Talk:Palestinian law

POV of criminal law section

The tilt of this section, whcih I copied form another article, needs to be fixed, as does the formatting. It seems to be too pro-Israel, and not neutral nor showing various viewpoints. I do not want this article to be a POV fork, either. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I made a very basic attempt at improving this section, but as I worked I was struck by the thought that as it stands now it seems to be little more than a long list of criminal incidents. As this is a section which deals with the criminal justice system rather than its innumerable violations by criminals, we could probably safely cut out the vast majority of the paragraphs that do nothing more than detail particular incidents and instead convert it into a paragraph or two or three that discuss the great volume of criminal actions and the problems faced by the courts in adjudication. This would greatly improve the POV slant, I believe.

As some sort of a precursor I have attempted to divide the incident-paragraphs into a few groups each of which might eventually become a single paragraph. These broad groups are:

• Violence against civilians
• Violence against foreigners
• Official curruption
• Terrorism
• Current Palestinian measures to keep law and order

I think the immediate goal for this section should be something more in line with American criminal law or French droit pénal and then in time we should aim for something more like English criminal law. Eventually, I suppose, the level of details that this section currently goes into could be achieved, but it might require a page more like Criminal Code of Russia, Criminal procedure, or International criminal law.

Thanks again for taking this on. I wish I could be of greater help but this is one area of interest to which I feel I have not devoted adequate study to meaningfully contribute yet... -Thibbs (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you help! Bearian (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted part of the lede at Law_of_Palestine#Criminal_law. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is still a serious issue with the sentence that was re-inserted, which is this:

Palestine has a semi-ambiguous status[10] as a majority recognition[11][12] exclavic state[13][14], geographically situated at the epicenter of a region with a long history of violence[15][16], so criminal actions may be viewed in different ways.

Here are some of the issues:

• The sentence as a whole is original research, or more specifically an original synthesis. In other words, even if all the preceding clauses in the sentence were true and properly sourced, there is no source connecting all those things to the assertion that "criminal actions may be viewed in different ways."
• What does "criminal actions may be viewed in different ways" mean anyway? And there is no source for that individual part of the sentence.
• What is a "semi-ambiguous status"? The cited document does not seem to support it. In fact, the document supports the position that...
• There currently is no Palestinian state, regardless of how many countries may have given recognition to what is, in reality, a proposed state. This issue has been dealt with on Wikipedia numerous times before, and one result has been that the former article "State of Palestine" was merged into Proposals for a Palestinian state.

Therefore, this paragraph should be deleted from the article. The idea that there is a Palestinian state also seems to be the premise for other statements in the article, so those parts need to be revised as well. But for now, can we agree to fix this part? 6SJ7 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't respond to your concerns in time. I've just returned from a week's vacation and I missed this section on my first read-through. I'll start by answering your two questions.

1. When I suggested that "criminal actions may be viewed in different ways" I was referring to the differing results that follow from the application of the differing legal systems claiming jurisdiction over the actor to the actor's action. This is known as the "Conflict of Laws." In such cases, the difficult task at hand is to decide exactly how the actor is to be treated while simultaneously bearing in mind the sanctity and validity of both (or however many) legal systems claiming jurisdiction. While conflict of laws concerns specifically which treatment(s) to apply, it is not concerned with evaluation of the greater legal systems in question. In the eyes of the courts, great respect is given to alternative legal systems, and their overall validity is rarely if ever brought into question. Rather the issues are decided on a case-by-case basis with primary emphasis on propriety of jurisdiction. Thus, and to sum what I've said so far, the actions of one person may result in different treatments under different legal schemes even though only one treatment is typically carried out in the end. (See also my prior note).

2. I used the term "semi-ambiguous status" as a restatement of the following line:

Western States in particular have withheld acceptance, and the acknowledgment by many States has been deliberately ambiguous because of their knowledge that 'PLO/Palestine' does not meet the requirements for recognition (e.g. recognition of the declaration of independence - the position adopted, for instance, by the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary).

I say "ambiguous" for the reasons given as the main thesis of the reference and "semi-" in reference to the positions taken by such States as the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. I do not believe this violates WP:OR's synthesis prohibition.

As for your other comments, I disagree that the whole sentence constitutes original research. The sentence does not go beyond what is expressed in the sources nor does it use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, I have stuck to the sources and used them in a manner that serves to advance an understanding of the topic rather than a position. This is known as "source-based research." WP:OR is a sweeping rule which, if strictly enforced, would gravely impact Wikipedia to its detriment. I agree that it should be enforced more strictly on articles concerning controversial topics and for that reason I am satisfied with the removal of the only contribution I have thus far made to this article, however this again strikes me as a wikilawyerly WP:GAME use of WP:OR. I have tried to assume good faith here, but just as Bearian before me, I am also finding this to be difficult. I have been trying to think of a good way to return the collaborative spirit to this article, but I think that all involved editors presently editing the page would do well to remember that wikipedia is not a battleground and that discussion and consensus are critical especially when dealing with clearly non-involved parties. Behaving in a contrary manner severely undercuts the strength of one's argument despite that which it might naturally have when suggested in a manner less tendentious and more conducive to advancement of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's privy council and presidential candidcy

