Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 4

Page protection
I am going to be requesting that this page be protected from IP edits... there are IPs edit warring and breaking WP:3RR which is making it impossible and highly discouraging for other users to make positive contributions to the article. This is not to mention the fact that a quick look at the contributions of these IPs show that they are very clearly sock puppets (I won't get into whose). Breein1007 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you (or one of the sockpuppets) isn't planning on making an intervening edit before you file for page protection. And whose sockpuppets you think these are is interesting to me. Please do share.  T i a m u t talk 09:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you kindly pointed out earlier, I am currently sitting at 3 reverts. It would be foolish of me to revert the vandalism at this point! I'll see what happens to the edit war while I'm out and when I come back I'll make the request. Thanks and have fun :) Breein1007 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What "vandalism"?  T i a m u t talk 09:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just something quick for the recent edit warriors to note: the recognition number stands at 110; the two I removed earlier (Bolivia and Singapore) were from the second list, which are not counted in the first place. Night w (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed big chunk of background
In this edit. The claim and lengthy counter-claim refutation are better suited to the article on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, where I have added them, noting that they came from here. Please do not reinsert either claim or counter-claim here again. Readers interested in the details of the partition plan can read about it there.  T i a m u t talk 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had planned to make that a separate article with a small summary section under a "see also" or "main article" template here. The same thing goes for the long discussions regarding the legal status of the West Bank, Gaza, and Transjordan areas. harlan (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the partition plan info is better placed in that article and there's no need for a separate one. If you want to link to the subsection I placed it in, you can.
 * I do agree that an article on Legal Status of the State of Palestine and/or Legal Status of the West Bank, Gaza, and Transjordan may be a good idea. It seems the legal status section here has gotten quite long and the background section has a lot of information on the legal status of the latter. Good work though in putting so much well-sourced information into a readable form for others. Thanks for your efforts.  T i a m u t talk 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There probably needs to be a separate article in order to sort out the actual legal and historical facts. Wikipedia already has some pretty far-fetched content in articles like Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan.


 * The UN Partition plan was only one factor in the post mandate era/armistice settlements. For example, Wikipedia has never adequately explained the modus vivendi agreements between the Jewish Agency, Abdullah, the Nashashibis, the UK, US, et al. The Jericho Conference which resulted in the union of the Arab portions of the mandate and the Jordanian administrative disengagement of the West Bank of 31 July 1988 were not part of the partition plan or any formal UN initiative. The secret agreements are part of the standard curriculum in most university courses on the history, political science, and sociology of the Middle East, but you'd never know it from reading Wikipedia.


 * Most readers are not aware of the fact that Transjordan was still considered part of the mandate after 1946. In November of 1947, the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine actually entertained proposals to include portions of the "Transjordan area", including the port of Aqaba, in the Jewish state. The Jewish Agency and the Government of Israel have always made schizophrenic statements regarding Transjordan that tend to obscure its legal status. For example they have claimed (i) that Transjordan was an indivisible part of the Mandate in which the Jewish people have a secured interest; (ii) that Transjordan was a "neighboring state" that crossed an international frontier in order to attack "Israel"; and (iii) that "Jordan is Palestine". harlan (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have a lot of knowledge, but you don't use it. This is amazing. Why are you trying to present a distorted picture of reality, when you have so much information that you can contribute? Did you write an article about the Jericho Conference? Did you improve the article about the British Mandate? BTW, the First Order in Council issued for the British Mandate explicitly said that the areas east of the Jordan River and Wadi Arabah are not subject to the Balfour Declaration. The territory designated as Palestine was in fact subject to the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, at least until the mid-1930ies and probably even afterwards (despite imposing limitations on Jewish immigration and building of new Jewish communities). The claim "Jordan is Palestine" was never an Israeli official position. Also, Israel never claimed any territories in the Hashemite Kingdom (except arguing with its government about the exact pattern of the border in the Aravah Valley). You seem to confuse personal opinions with established positions. For example you value a statement by Yitzhak Gilhar, a controversial statement which you didn't fully understand (Gilhar never meant to say that an Arab state called Palestine emerged with the British Mandate, he merely stated the fact that two new self-governed territories were established by Britain). Gilhar is only one person, and you base a whole thesis upon his view, and what's more - you present this thesis as facts on the ground. I think you could do a much better service here if you stick to the facts rather than resort to outline opinions. DrorK (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I indicated that I was talking about the statements made by the representatives of the Jewish Agency and Provisional Government of Israel. In many cases those are a matter of public record because they were addressed to the UNSCOP Commission, the Security Council, the UN Mediator, and the Palestine Conciliation Commission. When Yitzhak Shamir was Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, the MFA certainly did publish and distribute materials which advanced similar views, i.e. that "Jordan is Palestine"; that "there was no need for a second Palestinian state to the west of the River"; that "there are many Arab states, but only one Jewish state"; and etc. The Montevideo Convention doesn't list recognition of passports, travel documents, or effective control among the criteria for statehood. Whatever "the facts on the ground" might be, the article notes that the District Court of Jerusalem concluded that the PA satisfied the necessary criteria to be recognized as a "sovereign state". President Abbas subsequently said the state of Palestine already exists, and that the current problem is getting its borders recognized. PM Netanyahu said he was prepared to recognize the State of Palestine, so long as it did not control its own airspace, its own frequency spectrum, would agree not to enter into foreign relations with Israel's enemies, and etc. If Israel has the prerogative to recognize such a state, then there is no basis for Wikipedia editors to question the prerogative of other states that have already decided to extend recognition to Palestine. Palestinian government officials have publicly stated a willingness to grant Israeli settlers Palestinian citizenship. I haven't seen any published reports which challenge the PA's competence or capacity to do that.

Volume I of Miriam Whiteman's, US State Department, "Digest on International Law" is cited in the article. It contains a long section which thoroughly explains the legal status of the mandates; the principle of state succession in the WWI peace treaties; and the various court decisions, starting in 1925, which confirmed the statehood of the League of Nations 'A' Mandates, including Palestine and Transjordan. Volume II contains a long section on "Acquisition of Sovereignty over Territory" that explains the significance of the resolutions regarding sovereignty that were adopted by the Jericho Conference; the parliamentary elections; the provisions of the Act of Union; the assurances that King Abdullah provided to the Arab League (i.e. that the union was without prejudice to the final settlement of the Palestine question); and the recognition of the new relationship between the two peoples by the governments of other states. The article cites both of those sources, and the Foreign Relations of the United States regarding the advisory opinion of Ernest Gross. The FRUS also records US recognition of the union, including Jordan's acquisition of sovereignty over the territory. None of that is my "thesis". The fact that Abdullah was declared King of Arab Palestine is confirmed up the Palestine Post and Sandra Berliant Kadosh. The fact that the union was provisional and followed the principls of state succession is confirmed by Allan Gerson and Raja Shehadeh. The fact that the union was recognized by other governments is confirmed by Thomas Kuttner, Joseph Weiler, Joseph Massad, Clea Lutz Bunch, and Sandra Berliant Kadosh. It goes without saying that John Quigley and Francis Boyle have written extensively about the question of Palestinian statehood.

