for SoP [107]. And the UN observer is the non-state entity PLO/"Palestine" - and not the State of Palestine.[108] And this PLO/"Palestine" non-state entity is the member of ESCWA.[109] and the ESCWA rules don't contradict that. Of course such special situation is confusing for people like us that aren't involved in UN activities.
"PLO is not SoP" - yes, do you have a source saying that "PLO is SoP"? Not a dozen sources about legality of Palestinian statehood, legal status of SoP, shared institutions between PLO and SoP, etc. Anyway, what the sources show is that at least the UN doesn't accept "PLO as SoP" and it makes this separation clear. The PLO has the status of UN observer non-state entity and the designation "Palestine" is used as reference to the PLO in the United Nations system[110] and that includes ESCWA.[111]
You ask "Please provide a citation to a reliable published source which actually says that the PLO is not part of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine." - I gave you this above[see bibliography entry Sayigh, Yezid (1999)] - PLO is not part of SoP government, but the PLO-EC functions as SoP government until PCC establishes a SoP government-in-exile. PLO-EC is not the whole PLO, but only one of its multiple institutions. Can you provide a reliable source stating that "PLO is part of SoP government"?
You ask "Please explain why opposing published viewpoints on that issue should not be included in the article." - what do you want included in the article? So, far the only thing I see is "SoP is member of ESCWA" - and I showed you right above that the sources don't show such thing. Again - you are getting confused by the usage by ESCWA of the designation "Palestine" for the non-state entity PLO. Alinor (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Baroud in Page, 2004, p. 161.
  2. ^ a b c d e Bissio, 1995, p. 433.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Palestinian Declaration of Independence
  4. ^ "UN General Assembly Resolution 3237". Thejerusalemfund.org. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  5. ^ a b Geldenhuys, Deon (1990). Isolated states: a comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press. p. 155. ISBN 0521402689.
  6. ^ International Recognition of a Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State: Legal and Policy Dilemmas, by Tal Becker
  7. ^ United Nations (29 February 2009). "Permanent observers – non-member states and entities". Retrieved 7 February 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "United Nations General Assembly – December 9, 1988. Resolution 43/177". Unispal.un.org. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  9. ^ a b Hillier, 1998, p. 205.
  10. ^ United Nations General Assembly (15 December 1988). "Palestine question/Proclamation of State/Designation "Palestine" – GA resolution". Retrieved 6 February 2010.
  11. ^ "UN General Assembly Resolution 3237". Thejerusalemfund.org. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  12. ^ International Recognition of a Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State: Legal and Policy Dilemmas, by Tal Becker
  13. ^ United Nations (29 February 2009). "Permanent observers – non-member states and entities". Retrieved 7 February 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ "United Nations General Assembly – December 9, 1988. Resolution 43/177". Unispal.un.org. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  15. ^ United Nations General Assembly (15 December 1988). "Palestine question/Proclamation of State/Designation "Palestine" – GA resolution". Retrieved 6 February 2010.
  16. ^ General Assembly Session 55 meeting 54: "Moreover, we are confident that in the near future we will truly be able to join the international community, represented in the Organization as Palestine, the State ..."
  17. ^ a b Pages 44-49 of the written statement submitted by Palestine, 29 January 2004, in the International Court of Justice Advisory Proceedings on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, referred to the court by U.N. General Assembly resolution A/RES/ES-10/14 (A/ES-10/L.16) adopted on 8 December 2003 at the 23rd Meeting of the Resumed Tenth Emergency Special Session.
  18. ^ Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification with minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air, sea beyond internal waters, land) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C". See also Israeli-occupied territories.
  19. ^ Gold, Dore (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  20. ^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  21. ^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  22. ^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  23. ^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  24. ^ Silverburg, 2002, p. 198.
  25. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference GiE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ "2002 Basic Law". The Palestinian Basic Law. Retrieved 2010-08-02.
  27. ^ "2002 Basic Law". The Palestinian Basic Law. Retrieved 2010-08-02.
  28. ^ "United Nations General Assembly – December 9, 1988. Resolution 43/177". Unispal.un.org. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  29. ^ a b Israel's control of the airspace and the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip
  30. ^ Map of Gaza fishing limits, "security zones"
  31. ^ Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process: "Israel will guard the perimeter of the Gaza Strip, continue to control Gaza air space, and continue to patrol the sea off the Gaza coast. ... Israel will continue to maintain its essential military presence to prevent arms smuggling along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi Route), until the security situation and cooperation with Egypt permit an alternative security arrangement."
  32. ^ Gold, Dore (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  33. ^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  34. ^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  35. ^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  36. ^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_8&oldid=1136231504"