Talk:Palestinian Authority/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Update needed to Hamas-Fatah section

The section on the Hamas-Fatah conflict states that "Politically, there has also been no progress in promotion of PNA status in the UN" since 2007. This is untrue, since as noted earlier in the article the PNA has been upgraded to nonmember state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.45.157 (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Abbas changes PNA name to State of Palestine

According to this AP news article, Mahmoud Abbas changed the name of the Palestinian National Authority to the State of Palestine, how does this affect this article, should the article be renamed?--WikiU2013 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be renamed (there is already a State of Palestine article), but it definitely puts new light on how this article should be treated. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Presumably this means the PLO is merging SOP and PNA. This would make the new SOP roughly the equivalent of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The new SOP and SADR claim the Palestinian territories and Western Sahara respectively, but only have de-facto control over parts. Still, the news reports just started coming in a few hours ago, let's whiat at least a day before making any important decisions based on this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It could mean many things, but so far all the sources site "Palestinian news agency Wafa". I assume that if this not an empty gesture or PR stunt for the crowds due to Abbas poor standing in the local political arena, we will see more on this soon(as well as its ramifications).--Mor2 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It's in Ha'aretz now. —Ashley Y 11:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
again "according to the official Palestinian news agency Wafa", see my previous post.--Mor2 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
They cite Wafa, so what? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
So its a re-quote of the same sources, thus we have no additional info on what it means or its ramification or in your words "Let's not jump the gun here".--Mor2 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend this article continue to be about the Palestinian National Authority as was, i.e. before the U.N. vote. Just change it all to the past tense. —Ashley Y 11:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun here, the news reports are just coming out. All we know for sure is that the Palestinian National Authority has been renamed "State of Palestine", We don't know what the impactions of this rename are yet. For example I would think that this means that the PLO is merging the PNA and the SOP, but we don't know that for sure. It's possible that the old SOP and the PNA (under it's new name) might continue to exist, albeit with the lines between them very much burled. Like Japinderum said "The PNA and the State of Palestine are not the same, on the contrary. They have separate governments, separate presidents, separate parliaments. The only thing they have in common is that both are established by the PLO". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the new name to the lead, and tweaked the hatnote at State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Like you said "Let's not jump the gun here". Wikipedia is not a tabloid, you can add it as news, but don't change article leads, stating facts based on one report, without knowing what the act means. Last time when people got excited over 69/7, it took several weeks to undo all the misconceptions.--Mor2 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Why, we have RS that the PNA has been renamed "State of Palestine". We don't know what the impactions of that rename is, but we know that the PNA's official name is now "State of Palestine". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This isn't the first time the PNA has renamed itself, yet the former name "Palestinian Authority" is still very much in use, even throughout Wikipedia. If this ends up not being a merger of the PNA and the SOP, but little more then a very confusing rename of the PNA, we probably wont need too do much differently with these articles. In that case I would tentatively say that we ought to use the old names mostly as we have before, and use "State of Palestine" to refer to the State of Palestine.
If this ends up being a merger of the PNA and SOP that's a whole other can of worms. One things for sure, the line between the PNA and SOP has become very very burley. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it became both very blurry and that'll have bad consequences for editing Wikipedia, because plenty of sources wouldn't follow in those details and distinctions and will use the terms interchangeably even more than they did so far (which was annoyingly often). Japinderum (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Emmette's comments above. Either that's one more renaming of the PNA -or- it's a merge of PNA into SoP. In any case we should wait for the dust to settle, and in case of a merge we should have three articles (SoP pre-2013, PNA pre-2013, SoP/PNA post-2013) as such a merge is quite a big event (see another option further below). Did someone already found the original WAFA announcement or even better - the official decree document ("Abbas signed a presidential decree officially changing the name" - he's both SoP president and PNA president)?
So far, besides the above re-quote we have also [1][2]:

"Yet this does not mean that the UN also automatically considers PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad the prime minister of the new state. “The Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority is not exactly the prime minister of the State of Palestine,” Mansour said. This could change, however, were the PLO’s executive committee — “the acting government of the State of Palestine” — to make a decision to that effect."

As stated in the 2012 resolution the provisional government of SoP is the PLO-EC. And that's according to a decision of the PNC of more than 20 years ago:

"The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such time as a government-in-exile was established." Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 624. ISBN 0-19-829643-6, 9780198296430. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link); Executive Board of UNESCO (12 May 1989). "Hundred and Thirty-First Session – Item 9.4 of the Provisional Agenda – Request for the Admission of the State of Palestine to UNESCO as a Member State" (PDF format; requires Adobe Reader). UNESCO. p. 18, Annex II. Retrieved 2011-09-28.

So, actually according to current SoP setup it's either the PNC or the PCC who should take the decision about the SoP government. Or alternatively the PNC may appoint PNA cabinet ministers into the PLO-EC, but that seems unlikely. PCC and especially the PNC are bodies that don't meet very often and it's not easy to gather sufficient number of their members for a quorum (as you can see with the difficulties of meeting to appoint PLO-EC members and SoP president). Also, PNA elections complicate the matter (for governments and presidents and chairman), including those scheduled for 2013. My opinion is that it will be most straightforward if the PNC decides to apply to SoP the PNA Basic Law and all of the PNA legislation (but that won't solve the issue with the possibility for Hamas, or somebody else outside of PLO, to win the elections).
Until something along these lines happens it's a PNA rename and not a merge. Japinderum (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't found the presidential decree at http://www.president.ps/ or the WAFA announcement at http://www.wafa.ps/ But instead found PLO’s Central Council to Discuss Changes:

...the meeting will discuss the changes that must take place within the Palestinian Authority in order for it to cope with the recent changes. The meeting will also discuss the relation between the PLO, Palestinian Authority and the various Palestinian institutions. He pointed out that an earlier decision has been reached to delegate to the Central Council the duties of the Palestinian Authority’s government and parliament.

Hopefully we'll have access to direct quotes or the official documents themselves as journalistic reports will most likely be not very reliable, but mostly with catchy headlines and interpretations. The last sentence is also quite interesting - PCC taking over the functions of PNA Cabinet and PLC. Japinderum (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at third to last paragraph I think that while Israel continues to exercise military rule over the Palestinian territories whatever the name, government and other institutions the PNA uses, it will still exist in its Oslo Accords form, required for its multiple interactions with Israel. So, it seems that even if all of its institutions get merged into SoP, some "Oslo PNA, department of SoP" will continue to operate until SoP gains control over the oPt. In terms of Wikipedia articles this means having post-2013 articles for both SoP and PNA, with the pre-2013 setup described in their historical sections.

