Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The British Mandate as a state

This is an excerpt from a document presented at the UN web-archive about the Palestinian question. It is the reply of the Colonial Office (then headed by Winston Churchill) to the "Palestine Arab Delegation" (headed by Mousa Kazim al-Husseini). The "Palestine Arab Delegation" complained about many issues regarding the establishing of the Mandate regime. Among other things, they complain about the full control reserved by the UK government over Mandatory Palestine, which is, in their view, contradictory to its status as Mandate A. The reply, dated 1 March 1922, states the following: "With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies." ([1] No.2, p.4). I think this text refutes quite strongly Harlan's claim about the British Mandate being a kind of sovereign state, let alone it being a predecessor of an Arab Palestinian state. DrorK (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a big problem with your muddled thinking. Great Britain made that same argument in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case and it was rejected by the Court. That case, and the courts ruling, are cited in the article.

The Treaty of Sevres (1920) that Churchill was discussing, was never ratified. His controversial interpretation of its provisions supported, among other things, a decision to grant concessions to Pinhas Rutenberg that contradicted the terms of existing concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. Churchill's decision was overturned by the 1925 ruling of the PCIJ in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case. The Court held that the provisions of the treaty of Lausanne concerning the laws of state succession were applicable to Palestine. The article also cites a 1925 decision by the Arbital Court that was established by the Council of the League of Nations pursuant to the terms of article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne. A dispute arose over the determinations of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt regarding the annuities owed by each State. The arbiter decided that Palestine and Transjordan were separate States. Article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne stipulated that "The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final." So, Churchill's interpretation of Sevres back in June of 1922 is interesting, but moot. harlan (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And you claim that all of the above is NOT an original research nor synthesis? Are you suggesting that on 1925 A state called Palestine was created by a court decision? Did the UK government established autonomous administrative bodies of locals following that court decision? Does it declare the Balfour declaration null and voil following that court ruling? DrorK (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another remark - you sources talk about the maintainance of Ottoman agreements and settlements in the British Mandate of Palestine. It says nothing about the status of the Mandate as a state, let alone an Arab state. Note that the Palestinian Arab delegation referred to the full centralized controll of the UK government over the Mandate in a way that does not resemble a state-to-be. This issue was never addressed by any court and not affected by any court ruling. Maybe the problem with you is that you base your theses about statehood only on legal term and court rulings, while we are talking about a much bigger subject, whose legal aspect is not that important. You attribute an enormous significance to a court ruling about property disputes, and dismiss statements of politicians and state officials, as well as their actions on the ground, as if court rulings were the only prism through which you can look at the subject. DrorK (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't original research. The State Department published a 100 page long analysis of the Legal status of the "A" mandates back in 1963 which said they were States. The fact that you still keep commenting about sources you have obviously never read is very clear evidence of bad faith. Here are some excerpts:

Article 46 of the Treaty of Lausanne provided that the Ottoman Public Debt "shall be distributed . . . between Turkey" and, among others, "the States newly created in territories in Asia which are detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty." (28 LNTS 11, 37.) The Ottoman Debt Arbitration is also reported in the Annual Digest, with the following "Note":

"The arbitrator, after having adopted the principle that the costs have to be equally divided between the States parties to the arbitration, said: 'The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties.

"' France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.'"

"In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice decided that certain concessions granted to a Greek national by Ottoman authorities for public works in Jerusalem were valid under Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne, a "Protocol relating to certain concessions granted in the Ottoman Empire", and were entitled to readaptation in conformity with new economic conditions. Article 9 of this Protocol provided in part: "In the territories detached from Turkey under the Treaty of Peace signed this day, the State which acquires the territory is fully subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of the other Contracting Powers . . . who are beneficiaries under concessionary contracts entered into before the 29th October, 1914, with the Ottoman Government or any local Ottoman authority. . . ." ( 28 LNTS 203, 211.) Great Britain, the Mandatory for Palestine, was a party to Protocol XII as well as to the Treaty of Lausanne. In its Judgment No. 5, however, the Permanent Court of International Justice specifically stated that the Palestine Administration, not Great Britain as Mandatory, was subrogated to the obligations of Turkey with respect to these concessions. Thus, the Court observed: ". . . It is therefore in the exercise of this full power that the Palestine Administration must, under Article 11 [of the Mandate], respect the international obligations accepted by the Mandatory in regard to which that article makes an express reservation. In the opinion of the Court these international obligations there referred to are constituted solely by the Protocol of Lausanne. For no other instrument creating international obligations contracted by the Mandatory has been brought to the Court's knowledge, and it does not appear that any such exist. . . ." --Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 651-652

The Digest says "The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne (28 LNTS 11) provided for the application of principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. Thus, Norman Bentwich, in commenting on the case of Heirs of the Prince Mohamed Selim v. The Government of Palestine (reported in [ 1935- 1937] Ann. Dig. 123 (No. 39)), states: ". . . The Article [60] of the Treaty [of Lausanne] transferred to the Government of Palestine only those properties which were passed from the Civil List to the Ottoman State by the Irades. But there was nothing in the discussions on the Treaty of Lausanne which could upset the natural interpretation of the words of the Article, that the imperial decrees had transferred properties of Sultan Abdul Hamid to the Ottoman State and that these properties were ceded to the allied successor states." Bentwich, "State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts", XXIII Brit. Yb. Int'l L. ( 1946) 330, 333.

The Digest also discusses the Israeli High Court decisions in Abmed Shauki el Kharbutli v. Minister of Defence, Leon v. Gubernik, Rosenbaum v.Rosenbaum, and Katz-Cohen v. Attorney-General, C.A. 3/48. All of those cases were effected by the laws of state succession. BTW, the Israeli High Court noted that, under the Law and Administration Ordinance, all the laws remained in force, and that it followed that whether any of these laws was valid is not an academic question but one of great practical importance. harlan (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But then again it is an original research because you give a far-fetched interpretation to the sources you bring, which is not necessarily derived from the sources, and certainly contradicts other reliable sources. You bring sources that deal with the way debts should be paid. There is nothing in it that demand your interpretation, despite the use of the word "state". You bring no evidences that this court ruling about the payments of government debts had any further ramification. For example, there was no demand from the UK government to change their policy in British Mandate Palestine and establish autonomous administrative institutions, similar to the ones found in Iraq and Transjordan, and the 1917 Balfour Declaration remained the basis of the Mandate (and I remind you, these were the major complaints of the Palestinian Arab delegation in 1922, which the Colonial Office totally rejected). You simply take some court rulings and give them an extreme interpretation, based on a single word: "state". Furthermore, you bring sources alleging that the Mandate was a successor to the Ottoman rulers, but this has nothing to do with the strange claim that the Mandate was a predecessor of an Arab Palestinian state. You have so many sources clearly indicating that this was not the case: McMahon's letter to Sharif Hussein bin Ali saying that the territory west of Aleppo, Homs and Damascus was not entirely Arab, the Mandate's charter which bases the Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration, Churchill's letter to the Palestinian Arab delegation, the Palestine Act of 1948 that states no successor to the British Mandate, a written testimony of the last secretary of the Mandate administration saying that the British handed over the Mandate's public property to the UN (not to a certain successor of the Mandate), you dismiss all of them based on two or three court rulings demanding that the Mandatory government pay the debts of the previous Ottoman rulers and respect some of their obligations and the fact the the King of Jordan allegedly assumed the title "King of Palestine" after the Mandate was dissolved. This is not serious, and you present it as a fact in an encyclopedic article. DrorK (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, and a remark about the Israeli court ruling - this is especially amusing, because Israel is defined as a Jewish state, so if Israel is the successor of the British Mandate, then your arguments are of no value at all. However, this is not exactly the case, because Israel's acceptance of the British Mandate's legal system was totally voluntary, and as the court said, it had to do with practical considerations, not ideology. DrorK (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of luck with that Balfour argument. I should warn you though, that it didn't work for the Jewish settlers of Gush Katif, Homesh, Sa-Nur, Kadim and Ganim. The High Court of Justice said they were living beyond the Green Line by sufferance, and not by right. See Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Macmillan, 2007, page 363 harlan (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are motivated by political reasons. Your motive here is to argue against Israeli settlers. I should inform you that the State of Israel, per its own laws, never recognized the WB&Gaza as part of its territory. This has nothing to do with the British Mandate or the 1988 declaration. The Israeli Supreme Court (this is how it is referred to in English) rules according to Israeli laws. Its recognition of British Mandate laws derives from an Israeli ordinance that order to regard these laws as Israeli laws unless otherwise decided by the Israeli parliament. But the most important part of your last post is your confession that you have political motivations about this article. DrorK (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You just realized this? The tendentious editing wasn't enough of a hint? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with politics. In 2002 Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein warned the Knesset Constitution Committee that Israelis could be indicted by the new International Criminal Court (ICC), when the court was formally inaugurated. See Ha'aretz, June 12, 2002, "A-G: New Hague Court May Indict Settlers For War Crimes" and Ha'aretz, 20 August 2004, "Mazuz: Hague ruling on fence could lead to sanctions on Israel". In 2004, the ICJ found that Israel had organized and encouraged transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. That's not a political question, it's a war crime pursuant to Article 85(4)(a) and 85(5) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [2] and Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [3]. The Arab League turned over a report from an international fact finding mission to the ICC Prosecutor.[4] It cited the ICJ Wall case, and requested that the ICC investigate and prosecute those individuals suspected of violating the Geneva Conventions. harlan (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth does it have to do with the (non-)existence of a Palestinian state? DrorK (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article already mentions the fact that the world court said that the Palestinian people are entitled to their own territory and their own state. The court not only disposed of arguments from the colonial age, including McMahon, Balfour, Churchill, and etc., they cited Israel's actions in encouraging and facilitating the transfer of its own population into the occupied territory as a breach of international law. I was pointing out that the Court's finding gives rise to criminal liability for the responsible Israeli officials according to Israeli Attorneys General Elyakim Rubinstein and Menahem Mazuz. I assume they had no ulterior political motivations for making those statements. The advisory opinion reflected the existing views of the General Assembly, Security Council, and High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention in that connection. If you insist on including material on the national home, then the Court's decision is a relevant published viewpoint on that topic:

