Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 11

Proposed merge with Palestinian territories
Geez, what am I thinking? Actually carrying out this merge would be a nightmare even if we could all agree on it. But here's what I'm thinking: these articles describe the same subject. That's a perfectly good reason for merging. Look, I don't really have a dog in this fight. If anything, I'm more sympathetic to Israel. But the objective reality is that there is a Palestinian state, with a surprisingly high level of recognition. In practice, it gets messy, but we don't have separate articles on Abkhazia and Republic of Abkhazia. Besides, it's still up to the body of the article to explain the status of the government. Having separate articles on the geographic area and the government that claims it just doesn't make good sense. There are four options before us here, as I see it. Let me know what you think. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Merge both articles under the title State of Palestine.
 * 2) Merge both articles under the title Palestinian territories.
 * 3) Merge both articles under a different title (indicate your preference).
 * 4) Don't merge the articles.
 * I vote to merge both articles under the title Palestinian territories. Good luck.  --GHcool (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Super duper strong oppose. The articles do not describe the same subject, one describes, or should describe, the state declared in 1988 and has since been recognized by over 100 other states and the other describes the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine that has been held under Israeli occupation since the 1967 War. Until the State of Palestine actually exercises sovereignty over the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel then the two subjects are separate, and combining them in to one article is simply unworkable.  nableezy  - 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both articles cover different topics as explained by Nableezy. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose since the subject-matter is different. Land of Israel and Israel are similarly separate articles, even if wikipedia articles aren't sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Point number one is fine. Both, if merged, should be merged to State of Palestine. Palestine is a non-observer state at the UN too. Fai  zan  09:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support option 1, and also merge with Palestinian National Authority (which has officially changed ita name to State of Palestine), with subarticles created to avoid losing detail. Nableezy has a point, but since the State of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories we are massively overcomplicating things for readers by keeping these topics separate. The one thing we can all agree on is that we want to help readers understand, and the current state of these articles is super duper unclear (to borrow Nableezy's term). To deal with Nableezy's point we should make very clear in the first paragraph that the state does not actually control most of the territory it claims. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If by "subarticles" you mean sections, that's an interesting point. The Palestinian territories article doesn't have a government and politics section, and it really should. The section could divided it into sub-sections for Palestine's "governments" (see my post bellow) which explain their roles (for example that the PLO handles the foreign relations). The problem with your approach (if I understand it correctly) is that a merge with both this and the PNA article would cause the government and politics section to overwhelm the rest of the article, even with a major reorganization of the merged page.


 * Here's another idea that might address the concern you've raised, it's more of a very rough draft of an idea tough. Perhaps this article's info on the political/legal status and recognition of Palestine (most of this article) could be moved to Palestinian territories and/or Political status of the Palestinian territories. This article could then focus on the State's government, and it's institutions (somewhat similar to Palestinian National Authority). Possibly then it could be renamed "Government of the State of Palestine" with "State of Palestine" redirecting to "Palestinian territories". Basically, a halfway point between merging this article, and keeping it separate. I'd imagine that allot of the opposers would oppose this idea tough, especially the part about renaming and redirecting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  Normally I would agree with BDD's argument. For example I don't think we should have a Republic of Abkhazia article, or three separate Kosovo articles (Kosovo Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.


 * Palestine however, is an highly unusual case, it's not as simple as "the geographic area and the government that claims it". Unlike other countries which consist of a single "government" (for lack of a better term), Republic of Abkhazia for Abkhazia, Republic of Kosovo for Kosovo etc., Palestine has three. The State of Palestine (SOP), Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the Palestine Liberation Origination (PLO). The PNA and SOP (and to a partial extent the PLO) have have separate governments, separate heads of government (PNA President SOP President/PLO Chairman), and separate legislatures (PNA Palestinian Legislative Council, SOP/PLO Palestinian National Council), and separate institutions. PLO ensures smooth interaction and synchronous actions of the two. All three should have their own articles.


 * They have different roles, for example the PLO handles the foreign relations, and the PNA does most of the internal governing within Palestine such as law enforcement. If it helps, you could think of the PLO, PNA, and SOP as the three separate breaches of the Palestinian government.


 * I which Japinderum weren't an a wilibreack, he's far more kownigable about this then I am, and I don't think I doing a good job of explaining this. I used (and adapted) some of his words in my post. I'll invite hem here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As an addendum my above post, to quote User:Soman "To be clear, the State of Palestine [...] and the Palestinian National Authority are not the same. The PNA is an organ for local self-governance, but not a state. It is subordinate to the PLO, and founded several years after the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote to merge both articles under the title State of Palestine, Palestine is a UN Observer state like the Vatican so why don't u use this name?? is it because most of it's land is occupied? Gaza is Free and Palestine is not the only state with occupied territories. 3bdulelah (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Gaza Strip is still under Israeli occupation. See Israeli-occupied territories. It's not the State of Palestine that controls Gaza, it's the Palestinian Authority. More specifically the Hamas government in Gaza. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That statement might be confusing so here something from the Governance of the Gaza Strip that should clarify it: "Hamas party won the Palestinian legislative elections [...] establishing a Palestinian national unity government with Fatah, which effectively collapsed when Hamas and Fatah engaged in a violent conflict. [...] Both administrations – the Fatah government in Ramallah and the Hamas government in Gaza– regard themselves as the sole legitimate government of the Palestinian National Authority." The point is that it's the it's the Authority's Hamas government, not the State, that controls Gaza. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a few problems merging this under the title "State of Palestine"
 * First of all WP:COMMONNAME. "Palestinian territories" (including the variant "Palestinian territory") has 74 times more Google results then "State of Palestine". [//www.google.com/search?q= "Palestinian territories" OR "Palestinian territory" -wikipedia] has 74,200,000 results, vs [//www.google.com/search?q= "State of Palestine" -wikipedia] mere 1,020,000 results.


 * It is my understanding that over the past few mounts some sources have swished to using the term "State of Palestine" instead of "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian territories", many (if not most) have not, for example: The Guardian, BBC News [www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14630174‎], United Nations Human Rights Council , Huffington Post , the British Council [www.britishcouncil.org/ps.htm], Carter Center , Amnesty International , the Germian goverment's GIZ , the Brookings Institution , the British goverment's UK Trade & Investment , the UN's World Health Organization , Médecins Sans Frontières , Doctors Without Borders [www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=60], The Washington Times , The UN's UN News Centre , Bahrain News Agency , Prensa Latina , Kuwait News Agency , Gulf News , the Chicago Tribune ; well that's a much bigger collection of sources then I meant to gather, but I think you get the idea.


