This is an archive of past discussions about State of Palestine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Bolter21, Israel does not claim the whole of the West Bank, only East Jerusalem. In addition Israel occupies the whole of the West Bank, not just the area highlighted on your map, although the Palestinian National Council administers that part. Rob984 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Israel claim, This is a map of The State of Palestine. The State of Palestine has the areas they claim and areas they hold. The State of Palestine is a name of The Palestinian National Authority (And it's a shame that Wikipedia show it as if The Palestinian National Authority reformed into the State of Palestine). The PNA is not a sovargion entity but an Authority of the PLO goverment on certain areas in Judea and Samaria. Israel does not occupy the whole of the West Bank. The Area is Devided into Area A, Area B and Area C. Area A and B are the areas where the Palestinian Law applies (Dark Green) while Area A is under full Palestinian controll (Civil and security) while Area C is under Direct Israeli controll and where all the settlements are.
In addition, Israel does not have a rule or a constitution that defind what Israel claim and what not. They have laws that apply only for East Jerusalem and the Golan Highets. Israel has only two defined international borders, between Egypt and between Jordan. The border with Jordan goes through the Jordan river inside the West Bank. Israel don't claim the whole West Bank but they also don't claim Tel Aviv.
And accuarding to international law, the West Bank has the status of disputed and not occupaid because:
1) Israel conquered the area from Jordan and not from Palestine. In 1988, Jordan relinquished all claims to the West Bank.
2) The State of Palestine lacks the recognition needed to become a legitemete state.
3) The Areas claimed by the State of Palestine were never held by a legitemete sovargion state under the name of Palestine.
You need a source to claim it is "disputed" with Israel, not occupied. A number of states don't control all of their territory due to occupations by other states, terrorists, etc; for example Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Somalia, etc. We do not indicate this territory on their maps because it is not formally claimed by any other widely recognised state. The State of Palestine is recognised by 135 UN member states. For comparison, Israel is only recognised by 160 UN member states. Both are widely recognised states and therefore "legitimate". Rob984 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
They are occupied and it is the neutral description of the status quo. It is not only wrong, but impertinently contrafactual to keep insisting against all the evidence.
26.The Occupied Palestinian Territory is comprised of the West Bank, including East-Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. The Government of Israel adopts the position that since it withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 during the “disengagement”, it no longer has effective control over what happens in Gaza and thus can no longer be considered as an occupying power under international law. The commission agrees that the exercise of ‘effective control’ test is the correct standard to use in determining whether a State is the occupying power over a given territory, but notes that the continuous presence of soldiers on the ground is only one criterion to be used in determining effective control
.
27. International law does not require the continuous presence of troops of the occupying forces in all areas of a territory, in order for it to be considered as being occupied. In the Naletelic case, the ICTY held that the law of occupation also applies in areas where a state possesses the “capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make its power felt.” The size of Gaza and the fact that it is almost completely surrounded by Israel facilitates the ability for Israel to make its presence felt. This principle was confirmed by the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which stated:
It is clear that the German Armed Forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German Armed Forces of its status of an occupant.
That commission also specifically mentions the State of Palestine, I.e., the state that is the, in international law, legal heir to the unified areas covered by occupied Palestinian territories. If political accords change this, fine. At the moment, as ever, this is the state of play.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
An unsourced statement on another article is not a reliable source. That map needs a reliable source that states that the area highlighted is disputed territory between Israel and the State of Palestine. Rob984 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem here, is really simple. There is a huge mistake Wikipedia did and It was transforming the PA to the State of Palestine, which never happened. Sure the goverment of the State of Palestine is the goverment of the PA but it does not change the fact that the only thing that changed after the acceptation of the PA as a UN observer member was that Abu Mazen changed the name of the Authority to "State of Palestine" for the political intrests of doing so. Physiclly, nothing changed, therefore, the State of Palestine is the PA and therefore the lands owned by the PA which are De-Facto sovargion needs to be showen alongside the Claimed Areas. Even if the land is occupaid or not, even if it's desputed or not, IT DOESENT MATTER. Wikipedia is a source that provides information, therefore, we should provide the information about what does the state we claim that exist as a sovargion state acually hold. Area A and B are under Palestinian rule, they are dependent on Israel but so do some other entities in the world. The State of Palestine is a goverment that was declared in 1988, it is still the same goverment, it's just that Isareli provided it with an authority in the West Bank and Gaza to govern the people and in the cities, also to provide security. The PA enclaves are the lands where the law of the State of Palestine apply, they must be shown!.
Not showing this can give the Idea that: The Palestinian has no controll over any area in the West Bank what so ever or that the Palestinians have controll over the area, depends on the person who reads it. Bolter21 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A huge number of states historically has had no control over the territory assigned to them because it is 'occupied'. That is not an argument. Israel has formally recognized that it is occupying another country, which the world, and the best legal sources, ICC et al., do not dispute is 'The State of Palestine'. The rest is politics.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Right.
"State of Palestine is the PA and therefore the lands owned by the PA which are De-Facto sovargion needs to be showen alongside the Claimed Areas."
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but, the State of Palestine claims sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank. 135 UN member states recognise this claim (some exclude East Jerusalem however). No other sovereign state claims this territory.
"Even if the land is occupaid or not, even if it's desputed or not, IT DOESENT MATTER."
Yes it does. This is Wikipedia convention. We do not indicate occupied land unless it is claimed by another widely recognised sovereign state.
"we should provide the information about what does the state we claim that exist as a sovargion state acually hold. "
In the article body, sure. But the map in the infobox is a locator map, for locating the State of Palestine. If the territory is not claimed by another widely recognised sovereign state, then there is no reason to indicate on the locator map.
"Isareli provided it with an authority in the West Bank and Gaza to govern the people and in the cities, also to provide security."