The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed. The Court has found that the construction of the wall in the Palestinian territory will prevent the realization of such a right and is therefore a violation of it.

See the opinions of Judges Higgins, Koroma, and Elaraby in that connection. harlan (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that international bodies, as well as many countries, think the Palestinians deserve a state does not mean they have one. In 1922 the League of Nations officially recognized the right of Jews for a state of their own, but it wasn't until May 1948 that it was established. No one suggests that the State of Israel was established in 1922. Many people and countries thought the Baltic peoples were unjustly deprived of their independence by the Soviet Union, and yet no one suggests that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia existed as sovereign independent state during most of the 20th century. This article is not about the West Bank Barrier, not should it be a legal analysis. Do you need an international court to tell you that the French Republic exists? Do you need such a court to tell you that Narnia doesn't exist? As for the status of the WB&Gaza - they are considered a region under occupatio bellica (at least in those part not controlled by the PA or Hamas). This is the status according to the Israeli law, as opposed to eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that were placed under the Israeli jurisdiction by an ordinance or a statute. This does not mean that Israel recognizes a state called Palestine. Recognizing a territory as occupied doesn't entail recognizing it as a state. DrorK (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Editorial Statements removed for discussion

The source cited in this POV editorial statement actually says that a primary organ of the United Nations acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine, and it doesn't mention the topic of diplomatic recognition at all. This is WP:Synth nonsense:

The United Nations did not [[Diplomatic recognition|recognize]] the proclaimed State of Palestine, but decided to change the name of the General Assembly permanent observer on behalf of the PLO to "Palestine" following the 1988 declaration<ref>United Nations General Assembly (15 December 1988). "Palestine question/Proclamation of State/Designation "Palestine" - GA resolution". Retrieved 6 February 2010.</ref>

The fact that the United Nations does not play a role in the recognition of states, much less extend diplomatic recognition, has already been thoroughly discussed on the talk page. Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidoth explained that "it is not the UN's role, much less that of the Security Council, to confer statehood." See Lieberman warns against '67 borders, By Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2009. In 1950 a suggestion was made that UN membership be adopted as a form of legal collective recognition, but the Secretary-General and Legal Affairs section advised that such a measure would require the adoption of an amendment to the UN Charter. See pages 39-48 of Statehood and the law of self-determination, By David Raič, Kluwer Law International, 2002, ISBN: 904111890X. In 1948, when Syria proposed that an advisory opinion be obtained from the ICJ regarding Israel's statehood. Abba Eban said the UN had no such authority: "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. See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12[5] harlan (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a legal debate and there is no jury here. It is a relevant piece of information, and most users expect it to be in the lead (I hope you don't expect me to bring a legal source to that). That's the end of this discussion. DrorK (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is not the end of the discussion. You write that The United Nations did not recognize the proclaimed State of Palestine, but decided to change the name of the General Assembly permanent observer on behalf of the PLO to "Palestine" following the 1988 declaration, citing this GA Resolution. The problem is that nowhere does the resolution say that the UN does not recognize the state, even if the UN did such things. You make an unsupported leap in the text that the resolution does not make. You then follow that up with . 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". That is true, my question is so what? I am removing the part on "did not recognize" in the first sentence but will leave the rest, though it does not belong in the lead. The lead is meant to summarize the article. nableezy - 08:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a source showing that the UN officially refers to Palestine as an "entity" rather than a "state". The UN opinion appears in the lead of other non-recognized states: Northern Cyprus, Republic of China. The PLO has been heavily relying on the UN for support, so this information is very relevant. DrorK (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice, but you still have not given a source that says the UN does not recognize Palestine as a state. You have given a source that they are recognized as an entity. nableezy - 22:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove the unsourced material and made some other copy edits to the intro dealing with poorly sourced or unsourced assertions introduced by DrorK without regard to WP:LEAD. Unforuntately, he has twice reverted those changes (making this his third revert in 24 hours of the same material). I've reverted once. If anyone is interested in NPOV and RS, I encourage them to restore the version I was working on. If DrorK reverts again, someone should report him this time. Tiamut^talk 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Those two things are not not mutually exclusive. The article already explains that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes. Why do you insist on trying to insert your editorials without siting a reliable source of analysis?

Another POV Editorial

Before the Mandate went into effect, the Churchill White Paper drew attention to the fact that the terms of the Balfour Declaration "do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home" and said that statements to the contrary were "Unauthorized". The UN webpage in the cite says that the national home was "a" objective, not "the" objective. This article isn't about Israel in any case: The Mandate's goal was designated as facilitating the establishment of a "Jewish national home"<ref>Division for Palestinian Rights, United Nations (2008). "History of the Palestine Question". Retrieved 6 February 2010. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)</ref> harlan (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This information is irrelevant here. Stop this! You are wasting people's time and making WP looks ridiculous. DrorK (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No you are being ridiculous. The 1988 Declaration specifically addresses the use of myth to deny Palestinian existence. The mandate was not conferred on Israel. The article already explains that the Mandate contained a provision that said nothing, including the Jewish national home, was to prejudice the existing rights of the non-Jewish population. After analyzing the Mandate, the world court ruled that Israel breached international law by interfering with the exercise of the Palestinians right to self-determination and by transferring portions of its own population into the occupied territory in order to alter its demographics and status.