I managed to explain all of that without even mentioning the fact that Yitzhak Gil-Har said "Palestine and Trans-Jordan emerged as modern states; this was in consequence of British war commitments to its allies during the First World War." Everything I've added to the article originates in easily verifiable published sources, including the so-called "thesis" you keep blathering about. You simply choose to ignore the citations to published sources that I've provided, and continue to make pathetic accusations that I'm not sticking to the facts. harlan (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Harlan, this is not a court of law, and you are not lawyering here. You constantly contradict yourself in a way that would be acceptable when presenting a line of defense before a judge, but not when writing an encyclopedic article. According to the Montevideo Convention there is no state by the name Palestine, because it lack two vital components - it has no defined territory and it has no permanent population. A passport is a good indication of citizenship, hence of a permanent population, however the Palestinian passports are merely recognized as travel documents, and the PA is limited in issuing them, as they have to get Israeli approval for issuing a valid passport (some symbolic passports were issued without such approval, but they are not valid). Furthermore, recognition in passports issued by another country is a good indication to recognition in the very existence of that country, but the Palestinian passports receive very limited recognition, and usually not as a country's passports, but as travel documents. You resort to the Montevideo convention when it suits your thesis, and reject it when it doesn't. You keep ignoring the well-established and documented fact that the British Mandate of Palestine was established with the goal of creating a national home to the Jewish People. This is written black and white in all relevant documents, and yet you resort to twisted interpretations instead of going back to the simple original text. Your suggestion that the Mandate was in fact and Arab state is an insult to the intelligence. You might as well say that Jesus Christ was born in London. I'm sure you can source such a claim if you look hard enough, but we would not take such a source seriously, would we?
 * A District Court in Israel has no authority to recognize countries. Once again you take an opinion out of its context and present the distorted citation as a fact. The District Court merely suggested that in the specific case brought before him, the PA can be regarded as a state for the sake of handling the case, but that doesn't mean it is an actual state. Similarly, the Israeli courts often interpret the term "man" as referring to a woman, and vice versa, according to the specific circumstances, but that doesn't mean that the Israeli courts do not acknowledge the differences between genders. Mahmud Abbas said many things. He said that what Israel does in Gaza is worse than the Holocaust, even though we both know the number of Palestinian victims in Gaza is much less than several millions. He also said he would declare Palestinian independence in case the negotiations with Israel reach a dead end, and this statement clearly contradicts his previous statement, that there is an independent state called Palestine.
 * You keep resorting to the Jericho Conference even though it has no relevance to this article. Abdullah I extended the sovereignty of his kingdom. He did not create a new state. Since the conference and until June 1948 the West Bank was governed from Amman. I had no autonomy whatsoever. Abdullah I might have assumed the title "King of Arab Palestine", but this fact has no meaning regarding the existence of a Palestinian state. Here is a list of the titles of Juan Carlos I : King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily), of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea. By your logic, Castile is not part of Spain but an independent state, and there is a sovereign country called Jerusalem that is ruled by the King of Spain. Of course, you could find sources to support these last two claims if you look hard enough, but we are not going to trust such sources, are we?
 * In fact, the existence of Palestine as a state is more or less equivalent to the existence of Luke Skywalker as a person. Of course, this situation might change in the future, but what you are trying to do is establishing a Palestinian state in Wikipedia, which is an absurd. WP reflects reality, and it doesn't create it. Your idea of verifiability is giving a very broad interpretation to sideline sources, and present it as a verified fact. DrorK (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Drork, I'm presenting published views from dozens of authors with somewhat different opinions on the same subject, so I'm not contradicting myself. Whiteman's Digest and the FRUS explain that the United States and Great Britain recognized the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference. They said that meant Abdullah was not simply occupying Palestine, he actually was the sovereign of Arab Palestine. You ought to try citing sources sometime and stop attempting to edit war, bully, bluff, wikilawyer, and rationalize so much. No one is stopping you from adding sourced material to the article, and you aren't getting much of that accomplished by posting rants here on the talk page. The situation in the Jerusalem District Court case is called Conflict of laws, and that means that a competing entity's laws and courts have to be applied to resolve the dispute. If you don't think that engaging in lawmaking and exercising jurisdiction over real estate transactions are sovereign acts of state, then find a published source that agrees with you, and add it to the article. I'm not interested in seeing anymore of your unpublished opinions on that topic in the lede


 * You keep ignoring the PhDs in law, political science, and history who have published works that say the secret agreements or collusions; the Jericho Conference; and the laws of state succession have everything to do with the 1988 Declaration and the topic of this article. I'm really not interested in hearing anymore about your unpublished opinions about that topic either.


 * When Wikipedia editors are granted standing to become contracting state parties to the Montevideo Convention/OAS Charter I'll let you know;-) In the meantime signatories including Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guyana, and Suriname have decided to treat Palestine as a State and you don't get a veto. harlan (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Harlan, the fact that you cite a source over and over again doesn't make it more relevant. The Jericho Conference has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of Palestinian statehood. Abdullah I did not establish a Palestinian state, he simply annexed the West Bank to his kingdom. The fact that he (allegedly) called himself "King of Arab Palestine" does not indicate anything. The King of Spain calls himself King of Castile, but that does not mean there is a state called Castile. It simply means that the Spaniard King thought it would be nice to refer to a region in his kingdom in his title. This is an example to the way you wrote this article - you take one unarguable fact and give it an extremely controversial interpretation, or alternatively cite an extremely controversial interpretation, giving it undue weight. You did the same claiming that the US regard WB&Gaza as a country. This is simply not true. You took the fact that the US allow importers to use this name when they refer to the origin of the imported product, and made it a US recognition in a Palestinian state.


 * Nothing that the article says is false. It cites an official announcement in the Federal Register which said the US recognizes the West Bank and Gaza as a Country AND a USAID publication which says that agency has been carrying out projects there that support the implementation of the Quartet Road Map regarding the State of Palestine. The notice in the Federal Register said that the West Bank and Gaza was Free Trade Zone and a "Country" of origin. It cited "Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134)" which defines the term “Country” as "the political entity known as a nation." "The Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza (Including Areas Subject to the Jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority)" is also listed as a "Nation" by the Law Library of Congress.


 * The announcement in the Federal Register contained information that was NOT limited in scope to imports. For example, it contained a "Clarification" section which said "The Department of State further advised that it considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes."


 * My problem is not adding information to this article. My problem is the fact that this article includes false information based on misuse of sources. For some reason (political motivations?) you refuse to edit this article or let others edit it in order to remove the false information.


 * Your problem is that you are suffering from denial and making a lot of asinine comments that are directed toward other editors, not on content. There is no evidence that the article contains false information, or that you've been prevented from removing it. You've been reverted for making unsourced editorial statements in the lede which do not reflect the well-sourced contents of the article. The policy on removing material says "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information."


 * I also don't like the way you treat this article as your own. You can write a thesis about the issue of Palestinian statehood, but WP is not an academic journal for new political theories and is not meant to be one. People who use WP expect to see here well-established information, and you mislead them. Now, you keep laying the burden of truth on me, but I don't have to prove anything here, because it is you who tries to convince people of an exceptional view.


 * You should concentrate your remarks on content and stop making personal attacks on other editors. You keep harping about "my thesis", when I've pointed out repeatedly that none of the material or analysis in this article originated with me or Wikipedia. I've quoted the things that Raja Shehadeh, John Quigley, and Marjorie M. Whiteman wrote about the application of the principle of the law of succession; the significance of the Second Arab-Palestinian Congress at Jericho; the Act of Union; and etc. On the other hand, you seem to be using the talk page to "write a thesis" which says that sovereign states don't have the political discretion to adopt legally binding decisions and treat other nations as States. The article cites Quigley, Green, Lapidoth, and others who say a state can recognize any other entity as a state. The application of the Stimson doctrine to the Baltic States for nearly half a century after they were annexed is a textbook example of the practice. The ICJ, Ernest Gross, and John Quigley cited the provisional recognition of the non-Jewish communities as independent nations by the League of Nations. If you have a published source with an opposing view, feel free to add it to the article.


