Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 20 April 2010

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

Guidelines: Current Article Issue Discussion
This page is a subpage of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Plese read that page before posting here. You may bring specific dispute issues on articles, categories or templates here. Note other help on reliable sources, point of views, biographies etc. might be found at an appropriate notice board. (See Noticeboard list.) Our discussions are moderated and incivility and other problematic postings will be deleted. Moderators also will move postings about problems with, or suggestions for, the project in general to the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration talk page. They will archive resolved or dated issues.

JIDF-Not so much an issue as a heads up

Jewish Internet Defense Force is currently semi-protected. I'm wanting to take advantage of this to push through some fixes that have been needed for a while. I'm cyrrently going through para by para and posting proposed changes on the talk page. I'm inviting comments ro suggestions from members of this project in good standing.

I've gone through the current talk page and most recent archive and have posted a message to each of the non-single purpose accout holders in good standing (with the exception of admins, overseers who were just dealing with single matters). If I had included the accounts thatwho are blocked or topic-banned or single purpose JIDF puppets, I woudl have had to inform three or so times as many people.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

State of Palestine

This article includes original researches and present a distorted image of the Middle East past and present. There was a decision to merge the article with Proposals for a Palestinian state, but suddenly in July 2009 the article was "revived". At first it was written in a reasonable way, but soon certain users introduced various original theses, undue weight to certain opinions and personal interpretations of historical documents. You can read my remarks here and on the talk page of the article. DrorK (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

War results

There has been an effort in several Arab-Israeli war articles, especially Yom Kippur War to change the results of all Arab-Israeli wars to simply "Israel won" always. Another is List of wars 1945–1989, which has ludicrously called the result of the Suez crisis "Israel, UK and France won, Egypt lost" (the standard and obvious view is that Egypt won significantly, Israel won something (but far from achieving its aims), of the losers, not too much happened to France, but the UK lost big.) More eyes are greatly needed.John Z (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that Israel was involved in Black September in Jordan. – Fuzzy – 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Apartheid article again

I've noticed that editors at WP:Israel have been invited along to the following thread Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Undue_weight but the editor has overlooked informing other places. I'm not really interested in the thread, but somepeople here might be. I'll suggest to the editor that WP:Palestine ought to be informed.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of this project existence. If parties are willing, perhaps IPCOLL may be a better place to search for an agreement about form and structure (rather than actual content) of that article. – Fuzzy – 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to this issue

Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#The article: State of Palestine. There is also a lot of information on the article's talk page. To some it up in a few words - the article State of Palestine was edited in a way that suggests such a state already exists. These edits are based on extremely biased external sources, or on false interpretations of certain reliable sources (I gave a full account on the talk page of the article, my apologies if it is not organized enough, it was a ping-pong of remarks and counter-remarks). With regard to information, the article is very poorly written. It simply conveys false information, or, at best, present the information in a way that force people into false conclusions. Attempts to edit the article are constantly blocked by certain users, and believe me, there is plenty to edit there. DrorK (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Matzpen

There is an ongoing dispute between me and User:Breein1007 at this article. A reference to "the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's occupation" and was previously linked to Israeli-occupied territories, but the other editor has repeatedly removed this link, claiming that the article and sources refer only to the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while the linked article refers also to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. He has also suggested that my restoration of the original link constitutes original research. However, the sources do not make this distinction, and Matzpen consistently opposed all Israeli occupation, including that of Sinai prior to 1979. Other contributions would be welcome. RolandR (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've warned you and User:Breein1007 on your Talk pages that you will be blocked if you continue to edit war at Matzpen. Please continue to discuss your concerns on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, is it appropriate for Malik (an Administrator Open to Recall), to try to shut down alerts/discussion of an article on this page? First time I can think of off hand that this has happened in two years. If you feel there should be some limitations to the use of this page, please discuss on the Projects Talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I "shut down" a discussion here, and I apologize if my clumsy wording makes it seem like I did. I was trying to encourage two editors who were edit-warring to discuss their differences instead of continuing their edit war. I thought the article's Talk page is the appropriate forum for that discussion, which had already begun when I left my message, but I think discussion here can be helpful as well. Sincere apologies if you feel I stepped on your toes. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue has been resolved over there anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There certainly may be situations when admins might make some sort of warnings here, but I think it's just helpful for us all to be clear on what they might be since obviously there is a lot of conflict on this issue, as well sometimes actual and suspected POVs among admins. So if anyone has any strong opinions on any possible suggestions or guidelines for the top of this page, please discuss on the Projects Talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration. I myself haven't gotten deep enough into enough admin sanction situations to have a strong opinion, except perhaps when there are some sorts of blocks. But my gut feeling was others have posted when in heated debate and under various warnings so this posting seemed closer to the questionable side. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben-Dror Yemini

...is an important journalist, apparently so important that Israel's Government Press Office (GPO) have recently translated and disseminated a translation of an op-ed of his in a move Amir Mizroch described as "very rare". However, his BLP has absolutely no sources whatsoever. It did have a gigantic external link farm that I've just cleared per WP:EL but I wondered if anyone fancies improving the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lydda/Lod color image from ~1895ish

I've uploaded what I regard as a high quality image from around 1895 of Lydda, Lod or whatever you want to call it, to commons. The existing categorization of Lydda/Lod related things in commons is a little troubling but the image is there if anyone wants to use it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

--copy of message posted at Talk:Lod as the image may be useful elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

References for any entries above

Articles related to Palestinian statehood

This discussion is moved here from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts per User:Taprobanus's suggestion (see below) DrorK (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In the past few months, there is a trend of initiating articles or modifying existing articles in a way suggesting the existence of a Palestinian state. This is done mainly by the use of the name Palestine when referring to the Palestinian territories or to the Palestinian National Authority and by deliberately creating confusion between the term Palestine as a geographical region, as a name of a former British mandate and as a name of a proclaimed state and as the name of the non-state United Nations General Assembly observers.

1. State of Palestine - this article basically repeat the information available on Proposals for a Palestinian state. There was indeed a community decision to merge it with the latter, but it was recently re-initiated. The current version is highly POVized. It is indeed sourced, but many sources are either very biased in nature, or misinterpreted. There were several warnings about this problem, most recently here and here, but in vain. Any attempt to modify the article was reverted mainly due to an effective cooperation between three users User:Tiamut, User:Nableezy and User:Harlan wilkerson this is one evidence of their cooperation (in which I am mentioned).
2. Occupied Palestinian Territory - this is a classical example of POV forking of the article Palestinian territories. Despite detailed and convincing explanations here and here, nothing has been done.
3. Outline of Palestine - this article is actually about the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian territories, and yet its title suggests it should be matched with Palestine which is an article about the geographical region known in English by this name.
4. Telecommunications in Palestine - this article actually talks about the Palestinian territories (cf. Telephone numbers in Palestinian Territories). The use of the name Palestine here is confusing and I suspect the title was chosen for political reasons. DrorK (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User Drork has spent most of his time abusing BRD to remove sourced material and conduct WP:FILIBUSTERS on the talk page to discuss his unpublished opinions. harlan (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You took a much better approach, simply reverting anything that was not in line with your political opinions. DrorK (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Said the pot to the kettle. Really Drork! You have been pursuing this issue with the singlemindedness of a single purpose account. You were blocked for reverting against consensus at State of Palestine, reverting four different editors, no less than six times in 24 hours, and claiming you had the right to do so, because of the WP:TRUTH inherent in your position.

Whether you like it or not, most countries in the world recognize the existence of a State of Palestine. It is a notable subject, worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. Whether you like it or not, the phrase Occupied Palestinian Territory is commonly used to refer to the territories occupied by Israel in the course of the 1967 war. And whether you like it or not, "Palestine" has multiple definitions, and can refer to the procaimed state of the Palestinians, Mandate Palestine or the geographical region. Having an outline cover all three definitions is rather logical, since they all exist(ed) in roughly the same geographical space.

Furthermore, while you attribute the existence of these articles at Misplaced Pages to 3 editors (harlan, Nableezy and I), the fact of the matter is that none of us created or restored these articles. State of Palestine was restored by User:John Z after he noticed that the discussion to redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state involved faulty rationales, not in line with our policies. Occupied Palestinian Territory was restored by User:Ian Pitchford, who noted in his edit summary that the term deserved coverage. And Outline of Palestine was created by User:The Transhumanist as part of the Outline project. Are these editors all in on the conspiracy to delude Misplaced Pages readers? Or is it more likely that you are failing to assume good faith and are loathe to acknowledge that the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources indicate that there is a necessity for these articles? Tiamut 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me put one thing clear, a group of three "Palestinian freedom fighters" is not consensus. I am glad to see that in two or three of the above mentioned article the name was changed from "Palestine" to "Palestinian territories" per consensus decision, but this also means that what you perceive as consensus is not a consensus whatsoever. John Z indeed took too much liberty to break a community decision, and yet he introduced a rather balanced version of the article. It was Harlan, Nableezy and Tiamut who made this article almost a political propaganda. Now I spent too many hours explaining why your work has nothing to do neither with truth nor with verifiability. Harlan is a knowledgeable guy, but he is also politically motivated, and therefore he keeps bringing biased sources. He brought as sources the opinions of two legal counsels to the PLO and PA. Had I based an article upon legal opinions written by Allan Dershowitz, would you approve that? Harlan even reverted the well-established and sourced fact that the British Mandate was based upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration claiming it was a POVized unsourced edit. DrorK (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, you are treading a very thin line right now. You do not have the right to call people "Palestinian freedom fighters" simply for editing in reliably sourced information with which you disagree. Should I start calling you a Zionist diehard who denies Palestinian rights? Do you believe that would be helpful, or harmful to the discussion at hand?

I strongly suggest you start re-reading policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Perhaps also taking a look at WP:BATTLE might help you to understand that your attitude is doing nothing to help foster an atmosphere of collaborative editing. Take twenty steps back, a deep breath, and when you ready to discuss things colegially, please join me at Talk:State of Palestine where I have opened two sections to discuss specific problems with the information you have added there. Thanks. Tiamut 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, what about this edit of yours ? DrorK (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good Drork ...You found one example of exactly the type of comment I should not be making. Quite unfortunate lapse of judgement there. Notice however, that, unlike you, I am not reverting there to try to reimpose my view of what the article title should be, even though I believe the sources to support my position? I expect that in the future, you will be able to accept the will of you fellow editors, with even more grace and magnaminity than I. Tiamut 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

However you do revert here . Can you explain why? Have you noticed that Harlan tried to make the same revert but encountered rejection? Do you think Harlan and your POV is better than others? Why do you think the sources you bring are better than other sources? Have you noticed that whenever I tried to make an edit you and Harlan cried "sources! sources!" and when I brought you sources you said "this is just someone's personal opinion". At the same time both of you introduced biased sources of people consulting to the PLO, anti-Israeli organizations people with radical views etc. When you "heroically" defended the article Occupied Palestinian Territory you agreed (implicitly) that the source you brought to justify the forking was unreliable, and yet you refused to re-merge the article, with all kind of excuses. And I ask you again: are you here to improve the content of this encyclopedia or are you trying to "liberate Palestine" through Misplaced Pages? 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks one can "liberate Palestine" through Misplaced Pages is suffering from delusions of grandeur. I'm here to share information from high quality sources of all POVs on articles in which I have a real life interest. This is, after all, a hobby for which I receive no financial renumeration, and I therefore try to make it as enjoyable it as much I can.