I agree. Israel occupies the whole of the West Bank and delegates authority to the Palestine Authority (now the Palestinian National Council). Another reason why your map is misleading. Allowing the Palestinian Authority to administer a number of small territories surrounded by Israeli military checkpoints does not seem to me like the Palestinian Authority has "control" over that territory.
PNA a.k.a State of Palestine claims whole of West Bank and Gaza. Currently it has partial control over areas designated as A and B by the Oslo accords and Gaza. The map has to show 3 colors: controlled territory, claimed territory, and area neither claimed nor controlled. “WarKosign”08:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It has to show the state's territory and disputed territory; just like every other country's article on Wikipedia. If you think we should show all uncontrolled claimed territory of states then you should propose that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries because it would affect a large number of articles and therefore require wide consensus. Rob984 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The locator map of Ukraine does not show the area occupied by pro-Russia rebels/Russia, that is not disputed with Russia.
The locator map of Syria does not show the area occupied by the Israel, the Free Syrian Army or Kurdish forces.
The locator map of Libya does not show the area occupied by the Libya Dawn Coalition.
Actually, map of Ukraine shows occupied Crimea in a different color.
In addition, there is a big difference: the territories claimed but not controlled by State of Palestine were never controlled by the state, Israel did not occupy the state of Palestine, Israel occupied territories that at that moment were controlled by Jordan and Egypt and only later State of Palestine was formed and claimed the territories. Showing all of West Bank and Gaza as part of State of Palestine would be akin to showing ISIL territorial claims as actually being part of ISIL that is currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, etc“WarKosign”17:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Crimea is a disputed territory. Russia and Ukraine both claim that territory. Parts of Donbass are occupied but not disputed. These are not shown.
No. The State of Palestine, recognised by 135 UN member states, is not at all comparable to ISIL. The historical situation is irrelevant.
I don't see what's so terrible about this analogy and am sorry if it offended someone, it was not my intention. Currently the article shows a map of the claimed territories and it is correctly labelled. In my opinion it would be useful to indicate on the map area where the claim already became a reality, but I am quite ok without it as well.“WarKosign”19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You didn't offend me but you probably did others (but it wasn't your intent and you did apologize) . Anyways, as Rob984 already stated, Palestine is a recognized country while ISIL isn't. But let's move on from this analogy lol. There's no need to focus on it. AcidSnow (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Offence isn't my problem. The analogy is just bad. Anyway...
The locator map has one purpose: to locate the state. Disputed territories are outlined because it is ambiguous as to whether they are part of the state being located. There is no ambiguity as to what state an "occupied territory" is part of. Hence the term "occupied". One state must be being occupied by another party.
For example, it is ambiguous as to whether Crimea is part of Ukraine. It is not ambiguous as to whether Donbass is part of Ukraine. This is for one simple fact: Crimea's status is disputed with another state, Donbass's is not.
I don't disagree the fact that Israel occupies and administers that part of the West Bank is important information and should be conveyed to the reader. I disagree that it should be indicated on the locator map, which should be used solely to convey the location of the state. This is the same reason why we don't show administrative boundaries, labels, etc on locator maps.
I would support adding a map to the body of the article to show what areas are administered by the State of Palestine, and what are occupied by Israel, ie an administrative map, as oppose to the locator map.
You are making an incorrect statement - these are not "occupied territories of State of Palestine" since they were not part of the state when they were occupied. The territories are considered under occupation and the state does claim them, but they were never a part of the state so they can't be occupied territories of the state. You can call them "occupied territories claimed by the state".“WarKosign”06:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well who else does that territory belong to? Nobody? The State of Palestine is the only state that claims sovereignty over that territory, and the international community considers it to be "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Regardless, it isn't disputed territory either way. Rob984 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The United Nations has recognised the right of the Palestinian people to "self-determination", "national independence" and "sovereignty in Palestine". It has also recognised the State of Palestine as "representative of the Palestinian people". And the United Nations regards the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian territory" and designates Israel as the "occupying power". In addition, as an observer state in the UN, the State of Palestine is permitted to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space; and has the right to sue in regards to its sovereignty over its rightful territory in the International Court of Justice, and to bring crimes against humanity and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawful occupation of the territory of State of Palestine, against Israel in the International Criminal Court. The UN does not regard the occupied Palestinian territory and the State of Palestine as "two distinct entities". In fact, the International Organization for Standardisation changed the designation in ISO 3166-1 from "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" to "the State of Palestine" in 2013. Rob984 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no contradiction between any of these statements and what I wrote - except your incorrect conclusion, of course. “WarKosign”16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who said that "Israel does not claim the West Bank", I say it again, it doesnt change the fact that the PNA holds lands and don't hold other lands. I"ve been in both Area B and C, belive me, It's not just "occupaid land". There are settlements there that pay taxes to Israel and being provided with aid from Israel. it is one of Israel's provinces: Judea and Samaria Area. It is under the Millitary Law because Israel can't make the civil law apply in it becuase it will be seen as an act of annexation. Polititians in Israel did tried to inforce the civil law of Israel on the area. [1]. It is not black and white, "Palestinians claim the land, Israelis don't". There is dispution about lands in the area, about resources and about transportation, it is needed to show where does the "State of Palestine"'s law applies to and where it don't. Bolter21 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The international community regards the territory as occupied, not disputed. Settling in occupied territory is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Therefore this does not change the status of the territory. I realise the State of Israel does not regard the territory as occupied, however this is contrary to the view of the international community. Why should the State of Israel's point of view be conveyed over the view of the international community? See WP:NPOV. Rob984 (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No legitemte country claim the land. It is disputed. The settlements were built since the 70's when the land was still claimed by one party: Jorda. The thing is, the Jordanian occupation of the land was bearly recognized by any country nor any Arab country so also back then the land was disputed. In 1988, the PLO declared a goverment-in-exile for the State of Palestine and Jordan relinquished all of it's claims, the new party that now claim the land, but the State of Palestine lacks the international recognition to be considered legitemite. Not to mention, Palestine never held this lands as a legitemite state but as subjects of forgion rulers. This land, until the USA, France and UK will be "disputed" and not "occupaid" since there is no legitemite state to "occupy". The local people were given an Autonomy called "The Palestinian National Authority". Bolter21 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bolter21: The international community considers the territory occupied, Israel disputes this definition, and that's it. This is the state of affairs, this is what the sources say and this is what wikipedia reports, there is no point arguing who is right or wrong. “WarKosign”13:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign:Alright then. The land is occupaid. The PNA is the State of Palestine. The PNA holds land an claim land. Why won't we show the lands they own and the lands they don't own? Sovargionity is about where you law and jurisdiction applies to, so the PNA's land are where the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Palestine is and therefore this is the land they own, the rest are under Israel's occupation and therfore this are the claims of the State of Palestine, why won't we show them both?