I'm going to get a cite or two for these allegations. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the text and some background for the "Letter to an Arab", here. Although this site refers to this as a proposal for a "binational state", the text itself seems to refer to an idea for a representative body that would act under the auspices of the British Mandate. In any event, the letter is from 1930, and the rest of the site makes clear that Einstein was (or became) became an advocate of Zionism as it is currently understood, i.e. a movement for a Jewish state. I don't see how Einstein's views on the governance of the Mandate in 1930 have anything to do with the subject matter of this article. They may be relevant to another article, but not to this one. I think the whole paragraph should be removed. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph removed. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that this was necessary. I found the information to be one of those rare and sought-after items of pertinent trivia that through its incorporation added to the article as a whole. Though trivia is in general usually discouraged, this tidbit was of general interest and its removal could easily be construed as an edit with ulterior motives. -Thibbs (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved page

The move of the Law of Palestine is not accurate. The article will cover all of Palestinian legal history. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Several questions/comments in response:

1. Exactly what geographic area is the article intended to cover? (And I don't just mean "Palestine"; I mean exactly what do you think "Palestine" means in the context of this article.)
2. Is the article intended to cover the same geographic area in all time periods or different geographic areas in different time periods, and if so, which ones in which time periods?
3. In your view, when does "Palestinian legal history" begin? (I notice the article currently goes back to 70 CE, so I assume it goes back at least that far. Which leads to the next question...)
4. Do you really intend to cover the law applicable in the applicable geographic area in every different time period going back to 70 CE, or even earlier? It is one thing to say (as you do in the article) that the currently applicable law is a mixture of the law applied under the periods of Ottoman, British and Jordanian law, among others (and that is just using the West Bank as an example.) It is entirely a different thing to say that you are going to cover the law that was applicable in every past period, which I assume would also include (in addition to Ottoman, British and Jordanian), Roman, Byzantine, the Crusader States, and probably a few others, and I won't even get into the issue of Israel itself. That doesn't seem like a good idea; the law under the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, for example, should probably be covered in the articles on those empires and not necessarily every piece of territory they controlled at any given point.
5. The current intro, which is supposed to be a summary of the article, deals only with the current situation under the PNA. That is why I felt the title I moved it to was appropriate. Based on my comments above, I am inclined to think that this would be the best choice for the scope of the article, and therefore for the title. But your answers to some of the above questions may have some bearing on that issue. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:6SJ7, your unilateral decision to move this article is unacceptable. Please review WP:MOVE. Note especially that this page fails to meet the four "reasons why you might wish to rename a page" unless you have unilaterally "reduced, extended or otherwise changed the scope of the article." Such a unilateral decision without prior consensus on talk is contrary to wikipolicy. Further ad rem, I notice you have failed to list this page at Wikipedia:Requested moves, despite the fact that the move is clearly controversial. I would therefore request that you self-revert and start afresh keeping in mind the appropriate wikipolicy. Please note that initiating a WP:RM should be accompanied by the placement of an alerting note on the talk page of the article in question. In the future, please try to use talk pages to gain consensus prior to taking matters into your own hands. This is considered good wikiquette and forms a major part of the "Code of Conduct" cornerstone of wikipedia.

As far as the suggestion of a move is concerned, I would oppose this. I think the historical legalistics are exceptionally important to the development of the current law. This article concerns the application of law in a region that has been disputed for a very long time. As such both sides have had to consider such policies as the British Mandate long after their formation. As Sharia concerns religious policies arguably going back as far as the 600s AD, I believe a historical approach to examining the current law is of paramount importance. It has been suggested that the intro is lacking in historical reference. This appears to be the only real issue and as such I would recommend WP:SOFIXIT. -Thibbs (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with this article, one of which is the appropriate scope of the article. I am not sure that the material currently in the section "Historical Use" even belongs in this article. Once the appropriate scope of the article has been resolved, it will be easier to determine a proper title. I believe that at the present time, the article is really about the law imposed by the Palestinian National Authority, with a few snippets from 70 A.D. and the period of the British Mandate thrown in, plus one bit about Albert Einstein from 1952 (which I think creates an erroneous impression.) Therefore, I believe the current title is accurate. But the questions I asked above are designed to lead to a discussion of the appropriate scope of the article, which I think is the real issue right now. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the {{underconstruction}} template as "outdated" followed by the rewriting of the lede is suggestive of WP:GAME. It would appear that the scope of the article has now been changed from what it originally was as a direct result of the incorrect assumption that the article's construction had been completed. While the article remains "under construction" it would be appropriate for editors to contribute to the article's creation and to discuss its scope under talk but it would be inappropriate to unilaterally change the scope of the article without prior discussion. Prior discussion is the only means to achieve consensus for a controversial edit on an article which is currently under construction. -Thibbs (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll have to respond when I get back from vacation; I'm at a hostel. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed back the {{underconstruction}} tag. It's stil being worked on, and nothing is settled. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As to question # 1, it does not matter. I'll have to respond in depth later. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the lede to attempt to explain this broader use of the term. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you added refers to a currently existing "State of Palestine", which I think is indicative of a problem here. There is no such state. The article you linked to, State of Palestine, does not even exist. It redirects to Proposals for a Palestinian state, in recognition of the fact that a "State of Palestine" is a proposal at this point, not a reality. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

See my answers to the 5 questions below. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hachet job