That said, as you don't seem to understand WP:AGF and I'm not at all interested in prolonging unnecessary discussion with someone who only wants to provoke and insult me, I will leave you to cast further aspersions in my absence. I have articles to edit. Enjoy! Tiamut 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Drork, you have followed a consistent pattern of making culturally offensive remarks, refuting a misrepresentation of your opponent's positions, and then attempting to create as much drama as possible when you pretend that you have refuted their actual positions.

You refused to discuss your use of the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to make the editorial statement that "The Mandate's goal was designated as facilitating the establishment of a "Jewish national home"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/history.html |title=History of the Palestine Question |author=Division for Palestinian Rights, United Nations |date=2008||accessdate=6 February 2010}}</ref>. The source you cited doesn't actually contain that remark. The position that you are presenting was specifically rejected by the 1922 Churchill White Paper, the 1939 White Paper, The 1939 Commission on the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, and the UNSCOP Commission. The article mentions published sources which say it was rejected by the ICJ and the Israeli High Court of Justice too. It has also been dismissed by mainstream legal and political media as a fringe theory. If you want that viewpoint included, you should at least find a published source that actually makes the controversial claim and properly attribute it to them. harlan (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Culturally offensive remarks? Such as? Do I know you culture, by the way? I don't know who you are, and what your background is, so even had I been a racist, as you quite rudley suggest, I wouldn't know what kind of offenses would suit you. You've also got the nerve to write that I wasn't willing to discuss. The talk pages are filled with my remarks refuting your arguments one by one. You have brought the most far-fetched sources and the most absurd interpretations to make your point, and when you saw it was futile you resorted to the easy solution of "tag-teaming" with some of your friends and revert articles in turns, As for the source you've brought here, it is only one of many brought to you to establish the aforementioned statement - the mandate charter, the Order in Council about Palestine, the letter on behalf of Churchill to the Arab-Palestinian delegation, and so forth. Whenever such source is brought to you, you dig in a book which is hardly accessible and come up with a twisted interpretation from this legal council or another. This kind of tactics are not appropriate even in courts of law, let alone WP. The UN website you refer to was brought as a contemporary source that cannot be regarded as pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist. Quite the contrary. And this source says "All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the 'Balfour Declaration' issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" . This source strongly refutes your claim that Mandate Palestine was a provisional Arab state, a claim that you've made so prominent in your version of the aforementioned article. DrorK (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

May I asuggest that such "large"issues cannot be solved at the ANI level. Is anyone "misbeaving" which requires an admin "stick", I dont think so try to use other problem resolution processes that are available such as third opion and if everything fails take to arbitration. Another approach is this that worked really well. Taprobanus (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not use this place to solve your problems Taprobanus (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I hope you're playing a more constructive role with respect to these articles than you did with respect to United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, where you bogged things down for months by introducing innovative legal theories which contradicted the basic commonly-understood mainstream widely-accepted view of the results of the resolution, and you were also rather quick to toss around semi-random accusations of "racism" on the article talk page, which had the effect of bringing discussions there about how to improve the article to a grinding halt... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, perhaps you should have checked whether he is or he isn't before you said anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

hi folks. will continue to watch this discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring some more examples of problems. These were discussed in various talk pages, quite in vain:

• Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority -

1. "The Palestinian Declaration of Independence, led to Palestine's recognition by 101 states and to the renaming of the PLO mission in the UN to "Palestine." - This sentence, presented as undisputed fact is actually extremely problematic. We have a statement by the PNA Foreign Minister from 13 Feb 2009 that he can prove only 67 recognitions of states in the 1988 proclaimed State of Palestine. (8th paragraph, this number should include Costa Rica which extended such recognition in 2008).
2. The article implies that the PNA and SoP are actually the same, and they are not. True, the President of PNA also bears the title President of SoP, but these titles were not given to him at the same time, and they don't have the same content. There are many countries (including Israel) that recognize the PNA as a semi-autonomous government, but not the SoP, see for example this statement by the Swedish Foreign Ministry on behalf of the EU (cited on a pro-Palestinian site): .
3. The list of countries on the article should give information about the PNA foreign relations, and yet it is entitled "States that recognise the State of Palestine". The list include 146 states, i.e. it mixes states that recognized SoP and those who have relations with the PNA.
4. The fact that a diplomatic mission of some sort calls itself "embassy" doesn't make it an embassy, nor does it indicate recognition. An ambassador becomes one upon submission of letter of credence. For example, take a look at this official document , does it indicate Maltese recognition of the SoP? Maybe, most probably not. So there is a delegation in Valletta that calls itself "Embassy of Palestine". So what? I can bring more example of this kind.
5. The UN position is carefully phrased, and yet it gives the impression as if the UN eventually recognized the 1988 declaration, and that's not the case. The UN has official lists of member-states, non-member observers, and non-state observer. Currently there is only one non-state observer (the Holy See), Palestine is listed below under the title "other entities" . That means that the acknowledgment of the UN GA did not mean recognition in the 1988 declaration.

• State of Palestine -

1. The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎, dawlat filastin), officially simply Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎, filastin), is a state with limited recognition. - The UN is not convinced, Ban Ki-moon is not convinced , the EU is not convinced, the Swedish Foreign Minister says there is no such thing, the ICC is not convinced , the Palestinians themselves are not fully convinced , but for the en-wp, Palestine is a state. DrorK (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, there are a number of reliable secondary sources (rather than primary sources, which you use to make synth conclusions) that directly refute the points you make above. For example,

• The Sourcebook on public international law (1998) by Tim Hillier"... the proclamation of an independent State of Palestine was officially acknowledged by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1988, and granted recognition by close to 100 states."
• Jerome M. Segal writing in Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1997) edited by Tomis Kapitan: "On November 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council, meeting in Algiers in its nineteenth session and acting in the name of the Palestinian people, issued a declaration of independence proclaiming the existence of the state of Palestine. Shortly thereafter, more than 100 governments recognized the state of Palestine."
• The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution by Jacob Bercovitch and I. William Zartman: "... in 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared the state of Palestine on the basis of the UN partition plan from 1947 that proposes one Jewish and one Arab state. At the time of the declaration, the PLO did not control one inch of territory, and yet over 100 states recognized the state of Palestine. Hence, the factual conditions many states require for recognition have changed over the years, and ultimately recognition remains a political act."

These are just three examples. There are hundreds more. Indeed the phrase the "state of Palestine" is discussed in more than 1000 books (as evidence in a google book search). The fact that you do not like this or that you do not think it is a state is your own unsourced opinion that you support using primary source evidence, which is not the way we source things here at Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry that you do not want to accept that people with expertise in this subject area disagree with your personal opinion. But you are going to have get over it. We don't write according to your opinion, but according to what reliable sources have to say. Tiamut 18:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this source which you are using to support your claim that the state of Palestine declared in 1988 is recognized by only 67 states, nowhere mentions the 1988 declaration. As it is the Palestinian Authority that i making this statement and they have nothing to do with the 1988 declaration which was made by the PLO, I believe this number refers to the number of governments that interact with the Palestinian Authority as though it is the representative of the State of Palestine. I say this because there is no other source that uses the number "67", while there are tens of sources which explicitly cite the 1988 declaration and give figures of about 100 countries or more.

I also find it hugely hypocritical for you to say in point #2 that the Palestinian Authority and the SoP are not the same, while insisting in point #1 on giving absolute primacy to a source citing the Palestinian authority on how many countries recognize the SoP. The relationship between the PLO and the PA is a complicated one that is discussed by a reliable source in our article which defines "Palestine" as a transitional association between the PLO and PA. That source is from 1997 and things have changed since then. It seems that the PA is moving towards making a declaration of statehood which would see it become the State of Palestine, while possibly absorbing the PLO (a potential development discussed in this RS from 2003 ).

About point #3, I don't know which list you are referring to. Clearly, if the State of Palestine and the Palestinian authority remain two independent but related bodies, there should be pages on the foreign relations of both. In the State of Palestine, countries that recognize the State of Palestine are clearly distinguished from those which do not recognize the state but do maintain diplomatic relations with Palestinian representatives nonetheless.

Regarding point #4, details concerning the sourcing for each entry should be discussed on the talk page of the articles concerned in specific terms, one by one. I will say however that terming a Palestinian diplomatic presence in a given country the "Embassy of Palestine" is pretty damn clear. Nevertheless, I can see how one could argue that using a primary source to support such a designation is simply insufficient. Again, I suggest these issues be discussed entry by entry on the pages concerned. Tiamut 18:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What role do Misplaced Pages editors play in determining the existence of States?

Many other States have legally recognized that a Palestinian state exists as a "person of law". See Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. There are plenty of discussions in the mainstream press by jurists, legal scholars, and political commentators that have noted that a majority of states recognize Palestine as a state

Drork can't complain about political decisions made by sovereign States, or the reports in the mainstream press. So, he complains instead that Misplaced Pages editors are "suggesting the existence of a State of Palestine."

Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidoth recently explained that the Palestinians have already unilaterally declared statehood, and they did not need to do it again. She said "Recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state." See Lieberman warns against '67 borders, Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2009 L.C. Green discussed the Declaration of the State of Palestine and said that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government."

The Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States section 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. Ordinarily, a new state is formally recognized by other states". Despite those facts editors are routinely forced to endure overwhelmingly unnecessary and insulting discussions when they try to write about this topic. I don't believe that Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to set-up Ad Hoc tribunals on talk pages and attempt to "refute" or overrule the political decisions made by States or endlessly harass other users in that connection. harlan (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the UN (and more recently the ICJ) plays a crucial role in determining what is a full blown state. This would imply that Palestine, North Cyprus, Kosovo and Taiwan are nto states, though I must confess that I have always thought of this last as a state. Its probably its age as an effectively independent state that influences me.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The International Bill of Rights is codified in two Covenants. Both of them provide that all peoples have the right of self-determination, and that by virtue of that right they freely determine their own political status. The UN has declared that the right of self-determination, is a norm of international law with a nature of jus cogens, but only "peoples" are entitled to self-determination in contemporary international law. See Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986, page 170. The ICJ has already ruled that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right to self-determination, their own territory, and their own state (see below). Here is another example: "The European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto.

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 The fact that the United Nations does not play a direct role in the recognition of states has already been discussed on the Palestine and State Of Palestiine talk pages. In the article cited above 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 the Kosovo case the US argued that it was doubtful that Security Council resolutions were binding on non-state actors like Kosovo and that its statehood was inevitable because it had been recognized by 45 other states. 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.