 * If you insist on me listing the problems with you thesis, here's a few issues:
 * the Mandate charter given to the UK by the League of Nation that refers to the goal of this Mandate type A as establishing a national home for the Jewish People
 * The article cites an advisory opinion written by Ernest Gross, and advisory opinion written by the ICJ, and the separate opinion of Judge Higgins which said article 22 of the Covenant of the LoN and the Mandate recognized the on-Jewish communities of Palestine, including Transjordan, as independent nations that were entitled to determine their own political status and establish a state.


 * a statement by the US that they don't recognize a country called Palestine despite your claim that it does
 * You are citing a second-hand unattributed extemporaneous remark about asylum for refugees. Obviously, Palestinians who reside in Gaza and the West Bank would not loose their refugee status by operation of law, or their right of return, if they were to be issued PA travel documents. I cited an official notice published in the Federal Register which has been incorporated in Code of Federal Regulations. "Country" is a defined term under CFR 134.1, but it is not defined in U.S.C. 8 or CFR 8. In fact TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions says "(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
 * The fact that Iran revoked its recognition in Israel despite your claim that such recognition is irrevocable. In case you claim that the revolution in Iran "zeroes the clock", then you have to prove that all former-communist countries renewed their recognition in the 1988 declaration after the radical change in government.
 * Customary international law and the Montevideo Convention say that the recognition of states is irrevocable, not me. You made a WP:SYNTH claim that conflated the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the former Imperial regime. You never supplied a reference which said either had revoked recognition of Israel, or that the Islamic Republic of Iran had recognized Israel in the first place.
 * The fact that Palestinian passport are not regarded a proof of Palestinian citizenship, and actually no one knows who are the Palestinian citizens (no permanent population).
 * Customary International law and the Montevideo Convention do not mention travel documents among the criteria for statehood. More than 169 other States have already made a determination that the Palestinian people have permanent sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The article cites several legal authorities and the resolutions of the United Nations in that connection.
 * The fact that Israel is fully responsible for registering the population of the WB&Gaza and the PA has no say about this (see reports by B'Tzelem)
 * Israel does not administer Gaza. Under Oslo II the factions that comprise the PA have civil and criminal jurisdiction over the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, Areas A, and B, excluding the settlements and military areas. The majority of states recognize the non-Jewish inhabitants as a stable population of the State of Palestine.
 * The 1988 declaration does not refer to the fact that a sovereign state already exists in "Palestine" and does not define its borders with this state (hence, no defined territory)
 * The 1949 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel did not define its borders. The article cites Dr Green's and Dr Jessup's remarks in that connection, and the remarks of the Jewish representative to the UN regarding the fact that the PA already has jurisdiction over some of the natural resources in the territory.
 * The fact that Palestinian leaders keep "threatening" of declaring independence in case the negotiations with Israel reach a dead end, the fact the even countries that recognized the 1988 declaration talk about the need to establish a Palestinian state, hence they don't really believe such a state exists
 * The article notes that the PLO has already made declarations of statehood to the UN (1988) and that the PA made another to the ICC (2009) and that Ruth Lapidoth said they do not need to make another. The declaration the Palestinians are preparing is one regarding the 1967 borders Lieberman warns against '67 borders, Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2009 and 'Lack of borders within Israel is our greatest threat'
 * The fact that the Palestinians are barred from issuing their own currency per the Paris Agreement with Israel and have to use either Israeli or Jordanian currency (Israel even had to send banknotes to Gaza as a humanitarian gesture, because the Palestinians are not allowed to issue their own currency
 * More WP:OR. You could also note there are a half dozen UN member states which use the Euro as their official currency, although they are not members of the EU. What does the topic of currency have to do with this article?
 * The fact that from the 112 countries that allegedly recognized the 1988 declaration only a few Arab or Muslim countries made practical steps following this recognition like defining certain visitors as "Palestinian citizens" or signing bilateral agreement with the proclaimed state or handing letters of credentials that refer to a Palestinian leader as head of state. The few foreign representations in Ramallah or Gaza are not embassies and the letter of credentials to the Palestinian leader do not refer to him as head of state.
 * More WP:OR. The article cites the fact that the PA turned over bilateral treaty agreements from countries in Asia, Europe, and the Americas to the International Criminal Court.
 * UN and other international organizations keep calling for the creation of a Palestinian state, a call that sounds ridiculous if such state already exists. One of the recent calls was in 2009 by the UN SC, and it was supported by countries like Turkey and Libya (!!) that allegedly recognize a state called Palestine.
 * So you can keep resorting to citing sideline views or give broad and false interpretation to other sources, it doesn't make your thesis more reliable. You know, there are sources that support the existence of UFOs or suggest that Creationalism and Astrology are sciences. DrorK (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) More WP:OR a country that recognizes the State of Palestine which calls for the establishment of an independent state within the 1967 borders is not saying that the state of Palestine does not exist.
 * In case you are still not convinced, here is a citation from the "Arab Peace Initiative" of 2002: "The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session (...) Further calls upon Israel to affirm: (...) The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital."
 * Now, the Arab League allegedly recognized a state called Palestine, and yet it calls upon Israel to accept the establishment of such a state (not to recognize an existing state, but to allow an establishment of a state!) DrorK (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to ignore these remarks, I will take it as if you agree with them. By the way, I mentioned the Palestine Act of 1948 whose text is very clear and indicate in a very comprehensible language that "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall cease to be responsible to the government of Palestine" . This statement very simply entails that the UK government was responsible for the governance of Palestine before 15 May 1948 (non-capitalized "government" actually means governance, while capitalized "Government" refers to a specific government as evident from the text itself), and that this responsibility ended on that date. The Act does not specify any body to which the "government of Palestine" should be handed over. This contradicts in the strongest way the claim that the Mandate was a kind of state (as I said, you can find many sources that claim all kinds of things, but it is your duty to check their reliability). This also refutes your claim that there is a kind of Arab state that inherited the British Mandate. DrorK (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, can you read Arabic? If so, have a look at this official document of the Palestinian Authority from August 2009 . This is an inspiring vision about how the Palestinian state should be (seriously, I recommend anyone interested in the subject to make the effort and read it). The thing is, that it keeps mentioning Palestine as a state-to-be. Not as an actual state. Here is an excerpt from the preface, signed by Salam Fayadh, the premier of the PNA:ومن واقع احترامنا وتقديرنا لمواطنينا، وإدراكًا منا لتطّلعهم لتحقيق حياة كريمة وحرة في ظل الاستقلال الوطني، يتحتم علينا أن نسعى بكل طاقاتنا لتحقيق رغبتهم الأكيدة المتمثلة في إقامة الدولة الفلسطينية المستقلة. ومن هذا المنطلق، تعمل الحكومة، وبغض النظر عن كل الإجراءات الاحتلالية المعيقة، بتسخير كل عزمها، وتوظيف كل جهدها والإمكانيات المتاحة لها، واستنهاض جميع طاقات أبناء شعبنا، لاستكمال عملية بناء مؤسسات الدولة المستقلة تمهيدًا لإقامتها الفعلية خلال العامين القادمين. Translation: "Due to our honor and esteem to our citizens, and our understanding of their anticipation to realize life of freedom and dignity in national independence, it is our obligation to strive with all our energies to realize their undoubted will that takes form in the establishment of a the independent Palestinian state. Hence, the government works, regardless of the burdensome measures of occupation, by devoting all its conviction and deploying all it effort and its available capacities, and by revitalizing all of our people's energies, to complete to process of building the institutions of the independent state in preparation to the its actual establishment within the next two years". This documents mentions the 1988 declaration three times, but only as an expression of the Palestinian People wish for independence, not as an act of establishing an actual state. It also specifically mentions that the Palestinian claim is for القدس الشرقية (East Jerusalem) as the capital of the planned state. So, it seems to me that the PNA does not share the view that a state called Palestine already exists, although they plan to see such state until August 2011. DrorK (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that the document I mentioned above is mentioned in the article offhandedly in relation to Jerome Segal's opinion about Palestinian statehood.