But I drifted into forumish and crystal balling about a SoP/PNA merge. So far we have only a source for a new name and the PCC meeting is "in the next few days". Japinderum (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. IMO its a political move, they don't officially/legally declare state of Palestine, because this would violate their agreements and cause them huge damage. However, practically they do, which will help Fatah in the local political arena and will cause Israel to react(help them in the global arena). I bet that in couple of days we will know something more concrete. --Mor2 (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this change changes our editing in any way. We should continue to use the terminology reliable sources use. The State of Palestine, of course, has already been proclaimed in 1988 and now recognized by more than half of the world's nations. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that now we have two "State of Palestine" - the State declared in 1988 and the Authority established in 1994. They seem to be in a process of merging (as you can read above), but still aren't and obviously the PLO choice was for the "step by step" path instead of a "big bang" announcement, so that makes editing and sourcing quite difficult. The other issue (see third to last paragraph) is that some "PNA/Oslo SoP" should continue to exist for the interaction with Israel (and there will be such interaction until the Israel controls the oPt). So, basically there are no changes to the overall article setup ("1988 SoP", "1994 PNA/Oslo SoP"), but of course each of the "steps" should be mentioned at the appropriate places in the articles. Japinderum (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a strange conclusion, because the State of Palestine is clearly one and same. It had only some symbolic meaning until the UN upgrade and the consequent transition of PNA. In the near future according to Abbas, the State of Palestine (proclaimed in 1988) would absorb all PNA institutions and become a much more factual state according to Palestinian official stance.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source for "according to Abbas, the State of Palestine (proclaimed in 1988) would absorb all PNA institutions"? Also, please keep in mind that "much more factual state" doesn't mean "state controlling territory" until Israel occupation remains. Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
From what we have now it's not clear at all. It seems like that, but it's not clear. First we have neither the presidential decree, nor the WAFA announcement of it. We have only short third-hand interpretations of those. And they speak about rename, not merge. Also, we have the source about expected PCC meeting soon, where it's expected PNA to be merged into PCC (the source says PCC to become assume duties of PNA parliament and government), not the current SoP government (PLO-EC) and parliament (PNC). Whether that will be the case or SoP government and parliament will also be changed - that's unknown right now. What will happen with the post of PNA president (who is elected by the way, unlike SoP president who is appointed) is another unknown. Also, as third to last paragraph clearly explains - for the day to day activities of PNA, especially those that require cooperation with the controlling power of the oPt - Israel, the PNA invokes Oslo and that means that PNA will continue to operate (regardless how it's referred to by Palestinians, e.g. "SoP Oslo department", by Israel, e.g. "Palestinian Authority", by UN and others, e.g. "Palestinian National Authority" or "SoP Oslo department", etc.) until Israel occupation remains, so we should be extra careful how we title the current PNA articles (and what tense we use inside) - I think that a clear distinction with the "pure SoP" articles is needed. But we need the sources to lead us here, not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Further news [3][4][5][6][7]. Note the mention of new constitution, the "backtracking" on IDs because of Israel reaction, "the state of Palestine is occupied, PA official said", "limited options so long as Israel remains in charge of territories", "Abbas security forces continue to coordinate with Israeli troops in tracking Islamic militants in the West Bank." - clearly Oslo interactions are quite important factor. Japinderum (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is one more thing, the sources just talk about the Fatah government in the west bank renaming itself. As far as we know the Hamas Government in Gaza is still calls itself the "Palestinian National Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting detail... But I'm not sure that Hamas calls its government in Gaza "PNA" or at least that it adheres to the Oslo Accords - maybe that's another "naming"" issue - they call it "PNA", but that doesn't actually mean the "Oslo Accords PNA", but another Hamas-created governing authority. We need sources explaining what's the situation... Japinderum (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that Hamas won the PNA elections, Fatah decided to remain in power anyway. They had a civil war, which left the the Fatah government in control of the West Bank and Hamas in control of Gaza. Despite Hamas being the democratically elected government, the international community and PLO recognized the Fatah government as the legitimate PNA. Their both the PNA, with the same institutions and same offices, but separate administrations, both calming to be the legitimate PNA. Now confused sources sometimes use the term "Palestinian Authority" to refer to the Fatah government.
Relations between Israel and the Hamas Government broke down, and now instead of throwing accusations of Oslo Accords violations at each-other, they throw missiles and bombs at each-other. That probably makes the Oslo Accords moot for Hamas-Isreal purposes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 90 days. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Any evidence that Hamas has objected in principle to the recognition of the State of Palestine by the West Bank government?

The above comments seem to indicate that the Hamas government of Gaza by being opposed to the Fatah government in the West Bank, rejects its transforming of the government of the Palestinian National Authority into the government of the State of Palestine. It seems to me at the very least, that the title "Palestinian National Authority" at the very least has ceased to be used within the government in the West Bank. What evidence is there of such opposition by the Hamas government in Gaza to the change? Is there evidence of any response by Hamas to the changes by the West Bank government?--R-41 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that we have RS that the Hamas government objects to the Fatah government's renaming, it's that we don't know. All the sources that we found are about the Fatah government in the West Bank. We don't know what, if anything, is happing with the Hamas government in Gaza. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Hamas endorses Fatah's re-name. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have followed suet and renamed themselves "State of Palestine", tough I would think they would follow suet and rename themselves sooner or later. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Date for Oslo Accords

The article says the Palestinian Authority was formed as a result of the 1994 Oslo Accords. Yes, it was formed in 1994, but the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elissakempin (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

revert

What is the reason for this revert? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the Palestinian National Authority. Its official government is the Abbas government. While Fatah is part of the government, the government is not Fatah. Actually both, Fatah and Hamas claim authority. Fatah has authority on the ground of hypocritical international recognition; Hamas has authority on the ground of democratic elections. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, both Fatah and Hamas claim authority. That's perilously why I think it's very confusing to use the term "Palestinian Authority" to refer to the Fatah government in the West bank specifically, especially when you're talking about the Hamas government in Gaza in the same paragraph.
I'm confused by your statement that the Palestinian National Authority's official government is the Abbas government. Of course the Fatah government in the West bank (or "Abbas government" if you prefer) considers itself the legitimate (and official) PNA, but so does the Hamas government in Gaza (or "Duwaik government" if you prefer). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The international community regards the PA the (only, official) government and Hamas the de facto Gaza-government. I adapted it. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Fatah government is the internationally recognized one, but my point stands. It's still very confusing to use the term "Palestinian Authority" or "current government" to refer to the Fatah government specifically, especially when you're talking about the Hamas government in the same paragraph, and "Fatah government in the West Bank" is a term used by reliable sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, bit it seams to me that you want the want the international community's view clearly represented and reflected. Wouldn't it be better way of achieving that be to simply to clearly note that it's the Abbas government that's recognized by the international community and the PLO? That way the article clearly explains the situation (which is my concern), without giving the impression that there's any dispute in the international community over this (which seems to be your concern). A slimmer approach is taken in the Abkhazia article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I said, the international recognition is hypocritical. The article is about the PA, not about Hamas. Of course the text can be improved.--Wickey-nl (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course this article is about the PNA, but there are two different governments each calming to be the PNA. Salam Fayyad is the (disputed) Prime Miniter of the PNA, not the Prime Minster of Hamas. The Palestinian Legislative Council is the legislature of the PNA, not the legislature of Hamas. This is of course not the Hamas or Fatah articles, but nether is it the Hamas government in Gaza or the Fatah government in the West Bank article.
We should use clearer language by using the term "Fatah government in the West Bank" not "Palestinian Authority" or "current government" to refer to the Fatah government specifically, at least when you're talking about the Hamas government in the same paragraph. Instead of calling the Fatah government "Palestinian Authority" to imply the international community's POV, we should clearly explain it. Right now the international community's POV is not explained at all.