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

Conversely many entities have been admitted as members of the United Nations while they were colonies (India), mandates (Syria and Lebanon), or not considered independent Philippines, Belorus, and Ukraine. The same holds true today for the so-called micro-states. Philip Jessup served as a representative of the United States to the United Nations and as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:

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

The International Court of Justice said that Israel had recognized the existence of a "Palestinian people" and referred a number of times to the Palestinian people and its "legitimate rights" in international agreements. The Court said those rights include the right to self-determination. See paragraph 118 of Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Judge Koroma explained "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." Judge Higgins also said "that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State." See paragraph 5, Separate opinion of Judge Koroma and paragraph 18, Separate opinion of Judge Higgins harlan (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A few points regarding what have been said above:

1. We are not lawyering here, and WP is not a legal journal. A the State of Palestine was not registered as "Palestine Inc." or "Palestine Ltd." A state is much more than an artificial legal entity, it also have some natural features which we all know well.
2. The PA took upon itself the task of getting recognition in the 1988 proclaimed SoP. It means two things - (a) that they don't believe such a state is actually recognized (otherwise, why bother? It's simple logic) (b) that it took upon itself to advocate for SoP, not necessarily that it sees itself as SoP. In 1947-48 there were Zionist bodies advocating in favor of a Jewish state or later on State of Israel. It did not mean they were the State of Israel themselves.
3. Had the existence of SoP been obvious, the ICC wouldn't have needed so much time to investigate the issue. He would simply have taken for granted its existence.
4. Kosovo, Taiwan, Somaliland, TR of N Cyprus etc. are de facto states, namely they function as states but lack international recognition. The State of Palestine has no existence de facto, i.e. nothing on the ground that would suggest statehood. Most, if not all, of the countries in the world (including Israel, in fact) expressed a position that such a state should exist, but that does not mean it actually exists.
5. Harlan's often brings legal opinions of scholars and judges, but they are irrelevant here (if he cites them correctly, which is not always the case). The existence of a right for self determination does not mean this right is actually materialize.
6. The fact that Social Soviet Republic of Ukraine was a UN-member made no one in the world think it was independent. SoP was not even accepted as a UN-member. It is not even defined as a state in the UN official listing. As per the UN, SoP is in a lower position than the SSR of Ukraine as far as statehood is concerned.
7. There is no need to dig into US laws. The uncontested fact is that the US does not recognize a state called Palestine. Either the US government acts in an illegal way, or you misinterpret the US law. Either way, it's not our business. We are concerned with the US official position, and it is clear.
8. The aforementioned lists of countries allegedly recognizing SoP suffer from many problems: (1) They include countries that ceased to exist, e.g. the Soviet Union, East Germany etc. (2) They include countries that did not extended explicit recognition, but merely "acknowledged" or "welcomed" the 1988 declaration, e.g. Malta, Austria, Greece (3) They include countries that underwent profound constitutional reform, such as Romania and Mongolia. It is unclear whether their recognition stands after this change. In the case of Iran-Israel relation, Iran's recognition in Israel was revoked after the Islamic Revolution.
9. All in all, the very fact that certain users resort to complex legal interpretations, proves that SoP cannot be presented as a "state with limited recognition" on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is about verified facts, and this phrase doesn't qualify as a verified factual statement. DrorK (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"This Is The Song That Never Ends"... The Restatement of US Foreign Relations Law reflects customary state practice. You claim this isn't a court. However, you always start by climbing up on a soapbox and rattling-off your own "legal-sounding" list of criteria, while insisting it is mandatory. You also ignore conflicting criteria published by reliable sources, like Lapidoth, Eban, Green, and the States that have recognized Palestine. They all claim recognition is a sovereign prerogative, and that it is a political act.

The passage from the UNESCO series on "Recognition of States" explains "there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision which depends on the judgment of the recognizing government. The underlying factors, nevertheless, are not solely legal, but in many cases they are mainly political." See "IV Recognition of States", International law: achievements and prospects UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui editor, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 47-48

Like it or not, relations between States are governed by political considerations and international law. harlan (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) You MAY NOT add titles that include personal attacks against me to my remarks! (I hope I am clear enough) (2) You bring all kind of sources, but none of them proves that there is a state called Palestine. Therefore, you cannot treat it as a fact. It is YOU who are introducing an original research here. May I remind you that WP uses statements based on plain straightforward sources. So many people, including Palestinians, said a state called Palestine does not exist (yet), see the sources I've brought above, and yet you want us to say it exist based on tortuous legal interpretations. (3) You are proving my point by citing "there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood". If so, and considering all the statements I've mentioned, how can we be in a position to say "Palestine is a state"? Is it just because certain editors wish it were true? DrorK (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You've already taken this issue to the original research noticeboard, and they did not agree with you. According to the published sources cited above and in the articles, there are more than 100 states that have determined that Palestine fulfills their criteria for recognition as a State. Lapidoth and Quigley have noted that there is no doubt the Palestinian leadership has already claimed Palestine is a legal state, and they don't need to do that again. You haven't shown any reason why other States can't recognize Palestine, or why you get to constantly pester other editors who cite and quote what reliable published sources have said about this topic. harlan (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Harlan, Quigley's opinion about the matter is significantly undermined by this article , and in any case his opinion cannot be said to be mainstream. You tend to ignore articles which you don't like. Other scholars you relied upon are legal advisors to the PA or PLO, so their opinion is biased toward their clients by definition (otherwise they would be bad legal advisors). As I showed you, the 100 figure is a myth that the Palestinians themselves don't believe. Of course, if I count countries that don't exist anymore, and interpret "acknowledgment" as "recognition", I can score many points, but they are not very meaningful. I never saw the statement of Lapidoth. I suspect you misread it. Then again, if you have to rely on so many legal interpretations and opinions, isn't it enough to say that the existence of SoP is not a fact? Do you need to bring legal opinions about the existence of France? Mexico? Luxembourg? Do you need Quigley or Lapidoth to tell you that Mongolia exists as a state? Do you reckon the UN Secretary-General and the Swedish Foreign Minister should take lessons from Quigley in order to learn what a state is? Or in other words, what makes Quigley's opinion better than the what these two figures say, as well as Salam Fayyad? DrorK (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Drork, you are still filibustering. For a guy who is complaining about other people, you sure use a lot of awkward oversights, strained semantics, and imprecise or over-reaching definitions.

John Quigley's books and articles have been cited as standard reference works on the subject by the UN Juridical Yearbook and in the written submissions of interested State parties in the 2004 Wall case. You have repeatedly been asked to take up any issues you might have at the reliable sources noticeboard.

The latest published figures say that more than 130 countries recognize Palestine. Even if we accept your arguments, there are dozens of states remaining from the list published on the PA website back in 2002. You are never going to reduce that number in any significant way. Many of the cases that you presented on the article talk page show evidence of sloppy deductive reasoning. In any case, a Misplaced Pages article talk page isn't the place to conduct original research.

I'm the editor who added the citation to Robert Weston Ash's journal article and Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon's quote about the non-existence of the State of Palestine to the article. Both men are entitled to their opinion, but neither raised any issues that require Misplaced Pages community action.

The Article 12(3) declaration that the PA delivered to the ICC constituted another unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. That is very relevant to a lot of legal scholars in and of itself as an act of state. The implications of that act seem to be Mr. Ash's chief concern. He is employed by Pat Robertson's American Center For Law and Justice/Regent University. Robertson opposes the recognition of any Palestinian entity, and claimed that Ariel Sharon's stroke was "God's punishment for dividing up the land". Among other things, Ash's article argues that a careful reading of the Geneva Convention and the works of Yehuda Blum, Eugene Rostow, and Moshe Arens made it clear to him that the Geneva Convention isn't applicable to Israel's presence in the occupied territories. To put it politely, the ICJ, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention, and most legal publicists have come to the conclusion that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian territory can't be justified by those old shop-worn arguments about the applicability of the Geneva Convention. Here is a typical example "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." harlan (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you are wikilawyering, and this is not helpful whatsoever. We are not discussing here the Israeli settlements. We are not discussing the rights of the Palestinians or whether a Palestinian state should exist. We are not discussing the Geneva convention, and the fact that you don't like some of Ash's claims, doesn't make Quigsley a better source. My point is, that you cannot "establish a state" based on Quigsley, and you cannot ignore clear statements about the currently non-existence of a Palestinian state based on a legal interpretation which encountered serious objection. I don't see why I should trust all kind of lists, rather than a Palestinian declaration about the number of state recognizing the 1988 proclaimed state. The idea that the Palestinian appeal to the ICC constitute a declaration of state is your own, and it is not a mainstream idea. What you are trying to do is turning these articles into legal essays, and mislead readers to think these essays are description of attested facts. That is the problem here. DrorK (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, all of the sources cited in the article, including Quigley, Dugard, Ash, and the Today's Zaman article explain that only a state can make an Article 12(3) declaration like the one the PA submitted to the ICC. The Zaman article said

"In accordance with the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, only a state can accept the court's jurisdiction and allow such an investigation to be launched. Last month, Kashan and Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki announced that they had submitted documents to Moreno-Ocampo that proved Palestine was a legal state with the right to request such a probe. Today we came to deliver a set of documents that shows that Palestine as a state ... has the ability to present a case to the court and to ask for an investigation into crimes committed by the Israeli army"

That is NOT my personal interpretation and I notice you didn't cite any "mainstream" source that disagrees about the meaning of the PA declaration or those documents. harlan (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, old habits are hard to break, but do try to stop talking like a lawyer who present a case, and start thinking about how to convey information in a clear trustworthy way. The lead of the article says Palestine is a state with limited recognition. That is a misleading phrasing that put SoP in the same group of Taiwan, TRNC, Transnistria, Abkhazia etc. In fact, the SoP is a totally different case. It was a state declared outside its proclaimed territory and never materialized the status which it unilaterally declared. Furthermore, the Palestinians themselves do not consider it an actual state, as they continue talking about establishing/creating/declaring a Palestinian state. I am not going to bring sources again, because they are already here on this page, or possibly on the relevant articles' talk pages. Now, you want to teach the English speaker what a state is according to your own criteria, and the scholars that you prefer, but it doesn't work this way. You have to use the term "state" in a clear straightforward way. DrorK (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, in this 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) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sm8900, there are obviously countries that consider the existing state institutions in Jericho, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, and Gaza adequate enough to extend recognition of statehood. PA discussions about rolling back the occupation and building state institutions in other areas doesn't require any new declarations.

The Haaretz headline is the only thing that mentions that Abbas is considering the possibility of declaring a state. But Abbas doesn't actually say that in the article. Haaretz is citing an Agence France-Presse report that said Abbas was considering asking for recognition. President Abbas said that the State of Palestine is already in existence and that the current battle is to have the state's borders recognized. The Jerusalem Post recently did the same thing. Their headline claimed that Reuters had reported "Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine'", but the Reuters headline actually said: EU's Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state.

Statehood does not depend upon recognition by the UN or other states. Recognition by other states is the method of determining the statehood of an entity. An occupied or unrecognized state is still a state with rights and responsibilities under international law. Ironically, states that bring claims against unrecognized states are frequently the very same ones that withhold recognition. See for example International law: a dictionary, By Boleslaw Adam Boczek, page 91 There are many provisions of the US code that prohibit actions to the detriment of foreign states, such as murdering their officials, that apply to foreign governments "irrespective of recognition".

The Jpost article is still in Google cache that says "Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidot said that it is not the UN's role, much less that of the Security Council, to confer statehood. The Palestinians, she said, have already unilaterally declared statehood, and they did not need to do it again. Recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state. Should the Palestinians seek admission to the UN as a state, she said, the Security Council would have to recommend that the matter be taken up by the General Assembly. The Palestinians would then need to secure a two-thirds majority to be accepted as a member state of the UN. harlan (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in Lapidot's words that suggest a state called Palestine exists. She said there had been a declaration. She did not say this declaration brought about the creation of a state. That is your interpretation. In fact, she contest the notion that the UN, whose resolutions you cherish so much, is the indicator for statehood. DrorK (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, she most definitely said one declaration was enough and that "Recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state." She didn't mention anything about Misplaced Pages editors having a veto. I have always advised you that the UN does not play any direct role in the recognition of states. It most definitely can impose a border settlement ala Iraq/Kuwait. You still have not answered the basic question "What role do Misplaced Pages editors play in determining the existence of States? I'm interested in hearing what the community has to say about that. But I'm inclined to ask the question over at the Original Research Noticeboard. harlan (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a declaration that never materialized. Should they manage to establish a state, they could do without the declaration. They already paid "the fee", so they won't have to pay it again if they ever actually "join the club" (so to speak). Misplaced Pages has no role in determining the existence of states, hence we cannot present SoP as an existing state. We describe reality, not wishful thinking. What we have here is a declaration, and we have an article about that declaration. Declaration is not a state. It is a classical case of ceci n'est pas une pipe. It is not a state, it is a declaration of state. DrorK (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia may not be the final authority on whether there is a state called Palestine. however, neither is a group of politicians, even if they are Palestinians. The real authority is from major world organizations. here is a link to one group which does not recognize any state called "Palestine." http://www.un.org/en/members/ --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on this. The UN doesn't recognize de facto states like Taiwan, Somaliland and others. According to the Duck Principle these are states despite limited or non-recognition (of course the non-recognition issue should be mentioned). SoP is the opposite case: It doesn't look like a state, it doesn't make sounds of a state, but some want to term it a state. The UN recognize an political entity called Palestine, but it does not term it a state, but rather as "other entity" (as opposed to another non-member, the Holy See, which is described explicitly as a state). I think the UN is correct in this specific point, but I wouldn't make the UN lists a standard. DrorK (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The primary organs of the UN have recognized the Palestinian people and their permanent sovereignty over the Palestinian territory. Those organs have each said that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right to self-determination, their own territory, and their own state. They have even created subsidiary organs with the permanent responsibility of insuring the exercise of those rights. "Entity" is a legal term of art, i.e. "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government." harlan (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, interesting reply. I appreciate your integrity in expressing a difference of opinion even on comments which support your view. However, my answer would be that the question here is how does Misplaced Pages handle such cases. Here is how Misplaced Pages describes Taiwan; the entry does not call it a state.