Because it's not disputed. The international community regards it as "Palestinian territory" under Israeli occupation. This discussion is beginning to go round in circles. I'm not going to repeat everything I have already said. The State of Palestine is legitimate; it is recognised by 135 UN member states and has been granted observer state status by the UN. This is also the established consensus on Wikipedia. Rob984 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The state is recognized, its claimed territory is not. Current location map correctly shows the lands claimed by the state, it could show the actually controlled land as well but for some reason you insist to have less information in the article. “WarKosign”15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984:So what if (parts of) the international community recognized it as occupaid? The State of Palestine is still not a legit state because they are rejected by another 58 memebers, how does a dispute start? -When people don't agree with each other! In this scenario we have 75% who don't agree with 25% but this 25% are all of Western Europe (exept for Sweden) and North America, this is an harsh dispute mostly between Western and Eastern (and should I remind that Palestinians always used Soviet made weapons?). Should we delete the article about Somaliland because no country recognize it as a legit state? Come on, it doesn't change anything. The State of Palestine is represented by the PNA (which also has no controll over Gaza) and the PNA holds lands and claim lands. Just because some politicians said they recognize something, doesnt mean we should hide information from people.
WarKosign, I don't insist on having less information in the article. I support adding a map to the body of the article to show controlled and uncontrolled territory, possibly under the Government section? I oppose showing uncontrolled territory that is not disputed in the locator map. Why? Because every other article only shows disputed territory in light green, not undisputed occupied territory. This is the convention. Surely it is misleading to show undisputed territory in the colour we use to show disputed territory?
Bolter21, Israel is only recognised by 160 UN member states. Is it illegitimate also? The states which do not recognise the State of Palestine still regard Israel's presence in the West Bank as an occupation. Numerous UN resolutions have shown that the international community regard Israel's occupation as a violation of international law. These resolutions have been supported by many western states which do not recognise the State of Palestine.
Also on Israel's article, Jerusalem is not shown as disputed when the international community does not recognise its sovereignty there.
I fully agree with Rob984 and his recent edit seems to be an appropriate compromise. I don't believe one-sided pseudo legal arguments carry as much weight as a Wikipedia convention which have been applied to virtually every single country article. I don't see any real basis for why this article should be an exception. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me say another thing, You want to show in the main map all the lands the Palestinians claim without showing the Israeli controll over them... This is very misleading because it is wierd no to show the "Real Picture" of the State of Palestine. You are just hiding the most basic info: "Where is the State of Palestine"? -Not in all of the West Bank.Bolter21 (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't get it do you? Those are examples of disputed territories and unrecognised states. Undisputed occupied territory is not shown:
The locator map of Ukraine does not show the area occupied by pro-Russia rebels/Russia, that is not disputed with Russia.
The locator map of Syria does not show the area occupied by the Israel, the Free Syrian Army or Kurdish forces.
The locator map of Libya does not show the area occupied by the Libya Dawn Coalition.
If Kosovo is an unrecognized State, Palestine is also an unrecognized State. Oh, and last time I checked, Turkey kicked some thousneds of people from Northen Cyprus... "Dispute". NKR kicked 700,000 Azerbijani people out of the land they conquered... Just because they have less recognition then Palestine so The win the privelege of showing the full picture?
THE STATE OF PALESTINE HOLD LAND AND CLAIM LAND
THE STATE OF PALESTINE IS ONLY PARTIALY RECOGNIZED AND ACCUARDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW: NOT A LEGIT STATE
Try Azerbaijan, Armenia or Ukraine. The claim that Palestine is not occupied have been met with overwhelming rejection from the international community, including the UN. The occupation of sovereign nations, whether administered by the occupier or not, are not reflected in any locator map unless they have been annexed (only if the annexation was internationally recognized, i.e. not including areas like Crimea, East Jerusalem).