 * As I pointed out above, the The State of Palestine (SOP), Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and Palestine Liberation Origination (PLO), are not the same thing. While "State of Palestine" can be used as a synonym of "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian territories", it would be confusing to use "State of Palestine" as our main term for Palestine (which would encompass the SOP, PNA, and PLO), especially in a context where we would want to talk about the State of Palestine specifiably. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote to merge articles under Palestinian territories. The article "State of Palestine" we can recreate later, when the state would be established, not occupied as now. User02062000 (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment in response to EHC's post of 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC), "single top level summary article": I like your thinking. Below is the table of contents of how the articles are currently organised.

A quick look through this illustrates how much overlap there is here. We need to simplify this if a reader is going to have any chance of navigating it all successfully.

Importantly though, to make this easy to understand, I think we need one of these articles to become a single "top level" summary article, so that a reader new to the subject can read just one article with summaries of all the key points and understand the modern political situation of Palestine. Once that is done, we can have create clearer scopes for each of these articles, so that they remain focused on their respective areas, providing more detail to support the summary in the top level article.

So question 1 is, which name should be the "single top level summary article"? DEFINITELY CHANGE TO OPTION 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.233.179 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It depends on what you mean by "top level summary article". If you mean for Palestine in general, not politics specifically, but just in general, it should be "Palestinian territories" per my second 12:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) post, and it already is. If you mean political/legal status, is it a state, is it occupied, that kind of thing, Political status of the Palestinian territories. If you mean internal politics, elections and appointments, powers of the PLO, SOP, AND PNA, that kind of thing the Politics of the Palestinian territories. As I pointed out the Palestinian Authority And the State of Palestine are two separate entities, so one should not be the main article for the other.


 * Part of my point in my response to your previous post what that this article focuses allot on the legal status of the Palestinian territories, when in my tentative opinion, after thinking about what you've said, that should be something for the Political status of the Palestinian territories and Palestinian territories articles. This article (under whatever name would be appropriate) should focus on the State's government (not the Authorty's government, the State's), similarly to the Palestinian National Authority article. Sense the Authority does most of the axueal internal governing within Palestine, and (if my understanding is correct) has many more institutions then the Authority, the Authority article would be longer then this one under the scope I propose. I'm of the Opposers, but I think my position is a middle ground between the Opposers and the Supporters. I think my position is closer to your's and BDD's then it is to the other Opposers. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The articles should probably be merged with Palestine as well, with all articles redirecting to "Palestine"; this will eliminate confusion. However, that may be too complicated a merge to carry out, as these three articles cover somewhat different things. Epicgenius ( talk to me •  see my contributions )  19:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I vote to merge both articles under the title "Palestine" and the former page “Palestine” be moved to "Palestinian area"， the reason are as follows:

The State of Palestine is a country which exists in fact, and there are 134 members of the United Nations recognize the State of Palestine, while only 59 members refuse to recognize it. You can't create a conception called "Palestinian territories" just because your country don't recognize it, this is ridiculous!

Some country didn't recognize Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, but I haven't saw any counties use the Kosovo territories, Abkhaz territories, South Ossetia territories in their official documents, Wikipedia could't do the ridiculous thing either.--MacArthur1945 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, if such sovereign state existed, the Palestinians wouldn't be threatening that if the current round of Peace talks will fail they would push for unilateral statehood. The fact is that all Palestinian authority and recognition comes through the Oslo accords(and UN), which is very specific about this issues and all your talk about recognition and UN statements is nothing but a huge Synthesis.
 * oppose, despite the overlap shown in the table above, those articles have distinct purpose. Territories, administration and proclaimed/future state.--PLNR (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support-ish, after further examination and reading of this article content, I support the merger of most of this article with 'Palestinian territories' (any chance it was moved here from there in the first place? because it reads that way) --PLNR (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to summarise all topics under "Palestine"

 * This is another can of worms I've tried to avoid, but what about Palestine itself? I think the SoP/PTs is the primary topic for that term, and the current article should be at a title like Palestine (region). Does it make any sense for that to be the top level article? I know, I know, not that this issue needed further complication... --BDD (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this should be moved to Palestine, Palestine moved to Palestine (region), and the other two articles remain separate. The PNA has nothing, or close to nothing, to do with the establishment, history, or present status of the State. The territories could conceivably be in this article (the PNA article should really be a sub-article to that one), but both are big enough to deal with separately, and I see no overlap necessary between the two.  nableezy  - 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that too, although I wouldn't be so binary re the PNA or any other topic which has some overlap as the reality is a little more nuanced. A top-level "Palestine" article about the State of Palestine should provide readers with an entry level summary of every relevant / adjacent topic.

It's worth noting that this idea has been proposed before, but ran out of steam because there was no agreement re what the article would actually look like, and others viewed it as politically motivated. It would be a shame if that happened again. I think the success of the proposed move will depend wholly on the ability to show to the community that the article will achieve the goal of being a truly helpful introduction to what is a complex subject, which would be of real value for readers. That will need hard work, coordination and structured debate from all of us here.

If this makes sense to people, before we try to get broader community support for this, can i suggest we try to agree amongst ourselves exactly what the contents of this "Palestine" article would be? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand well Nableezy's proposal, I agree :
 * State of Palestine should be moved to Palestine
 * Palestine should be moved to Palestine (region)
 * Anyway, I also agree that this deserves a discussion.
 * We should find good clues (not to say evidences) that the word "Palestine" refers more today to the "State" than to the "region" in the minds of the majority of people.
 * That's not obvious. For Israelis and Palestinians, of course but in the Christian world, I have some doubt... And in any case, our mind doesn't matter, we need evidences...
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. From yesterday's Haaretz:
 * [Google statement to the Knesset committee]: “I wish to stress that as part of this process, we merely try to reflect the state of international naming standards. We have no interest in being the arbiter of political disputes. I want to make it absolutely clear that in making these decisions we are in no way taking a political stance.”
 * Hale read out Google’s official position, under which the selection of geopolitical names is based on decisions by organizations such as the United Nations, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and the International Organization for Standardization.
 * In summary, google's analysis, which they were prepared to defend in front of a Knesset committee, is that the name "Palestine" is preferred over "Palestinian territories"
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the merger of these articles. 72.211.220.246 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger. I agree with Nableezy here. Palestine (in its various meanings) is a sui generis situation, far more complicated than Abkhazia or other partially-recognized or disputed cases. The only vaguely comparable case I can think of is with China although even then it isn't really similar. It's hard enough even for people familiar with the situation to sort out what the different Palestinian organizations are; what the difference between Areas A/B/C are; where the Green Line lies vis-a-vis where people of differing nationalities/ethnicities are currently living and where the separation barrier runs; what the status of Jerusalem is; etc. Nearly every related term ("capital", "settler", "occupation", "state", "Jerusalem", "Palestine", "Palestinians", "refugee", "international community", etc.) is subject to often highly charged disputes. On top of this it's highly doubtful, if/when a peace agreement is worked out and an actually sovereign State of Palestine comes into existence, that its boundaries will correspond to the current Green Line that marks the formal definition of the Palestinian Territories. Merging these articles would make it all the harder to keep all the different concepts straight. (Contrast e.g. Abkhazia, which is a de-facto sovereign state run by a single entity whose boundaries closely correspond both to the region of Abkhazia and the area inhabited by Abkhazians.)
 * OTOH I don't have any problem with renaming the articles, e.g. as proposed by Nableezy (although I don't feel strongly about this -- again this is a unique situation, and e.g. arguments could easily be made as well that the article "Palestine" should refer to the Palestinian Territories). Benwing (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless, this page should be moved to Palestine and that article to Palestine (region). If Palestine is not a country, it should not be under the name "State of" anything, and if Palestine is a country, it should be moved to Palestine to be consistent with articles of other countries. State of Israel redirects to Israel, People's Republic of China redirects to China, etc. Whichever way you look at it, this article should be moved to Palestine. As for the merge, I'm not sure on whether to merge Palestine and Palestinian territories, but Palestinian National Authority should not be merged. Many other governments, both national and sub-national, have their own article separate from what they govern, this is no different, and wouldn't necessarily be an endorsement to any solution, since sub-national governments sometimes have their own article too.Smartyllama (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, I think the former page “Palestine” should be moved to "Palestinian area", and we could merge the page "State of Palestine" with the page "Palestinian territories" under the title "Palestine". my reason is as follows:

The State of Palestine is a country which exists in fact, and there are 134 members of the United Nations recognize the State of Palestine, while only 59 members refuse to recognize it. You can't create a conception called "Palestinian territories" just because your country don't recognize it, this is ridiculous!

Some country didn't recognize Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, but I haven't saw any counties use the Kosovo territories, Abkhaz territories, South Ossetia territories in their official documents, Wikipedia could't do the ridiculous thing either.--MacArthur1945 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In my mind, politics are irrelevant to this move and the article should be put at Palestine either way with that existing article moved. If Palestine is its own sovereign nation, the full name of the nation should still be a redirect, like People's Republic of China, State of Israel, and Russian Federation. If Palestine is a territory, it still should be moved to Palestine, because no other territories, save those whose full proper name includes the word "territory" (for instance the Yukon Territory) have the main article at that name. For instance, Guam territory does not even exist as an article while Guam territory, United States redirects to Guam. So in the end, whether Palestine is a territory or an independent country, the article should still be at Palestine since that is the naming convention for both territories and independent countries. Smartyllama (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The two are not mutually exclusive. My understanding is that the international community considers Palestine to be both a (de jure) state, and an occupied territory (hence the term "occupied Palestinian territories" or "Palestinian territories"). As for official government documents with that them, here's one from the UK, and one from the UN. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mostly Support Option 2. "Mostly Support" better summarises my position then oppose. Like I said in my 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC) responce to Oncenawhile, merge most of this to the Palestinian territories and Political status of the Palestinian territories articles, and split the part about the SOP government (at least the "Institutions" section) into a "Politics of the State of Palestine" article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the two articles deal with different topics.George Al-Shami (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, One article refers territory. One article refers to a proposed state. The article on the proposed state also refers to a Government body that exercises some control over some of the territory for that proposed state. I would worry about merging Palestinian National Authority here first since the entity recognized before the UN as the State of Palestine is the PNA. I would also like to remind everyone WP:Soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Any position to merge should not be based on emotion or political position in my opinion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, at this point, especially with murky situation among the two Palestinian factions, however, it does seem like a logical solution for when the State of Palestine will be officially formed (e.g. Israel not State of Israel)--PLNR (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support the merges per what User:MacArthur1945 and User:BDD said. -Shalom11111 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition. Most people look for "Palestine", not "State of Palestine". It would be easier for anyone who was searching for it to have both these articles under ONE title. Justmephotography (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nableezy Cinemwallz44 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Palestine is the simplest term, the most general, the easiest to search for. There is ample precedent, not just with Abkhazia etc., but even with “regular” countries such as Germany. There have been many historical regions, entities and states described as “Germany”, but the article Germany is the article for the present-day country, which is not under Federal Republic of Germany. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly support having several articles with various names makes lots of ambiguity. Monfie (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly support merger of State of Palestine and Palestinian territories under the name "Palestine", given the fact that it's now in the United Nations under the name "Palestine". Charles Essie (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Largest City
While the State of Palestine claims East Jerusalem (or more accurately "al Quds") as its capital, it makes no claims with regards to West Jerusalem. As such, Gaza is its largest city. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to support your personal opinion. Sources I have consulted refer to Jerusalem, see e.g. Lapidoth, Ruth. "Jerusalem – Some Legal Issues". The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. pp. 21–26. Reprinted from: Rüdiger Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, online 2008-, print 2011)
 * "The attitude of the Palestinians was expressed inter alia in 1988 and 2002. When the Palestine National Council proclaimed in November 1988 the establishment of a Palestinian State, it asserted that Jerusalem was its capital. In October 2002 the Palestinian Legislative Council adopted the Law on the Capital, which stipulates that Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian State, the main seat of its three branches of government. The State of Palestine is the sovereign of Jerusalem and of its holy places. Any statute or agreement that diminishes the rights of the Palestinian State in Jerusalem is invalid. This statute can be amended only with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Council. The 2003 Basic Law also asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine" Dlv999 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to fix mixed citation styles
This article currently uses a mixture of citation templates, short footnotes, parenthetical references, and other forms of referencing. I've been trying to clean up the citations, but it's proving difficult accommodating all the different styles. I'm proposing that I got involved here by cleaning up some citations with deprecated parameters and noticing that the UN document template was broken—it was linking to a defunct website—so I got it fixed. I'd like to finish making the references easier to navigate. Since this is a major change, I don't want to expend tons of energy carrying it out if there are serious objections. Absent those, I'm willing to do the clean-up. I'd like to start about two weeks from now; that should give ample time for comments, which are welcome. Thanks!&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the Notes section be retained as is, but possibly formatted in two columns to reduce its use of vertical space.
 * 2) convert to list-defined references, where all references are named and only the reference name appears in the text (e.g.   to make editing easier; all complete references would be listed in the References section and called from there. To see how this works, take a look at Attila or Virginia Tech massacre. For detailed explanations of implementation, see Help:List-defined references and Template:Reflist/doc.
 * 3) works in the Bibliography section which are used as specific citations be converted to citation templates and included in the References section, with page number references appended inline using , which displays the page number immediately following the footnote. It looks like this: [23] . (See the reference for Kassim, which first appears in the State of Palestine section, in the very last paragraph). This avoids having to have an individual reference for each page or range of pages cited in the same source; the source can be listed once and the page number specified next to the note number. The short reference for Kassim in the References section would be replaced with the full citation from the Bibliography section; note how I've managed to include links to Google books previews of the different pages cited without cluttering up the text of the article itself.