The Republic of Taiwan is a goal of supporters of Taiwan independence in creating a Taiwanese state unambiguously separated from ],<ref>{{cite book|last=Copper|first=J.|title=Historical Dictionary of Taiwan (Republic of China)|publisher=The Scarecrow Press|date=2000|isbn=0810836653}}</ref> covering (at most) the areas currently under the control of the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu Islands and some minor islands). In this sense, sometimes the State of Taiwan (Táiwān Gúo; Tâi-oân Kok) is used to avoid prejudging a republican polity.

that seems relevant to this issue. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a speech by the Palestinian primie minister. On page 3, he talks about a "future" state. http://www.passia.org/conferences/2007/SalamFayadPaper.pdf Also, here is a quote from his entry at Misplaced Pages: "On August 23, 2009, Fayyad came out with a...plan for...establishing the fundamental infrastructures of a Palestinian State, ...in which he detailed a two years working plan for building the infrastructures and institutions of the future Palestinian State, ....with the purpose of establishing a "de facto Palestinian State", based on the premise that the peace talks with Israel were faltering <ref>Ali Waked, , ], August 25 2009</ref> --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You guys are not bringing up any viewpoints or analysis that isn't already contained in the State of Palestine article. It cites and quotes sources, like Ban Ki Moon and Ash, who say the State of Palestine doesn't exist yet. It also cites a Japanese Justice Ministry decision to recognize Palestinian nationality. Japan said the PA's institutions were comparable to those of a full fledged state, and therefore it had decided to stop considering all Palestinians as stateless. The article says "The existence of a state of Palestine, although controversial, is nonetheless a reality in the opinions of the many states that have established bilateral diplomatic relations. A number of publicists and legal experts have noted that the majority of other states have legally recognized the State of Palestine." There are multiple sources provided to support that statement.

The State of Palestine article already cites Fayyad's two year plan and a secondary source, Jerome Segal, who points out that it references the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine as having established the foundations of the State. Fayyad's plan calls for expanding the existing jurisdiction of the PA to the entire area inside the 1967 borders, and he needs to build-up the institutions of government in order to do that, e.g. add more trained and equipped Palestinian security forces, and etc.

The article cites Israel’s representative at the United Nations who said that under agreements reached between the two sides, the Palestinian Authority already exercises jurisdiction over many natural resources, while interim cooperation and arrangements were in place for others (See General Assembly Doc. GA/EF/3219, 20 October 2008 ); the fact that the PA operates courts where Israeli laws are not directly enforceable; existing bilateral agreements between the State of Palestine and other states like Costa Rica; and sources like Watson's Oslo Accords and Al Haq which say that the Palestinian Authority exercises criminal jurisdiction over Palestinian inhabitants. harlan (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very good, but the overall impression derived from the article is not in line with the aforementioned resources. It is not only an issue of what, it is also an issue of how. If the article start with the statement "Palestine is a state with limited recognition" then something is wrong. Taiwan (Republic of China) is a state with limited recognition, and it is not in the same category with SoP. Funnily enough, Taiwan has government over defined territory, citizens affiliated to it, independent army, independent legal system, independent monetary system, foreign relations with most countries in the world (though usually no official diplomatic missions), and yet no UN representation, while Palestine, on the other hand, has some kind of representation in the UN, several embassies scattered around the world, but no territory, no citizens, no monetary system, no independent legal system, no army and so forth. If you will, SoP is the mirror image of Taiwan, and yet you put them both in the same basket. The article should be deeply revised to reflect the sources which it is allegedly based upon. DrorK (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I cited the published sources that I'm using in the first post that I made at the top of the parent thread. They appear in the article too. It is you and Sm8900 who are drawing imaginary inferences from your own comparisons of Taiwan and Palestine. You are always trying to make tendentious use of a Misplaced Pages article about an entirely different subject, diplomatic recognition, as if that is same thing or a reliable source. Here is an article which says that the government of Israel had declared Gaza an enemy entity or hostile territory. It says that Israel was frustrated because Hamas was showing that it can govern the Strip. While I'm no fan of Hamas, they did win the parliamentary elections and the US State Department says here that they "violently seized power in Gaza in June 2007". The same advisory says "The security environment in the West Bank has improved markedly since June 2007, with a significant increase in the number of trained Palestinian Authority security forces deployed to urban areas such as Jericho, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Jenin." harlan (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of us two is surely confused, and you homed in on the wrong guy. The analogy to Taiwan is very relevant here, and the status of Taiwan vs. the status of the proclaimed State of Palestine is not something that requires a source, unless you demand sources also for the claim that the Mediterranean is locked within three continents, or that English is the most widely spoken language in Australia. BTW, it is often easier to find sources claiming, for example, that JFK was killed in a conspiracy than articles that assert the common knowledge that he was murdered by a single person. This is due to the fact that people write about the unusual. Writing about obvious things is often a waste of time (not always, though). The fact that so many articles try to argue that SoP exists, is, ironically, an indication of a problem. I can't find many articles discussing the existence of the French Republic, and there aren't so many articles discussing the non-existence of SoP (other than response to the aforementioned claims).

Misplaced Pages does not recognize states. Misplaced Pages describes attested facts. Right now, Misplaced Pages describes a yet-existing yet-to-exist state as if it were an actual state, in a status similar to that of Taiwan or T.R. of Northern Cyprus. This is a false description that mislead readers. It misleads those who support Palestinian statehood as well as those who object it. Both factions deserve a reliable description of the state-of-affairs, whether it makes them happy or sad.

Finally, Israel does not recognize the Gaza Strip or the Palestinian Authority as states. It recognizes them as foreign political entities, and even that is debatable, because some countries claim Israel is still an occupying power in Gaza, and some Israeli organizations (most notably B'Tselem) claim that the Israeli control over the PA makes it, in fact, an Israeli-dependent entity. As for Hamas (not really relevant for this discussion, but still) - it indeed forcefully seized control over the Gaza Strip. In a democratic regime, the party that wins the elections is not entitled to shoot members of the opposition and create a one-party regime for indefinite time. DrorK (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As DrorK said: "This is a false description that mislead readers. It misleads those who support Palestinian statehood as well as those who object it. Both factions deserve a reliable description of the state-of-affairs, whether it makes them happy or sad." Bingo bingo bingo. ding ding ding. Palestinians do not have a state,. they have been deprived of one by the machinations of the colonialist imperialist power of Israel and its policies which are draconian, mechanistic, and...sorry what other adjectives do you folks like to use for Israel? :-) Sorry, whatever, it is, the point is that palestinians do not have a state. they are occupied, as you guys like to emphatically make clear. Palestinians are disenfranchised and stateless. Why else are so many of them in refugee camps under UNRWA? remember them? it's not as if those refugees are being used as a political pawn, through the self-serving plans of some world organizations, is it? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As reliable sources have said, states can recognize any entity they want as a state. It doesn't matter if that makes you happy or sad, because you don't get a vote. Neither of you have been published, and you are not entitled to ask that significant published points of view be suppressed. The President of Palestine says the state already exists, and apparently, 130 other countries agree. The Foreign and Justice Ministers have provided statements to the press which say that Palestine is a legal state that can accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. Several qualified jurists and law professors agree with them. You haven't brought up any points of view here that aren't already contained in the article, much less explained what role disgruntled Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to play in determining the existence of states. Until you do, I think we can go on citing and quoting published sources which say there is a State of Palestine and that it does not cease to exist simply because it is occupied by Israel. harlan (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan - you make several crucial errors in this discussion: (a) I, and anyone else here, are entitled to question the reliability and/or relevance and/or impartiality of a any source. You cannot just bring a source and say: accept it per the principle of Verifiability. Some sources are biased, hence not so trustworthy, some sources are irrelevant to the question at hand; even if they seem somewhat related to it; some sources are too innovative for WP's purposes; some sources treat the issue from too narrow a perspective. Most of the sources you bring are very interesting for a legal journal or as a basis for a dissertation, but they are "contaminated" with all or some of the above-mentioned problems. (b) You base you claims on uncertain or false information. How can you say 130 countries recognized SoP when the a Palestinian senior official say he can prove only 67 official recognitions (after the recent ones extended by Costa Rica and Lebanon)? I have already shown you that the list you trust are not trustworthy. Just as an example - Malta's official letter after the 1988 proclamation says nothing about recognition, and yet Malta appears in all of these lists. As of now, the ICC did not accept the PA request to be recognized as a state for the purpose of ICC jurisdiction. It issued an announcement saying it has to investigate the issue. This is hardly a recognition, and the fact that some jurists support the PA in its request is less important than the ICC's reaction to it. (c) You think that if you write in the lead of an article "There is a state called Palestine" and then in the body of the article: "but some people think it does not exist", then your work is done. No - your work is done once the article's phrasing fairly and clearly conveys the relevant information. Sources are something to be used as a solid ground, not as a hideout. DrorK (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As i mentioned above, in this 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) 19:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have ever challenged any of the sources cited in the article at the reliable sources noticeboard, I've not heard anything about it. You keep repeating the same flakey WP:OR and WP:Synth analysis over and over again. You waste everyone's time and fill-up the talk page with analysis that you can't source or incorporate in the article.

You don't have any Palestinian official saying that he can "only prove 67 recognitions". That is just an example of the type of exaggerated claims you've made, which only serve to undermine your credibility. The article cites a 1989 UN working document which listed 94 member states that had recognized the SoP, including the dates they extended recognition. The list was circulated to all of the members as UNESCO working document 131 EX/43 during the session that considered SoP's application as a member state. It reflected the fact that Malta recognized SoP on 16/11/1988. The article also cites other sources regarding Malta's recognition of SoP, including Tessler, Mark A. (1994), "A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (2nd, illustrated ed.), Indiana University Press, 1994, p. 722: "Within two weeks of the PNC meeting, at least fifty-five nations, including states as diverse as the Soviet Union, China, India, Greece, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Malta, and Zambia, had recognized the Palestinian state." You searched UNISPAL and cited a related working document of the General Assembly and Security Council, A/43/930/-S/20320 with a different date: 12/12/1988, in which Malta "Reaffirms its recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to a state of their own.". You continue to make a completely unfounded WP:Synth claim that Malta never recognized the SoP. Those ideas are the result of your own sloppy original research.