Re your most recent comment, Palestine is indeed a recognized sovereign state and is a non-member state of the UN. Kosovo is not. Neither are any the self-proclaimed countries you listed. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Correction on my comment about occupied territory not being reflected in any locator map - for some reason unfathomable to me, Cyprus' map seems to denote the occupied territory in the north. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
BUT WHY DOES IT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE ONLY LANDS THAT PALESTINE HOLD ARE LANDS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THEM FROM ISRAEL IN THE OSLO ACCORDS AND THE REST OF THE LANDS ARE "OCCUPAID" OR "CLAIMD"? THEY HAVE, FOR F SAKE, LANDS THEY OWN, ADMINISTRATE, GOVERN AND LANDS THEY DON'T GOVERN, THESES LANDS ARE HOME TO 300,000 ISRAELI CIVILIANS (AND ANOTHER 100,000 ARABS) WHO PAY TAXES TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND ADMINISTRATED BY ISRAEL AND THE IDF— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Bolter there's no point in continuing this discussion. I believe I have address some of the concerns raised by adding a map showing the area administered by the State of Palestine in the government section. We will never agree because you believe that territory's ownership is disputed while I believe it belongs to the Palestinian people. The difference is your view is supported by Israel only, while mine is supported by the vast majority of the international community. While the view of Israel should be portrayed, it should not be given undue weight. Regardless of what you think, that would be in breach of WP:NPOV. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: While I respect your claim that the land is belong to the Palestinians as an observer, I have to contiune saying that the land is disputed, you can't argue with that. If the land was never disputed, today there was a Palestine or Israel and Judea and Samaria but there isn't. The Palestinians fight for existance through lands while the Israelis fight for existance through security. You can't deny that Palestine claim 300,000 Israeli citizens, Israeli millitary bases, Israeli factories etc that are in Area C. Just like the Republic of Cyprus show De-Facto controll and occupaid land's, so do the State of Palestine. You call them occupaid, I call them disputed, it doesn't matter. What's matter is the fact that you serve a Palestinian intrests to remove any mention to Israel in the West Bank for removing it's legitemacy, which is clearly making Wikipedia as a one side supporter. If China's disputed terrotories are showen, so do Palestine's and Israel's should be shown because they give the exact idea of "What is Palestine and what is not Palestine, yet". Bolter21 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no dispute about ownership - at the moment the land does not belong to anyone. It is claimed by State of Palestine, the actual control is divided between SoP and Israel. Israel never annexed the lands, which means it never claimed ownership. The location map should answer one simple question - "where is the subject of this article located?" If SoP can be said to be located anywhere at all, it's in the areas controlled by the state. It is also important to show land claimed by the state as the place where it is likely to be located eventually. Those are not occupied langs of State of Palestine, since the state was never occupied. The lands claimed by the state are considered occupied, but they were occupied before the state was declared, hence it's wrong to compare the situation with occupied lands of other states. “WarKosign”14:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: It doesn't matter if Israel officialy claim that lands or not, this is not a map about Israel, This is a map about the SoP. By a dispute I am not talking about De-Jure sovereignty dispute. This is a dispute about what should Palestine hold and what it won't. Israel agreed for compromises that will resault in withrawal from lands it currently under it's controll in the West Bank, including Jewish Settlemet but never agreed to withraw from all of the land. The last peace offer was made by Olmert in 2008 and it gaved the Palestinians 91% of the West Bank while the other 9% will be all of the Settlement blocs. Some polititians in the ruling party Likud including the PM in Israel said that they want to annex the settlement north to Rammalah who lie in the center (or heart) of the West Bank. Also a major discussion was made about annexing the Etzion Bloc south to Jerusalem and west to Bethlehem. Also, A party who held 12 seats (10%) in the previus goverment and 8 seats (6%) in existing goverment is still holding a plan to the whole Area C which in their claim will only resault that the settlements will be directly ruled by the goverment of Israel but we all know that it won't sound nice in the international communities's ears. The area C issue can't be excluded while discussing the sovereignty of the SoP. Unsigned comment by Bolter21
@Bolter21: My reply was addressed not to you but to Rob984, I explained why the argument "other states don't show their occupied territories" is irrelevant since other states owned the land in question before it became occupied while SoP never owned the disputed territories. I don't quite understand what are you trying to prove me. “WarKosign”17:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bolter, the peace offer was rejected because the land belongs to the Palestinians. Your whole argument is flawed because nobody except Israel recognises that Israel has any right to that territory. This is because Israel's actions in settling in the West Bank are widely regarded as a violation of international law and no state can support such actions. Not even the United States. If Russia moved its populations into Donbass would that somehow legitimise the occupation? No. It makes no difference.
WarKosign, I don't think the fact that the State of Palestine has never controlled those territories matters. The Palestinians owned the land before the occupying Israeli forces forcibly took it from them and then allowed Israeli citizens to move into the territory. The ownership of the territory still belongs to the Palestinians (hence why the UN regards the territory as "occupied Palestinian territory") and the State of Palestine is regarded as "representative of the Palestinian people".
@Rob984: Why for the love of god does it matter? We are talking on a map that describes the State of Palestine which is the new name of the Palestinian National Authority. You are using this map for expressing your love to Palestine by showing a "one big Palestine" and you don't seem to give any excuse for not showing the lands that Palestine hold and the lands they HAVE NEVER HELD. By the way, do you expect Israel to withraw from all of the settlements? Your argument: "The Palestinians owned the land before the occupying Israeli forces forcibly took it from them and then allowed Israeli citizens to move into the territory" is:
1) Historicaly wrong.
2) very very retarted.
I won't even go and try to understand how a mind like yours managed to have some kind of force on me in Wikipedia. I think that your level is no more then a lying Palestinian propaganda machine. Your knowlege of the Israeli-Arab conflict seems to be at 0.
@Rob984: Check the article on Palestinians. It says that the prevailing view is that they did not exist as distinct nation until the beginning of 20th century, well after Jews began returning to their homeland, Palestine. Palestinians chose their name after the land and not the other way around, so similarity of the name does not legitimize their claim on the land in any way. Regardless of how legitimate in your opinion the claim of State of Palestine is, it is only a claim - the state never owned or controlled the land, so presenting the land as a part of the state is obvious misrepresentation of the facts. Israel does not claim rights to the territory, but it does claim effective control in order to maintain security for its people within internationally recognized borders. “WarKosign”19:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bolter, we're talking about people who owned the land. The Palestinian people. The conflicts displaced both Israelis and Palestinians, however the armistice line was drawn. Between 1948 to 1967 the land was owned by Palestinians under Jordanian occupation. And since 1967, the UN has designated that land as "occupied Palestinian territory". Do you not understand what that means? Israeli occupation is illegal under international law. The settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The land still belongs to the Palestinians, as it did before the settlements began in 1967.
WarKosign, the current State of Israel wasn't declared until 1948. Between 1948 to 1967 the land in the West Bank was very much owned by Palestinian people.