 * You obviously did not read Seagal's book. In his final analysis, he noted that many other states had already recognized the State of Palestine and that they had decided to treat Palestine as a State.


 * This is another evidence of how this article is poorly written. First of all, it is not Fayad's plan, but the Palestinian Authority's plan. At least this is how it is presented on the PA's official website. Secondly, this text doesn't need a pro-Israeli scholar to interpret it.


 * Wikipedia policy is to use secondary sources to interpret primary documents. Segal notes that Fayyad's plan is not incompatible with the 1988 Declaration regarding the establishment of the State of Palestine since it cites it several times. I cited a source in an earlier thread which explained that in practice, International Tribunals and other governments use the terms "state" and "government" interchangeably when treating an existing or established regime. The plan only discusses building up the institutions of the existing government regime and establishing its borders. One meaning of the word "Establish" is "To cause to be recognized and accepted". Here is an example: The Jerusalem Post used that terminology when it claimed that Reuters had reported: Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine'. The Reuters headline actually said nothing about creating a new state: EU's Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state.


 * It speaks quite clearly for itself, as I showed above. The fact that this article refers to a Palestinian text through the "eyeglasses" of a pro-Israeli political analyst is very peculiar. And last but not least, here is an article by Jerome Segal from July 2007 in which he refers to a Palestinian state as a state-to-be and not as an existing state (note his words: "Once the State of Palestine is established, the Palestinian Authority is dissolved.", i.e. the PA is not a Palestinian state, and the State of Palestine should be established, but is not established yet. I don't see another way in which these words can be understood). So either you didn't read Segal's articles carefully enough, which is very problematic, or Segal contradicts itself, which makes him a poor source. Either way, we have a serious problem here. DrorK (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually all you've accomplished is to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. Segal has has consistently noted that many States have already recognized the State of Palestine, and that in practice PA policy statements rely upon the strength of the 1988 Declaration. The article explains the longstanding customary practice in international law that recognition is retroactive in effect, and that it validates all the actions and conduct of a government from the commencement of its existence. For example the United States of America was established by the ratification of the articles of Conferation in 1781, but it is generally agreed that its first act of state was the Declaration of Independence of 1776. I obviously don't agree with you using the talk page to convene an ad hoc court to overturn the sovereign determinations made by more than 114 states. Please stop wasting our time and abusing the talk page as a discussion forum. harlan (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who gave Mr. Segal the right to interpret very clear words of Mr. Fayyad on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and who gave you the right to make Segal the official interpreter of the Palestinian Authority? You are abusing the idea of verifiability by suggesting that twisted interpretation meant for political purposes is better than citing a clear statement of an authorized official. You are arguing me because you want to have your thesis published on Wikipedia, you don't mind about attested facts. Now Segal himself don't believe a state called Palestine exist, as evident from the text he wrote, but you prefer to take one remark by him and make it the headlines - now you act as an interpreter of Segal. So we have you interpreting Segal interpreting Fayyad. What we don't have here is genuine information. You are making WP ridiculous and insist on doing so, no matter what other people say, this is simply inconceivable, and I believe this calls for a complain about your behavior. DrorK (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, regarding your last remarks, incorporated within my previous remarks -
 * 1) You bring sources, but interpret them according to your own views. You've brought a passage from the US legislation that defines a "foreign state". This legislation says that for certain matters, an autonomous territory or a mandate territory can be regarded as if it were a state. It doesn't mean that the US regards/regarded autonomous/mandate territories as states. I'll give you an example to clarify that: the Israeli immigration policy gives precedence to Jews, and there is a certain non-Jewish people who may enjoys this policy as if they were Jews. The fact that the State of Israel treat these people (according to the Law of Return) as if they were Jews does not make them Jewish in the eyes of the State or in their own view. Similarly, the fact that the US treat the Palestinian Territories as if it were a state for certain purposes, does not make it a sovereign state in the eyes of the US, as evident from the source I gave you (and numerous other statements by US officials).
 * 2) You keep contradicting yourself, citing the Montevideo Convention when it suits your thesis, and disregard it when it doesn't. Per Montevideo, there is no state called Palestine, because it has no defined territory nor permanent population. There is neither de-facto nor de-jure borders to the 1988 proclaimed state, and there is no independent registrar of citizens, nor a strict definition regarding eligibility for citizenship. Montevideo sees recognition (the ability to have foreign relations) as a necessary yet insufficient criterion for a state. If we disregard Montevideo, then we should assume all kind of common-sense criteria, and yet you reject them by saying they are not compatible with Montevideo. So you should make up your mind about this issue.
 * 3) The State of Israel did not declare its borders upon independence, but it had de-facto borders about one year following its establishment. This is quite normal, especially as neighboring countries refused to recognize it for about 30 years. In the case of proclaimed Palestine no de-facto nor de-jure borders have ever been defined. There is a statement of the PA written by Fayyad that talks about the Green Line as a border, however he talks about a planned future state, not about an existing state.
 * 4) You collect statements of scholars regarding certain features of the PA or PLO and join them together in a way that makes a distorted general picture. Surely the PA control some natural resources, it is an authority after all. However, that doesn't make it a state.
 * 5) I gave the currency issue as an ex-Montevideo example of statehood (assuming Montevideo is not enough for you). Note that the PA is barred' from issuing currency. There are many countries that prefer to use non-independent currency, but in the case of the PA, it has to use Israeli currency, and may additionally use another currency, but may not issue its own. Please read the sources I gave you. This is very unusual for an independent state.
 * 6) There are non-independent territories that have the right to sign bilateral treaties. As far as I know, Greenland, Puerto Rico, Canadian provinces, maybe even certain Spanish autonomous regions. It is crucial to see whether the Palestinian side is defined as a state in the treaty in order to know whether the other side recognizes it as a state. The very fact that a treaty was signed is not enough.
 * 7) You contradict yourself regarding the issue of recognition. You cited a source saying a recognition is irrevocable. I told you this source is problematic, because we know of contradictory examples, e.g. Iran revoked its recognition in Israel. You said that this is another story, because the current regime in Iran did not inherit the previous royal regime. If I follow this line of yours, then you cannot say that the Dem. Rep. of Congo recognized the State of Palestine when it was called Zaïre. You should also consider whether the recognition of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe is still valid today. In short, you cannot justify two contradictory claims with the very same source. DrorK (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still abusing the talk page and using it as a general discussion forum. Your hypothetical questions have been asked and answered several times now. Since your personal theories and interpretations are not derived from any relevant published sources of analysis, I'm not going to discuss them. If these are significant points of view, you should not have had any problem finding published sources to incorporate into the article. Nothing you have discussed alters the fact that the majority of other states have exercised their prerogative to recognize and treat Palestine as a state. You cannot set-up an ad hoc court here on a Wikipedia talk page and overturn those decisions, so stop wasting everyone's time. harlan (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, you cannot contradict my remarks, so you start blaming me for abusing the talk page. You also try to redirect the problems with your editing at me - a well known tactic when trying to silence legitimate criticism. You also say I have to prove that a state called Palestine doesn't exist, while in fact it is the other way around. You are the one claiming such an entity exists, and therefore it is your task to prove your claim. You failed to do so, and I explained why. You either use non-mainstream sources, or misuse established sources. You are also not consistent in your use of sources. You use a certain source when you think it suits your thesis, and then claim it is unreliable when it doesn't. In some cases you also made a synthesis of sources, in a way that is unacceptable on WP. But since you asked for a source, I've brought you a straightfoward one - a plan on behalf of the Palestinian Authority to create a Palestinian state within two years. In this plan, the 1988 declaration is mentioned, not as an establishment of a state, but rather as a document that expresses the Palestinian wish for independence. Since you cannot read Arabic, I translated a portion of that docuement for you, but I also saw that you found an English synopsis of this document. Since this source refutes your thesis completely, you tried to claim that I did not understand the meaning of "establishment", however the word "establishment" is used as synonym to the word "creation" in the official document, and it cannot be clearer. Now, you tried to claim that we have to read this document through a secondary source, and you chose the politically motivated interpretation of an Israeli political analyst. Only this political analyst himself presents an ambiguous view regarding the existence of a state called Palestine, as I showed you with proper links. What makes me really sad is that the users of WP are damaged because they don't get a genuine picture of the state of affairs in the ME, and the reputation of WP is damaged because of unreliable articles like this. Furthermore, the suggestions for changes in the article are very logical, and yet you refuse to except it, as if it were your own article rather than a collaborative work. DrorK (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of editors here who are trying to write an article. We don't have time to contradict or answer your remarks. If the views that you are advancing haven't been published by a reliable source that you can cite and quote in the article, then they are neither significant nor mainstream, and shouldn't be taking up so much time and space here on the article talk page. If they have been published, once again feel free to cite the source(s) and add them to the article.