Palestinian National Authority no longer exists

Following the upgrade of Palestine to observer state at the UN, Abass acting as President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation issued a decree in which the "the “Palestinian Authority”, created for a five-year “interim” period pursuant to the “Oslo” Declaration of Principles signed on the White House lawn in September 1993, has been absorbed and replaced by the “State of Palestine”, proclaimed in November 1988, recognised diplomatically by 131 of the 193 UN member states and supported in the recent General Assembly vote by an additional 28 states which have not yet formally recognised it diplomatically." [8]

It seems a bit odd to me that the leader of the PA and President of the State of Palestine has decreed that the PA has been absorbed into the state of Palestine (currently recognized by 131 counties and given "observer state" status at the UN), but our article still represents it as an active entity. Dlv999 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That quote isn't from the PNA or Presdent Abass, it's from John Whitbeck. In the last discussion, the overwhelming majority of the sources we found stated that the Palestinian National Authority had been renamed "State of Palestine". Not that it absorbed or replaced by the State of Palestine, or otherwise cased to exist, but simply that the PNA had been renamed.
While that discussion was a few mounts ago, this Google search ("Palestinian Authority" OR "Palestinian National Authority" "State of Palestine" -wikipedia) would seem to show that the overwhelming majority of sources continue to conceder this decree to be a rename, not an absorbion. Also the LA times [9], Shanghai Daily [10], and Wafa (the PNA's official news agency) [11] use the term "Palestinian Authority"/"Palestinian National Authority" in the present tense well after the decree was issued in early January.
Unless I'm missing something here, Whitbeck would appear to be in the minority, if not the extreme minority. Per WP:UNDUE it's questionable weather he should even have that sentence in the State of Palestine article.
In Whitbeck's defense, it's possible that the other sources were speaking more from the point of view of internal Palestinian politics (i.e. the PNA had been renamed), whereas Whitbeck (who is an international lawyer) was speaking from the POV of international law and the international community, i.e. that the renaming will cause international community and international law will treat the renamed Authority and the old State as parts of the same "State of Palestine" entity. Unless he clarifies his position, I really can't say what he meant, and an attempt by us to interpret what he said in light of the other sources would probably volite WP:SYNTH. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oslo Accords

The Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, not 1994, as it is written in this article.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.177.102.72 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the error. It has been corrected. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'recognition of sovereignty' does not recognize borders

The implicit recognition of sovereignty is nothing more than the recognition that the "State of Palestine" has had since the 1980s. The international community still largely recognizes that borders are to be determined through negotiations (which is pursuant to binding security council resolutions). 174.44.174.192 (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What happend after the September 2011 elections?

the article points:" In February 2011, the Palestinian Authority announced that parliamentary and presidential elections would be held by September 2011." Has the election took place? if it has, what happend? who won? if it hasn't, there isn't any schedualed election in the future? what is the current status now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.235.166 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

State of Palestine

What makes up the newly transformed State of Palestine? The PLO and PNA were recognized as separate entities. What is the State of Palestine in the context of this article?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is some mis-interpretation. It is correct to say that the PNA acts on behalf of the State of Palestine, e.g. on official documents, or may be even in contacts with the international community. The PNA has not the authority to call itself the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is represented by the PLO. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Budget

The lengthy section on the budget discusses many periphral issues and details but never gives basic information such as what the annual expenditures of the PA are, how they are divided into the different major areas, what the different sources of income are, etc. This b

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Palestinian National Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC) asic information really should come first.Bill (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC Palestine articles restructuring proposal

See RFC at Talk:State_of_Palestine#RFC:_Restructuring_Proposal.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hebron Protocol, Wye River Memorandum and Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum should be added to the article?

Aside the Oslo accords that established the PNA, there are also three main agreements that apart for other things also expanded the territory under the jurisdiction of the PNA and are turning points (mainly Wye River Memorandum). --Bolter21 12:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This remained pointless documents that were never implemented. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Although it included Israeli withdrawal from Area C and in the end it bearly happened, it enlarged Area A in Jenin area and created a large enclave of Area A. It had also expanded the jurisditcion of the PNA in the Hebron Governorate/Judah, in a large area south to Salafit and south to Nablus. It is also important in my opinion to have a section that will talk about the jurisdiction dispute between Israel and the PNA. Since you brought your argument, I will not add it until further discussion although I planned to. --Bolter21 12:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, they should be added, as a significant part of Palestinian Authority diplomatic and political history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
At least in theory, there was some expansian of Area A and B, but this is not a relevant issue for this article. In the Second Intifada, all territory was lost anyway. But you can add something to this mess. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Per the discussion above, it seems there is consensus that both the PNA and the SoP continue to exist in parallel.

The key questions are therefore what is the PNA and what is the SoP?

The PNA exists under the Oslo Accords, and is an "authority" and perhaps a legal body.

The SoP is a political construct intended to represent the Palestinian territories more broadly.