The article cites a number of scholars from non-legal fields who have written on matters related to political science or foreign relations, e.g. Avi Plascov, Sandra Berliant Kadosh, Joseph Massad, Clea Bunch, and Jerome Segal. harlan (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I often wonder if you bother using the links people bring here. Here is one of them: , AFP, Feb 13, 2009 (8th paragraph - "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". Riad al-Malki is the Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority. He submitted these documents to the ICC, asking it for recognition as a state. Referring to the role of Hamas in this issue, Al-Malki said: "We represent the Palestinian occupied territories. We are not going to ask permission from one faction or another". A few paragraphs above AFP report says: "Moreno-Ocampo said earlier this month he would determine whether there was such a legal entity as a Palestinian state". Apparently it isn't so obvious to him as it is obvious to you, and he is the ICC chief prosecutor.

As for Malta - a secondary source cannot be deemed reliable if it says something which is completely contradictory to a plain simple statement in the primary source upon which it is supposed to be based. The wording of the Maltese declaration is simple English. If someone wants to interpret it as recognition in SoP, much joy may he have, but it would be very hard to treat him as a reliable source. I don't need a scholar to tell me that the US Constitution's 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. It says so explicitly. Would you trust a source saying that there is actually no such protection in the US law? Similarly, can you trust a source saying Malta recognized SoP, when its statement clearly says that "Reaffirms its recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to a state of their own"? I would suggest you find better resources to rely upon. Now, I don't know where you find that list you were talking about (you didn't provide a link), but do you think such a list overrides all plain clear statements given about this issue, on behalf of the Palestinian themselves among others, and make the existence of SoP a matter of fact? DrorK (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, you claimed a Palestinian senior official said "he can prove only 67 official recognitions", but the old article you cited doesn't actually say that. In fact, Al-Khashan submitted additional material in support of the declaration to the Prosecutor at a subsequent meeting held on 16 October 2009. See paragraph 10 The ICC has stated that a conclusive determination on Palestine's declaration will have to be made by the judges. See the ICC Questions and Answers.

You haven't produced the primary source in connection with Malta. According to the UNESCO document, Malta recognized SoP on 16/11/1988. You are performing a WP:Synth analysis on a letter dated 12/12/1988. We can't edit articles based on your original research. harlan (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... The list was submitted to UNESCO by Algeria, Indonesia, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Yemen. None of the countries mentioned in it approved or disproved the information as far as we can tell, except Austria, which is probably the reason for Corrigendum 1 saying that Austria should be deleted from the list. Lebanon is mentioned in the list without a date. This report from AFP Lebanon to establish ties with 'Palestine' suggest that such recognition was probably never extended before 2008. The list also includes Namibia, which was not independent at the time (the list says "SWAPO" in parenthesis, but SWAPO and Namibia are not exactly the same thing). Byelorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR, despite having voting rights in the UN, were not independent states, but part of the USSR. In any case, they ceased to exist, just as the USSR ceased to exist. Other countries in the list that ceased to exist: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, German Democratic Republic, Democratic Yemen, Democratic Kampuchea (today Cambodia with a totally different regime), Zaire (today: Dem. Rep. of the Congo, with totally different regime). The Eastern European countries mentioned underwent radical regime change, namely overthrow of the communist regime, and some of them joined the EU, which is also a radical change in foreign obligations. Mongolia also overthrown its former communist regime, and this act has relevant consequences/

So, to sum it all up, even if I take your word about Malta, this list is still not very credible, and moreover - it is not updated. The fact that GDR and Yugoslavia recognized SoP is as relevant as the recognition of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the USSR. DrorK (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, where does it say that you get to harrass editors for citing and quoting reliable published sources that represent a major viewpoint? You've been supplied with verifiable references to recent (2009) publications which say Palestine has been recognized by 130 countries. Take your arguments to the reliable sources noticeboard or shut-up. Your guesswork about continuity vs. succession of states and recognition is not useful to anybody without a published source that actually supplies that analysis.

You've stated a number of times now that you don't have to supply sources. You continue to introduce unsourced and controversial statements in the lede of the State of Palestine article after lengthy discussions in which that material has been challenged. Those statements are contradicted by the verifiable and reliably sourced contents of the article.

The article notes that Lebanon, and the other Arab League States, have always safeguarded the right of Palestinians to a state of their own. Palestine was admitted as a member state decades ago and the League amended its Constitution to stipulate that the existence and independence of Palestine cannot be questioned de jure, even though the outward signs of this independence have remained veiled as a result of force majeure. See Henry G. Schermers and Niels M. Blokker, International Institutional Law, Hotei, 1995-2004, ISBN-10: 9004138285, page 51 I've pointed out to you several times now that there is a legal difference between diplomatic recognition and recognition of states, but you still seem to be pretty clueless about the subject. harlan (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Slanders and insults won't make you look more reliable or less biased. You have nothing new out up your sleeve, just the same old arguments as if recognition of the right to self determination means recognition as a state. This is an absurd. The League of Nations recognized the right of Jews to self determination in Palestine in 1922. Would you say that the State of Israel was recognized in 1922? The EU and the US recognize the right of Palestinians to self determination in the WB&Gaza Strip, would you say that the EU and the US recognize a state called Palestine? As for the Arab League issue - Israel and Syria are both member-state of the UN and several other international organization. Would say that Syria recognized the State of Israel? Now, if you want to write an article about the difference between diplomatic recognition and recognition of states, or about the notion of statehood in various legal sources - be my guest, but you won't be kind enough to do it, because you are here only for one reason, namely promoting your political views. I have already showed you that many of your sources are not reliable, or not reliable in this specific context. A legal advisor to the PA or the PLO cannot be regarded as a reliable source due to conflict of interest. A list that refer to Namibia as an independent state before it declared independence cannot be regarded a reliable source. Suggesting that the GDR decisions about international relations are valid after Germany's reunification is nonsense, and you won't find a source to support that because it is too obvious. People don't write articles about obvious things. Actually, this is the main problem with your claims - you bring innovative sideline theories that cannot be refuted by sources because they are not deemed serious enough. No scholar would waste his time arguing with someone who suggest that a state is merely a folder of papers which includes a declaration and some letters of recognition. What I do find interesting about your last post is the idea that the Arab League considers the lack of Palestinian independence the result of force majeure. Somehow, in the UN, they claimed it was Israel's fault. DrorK (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitray Break I

Drork, the ROC claimed that it was part of China and that it was the legitimate government of China. It did so long after most states had recognized the PRC as the government of China. The PRC also claims that Taiwan is part of China. All of that is discussed in "The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §201 Reporters note 8". It says that "If Taiwan should claim statehood, it would in effect be purporting to secede from China." and that has never happened. The Gaza Strip was part of the Palestine Mandate and has not subsequently become part of any other sovereignty. The ICJ said that the Palestinian people were entitled to their territory and their own state. Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009) confirmed that Gaza would be part of the Palestinian state. Later that month, the PA provided a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC; said they were a legal state; and asked for an investigation of war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip. The government of Taiwan does not say there is a state of Taiwan. The ICJ has not yet ruled that the ROC is entitled to the territory of Taiwan and a state of their own. The Security Council has not yet ruled that Taiwan will be part of the territory of a state of Taiwan.

Israeli historians report that the Haganah, the LEHI, and the Irgun committed massacres. Half the population of the proposed Jewish State were Arabs, but the Va'ad Leumi didn't hold general elections. They seized control by violence and declared themselves to be the provisional government. When Yehuda Blum was questioned by the US Senate about that, he testified "As far as international law is concerned, general elections are not a precondition for the legality of the state. If you look around the world you have 120 out of 150 states which have dubious elections if they have them at all." He concluded by saying that "practically all states have to assert their existence through the insistence on physical force and the will to defend themselves."

Dependent states that engage in foreign relations are still states and subjects of international law. Geoffrey Watson and Quigley noted that Great Britain had delegated treaty making authority to Palestine and that, among other agreements, it had entered into a Postal treaty with the United States in 1944. Watson noted that the PLO signed an international agreement with the United States on behalf of the PA. See, Geoffrey Watson The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements (Oxford University Press, 2000) pages 98-99. Al Haq noted that the PA joined the International Airport Council. The US State Department Digest explains that those sort of treaties are a hallmark of statehood: "A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties" See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223 harlan (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, whenever you are left without arguments, you "scream": but the Israelis committed massacres. According to you there used to be a peaceful human-loving kingdom called Palestine, that lived happily until it was brutally raided by the bloodthirsty Zionists. You know what, even with this kind of twisted logic, you haven't proven anything relevant to our discussion. Now, we do know about dependent territories that fall short of being sovereign states. There are 50 of those in the confederation known as the United States of America. There is one within Danish Kingdom called Greenland, and there is the Kingdom of the Netherlands which includes three autonomous geopolitical sections. There are other examples like these, but then again, are you claiming that the so-called State of Palestine is in the same category of the 50 US states, Greenland, the Netherlands Antilles, Catalonia or Quebec? These countries have considerable control over a defined territory, a defined population and autonomy in many fields save the right to establish an army and to have fully independent foreign policy. The proclaimed SoP has no land, no defined population and it is not even widely recognized. The Palestinian Authority is not to be confused with the proclaimed SoP, these are two different things, and even the PA enjoys much less autonomy than Catalonia, Greenland, Gibraltar or Puerto Rico. Misplaced Pages is not a legal journal. It is not the place to promote innovative theories and interpretations of the international law. Sources are not substitute for common sense. As I told you, I cannot find a source telling you that an entity should be independent to be called a state. That the obvious notion. There are people who try to promote innovative concepts, and therefore they write articles. It doesn't make their articles something on which to base an encyclopedic article. If their ideas become mainstream ideas in, let's say 20 or 40 years, then the picture would be different, but currently it wouldn't be serious to say "Palestine is a state" per these innovative theories. DrorK (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, a few states adhere to the Montevideo Convention, but even they don't require most of the B.S. on your list. Even if you discovered a source which said a state had to be independent, it would not refute the opposing views held by the US and other governments.

Published sources say the Palestinian Authority drafted the Constitution of the State of Palestine; and the PA has signed bilateral agreements with other states as the State of Palestine

The Middle East studies curriculum in every US and Israeli university today includes historical material from the works of Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Shlomo Ben Ami, and et al. who say the Israeli militias committed massacres and engaged in operations that amounted to ethnic cleansing. That sort of thing has been widely reported in the Israeli press. See for example Survival of the fittest, By Ari Shavit . harlan (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - if the fact that Jewish military organizations committed massacres proves that there is a Palestinian state, then the massacres committed by Arab-Palestinian military groups throughout the years proves there isn't. So much for twisted logic - even if we follow it, we get nowhere.

The leadership of the PA is more-or-less the leadership of the PLO (especially since the Hamas revolt), and the leadership of the PLO is also the leadership of the quasi-State of Palestine. Hence the confusion that might arise between the three bodies. Nevertheless, the PA is not SoP. For example, Hamas has never been a member of the PLO and did not subscribe to the 1988 declaration, and yet until their revolt, they participated in the administration of the PA (at least to some extent). You can also read this statement about the new PA constitution adopted in 2002, made by the then-PA Minister of Justice, Ibrahim Dughmeh: "This law defines the powers of the Palestinian Authority and will serve as the constitution until the establishment of a Palestinian state" . So according to him this is not the constitution of SoP, and SoP is not established yet (at least as of 2002, and there was no radical change ever since).