I do not think that slicing giant sections out of this fairly new article is appropriate without sufficient discussion and consensus. What is unsourced? What is not reliable? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I especially protest this edit [1], which removed the whole section, which was perfectly well sourced with an award-winning biography, and quite relevant to the legal history of the law of Palestine. A certain editor is engaging in an edit war over content and pushing his/her own POV. I can no longer assume good faith here. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the citations for the Einstein piece when I get back home. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The material on Albert Einstein has nothing at all to do with the "Law of Palestine". As I explained above, I found a source for it, and found that it was a proposal for peace/governance in what is now Israel, made by Einstein in 1930. It is not relevant to the law of what is now considered to be "Palestine." 6SJ7 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I have posted my concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war.2F_POV-pushing_at_Law_of_Palestine. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You have seriously jumped the gun by posting this at AN/I, not to mention making personal attacks on me and assuming bad faith. You did not answer my questions above, instead saying that the first one "does not matter", which is clearly incorrect. I have posted more above, and at AN/I. Ironically enough, I have other issues with various sections and sources of this article that I have not even mentioned or edited yet. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm coming in as the requested "uninvolved" opinion. I've posted at the ANI thread, and in a nutshell: I recommend moving the article back to its original title, or to userspace. If folks want "uninterrupted" time to expand, userspace is the place to do it. As for the tone of discussions here, I recommend wiping the slate clean, and focusing on discussions about the article, instead of the other editors. --Elonka 16:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll second what Elonka said, but I think 6SJ7 brings up a perfectl legit point here that has not been answered: what is this article about? "Palestine" has too many possiblel meanings to be a useful term here. It would be like making a "Law of the Americas" article -- an ambitious project indeed. IronDuke 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a critical question that really needs to be answered (by a consensus, not just by the creator of the article) before this article can proceed much further. For reasons stated in my latest comment at AN/I (diff here), I believe the article should be moved to user space for further development. Of the two options suggested by Elonka, that is clearly the better one in order to minimize further "issues" during the article's "Under construction" period. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the page to its original title, "Law of Palestine". For any further moves (even to userspace), please ensure that there is talkpage consensus, and/or file a request at WP:RM. Thanks, --Elonka 20:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency: a link to the archived AN/I case. -Thibbs (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Return to old name; removal of "Underconstruction" tag

I think we should start a discussion on these two basic issues:

1. Returning the article to the old name "Law of Palestine". It is simpler, conforms to a standard format used by similar articles, is more likely to be a search term, and was the consensus name.
2. Is it agreed that the {{Underconstruction}} tag is now out of date, should be removbed now, and any further changes ought to be taken step-by-step?

Any discussion on either of these topics? Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to respond to points made above? I think that will help move this process forward. IronDuke 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding below. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The title and scope of this article

Originally this post was going to be in the preceding section, but it got so long and raises so many issues that I decided it needed its own section. It contains responses to the posts of Bearian/Bearian's Booties, Elonka and IronDuke.

I agree with IronDuke that the future path of this article really cannot be determined without answers to the questions raised by IronDuke and myself, and discussion of those answers. The bottom line is this: While the page has been moved back to "Law of Palestine" (due solely to issues with the original move to "Law of the Palestinian National Authority"), it should now be moved to user space for the reasons stated above and at AN/I. (As for whether it is still "under construction", I don't know. I think Bearian is in a better position to answer his own question. Bearian put the template back on the article just two days ago, so I guess he now has to answer: Is the article essentially "finished"? Meaning, I suppose, are all of the sections there that are planned to be there in the "first version" of the article? But I think this question is now of secondary importance; for the reasons stated above and below, the article does not belong in "live space" at all, so the template is somewhat irrelevant.)

The real issue remains: What is the article actually about? IronDuke and I have asked this in different ways, but the question has not really been answered, except for Bearian's insertion into the intro of a sentence that the subject matter of the article includes the law prevailing in the "Land of Palestine" and the "State of Palestine." "Land of Palestine" is a highly ambiguous term that has several possible meanings (see Palestine) and has enormous potential for use as a POV term. "State of Palestine" refers to a state that does not exist. Interestingly, although both these phrases are "linked", they are both links to redirects. Neither of these phrases is actually the name of an article on Wikipedia, and for good reason. "State of Palestine", which was a separate article at one time, now redirects to Proposals for a Palestinian state, because the "State of Palestine" is just that, a proposal. As for "Land of Palestine", I need to ask this again, for the second or third time: What exactly are the borders of the current "Land of Palestine"? And more to the point, does Bearian think that this includes the territory currently within the (pre-1967) borders of the State of Israel? Update: I have now changed the phrase "controlling in the Land of Palestine and the State of Palestine today" to "controlling in Palestine today". It does not completely resolve the problem, but addresses the most blatant part of the problem. 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many other issues with this article, including several that affect the scope of the article. Here are just two that I have not mentioned before:

• The material in the "Historical uses" section refers to the law existing in what I suppose could be called the Jewish-administered areas of the Roman Empire after 70 CE. It seems that its inclusion in this article is based on the fact that the paragraph from the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" (and its variations) to refer to the area in question. There is just one problem with this: This edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia dates from 1906. In modern usage, some term other than "Palestine" would be used in this context. While this reference work is a "reliable source" for many purposes, I don't think it can be considered an RS for the terminology in use today. This whole section really should not be in this article; if anywhere, it belongs in Israeli law as part of the historical background for Israeli law, or probably more appropriately, in articles on Jewish law and/or the Talmud. Placing it in an article on "Law of Palestine" can only cause confusion. Therefore, this paragraph (and hence the section) should be deleted. Update: I have now added the "off topic" template to the section, which does not resolve the issue but at least identifies it for readers. 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The section "Basic law" says that the 2002 Basic Law is the provisional constitution of "Palestine". No, it isn't. It is a proposed constitution for a Palestinian state, which does not yet exist. One problem with it being a constitution is that no state exists to promulgate it as a constitution. In the Oslo Accords, it was agreed that the Palestinian National Authority would be an interim administrative authority -- not the the government of a sovereign state. The source on which a lot of this material is based (here) contains a lot of information that needs to be placed in the article. One example is that the article states that the Basic Law states that "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine", while the Mideastweb source adds an important caveat to this: "Article 3 states that Jerusalem is the capital city of Palestine, though the Palestinian Authority is prohibited from exercising sovereignty in Jerusalem in any form under the interim Oslo agreements." This should be in the article, and I know I could just put it in, but I have to wonder, does all of this material on the "Basic Law" really belong in the article, when that "law" contains a lot of material that is clearly not in effect? This material belongs in "Proposals for a Palestinian state", and perhaps in its own article, and for all I know, it may already be there. But putting it in "Law of Palestine", once again, raises numerous issues. Update: I have modified the beginning of the section in question to refer to the Basic Law as a proposed constitution of a future Palestinian state, rather than the "provisional constitution" of "Palestine". Once again, it does not fully resolve the issue discussed above.