Irrespective of the legal technicalities, they do not BOTH have a national anthem, and BOTH have a flag and coat of arms. It is very clear that the ultimate political body of the Palestinian nation today is the SoP. The PNA exists for administrative functions. These national emblems must be part of the SoP and not the PNA.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So do you suggest that if I will go to Palestinian offices in Ramallah I will see no flags and coat of arms? Accuarding to this source and this source you are wrong. When you insert the template {flagicon|Palestinian Authority} you end up with Palestinian National Authority. Is there a source to claim the PNA has no flag or coat of arms? --Bolter21 23:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The PNA uses flag and anthem of the SoP, so they are not of the PNA itself. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a version of the coat of arms on commons that states "السلطة الفلسطينية" ("Palestinian Authority"). I agree the flag and anthem should be excluded. They're the Palestinian flag and anthem, not just the Authority's. Rob984 (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Here: File:Palestinian National Authority COA.svg. Rob984 (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree - as usual Oncenawhile is claiming his opinion to be a consensus. It is making this discussion pathetic.GreyShark (dibra) 18:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, It is not his consesus, it is a consensus that was agreed upon me, WarKosign, Oncenawhile, Rob984 and Qualitatis. You and IRISZOOM brought no source to support the previous consensus. --Bolter21 19:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Such issues should be dealt broadly. Almost no participant from previous discussions was invited. This is clearly violating Wikipedia principles.GreyShark (dibra) 20:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I invited 17 Wikipedians to the original discussion. --Bolter21 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, it seems there is consensus that both the PNA and the SoP continue to exist in parallel. I agree.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
These 17 Wikipedians included GreyShark, who did not bother to respond. “WarKosign” 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Whoever you invited - was not sufficient. I shall ask others to join. Furthermore andm ore importantly, the status quo was changed much earlier than one week from opening the discussion. It is specially bothering, considering the opposing opinions raised here by Iriszoom and myself. Furthermore, currently there are 3 positions: 1. PNA transformed to State of Palestine; 2. PNA and State of Palestine is the same; 3. PNA and State of Palestine are different entities, existing in parallel. No position has so far gained a consensus here.GreyShark (dibra) 10:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have only argued for two things related to each other: sources only show the name is still in use and John Whitbeck's analysis should be mentioned, no matter if he is wrong as it has been claimed here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should contact the Anti-Zionist John Whitbeck and ask him if he still denay the everyday news? I belive he can be reached. --Bolter21 01:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I also strongly advise User:Bolter21 and user:WarKosign not to change the contents of the page, prior to new consensus (no matter how "wrong" they think it is) - this may require administrative intervention.GreyShark (dibra) 10:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The way you avoid bringing sources or arguments is ridiculous. --Bolter21 10:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What sources are you asking for? haven't been reading any of the previous discussions? First read this [13].GreyShark (dibra) 11:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I also request a participant of Talk:Islam_in_Israel#Move_discussion_in_progress_2 "Islam in Israel" article discussion to join - User:Al_Ameer_son.GreyShark (dibra) 11:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You continue not explaning your moves, not giving arguments and worse of all not giving any source, reliable or not. Al Ameer Son was already asked to join by me, but he avoided commenting. --Bolter21 11:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You sent me an article about a name change. Doesn't say anything about a claim that "PNA transformed to SoP", it doesn't even mention the PNA. Are you even being serious or is this kind of a joke to you? You still havent brought a source to support your agenda. --Bolter21 11:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Haven't sent you anything.GreyShark (dibra) 11:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change to status quo ante per Greyshark. My advice is to stop updating articles like these for 10 years until there's an actual consensus of reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Greyshark said the PNA transformed to SoP in 2013. There is no source to support it. There are over 40 listed sources to support the fact the PNA exist until this very day, why should it stay false? --Bolter21 12:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You keep saying this despite John Whitbeck's analysis was presented here from the beginning. You may argue that his view is the minority view but that doesn't mean no source has been presented. There have been no valid argument to why Whitbeck's analysis can't be mentioned here as it doesn't matter if he is wrong or not. You haven't presented opposing analysis either but only searched for news articles and similar that mentions a common term. If it is so clear as you say, it should be easy to find such sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM. You have of course the right to add Whitbeck's view, but the use is questionable as it seems not to be a widely accepted view. It is also unclear if it really is what he wanted to say and if it is still his view. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@GreyShark. There is no doubt that PNA and State of Palestine are different entities and thus per definition parallel entities. PNA is the product of an Agreement between PLO and Israel; SoP a creation of the PLO and yet the name of the PLO Observer in the UN. The PNA is subordinate to and created with approval of the PLO. The PNA cannot be transformed into the SoP by Presidential decree. It has to be approved by at least the PNC and possibly also the PLC. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I frankly don't care how the Palestinians are treating themselves - whether Authority, State, Kingdom or Caliphate. The key issue is that in 2013, the UN and the ISO issued an order to refer to the Palestinian self-rule entity seated in Ramallah as "State of Palestine". Your jurisdical nonsense to push your POV is a blatant violation of wikipedia rules. You and Balter changed the infobox before the discussion is finished. Surprise - there is no majority consensus for your opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
First, I doubt if you really don't care. Second, what POV are you talking about? I don't have, you have. I just look at the facts. Third, your view on the facts is wrong. The UN did not ″issue an order to refer to the Palestinian self-rule entity seated in Ramallah as "State of Palestine"″, but gave permission to the PLO to use the name "State of Palestine" for their representant. The PA is not under discussion. Know the facts first.
Precisely John Whitbeck the source choosen to prove the opposite, tells us that they are not the same:
"Mahmoud Abbas, acting in his capacities as the President of State of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, signed “Decree No. 1 for the year 2013” ... In his correspondence, Yasser Arafat used to list all three of his titles under his signature - President of the State of Palestine, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and President of the Palestinian National Authority (in that order of precedence)."
At best, you may say that the first two titles are merged now (apart from the dubious validity of the decree). He goes wrong when he concludes: "By this decree, the “Palestinian Authority”, created for a five-year “interim” period pursuant to the “Oslo” Declaration of Principles signed on the White House lawn in September 1993, has been absorbed and replaced by the “State of Palestine”," as the decree does not state that the PA is abolished. After re-reading, I believe that he made the suggestion deliberately as whishful thinking. Two months later, he republished it with an interesting addition: The State of Palestine's Decree No. 1 and The Two-State Solution.
Look at the 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law, signed by Abbas both as Chairman of the PLO and as President of the PNA.
You can find the whole text on: Palestine—Kerry Oblivious To Demise Of Palestinian Authority. Interestingly, the decree does not apply to official documents of the PLO. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I believe the State of Palestine exists and I recognize it. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If you still use the "right" and "wrong" terminology - Wikipedia is surely not a place for this. Wikipedia is presenting WP:RS views and is developing via consensus of editors.GreyShark (dibra) 14:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake. I really thought this is a discussion page. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Qualitatis, I agree with you that the PNA still exists, but there is more going on than you appear to posit. The PNA and its organs have all started trading under the name of SofP, from the president down to the ministries. Most of the functions previously performed by the "PNA" are now being performed by the "SofP" even though it is the same people sitting at the same desks. One can't ignore that the terminology at least has changed in a profound way, and we should follow that change. The exact legal status is unclear and perhaps that is not unintended. Your argument about the authority of the PNC is neither here nor there; we aren't a court and should merely note the facts as they develop. One thing you wrote above I'm sure is not correct: the UN didn't just "gave permission to the PLO to use the name "State of Palestine" for their representant". Resolution 67/19 distinguishes between Palestine and the PLO: "Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice." The UN recognised Palestine as a state, it didn't just allow some organization to call itself a state. Also see the UN legal opinion here. Zerotalk 10:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
We can't ignore the new name, but we can't pretend that PNA doesn't exist anymore, and the "new" SoP is the same entity that was declared in 1988. I think that doing either of these two approaches violates NPOV, we need to describe both claims without supporting either by describing it as a fact in wikipedia voice or by naming of articles to fit one of the claims. “WarKosign” 11:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: First, I am fully aware that the opinions of Wikipedians are futile. You may see my remarks about legality just as a note. That said, I do not ignore the changes within the Palestinian administrations, nor do I disregard the important upgrade to state status, like cynical Zionists do. The essence of what I argued is that the PA is not transformed into SoP, which you agree, as a transform would effectively mean the abolishment of the PA. In any case, there is no justification for merging PA and SoP articles.
The other point is, who got the title "State of Palestine"? Here we seem to disagree. The text is very clear: "Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations". Thus to the PLO, not to the PA. To be sure that it is not the absurd "Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations": United Nations General Assembly Resolution 43/177 states "Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system". Thus the PLO is SoP, not the PA. Very logical, as the PA is subordinate to the PLO. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qualitatis: What you think is very clear, I think you are very clearly misreading. There is a very important distinction between a state and the representatives of the state, which matters from time to time even with regard to ordinary members. The UN admitted Palestine as a state, and accepts the PLO as the representatives of that state at the UN. It is quite clear in the UN legal opinion I mentioned. The PLO is not the "observer state", Palestine is. Regarding the names of articles, I'd treat each one as a separate issue. However, a general principle is that when some body starts to use a different name its article should use the new name too. It is not our business to decide the legal status of the rebadging, though of course we can cite published opinion about it. Zerotalk 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not misreading. You are misreading me, because in this black/white world you sometimes have to simplify. Of course the PLO is the representative and not the state itself. In UN language: the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization": Palestine=PLO. --Qualitatis (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the UN legal brief I cited? Please do, your point is answered is right near the start. Para 1: "Prior to the adoption of resolution 67/19, ... the designation 'Palestine' was used in place of the designation 'Palestine Liberation Organization' in the United Nations". Para 2: "[After res 67/19] ... Palestine has been accorded the status of a non-Member observer State". It states quite clearly that the meaning of "Palestine" in the UN has changed. Your Palestine=PLO equation used to be true but now it isn't. This plain reading is supported by the following paragraphs as well. Zerotalk 08:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The equation was to show that in 1988 the designation PLO was replaced with Palestine and in 2012 Palestine replaced with State of Palestine. A=B B=C --> A=C. Thus the PLO is representative of State of Palestine. I do not deny that Palestine was acknowledged as state in 2012.
What was the discussion about? (not even my discussion)
  • What is the PNA and what is the SoP?
  • To whom belong national anthem and flag?
  • Belong national anthem and flag in the infobox of the PNA?
The answer on the first question is:
PNA is the quasi-government of part of the OPT; State of Palestine is the entity that includes the territory over which it claims sovereignty (1967 borders, EJ), its President (Abbas), its government (PLO executive), its parliament (PNC) and last but not least its people, local and abroad.
The answer on the second question is: anthem and flag are the symbols of SoP.
The answer on the third question is: no. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)