Now, last but not least, the Montevideo Convention - leave it aside. This is not a legal journal. The innovative ideas about statehood should be mentioned according to the due weight principle, in the article about statehood. The proclaimed SoP is many miles away from what we normally call a state. You suggested that a state can be a dependency. Fine, but then you claim that SoP is something like California or Greenland, and it isn't. You claim that a state doesn't have to be fully recognized. Okay, but then you put SoP in the same category of Taiwan of TRNC, and it is definitely not belong there. So with a bit of logic and healthy common sense you can see that your arguments lead us nowhere. DrorK (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I mention the Montevideo Convention is because you keep making meaningless comments about "limited recognition" which aren't supported by any reliable sources. The Convention reflects the prevailing declarative view that the existence of a state does not depend upon recognition by other states (or Misplaced Pages editors). That has some application to Palestine, because it has asked for a war crimes investigation on its own initiative.

Thomas Grant explains: "Further casting doubt on constitutivism are practical disjunctions. If statehood stems from recognition and is solely a matter between donor and recipient, then a community recognized by one state but not another would simultaneously be a state and a nonstate. This indeed would present, as Brierly put it, "a legal curiosity." The illogic of constitutivism's focus on bilateral action between an existing state and a claimant community has earned ample rebuke. Chen wrote trenchantly: ince recognition is accorded by States individually, and simultaneous action cannot be reasonably expected, the international personality thus recognised must, until universality of recognition is achieved, necessarily be partial and relative. The result would be that a State is a member of the international community for one State, but not for another. . . . uch . . . confusion must be extremely embarrassing.

Of greater doctrinal concern is the proposition which seems to flow from constitutivism that an unrecognized community has neither rights nor duties under international law. Denied recognition, does a community enjoy a freedom from the strictures which govern the conduct of states? And do recognized states enjoy a freedom to abuse the unrecognized community in a manner which international law would bar against a state? The declaratist proposition that the state exists independent of recognition avoids these problems." -- Thomas D. Grant, The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999) page 20 harlan (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of bringing this opinion? You have this habit of flooding the discussion with remotely relevant quotes (if relevant at all), hoping that the complicated terminology would make people accept your view, due to the well-known syndrome of "if I can't understand these complex phrasing, then it must be true". So there is someone who thinks that it only takes a declaration to make a state. Fine. Do you suggest it is a mainstream view? Are you suggesting Misplaced Pages should describe all of these entities as sovereign states? They all declared independence. You are here the one who claims that Misplaced Pages should act as an international tribune, review juridical opinions and decide to recognize a state called Palestine. My suggestion is to avoid any implication that there is such a state as long as we cannot see an entity called Palestine with features that normal people regard as indications of statehood. I'm not alone in this - The UN secretary-general, the PA Prime-Minister, the US State Department, the EU, the Swedish Foreign Minister and many others, all stated that a Palestinian state is non-existent at the moment. Even the ICC and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent say they cannot determine whether such a state exist, despite suggestions that they treat the PLO or the PA as a Palestinian state. There is a saying: "if you see a donkey with back and white stripes you may assume it is a zebra". Your suggestions are equivalent to the idea that we refer to all donkeys as zebras per some juridical opinion that stripes are not really necessary and they just cause confusion. When I tell you this thesis is a bit far-fetched, you answer: bring a source to prove that stripes are crucial for a zebra. DrorK (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Israeli pov pushing at several articles

This editor Gilabrand is trying to make it look like an area that is not part of Israel is part of Israel:

Israeli cuisine:

Geography of Israel: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted both and commented on the eprsonal attack on you. Let's see what happens next.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted on one (where Gilabrand had made an exceptionally offensive edit summary); so there is clearly a lot of back-and-forth here. RolandR (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't notice your revert there got in before mine.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

the political status of the golan heights is mentioned there in ref, I don't see why it should be repeated with every mention of the place's name. It's an article about Israeli geography. I don't see why the name of the region should be "the israeli occupied golan heights". It's called the golan heights regardless, or am I mistaken? Since this is about geography, if we agree it should be inside this article, there's no need to continually bring up the "occupation". Cumulus (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an article about ISRAELI geography so no need ot mention a place not in Israel.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the wording "Israeli occupied" from the cuisine article. While it's accurate, this is

not relevant information for this article. Concerned readers should get the political picture very clear immediately upon reading the Golan heights article, linked from that sentence. Cumulus (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But it violates WP:NPOV to give the impression that the place is Israeli.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is silly. Many people claim Israel in general is illegitimate. Should we describe all Israeli territory as "the land held by the evil zionists"? Anyone who wants to know will have his questions answered in the relevant article. You could claim that the information regarding the golan heights should be in the syrian article, but you'd have to convince me why that makes more sense (for the reader), as the land has been under Israeli control for over 40 years, quite a bit longer than it has been under Syrian control. Cumulus (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the current phrasing that suggest the GH are undisputed. The word "occupied" adds no information in this context and it is a tendentious term in nature. DrorK (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is drork: "There are various climatic areas in Israel that allow a variety of products to be grown...... while the temperate climate of the mountains of the Galilee and the Golan Heights is suitable for grapes, apples and cherries." This implies that the area is in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For any practical reason the territory is within Israeli borders. We gave very good explanation why Syria and other countries are not pleased with it, but there is a limit to how far we can go with this. You know, there used to be a Jewish custom to send wedding invitations written as followed: "With much joy we invite you to our wedding that will take place in Jerusalem (In case the Messiah does not come before the wedding, kindly join us at the so-and-so hall in London)". You are suggesting we write the article about the Golan Heights in a similar manner. DrorK (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not within Israels borders. That is Israeli POV.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to try getting there via the Damascus International Airport. Don't say I didn't warn you. DrorK (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not even 100% clear that the Israeli government actually claimed to annex the Golan heights -- it only "extended Israeli law" to cover the Golan heights without a true unambiguous declaration of annexation. AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: The purpose of this "Collaboration" project is to resolve issues, not just argue the same issues from talk pages here. So alerts are to bring more voices to an article, hopefully well-intentioned to resolve issues. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no collaboration here. There is an orchestrated attempt to make political statement through Misplaced Pages. How can you collaborate with people who came here to introduce political statements? Look what happened in the article about the Golan Heights. It present an accusation toward Israel as a fact based on sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica and Lonely Planet. Any attempt to make the text more balanced was violently reverted, with no respect to the work done in looking for sources and refining the phrasing. This forum is practically dead, and when issues are brought here, it is those political figures who come to make comments that would protect their tendentious edits. DrorK (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what I was describing, though which side more often brings fights here rather than solutions may be subjective :-) Obviously, it would be nice if everyone agreed on certain political principles that were applicable world wide, and then applied them to this situation, but that can be very difficult in the best of circumstances. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

occupied

I would like to start a centralized discussion on the use of the term "occupied" as applied to the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. This has come up in a large number of articles many times. The aim would be to establish some sort of style guideline so that we do not have to have the same "fight" on 30 different pages. I would also like to include the usage of the term "Israeli settlement" but I think the two combined, though related, may be something that becomes to unwieldy. Does anybody have any thoughts on how to start such a thing? nableezy - 02:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"occupied" is often a judgmental term implying a certain political position. Hence, avoid it when not needed. It can be used when you can assert that the de facto regime is occupational, e.g. Paris was definitely occupied by Nazi Germany during the 1940s. Japan was definitely occupied by the US following WW2. This is due to the fact that an occupational regime was established there and none of the parties denied it. In certain cases you would like to use the term "occupied" or "occupation" when referring to the position of a certain person or body. For example, when talking about the UN treatment of the Golan Heights, you may use the term "occupied" because this is how the UN terms it. You may not term the Golan Heights or any other territory "occupied" just because you think a certain political position should be given precedence. DrorK (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some useful examples:

1. Western Sahara - "largely Moroccan-controlled territory in North Africa"
2. Badme - "Currently the town is controlled by Ethiopia."
3. Kuril Islands - "All of the islands are under Russian jurisdiction, although the southernmost four are claimed by Japan as part of its territory."
4. Hala'ib triangle - the word "occupation" is not mentioned at all
5. Hatay Province - officially still claimed by Syria, as mentioned in the article, but the word "occupation" is not used. DrorK (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't be considered a fight. Treat it like other disputed and potentially inflammatory labels and attribute it. Make sure to give both sides and watch wording that can imply that a given statement is inaccurate without being straight up about it. WP:WORDS.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A common problem is writing: "XYZ is a Narnian territory occupied by Flatland (ref: 'The Encyclopedia of Narnian History')" or "XYZ is an Elvish-occupied Ogre territory (ref: the International Council for Ogrish Rights)". I've seen it way too often on en-wp. You cannot make a POVized statement in the lead and then attribute it in the fine print. Another example is: "Flatland is a territory on the moon, occupied according to the 'Martian Association of Health', 'Federation of Jupiter Inhabitants', Inter-Galactic resolution 1234, the Agricultural Organization of the Dark Side of the Moon' and the 'Betelgeuse Grand Society'. Elfland maintains its control over the territory is legitimate". I've seen such text in one of the articles' lead. DrorK (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - I fully support centralized discussion and decision making on the use of the term "occupied" as applied to the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip in order to establish a project-wide standard. It's the best way to deal with issues like this in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain what makes the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem different from Western Sahara or the Hala'ib Triangle (for example)? The Gaza Strip is a special case that cannot be defined as "occupation" (actually, it is almost an unprecedented situation, hence any term would be problematic in this specific case). The West Bank is indeed partially under occupational regime, but then again, there is no need to repeat this fact every time you mention the West Bank, just as you don't write "Cuban-claimed" whenever you mention Guantanamo Bay. DrorK (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Had I said that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are different from Western Sahara or the Hala'ib Triangle I would answer your question. Since I didn't, I won't. I fully support the use of non-partisan, transparent, source based deterministic methods to make decisions about terminology that people edit war over endlessly. The approach is equally applicable elsewhere but in this case we are talking about Israel-Palestine-Syria. Issues like this need to dealt with centrally. Decision procedures need to be agreed. Results needs to be repeatable and it should be easy for the reader to verify why an article uses a particular terminology. It's really no different from dealing with issues like Evolution. The article says "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs...(my bold) because that is the most policy compliant statement. Some people might see it as potentially inflammatory, biased or whatever but the statement is consistent with scientific consensus and maximises compliance with mandatory policies. It's true that each area is a bit different e.g. the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the West Bank is under belligerent occupation whereas the Gaza Strip, in their view, isn't. Nevertheless, the HCJ's view is just a small part of the global consensus. For me its making the step towards centralised discussion, decision making and deployment of standardised information that is more important here. Discussions about decision methods, words etc come later but at some point we should acknowledge that the chaotic, edit-war-prone ways things are done at the moment simply don't work and aren't in the interests of the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet the problem of using the term "occupied" is not restricted to the Levant or even to the Middle East. It is applicable whenever talking about any disputed area around the world. Would it be reasonable for us to decide on a policy for the Levant regions, while other regions, even within the Middle East, are described according to a different policy? Shouldn't we simply follow the general rules and norms already set for other places in the world? DrorK (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I wasnt proposing that we have the actual discussion right here right now. I was actually hoping to get people to say whether or not they thought such a discussion could be had and whether or not it is useful. I am well aware of your position, you dont need to add this section to the list of places where we have to fight over the issue. nableezy - 07:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a very bad idea if several editors would determine special rules for Levant-related articles. DrorK (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no general rules and norms that specifically address the issue of occupation status presumably because like virtually every other bit of information in wikipedia it should become obvious by applying existing policies. It's just one of those bits of information that isn't handled consistently that many people seem to have trouble dealing with. If people in Western Sahara had better internet access perhaps we would be facing similar problems with some other articles. I don't see this as deciding policy or special rules for the Levant. The policies are already available. It's about managing the implementation of those policies to address specific cases in order to produce a policy compliant consensus. The result, a string of words with references could then be deployed wherever it's needed. The centralized discussion could remain open indefinitely because things change and people may come up with new ideas. It might help to reduce conflict, encourage collaboration and I think it's consistent with the spirit of the discretionary sanctions. Yes, the Levant isn't unique but it is covered by a specific set of sanctions. Other areas have strikingly similar narrative war problems and similar sanctions e.g. the entire set of Balkan-related articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we take a first step and agree that this term, "occupied", challenges the NPOV principle? Do we all agree on that? DrorK (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The first step is to state whether you agree or disagree with having a centralized discussion. It's not really clear whether you think it should go ahead or not. The second step is probably to re-read WP:NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I think a centralized discussion is a good idea. harlan (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I have previously tried to get the occupied v disputed issue addressed centrally. I am easy on whether this is dealt with as an issue concernign the trminology in purely an Arab-Israeli context or more broadly. Obviously if we were looking at more broadly we would have to escalate this discussion to the ethnic disputes board and gaude the interest there. I would not regard a lack fo interest in resolving the wider use of the terminology as suitable grounds for not tackling it in the IP context.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, those pushing for the use of "occupied" as a standard term are those supporting a centralized discussion, so I suspect the motives here are not entirely pure. Besides, as you've seen above, we don't even agree on whether "occupied" is an NPOV-challenge, so there is no common basis for discussion. DrorK (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea would be to discuss whether or not it is NPOV to either include or exclude the word "occupied". If there was agreement we would not need to discuss it. And my motive here is to avoid another edit war with you and any number of other editors. Regardless of how the discussion turns out I would support the consensus. nableezy - 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