I hope that all of this discussion has made my point clear: The scope of this article is far from settled, and in that situation, user space is a much better location for this article at present. This would avoid, for the time being, the need for a move request. Quite frankly, this article is not ready for a determination of what its appropriate title should be. It belongs in user space. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can go along with the changes to the article made to this point. As I am the only editor who seems to want a broader scope, I must follow the consensus that the article should be narrower in scope, that is, only concerning the law of Palestine as it currently exists, with any relevant legal history, in the areas administered by the Authority. I suggest that the section about History be edited down and replaced with a single sentence in the lede, as a way of limiting the scope further. I would be happy to do that myself. Also, I agree that more material needs to added to the section on Basic Law, but returning it to User space would be a further waste of time. I'll propose some language and cites to add in the next 2 days. Whether it is proposed or provisional has no legal difference under customary law: legal scholars, attorenys, and Palestinians surely will look to it for guidance. I am a Realist: the law is what courts will probably decide based on probable arguments by litigants and their attorneys. I believe that the fact that Palestine's status itself is unsettled probably ought to be in the lede as well. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that any credible scholar, nor any reliable source claims, that The Law of Palestine applies to any parts of pre-1967 Israel; that much is clear, and I think the article as it now reads, makes that clear. Does it need to be states more explicitly? Bearian (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Einstein's privy council and presidential candidcy" is relevant and interesting, but I'll wait to see if anyone else chimes in one way or the other on that specific issue. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think a consensus exists that, as Thibbs said above, "As Sharia concerns religious policies arguably going back as far as the 600s AD, I believe a historical approach to examining the current law is of paramount importance." Bearian (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My responses to the questions above are here:

1. I think the geographic area that the article intended to cover is the area administered by the Authority (PNA). There appears to be a strong consensus for this.
2. I think the article intends to cover any relevant geographic area from the past, possibly from any period starting with 600 AD, and going forward. The use of a historical method is probably best; Thibbs and I agree on this, but not sure what is the consensus. The legal history does not have to go on for pages.
3. "Palestinian legal history" should begin with 600 AD, at least in theory.
4. No, I really did not consider nor intend to cover the law applicable in the applicable geographic area in every different time period going back to 70 CE, or even earlier. The currently applicable law is a mixture of the law applied under the periods of Ottoman, British and Jordanian law, among others. But I wanted to include at least a note of what the term has also meant in the past.
5. The article lede ultimately is supposed to be a summary of the article, which deals only with the current situation under the PNA. However, the old/new name is not only simpler, but more coherent and recognizes that history is so important in the law of this area. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: I think that technically, according to the Oslo protocols, the PNA only has full control over the cities and villages, while the Israeli officials maintain control of rural areas. Is my assessment correct? Should this be noted somewhere in the article? Bearian (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

These comments (including the numbered answer 1, above) make even clearer than ever that the title of this article should not be "Law of Palestine". "Palestine" is just too ambiguous. When and if there is a "State of Palestine" in existence, "Law of Palestine" will be an appropriate title, because there will be a government that has the authority to adopt (and/or "receive") and enforce "law." Right now, no such state or government exist. The PNA administers "law" within the area of its interim administrative jurisdiction, and that is what this article is going to be about. Therefore, the title "Law of the Palestinian National Authority" would be accurate, while the current title is not. Accuracy trumps "simplicity" every day of the week.