@Rob984: Hah! "The land was owned by Palestinians under Jordanian occupation"! Tell this to the al-Husayni clan who assasinated the king of Jordan while visiting the "Second most holy place in Islam". After carefully reading the article about the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank I wasn't suprised to know that wikipedia agree with all the knowlege I had since I was born. Nothing such is "Palestinians owned the land" was true. It was a group of provinces in the Hashimite Kingdom, no autonomy or special status was given to them (Israel was the first to name a self-governing entity as Palestinian). I also took a close look about the page about the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, No special status was there also, acually there was, it was under the direct controll of the capital. It was also stated there that the people were identfied by their religions. If you would give me one reliable source who claims that the Palestinians as a people had a special status of owners of the land (although there are already a thousend who says there wasn't, I might consider picking up again all the books of good knowlege and read them all over again to see who are the madmen behind them who hid such fatal fact that the Palestinian people were the owners of the land. The Palestinian people were the owners of the Lands and not the "Land". Accuarding to your logic, the Jewish quarter in the Holy City belongs to the Jewish people while Jaffa is under Israeli occupation. Give me a break we are talking about THE STATE OF PALESTINE and not about the Palestinian people. I know that it's hard to you, it's also hard to me to see all of this imaginary lines in the Golan Highets because some other people say so. The PNA is the State of Palestine and the rest of the lands are not, there are places in the State of Israel that are more of a "Palestine" then Area C and Area C should be shown as a claimd area while the actual controll of the SoN should be shown as owned.Bolter21 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Jesus, do you two not understand the concept of land ownership? Did Jordan confiscate land from the Palestinians and move its own populations into the west bank in violation of international law? No. It belonged to Palestinians. Unlike Israel, Jordan both annexed the territory and gave the Palestinians Jordanian citizenship. I very much understand that the Palestinians were not happy about this however it was completely different to the current occupation.
Bolter, the United Nations has recognised the right of the Palestinian people to "self-determination", "national independence" and "sovereignty in Palestine". It has also recognised the State of Palestine as "representative of the Palestinian people". Your distinction is pointless.
You have just legitimised some Jewish settlements. Gush Etzion and Kfar Darom were built in areas that were legaly owned by Jews and were destroyed by Arab forces in 1948. Israel should annex the potash factories in the north of the Dead Sea, deep inside the "occupaid Palestinian territories". These settlements were build legaly under the Brittish mandate and were destroyed illegaly by Arab forces who illegaly tried to violet the UN decision. Land ownership =/= state's soverenigty. Lots of Palestinian muncipal lands were annexed to Israel, these lands were held by Palestinians and were agreed to be transfered to the State of Israel in 1949 but yet, no one claim these lands. Nowone have ever mentioned that Israel holds more then 50% of the original jurisdiction area of the Gaza city. Look at this map and this map
The argument that "Palestine is a legit state" doesn't change the fact that THEY HAVE LANDS THEY CLAIM AND LANDS THEY OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: So you're saying that Palestinians own the land because they lived on the land for generations, and being forcibly removed generations ago doesn't change their rights ? That the claims of the invaders are null and void ? I agree. Now read Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) and see why the land belongs to descendants of the Israelites. “WarKosign”03:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Like I already said: The conflicts displaced both Israelis and Palestinians.
And like I already: The armistice line was drawn.
And like I already said: Between 1948 to 1967 the land in the West Bank was very much owned by Palestinian people.
And like I already said: In 1967 the UN designated the land "occupied Palestinian territory"
Why do you both see the need to read everything I have said in isolation?
The fact is: there is no territorial dispute. No country other than Israel regards the West Bank as disputed territory (Edit: except for the parts already indicated on the map). Granted, the Palestinians do not control the territory. However the international community regards its sovereignty as un-disputably Palestinian. Another important fact is that according to the United Nations, the whole of the West Bank is occupied. Even the areas administered by the State of Palestine.
Showing a map that shows the area that the State of Palestine "administers" and the area that is "occupied" unhelpful because: 1. It would give the impression that the State of Palestine actually controls any territory, which in reality, it doesn't (administering territory is not the same as controlling it); and 2. It would remove information from the map showing territory that is actually disputed (eg East Jerusalem).
So my question is, do you propose no longer showing actually disputed territory, or do you think the map should indicate three areas? Occupied & disputed, occupied, and occupied & partially administered? Because I would like to see a map that actually clearly shows those three areas without misleading the reader. All I see proposed currently is a map which shows much of the State of Palestine in the colour conventionally used to indicate disputed territory, which is misleading and incorrect.
The purpose of the location map for a state is to show where the state is located. Since State of Palestine is a de-jure state, it does not have internationally recognized geographical boundaries, I see 3 possible answers to the question:
"Nowhere" - have no location map. Perhaps technically correct but useless, and seems very POV.
"Claims all of West Bank and Gaza" - current state of the article. Technically correct but does not really answer the question and also is POV - it is internationally accepted that the borders between SoP and Israel are to be subject to negotiations based on the green line, which means that the green line is not necessarily the border of the future state.
"Claims all of West Bank and Gaza, currently controls A and B territories and Gaza" in my opinion is the best answer because it present the state of affairs exactly as it is.
Well I think that's misleading due to convention and I think we should not remove information concerning what territory is actually disputed, and what is recognise as sovereign Palestinian territory.
The only way I can think to show undisputed territory that is not administered would be checkered green and grey. That way there would be no conflict with existing convention. However because of the nature of the territory it probably would't be very clear. For example the corridors that segment the Palestinian administered territory would not be very clear.
Another option is having two separate maps in the infobox: the current one (or something similar) and one which shows administered territory.
Or even just a map showing the location of Palestine on a globe (eg with a circle), without the zoom insert. Then in the body of the article, include administrative maps showing what territory is administered, claimed, and disputed.
I think any of these solutions would work, I prefer a single map with a unique color marking the unique situation in the West Bank. Would yellow or brown do ? I wonder if there is some style guide for location maps. “WarKosign”11:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Rob, If the State of f Palestine don't hold lands in your damn theory, why do you even show any lands for f sake?! You drive me crazy. your arguments are baseless and rediculus. You are doing everything you can to hide the Israeli hold in the West Bank just because you are a Palestinian supporter. I would like maps to show the Golan Highets and East Jerusalem without immaginary borders and I want all of the maps to show the PNA so people will see "where" is Palestine but it doesn't happen and me as an Isareli citizen can't do anything about it, but you? You are using unbased non-related arguments to show a map who gives 0 important information.