An agreement of whom? There are clearly some people here who really want to use the term "occupied", but that doesn't solve the problem, even if they can form an ad-hoc "consensus". If this term implies political opinion, then it should be avoided, even if there happen to be many people here who adhere to this opinion. In other word, if the term is a POV problem, then we have nothing to discuss. Perhaps you should explain how come this term is legitimate per NPOV. DrorK (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The term is used to describe a certain legal status. It is used as a statement of fact in countless high-quality sources to describe the legal status of these territories. It carries no more political opinion than saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". And there are clearly some people who want to avoid the term when used to reference Israel's occupation of these territories but are perfectly willing, even supporting, the use in other analogous articles. That does not solve the problem either. What is needed is for people to present their arguments and sources in one place and, with hopefully uninvolved editors weighing in, determine a consensus on the usage of the term "occupied" regarding these territories. And if you would like me to explain how it is a legitimate term, here goes: NPOV defines "neutrality" as including all significant viewpoints, giving due weight. Due weight is determined by the weight given in the sources. High-quality sources almost invariably agree that these territories are under Israeli occupation. It is essentially a fringe viewpoint that the territories are not occupied. The usage of the term "disputed", first championed by Israel as a way of denying that the Fourth Geneva Conventions applied to the territories, does not mean anything at all. It does not contradict "occupied" in any way, it says nothing about the legal status of the territories. It is a published, verifiable fact that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem is occupied. There is a genuine dispute about whether or not Gaza remains occupied, with many governments and human rights organizations maintaining that it remains under effective Israeli military control with some governments, and some high-quality sources as well, arguing that since Israel's "unilateral disengagement" that the Gaza Strip is no longer occupied by Israel. There is almost no dispute at all about whether or not Israel occupies the Golan Heights. It is non-neutral to disregard the super-majority viewpoint that the territories are occupied because of a fringe sized view that they are not. I was serious when I said I did not want to argue the actual issue here, but, since you asked, that is why I feel it is non-NPOV to not use the word occupied. nableezy - 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it could be that most editors believe that any discussion looking at the consensus of reliable sources will demonstrate that "occupied" is the standard explanation. (And WP:NPOV actually recquires us to reflect the balance of these sources rather than what Drork tries to claim it says which sounds rather closer to WP:IDON'TLIKE.) This might explain why those who favour the term are so keen to get this sorted once and for all. Pure or not our motivations do mesh nicely with Misplaced Pages policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I for one think Drork's point is well-taken and backed with substantial argument and example. A political viewpoint remains just that even if it is a "super-majority viewpoint." Hamas, for example, considers all of Mandatory Palestine "occupied" territory. Why? Because it is a political statement by one side of this conflict. It is much clearer and more neutral to avoid the use of the term and stick with who controls what. Stellarkid (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you state whether you are or you are not in favour of a centralized discussion to establish a policy compliant consensus on this issue ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all changing the names of the articles "Occupation of the West Bank by Jordan" and "Syrian Occupation of Lebanon". These names are certainly problematic. If you could bring to my attention more articles like that I would be happy to support a name change. "Occupation of the West Bank Gaza Strip by Egypt" is a different case, because here there was an actual Egyptian military regime. When a foreign army, i.e. an army which is considered foreign by all parties, governs a territory, you could indeed say that this territory is occupied.

The problem is that the term "occupation" is used much more extensively, and it is not for us to make legal or moral decisions regarding the legitimacy of a government or regime. Of course we could present different views, but that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about saying something like: "Flatland is an Elvish-occupied Narnian territory". This is wrong. We should write: "Flatland is a territory controlled by Elfland and claimed by Narnia", then in the body of the article we can write: "Narnia's appeal to the Intergalactic Society, resulted in a resolution calling for the complete and immediate withdrawal of Elfland from occupied Flatland. Elfland rejected the resolution and maintained that Flatland was an Elvish territory since the beginning of time..."

Last point - I see many editor sanctify the principle of verifiability and consider it more important than NPOV and even common sense. NPOV is no less important than verifiability. You cannot justify an POVized term simply because it can be sourced (even when there are many sources). The verifiability principle encompasses many problems (which I'm not going to detail here now), and a reference source is not a magic rod that makes every wrong right. DrorK (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I really would like to discuss this in another, more structured, environment. Would you be willing to do so? nableezy - 15:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. When and where? DrorK (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I dont know when or where, I was hoping somebody who watches this page might have an idea as to how to set this up. nableezy - 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I am thinking of something like this or something like this (look at the talk archives) nableezy - 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, I have never seen the pages you linked to above, but I do need to understand the purpose of that. In the UN, which is and international political body (and so it should be) terminology, like anything else there, is decided by vote. The reason the UN uses the term "Occupied Syrian Golan" is because more delegates raised their hands in favor of this terminology. Why? because of all kind of political calculations. Similarly, the UN does not know about a country called Taiwan, or Republic of China. If you look at the UN maps, you will find a Chinese province called Taiwan, and if you rely solely on these map, you are in for a surprise when you try to get there. Misplaced Pages is not the UN. It has different goals and purposes and hence its different methods. Now, if your idea is to start a kind of UN GA debate, it would be useless. My question remains - where do we want to get? DrorK (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can only answer as to where I want to get, but what I am looking for is some sort of consensus on whether or not the word "occupied" should be used in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice when referring to the territories mentioned above. What the consensus decides is not the issue, the issue for me is that we have this same argument on countless pages with no rational way of determining a site-wide consensus on the issue. If there is consensus to not use the word in the narrative voice I will accept that. If there is consensus to use the word in the narrative voice I will accept that. Will you? Will others? nableezy - 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Occupation of the West Bank by Egypt"?? Don't you mean Gaza... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sorry. DrorK (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that terminology from the United Nations which sanctioned Israel would be WP:RS, whatever that language is (and despite the many problems inherent in the colonial powers-dominated UN setting up any nation anyway). And of course there is always the option of just mentioning both names in every instance with refs for both, the first time with references, after that as XXXX/YYYY with the names in alphabetical order. (Not really paying close attention to above or working on many articles where this is an issue, I'm not sure if such a neutral sounding suggestion actually would be POV.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"United Nations" doesn't mean much in itself -- do you mean the General Assembly or the Security Council (which are two very different things)?? The perfervid purple rhetoric which spouts forth with the regularity of clockwork from the General Assembly's annual ritualistic "Two-minutes-hate against Israel" sessions would not be much of a reliable source for anything except the dysfunctionality of the UN system... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody have an idea on how to set this up? nableezy - 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Centralized discussion. I don't know for sure, but I think you just set up a page and announce its existence at WP:Village Pump and WP:AN. There was a discussion once at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem; you might want to use it to get an idea about how to set the thing up. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A war edit is not a step to be taken when there are no arguments left

Since Harlan apparently left without arguments in this discussion, he chooses to resort to war edit in the article State of Palestine. By the way, someone removed the merge template, even though it is still relevant. DrorK (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. On several occasions I've pointed out that Israel claims that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are beyond its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. I also noted that the ICJ said the Palestinians are the lawful inhabitants of the territory of a state ; and that determinations of statehood are made by other states, not Misplaced Pages editors.

Professor Alain Pellet, a member and former President of the International Law Commission, just released a legal opinion that mentions those same facts. He says that it is not absurd to think that Palestine is a State within the general and usual meaning of the term (paragraph 5). He says there is no need for the International Criminal Court to decide in the abstract the question whether or not Palestine is a State, because that would only lead to the Court having to decide between the assessments of sovereign states that, in the end, have complete discretion in the matter (para 34).

He explains that, although it is only necessary that Palestine be considered a state for the purposes of article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, he nevertheless believes that Palestine also presents all the attributes of a sovereign state (even if its territory is occupied - see paragraph 35). He notes that Israel does not claim to exercise territorial sovereignty over the Occupied Territories (see para 28 of Pellet's opinion; paragraph 102 of the ICJ majority opinion and the statement of Israel in para 8 of CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2). He notes that Palestine has exhibited the attributes of a sovereign state when it made the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the court, and when it appointed an "independent" commission to investigate the allegations contained in the Goldstone report. He observes that the ICJ clearly considered Palestine to be a state for purposes of applying the Hague Regulations, and cites para. 89 of the ICJ majority opinion which said: Section III of those Regulations, which concerns "Military authority over the territory of the hostile State", is particularly pertinent in the present case.

The Jerusalem Post had an article recently which said that Jericho has been ruled by the Palestinian Authority since 1994. Ynet carried an article which said "The State of Israel gave up the neighborhoods on the other side of the separation fence"; "The municipality has internalized the message which came from the Israeli government that these neighborhoods are not a part of Jerusalem, and is acting in accordance. The Palestinian Authority is the one repairing the roads and is the one operating the social infrastructures."; "The neighborhoods are outside the realm of the State of Israel, and certainly the municipality's. From a practical standpoint, this is Ramallah. Beside the half-delusional Right, I don't know anyone who is really trying to enforce Israeli sovereignty on these areas," harlan (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, the discussion is over. You keep bringing irrelevant information in order to drag this discussion forever (and then you have the nerve to accuse me of filibustering). You are right that the WB&Gaza are not considered part of Israel, but that does not make this territory a state. We are not lawyering here. We are trying to convey reliable information, and you try to prevent us from doing so. DrorK (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in a very typical manner, you bring sources in a misleading way. Let me cite from the link you've brought above: "(...) It raises the question of Palestine's status as a 'State' under international law. Professor Pellet argues that (...) this issue is whether or not Palestine is a State for the purposes of article 12(3), that is, for the simple purpose of giving the Court jurisdiction over international crimes, rather than for all purposes". Prof. Pellet is an honest practical person. He does not go as far as claiming there is a state called Palestine. He merely suggests that for the very limited purpose of discussing an issue before the international tribunal, we can regard the PA request as if it were made by a state. As I mentioned before, for some purposes the Israeli law regards a couple of two men as if they were a man and a woman. I would suggest we start to refer to certain Israeli men as women as per these court rulings. DrorK (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Drork, you are quoting a blog entry written by Prof. William A. Schabas. I cited the actual legal opinion written by Prof Alain Pellet and provided the paragraphs in which he explained that he thinks it is not absurd to say that Palestine is a state within the general and usual meaning of the term. He actually says that it is not the Court's job to usurp the discretion of sovereign states to recognize Palestine as a state, but only to rule on whether the conditions for exercise of its statutory responsibilities are met (para 5 and 6).