"State of Palestine" also can refer to the state declared in 1964
"State of Palestine" also can be used to refer to the state of Palestine declared by the Palestine National Charter adopted in 1964 which became the proposal for a "Single Democratic State" and which was the position of the PLO until 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

People who live in the disputed areas of Palestine know that statehood is just a political vision of the Arab movement - yet not a state... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.23.42 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "The State of Palestine" can and should be used to describe the state of Palestine declain by the UN in 1947. However, to remain neutral there should be a distiction made by making another page for it. The current entity that is controled by the Palestinian Authority has a similar status as Somaliland (See Article on Samaliland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland). Both entities have legitimate, howbeit controversial, claims to statehood. Therefore such claim as "sovereign" State of Palestine, should be omitted. The term "Sovereign" does not appear on many other pages for actual sovereign states anyway. I would sugjest we copy the term used for Somaliland: "self-declared independent state that is internationally recognised as an autonomous region...". Anything more than that seriously puts the neutrality of Wikipedia into question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completely true (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you would benefit from reading International recognition of the State of Palestine and comparing it to the status Somaliland (see Foreign relations of Somaliland). As a partially but widely recognized state, the status of Palestine is actually far closer to that of Israel than Somaliland. Secondly, articles are based on reliable published sources rather than what contributors think they know. If you search this State of Palestine article for 'sovereign' and read the reliable published sources that are cited for the information, you will get a clearer idea of its current status according to reliable sources and why this article says what it says.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

please look up "Sovereign state" in wiki. Palestine, which completely depends on Israel's electricity, tax collection, trade, and currency, is NOT a sovereign state by any stretch of imagination. This statement in the first paragraph of wiki ridicule the idea of neutrality. For now, its nothing more than a pipe dream POV.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2014 - Palestine not yet an official state - 'nonmenber'
Please change the "state of palestine" to "a nonmember observer state." It is not as simple to say it is a state as it is still not an official member.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-palestine-now-a-state/ U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice made the U.S. government's stance on the Palestinians abundantly clear after Friday's vote, telling the assembly: "This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/is-palestine-a-state-that-may-depend-on-the-palestinians/ UN officials told the members of the Palestinian delegation — which had apparently produced its new sign somewhere else — that they were not authorized to change the sign on their own and had to replace the self-made sign declaring statehood with the old one, according to Haaretz. As long as Palestine is merely a nonmember state, the officials insisted, it cannot independently ask for its name to be changed on the sign adorning its bench.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/palestinenot.htm 8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries. No. Despite the super-majority of United Nations members approving United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 on November 29, 2012, giving Palestine non-member state observer status, Palestine is not yet eligible to join the United Nations as an independent country.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-general-assembly-votes-to-recognize-palestinian-state/ The resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations was approved by a more than two-thirds majority of the 193-member world body -- a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions.

Krtfgu (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is referred to as a state by countless reliable sources (including the UN media division and the UN Secretary-General himself by the way e.g. ACTIVITIES OF SECRETARY-GENERAL IN STATE OF PALESTINE and "I am pleased to visit the State of Palestine.") The lead already says that it is currently a "non-member observer state". Statehood derives from recognition by other states, not from UN membership. Admission to the UN, statehood, recognition and sovereignty are separate but related issues.
 * See the UN site, About UN Membership (and Non-member States) - "The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government."
 * See Admission to the United Nations (Legal Aspects of International Organization) ISBN 978-9004173637, page 146 and page 251 for relevant info. For example, "Possession of a more or less definite territory frequently is mentioned as a core criterion of statehood. An established State - which for present purposes may be defined as an entity whose statehood is generally accepted - well may continue to exist despite deprivation of territory due to unlawful occupation; and the contours of a State's territory need not be precisely agreed in order for the State to exist as such."
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Sam Sing! 06:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014
Remove the statement where you claim that the land is "Occupied"

109.186.109.164 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. - Arjayay (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

1947-1948 War in Palestine
The section titled 1947-1948 War in Palestine does not include any war from late 1947 to when the Arab armies came in May 1948 but there certainly was a war going on. The Israelis/Jews were forcing Palestinians off their land.300,000 Palestinians were forced out by Jewish terrorist groups.That should obviously be included as it is the history of Palestine. GGranddad (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"a sovreign state" - factual undisputed error
the first sentence in the article states that "The State of Palestine is a sovereign state in the Levant" regardless of any political opinions one may hold, this is simply wrong. the PA holds control over ~40% of the west bank while israel holds the rest, and the gaza strip is ruled by hamas, a rival organization. how can this be called a *sovereign* state? it is quit the oposite... I strongly believe that this prhasing must be mended. no other state article has an explicit mentioning of the state's sovereignity in its opening line, so why should this clearly not-sovereign state have one? 93.172.163.255 (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

agree! --46.120.228.203 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In agreement! --192.197.82.203 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a de jure sovereignty.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

fixed. IRA (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, this article is not talking about its total claimed territory, only the parts shaded in green. Those certain parts are indeed sovereign and not controlled by any "foreign power". It is different from the Palestinian territories or Palestine articles. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Parts shaded green" ??? The article is not talking about green "parts". Also, if I take map and color (green) the USA and Russia, it would be correct to claim they are not controlled by a foreign power. It would be INCORRECT to claim that they comprise a (single) soverign state. English 101.173.189.78.173 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Demographics
This is a joke. Leaving aside what the UN means by the "state of Palestine", leaving aside the agreements reached between the PLO and Hamas this year, the failure of Demographics to describe any subcategories makes the entire section virtually useless. Obvious candidates categories include: Gaza/W.Bank, Males/Females, Young/Old, Races, Ethnicities, Languages, Religions...173.189.78.173 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All articles are in a state of development and can be improved by anyone, including you. Zerotalk 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Opening section and the article's map
1. Sorry if you'll find any grammatical mistakes here; English is not my native language. Hope it will be understandable. :) 2. Oslo Accords (1993) signed by Israel and the PLO clearly states that the political status of Judea - Sameria (West Bank) and Gaza strip, shall be a subject to a negotiation between those sides. And only by them. The agreement approved by the international community; Even Europe countries and USA guaranteed it. Back to our days - the General Assembly, by the UN's charter, has no power to accept a new state when it breaks the previous decisions of the Security Council. Till now the Security Council has never cancel or change it's only recognition to the Oslo Accords. Even Non.M.-Observe State's status cannot create de-jure (nor de-facto) state, without S.C. permission. The G.A. can only create Non.M.-Observe State. So if the article wants to be more accurate please change the opening section to something more like this: "Palestine is a Non.M.-Observe State by the POV of the UN Assembly, without any de-jure or de-facto recognition from the Security Council that has the rights to approve any new state when its conflict with the previous agreement". 3. You've marked the Gaza Strip in green, as if it was part of PLO (so-called: "Palestine") territory. Do I really have to inform you that this land is under Hamas government, for a very long time, and not under the PLO rules who's sitting in Ramalah? 4. In this very map you've mark the entire Judea and Samaria area (West Bank) in green, as if it shows the actual effective ruling of the PLO. It's seems like you prefer again and again an imagining map rather than a real one. In this case - Judea and Samria is under a deep disputation between Israel and PLO, so even de-jure map is irrelevant here. And seriously - why an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, prefers systemically a de-jure maps rather than de-facto ones? At least puts those two maps together in the article so the objective POV will remain.