You are talking about stuped armistice lines? Palestine agreed to split the land to A B and C. In other words, Palestine agreed that area C won't be Palestinian at all and if any Palestinian held lands in this place, Yasser Arafath is the responsable, because out of dozens of offers to get 40%-91% of the West Bank as an Independent State he decided to take only the offer who gaved him AUTONOMY in 40% of the land and give 60% of the land to be administrated by Israel while in it 100,000 of your precius Palestinians, these are the only land owners in Area C. THe rest was empty, 60% of the West Bank was empty.
This file shows some ways to show disputed territory. We could apply one of those ideas to the green-grey scheme. I will see what I can come up with tomorrow. Also I think this discussion would benefit from some wider input. Rob984 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Good find. Looks like this guide tells us to use solid red for marking A and B areas and Gaza, and striped red for market disputed (which is defined here as "claimed or controlled by other states", which seems to apply) for the rest of the west bank. Unless you want to stick with the definition that whole of West Bank and Gaza are considered occupied, on which case we could use striped red for all the territory but then we would lose the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled claimed areas. It also recommends to use a vector image which I don't know how to make, so I'll ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps.“WarKosign”21:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Well @Rob984: it seems that we didn't advanced too much. I made this one to illustrate why this scheme will not work (in my opinion) and forgive my Inkscape skills.--
TUBS already made a good map with his shceme and his version is much better then mine but still the small enclaves get lost inside the stripes.. I think that a dark green(or red) for the A and B areas, Lighter green for claimed and maybe striped green on disputed (in your terms of what is "disputed"). Bolter21 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the stripes cause loss of detail. We could respect the color scheme and use dark red and pink, but drop the stripes for clarity. “WarKosign”09:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
'Looks like this guide tells us to use solid red for marking A and B areas and Gaza, and striped red for market disputed (which is defined here as "claimed or controlled by other states", which seems to apply) for the rest of the West Bank'
Any map along those lines is still going to falsify the reality that A/B/C are all 'occupied', (b) that 'striped red' does not indicate 'claimed or disputed' at all. Israel can and regularly does, enter, meddle in, take land in B, and also penetrates in regular military operations C, disregarding your little map niceties. That is Israeli POV pushing. The map is simply trying to naturalize an Israeli bid to annex C, by asserting that Israel and Palestinian claims are equally subjective. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: No sir. The Palestinian National Authority (Commonly known as the State of Palestine) is an autonomous entity inside the West Bank. Area A is all residential areas and some core areas while Area B is mainly nothing and farms, which is partolled by Israeli soldiers. Area C is 100% under Israeli controll while the 170,000 Arabs living there (mostly Beduins) also live under Israeli controll. The State of Palestine acually exist as a sovargion nation accuarding to this article, although it declared it self while being occupaid and somewhere in 2012 just changed it's name, therefore the State of Palestine acually never controlled Area C because the State of Palestine was only declared in 1988 as a goverment in exile and only in 1994 they acually controlled some lands. If you want to show the whole West Bank as claimed by the Palestinians, you need to change to whole article to the Idea of a Palestinian State rather then an acauly page on a sovargion Palestinian State giving the fact it was created only in 1994 and not before the West Bank was conquered by Israel. If you want to put a map which describes the State of Palestine you have to show what lands are under Palestinian law and jurisdiction and what lands are not, else you are just trying to hide the Israeli hold in the West Bank and reality it self, in which Palestine controlles only 40% of the West Bank.
You don't know anything about the topic (confusing for one, a Political Body like the PNA with a State, which is ridiculous, like saying Likud is the State of Israel) in legal terms, and therefore this is pointless, since it only leads to forum opinionizing. The above is all WP:OR. Wikipedia works exclusively by reference to reliable sourcesNishidani (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
State of Palestine doesn't fully control any lands and never had, since it was declared in 1988, so there can be no normal location map showing lands of the state with occupied parts.