You've constantly insulted and attacked other Misplaced Pages editors when they cite reliable published sources, including Prof. Pellet, which express the viewpoint that a state of Palestine already exists. That is a mainstream viewpoint that has been discussed by plenty of mainstream sources. In this case, what you've "mentioned before" is nothing more than your own unpublished opinions and irrelevant analogies. harlan (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you insist on misleading everyone here, this would be my last response to you. This debate became futile, once you decided to play games rather than to treat the subject seriously. Here are some important examples:

1. Your claim about the Israeli position - in the source you've brought, Israel says: "The fact that the Palestinian Council does not represent a State, does not, in itself, preclude its responsibility in the sphere of human rights protection."
2. Your claim about the ICJ ruling - there is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in the majority opinion of this court ruling that suggests Palestine is a state. Moreover, the conclusive remarks say the following: "The Court considers that it has a duty to draw the attention of the General Assembly, to which the present Opinion is addressed, to the need for these efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for al1 in the region." Of course you have a peculiar interpretation of the word "establishment", as if it means "materializing an existing state" or something of the kind, but I think you are quite alone in this approach. As for paragraphs 82 and 102 - it says that Israel does not recognize the WB&Gaza as part of its own sovereign territory. It does not say anything about a Palestinian state, and making such a conclusion is way too big a leap.
3. Last but not least, your reference to Prof. Pellet's opinion - Unfortunately, Prof. Alain Pellet's view is not available freely. You probably have some access to it, but it is very typical for you to bring sources of limited access, and summarize them according to your political view, knowing none of the "laymen" among editors here would be able to verify your interpretation. To phrase it more concisely: I believe William A. Schabas's account much more than I believe you, especially in light of the misleading interpretation of sources you have provided so far. DrorK (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsontheground

I came across this editor when correcting a WP:CSD#G4 issue. A look at his contribution history indicates, at least to me, a distinct POV, which, in and of itself, is not an issue, but I am afraid that the the recent edits themselves may not be in accord with WP:NPOV as they seem somewhat cherry-picked and WP:UNDUE, but I leave it to people more involved with the conflict than I to investigate. -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Avi, I've notified Factsontheground of the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions, and I'll add his talk page to my watchlist. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scam

See the above.Apart from my adding the afd template, all the edits have been by the creator User:Factsontheground and by User:Gilabrand making some "interesting" additions. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote to merge Syrian village with Israeli settlement

Vote to merge Syrian village with Israeli settlement when the settlement is not even on the same location or elevation as the Syrian village: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

JIDF again

Einsteindonut and his JIDF puppets have been trying to influence the article again. It is currently fully protected and I have generated Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Einsteindonut to document the JIDF activcity on the page. There is a proposal of several month full protection as possibly less bothersome than semi-protection and dealing with a load of new puppets, but other input woudl be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On article talk page or where? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that as the full protection is proposed at the SPI, that is one of the best places to indicate whether you think it is a good idea. I ahve also asked User:EdJohnston about it on his talk page. Suggestions for content changes should obviously go to the article talk apge.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

'Abud

Individuals on both sides of the debate are playing silly buggers at the above article. My attempt at a neutral version has been reverted. I tried approaching JackNassar (talk · contribs · count) who is relatively new, to encourage him to make contact with more experienced editors, but didn't get very far. Others involved should know better.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has to detail the main issue(s) on the talk page so we have a jump off point, esp. if we just want to opine, not edit article. Plus might get them to stop edit warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the 'Abud/Jerusalem/Rawabi trio of articles are having a parallel problem from a succession of editors. My attempt to discuss calmly at Talk:Rawabi was not met with success:( DMacks (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation I've decided that JackNassar is not quite as neophyte as he might seem at first glance and I have launched Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/JackNassar. In reply to Carol's point, the issue with 'Abud is that there were rival versions in which a church was either deliberately or accidentally destroyed by the IDF (both qualifications unsupported by references) and in which the Bilin demos were either more violent than or as peaceful as the 'Abud ones (again without refs supporting either claim). These were aggravated by JN referring to Israeli Occupation Forces and the Apartheid Wall and Chesdovi referring to the anti-terrorist war. I've not investigated the Rawabi issue in detail beyond checking for likely sockpuppets.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian

Yes, someone actually recently has created a whole article on this minor incident. Seems like POV pushing to extreme. If you agree, feel free to call for WP:AfD. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Please feel free to contribute to the article, and/or discussion on its talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not going to work on an article which, doing more research, I see is not in compliance with various aspects of Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (events). Busy right now but will put up for AfD in a few days, unless someone else does. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone else nominated this article for deletion here writing: It's not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to have an article on this transient and relatively minor controversy. We're giving readers the impression that this story was much more important than it actually was. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ariel University Center of Samaria

There is a current discussion on whether this institution is in the Palestinian Territrories or not. Pleasecome and express your views.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

General discussion on Israeli-occupied territories.

I think that we need a broad discussion on use or lack of use of Israeli-occupied territory. It is likely that it will end up as an RfC but I think it would be valuable for us to discuss it less formally first. My understanding is that there is no dispute in serious sources that this is an appropriate description.

1. government organizations like:
   1. US Dept. of State .

      "U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process, Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that are illegal and that applies to the territories.” Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Committee. on Foreign Affairs

2. legal courts such as
   1. International Court of Justice.

      78. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

   2. Supreme Court of Israel,
   3. European Court of Justice

      The assertion made by the Israeli authorities that products manufactured in the occupied territories qualify for the preferential treatment granted for Israeli goods is not binding upon the customs authorities of the European Union

Now, it is true that there are some who argue either that the land was not occupied from another extant country so the term doesn't apply, or that the military presence in the territories doesn't meet the threshold for an occupying force. But such arguments are clearly not recognized by the US Dept of State, International or European courts or the UN. In light of this consensus it seems that we must treat such arguments as fringe and we certainly shouldn't let our articles reflect them as being widely recognized. Your opinions on this matter are solicited. Unomi (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question - what sources "argue either that the land was not occupied from another extant country so the term doesn't apply, or that the military presence in the territories doesn't meet the threshold for an occupying force"? It's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison without reviewing such sources as well. ← George 10:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict#Settlement_in_territories - that particular article is a bit messy and could use better use of particular attribution. That particular claim is sourced to an Israeli government website which states

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.

As for the other argument, I am honestly not sure if anyone is forwarding it anymore. Unomi (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If that single source, representative of the views of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), is the only one that disputes the term "Israeli-occupied territory", then I see no reason to avoid using the term, provided it's not overused just to make a point. Mentioning that the Israeli MFA disputed the status makes complete sense, in an article about settlements in such areas, but as a tiny minority view it wouldn't belong in every article where the term "Israeli-occupied territory" is used. If editors have other sources that dispute the term, I'd have to review those as well to see if the view is held more widely than by just Israel's MFA. ← George 11:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I should note that it is my intention to have areas that qualify as Israeli-occupied territories be noted as such, not with the intent of proving a point, but in order that we accurately reflect consensus opinion of sources per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE not dissimilarly as our practice when editing articles related to pseudoscience, that is, failure to note that these are Israeli-occupied territories constitutes a NPOV failure. Unomi (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that I've wanted addressed for some time. I agree with the general thrust of what you say, but please clarify your links. I can't see any mention of the occupied territories in the Knesset link you give.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible to link to directly, here under "Public activities" it states He was in confrontation with Arik Sharon, the Agriculture Minister, regarding settlements in the occupied territories. It is a minor mention and I have removed it as being inconsequential and possibly distracting. By the way, on my talkpage I have more sources, but I have chosen to focus on the higher quality ones here. Unomi (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been the subject of a centralized discussion concerning Misplaced Pages Naming Conventions that was monitored by ARBCOM The wider discussion regarding occupied territories was curtailed in order to concentrate on the guidelines for the West Bank/Judea/Samaria..

In 1949, the Mediator accepted an armistice agreement on behalf of the UN that granted a joint Israeli-Jordanian committee "exclusive competence" to develop any future plans and agreements (see article VIII). It also instructed UNTSO to enforce whatever plans and agreements the Israeli-Jordanian committee provided (see article IX). The Security Council adopted that arrangement, cited article 40 (Chapter VII of the Charter), and dismissed the Mediator (see Security Council resolution 73). Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained the Israeli POV regarding Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine at that time: "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149 In its 2004 judgment, the ICJ reviewed the terms of the Oslo Accords, the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, and the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. The Court said that plans and agreements concluded pursuant to the Armistice Agreement remained valid. See paragraph 129 of the judgment

After the Arab Palestinian Congress at Jericho and the 1950 elections, many states including the US, UK, France, and Russia considered the West Bank to be Jordanian territory. When the Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966), the Council observed that, "the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area on 13 November 1966... constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel". The subsequent assurances regarding "the territorial integrity of all the states in the region" were interpreted in accordance with the terms of the earlier Security Council resolutions (e.g. cf resolution 228 and 242). See Chapter II Background, Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: Article 3(2) of the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement preserved the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

The Israeli MFA website has a page which says that the Fourth Geneva Convention and certain parts of Additional Protocol I reflect applicable customary international law. Several reliable sources have reported that the Israeli government knew at the outset that it was violating the Geneva Convention by creating civilian settlements in the territories under IDF administration. As the legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron was the Israeli government's expert on international law. On September 16th, 1967 he wrote a top secret memo to Mr. Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary of the Prime Minister regarding "Settlement in the Administered Territories" which said "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the Administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." - cited on page 99 of Gorenberg, Gershom, "The accidental empire: Israel and the birth of the settlements, 1967-1977", Macmillan, 2006, ISBN 080507564X.

Misplaced Pages has many articles that contain material on the "disputed territories"/Fourth Geneva Convention, such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 446. That material is really nothing more than MFA material presented in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia. That particular article says that the government's arguments regarding the status of the territories were first advanced by Moshe Dayan in 1977. Yet when he authored a secret memo in 1968 proposing massive settlement in the territories, (then) Defense Minister Moshe Dayan wrote, “Settling Israelis in administered territory, as is known, contravenes international conventions, but there is nothing essentially new about that.” See Israeli State Archives 153.8/7920/7A, Document 60, dated October 15, 1968 - also cited on page 173 of Gorenberg's "The accidental empire". The arguments that settlement was legal came after the fact in an unsuccessful effort to blunt international criticism. I believe that NPOV requires that the declassified Meron and Dayan memos be mentioned in relevant articles. harlan (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Its really quite simple, all nations on earth (except Israel) and vast majority of international organs consider the Palestinian territories and Golan as occupied, and not part of Israel. So that is what we should call them in the articles. To not classify these regions as occupied is against npov and undue weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes WP:SENSE. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It would hardly be considered a "fringe" or a "tiny minority view" considering it is one-half of the conflict. At least that is how us Israeli-supporters see it. While I appreciate the invite over at the Israel project, so far this page is only representative of one view. To classify these regions as "occupied" is to take a position. Use of the word "disputed" shows respect for the alternate view, and does not take a position in law and thus is neutral. Again, we can say this or that RS says "occupied" and this or that RS says "disputed" but in the WP voice we do not take a position. Stellarkid (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is like saying that the flat-Earth idea "one-half of the conflict" in whether or not the Earth is flat. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources do take a position and emphatically state that these territories are "occupied". nableezy - 04:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

A proposal has been made to rename Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please weigh in at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Rename proposal - first steps. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)