A number of historical and contemporary sources do say that Palestine was part of the Arab homeland or Arabistan during the Ottoman era. J.M.N Jefrries and other authors, including Stanford J. Shaw, Caesar E. Farah, Butrus Bustani, have noted that Ottoman Turkey was a military empire, and that Palestine was part of Arabistan, the territory assigned to the 'Arabistan Ordusu', or the provincial Ottoman Army for Arabia. Jeffries observations about the entire region, including Palestine, was that 'the Turks call it "Arabistan"' See Palestine: The Reality, Joseph Mary Nagle Jeffries, Published by Longmans, Green and co., 1939, page 4

In October, 1929, The journal of the Communist International discussed the uprising in Palestine and the events in Arabistan as a whole, while attributing the unrest and Arab disunity to the fragmentation of Arabistan into smaller countries and Zionist colonization. The journal specifically noted that the western powers had broken Arabistan into a number of colonies. See The Communist International 1919-1943, by Jane Degras, page 79 [6] harlan (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, this debate is over. You know your claims are political rather than factual, and you just want to drag me into a political debate. Read the Mandate charter again, this time carefully, and see that you are talking nonsense. You drop names of authors and books that neither I nor other editors can check. Previously you brought highly biased sources, or gave false interpretations to reliable sources. I cannot trust you. Furthermore, you make irrelevant claims. No one denied that there were Arabs in the region known as Palestine and around it, and yet the British said explicitly they want to see a Jewish national home in Palestine. Why? Maybe they were crazy, but this is what they wanted back then. Now you try to claim that their Mandate was actually an Arab state, based on sources showing that the Ottomans regarded it as an Arab region. Who are you trying to fool? And by the way, the Balfour Declaration which is incorporated in the Mandate charter says: "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Please cite your sources correctly. DrorK (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation about some of the recent changes I introduced

1. No need to say the "modern State of Israel". The name of the country is "State of Israel", and we all know it is modern. We do not say "the modern French Republic" or "the modern Federal Republic of Germany".
2. The Gaza Strip is not part of the Sinai Peninsula per geographic and geopolitical standards (I'm not going to source that, we all have atlases).
3. Sorry, but there is no consensus about Mandate Palestine and Transjordan being "states". The question is not merely legal, but involved many aspects. We can call them "geopolitical entities" or "geopolitical units" and no one will get hurt.
4. "Palestine is a country that does not appear on contemporary political maps, but which is very much alive for its people" this is an emotional, somewhat poetic statement, that is not appropriate to an encyclopedic article. It is taken from a journal about theater that has little relevance to the subject at hand. Similarly "country-without-country" is not an appropriate term. We'd better use the well-established "Question of Palestine".
5. The PNC's acceptance of the 242 resolution was not included in the "Declaration of Independence". Considering that the declaration mentions GA resolution 181 and another official PNC statement from the same date mentions SC resolution 242, and considering the fact that the two resolutions indicate/imply to different borders, nothing can be said about borders, except that we have a recognition in Israel's legitimacy. This was also confirmed by documents published by the Palestinian leadership later on.
6. The population of the 1988 proclaimed SoP is not defined. The declaration is quite clear about it, and the so-called Palestinian provisional government took no measures to list Palestinian citizens whether in the WB&Gaza or around the world.
7. It is extremely important to mention that the Mandate of Palestine was designated to establish a Jewish national home. If the idea is to explain the Palestinian Question from its very beginning (I'm not sure this article supposed to do that, but if so), this fact is crucial.
8. The UN was the international scene chosen by the PLO to promote the Palestinian interests. Yasser Arafat went to deliver a speech at the UN right after the 1988 declaration. The UN was one of the first organizations notified about the declaration by the PNC. The UN has a special department dealing with the "Question of Palestine". Hence, the fact that the UN eventually decided not to recognize SoP is very important. In addition the UN non-recognition is mentioned in the lead of other articles dealing with limitedly-recognized states.
9. Issues of recognition - right now, according to reliable sources, we know of only 67 contemporary sovereign state that extended diplomatic recognition to SoP. We know that because the Palestinian Authority's Minister of Foreign Affairs said so, according to AFP report: "The Rome Statute that created the ICC determines that only a state could accept the court's jurisdiction for such an investigation to be launched. Malki said documents were provided that show Palestine was recognised as a state by 67 countries and had bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe". [7]. 67 countries do not make a majority of countries.
10. Why are other lists not good enough? First, because the words of Mr. Al-MAlki are very decisive and the report comes from a very reliable unbiased source. Secondly, because too many flaws had been found in the other lists: information that contradicts with other reliable sources, countries that allegedly recognized SoP before they themselves gained independence, countries that recognized SoP at the time but ceased to exist, countries that changed their regimes and the position of the new regime is unclear, countries that "acknowledged" or "welcomed" the 1988 declaration rather than recognized SoP and so forth. I don't know if the number 67 already includes Costa Rica and Venezuela. I wouldn't mind writing "some 70 countries" just to be on the safe side.

That's it for now, I still think this article should be merged, but more importantly it should be informative, unbiased and reliable. And by the way, we do not need more legal information and sources. There is enough already. Not every opinion by every lawyer in the world about the Palestinian issue should be represented in this article. DrorK (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Synth Editorials on UN Recognition, and etc.

Bengt Broms has served as a Judge with the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the ICC Court of Arbitration in Paris. He says that the record shows that, although statehood is a condition of membership in the United Nations, the fulfillment of that condition has never been a guarantee of admission. A candidate must fulfill the additional criteria set out in Article 4(1) of the UN Charter. He says in view of this it is clear that as the Members of the United Nations are not required to reveal the reasons for their negative votes, such a vote does not indicate that a candidate does not fulfill the requirements of statehood. The negative outcome of a vote may just as well result from the conclusion that, although an applicant is a State, it may not be peace loving or it may not fulfill the other requirements. See International law: achievements and prospects UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui editor, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 47 [8] Numerous published sources explain that the United States did not think the PLO was a peace loving entity. A dispute came into being between the United Nations and the United States when the Congress of the United States passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, signed on 22 December 1987. The United States Congress attempted to use the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989" as Title X, the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987" to close the PLO mission to the UN, despite the fact that the United States Secretary of State had stated that the closing of the mission would constitute a violation of United States obligation under the Headquarters Agreement. The US failure to submit the situation to timely arbitration resulted in the "Headquarters Agreement" Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. [9]

You say "Hence, the fact that the UN eventually decided not to recognize SoP is very important. In addition the UN non-recognition is mentioned in the lead of other articles dealing with limitedly-recognized states." The "non-recognition" mentioned in the lead of the other article is not "Diplomatic recognition". Every primary organ of the United Nations has invoked the Member States "Duty of non-recognition" in connection with the illegal territorial situations and demographic changes created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There has never been any such decision adopted against Palestine. Your entire narrative lacks any support or analysis from secondary sources. In fact, many scholars have noted that the UN did welcome the Declaration of the State of Palestine, and have compared it to other cases where the organization did not favor the establishment of the new regime. See for example, Prof. Vera Gowlland-Debbas, “Collective Responses to the Unilateral Declarations of Independence of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine. An Application of the Legitimizing Function of the United Nations”, The British Yearbook of International Law, Edited by Ian Brownlie and D. W. Bowett Volume 61, l990, ISBN: 0198257260, pp.l35-l53

In the case of the Palestine Mandate, there is no doubt that Palestine was a state as defined by international law, and that the matter is res judicata. The determinations of the PCIJ, a LoN Arbital Court, and the Appeals Courts of Great Britain and Palestine were in agreement in that connection, and their decisions were final. The sources that I cited DO NOT SAY that Palestine and Transjordan were "geopolitical entities", and you provided no new citations to support your edits. By international agreement, States are "persons of law" and statehood is a legal construct. See the Montevideo Convention article 1. Every one of your arguments has been derived from the legal qualifications that various sources propose for statehood.