Thanks a lot, --46.121.74.82 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to read some books on international law. The UNSC does not create states.  UN membership is not the definition of statehood.  A place is a state if the community of states recognises it as a state.  Zerotalk 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fix me if I'm wrong, but the UNSC is the supreme body for a binding decisions within the UN organization. If it decided to adopt the Oslo Accords (With their content about not creating a "Palestinian State" without a negotiation) then this decision is upper than any other decision made by the UNGA. Including the one who had changed the PLO position from an Observing Entity to a None Member-Observing State. All of these could mean nothing to me (as you said - this is not claiming nothing about statehood), But surprisingly, after the UNGA decision, all over Wikipedia ENG the term "Palestine" starts to treated like a real state (de-facto rather de-jore - like the article itself mention). In the "Israel" article one of the borders it shares is with "The State of Palestine". the article about "Mandatory Palestine" says that the land is now part of Israel and "Palestine" etc... From all of this it seems like Wikipedia ENG treat to the "Palestine State" throughout the Articles as a de-facto state rather than de-jore. I won't fight with each article about this mistake - They're many and they all directing to here.

46.121.74.82 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Statehood as a concept in international law has existed since centuries before the United Nations existed. Also the Oslo Accords were a bilateral agreement, not a UN decision.  Anyway, recognition of an entity as a state by most other states makes it a de jure state (which is generally just called a "state").  A de facto state is an entity which has some of the properties of a state but is not generally recognised as a state. See the paper for a discussion of the difference between a de-facto state and a state which has achieved international recognition. Zerotalk 00:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to the lead
I have good faith reverted this edit to the lead. There are many reasons. See MOS:LEAD. Basically the first paragraph should provide the definition. After that, can come the history, and evolution. The new edit
 * It makes the initial paragraph too long and less precise
 * The earlier version contained the statement: "Most of the areas claimed by the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War.", which is not present. It is a crucial statement.
 * The new sentences added from the section below, is talking about procedural issues about executive committees and Palestinian national council. The lead should basically focus on the PLO as a whole. The details should be discussed in the body. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
You Have seemed not to have anything about Palestine pre-W.W.II, so it didn't exist as a nation after the War? What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Choose which of their solutions ars right, not that {United States}, the allies had choosen to play little TIN God in the first place. . . That Nazi Germany had in fact invaded the Middle East expressly to destroy Israel, therefore they were returned their home lands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.48 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Euhm Nazi Germany didn't invade the Middle East, and especially not to destroy Israel. The only reason they fought in North Africa was because their disastrous Italian allies invaded the area on their own, and Germany was forced to save them. That BS that Nazi Germany just wanted to kill all the world's Jews is just incorrect. They wanted the Bolsheviks, slavs and communists gone, who they recognized as largely Jewish at the time. Also Wikipedia is not here to solve any conflict. It's a neutral source of information, where you don't pick sides. 77.165.250.227 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct that wikipedia's role is to be a neutral source of information. If you believe that Nazis didn't plan to murder all the Jews, you may want to read up on The Holocaust. Also, see Middle East Theatre of World War II. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a racist and anti-Semitic article.
There is no such thing as a state of "Palestine." Judea and Samaria will always be Jewish land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.89.112.168 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This article, despite its flaws, mostly describes historical changes in how the State of Palestine has been viewed and ruled- since 1946 in any case ! It is hard to see how an account of how the State was formed, viewed, occupied, fought over or ruled can be construed as racist or anti-Semitic. Please explain your conclusion.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to feed nationalistic troll rants.TMCk (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The state that this article deals with was declared in 1988, not 1946.
 * According to some people the mere hint that the disputed territories may eventually not be a part of Israel is a verbal attack on Israel, therefore is antisemitic. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as Judea and Samaria, the late Kingdom of Israel with its capital at Samaria ceased to exist in 720 BC upon conquest by the Assyrian empire, the Kingdom of Judea ceased to exist upon conquest by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 580 BC. The Palestinian people are the indigenous inhabitants of that land, they did not lose their rights upon conversion to Islam, nor did people who emigrated thousands of years back retain them merely because they did not.108.131.85.155 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Try reading History of Palestine. There is overwhelming evidence that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are not the "indigenous inhabitants". That would be Philistines or Canaanites. The Jews never emigrated completely, there always was Jewish presense in the land of Israel. The earliest mention of the Palestinian people, however, is at 1834. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter whether the Arabs are "indigenous inhabitants" or not? The White man in Australia, Canada, United States of America, New Zealand etc are not "indigenous inhabitants" either. Do we dispute the sovereignty of the aforementioned countries? People really need to learn to live in peace side by side and forget about find out who has a right to be there or not. The reality is that both are there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, another article where the Israeli political POV pushing tries desperately to discret Palestine and validate Israel. Linking Israeli sources doesn't help, that's like using Chinese sources for the legitimacy of their state. "Philistine" and "Palestine".. You don't see it? It's even more obvious when the Arabic word for Palestine is "Falastin", and when the words related to "Palaestina" were used even by the Greeks. Philistinians (that's a word) and Palestinians are as much the same as modern Jews are Israelites. 77.165.250.227 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Who decided it's palestine ant not the palestinian authority ? it's the palestinian authority by any means.
Palestine refers to the land of israel ,it means both state of israel ,gaza,judea and samaria. so what is the state of israel ? the rest of palestine ? it's flawed. please fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC) --Dorpwnz (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