As for the "Basic Law", we may actually agree on part of this, but this section needs to be made much more clear. I did a quick search to find an objective source on this but did not find one. For now, whoever gets the first chance to put in the qualifying language from that "Mideastweb" site. As for "proposed" v. "provisional", I think a distinction needs to be drawn between the parts of the Basic Law that the PNA police and courts actually have the ability to enforce (such as the right to due process, freedom of expression, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.), and things that are merely political aspirations (like saying that "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine".) The first category may very well be considered "provisional" and may actually be carried out currently (though a source on this would be nice), while the second clearly is just an idea or proposal that Palestinians are trying to achieve through negotiation and other means. I also think that the current split between Fatah and Hamas, each governing one part of the territory in question, needs to be in there somewhere. There are other articles on Wikipedia that cover the dispute that currently exists over who, if anyone, are the legitimate government ministers of the PNA, and that information should be referred to here as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 6SJ7's assessment here: "Law of the PNA" is what this article is shaping up to be about -- which I think is a wise narrowing of the topic. The definition of "Palestine" is in any case far too contentious to make an article about, except an article that deals with who is contending what, and why. Bearian, I know you prefer "Law of Palestine," but since you've narrowed focus, do you have any serious objection to its being moved to a title that more accurately (and neutrally) reflect the scope of what you're doing? IronDuke 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can actually agree with you two about everything immediately above, except the title. On points of agreement: A distinction probably should be made between what's aspirational (the old chestnut of the Jerusalem issue) and what's de facto being enforced (basic human rights, law and order when and if possible, family law). I agree with the part that "the current split between Fatah and Hamas, each governing one part of the territory in question, needs to be in there somewhere." I do not see where "Palestine" by itself has any POV and is any less accurate. Every single other "Law of" article - whether for a state (such as New York or Rhode Island) or a nation (such as United States or Germany) has such titles -- not "The Law of Commonwealth of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations", "The Law of the State of New York", "the Law of the United States of America in Congress Assembled", nor the "Law of the Federal Republic of Germany"). Look guys, I got involved in Wikipedia (WP) because of my college students - a "better to join them than fight them" attitude. This is where millions of college students look first for information, and they shall most assuredly look under "Law of Palestine", whatever that means, rather than PNA. WP, as a tertiary source, should be the first place to look, not the end of the studies. If you absolutely must explain this is the lede, do so. But to move the article again, without a very clear consensus from the community, is just plain wrong and irrational. I would rather that the article be listed at WP:PM or WP:AFD than changed right now. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note the styles of title that I suggested and created are consistent with other titles about legal articles. In WikiProject Law (see the tag on the top of the page), we use some titles where the "law" goes after the field, state or country (such as United States law, California law, Florida law, Massachusetts law, Competition law, Energy law, Hunting law, and Immigration law), but for other nations, the "law of" precedes the common name of the country (see, e.g., Law of Germany, Law of Israel, and Law of China). Interestingly, there are no articles yet for Rhode Island law, New York law, Pennsylvania law, Ohio law, Delaware law, Texas law, or Michigan law -- all of which are important states with huge bodies of common law. I'll try to get more examples of territories such as "Palestine". Bearian (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More precedent from law -- Law of abode, Law of admiralty, Law of Africa ... Law of Papua New Guinea, Law of Peoples, etc.... Africa is not a country, and its borders are contested by geographers. Please, accept that the title has plenty of reason. I can't find any specific policy, guideline or rule at WP, but the standard is so universal here, that any other use would only serve to confuse our users, and serve as a horrible precedential exception. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: "law of palestine" gets about 35,900 Ghits, but "law of the palestinian national authority" gets exactly 418. An discussion for deletion of such an article with the latter title would degrade into "How many Ghits can you find" - a poor argument, but one I've seen literally hunderds of times there. College students looking for "law of palestine" shall find our article quickly and easily. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

At the grave risk of wikilawyering, I'm putting my foot down. I found the rule, and here is the rule. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am going to have to request, strongly, that you send any proposed move to Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to make a change to the precedents clearly enunciates above, and the rules by which we work. That is all I have to say here about the title. A man has to put his foot down somewhere. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting your "foot down?” If you were a newbie, I’d let this go, but you’re not. There’s no foot-putting here, it’s a wiki. You don’t WP:OWN this article, or any other.

All the other “Law of” examples you indicate point to places that have well-defined borders. There may be quibbles here and there, but everyone knows what you mean when you say “Africa.” You concede that this article only discusses the PNA, yet you refuse to call it what it is, and instead want to call it something that is completely misleading. I’m baffled as to why.

The rule you link to is a good one and, of course, completely undermines your point. “Palestine” is a not a simple concept, it’s a highly complex one, that has meant different things at different times (and different things to different people at the same time). The PNA is actually pretty easily graspable, and non-controversial and, coincidentally, is what the article is actually about. It's not about Palestine, as there is no such place today – many people would like there to be (and I personally think there will be), but per WP:CRYSTAL, we can’t pretend that’s happened yet.

Also, NB: Can you fix your colon use so it doesn't look like you're replying to yourself in the thread? It makes things easier to follow. IronDuke 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing what a morass of propaganda and bad-faith assumptions an article can develop into during the course of a simple one week vacation. Having now caught up on much of what has transpired here, I am left with the distinct impression that at the heart of the issue we have two unrelated motivations developing. On the one hand it seems to me that Bearian has been engaged in crafting an article on the law of (what is commonly understood as) Palestine with an emphasis on conflict of laws and employing a historical approach. On the other hand we have 6SJ7 and IronDuke who are grappling with the problem they perceive in the potential for inaccuracy to develop through the use of the term "Palestine" to define an area whose boundaries they are not sure exist. I think both sides are well-intentioned here, however the heavy-handedness with which the article's "corrections" took place created a bit of a rift in the development of the article. Since the AN/I and Elonka's intervention I notice a great improvement in the nature of these "corrections." I would commend 6SJ7 in particular for adopting the discussion approach to consensus building on talk. This is truly the only way contentious articles may be moved forward. Now that things are progressing with a bit more finesse and communication, I think it is fairly clear that neither Bearian's nor S67J/IronDuke's concerns are at cross purposes. The few remaining points of disagreement may be analyzed individually.

• Issue #1 - Inclusion of historical legal elements - In deciding whether historical elements are either necessary or nugatory we must examine the reason for the inclusions. Here, Bearian has suggested that an examination of the historical policies leading to the development of the current law is necessary (or at least highly helpful) to explain why the laws take the form they currently take. 6SJ7 contends that this historical approach has the unfortunate consequence of broadening the geographical scope of the legal realms into areas such as Israel - a broadening he considers controversial.