You deleted sourced content again without any explanation or discussion. The material included content on the foreign relations of the PA, Ban Ki Moon's statements regarding the non-existence of the State of Palestine, Gershom Gorenberg's comments about the legal arguments used by the Israeli government to remove settlements from the OPT, and Paul De Waart's comment that it is no longer a matter of creating the the State of Palestine, but of recognizing it. Long Wikipedia articles can always be broken down into subarticles.

In the Wall case, Judge Al-Khasawneh noted that the "Green Line was originally an armistice line and that Israeli jurists sought to give it more importance before the 1967 war. Regardless of its present situation it represents the point from which Israeli occupation can he measured. Doubts about its status work both ways." In other words, the arguments about the lack of a well defined border as a result of the partition plan and the armistice agreements apply to both Israel and Palestine. They are obviously not a bar to statehood. The population is defined as a minimum as the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The 1988 Declaration spoke about Palestinians in the homeland and "in the refugee camps outside the homeland". It did not say they were all inhabitants of the State, merely that they all had "the right to pursue in it a complete equality of rights". There is no requirement to establish a population registry prior to statehood. Your entire narrative and analysis, in that connection, lacks quotes and citations from reliable published sources. harlan (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be more concise, and state only relevant points. The idea that British Mandate Palestine was a state is by no means mainstream opinion, and we discussed that in details. You are entitled for your personal opinion, and I am not going to tell you what books to read, but when you edit a WP article you should curb your personal views and stick to the facts. In any case, the British Mandate of Palestine is not a predecessor of an Arab Palestinian state as shown by many unbiased resources that we went over in the discussion, so the relevance of this whole issue is not that big.

I am telling you for the 1000th time now, WP is not a legal journal. We respect judges' opinions, but we are not bound to them, and we have an obligation to describe the state-of-affairs from all angles. I'll give you an example that you are going to like: according to the Israeli Supreme Court ruling, the villages of Iqrit and Kafr Bir'im in the Upper Galilee are legitimate communities that should be repopulated. Are you going to present them as existing villages per this court ruling? According to another court ruling from Israel, two men can be described as man and woman for certain legal purposes if they are a gay couple. Are you suggesting to write that some men are actually women per a court ruling? And let me give you another challenge: suppose the ICC or ICJ decide eventually that the Palestinians have no locus standi, and maybe even that there is no Palestinian people at all (anything can happen in court rulings), will you feel obligated to such ruling? Won't you demand that other aspects be considered too?

As for the issue of borders - Israel's borders are well defined. Some of them are recognized international borders, like the border with Egypt and most of the border line with Jordan. The border with Lebanon is not final, but it is well-defined and it was determined by an international body, namely the UN. Israel defined its border with Syria, even though it is not internationally recognized. The border with the West Bank is more elusive, because its pattern is not always clear, but there is still clear distinction between Israel and the WB. SoP never defined its borders, and it could afford doing so, because this proclaimed state never exercised sovereignty on any territory.

The PA cannot be said to be equivalent to SoP. This claim of yours doesn't hold water. The foreign relations of the PA are not relevant to this article. DrorK (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A group effort to "hijack" this article

There is an a coalition here trying to "hijack" this page and prevent any legitimate edits to it. This group is Harlan, Tiamut, and the new-comer Nableezy. All of these users expressed their pro-Palestinian views on their talk page, and they make a lot of effort to introduce their political views into Palestinian-related articles (see their contribution lists). All the arguments they brought were thoroughly discussed and refuted, but they are not satisfied. As they are well aware of the 3R rule, they revert legitimate edits alternately, and complain about people who re-revert their wrong-doings. Their request to block users have been rejected. It is important that other editors feel free to improve this article, or merge it with another article (a better solution, IMHO), but in any case won't be intimidated by this group. DrorK (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. But you have not refuted a damn thing, only insisted that you are right. nableezy - 15:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of your cooperation with Tiamut taken from your talk page:

I just asked for the 3RR decision at that page to be reviewed since Drork made his 4th revert in 24 hours. He doesn't seem to have gotten the message and I'm hoping an admonishment or short block will help to make it clear, since nothing else seems to have worked so far. Tiamut^talk 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the process of filing a new report, though AE may be a better forum. nableezy - 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell me, why does Tiamut need you help in filing a complaint about me? What make you so afraid of changes in this article? I wouldn't like to think you are engaged in public relations for the PLO or other Palestinian organization, or should I? DrorK (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

She doesnt. And she wont need my help requesting you be topic banned under WP:ARBPIA, a request that draws nearer with every revert you make. Remove your bad-faith allegations and personal attacks or that request may be made quite a bit sooner. nableezy - 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, you should point out on the appropriate board that Tiamut was calling for someone to tag team with her and that Nableezy obliged. You might also want to point out the obvious tag teaming that went on here Jan 24-25 with harlan making 3 reverts then Nableezy the 4th, then again Tiamut making 3 reverts and Nableezy the 4th. Nableezy knows all about arbcom. He's been there several times himself and is quite close to the topic ban he's threatening you with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice battle attitude NMMNG! No admonition for Drork for calling us PR reps for the PLO, nor for edit-warring. Should I start accusing you and Drork of Hasbara? No. That would be a personal attack. We don't do those at Wikipedia. Or did you not know? Tiamut^talk 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. nableezy - 16:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not really helping yourselves shy away from the tag-team accusation. This battle only further demonstrates to outsiders your collaboration. Furthermore, this doesn't belong on the talk page of this article. If you want to carry on this conversation, do it elsewhere please. Breein1007 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tel that to the person who opened this section. nableezy - 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, if simply commenting on the same page indicates collaboration, you are implicated now too on the other side of this ridiculous little battle. Tiamut^talk 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Not sure what personal attack you're accusing me of making. Did I accuse you of being a muqawama apologist? Of course not. That would be a personal attack. We don't do those at Wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut did not accuse you of making a personal attack. nableezy - 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you are still following me around NMMNG. Since you obviously read the WP:AE case I filed against Jaakobou, did you notice the advice Henrik gave him then about how to try to avoid using the term "muqawama"? Quite sure you did, even if you choose not to heed it yourself. Tiamut^talk 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NNMNG did not accuse you of being a muqawama apologist. Breein1007 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said that he did. Henrik advise Jaakobou against using the word. NMMNG using it here is supposed to be a not so subtle way of pushing my buttons. Tiamut^talk 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what that word means? nableezy - 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Missed a key word - this discussion could use some humour anyway. Breein1007 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though if you would like to call me "the resistance" feel free. nableezy - 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed third paragraph of intro

On September 9, 1993 the State of Israel and the PLO exchanged letters of recognition, however these letters did not include Israeli recognition in the 1988-proclaimed State of Palestine. This mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO was succeeded by the signing of the Oslo Accords which established the Palestinian National Authority (PNA or PA) as interim administrative body. The PNA exercises some governmental functions in parts of the West Bank and used to exercise similar functions in the Gaza Strip prior to the Battle of Gaza with Hamas. The current Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, also bears the title President of Palestine and serving in his capacity as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. However, the Palestinian Authority is not officially recognized as the State of Palestine.

I have mutliple problems with this text. First of all, the reference to the letters of mutual of recognition is not necessary and goes against WP:LEAD, since it is discussed nowhere in the article. It also seems to be WP:OR, since there is no source for it, and I haven't seen sources discussing the letters of mutual recognition in relation to the issue of the State of Palestine.

The mention of the Battle of Gaza is not necessary. Again, its not mentioned in our article. Furthermore, the Hamas government in Gaza claims to be acting as the officially elected PNA government there, so the wording is misleading and inaccurate.

Finally, the last sentence about the PA not being recognized as the State of Palestine is unsourced and contradicts sourced information in the body of the article which defines Palestine as a transitional association between the PLO and PNA.

I've restored the wording that was there previously while adding a brief mention of the Oslo Accords. It would probably help to avoid edit warring if any major changes to the introduction were discussed here before introducing them. Tiamut^talk 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

No More Mister Nice Guy took out the sourced term "uncertain" and replaced it with "disputed" using this edit summary "it doesn't need to use the word "disputed" for me to use it here. some people say it exists. others say it doesn't. that's a dispute."