 * The article already mentions that Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories and provides citations to the views of Blum, Rostow, Ball, the ICJ, the Israeli High Court of Justice, and the majority of UN member states in connection to that situation. The article also cites the PA plan to end the occupation in two years and points out Segal's comments in Ha'aretz about the fact that the plan itself repeatedly cites the 1988 Declaration regarding the establishment of the State of Palestine. You say that it contradicts the Declaration; President Abbas statement that the State of Palestine already exists; the recognition of Palestine by other states; and the Declaration the PA provided to the ICC regarding its own statehood. Now, all you need to do is find a published source that represents that viewpoint and add it to the article. Otherwise it would appear to be WP:OR and WP:Synth. harlan (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, for the last time - I don't owe you any source. It is enough that I pointed out your sources are not valid. But if you insist on more sources, and since your thesis is, by and large, based on Prof. John Quigley's opinion, you might as well read this eye-opening article by Robert Weston Ash, published by "The Internet Journal of Rutgers School of Law", which systematically refutes Quigley's claims about Palestinian statehood. It also brings a long list of statements by Mahmoud Abbas referring to a Palestinian state as a yet-to-be state, and clarifies the non-recognition of the ICJ in a Palestinian state. You might also want to read this declaration made by the Swedish Foreign Minister on behalf of the EU (November 17, 2009): ""I would hope that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state but there has to be one first. So I think it is somewhat premature." To be on the safe side, I took this citation from a pro-Palestinian site: . And also - please note that the Israeli Supreme Court never recognized the existence of a Palestinian state. Quite the contrary - in May 2008 it strictly rejected a statement by a District Court suggesting that the PA can be regarded as a sovereign state for certain legal procedures. The Supreme Court explicitly said that the authority to recognize countries is held by the Israeli Foreign Ministry ( I'm sorry it's in Hebrew, but that's the language used by Israeli courts, and translation into English is not always available). The Palestinian statement to the ICC does not refer to Palestine as a state. It refers to the Government of Palestine and to the territory of Palestine. You are the one who suggested, based on your sources that a government was not necessarily a state and vice versa. The PA never said where the territory of Palestine exactly lies, except implying that it includes the Gaza Strip. The ICC never accepted this declaration, and never issued a statement whether it regarded the PA as a sovereign state. The official ICC's account on the issue states that the ICC asked for the opinion of legal experts and received mixed opinions: "A comprehensive summary of all legal arguments received will be made public in due time. In a preliminary manner, I can summarize the presentations as follows: (a.) Some submissions consider that it is clear that the Palestinian National Authority cannot be regarded as a ‘State’ as required by Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute and take the position that the declaration should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (b.) Some submit that Palestine is recognized as a State by many States and many institutions. (c.) Some argue that Palestinian statehood is irrelevant to this analysis. (...)" . Now, you suggest that legal ambiguity entails that a Palestinian state exists, but this is hardly a serious claim. An ambiguous information cannot imply the existence of an entity. I cannot say Bigfoot exists on the account that there are conflicting reports about its existence. The fact that the ICC has no opinion (yet) regarding Palestinian statehood is also evident from the report on this pro-Palestinian website: . To sum it all up, the thesis that you introduced into this article (quite forcefully I should say) simply doesn't hold water. I said it before and I'll say it once again - you either cite extremely problematic sources, or misuse serious sources and distort them in order to make them compatible with your views. Now, we are interested here in knowledge. WP is not about establishing states, but merely about conveying information about the state of affairs as we know it at the present time. So, kindly end this discussion and let people correct this article without engaging in edit wars. DrorK (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my previous post on this talk page is quite enough to demand a serious fundamental editing of this article, but I can't resist bringing some more links (especially as you kept demanding sources): here's the account about the "State of Palestine" on the "Palestine History" website run by Esam Shashaa. Judging from the content of this site, he does not appear to be an opponent of the Palestinian statehood idea, and yet he writes "The proclaimed "State of Palestine" is not an independent state, as it has never had sovereignty over any territory.". Apparently, Francis Boyle, another source for your thesis, is an extremist political activist arguing that Hawaii's status as a US state is illegal, and offering his services to the Iranian government in order to sue Israel an  the US at the ICJ  (I found these links on the article about him on en-wp, imagine that...). Trusting the opinion of such a person about the Palestinian issue is like trusting the Intelligent design movement's interpretations of issues related to Evolution. You might want to read pp. 6-7 of this account  by Yûji Ôishi from the Japanese Edogawa Univesity (published by the Institute for Peace Science of the Hiroshima University). He claims the Oslo Accords signed by the PLO invalidated the 1988 declaration in Algiers, and he also claims Japan, the USSR and eastern European countries never fully recognized a Palestinian state. Is he a reliable source? I don't know, but at least he is not politically biased as the sources you provided. DrorK (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Drork, you have been told over and over again to feel free to add sourced material that represents your views to the article. Your complaint that I'm edit warring with you or that you have shown my sources to be invalid is utter nonsense.