Instead we can show a map with two kinds of lands associated with the state: those under partial control, and those claimed for future control. “WarKosign”11:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Connecting up the dots not linked themselves in sources in WP:OR. some sources say that the State of Palestine is a sovereign non-territorial state. Police supervision or military control of an area is not ipso facto sovreignty, and therefore it is quite fatuous, not to speak of POV-pushing, to link the provisory areas of control with the sovereignty accorded in international law to a state. The only point of this mapping exercise, as I see it, is to insinuate a delimination of Palestine's potential sovereign extent in the future before that has been legally determined, and as such, it is a preemptive exercise in furthering a n Israeli POV that would claim interim sovereignty over land to which it has not legal title or legal claim. Unless one can come up with specific textual support for the assumption being made in this kind of map, it is WP:OR for a 'State of Palestine' defined territorially. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you propose not to have an map whatsoever for State of Palestine ? Note that the current image displayed in the infobox is not a usual location map, the caption says "Territory claimed by the state", and it is sourced. There is no problem to support the map of the actually controlled territories. What is OR, overlapping one map on top of another ? I believe the requirements are far more lax for user-created, and I do not see how such a map can be disputed. “WarKosign”14:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is pointless adding a map to what we already have, since there is no existing neutral map for 'The State of Palestine', as opposed to maps of the 'Palestinian territories', whose topological dimensions are known, and can be objectively mapped.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani:In case you never read a word about the conflict, I must remind you that the State of Palestine is no more then the Palestinian National Authority following the fact it is the new name of the Palestinian National Authority since 2013. Look at This, Do you see the last PM? It says "(Became the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine)". The State of Palestine is more of a political body and the Palestinian National Authority is more of a state. Why? Becuase before 1994, the State of Palestine was just a group of Palestinian Groups, mainly the PLO who established a goverment who controlles nothing and only in 1994 when the Palestinian National Authority was established, the goverment wasn't the govener of the PNA but most of the people that were in the goverment, were also in the PNA's goverment. In 2013, the PNA and the State of Palestine merged into one thing: The State of Palestine, well.. exept for the fact Palestine has two active goverments working as two de-facto entities trying to unite as one goverment (The Gaza Strip and the West Bank). And nevermind how many times you will say that "135 members of the UN and the holy see recognize Palestine", it doesn't change the fact that Palestine is not a legal state following the fact they are acually vetoed by 3 of the 5 permenent members of the UN who claim they want an agreement that will establish the State of Palestine and not a one side move that will destroy Palestine and Israel togather. Following all the things I"ve said, I think that if we are showing a state who was maybe recognized by Asian, African and South American states but failed to be legit by the Western World and 3 of the Big-5 who all have veto power, we should show them as we showed SADR in the map, they also have 45UN members who recognize them.--Bolter21 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That's just barroom chat, for wiki poiposes. Show me a respectable scholarly source that identifies the State of Palestine as the PNA.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Good. You have one source (AP via Haaretz and Al Jazeera citing WAFA, the same source) noting that the PNA now officially calls itself the State of Palestine. Your map includes in the State of Palestine Gaza, which is not ruled by the PNA (which is by the way no longer elected democratically), but a democratically elected party, Hamas. Your map is saying that the PNA qua State of Palestine includes Gaza, which is contrafactual. The PNA doesn't exist in Gaza, and a map that conflates these complexities to imply the two are under the PNA/State of Palestine authority falsifies the reality. Your map is also implying, against what Erekat said the same day in connection with this 'symbolic' (Haaretz) declaration, that the 'disputed' areas are not , as they are in law 'occupied'. See Erekat's statement attached to the source, glossing it:
'"Palestine is a country under occupation. What was Norway, Finland, Holland, France, Korea, Philippines between 1939 and 1945 - nation states under occupation. Today, the state of Palestine is officially a state under occupation. It has 192 member countries that recognise this and a nation state, Israel, which is the occupying power; these are the new realities."
In the world's nd the State of Palestine's interpretation, the West Bank is under occupation. By rewriting this to imply, with the term 'disputed' (disputed only by Israel) that the belligerent occupier has a claim on a par with the people whose land it occupies, is an obvious distortion of the legal and physical realities.
Three days before the Normandy landing, de Gaulle established a provisional government of France. This did not mean that his declaration asserted sovereignty in Algiers: it meant that sovereignty declared in France's liberated overseas (north African) possessions was coextensive with sovereignty over France, even though it was occupied. The attempt here to transform the de jure situation that Israel is a belligerent occupier of the West Bank into a 'legitimate a actor' on a par with the legitimate heirs to that territory, both being said to 'claim' 'disputed territory' outside of the townships over which, nota bene, the PNA/State of Palestine still does not exercise sovereignty, since it fails on all of the criteria for sovereign control. This is an obvious POV push, and should have no place on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source" -Nishidani - the one who had a significant contributions to over 200 pages. If you have forgot, Wikipedia only cite and merge reliable sources into articles.. you know, those [1] you"ve added probably thousends of times. This argument last for almost a month because the ones who don't accept what me and Kosign are saying refuse to argue and enjoy their veto power over this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Familiarize yourself with the rule I cited. When I add material to Wikipedia, it is sourced. That means that each edit shows to a reader where my addition comes from, an external source, which is considered reliable. It is not Wikipedia which lends reliability, but the sources that compose it. And learn to sign your edits.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying that there's a significant difference between Palestinian control over Gaza and the West Bank territories ? Makes sense. We could mark them with different colors and label accordingly. “WarKosign”17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
A bit more complex. The intention is to make a map of the state of Palestine which however is not recognized by the occupying power, which uses interchangeably the name Palestinian Authority, which which has no security or territorial control over Hamas-ruled Gaza, and which lost the 2006 legislative elections, and is ruled by a President whose term has expired for some years (his declaration postdates the expiry of his mandate), whose control over what tidbits of the West Bank fall under his technical civil and military jurisdiction is not sovereign, and whose legl dimension for A is defined variously as 2%(Oslo 2) Sharm el Sheikh 2 (24) or (OCHA) 18%. A map cannot include even Area B, since it has mixed control. If you include in the map Gaza, which the State of Palestine/PNA doesn't control or exercise even limited sovereignty over, then logically one could claim that the whole of the West Bank should be incorporated per international law, since the Palestinian state/PNA equally claims as its rightful title, as heir to the territory defined as 'occupied' by a belligerent power. Israel in this scheme is on a par with Hamas: both govern land the 'State of Palestine/PNA' claim as their own.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
How many different types of area (by current control) do you see within the lands claimed by State of Palestine ? We already established that the state doesn't have full physical existence on any land, so there can be no regular location map. Instead the map in the infobox shows the area claimed by the state. In my opinion it is more useful/informative to also show on that map areas where some level of control has been achieved. While the model that I was proposing (single color for any area where Palestinians administers their civilians in some form) is simplistic, I think it's better than not showing this information. 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: (Question) I won't comment on whether or not this map should be included as of yet since I can't quite keep up with the discussion, but would the map scheme you are proposing be somewhat similar to that on Iraqi Kurdistan? I'm not supporting or opposing, but only asking so that I can establish a clear understanding of your proposal. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Elspamo4: I don't know if the geopolitical situation is anything alike, but the map looks like what I meant - areas in different shades indicating different types/levels of control or aspiration.“WarKosign”10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Here Greyshark09. It was discussed whether the West Bank is "disputed territory", and whether undisputed occupied territory should be indicated. No consensus to change current map. Rob984 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
similar situation
The western Sahara is occupied by Morroco and share many similarities with the West Bank. The map show a clear division between the Area held by Morroco and the Area held by the ADR --... Point by point ... (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Morocco claims Western Sahara. Israel does not claim the vast majority of the West Bank. Please read past discussion. Rob984 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"The international community regards the territory as occupied, not disputed. Settling in occupied territory is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". " -
This is ignorant nonsense on SO many levels:
1. What the 'international community' 'regards' is meaningless handwaving. There is no well-defined concept of 'international community'. Some states regard Israel as an 'illegal Zionist colonist and the spawn of satan'. That doesn't make Israel any of those things.