  • Question - What are we agreeing or disagreeing with? I can't find any actual proposal in this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Goed point. The question is: Is the "State of Palestine" the former "Palestinian Authority" and has the PA thus ceased to exist. --Qualitatis (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough with this fictional "2013 transformation of the PA to SoP"

@WarKosign: @Rob984: @Greyshark09: @Debresser: @IRISZOOM: @Oncenawhile: @Malik Shabazz: @Igorp lj: @Nishidani: @E.M.Gregory: @Japinderum: @Nableezy: @Sean.hoyland: @Danlaycock: @Al Ameer son: @Zero0000: @Gorrrillla5: If your name is here, it's becuase I remember you from other talks and edits and therefore I think you should have a say here

6 people have commented already
4 showed no objection to the claim
2 showed objection to the claim
(correct me if I am wrong)

There is a fictional claim going on only in Wikipedia and it says the PA transformed to the SoP but there is only one source that states that and millions that don't. It is true that the Palestinian Authority changed it's name to "State of Palestine", there is no fiction here, but you cannot align this name change with the partially recognized country that was proclaimed in 1988, also called "State of Palestine". It is just a name change. In the Al Jazeerah report, used in this article to describe the transformation, you can understand it's only a name change, nothing was mentioned about a political change. Same goes for the Wafa report and the Haaretz report, used to describe this fictional "transformation". A Dailybeast report only talks about 2012, when PLO appealed to the UN but doesn't talk about the name change of 2013 and any transformation. All the source listed here are post-3-January-2013, when the name change was declared. The argument here is for the whole consensus that the State of Palestine replaces the Palestinian Authority, so I will bring problems from other articles too. (Skip the bottom to see my suggestion)

There is only one source that supports this claim: this source states that the "Palestinian Authority... has been absorbed and replaced by the State of Palestine, proclaimed in November 1988..." However this is:

  • Not an official Palestinian report
  • a claim that is not a quote of any Palestinian official
  • Contradicted by everyday news since 3 January 2013 worldwide including Arab sources.

It is even more ridiculous that:

  • the article Mahmoud Abbas doesn't give a source to the claim "The offices of President of the State of Palestine and President of the Palestinian National Authority merged in January 2013". The article use this source (al-monitor) that says "...It showcased the positive and negative developments that affected corruption in various sectors, focusing on the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank..." - 6 May 2013.
  • The article State of Palestine also doesn't bring any source to the claim that the State of Palestine was "Transformed from PA" (Infobox)
The section "state of Palestine#Government" doesn't mention the Palestinian Authority when relating to anything post-3-January-2013 but uses no source that claim that "The State of Palestine" administrate those places. Insteed, the section uses this source that states "...Further reforms by the Palestinian Authority will better enable potential investors to register businesses..." and doesn't say anything about SoP. This source on which most of the section's information is based on mention the Palestinian Authority over ten times but doesn't mention SoP. A simple ctrl+f can reveal it. The section also use this file that was created in 2011, before any political transformation was made but it says the map is the map of the State of Palestine although nothing supports it.
  • The article Rami Hamdallah (Palestinian PM) use Israeli sources and other sources that mention the Palestinian Authority although it doesn't show Hamdallah as the PM of the Palestiniain Authority. Non of the sources there mention the title "Prime Minister of the State of Palestine", most regard him as "Palestinian PM", even funnier, this source of the Boston Globe used in this article states he is "The new prime minister of the Palestinian Authority,". In other words, this article contradicts it's sources. Same goes for Los Angeles Times source, Voice of America source, BBC News source, all used in this specific article and all from after the name change.
  • This source used in the article Salam Fayyad (Previous PNA PM) says "The internationally respected prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad". - 10 April 2013
  • The article Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority say that Salam Fayyad was the PM of the PNA until 6 January 2013 although he finished his role in 6 of June 2013. It also says Ismail Haniyeh finished his (De-Jure) role in 2 June 2014 although this is the time when the dispute was resolved which is also mentioned in the article Ismail Haniyeh. This is a wierd problem because accuarding to the unbased consensus, Ismail Haniyeh is not the PNA's PM since 3 January 2013 but this consensu allows Wikipedians to contradict everything.
The 2014 one there are 12 sources, one is irelevent, one is broken and the rest, ridiculously all state that this governemnt in the government of the Palestinian Authority. Here they are:
Reuters, Haaretz, The New York Times, Maan News, The Times of Israel, Ynet (Doesn't mention it, but it's an Israeli source), Jerusalem Post, The Diplomat

To truly state that the Palestinian Authority tunred into the "State of Palestine" we need sources that say it doesn't exist anymore. but:

  • From this (NewYorkTimes): "The Obama administration, citing the potential for economic and political harm to the Palestinian Authority and the broader peace process, asked a judge on Monday to “carefully consider” the size of the bond he requires for the authority to appeal a huge damages award for its role in six terrorist attacks in Israel that killed and injured Americans." - 11 August 2015
  • From This (Reuters): "The Western-backed Palestinian Authority, whose last round of statehood talks with Israel stalled in April 2014," - 9 September 2015
  • From This (TheEconomist): "Some 42% of West Bankers want to dissolve the Palestinian Authority, up from 17% five years ago." - 5 August 2015
  • From this (Guardian): "Palestinian Authority becomes member of international criminal court". - 1 April 2015
  • From this (albawada): "Riyad al-Maliki, the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA), said Tel Aviv is not interested in reaching a deal with the Palestinians." - 7 September 2015
  • Also, there is currently a discussion about what will Mahmoud Abbas will do in the next 29 September speech he plans for the UN. One of the concerns is that he will "announce the dismantling of the PA"
And don't complain about this being an Israeli source, he has nothing else to dismantle, he can't dismantle the SoP

Here is a list of Palestinian sources that talk about the Palestinian Authority as an existing thing today.