 * I see you are still trying to set-up court here and overturn the decisions of the majority of states that have exercised their prerogative to recognize Palestine as a state, and to argue which version of history is correct. The personal views of Robert Ash, Yûji Ôishi, Esam Shashaa, are just that - their personal views. They don't "completely refute" much of anything. If you want to incorporate them in the article you will need to attribute them to those individuals.


 * Regarding the location of the territory, the article cites a Today's Zaman article in which the PA spokesmen, Malki, said "We represent the Palestinian occupied territories." The letter from the ICC prosecutor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights says that the government of Palestine accepted jurisdiction of the Court "for crimes committed on the territory of Palestine" and that the ICC was conducting a preliminary analysis of jurisdiction for allegations concerning the IDF operation in Gaza. The Prosecutor's office also cited meetings with John Dugard, Paul de Waart, et al in connection with discussions about the Arab League's report. Among other things, it addressed the ruling in the ICJ Wall case which contained findings regarding breaches of the Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Arab League report requested that the individuals suspected of violating the Geneva Conventions be investigated and prosecuted by other states or the ICC. The Arab League Report and the Prosecutor's letter note that many states recognize Palestine and mention the possibility of relevant national proceedings in other states under the principle of universality and complementarity that are enshrined in the Rome Statute.


 * The US view is that sovereignty resides in the people who convene constituent assemblies, conduct plebiscites, and elect representatives who engage in lawmaking. The State Department Digest of International Law and the FRUS say that the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan was the result of the free expression of the will of the people. In 1792, US Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson said, "It accords with our principles to acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the people, substantially declared." The Digest contains the text of the resolutions of the Arab Congress at Jericho and the text of the 1950 Act of Union. It says that US Secretary of State Acheson had noted during a press conference that 70 percent of the population participated in the elections, and that the legislative Act of Union was ratified by the parliament of the new entity, Jordan, in which the residents of the West Bank and East Bank were equally represented. The Digest also contains the text of the letters between the Arab League and King Abdullah in which he assured the League the union was without prejudice to the final settlement of the Palestinian question. That isn't "my private thesis", or John Quigley's. The State of Jordan recited the same historical facts and events in its 227-page written statement to the ICJ in the Wall case. It says that Jordan entered into diplomatic relations and executed bilateral and multilateral treaty agreements with many states that were applicable to all of Jordan, including the West Bank, which contained no reservations regarding recognition.


 * The Ash article claims that the ICJ had said that Palestine wasn't a state, but the Court decision doesn't say that. Most members of the UN, including Israel, have insisted that the Charter does not permit the UN or the ICJ to determine whether or not a state exists. For example, the article already cites a Jerusalem Post article which quotes Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidoth explaining that "it is not the UN's role, much less that of the Security Council, to confer statehood." In 1950 a suggestion was made that UN membership be adopted as a form of legal collective recognition, but the Secretary-General and Legal Affairs section advised that such a measure would require the adoption of an amendment to the UN Charter. See pages 39-48 of Statehood and the law of self-determination, By D. Raič. A very similar situation occurred in 1948 when Syria proposed that an advisory opinion be obtained from the ICJ regarding Israel's statehood. Abba Eban said "The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State. See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12


 * The article already cites a journal paper by Paul de Waart which analyzes the same passage of the ruling that Ash mentions. The ICJ was asked to advise the General Assembly on the legal consequences of the construction of the portions of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian territory, not the portions that were located in Israel. The Court noted that Israel was the occupying power in Palestine and that the threat came from within that same territory. It also noted that the written statement of Israel had not argued that the threat originated in a foreign state, and that Israel had not explained why the route of the wall departed from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line). The Court said that Article 51 of the UN was inapplicable to situations involving local conflicts. Ash also ignored the General Assembly, the Security Council, the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, and the ICJ which have each concluded that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were established in breach of international law. He cites the legal arguments of Eugene Rostow and Yehuda Blum in that connection. Those are certainly nothing new, or convincing. They are already cited in the article.


 * A number of legal scholars have written articles about the issue of Conflict of laws between the PA and Israel and the fact that the High Court and Knesset have sidestepped the issue of statehood. The article notes an instance in which the Israeli Courts took up the question of Palestinian qualifications for statehood, sovereignty, and the related issue of immunity. In the earlier cases, like Dayan, the High Court said that a certification was required from the legal advisor of the Foreign Ministry in order to make decisions regarding immunity. In the Moreh College case, the lower court held that the certificate wasn't necessary. The High Court reversed that part of the decision. The Knesset also sidestepped the issue of statehood and adopted a measure that makes it possible to grant sovereign immunity to a ‘political entity that is not a state’ as part of the 2008 Foreign States Immunity Law, Art. 20. See  None of that changes the situation with respect to the direct enforcement of internal Israeli law and judgments in the PA. Cases, like Kahati v. Al-Afifi have been dismissed on the grounds of "forum non conveniens", and the article correctly states that the Israeli Courts have examined the concept of Palestinian statehood for the purpose of state immunity and have ruled that the political branches can grant state immunity to the PA. harlan (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, this dialog between us is turning into a kind of comedy, or actually a farce. You are pulling off the ancient trick of presenting your own personal views (or views of persons who support your views) as facts, while calling other views "personal opinions". I beg you to be more serious. You are definitely very knowledgeable and eloquent, but I suspect your motives here are not pure, and that you try to promote certain political issues through en-wp. Let me make it very clear this time: You CANNOT present a state called Palestine as an existing state. This is false information. The sources you brought to support this claim are biased. There are other sources you've brought which are reliable, but you abused them by misinterpreting their words. The fact that Israeli court treated the PA as a state in certain cases, does not mean it is a state in the eyes of Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court said it in very clear words, which you refuse to read. As I said, for the purpose of immigration, the Israeli law regards non-Jews as if they were Jewish. It doesn't make them Jews, and the law says so explicitly. The very term "political entity which is not a state" indicates so clearly that the PA is not a state in the eyes of the Israeli law. The word "not" is very significant. I read the IJC ruling very carefully. It never says "Palestine" is a sovereign state. This is your opinion, not the IJC's. I think you didn't read Ash at all, considering your reaction to this source. As I said, I don't have to bring you any sources, because "the burden of proof" is yours, and all the sources you've brought are either unreliable or misinterpreted. I did make the effort and brought you refuting sources, but, quite expectedly you refute them, because you try to push your thesis, and your request for sources was just a measure to distract people from the problems in the sources you've brought. Again, this is the oldest trick in the book - I have a source proving bigfoot exists, now prove it isn't. When the counter-proof is provided, then comes the claim: bigfoot exists, and that's the end of the story. Actually you are gaming with WP's system of validating information, and unfortunately you are given free hand in doing so, probably because people are either too tired or too afraid to confront you. You have already tried to intimidate people by engaging in endless edit wars and you also posted an intimidating message on my talk page in order to silence me. DrorK (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Drork, unlike Bigfoot, states are subjects or "persons" of law. The majority of existing states have formally accepted the personality of Palestine "with all the rights and duties of statehood as determined by international law". That fact is verifiable, notable, and has been discussed in the mainstream press. One example is John Dugard's NY Times Op-Ed piece which is cited in the article.


 * The article does not say that an Israeli Court recognized the State of Palestine. You are employing a straw man argument of your own invention (again). The article deals with a controversial subject and you have applied a POV tag. Under those circumstances, you must follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy and avoid presenting personal opinions as facts or the truth. The article attributes controversial statements to the responsible individuals, organizations, and governments that made them. The International Criminal Court has published a statement which says that a conclusive determination on Palestine's declaration will have to be made by the judges at an appropriate moment. Ash's editorial says the declaration can be dismissed on the basis of its alleged inconsistency with earlier statements. That is a well-known appeal to a logical fallacy. See for example The PA statements are capable of more than one interpretation or construction and the article cites Segal's Haaretz article to illustrate that fact.