In doing minor research online I have discovered a number of sources that endorse or promote this historical approach for the same reasons as given by Bearian. I also agree with this approach insofar as it seems to be the general approach taken by articles for most states employing a religious law system. As the religions upon which the modern religious law systems are based are ancient, articles on these legal systems must naturally begin with a discussion of their historical development. That the history includes legal frameworks which overflow the modern boarders should not be interpreted by editors as any kind of propagandistic endorsement for the aspirational elements of the current law but rather this should be viewed is it is in other religious law articles as an element of the historical framework vital for a comprehensive understanding of the current state of the law.

• Issue #2 - Title of the article - This disagreement seems superficially stickier, however, ultimately it boils down to a discussion of whether accuracy or common use are more important. Personally I believe that common use is the more appropriate factor to keep in mind and that the article's intro is the place for strict accuracy. I also believe that based on the fact that the scope of this article is intended to cover an area the name for which has become a matter of dispute in some circles, that the most general term should be used. It is equally inappropriate to call the patchwork of conflicting laws the "Law of the State of Palestine" as it is to delegitimize them by explaining them away as merely a modern historical blip. In any case it seems to me that it is precisely in such contentious issues that it is more appropriate to bow to the common use as the common use is typically capable of less bias than either side of the contentious issue.

I will add a few more comments in the next few day when I can find the time. -Thibbs (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"In any case it seems to me that it is precisely in such contentious issues that it is more appropriate to bow to the common use as the common use is typically capable of less bias than either side of the contentious issue." On what scholar, work, or even generally known maxim do you base this claim? Is there any basis at all, other than your own opinion? IronDuke 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The common use derives from repetition. If there be bias it is to be found on a systemic level, however unlike the conflictingly usages of either "invested" side, the common user has no stake in its selection of a term. Correction of systemic bias requires education of the common user. In the case at hand, and in answer to your question, I personally opine that renaming the page to a title the common user does not use will only serve to confuse, disrupt, and — inadvertently of course — to advance a particular position. My opinion is the result of logic and experience and nothing more. Luckily, as this is a wikipedia talk page, opinions are typically encouraged especially as a consensus-building tool. -Thibbs (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [insertion]

"Common use derives from repetition?" All right, you got me. X does officially equal X. In any case, you're entitled to your opinion. Mine happens to be we should name things what they are understood to be by experts, not bow to whatever our vague impressions of what a "common user" might think are. IronDuke 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that a simple Google test, as imperfect as it is, can be used to roughly confirm common use. This suggestion has been brought up repeatedly by Bearian here in talk. Your use of the terms "vague impressions" and "might" are thus rather misleading. If you feel that expert views on the ambiguity of a term should be presented (and I certainly agree that expert views are often valuable to a generally accurate understanding) then they will doubtless find appropriate placement in the introduction to the article. As Bearian suggested earlier, it is Wikipedia's article-naming policy to use the most easily recognized name. Exercising logic it is abundantly clear that a less commonly used name (even one which is perhaps more accurate) is never the "most easily recognized name" except in certain circles. -Thibbs (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize my arguments so far about title, they are here:

1. Precedent - every such legal article is styled "Law of X" or "X law" with the simplest word or phrase commonly in use. All countries, states, religious systems, common law systems, and autonomous territories have such articles. As noted, every single other "Law of" article has a short title - whether for a state (such as California law, Florida law, Massachusetts law), field of law (Competition law, Energy law, Hunting law, and Immigration law), a nation (e.g., United States law, Law of Germany, Law of Israel, and Law of China), or continent (Law of Africa). The longer but more accurate and legal titles are never used. There are no exceptions that I can find. WikiProject Law is in the process of creating articles for every such jurisdiction. If you wish to create an exception (for example, that PNA is an corporation or local government), please give a good reason.
2. Basic rules - The general rule of naming an article isWikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name. A title does not exactly have to match substance. Wikipedia values veracity over accuracy. People, places, things, and ideas must be notable, not famous. Simplicity is valued over accuracy. Neutrality is favored over comprehensiveness. College students looking for "law of palestine" shall find our article quickly and easily (see Ghits for "law of palestine"). There is no specific rule for legal articles, but I will propose that the community use the method already in use.
3. Risk of a nomination for deletion -- While it is a bad argument, I've seen many nominations based on such things as "law of the palestinian national authority" gets only 418 Ghits.
4. Politics - "the current split between Fatah and Hamas, each governing one part of the territory in question..." makes the case for a simpler article and title as well. There is some confusion over subject matter jurisdictions - the PNA has jurisdiction in both rural and urban areas over civil law, but only in urban areas for criminal justice. Customary law used by arabs living within the borders of Israel do not exclusively use Israeli law. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Incorrect. See Law of the Republic of Ireland. Why not merely Law of Ireland? Because “Ireland” includes an area that isn’t in the political entity that is the RoI, just as “Palestine” could conceivably include areas that aren’t controlled by Palestinians.
2. “Simplicity is valued over accuracy.” This is actually quite true. At Simple English Wikipedia. Not here. We are writing for people who have reasonably good attention spans. And in any case, the title 6SJ7 proposes is in fact simpler: it denotes a specific place and time, rather than a vague arae over the course of a couple millennia.
3. Re g-hits. Luckily, this argument comes with its own self-destruct button. “While it is a bad argument…” Yes, indeed it is.
4. Your title wouldn’t work under this logic, either. Arabs living in Israel, whatever law they may be subject to, do not live in Palestine, do they? So how about “Law of the Palestinians?” IronDuke 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Law of the Palestinians" would work for me, except for the Ghit problem; we want to be found by students searching for the most likely term. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. How about Palestinian law? It would be consistent with the pattern of some other articles including Israeli law. (There is a page at Palestinian Law, which is a redirect to this article, but the L in "law" is upper-case, which it really shouldn't be.) I think it would be a reasonable compromise, more accurate than the current title, and potentially would allow for a more expansive article than "Law of the PNA", although that is a separate issue. As for the "Google test", I really don't think that is an issue. All of the potential titles can be redirects to "Palestinian law", so anyone searching on the "Law of Palestine" would get to the right place. (And interestingly, "Palestinian law" gets 15,100 hits, while "Law of the Palestinians" gets 1.) In any event, the Google test doesn't really work here. The Internet does not know what the most accurate title is for this article. We human beings do. "Law of the PNA" would be the most accurate title in my opinion, but Palestinian law would be acceptable -- and it even "passes" the Google test. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this compromise. I actually created the redirect at Palestinian Law (upper-case 'L') and in light of its violation of the naming conventions I propose it be deleted and replaced with Palestinian law to serve as the article title. I further propose that this article become a redirect page to Palestinian law and that the contents of this talk page (Talk:Law of Palestine) be transferred to Talk:Palestinian law in order to properly document the road to consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse this idea as an acceptable compromise. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pending IronDuke weighing in here, it looks like we have a consensus. I don't think we need to list this at WP:RM, do we? It is not a "controversial move" at this point. In light of Elonka's comments above, I will ask her if she agrees that it can be moved without further "process." 6SJ7 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I shall not budge! Kidding... yeah, sounds good. Glad we could all put our heads together on this. Cheers. IronDuke 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to move