I wonder if this is not selective application of your reasonong? Some people say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, so that would be a "dispute", yet you took a totally different tact on that discussion. I hope you are editing neutrally, shall we examine this further then? RomaC (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I don't think we should use terms like "disputed" when they are not used by the source cited to support the sentence. I'd prefer we restore "uncertain", as it is what is used by the source to describe Palestine' status. I'd also prefer that not be a standalone sentence, but rather be appended to the end of the first sentence, as in this edit [10], but also adding the quote from the source, as in this edit [11].

Please note that despite the author's personal opinion that "it's difficult to see how Palestine could constitute a state," he acknowledges that the state of Palestine has been recognized by more than 100 states. Given that is the case, we cannot say that Palestine is not a state, or that's its existence is disputed, as it is states who determine whether or not other entities are treated as states. I think the formulation I suggested in the first diff above is a fair balance of the differing views on the issue.

I'd also like to reiterate my request that any major changes to the lead (such as the addition of this sentence) be discussed here prior to making them. Or, at the very least, at the first sign of opposition to an edit, that the editor trying to insert the material open a discussion section themself to gain consensus. I think that would reduce the likelihood toward edit-warring. If this edit does not hae consensus on how to formulate it, I suggest we return to the version that preceded this latest spate of edit-warring (in which I sadly participated), until such time as consensus can be reached. Tiamut^talk 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's funny RomaC since I was using your argument. You repeated it so much, I thought I'd see how it works for me. Tiamut didn't seem to mind when you were using it in the other article so I thought I'd give it a try here. Funny how these things work.

Anyway, the status of Palestine as a state is disputed both among countries, since 1. not all countries recognize them and 2. Few countries outside the Arab League have recognized a “state,”, and among academics as per the source I provided with my edit. None of this is evident in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If its not represented in our article, then it certainly should not be in the WP:LEAD which summarizes the contents of the article. Once again, you are adding information to the intro of an article based on a source that only tangentially supports your phrasing, without regard for what the LEAD is supposed to be. I am restoring the ersion of the lead prior to your addition. Please add reliably sourced information to the body of the article that expands upon the point you are trying to make here. Then, we can decide how to phrase what should be said about it in the lead. Tiamut^talk 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And by the way NMMNG, the source you are quoting from was written in 1990. Its a little outdated. However, we can still add information from it to the body of the article. One of Crawford's main arguments against Palestine constituting a state is that notwithstanding recognition of the state of Palestine by other states, its whole territory remains occupied by Israel.[12]. We should also mention how the Swiss government, acting in its capacity as holder of the Genea Conventions depository, when asked to accept a communique from the PLO in 1989, refused it, stating that there is, "uncertainty within the international community as to the existence of non-existence of a State of Palestine."

Noting these facts in the introduction, when they are not discussed in the body of the article, and without placing them in the proper temporal context (a tonne of things have changed since 1990) is misleading, undue, and not in line with our MoS policies. As such, I've restored the old intro. Please do some work on the body of the article, and please discuss the changes you would like to make to the intro here BEFORE making them to avoid edit wars in the future. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha NMMNG, touché and true -- in the discussion you refer to I believe I did say that if there was a dispute on the Talk page then a disputed tag belonged in the article. It's funny, some editors dispute that there is a dispute, and are prepared to argue a la infinity mirror. Of course it could be said that disputing there is a dispute affirms that there is, really, a dispute. But I think article content is different from our Talk page discussions, especially vis-à-vis the status of states. For example although Japan, France, Estonia and South Korea do not recognize North Korea, that state's status is not listed as "disputed" here in Wikipedia. Of course, there are only four countries that do not recognize North Korea. Where would you place the threshold, to warrant a "disputed" status? Maybe at, say, 20 non-recognizing countries? Sheesh that would qualify Israel[13]. But I would never support that, and neither would you. So what's your objective here? RomaC (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure a majority of states recognize Palestine as a state. Anyway, who says the threshold should be based on the amount of countries that recognize it? There is a dispute among scholars, based on international law and various conventions. A "real world dispute" like you like to call them. There are various criteria usually used to determine whether a certain entity is a state (such as control over territory, internal and external sovereignty, etc) and SoP apparently fails some of them according to some people. The "uncertainty" Tiamut speaks of above is a result of what? That everyone agrees they're not sure? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure a majority of states recognize Palestine as a state" - I can reassure you that it is not yet a state (and I doubt we shall see one established in the next few years, but that's just my personal opinion). It is currently the Palestinian National Authority, which does not include the rough Hamas government in Gaza. John Hyams (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tempus fugit, it isn't 1988 anymore, it's 2010

In an earlier post I mentioned that James Crawford had changed his views by the time he wrote his 1998 article and that they foreshadowed his arguments on Palestine's behalf in the 2004 ICJ Wall Case. In that case both sides said that it was a dispute between two states.

In 1998 he cited John Quigley and pointed out that another unilateral declaration wasn't really necessary for recognition of Palestinian statehood. He said then that recognition was still premature, since both sides had agreed to negotiate a final settlement. But he warned that the international community would be justified in extending belligerent recognition to Palestine regardless of any facts on the ground if Israel tried to delay Palestinian self-determination in order to benefit from its own wrongdoing.

In the 2004 Wall case, the interested state parties raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the OPT. They claimed that the case was really a dispute between two states. They tried to make a case for inadmissibility on the ground that Israel had not consented to have the dispute settled by the Court. Crawford said that, although the premise had been cited against the Court answering the request, properly understood it supported the court doing so. See item "(5) This is a dispute between two States: the principle of consent" under the heading "B. Specific arguments related to the OPT: the case for admissibility" on pages 37-38 of Crawford's oral argument.[14]. harlan (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And the question remains - so what? It is as if legal scholars debated whether a gray donkey with two white stripes could be defined as zebra and placed in the zebra section of the safari. That would be an interesting debate, but until there is a radical change in the common knowledge, a zebra is a black-and-white striped donkey-like animal, so two white stripes on gray fur is not enough. The court might decide that this poor donkey have to pay taxes like a zebra per arguments in the legal debate, but that still doesn't make it a zebra. Is my metaphor clear enough? I can explain it once more if necessary. DrorK (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mention animals, dogs and cats may legally receive financial benefits like inheritance or pension funds: http://bankling.com/2009/pet-millionaires-seven-cats-and-dogs-who-are-actually-richer-than-you/ As for James Crawford, he changed his views? Really? Wow, a person changing his views, that's so mind-boggling. I'm going now to CNN to catch the latest headlines on James Crawford, I wonder if he's planning a State of the Union address. John Hyams (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While Crawford considers the West Bank Barrier issue a conflict between two states, he says at the same time: "The people of Palestine have an unfulfilled right to self-determination." Having a state is definitely a fulfillment of the right to self determination (see this definition by Betty Miller Unterberger [15]: "At the close of the twentieth century, it could mean the right of people to choose their form of government within existing borders or by achieving independence from a colonial power. It could mean the right of an ethnic, linguistic, or religious group to redefine existing national borders to achieve a separate national sovereignty or simply to achieve a greater degree of autonomy and linguistic or religious identity within a sovereign state. It could even mean the right of a political unit within a federal system such as Canada, Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, or the former Yugoslavia to secede from the federation and become an independent sovereign state)." So, basically, even Crawford himself doesn't really believe there is an existing Palestinian state. DrorK (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Drork, you hardly needed to tell me that. I thought you realized that the ICJ had ruled that Israel was violating international law by interfering with the Palestinian people's right of self-determination and that Crawford was a member of the Palestinian legal team that argued the case.