 * You keep saying things like "You CANNOT present a state called Palestine as an existing state. This is false information." I'm willing to request clarification from ARBCOM in that connection. I don't believe that Wikipedia editors can set-up ad hoc courts on talk pages and overturn legal decisions that have been made by states and international tribunals.


 * Similar claims were made when the Provisional government declared that Israel was state: "it is impossible to disregard a strange theory advanced here by the representative of Syria and supported, if I am not mistaken, by the representative of France. The substance of that theory is that inasmuch as the territory and frontiers of the State of Israel and its right of existence are contested by some of its neighbor States, the State of Israel does not exist as a sovereign State and cannot be recognized as such. That theory is not only strange but also dangerous. It is reminiscent of the "theories" which, as we all know, were once upon a time preached by the fascist aggressors who claimed world mastery. According to those theories, it was enough for Hitlerite Germany to cast doubt on the existence of one of its neighbor States for that State to cease to exist, and for its territory to be seized and absorbed into the territory of Hitlerite Germany. Such claims were made by the fascist aggressors in respect of Austria, Czechoslovakia and a number of other European countries, including France. In that connection, all kinds of expansionist theories were advanced concerning the inferiority of the people of certain countries, and were used as justification for seizing those countries. History has given the lie to all such wild theories and their authors have paid a cruel price for their aggressive plans." -- Mr. Yakov A. Malik, the 386th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.386, 17 December 1948, pages 12-13 harlan (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia already has an article "Proposals for a Palestinian state". If all you have is claim and opinions about a Palestinian state attributed to certain people, you can add them to that article. There is no need to have another article, which implies that a state called Palestine actually exists. Apparently this issue was already addressed by Wikipedians, and there is a policy forbidding content forking. In fact, what you've done with this article is "classical" forking - you didn't like the way "Proposals" was written, so you re-initiated this article (after it had been merged per consensus decision), and wrote in in a way that promotes certain political view.
 * A state is not merely a legal entity. A state is not a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity that comes into being by decision of certain authorities, and can be dissolved by a similar decision. A state is something else, as the Montevideo Convention indicates. A state should have certain physical and social traits in order to be regarded as such. Never has been a territory under the rule of an Arab Palestinian government, nor has there ever been a defined population of Arab Palestinian citizens. There were many recommendations and plans to establish such a state in the past, there are currently some effort to establish such a state in the future, but up to this point in time, such a state has never come into being. A declaration of independence accompanied by partial recognition is enough to make a local corporation, not a state. The sources that you've brought, that suggest otherwise, are highly biased - we cannot trust the opinion of a legal advisor to the PA in a subject directly related to his job.
 * Had you asked me in 1948 or 1949 if Israel was a state, I might have hesitated. It takes time to build a state, and it is often unclear whether a new state "was born" immediately after it had been established. In late 1949 Israel already had a defined territory, a defined population, a permanent legal system, full control and monopoly over the exercise of power within its territory and recognition from most sovereign counties which existed at that time. The "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988 still doesn't have a defined territory (it has neither official nor de-facto borders), no defined population (there are certain people who are subject to the PA, but this status of theirs is determined by Israel, not by the PA itself, see paragraph 2 of this report ), and it cannot be said to control any territory (the PA control over the territories defined for it is very limited, and it is arguable whether the PA and the 1988 proclaimed state are the same).
 * We are not talking here about a country that doubts the existence of another country for political reasons. We are talking about a proclaimed state that lacks most of the features that makes a geopolitical entity a state. In fact, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Somaliland can be better described as states despite the lack of recognition in them, and despite the fact most countries in the world do not support their very existence. Even though most countries in the world support the creation of a Palestinian state (and a great deal of political parties and organizations in Israel), there is no geopolitical entity that can be called "State of Palestine". You may deplore this fact, but it is true, and the Swedish foreign minister expressed it quite eloquently by saying that the EU is willing to consider recognition in a Palestinian state, but first such a state should be created. Do you think the Swedish FM should have looked better, maybe search the upper shelves or below the carpet, in order to find a Palestinian state which he could recognize? DrorK (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead (again)
Drork, besides your three earlier reverts of harlan's introduction of sourced material to the body of the article:
 * 1) 13:28, 24 January 2010  (edit summary: "I'm sorry, but I have to insist. I contest harlan's edits, and he will have to do better in order to explain them, or ask for arbitration")
 * 2) 16:52, 24 January 2010  (edit summary: "I have to insist on that. This is not Harlan's private page.")
 * 3) 17:17, 24 January 2010  (edit summary: "I have to insist on that. This is not Harlan's private page.")

We now have your two reverts to reintroduce 07:09, 25 January 2010 this change to the lead:
 * 1) 12:40, 25 January 2010  (edit summary: "This lead bring the facts in a more comprehensible way. Perhaps there is false data in the body of the article")
 * 2) 13:05, 25 January 2010  (edit summary: "")

As I said to you in the edit summaries reverting your changes, there is no source to support this formulation and given that it is not mentioned in the body of the article, it has little place in the lead. I did try to revert you again, but then realized that I was know at three reverts (one of your earlier deletions of harlan's material, and two of your changes to the lead). So, I self-reverted. I've asked you to self-revert but you seem to have disappeared having gotten your way through edit-warring. Is a 3RR report here necessary? Or are you willing to remove the material until you can find reliable sources to support it which would allow for its addition to the body of the article, and then possibly the lead? ` T i a m u t talk 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a 3RR report is necessary for you and Nableezy's tag teaming. I believe both of you have been warned about edit warring previously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted my third revert. Nableezy is an independent editor who can make up his own mind about what edits he wants to make, and he made two reverts. If you think that's evidence of tag-teaming, please do file a report. Its more likely that its evidence that Drork is editing against consensus, including things in the lead that are not in the body of the article, and are not even sourced.  T i a m u t talk 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever you cannot deal with arguments you resort to bureaucracy. Amazing. DrorK (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very funny Drork. I've asked you repeatedly to provide sources for the information you are seeking to add to the article. While you may believe that you are the sole bearer of the WP:TRUTH, at Wikipedia, we require you to use reliable sources that are verifiable. When you choose to do some research and honour that request, we can begin adding your changes to the article. Until then, it is useless to continue this discussion, which has gone around in circles for days now.  T i a m u t talk
 * And by the way, WP:3RR is a policy around here. I hope you read and understood it. Because the next time you violate it, I will be reporting you without reminding you of it again. Considering how hostile you have been following the free pass you were given, you don't deserve another.  T i a m u t talk 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
→  in re: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 68 

I submitted my account of the problems with this article here: Editor assistance/Requests. DrorK (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic sources
There are some problems with the refs used in this article

These are not WP:RS
 * (ref 118) says it is a personal and self-funded website, and not representing any Official Palestinian Authority/Party. ie a blog.
 * (ref 121) is a B2B site where anyone can get themselves listed.
 * (ref 131) is also some guy's personal page. He says he's the Ambassador. He's certainly not a web designer.