They wont fix it. Wikipedia is a reflection of pro Arab lies and propaganda, so of course they would call this non existent entity a "state" and list Israeli territory as its lands. No wonder the article is locked, enough people try to fit the truth and accuracy in, and they shut everything down; lock it in place. There is no country in the world called "Palestine" and there never has been. De jure sovereignty my ass, the Arabs in Judea and Samaria don't deserve their own country. In before the pro terrorist Palestinian brigade come in and rant about bull shit sourced from the UN; like the UN isn't a Muslim controlled farce.124.180.170.143 (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Spain and France
In 18th November. In spanish Chamber of deputees (Congreso de los diputados) the State of Palestine has recognised as an independant state.http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/11/27/actualidad/1354027320_326946.html The same in France.
 * The French vote will be on November 28th. The vote is not about actually recognizing but applying pressure on the government so it will recognize the de-jure state. Same in Spain. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As WarKosign says, neither Spain nor France has recognized Israel Palestine and the votes are non-binding.Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely you meant "State of Palestine" and not "Israel". Even though the vote is non-binding it may be notable enough to mention. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Mistake corrected. And yes, the votes could definitely be mentioned though we cannot of course include Spain or France among countries having recognized Palestine.Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what are you waiting for, change the colours of these 2 new countries (France and Spain) on the map of the countries which recognize Palestine as such (green). Let's see, when all the world recognizes Palestinian state, who will be the ones who go 'against the stream'. One, or better two countries are known for sure, but they will be the only 2 states not recognizing Palestine, which will make them being lonely and embarrassingly isolated against the WHOLE WORLD! Long live Palestine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.125.34 (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The countries do not recognize Palestine. Their parlaments passed non-binding votes asking their governments to recognize it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Political status of the Palestinian territories to change Political status of the Palestinian territories to Political status of the State of Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 09:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

International recognition and foreign relations
Please could someone add the member states which abstained, namely United Kingdom, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Korea and Rwanda. Thank you very much in advance

On 31 December 2014, the United Nations voted down a resolution demanding the end of Israeli occupation and statehood by 2017. Eight members voted for the Resolution (Russia, China, France, Argentina, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Luxembourg), however the resolution did not get the minimum of nine votes needed to pass the resolution. Australia and the United States voted against the resolution, with five other member states (United Kingdom, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Korea and Rwanda) abstaining.

Diplomatic sources said Nigeria had been expected to support the resolution and changed its stance at the last minute.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2891601/UN-Security-Council-vote-Palestinian-resolution.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.187.129 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the abstaining members are irrelevant to the scope of this discussion, with the exception of Nigeria, which indeed should be mentioned in the paragraph. The paragraph claims: "Eight members voted for the Resolution (Russia, China, France, Argentina, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Luxembourg), however following strenuous US efforts to defeat the resolution,[174] it did not get the minimum of nine votes needed to pass the resolution." This is a puzzling statement considering that it places blame squarely on the United States, rather than the joint lobbying efforts of the United States and Israel in order to persuade Nigeria to abstain. Quoting from the source referenced in the paragraph: "The UN security council rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to Israeli occupation within three years after Israel and the US crucially intervened to persuade Nigeria to abstain from voting." It also states: "We knew that Rwanda, South Korea and Australia would not back it, but we believed Nigeria was on board.” This highlights the respective relevance of the abstaining members. Clearly Nigeria is worth mentioning in this paragraph in regards to perspective Palestinian support. Additionally, the passage which claims "following strenuous US efforts to defeat the resolution" should be reworded if we are to cite information per the source provided. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who added that part, I'm OK with saying "strenuous US and Israeli efforts", although I suspect what moved Nigeria was the US efforts. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reworded it to "strenuous US and Israeli efforts". Thanks. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

International Criminal Court
The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has confirmed that Palestine will officially become a member of the International Criminal Court on 1 April 2015, the UN press office said on Wednesday.(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/palestine-member-international-criminal-court-un#) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.174.15 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Levant
The lead says "The State of Palestine ... is a de jure sovereign state in the Levant.

Are there sources that back up this statement ? Correct me if I'm wrong: the state exists on paper without land, in the Levant or elserwhere, while Gaza and the West Bank are under control of the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Of course it is expected that the state will eventually be in control of (a large part of) these territories, but is it correct to write that the state currently is there ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This source says it is correct. I'm not sure how reliable it is, though. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To my understanding "in the Levant" is no more than a geographic pointer to let people know in which geographic area this entity is situated (de jure or whatever). We could just as easily written "in the Middle East", "in South Western Asia" etc. My recommendation is to use one of the two options I gave since the Levant is an area much less well known than the other two which are more or less common knowledge. DGtal (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Does a de-jure only entity have a geographic area ? They certainly claim a geographic area, but it alone does not justify saying "in the Levant", it justifies saying "claiming a region in the Levant". I'm not certain I understand the relation between State of Palestine and PNA. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed first line to be more factually accurate. Palestine is by no way a de jure state, and the sources cited were not substantial evidence. Eym174 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a de jure state, it is not necessarily a de facto state.108.131.85.155 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does a de-jure state without defined borders have a location ? No doubt that the State of Palestine claims land in the Levant, but I wonder if it's correct to say that it actually is there. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

section and article on "Religion in Palestine"
The article on Israel has a section on Religion with a main article reference on Religion in Israel.

I am thinking about making a RM to Religion in Israel and the Palestinian territories and wanted to canvass opinion on the best end to this title and whether there might be other options. Another suggested option is to develop content on Religion in the Palestinian territories but no content seems to have got going on this, content would overlap with the Religion in Israel article and it wouldn't solve the existing problems in that article.

I think that the Religion in Israel article has NPOV problems. The article contains pictorial content as follows:
 * 4 Old city images,
 * 1 Modern building in the Arab State side of the UN partition plan,
 * 1 Modern building in the Jewish State side of the UN partition plan,
 * 4 general pictures: street scene, graphics on wall, decorations display, graphics on a bus.

The Old City (Jerusalem) which is located in East Jerusalem, miles from areas the UN had originally marked as being designated for a Jewish State and also on the eastern side of the Green Line. Related discussions are currently underway at Talk:Israel regarding areas that are to be considered as being within Israel.