My suggestion to resolve this absurd situation is simple - To remove all sentences that say that the Palestinian Authority was transformed to the SoP and refer to the PNA as "is" and not "was". Later we could fix all the other contradictions in the rest of the articles regarding this subject --Bolter21 16:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are some other sources which I suggest you read:
Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright.
  • The source from CNN doesn't indicate that a transition occured and the PNA transformed to the SoP which was proclaimed in 1988. CNN News also posted a article about "Should Palestinian Authority be disbanded?" which was uploaded 6 January 2015
  • The WAFA (A.K.A Palestinian News & Info Agency) also doesn't state such transition and agrees that the Palestinian Authority still exists. The name Palestinian Authority can be found: here and here, both from September 2015. Even their Hebrew articles continue to suggest the PNA still exist and a simple search of "Palestinian Authority" will show this is the name used to describe the Palestinian authotiy.
  • The NYT article you sent is exactly the one I used in my claim. You simply made me be right since all the other articles in this link YOU SENT show that the name used to describe the entity withing the West Bank is "Palestinian Authority".
  • The article with the title " State of Palestine National Development Plan 2014-16" doesn't list any transition and the letters "PNA" are written 6 times in the article.
In this article there is a phrase that says: "...most particulary in embargoes Gaza, isolated East Jerusalem....that are cut-off from regular public service delivery by the PNA"
  • The last one by John V. Whitbeck is the only source I could find (Which was used by Al Jazeera and questia). No other sources, including Palestinians source agrees with the claim that "the Palestinian Authority....has been absorbed and replaced by the State of Palestine, proclaimed in November 1988". Needless to say, this was posted only less then a week after the decree was published and Mahmoud Abbas himslef said, almost three years after that threat he will dismentle the PNA.
To sum up the fact my response to you was already in what I wrote before (And I belive you decided not to read it all), even though there is one source that says the PNA was dissolved and was replaced with the 1988 proclaimed SoP, there are millions of other sources that doesn't say it was dissolved including the Palestinian President himself, simply because if such act was made it was a violation of the Oslo Accords which never happened and all the source exept for one doubtful source agree with my claim. In Jan. 2013 the name of the PNA was changed to SoP, that's it.
Oh and next time please don't suggest me to read things I suggested you to read. --Bolter21 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you seem quite aggressive. I will try to ignore that.
So, if I follow your logic correctly, the appropriate route would be for us to merge PNA and SoP articles? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. The "State of Palestine" existed before the "Palestinian National Authority" but those are two different things, two different bodies. The State of Palestine was proclaimed by the PLO as a government-in-exile while the Palestinian National Authority was established via an agreement between Israel and the PLO in 1994. Both continue to exist until this very day as two seperate things. Mahmoud Abbas is the president of the Palestinian Authority and the State of Palestine (He was chosen by the PLO to replace Yasser Arafat). My suggestion (only for this article) is to change all "was" to "is" when regarding to the PNA, not to show the PNA as a thing that tunred to the SoP in 2013. Those changes will be regarded to this article. Other changes such as stop using "The State of Palestine" to name loactions and use other names such as "West Bank", "Gaza Strip", "Palestinian Occupied Territories" or "Palestinian National Authority" which are names that are accepted by most sources. Also fixing this wierd claim that there were no more elections for the Palestinian Authority and that Rami Hamedallah is the PM of the SoP.
And I am aggressive because I thought for the last three years I never heard about this transition and I can't understand how Wikipedia builds a consensus on a modern entity with 2.8-4.6 million people and one of the biggest topics of discussions in the 21th cenutry, that is based on one "John V. Whitbeck" fresh claim that was disproved by pretty much every single source that could be found until this very day. This is simply - a lie. --Bolter21 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute whether PNA became a state, or only changed the way it refers to itself and not its nature. There are sources to support each position, for example this supports PNA still existing and this support some countries that voted in UN in favor of SoP are still referring to PNA rather than to the state. Some sources describe the dispute: [14] or [15], [I think we should not endorse either position and to describe both while sticking to facts described by sources. As I suggested at talk:State of Palestine#RFC: Restructuring Proposal, we should merge PNA and SoP articles. The declaration from 1998 should of course be mentioned, but the main focus of the merged article should be on the entity called PNA established by the Oslo accords, was accepted as an observer state by the UN and asked to be referred to as State of Palestine in 2013. “WarKosign” 11:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This is another thing, I am currently talking about the fact there are millions of sources including words of Palestinian officials that contradic the claim in this article and many others that the PNA have legaly transformed to the 1988 proclaimed State of Palestine. My current suggestion is to remove this claim since it has no good source and millions of other sources say a different thing including sources that are used to describe this fictional transition. Do you support removing this claim since no one have yet to bring a reliable source other then the claim of one man named "John V. Whitbeck"? --Bolter21 12:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion here: The Palestinian Authority is not an "authority" in the sense of an administering body. It is a jurisdiction. This jurisdiction covers the Gaza Strip and Areas A and B of the West Bank. The administering body is both the President (the head) and the Palestinian Legislative Council (which includes the Prime Minister and Cabinet). These share power similar to a semi-presidential state. In 2013, the President/PLC declared themselves the administering body of the pre-declared State of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority and State of Palestine differ in that the authority covers only the Gaza Strip and Areas A and B of the West Bank, while the state claims to cover the whole of the Palestinian territories. Additionally, the state claims to be a sovereign state, and therefore the President/PLC claim to have sovereignty over the claimed area. So you are correct; since the Oslo Accords are still in effect, both still fundamentally exist. They are not however the same thing, and exist parallel to each other. So this article needs to be trimmed down to cover solely the governance of the Gaza Strip and Areas A and B of the West Bank since 1994. The State of Palestine's article should cover all aspects of life for Palestinians in the Palestinian territories (culture, economy, infrastructure, demographics, etc) and its geography, as well as governance of the Gaza Strip and Areas A and B of the West Bank (including foreign relations, progression towards statehood, etc). Palestinian territories should cover all aspects of the Gaza Strip and West Bank (geography, administration, history, etc), and cover both Palestinians and Israeli settlers, as well both Palestinian and Israeli administrations in the territories. Rob984 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree (first time isn't it?). Since I belive many of you understand more then me about the Palestinians themselves, their culture, history etc. I don't think I"ll be involve in your proposed restructure of those articles. Anyways as I see no source to support the current consensus and I want to fix it already I can understand that you also agree with my basic claim that all the clues that the PNA transformed to 1988's SoP should be removed from this article and from other articles as well. It seems already three people didn't have any objection to my based claim. This is my first stage of fixing things regarding the PNA and SoP since I have sources refuting other things in Wikipedia. --Bolter21 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984:, are you sure that it is not an administering body? This book refers to the Gaza–Jericho Agreement which states[16]: "The Palestinian Authority will consist of one body of 24 members which shall carry out and be responsible for all the legislative and executive powers and responsibilities transferred to it under this Agreement, in accordance with this Article, and shall be responsible for the exercise of judicial functions..... Powers and Responsibilities of the Palestinian Authority // 1. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Palestinian Authority, within its jurisdiction: // a. has legislative powers as set out in Article VII of this Agreement, as well as executive powers; // b. will administer justice through an independent judiciary; // c. will have, inter alia, power to formulate policies, supervise their implementation, employ staff, establish departments, authorities and institutions, sue and be sued and conclude contracts; and // d. will have, inter alia, the power to keep and administer registers and records of the population, and issue certificates, licenses and documents." Oncenawhile (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I second Oncenawhile: in all the sources I'm aware of PNA is described as "semi-official, self-governing Palestinian body" or "an administrative entity similar to a county or municipal government". I've never seen it being defined as something akin to jurisdiction. Some WP:OR: Looking at a dictionary definition of the word "authority", the only meanings that I consider suitable are "persons in command; specifically government" or "a governmental agency or corporation". There is no meaning similar to jurisdiction to this word. “WarKosign” 20:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Some more good sources worth reading:

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile An authority to that description does not exist. There is a semi-presidential system comprising a president and a legislative council (with 132 seats, and an appointed cabinet that functions as the executive branch). There is currently no independent judicial branch as far as I know (maybe there is now). If you want to refer to those collectively as the "Palestinian Authority" then ok, but the area is a jurisdiction, i.e. an area to which authority applies. I don't really know position of other institutions, or the role the Palestinian Liberation Organisation itself still plays. Usually institutions come under the executive however. The thing is, even if all institutions of the Palestinian Authority have declared themselves part of the State of Palestine, the Oslo Accords are still in force. This means those institutions are still undertaking responsibilities per those agreements as the Palestinian Authority, parallel to the State. Rob984 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My main point is that the authority is akin to a state, not a single body. Like a state, the authority is a jurisdiction; and is comprised of separate institutions. Rob984 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So I change it.... --Bolter21 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The only thing you are showing is that the "Palestinian Authority" and "Palestinian National Authority" is still in use, who simply has ignored the Palestinian decree. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between a symbolic and formal name change to violation of international agreements with heavy conciquenses that are based on one unreliable source. It's a shame you comment on this only after I started fixing this ridiculous default. --Bolter21 13:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you classify this name change as and based on what? You also have no basis to say it would be a "violation of international agreements". John Whitbeck is a reliable source.
There is nothing shameful about that. I write whenever I want and it actually doesn't matter that you have gone on to change the article as it still can be discussed. Nothing is permanent because you have made edits that you describe as "started fixing this ridiculous default".
I repeat that what you are showing is only that the name is still in use. That isn't something surprising as some don't recognize the State of Palestine. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh really? Al-Quds newspaper quoted Palestinian saying, "President Mahmoud Abbas has grown quite angry at Israel's continued escalations and provocations in the West Bank and Jerusalem....He is threatening to dissolve the Palestinian Authority". - Was supposed to happen yesterday, 30th of September 2015.
And in order to support such a giagentic claim you need more then one source and John Whitbeck is not a reliable source since his claim was published a week after the decree was published and he didn't quote any Palestinian official for his claim. The only thing he quoted is that "the name was changed". How can you explane that no other source have mentioned this claim exept for quotations of John Whitbeck? --Bolter21 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
As @IRISZOOM: mentions, the name change in 2013 was just a formality, which some nations and organizations still ingore. The real change in reference to Palestine was its upgrade from "mission" to "observer state" in November 2012; the entity is referred since as "State of Palestine" by the UN [17] (at least most UN, as some apparently are still lagging this order).GreyShark (dibra) 14:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
To @IRISZOOM: You asked how would a dissolution of the PNA will violate the Oslo Accords? Ask the Guardian: Significantly, however, he did not announce the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority – set up under Oslo – or the cancelling of security cooperation with Israel as some had speculated he would. - About yesterday's speech of Abbas in the UN.
To @Greyshark09: The only orgaznation who call the PNA "SoP" are UN in formal meetings. Not even Palestinian officials stick entirely to this new name since they know there is a 1988 proclaimed-currently fighting for recognition State of Palestine and a administrative body which is Palestinian National Authority that changed it's name to State of Palestine as a formal and symbolic move after the UN decided to regard to the PLO's State of Palestine as the representor of the in the UN.
@Bolter21: - regarding Palestinian officials, you got it wrong. Look at their websites - everything says SoP (Arabic and English): SoP President Office, SoP PM office, SoP MOH, SoP MOFA, SoP MOF...etc. On the other hand Ministries of Hamas still brand themselves as Palestinian National Authority, like Hamas MOI. As you see this is complex - the Ramallah government is branded "SoP" (abandoned PNA terminology); the Hamas government still uses "PNA". The way i see it: original PNA became split into SoP in the West Bank and Hamas Authority in Gaza.GreyShark (dibra) 15:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, what? As I have said several times now and will say again: yes, the name is still in use. That John Whitbeck is the only source here doesn't make him unreliable but rather that his views should be attributed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
John Whitbeck can be a reliable source and also a very nice person, but his claim that was published a mere week after the decree was published is not reliable source since we don't know what are his sources to his claim. On the other hands, I have listed over 40 sources that show this is wrong. John Whitbeck's source should be removed becuase he contradict's millions of other sources and can't be trusted on. --Bolter21 14:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
John Whitbeck is interpreting the decree and that is what reliable source can do and do all the time.
You can probably find thousands of articles since that decree that still use the name "Palestinian National Authority" but it isn't really a contradiction because they don't recognize the State of Palestine or just want to use the same name as before. I can't see he is used in the article but he can be used. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM: Al Jazeera recognizes Palestine...... The Palestinian Information Center recognizes Palestine...... Palestinian News Network recognizes Palestine......... I recommend you to read all the sources I listed at the beginings.
@Greyshark09: I said "Not even Palestinian officials stick entirely to this new name". Of course they do stick to this name, but they still use PNA sometimes. This doesn't change the fact that the PNA never transformed to SoP.
I said "they don't recognize the State of Palestine or just want to use the same name as before". As I said, your sources show that the name is still in use and you could probably find thousands other of articles that call it like that. We also know that the Palestinian president issued a decree changing the name and according to John Whitbeck, that means the PA "has been absorbed and replaced by the 'State of Palestine'". The first part of that is in the lead but I can't find Whitbeck's text anywhere in the article.
Palestinian officals also say they want to create a Palestinian state when their official position is that it already exists but is under occupation. So it doesn't say much. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact the PNA was absorbed in 2013 was already contradicted by Mahmoud Abbas when he threatened last month to absorbe the PNA, two-and-a-half years after the decree. The decree didn't include a dissolution of the PNA in any source exept for the source published by Withbeck and he didn't cited or quoted any source to this spesific claim, he only quoted what is certain -> the PNA is now officially named SoP. --Bolter21 15:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
In this article from 5 January 2013, Qais Abd al-Karim is cited to have explained that "... an earlier decision has been reached to delegate to the Central Council the duties of the Palestinian Authority’s government and parliament". So why couldn't the duties PA had according to the Oslo Accords be dissolved regardless which authority it is under? Once again, Palestinan officals and others still use the name, just like they still say they want to have an own state when their official position is that they already have one. What I am saying is that I think the article could be like it is now and that John Whitbeck's view should be added. You still continue to argue against him being used because he doesn't cite any source for his claim but sources are allowed to interpret things and that is what many of them do all day long. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
While Bolter21 has a hidden agenda and his language is quite aggressive, he and Rob984 are actually right. PNA and SoP are parallel entities. I think John Whitbeck drew the wrong conclusion. The decree means that the PNA acts on behalf of the SoP and does not replace it. Moreover, the decree is not approved by the Palestinian National Council, the parliament of the SoP.
That said, Abbas indeed tried to silently replace the PNA with the SoP, which in itself is not illogically. The problem is that he represents the SoP, but not the Palestinian people, and is dividing the Palestinians. --Qualitatis (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Then add the other view of it. It isn't a reason to not include John Whitbeck's analysis. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - the status quo on this page existed for about 1 year. The proposed change was in fact done prior to the discussion and failed to gain consensus among the editors. Let me clarify:
Support the idea that PNA exists - Bolter21, WarKosign, Rob984, Qualitatis
Oppose idea that PNA is a present term - Greyshark, Iriszoom
A combined opinion - Oncenawhile
There is no clear consensus to change the article at this point.GreyShark (dibra) 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Egypt support of Hamas

Since there is a user who rejects, anyone have a problem with me adding the fact Egypt was under Hamas-allied Muslim Brotherhood (after over 50 years of dictatorship) when it supported Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as mentioned in the source?