You seem to be forgetting that Crawford said the international community would be justified in extending belligerent recognition as a legal state to Palestine, regardless of any facts on the ground, in order to prevent Israel from benefiting from its own wrongdoing. At the time he told the Jerusalem Post that Ariel Sharon and other leaders should be held accountable for their actions and that he was a strong proponent of the International Criminal Court.[16]

There is no shortage of material on the subject of belligerent recognition (aka premature recognition) and Palestine. For example, Truman refused to terminate the Anglo-American Mandate Convention when plans for Transjordan's independence were announced. The US said Transjordan's status would have to be decided by the UN as part of the Palestine Question. Nonetheless, he extended de facto recognition to Israel, in the midst of a civil war, minutes after the state was announced. There were no institutions of government in the Negev, and it comprised 60 per cent of the territory of the new state. In his 1998 essay Crawford noted that neither side in the controversy took the position that the creation of Israel was a question of fact and that complex legal arguments had to be presented.

At the same time, Truman continued to withhold recognition from the Arab governments in Palestine and Transjordan. That is considered a classic example of belligerent recognition.[17] Here is a cable where Transjordan complained that the government of the United States had not recognized the government of Transjordan, despite the fact that it had been in a position to meet all of the criteria for two years, yet the United States had immediately recognized Israel although the factors for its recognition were lacking. [18] harlan (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your legal arguments are hardly relevant to the subject in question, but still -

1. Israel was declared 8 hours before the official dissolution of the previous regime. The declaration states that it would come into effect at midnight, when the British Mandate officially expires. Hence the State of Israel was created in a territory without any official control or sovereign. This is not the case for the proclaimed SoP.
2. The Provisional Government of the State of Israel had effective control on a certain territory and a certain population from the moment of its creation. This territory expanded eventually (as the de facto borders were determined in 1949), but there was no point in time in which this Government had no control over territory and population. Furthermore, this control was exclusive as the previous regime dissolved.
3. So, your idea that the US extended de facto recognition to Israel when it did not meet the criteria for statehood is false. The fact that it was a de facto recognition rather than de jura resulted, according to Truman, from the fact that the nature of the new state was not clear enough at the moment. Once Israel held general democratic elections, adopted a normal legal system etc. (within half a year or so) the recognition became de jura.
4. To sum it up - our issue here is not purely legal, but even the legal arguments are not too strong here. DrorK (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I'll go ahead and add material which reflects what the published sources say, and ignore your attempts to filibuster and practice law from here on out. harlan (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that you usually use the word "filibuster" when you agree with me, but are not comfortable saying that. I will therefore make the necessary edits to the articles as soon as I can. DrorK (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yippee! It is so nice that we all get along so well and are able to reach consensus on these tough issues. Good work boys! Breein1007 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, please do not make edits that are not in concensus and agreement. Doing so may be regarded as disruptive editing. Also, trying to hold on some obscure claim is no basis for inserting your POV material into the article. John Hyams (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

EU initiative: Recognition of Palestinian state by next year

Interesting article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1151219.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing new about this issue, it has been discussed in the press before. Nut it proves that at this point there is no European recognition in a state called Palestine. DrorK (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed one-sided tangential information

I've removed this: The Mandate's goal was designated as facilitating the establishment of a "Jewish national home", to which the Palestinian Arab leaders strongly objected. The British devided the original Mandate territory into two geopolitical entities, namely the British Mandate of Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan.

My reasoning is as folows:

1. The Mandate's goal cannot be summed up simply as facilitating the establishment of a Jewish national home. This is a one-sided presentation of the Mandate's goals also falls afoul of WP:NPOV.
2. Given that this source is not discussing the State of Palestine, it is WP:SYNTH and I fail to see the relevance here.
3. The second sentence is already covered in simpler terms in the article. Tiamut^talk 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your points above,

• Like the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," called upon the mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home," with "an appropriate Jewish agency to be set up for advice and cooperation to that end." Inasmuch as you find the paragraph one-sided and insufficient, the burden is on you add the other side, not merely to remove it.

• The fact is that it is discussing the state of Palestine, since as we have no borders, and the Mandate was to provide space for Arabs (today's "Palestinians") and Jews (today's Israelis). The (Arab) state in Palestine and the Jewish State of Israel are both a part of the Mandate. The question is of course who gets what part. Which part is home to the Jews and what part is home to Palestinian Arabs has not yet been determined. So the inability to see the relevance of this is indeed your own failure.

• I think the fact that in 1922 the British took off 80% of the Mandate and gave it to Arabs as Jordan, thus removing it of any possibility of being part of the Jewish Homeland, is rather an important fact about the history of the state of Palestine. At that time at least the borders between Trans-jordan and the rest of the Mandate were clearly laid out. The borders of the state of Palestine have been declared (by Hamas) to include the State of Israel, although when the state of Palestine was declared there were no boundaries expressed. How do you have a state that knows no bounds? The idea of Arab pan-nationalism is also very much a part of this story. The fact is that today the vast majority of Palestinian refugees live in Jordan. "According to the records of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), Jordan is home to 1.9 million displaced Palestinians. “Jordan hosts about 42 percent of the total refugee population,” says Mattar Sakr, director of public relations for UNRWA in Jordan. [19] That is to say that 42% of displaced Palestinian refugees live in 80% of the original Mandate. All important and relevant background. (Posted by Stellarkid (talk) today at 05:15; wrong ref tag was removed by 212.150.59.209 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

The idea that the "Jewish national home" had a territorial dimension is somewhat doubtful. We've already discussed the Balfour Declaration in one of the threads above. It contained a safeguarding clause that protected the rights of the non-Jewish communities. Chaim Weizmann wrote that the Zionists wanted the mandate to read "recognizing the historic rights of the Jews to Palestine", but British Foreign Secretary Curzon and the other Allied Powers utterly rejected the notion of Jewish legal claims or rights. Balfour suggested the watered-down wording which said the Allies had recognized a "historical connection". See T.W. Mallison, "The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order", page 65 or Doreen Ingrams, "Palestine Papers, 1917-1922", George Braziller 1973 Edition, pages 98-103.

• In any event, the text of the resolution of the San Remo conference placed Great Britain in charge of putting the Balfour declaration into effect, not the Jewish Agency or Israel.
• The terms of Article 4 of the Mandate stipulated that the Jewish Agency was "subject always to the control of the Administration". Article 6 permitted Jewish immigration under "suitable conditions", "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced".
• The British White Paper of 1939 equated the "Jewish national home" with the Jewish population, not with any defined territory. It said the government would permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. [20] That policy remained in effect until the Mandate was terminated.

The ICJ determined that it was necessary to perform a legal analysis of the status of the occupied Palestinian territory. After reviewing the terms of the Mandate, the partition plan, the armistice agreement, and the Oslo Accords, the Court said that Israel had facilitated the transfer of part of its own population into the occupied Palestinian territory and had established settlements there in breach of international law. Several of the concurring opinions stated that the Palestinians were entitled to their own territory and their own State. The State of Israel did not mention the LoN Mandate or the Balfour Declaration in its 246 page written statement. [21]

The main Palestine Mandate article has:

• A subsection on Drafting of the mandate which cites the records from the British National Archives that say the references to a Jewish "claim" to Palestine were removed from the draft Mandate.
• A subsection on Article 25 of the Mandate which explains that the territory of Transjordan was formally added to the mandate in the years following the San Remo Conference of 1920. It was never occupied by the British during the war, so they didn't actually turn anything over to the inhabitants. Transjordan was East of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Alleppo. So, it was included in the territory McMahon had pledged to Hussein.
• A subsection on The Jewish national home which explains that:
  • The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry noted that the demand for a Jewish State went beyond the obligations of either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate and had been expressly disowned by the Chairman of the Jewish Agency as recently as 1932.
  • The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine said the term Jewish National Home had no known legal connotation and there were no precedents in international law for its interpretation. Although it was used in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate, UNSCOP noted neither document had defined its meaning. harlan (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My revert