GregKaye 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg: By a RM do you mean the religion section of the Israel page? If so, would it not be possible to having a section in this article detailing religion within the Palestinian territories. I just had a glance over the religion section on the Israel page and it seems that religion is explained in the context of the entire Israeli and Palestinian territories. Therefore I am in agreement that the RM should take place. Otherwise we should separate the content into the relevant Israel and State of Palestine pages. Mbcap (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I was thinking of a straight move of Religion in Israel to Religion in Israel and the Palestinian territories though perhaps a move to Religion in Israel and the State of Palestinian or Religion in the States of Israel and Palestinian might be appropriate.  Much of the content relates to East Jerusalem.  GregKaye 09:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg Yes that would be an appropriate move in my opinion. As to which suggested name it should be moved to, I am not entirely sure because I do not understand the precise difference between the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. I trust you will choose whichever one is the most accurate name. Finally, do you have any suggestions as to how a religious section would be incorporated into this page, if it does require one. Mbcap (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap Thanks. I find it interesting that the Israel article has culture section with 9 subheadings while the SoP's has 2 and this when many of the Key religious sites are even on the Palestinian side of the Green line.  The sense that I have gained is that editors have placed statements and suggestions regarding various locations to give indication of them as being in Israeli possession.  This happens and then the world gets surprised when Palestine rejects various settlement proposals.  The SoP article, at the other extreme, does not contain a single cultural photo.  GregKaye 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why mix articles on Religion of 2 seperate legal entities, which completely seperate legal systems, seperate demographics and seperate post 1948 histories? DGtal (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The section Israel begins with "Israel and the Palestinian territories comprise the major part of the Holy Land". It's impossible to discuss Judaism without mentioning many important sites for Judaism (such as the Western Wall) that are not within internationally recognized borders, yet are within practical everyday access. Similarly, a discussion of religion in Palestinian Territories would be incomplete without mentioning important Muslim sites in Israel (such as the White Mosque, Ramla). This is not to imply that, say, Rachel's Tomb's territory is claimed or actually owned by Israel, only that it's an important site for Israel's main religion. Same goes for Muslim sites in Israel.
 * Since there would be duplication, perhaps there should be a common main article: Religions in Israel and the Palestinian territories and both articles link to it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg From what I understand from your post, there seems to be inadequate content on this article as compared to the Israel article on Religion. If we were to address this, how will we avoid duplicating content. WarKosign's proposal could also work and is quite similar to what you have suggested before. Mbcap (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If people think that this is the most appropriate name then I, or anyone else, can put forward an RM, GregKaye 01:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revision to: Etymology
In my opinion, the Etymology section is lacking, since it only gives partial historical usage of the term "Palestine" and gives no linguistic explanation to the term. I suggest mentioning the following items: 1. That Palestine came from the Biblical "Land of the Philistines" (Heb. Eretz Plishtim) - one term for the cluster of city-kingdoms of the southern shores of contemporary Israel. 2. The derogatory name was given to the otherwise known as "Nations of the Sea" by their Semitic neighbours. Its root P.L.Sh. means invaders. 3. That the term moved from geographical to official usage when the Romans renamed Provincia Judea after the failed rebellion of 132-135 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_%28Roman_province%29 4. That the term was re-introduced to local usage when European dominance (LoN British Mandate) brought it back in 1918. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.198.7 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is lacking in supporting sources. We've got an article on the subject, Timeline of the name "Palestine", that is well-sourced. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the "Etymology" section of this article refers the reader to the much more complete section at Palestine. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