2. It cannot be 'occupied' because it is not occupied FROM anyone. Its status has never been legally determined except under San Remo (which, if anything, makes it legally part of the Jewish national home).
3. The canard of Geneva IV is laughably easy to refute quite apart from 2 (which already makes it nonsense): Israel has not transferred or deported anyone anywhare.
4. Geneva IV can only apply to high contracting parties. Do tell me who they are in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.175.90 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
1. The international community is what sources say it is. In particular, the General Assembly and ICRC, but it's not our task as editors to define the international community. As to points 2-4, those have been considered, and dismissed, by e.g. the ICJ. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
LOL. The ICJ is not only a political kangaroo 'court', but also ignorant on points of law. For example, it claims that the 1949 armistice lines are international borders, which is utter nonsense. A first year student would be failed for making this idiotic assertion. Dismissing 2-4 is equally an example of utter ignorance, viz. of what the terms 'occupied', 'transferred' etc mean in law, and of who Geneva IV applies TO. This is related to the above idiotic assertion, since 2-4 depend inter alia on there being an international border in law (Note that I am according it the courtesy of assuming its politically appointed 'judges', many of whom have nil background in this field and indeed have not demonstrated any brilliance in any field of law, are merely ignorant. It would be equally valid to assume they are bigots and/or following political directions.)
As to 1, you choose to rely on biased 'sources' and to make tendentious political judgements rather than factual ones. Another example is the idiotic 'article' on Jerusalem, which is factually the capital of Israel - whether you do or don't like those jumped-up Jews who dare to have made it the capital.
In sum, this article is highly biased and tendentious, following the current fashion among ignorant and deluded nonentities who fancy themselves part of the intelligentsia to hate Israel - merely the latest manifestation of the oldest hatred. But if you want to continue on the current track of making Wikipedia a laughingstock, be my guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.175.90 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Change "occupied" to "captured"
Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the 67 war. Thus it would be better to write that "Israel captured the territories now comprise of Palestine" in the top paragraph, to avoid claims about whether Israel occupied it from Jordan. Tom Peleg (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It enough sources say that the West Bank is occupied, as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is. If you are able to find enough good quality sources that show that many international organizations not affiliated with Israel do not consider the territory occupied, it can be changed. “WarKosign”07:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I changed the opening sentence from "Palestine is a partially recognized state in the Middle East" to "Palestine is a state in the Middle East". It is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for the opening sentence to reference recognition. 22 UN member states do not recognise the People's Republic of China - the opening sentence for that article says "China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a sovereign state in East Asia". China's lack of universal international recognition is not mentioned in the first 500 words.
Those seeking to add the lack of universal recognition in the opening sentence cannot hide their agenda. They seek to de-legitimise the Palestinian state. Palestine is recognised by 70.5% of all UN members including major world and regional powers such as Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa and China. A number of European countries, such as Malta, Serbia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Iceland and Sweden.
It is an astounding example of WP:GEOBIAS to suggest because the USA does not accord Palestine diplomatic recognition that that is the most important thing to know about the state.
Israel is unrecognised by 32 countries. Why is that not stated in the opening sentence? Cyprus? Armenia? South Korea? AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Palestine is not a regular state (yet). Unlike any other country in your list it is not fully established, has no defined borders, has no effective control over its territory. Many sources describe it as proto-state or a state-to-be. Not mentioning it in the lead would be extremely misleading. Please see the previous discussion before continuing. “WarKosign”07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:AusLondonder that the partial recognition is not the point, but noticed that the opening dentence is misleading in another way. When I read it I understand that Palestine is a fully functional (or disfunctional) independant state, but in fact it is crystal clear that in several key aspects it is a state de jure but not de facto. Nobody reading the opening line can know that. DGtal (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
User:WarKosign - "many sources describe it as a proto-state or state-to-be" - I strongly dispute this. The vast majority of the world recognise it as a sovereign state. Why should the US position dominate the opening sentence. Mention lack of universal recognition. But the opening sentence is not the place. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Even Abbas doesn't claim that State of Palestine is fully established. See Here: "The Palestinian Authority exists and it is here," "It will be followed by a Palestinian state.". No doubt that there is overwhelming support for SoP to be established, but can you show any source claiming that it's already a fully formed state ? “WarKosign”09:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
The caption for the infobox map refers to green and light green: the map only shows green. Could either the caption or the map please be changed? PamD12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, if I click on the image and zoom I can see a very small pale green area. But the scale of the image doesn't seem appropriate for the point being made. PamD12:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If you look very closely (or zoom in), there are a few light green pixels around Jerusalem (the ident in the middle). East Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel, but it is also claimed by State of Palestine, hence the caption. “WarKosign”12:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The State of Palestine isn't a member of UN which is the important thing. Yes, some Arab and communist dictatorships don't recognise Israel but it is still a full member of the UN which makes it recognised while Palestine lacks that quality. Jewnited (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Raising the flag at the UN
While I think this is a good idea for a section, the inclusion of a series of quotes from Ron Prosor seems a little non-NPOV. I'm not a regular wikipedian, but someone should take a look at that and consider cutting it down a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.228.152 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That's just repetitive hot air. There are probably hundreds of statements from several dozens notable figures about this minor event. I've cut out the hot air, and left in the gist of his beef, that Palestinians are arseholes.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
_in_Israel_and_in_its_region.svg)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-en.svg){kind=link}
.svg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)