I have reverted changes made by Drork to the article here. The reasons for this is as follows:

1. He deleted two reliable sources from the article, claiming they are unrealiable. A discussion above failed to garner consensus for that position. Drork should take his concerns to the reliable sources noticeboard to see if these sources are indeed unreliable. There is no reason to assume they are.
2. He again added primary sources material with hhis own interpretation to the introduction. I've asked previously that he not do this and I've also asked repeatedly that major change to the introduction be discussed on the talk page prior to making them to avoid edit wars from erupting. Please do that Drork. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the article history more closely, I saw that User:Noon restored a bunch of primary source material and OR to the introduction as well. I've reverted back to an earlier version of the intro here. Please discuss changes to the intro before making them. Tiamut^talk 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And I re-reverted for the following reasons -

1. I do not accept the idea that the Tiamut&Harlan corporation would decide what is reliable source and what is not. Interestingly enough, those sources which support their political views are considered reliable while others are not. I avoid bringing pro-Israeli sources fearing they might "round some corners", and the same goes for pro-Palestinian sources.
2. We often encounter a usually-reliable source that makes mistakes. These things happen. We cannot, however, bring the erroneous part of the source as a reference. The "Corrigendum 1" here [22] clearly states that Austria did not recognize SoP. The list of recognizing states heavily relies on the "MEDEA list". I don't know whether it is a reliable source or not, but the list is clearly erroneous, as it contradicts other more reliable sources (for example that Corrigendum). Hence, this list CANNOT be trusted. Do NOT use it.
3. The Palestinian Authority and SoP ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Don't mix up information about the PA with information about SoP. That includes the infobox. Nothing in the laws or statements on behalf of the PA indicate that it is the 1988 proclaimed SoP. If you think it is - the burden of proof is on you. Don't make baseless statement and expect other people to refute them.
4. I have found no reliable source suggesting that "Palestine" is the official name of SoP. The 1988 "Declaration of Independence" says "State of Palestine". Can you get more official than that?
5. The definition of the purpose of the 1988 declaration is taken almost word-by-word from Salam Fayyad official document published on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. He mentions the declaration, explains its purpose, and also makes a careful distinction between SoP and the PA (read the document, it is very educational). I consider Salam Fayyad a reliable source about Palestinian political issues, especially as he talk on behalf of the current Palestinian leadership. DrorK (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

One by one then:

1. Irrelevant. Stop casting aspersions on your fellow editors just because they do not agree ith you.
2. Take it to RSN. Your opinion that the source is wrong is not enough to disqualify us from using it.
3. The information in the infobox is easily citable to Baroud in Page hich give these stats for "Palestine"(the book info for that as missing, I added it now). You are confusing a territory ("Palestine" or the West Bank and Gaza) with a temporary adminsitrative body.
4. There are two reliable sources cited for Palestine's official name (please look at them). Using a primary source document (translated out of its native language into English) to make an OR conclusion is an not acceptable substitute for a secondary source.
5. Salam Fayyad is the PM of the PA. He is not the president of Palestine, and does not represent Palestine per se. You can add his opinion to the body of the article but unduly highlighting it in the introduction and using it to make OR conclusions of your on is unacceptable. Tiamut^talk 21:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. FOR THE LAST TIME, PLEASE GAIN CONSENSUS FOR YOUR CHANGES TO THE INTRODUCTION BEFORE MAKING THEM. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I have consensus. Most editors either agree or accept the edits I suggest. This is not because I am a genius, this is because I do my best to suggest edits that serve the idea of conveying knowledge. Your coalition with Harlan and Nableezy is not an alternative to a consensus I'm afraid.

When it suits you, the PA is not the SoP. When it doesn't it is. Make up your mind and be persistent. Salam Fayyad is a well-recognized distinguished Palestinian leader. His statement, being written as an official PA document, is backed by Mahmoud Abbas who assumed the title "President of the State of Palestine". You are suggesting we rely on foreign interpretation rather than take the word of a Palestinian leader. That's an absurd.

There is nothing against citing primary sources. The Arabic source say دولة فلسطين (don't tell me you cannot read Arabic), and the English translation is State of Palestine. Plain and simple. Unless the secondary source brings reference to a later decision to rename this proclaimed entity, it cannot be regarded as reliable.

You use the principle of Verifiability to justify any absurd edit you can come up with. Bringing sources is not something to do offhand. Exerting discernment when using sources and crosschecking sources to verify their claims is something taught in high schools, let alone universities. Don't say "I have a source", explain to me why this source is better than other and what makes it reliable, especially when it makes controversial claims.

This article is about the 1988 proclaimed entity. As to this point in time, this entity has no territory and no defined population. Hence, it has no economy, no currency, it is even hard to say whether it has a timezone. The territory you refer to is covered by the article Palestinian territories. The PA is covered by the article Palestinian National Authority. You are trying to mix up these entities in order to promote your political views, but this is WP, not a political forum. DrorK (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On this topic, please note that in the following article Abbas himself says they are "considering" declaring a state. he does not say that they have already done so. Abbas: Only solution is to declare Palestinian state. And here is Erekat on this topic: Erekat: Palestinians may have to abandon goal of independent state, from Reuters.

Also, see these: Palestinians under world pressure not to declare state unilaterally, and Palestinian PM: Declaration of statehood just a formality. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Who has agreed with your edits? How on earth can you claim you have consensus for your edits? And, as a matter of policy, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. And you would be wise to take your own advice on 'promoting political views' here. nableezy - 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone except you, Tiamut and Harlan. I hope you are not suggesting the the entire editors' community is the three of you... DrorK (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? You are beginning to make me concerned for your health. Have you suffered any blows to the head recently? Please, step away from the computer and seek medical attention. {text struck-out following this discussion -- ZScarpia (talk)} nableezy - 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the way to promote a collaborative environment. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, is there a reason to your hysteric reaction? DrorK (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You say that "everyone", excepting Tiamut, harlan, and myself, agrees with your reverts. I was concerned that you had become delusional as a result of some trauma to the head. If you have not suffered such a blow then we have to address why you think "everyone" agrees with your edits. nableezy - 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Nobody really cares how many more times President Abbas makes a declaration about the existence of the State of Palestine, since he has already done that on several occasions. For example, the General Assembly adopted a resolution that requires investigations that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the Fact-Finding Mission, towards ensuring accountability and justice.

The Secretary-General addressed that demand to the representatives of Israel and Palestine. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad submitted a formal reply containing a decree signed by the President of the State of Palestine which established an independent investigative commission, in accordance with the recommendation of the Fact-Finding Mission and pursuant to General Assembly resolution 64/10, paragraph 4, dated 5 November 2009. I've added that information to the article.

I haven't seen any published analysis from a reliable source which says the remarks of Fayyad and Abbas regarding the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine, the PA Plan for Ending the Occupation, the "Goldstone report follow ups" submitted to the Secretary-General, & etc. are incompatible with the existence of a Palestinian State. In fact, some of the largest donors to Mr. Fayyad and the PA have always been states and international organizations which recognize the State of Palestine and wish to subsidize the development of its institutions, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Development Bank, and etc. That fact was mentioned in an RFC that is still available in the talk page archives. harlan (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

More history

More information is needed on the the implementation of the plans to divide the area after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The links to the other article did not help and multiple (if not merged) articles should be coming into here. More information on the lack of a state for whatever reason pre Jews is needed. Paris 1919 might be a good place to pull from but the overall lack of info on Wikipedia and consolidating the decentralized info might be a good project for someone with more knowledge of the subject. The lack of online sources is acceptable under guidelines but some assistance in navigating the topic would help many readers. It could also trim down the disputes on multiple pages.Cptnono (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the State of Palestine that was declared in 1988. The General Assembly recognized the unilateral declaration of independence of that entity as being in-line with resolution 181 (II). That resolution terminated the LoN mandate. Palestine's membership applications to the United Nations subsidiary organs subsequently stated that the declaration was a direct consequence of the General Assembly resolution that created a Jewish and Arab state in 1947 and provided for the application of the principles of state succession to treaties, debts, and etc. See UNESCO 131 EX/43.[23] harlan (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

an apparent error

footnote 1 contains the following sentence: 'The United Nations and most countries do not accept Israel's claim over the whole of Jerusalem (see Kellerman 1993, p. 140) and maintain their embassies to Israel in other cities." However there is no "Kellerman" to be found in the biblio or in the references either. Can someone please fix it? Stellarkid (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

done. nableezy - 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1988...