1967 myth and missing reference to 1947 rejection of (State of) Palestine
The leading (head) section enrolls the tale of the jewish occupation myth centred on 1967, in regard to the State of palestine, in that it lacks the reference to the rejection of the state of palestine in 1947 by the palestinian people! It could be made more clear, that the so called Palestine people could have had their state by peacful means if accepting their share of the region of palestine in 1947 in the first place, without war after war and terror around the globe. So please, why is the 1947 rejection not mentioned in the header? It would be helpful to depict the realities better in the way of the above stated suggestion, than to start with the 1967 coccupation myth... The 1947 capital H history thingy is referenced in the article a lot of times, though (also the occupation of the palestine people by egypt and jordan ;). thanks and cheers --85.181.38.187 (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear 85.181, thanks for your contribution. Your post suggests your knowledge of history is based on reading propagandistic works. I suggest you do some proper research before wasting any more time here. Perhaps try the works at WP:IPCOLLPREC to get started. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 85.181.38.187, in 1947 the Arabs didn't reject the notion of their state, they rejected the notion of handing over a chunk of their state to others. I imagine that if Israeli Arabs would now suggest that Israel should be partitioned, Tel Aviv to lie in the new Israeli-Arab state, the Knesset probably would not endorse this partition plan. The Knesset's rejection would not invalidate the claim Zionist Israelis have to their state. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mandate Palestine was not an Arab state, it was a no-man's land with different people making claims to it. UN proposed a plan that would settle the dispute, one side was prepared to accept it, the other refused. Since the Arabs rejected the plan they also rejected the proposed Arab state in this land. Eventually it is of no practical importance - the division plan is only interesting as a piece of history, it has no effect on current situation. Israel was declared without specific borders and 1949 Armistice Agreements ("1967 borders") are what people actually lived by for generations. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mandate was a state of the population that lived there, like any other country. It wasn't "no-man's land". --Dailycare (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What was this state/country called, when was it established and by whom ? You are describing very interesting historical facts, if they have sources we should update wikipedia to reflect it. So far the articles on Land of Israel and Palestine say nothing about this supposed independent state. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the League of Nations mandate page already has this. (" their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice"). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that "their existence" refers to the Arabs and not to the Jews or both, how do you jump from "independent nation" to country/state ? The mere fact the mandate was established is a proof that the land was not an independent state. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit off-topic since this talkpage isn't a forum for general discussion on the subject, but what I wrote was "a state of the population that lived there". An independent nation is a state. In fact, you don't even need to be an independent nation to be a state, US states and UK constituent countries being examples. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think you quite understand what no-man's land means.  nableezy  - 20:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose removal of File:State of Palestine (orthographic projection).svg
I propose removal of File:State of Palestine (orthographic projection).svg as pictured to the right. The State of Palestine continues as a de jure sovereign state and I don't think that there is warrant to either extend as far as or limit to the borders presented in the map. Negotiations (often started) are yet to be concluded. I do not think it is within our remit to draw lines, at least not without careful explanation. I find the image (when with legend attached) at File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg to be more informative and less prescriptive. I think that ideally all this information might be shaded into an orthographic styled map. GregKaye 10:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The current image shows the Green Line, which is often mentioned as the base for negotiations regarding final border. The image you are proposing shows it too but adds the unimplemented UN partition plan's borders which are not used as a basis for any negotiations or claims. This image is much more confusing and doesn't describe the current state of affairs any better, so what's the advantage of switching images ? It is very relevant in the background section, near the discussion of the partition plan where it already appears. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why my basic suggestion is to remove the image. The image presents a cut and dried presentation of the situation which, if it were true, would mean that peace would have been forged long ago.  GregKaye 01:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The current map of the state of Palestine is wrong and misleading in the level of a crime. The map should show The areas of the Palestinian National Authority because this are the acual areas that the State of Palestine controll. The State of Palestine by the way, is a name that has been used by Palestinian leaders to describe the Palestinian National Authority. When they were accepted to the UN as a non-member observer, the acual thing that joined was the Palestinian National Authority (as named by the Oslo accords, who created this entity). Currently the PNA, has controll on some areas, who are somewhat under their sovargion territory (Esspecially Area A) but mostly it is Area B who is under Palestinian civil administration, but also under Israeli Army control. Therefore, the Palestinian Territories should be showen on the claimed territory of the State of Palestine, or in other words, on the green line. In my opinion, This map shows the best picture, cause it shows De-Facto controll on De-Jure claimes. bolter21 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC+2) Zones A and B in the occupied palestinian territories.svg
 * Sounds reasonable to me. The article says "Following the successful passage of the 2012 United Nations status resolution which changed Palestine's status at the UN to that of observer state, on 3 January 2013, Abbas signed a presidential decree 1/2013[112] officially changing the name of the 'Palestinian Authority' to the 'State of Palestine' ", which I understand to mean that the state actually controls areas A and B. The new proposed map shows both the actually controlled area and the claimed area. The caption should clarify what is visible in which color.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clearly written below that this is part of the territory claimed by the State but it is clear it is just a claim today. But I disagree as well with what you write regarding Areas A and B. The best solution is indeed just to remove the map from the infobox.
 * I add nevertheless that "The current map of the state of Palestine is wrong and misleading in the level of a crime " followed by "Sounds reasonable to me" disqualify you for any comment. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Description of the territories in the lead
Hello. You reverted one of my recent edits here but thank you for providing a detailed summary. Ordinarily I would agree enough not to have made the change in the first place. The basis for my phrasing is down to the State's undisputed legality. That appears to be the way it is treated on the site because the opening line defines it as a de jure sovereign state; Israel's own withdrawal from Gaza is inconsistent with any nation's position of territorial integrity. As such, the State only claims as much as any other sovereign entity claims its land. I can see how in some respects the term "claim" alludes to not having full control, but one would still speak of the Donbass republics and Crimea as constituting Ukraine, rather than Ukraine claiming control over Donbass (Lugansk and Donetsk) and Crimea. With his is mind, I feel we should reword it but I'd like to hear your views. Incidentally, I need to mention this to avoid accusations of forum-shaping, I am involved in a conversation at Talk:Kosovo whereby I oppose its addition to the category for countries in Europe. This topic may loosely fit into the other so I'm just being cautious. Thanks. wrote this on my talk page, I'm moving it here so more people could participate in the discussion. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is factually wrong to say that any territories compose the State of Palestine. The only territories the state arguably controls are A and B territories, and control of these was granted by an agreement between Israel and PNA, State of Palestine was not a side to these agreements. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and the rest of the West Bank is controlled by Israel. The state claims ownership over all of West Bank and Gaza, but it's not the same as actually owning these territories. Its legality is most certainly not "undisputed", and a de jure is by definition not a sovereign state.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Gets more confusing!! I see from your user page that you are a native of Israel which makes you better placed to comment than I am - I don't claim expertise in Middle Eastern affairs anyhow. So in reverse order, the term de jure is taken to mean "by law" as in Latin, and is normally used in contrast to de facto. For something to be de jure and de facto anything at all (say a head of government), then there would be no need to list both since one would simply call the person "head of government" and then proceed to discuss the power he wields. Now, forgive me if the following information is not 100% accurate though this is how I interpret the essentials. Yes Hamas controls Gaza while if I am not mistaken (as it has been a few years since I last followed closely), the rival Fatah has authority in the West Bank. Hamas some time ago won elections though Fatah is the favoured entity in the international community (and indeed Israel) and subsequently, Fatah and Hamas have exchanged warfare with one another and have left Palestine as uncertain with regards who forms the legitimate government. Israel maintains a presence in the West Bank (though I do not know whether Israel administers or simply presides over Mahmoud Abbas who in turn governs the West Bank as part of the PNA represented by Fatah). Either way, if Israel has annexed the West bank and continues to see the territory as Israeli while admitting a de jure Palestinian state limited to Gaza then that makes your argument wholly valid since even some of the recognising countries may recognise Palestine's integrity as Gaza only (but somehow I doubt it, that would just be strange). It is as good a reason as any to postpone full recognition though. Is that the situation? Or is the West Bank itself subject to a further dispute with Israel accepting some of it as forming Palestine but not all? I mean I know Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital and that is within Israel, or most of it is. Can you explain the full situation albeit briefly, it will help. Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In 1988 a State of Palestine was declared "on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem". This state did not control any territory.
 * In 1993 Oslo Accords were signed, creating Palestinian National Authority which was granted control over some parts of the territories. The final borders were to be set by negotiations.
 * In 2005 PNA gained full control of Gaza, but in 2007 Hamas captured it.
 * In 2013 PNA changed its name to State of Palestine. Opinions differ whether this action translated any agreements Israel had with PNA to the state.
 * Israel never annexed the West Bank (except East Jerusalem). It was stated many times by Israeli politicians that the final borders are to be settled by negotiations, and that they will probably include much of the territories within current green line, with some agreed upon corrections. The State of Palestine claims Gaza and West Bank, a claim that is backed by most of the international community and many fractions in Israel, but in reality it only controls a little portion of this territory, so it's wrong to say that the state is located in Gaza and the West Bank. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, I didn't say that last part. My edit was that West Bank and Gaza constitute the State of Palestine, I know Palestinian authorities do not administer the whole region, so I based my edit on the approved legality of the proclaimed state. Where I jumped the gun is when not realising that the final borders are as yet unresolved as disagreements between Palestine and Israel exist. The scenraio still bears similarity to Ukraine though the phenomenon in each case is manifested very differently. For outsiders it is extremely confusing. Nobody I have met in the 15 years I have lived in Britain understands a fraction of the situation and admit that they have found it hard following the news (Palestinian Authority, PLO, PNA to State of Israel Palestine since 2013, State of Israel Palestine from 1988, what was Gaza & West Bank before 1967? etc.). Even I am not 100% clued on the who-is-who affair. Your third point is what may baffle others the most. "In 2005 PNA gained full control of Gaza, but in 2007 Hamas captured it.", that to my knowledge was an ideological rift. Hamas believed after the 2006 elections that it achieved the right to govern the proposed territory, so the forceful takeover of institutions in 2007 in Gaza if anything created two separate factions claiming to be the continuation of the then-PNA, with most of the world recognising the Fatah remnants in those parts of the West Bank. My confusion is how come Hamas was not involved in any armed conflict on the West Bank given it clearly had popular representation there on account of the elections. Furthermore, another unexplored subject concerns present-day Gaza; if the PNA of the West Bank changed its name to State of Israel Palestine per the 1988 declaration, how do the authorities in Gaza identify? If they continue to use PNA then it is not as defunct as is made out, just subject to the internal dispute. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "State of Israel" in a few places where I believe you meant State of Palestine.
 * As far as I know Hamas has little military presence in the West Bank, possibly due to Shin Bet actions. For recent example see Operation Brother's Keeper which some consider the trigger for Hamas' 2014 escalation in Gaza. You can read about Governance of the Gaza Strip. Before 1967 West Bank was occupied by Jordan, Gaza was occupied by Egypt.
 * You did not write that the state is located in Gaza and the West bank, but you wrote they "constitute" it. When a certain land area constitute a state in my opinion it means that the state both controls the land and claims legal ownership over it, which is common for a state located in certain area. Since this is not the case, we should make clear that the state claims ownership over the land without executing effective control over it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update links. I think we're agreed that "claims" works best in these circumstances, and I have now struck out "Israel" since your own post would appear strange if I simply made changes. That was embarrassing (once ok, but three times?) as I clearly was not thinking as I wrote, but at least you knew precisely what I meant. Cheers. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)