I have no more to say, the title says it all. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind the reformatting. Sounds to me like an important fact to mention. “WarKosign” 20:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is only tangentially relevant. Also the RS says that top Hamas officials like Mahmoud Zaharand Osama Hamdan denied the report. It also reports Khaled Mesmar, head of the Political Committee at the Palestinian National Council as saying that the problem is that Egypt will not accept the idea of the independence of Gaza. It would be better to add that in, as that is far more relevant. This info probably does not belong in the lede anyway, as I cannot find any other RS that repeat this claim.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I personally don't think this information is inportant to the lead section, not sure if it is important for the article. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This whole intrigue is humbug. Remove the whole sentence. What has it to do with the PA anyway? --Qualitatis (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: any objection on removing this sentence? --Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It belongs more with Gaza. It certainly does not belong in the lead of this article. It can, but doesn't have to be mentioned in the body - if it is mentioned, it is important to say which Egypt government it was. “WarKosign” 15:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with WarKosign. Move it to Gaza. Add in which Egyptian government, and the quotes refuting it as true.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Johnmcintyre1959: Have fun (means we have a consensus) --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Abbas: "We no longer accept from anybody to use the name Palestinian Authority"

Quote from Abbas, 22 Dec 2015:[18]

"Regarding the issue of a passport under the name Palestine State, we are about to proceed to the passport replacement and the issuance of a new passport within one year or even less. We have already changed all documents issued by ministries and public services and they now bear the name State of Palestine... We no longer accept from anybody to use the name Palestinian Authority"

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"No flag and CoA" nonsense..

The Palestinian Authority always had a flag and a Coat of Arms, it is wierd that people are trying to deny it here without any source saying that.. @Oncenawhile: showed me a source in which president Mahmoud Abbas say he will now issue "State of Palestine" passports. This is lovely, really, but that doesn't change the fact that the PA has a flag and a CoA.

For the flag, I can't understand how can you claim it has no flag, the Palestinian Authority uses flags all the time, can someone bring a source that say it has no flag?

For the coat of arms, even after the official name change and all of this wonderfull talkings, the Palestinian Authority stil issues I.D cards with "Palestinian Authority" in them and with the Palestinian flag on it and the new "State of Palestine passport" still has the Palestinian Authority coat of arms that say "Palestinian Authority" on it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The quoted sources describes Abbas' declared intention, not a fact that happened. Even if the intention is implemented, it does not change the fact that PNA used this flag and coat of arms. The article on Soviet Union still displays its flag and emblem long after it was dissolved and replaced by other states, so even if one accepts that PNA no longer exists and was completely replaced by (or renamed) SoP, there is no reason not to display the flag and coat of arms that it used to have. “WarKosign” 12:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The old conesnsus on the fictional dissolvement of the PNA is long gone, but users seem to continue to search for creative ways to hide the Palestinian Authority and replace it with the State of Palestine, sometimes with no sources. One of the problems is that 90% of those changes were done under the previous unsourced consensus and now those users still refuse to remove unsourced content..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed in October (Talk:Palestinian National Authority/Archives/2015/October). That thread died out, but the arguments from all sides were stated.

To my mind the question here is whether this PNA article is now about a historical entity (a la the Soviet Union example you gave) or whether it is about a currently existing entity. If it is the latter, we cannot show the flag and coat of arms on this article without stating very clearly that they are now (or will shortly be) obsolete in the PNA context since the Palestinian leadership has chosen to move all such symbols to the SoP. Otherwise this infobox will be highly misleading. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian leadership has declared intentions to obsolete the PNA. They have not done it so, I do not believe they technically can stop using PNA completely, they would have to use it for dealing with Israel in according to Oslo accords. For example, Israel agreed to supply electricity and water to PNA - unless Israel signs a similar agreement with SoP (which it doesn't recognize), PNA has to exist for the resources to continue flowing. If PNA exists, unless they declare that it no longer has a flag/coat of arms, or have new flag/coat of arms which are different (say, blank) - the last known symbols are still in use. Even if you accept the theory that PNA no longer exists - the last existing symbols still apply. “WarKosign” 07:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The flag and coat of arms are still on their I.D and passports even if it says "State of Palestine" (yes, the passport say Dawlat Falastin but the coat of arms say Sulta Falastiniya). As long as you don't bring a source that says that "the Palestinian Authority doesn't have a flag or coat of arms and therefore doesn't use it in official documents or display it on it's governmential buildings", there is no point is assuming you can remove the flag and CoA if the president declared an intention to do something with passports. The PA is still regarded as PA by all of the mainstream media including Palestinian media in English and Arabic all togather. If you want I can arrange try and arrange a 2015 issued ID or passport.. the West Bank is just around the corner here.. (And that's as long as you don't bring a source)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there a source for the flag being the officially flag of the Palestinian Authority? It has always been the Palestinian flag, but I'm not sure it was used as the official flag of the Palestinian Authority. I definitely agree the coat of arms should be shown, there seems to be no rational for not including it. Even if the Palestinian Authority was defunct it would still be shown as a historical symbol. Rob984 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for a source for PNA ever having an official flag or a coat of arms, without success so far. However I came upon this recent quote: “The Palestinian Authority exists and it is here,” Abbas stressed. “It will be followed by a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority is one of our achievements and we won’t give it up.” “WarKosign” 20:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't even understand why there is a debate over the coat of arms, its use is well documented and I have no idea why it would make a difference that the state uses it also. But the flag needs a source. Palestinian representatives use the flag during negotiations and what not but it isn't used on PA-specific documentation. And obviously pre-dates the PA also. Rob984 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Rob984, the point re the coat of arms is that its usage is historical. According to Abbas (see thread immediately above this one), the name PA is not being used any more in any official role. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case, then surely it should stay for the same reason Soviet Union still shows its symbols... ? Rob984 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This two sources exist: FOTW, Jewish Virtual Library--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Neither of which are WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There's also this sourceis says in article 8 of the "Basic Law" adopted by the Palestinian Legislative Council: "The flag of Palestine shall be of four colors and in accordance with the dimensions and measurements approved by the Palestine Liberation Organization. It shall be the official flag of the country.". The source also says that "The Palestinian Basic Law is to function as a temporary constitution for the Palestinian Authority until the establishment of an independent state and a permanent constitution for Palestine can be achieved." --Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Connecting the two would be WP:SYNTH. It does not say directly that this is the flag of the PA. Note that the State of Palestine was declared in 1988, 15 years before this document. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was written by the Palestinian Legislative Council which is on the behalf of the Palestinian Authority and not the State of Palestine, which has the National Council. This document was written by the Palestinian Authority and as the source say, it is the temporary constitution for the Palestinian Authority. Too SYNTHy for you?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Definitely. You're telling me the Palestinian Authority is "the country [of Palestine]"? I don't think that it the case. What I read is that the Palestinian Authority and has designated an official flag for the country. The Authority of which is considered a interim body. Hmm. Rob984 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess bringing you a photo of a Palestinian I.D. with the flag on it won't work?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably not. Just read WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Though I am curious, what is "Palestinian I.D."? I don't think the green PA-issued ID cards have the Palestinian flag, do they? Rob984 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Seen few (Even one a few days ago, following this argument) they have the flag on the outline and it uses the PA coat of arms (like the passport say "Dawla Falastin-State of Paltsine" but the coat of arms say "al-Sulta Falastiniya" (PA). The I.Ds are also in Hebrew and Arabic by the way, in Hebrew they say "Rashut Palestinayit" (PA). Not a source, but just for you to know.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_Authority/Archive_3&oldid=1222301413"