... a lot of States did not yet exist (Slovakia, Slowenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Armenia, Aserbaidshan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Tadjikistan and United Yemen)... even if you would identify Russia with Soviet Union, Czech republic with Czechoslovakia and Serbia with Yugoslavia... on the other hand a few states who recognized Palestine do no longer exist today (East Germany, for example). This should be mentioned in the list and in the map. --Roksanna (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You would need to cite a published source that discusses the recognition practice of the successor or continuation states. For example the Russian Federation claims it is a "continuation state" that still exercises the rights and fulfills the treaty obligations of the former USSR. See Embassy of the State of Palestine in the Russian Federation [24]. harlan (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing Footnote Reference

The following is listed in the Footnotes section, but the link has been removed and an "Error 404 Page Not Found" shows up instead thus this link should be removed.

---

There is mention of Jerusalem's final status awaits future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (see "Negotiating Jerusalem", University of Maryland).

---

Rather than being attacked for removing it, I'll just recommend that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbenton (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is still available from the Web Archive: [25] harlan (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In support of StellarKid and to correct the article

Entry: ""...and only the Jewish state materialized, adopting the name Israel, on approximately three quarters of Mandate Palestine's territory.[12][13][14]...." (with 3 footnotes no less!)

This is completely WRONG. 'Mandate Palestine' included JORDAN.

Google Images 'Mandate Palestine'

http://images.google.com/images?rlz=1T4EGLC_enUS336US336&q=mandate%20palestine&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Arabs got that 77% as Jordan, and the remaining 23% was divided among the rest of the of the Arabs and Jews roughly 13:10 for the Jews.

Meaning, the Arabs got 87% of Mandate Palestine. The Pink and red areas: http://www.agsconsulting.com/articles/isr47prt.jpg

And Half of the Jews 13% was the throw-in/thought-useless Negev desert. The bottom half of the light blue area above.

2/3 of all the land that became Israel was state land (including the 50% Negev) Under the Ottomans; called 'miri'/belonging to the Emir, not to any Arab.

In any Case, even in 'lesser Palestine' Jews did NOT get 3/4. They got about 55%. The remaining percents to get to 70+% was won in the 1948 WAR, the Arabs started, not ceded/designated by the Partition. (Res 181)

Even before that war, in 1947, the area designated Israel had a Healthy Jewish Majority; 540,000 to 390,000.

I know this place has been biased by PCism, Liberalism, and Arabism, but Numbers are NOT Fudgeable gentleman. Then again this IS Wikipedia and this is a politcal issue on which wiki has gone to hell.

Further documentation/illustration gladly provided on request to abu_afak@yahoo.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tempis Fugit (again)

James Crawford's "Creation of States" 2nd Edition includes a reprint of an essay that originally appeared in 1999 as "Chapter 5 Israel (1948-1949) and Palestine (1998-1999): Two Studies in the Creation of States, Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, and Stefan Talmon, eds., The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) page 95-124

In the 2004 Wall case, the interested state parties raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the OPT. They claimed that the case was really a dispute between two states. They tried to make a case for inadmissibility on the ground that Israel had not consented to have the dispute settled by the Court. Crawford said that, although the premise had been cited against the Court answering the request, properly understood it supported the court doing so. See item "(5) This is a dispute between two States: the principle of consent" under the heading "B. Specific arguments related to the OPT: the case for admissibility" on pages 37-38 of Crawford's oral argument.[26].

The article cites a comment from a book review, written by Robert McCorquodale, not James Crawford. Here is the snipped part:James Crawford is also of the view that Palestine (like Taiwan) is not a state, but that the right of self-determination applies to its people.<ref name=EJIL18>{{cite journal|title=James Crawford. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2nd edition, 2006 . Pp. 70. £80 , € 116.58 (hb).ISBN 0198260028|url=http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/18/4/776.pdfjournal=European Journal of International Law|date=2007|page=777}}</ref>

harlan (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Crawford says explicitly that Israel is a state and Palestine is not. He also says explicitly that the British Mandate for Palestine was not a state. Crawford pleaded for the Palestinian side before ICJ and said: "The people of Palestine have an unfulfilled right to self-determination". The book review that you refer to says explicitly that Crawford determined that Palestine and Taiwan are not states, but the Palestinians and Taiwanese have the right for self determination. In his articles (to which you offer reference) Crawford says statehood and right of self-determination are not the same thing (he even says that realization of self-determination does not have to be in the form of a state, and there is no guarantee that the Palestinian choose this way to realize their right). Crawford pleaded against the West Bank barrier, and he was very clear about the basis of his claims. He says Israel cannot build facts on the ground that compromise the Palestinian possibility to realize their self determination's right in the future (read pp. 34-35 of the minutes you linked to). Israel claims that the barrier was build to protect Israeli citizens. Crawford reject this claim, saying the barrier is meant (in his opinion) to unilaterally determine Israel's borders, but he is quite clear about the non-existence of a state called Palestine. 109.67.5.74 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Many Palestinians live in refugee camps outside the State of Palestine and Israel regularly deports more into internal or external exile. The fact that Israel has interfered with the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination has nothing to do with whether or not Palestine is a state. As you noted Crawford says they are not the same thing. In 2004 Crawford said the ICJ wall case was a disagreement between two states. harlan (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Many Basques living in and outside the Basque Land believe that Spain interfere with the rights of Basques to self determination. Should we consider the Basque Land a state? Many Serbians in and outside Kosovo believe that NATO interfered with the sovereignty of Serbia in what concerns Kosovo. Should we deem Kosovo part of Serbia just for this reason? Basically what you are saying is: we should promote a certain political opinion against Israel, whether or not it is true, because you think this is right. And yet, Wikipedia adheres to the rule of NPOV and the ArabCom decision you keep citing says that explicitly. Now, someone below this section gave a detailed account of the errors in the article. You don't bother to introduce his corrections, not because they are untrue (by your silence you admit they are), but because they are not compatible with the political opinion you try to push. As for Crawford, you twist his words. He DOES NOT say it is a dispute between two states. He says it is not an Israeli internal issue. There is a HUGE difference between saying: "The Israeli Palestinian conflict is a conflict between states" and "The conflict is not an internal Israeli issue". Crawford says the latter, not the former, and he brings parallel examples (parallel in his opinion), e.g. Western Sahara which was not a state when the Spanish left it, but the dispute over it was no longer an internal Spanish affair. 79.177.45.157 (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The list of so-called errors was written by a banned user. The only argument from silence is where most of the WP:Synth and unsourced material came from? It will just be fact tagged and removed if it gets added to the article. The Crawford article cited there was written long before the Oslo Accords and does not represent the subsequent changes in Crawford's published views. The article cites published accounts which say that PNA ministers claim they represent a legal state of Palestine that can accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. It also cites reliable sources which say that other states, like Costa Rica, have signed bilateral agreements with the PNA recognizing the State of Palestine.

On page 30 Crawford says he will address "three particular arguments made against admissibility, arguments having particular relevance to the Occupied Territory" on page 34 he says "(5) This is a dispute between two States: the principle of consent 19. The first of these issues is that of consent. Australia objects that: “The effect of the request is to bring key elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before the Court for determination without the consent of Israel.” Palestine authored the General Assembly resolution that requested the Advisory opinion. [27] harlan (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)