OK, Here is what we have: All four editors who have been involved in the discussion of this article's title have agreed on a compromise move to Palestinian law. (This is pretty remarkable considering where we stood a week or so ago.) Additionally, Elonka has confirmed that it is acceptable to "be bold" and move the article based on this consensus, without a notice at WP:RM, subject to a possible later "process" in the event that some currently uninvolved editor objects to the move at a later time. On that basis, any of us can now move the article. Bearian, would you like to do the honors? As for Thibbs' comments, I do not think it is necessary to delete Palestinian Law, as it can just be edited to redirect to Palestinian law. The material on this talk page does not need to be transferred, as the talk page itself can just be automatically moved to Talk:Palestinian law when the article is moved. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on the "State of Palestine"

Could someone explain to me how a proposed state is capable of establishing embassies in foreign countries? As far as I am aware the most a non-state could do would be to set up a Consulate or Representative Office, yet Palestine seems to have a large number of legitimate Embassies (see also [2]). Doesn't the existence of a legitimate Embassy suggest the existence of a State at least in the eyes of the significant minority? I am not familiar with the intricate foreign relations involved, so if someone adopting the "State of Palestine is just a proposal" viewpoint could explain this to me in a manner consistent with WP:CIVIL I would be grateful. As a reminder, I am not advocating either position but am genuinely curious. -Thibbs (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the simplest answer is that having a diplomatic mission does not in itself confer statehood. See, for example, the United Nations, which is not a state. IronDuke 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and polite response. If you'll pardon an ignorant follow-up question, does the UN have any Embassies? I couldn't locate anything specifically called an Embassy at the UN wesite. Also, your link to "diplomatic mission" yields the following line:

A diplomatic mission is a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization (such as the United Nations) present in another state to represent the sending state/organization in the receiving state.

(Emphasis added)

Since "Palestine" is not an international inter-governmental organization, doesn't it follow that to the States which house "Palestinian" Embassies, at least, "Palestine" is a State? Is "Palestine" an exception to this? What exactly are the criteria for statehood? Are these criteria universally accepted by all States? -Thibbs (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No... I think what follows is that some states sympathetic to Palestinians extend courtesies to them usually reserved for people with actual states. To give an extreme example, what if I purchased a small island in the Caribbean with my vast wealth, then paid the Republic of Bannanistan to recognize me and open an embasy. Am I a state? Palestine is not a state because it doesn't have any borders, or a capital, or an army, or sovereignity over its own territory, except to the extent the Israelis allow it. Nor do they have a functioning government as such, just an ad hoc, temporary authority. IronDuke 04:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. If the Palestinian people have paid foreign States to erect sham Embassies simply for show and these States only give them nominal recognition then clearly this hurts (perhaps fatally) any propriety of de jure status. Its also fairly clear that there can be no de facto status afforded a "State" lacking borders, a government, or sovereignty over its own territory.

Just to clarify, however, have the Palestinian people paid off all 50-100 States which house one of their embassies? Are there any sources for this? Do the States which haven't been bribed into accepting "Palestinian" "embassies" grant Palestine (or "The State of Palestine") de jure recognition? -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "state" because it does not have the attributes of a sovereign state, as IronDuke has stated. Even the UN General Assembly, a majority of which would clearly like to see a Palestinian state exist, has not admitted "Palestine" to membership. It has observer status only, see United Nations General Assembly observers. And an even greater authority, Wikipedia, has decided the issue as well, with the merger of the former State of Palestine article into Proposals for a Palestinian state. (The last sentence is tongue in cheek, obviously, but the point is, the correct decision was made in that case, let's not undo it now.) 6SJ7 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Thibbs: no, I certainly didn't mean to suggest the Palestinians had bribed anyone: I'm almost certain that's not the case. What I was getting at was that having an embassy somewhere doesn't make you or the plot of land you occupy a state. IronDuke 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sorry I misunderstood. -Thibbs (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially when you have signed an agreement stating that you are administering the plot of land as an interim administrative authority, rather than governing it as a sovereign state. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all fairly clear. I guess the heart of my question concerns how the Palestinian territories are viewed by those States that have Palestinian embassies. It seems to me that the name of the building (as a "Palestinian embassy") at least implicitly suggests that these other countries characterize Palestine as a State in at least a de jure sense. I know that many Western and/or powerful States consider Palestine to be nothing more than a proposed State, but do any of the "Palestinian embassy" States agree with this analysis? Are there, in fact, a finite number of agreed upon attributes of a sovereign state, and is the agreement universal? I'm particularly interested in the viewpoint of the States which have Palestinian embassies. Is it correct to assume that they recognize de jure Palestinian Statehood? If any of them recognize full Palestinian Statehood and subscribe to the definition of the sovereign State (i.e. the list of agreed upon attributes), are they then speaking in riddles? What is their slant? -Thibbs (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawlessness within scope?

You all can check this out with other law articles, but crime and lawlessness do not ordinarily fall within the scope of this article. For comparison, see Law of Iraq and the laws for Northern Ireland. In addition, within the non-wiki world of secondary and tertiary literature on law, lawlessness and crime would not be placed under this heading.

Let me stipulate that my concern is unrelated to the content within the lawlessness section (currently titled "Criminal law"). I would recommend moving, as needed, content to the article listed as the See Also for the section (if missing there).

Thanks for your consideration. Congrats on the consensus move, HG | Talk 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. There could be a separate article on crime, although that would probably lead us back to the same naming issue that we just resolved for this article. Palestinian crime does not sound like a very good title. There are articles on crime in various places, such as Crime in the United States, Crime in the People's Republic of China, and others. (There also seems to be an organized arrangement of crime-related articles as evidenced by Category:Crime by country and its subcategories, although many of the country categories do not seem to actually include a "Crime in..." article.) But again, we get back to the title issue: An article on crime in the areas administered by the Palestinian National Authority would be titled "Crime in..." Where? What? Or maybe the material should just go in the Palestinian National Authority article. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Most the material is in PNA already, right? It could be spun-out in summary style to a new article, pls discuss on Talk there. You might try "Civil disorder and crime..." for title, "lawlessness" is not much of a term. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of separating out "Criminal law" and "Civil disorder" sections. Yes, the material was copied and trimmed down from the larger article. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks to you both. I've removed the material as proposed above. For folks who would like to use it to create a spinout from the PNA main article, or simply to revise the version of this text there, here is the diff of the removal. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead and jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is a key issue for this topic, so I'd recommend giving it a separate section.

On a related note: The long quote and several accompanying sentences do not rely work well for the lead. Since they happen to deal with jurisdiction, I recommend boldly moved the material to a Jurisdiction section. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with these moves although I am not sure that "Jurisdictional issues" is the correct heading for this new section. The long quote seems to be trying to answer the question, "Where does current Palestinian law come from?" The corresponding answer for the United States, for example, would be that (except for Louisiana), the law is mostly the "received law" of England as further developed, adapted and modified over many years in the U.S. In some other countries and territories the answer would be more complicated, and the law administered by the PNA would be one of them. I am not sure what the right heading would be, though. "Sources of law", maybe? 6SJ7 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the text so far just gives the background of the jurisdictions in play, historically, and how their laws still matter. How about "jurisdictional background"? This might hold the current text. Then we could build up to the current jurisdictional situation. ("Sources of law" is too broad for this section alone.) Anyone, I'm open to your retitling, though it would be a higher priority to add more substantive content at this juncture. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far, folks. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

May I try to humbly and respectfully disagree with you on this one? Usually one talks of the "jurisdiction" of a court, not of a set of laws. The distinction might seem academic – obviously a court can only exist if it has laws to follow, whether they be written or not – but in using the word here, it gets mixed up with the sense of jurisdiction=sovereignty. This section, and the section "Statutes and legislation" really are discussing the sources of the law which Palestinian courts apply (or at least try to, or should try to, depending on your point of view and the court in question): "Sources of law" is the most descriptive title for the (hopefully combined) section. The legal jurisdiction of Palestinian courts is the subject of disputes which go far beyond Wikipedia: the effective jurisdiction – ie, the territory and the case matters on which the courts can enforce their rulings – is something which might be usefully discussed in this article, but isn't at the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Psychim on the section title. As for the issue of "effective jurisdiction", I think that that might take this article into political (rather than just legal) areas which are already dealt with (for better or for worse) in other articles. There is already quite a bit -- most probably too much -- on Wikipedia about the dispute over the territories in question. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I won't fall on my sword for the current heading. But how would "Sources of law" work for this material, and "Statutes and legislation" yet not also encompass "Judicial law" too? In analytical jurisprudence (e.g., Salmond), sources of law have a very broad scope. Maybe call it Historical background? (Also, it's fine to for jurisdiction to be mixed up with sense of sovereignty, since this section is talking about the legacy of Ottoman, British, etc sovereign power and their legal orders.) Anyway, I'm just trying to help us find a suitable heading. HG | Talk 02:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-name and redirect?

I thought this was redirected to Law of the Palestinian Authority. What's the consensus now? Bearian (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC) I'd be happy to keep it as "Palestinian law", but I just wanted to check after a few months. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Waldman v. PLO

I inserted a sentence of text and citations regarding this case. Please keep it in. If you must re-word or move it to what you think is a more appropriate place, that is fine, just ping me. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Updates

I made two updates - one to the current year, and one to fix a dead link to Palestinian_National_Authority#Crime_and_law_enforcement. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)