A few don't load
 * refs 125 and 128
 * ref 132
 * ref 137

These two don't give the same address/phone for what is supposedly the same embassy in Sarajevo
 * ref 122
 * ref 123

Ref 111 says it's the South African Representative Office to the Palestinian National Authority. It doesn't use the term "State of Palestine" anywhere.

Ref 112 is cited to "Eur, 2004, p. 933". Not sure what book that is, it doesn't seem to be any book in the bibliography.

There are a few sites that claim to be official embassy sites, none of which are on the .ps TLD. One looks pretty unprofessional (although I did learn some history from it here). I'm not sure what the policy here is. Are we supposed to take at face value that these are indeed embassy sites and from that assume that the country involved recognized the State of Palestine?

Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the whole list of countries recognizing the "State of Palestine" is problematic. I was quite surprised to find out that the Soviet Union never recognized such state, only said that the 1988 declaration was a positive step (whatever that means). I couldn't find a letter of recognition on behalf of the Russian Federation. Many European nations have diplomatic representations in Ramallah, the PA administrative center, but without recognizing it as a state. Actually, the only conclusive way to know whether a country extended its recognition is to look at the way it phrased its letter of credence, if it has a diplomatic representation, or the letter of recognition if it issued such letter. There are other ways to infer recognition, of course, but they are irrelevant to SoP since it does not exist de-facto. DrorK (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article cites Stephen Talmon and explains that many countries have a formal policy of recognizing states, not their governments. In practice, they usually make no formal declarations regarding recognition. For example, Section 203 of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says"'Since 1970 the United States has moved away from its older recognition practice. 'In recent years, U.S. practice has been to deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition in cases of changes of governments and to concern ourselves with the question of whether we wish to have diplomatic relations with the new governments.' [1977] Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 19-21. Repeatedly, the State Department has responded to inquiries with the statement: 'The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government.' [1974] Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law at 13; [1975] Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law at 34.'"


 * The reference to Francis Boyle's article in the European Journal of International Law has been removed from the article on several occasions now. He has two earned PhDs, one in law and the other in political science. He was the legal advisor to the P.L.O., and helped them draft the 1988 Declaration of the establishment of the State of Palestine. He reported that the State of Palestine had been recognized by 114 other states. Diplomatic recognition is not the same thing as recognition of statehood, and the language used to "treat another state as a state" is completely irrelevant. Here are two illustrations:


 * On 25 January 1964 the Republic of Ireland disclosed that it had granted de jure recognition to Israel "some time ago". However, it was not until a decade later, on 12 December 1974, that the Irish Republic and Israel announced that they had agreed to establish diplomatic relations. See Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 72
 * Acting Secretary of State Lovett wrote a memo on US practice regarding recognition that appeared in one of the "Hackworth editions" of the Department's Digest of International Law. The memo said that "in the recent case of Pakistan recognition de jure was granted on the same day as the new government and state of Pakistan came into existence". Hackworth noted that the message of recognition which President Truman sent to the Governor-General of the Dominion of Pakistan on the day Pakistan became independent, did not speak of recognition, to say nothing of de jure recognition, but simply extended on behalf of the American people the best wishes "on this auspicious day which marks the emergence among the family of nations of the new Dominion of Pakistan". See Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) Page 90


 * Section 204(2) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says "Express or implied recognition. The President may exercise his power of recognition either expressly or by implication. Recognition of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic representative of that state. The fact that the United States is a member, of an international organization of which a state it does not recognize is also a member does not imply recognition of that state by the United States, but a vote by the United States to admit an entity to membership in an organization open only to states may imply recognition of that entity's statehood. harlan (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can only use letters of credence, but we do need to comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Some of the sources I pointed above do not meet one or both of these policies.
 * Also, if Francis Boyle was claiming 114 countries recognized the State of Palestine in 2004 while at the same time the Palestinians themselves were claiming 94 countries recognized it, then we have a problem with this source. I notice quite a bit of information comes from this one source (which again, does not appear in the bibliography). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Francis Boyle writes in his CV that he used to be an advisor to the "Provisional Government of the State of Palestine" (he doesn't explain what that exactly means). Naturally he cannot be regarded as a reliable source for matters directly related to his field of advisory. It is actually unclear how many countries extended recognition to the 1988 Declaration. As I said earlier, I was sure the Soviet Union extended such recognition, but I was quite wrong . Apparently there is a lot of propaganda involved here. Many countries that have special relations with the PLO or the PA are presented as if recognizing the "State of Palestine". It is unclear whether eastern European countries actually recognized the 1988 Declaration, and if so, whether they renewed their recognition after the radical change in government in these countries during the 1990ies. Since the EU's official statement consider the "State of Palestine" to be non-existent (even though it supports its creation as soon as possible), and considering many eastern European countries joined the EU, it is unclear how it affected their recognition, if there was one. DrorK (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently Boyle made his statement about 114 countries in 1990, while we have the official PNA web site from 2006 saying 94 countries. We should use the later (not to mention more likely to be accurate) source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Many states, including Costa Rica were not included in the 2006 webpage figures. Those were the states that publicly recognized the 1988 Declaration.

Drork, you are welcome to discuss the reliability of the Oxford Journals at the appropriate noticeboard. Your suggestion that a lawyer can't be regarded as reliable for matters related to their advisory role is very far-fetched. Under the bar's "cab-rank" principle, the very best lawyers quite frequently act for ­very unfashionable clients. For example, the late Ian Browlie defended Serbia against the charge of Genocide at the ICJ. James Crawford served as the Chairman/Rapporteur of the United Nations International Law Commission and wrote the modern textbook on "The Creation of States in International Law". He also served as a legal advisor to Palestine when it co-sponsored a draft resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ and presented oral arguments on its behalf to the International Court of Justice during the subsequent "Wall" case. e.g. harlan (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting article. Did you notice it says "When the Palestine Liberation Organization proclaimed a Palestinian state in 1988, some 90 countries established diplomatic relations with it, although the exact formulation has varied. Few countries outside the Arab League have recognized a “state,” as Costa Rica has done"?
 * I think we need something like that in the lead, but that's not the issue right now. Right now, the issue is the problematic sources I posted above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally don't see what purpose the itemized list serves, but there are other articles devoted to that sort of thing, e.g. Foreign relations of Israel. It indicates that all except 22 or so countries recognize Israel. But there are no reliable sources provided to support each of those claims. There are only about 80 countries which maintain embassies and consulates in Israel. The US argued that 40 countries was a substantial enough number to warrant treating an unrecognized entity as a state in the Kosovo case. harlan (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the foreign relations of Israel article has to do with this one?
 * Also not sure what the US's opinion on Kosovo has to do with this article either. Does the US recognize a State of Palestine? I must have missed that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, take this example for poor sourcing:
 * From the article: "By mid-December, 75 states had recognized Palestine, rising to 89 states by February 1989". This claim is validated by this source: . The tone of this source clearly indicates that it is not a neutral report, but an attempt to push a political agenda. It gives the numbers offhand without any explanation about how they were gathered. Furthermore, the writer tries to convince us that the French an Belgian non-recognition is a sort of recognition. I would hardly call it a reliable source. It is more of a political propaganda, and you bring it as a factual source.
 * This source is brought to confirm the recognition of many countries in SoP, and yet it has no information regarding the subject. It merely talks about a call by Organization of Islamic Countries to recognize the Hamas regime in Gaza, a call without any compelling effect. Russia is not part of this organization, so I fail to see how this source is relevant to it, but it doesn't even indicate the recognition of OIC member states. This source link  is dead, but I assume it meant to lead to the list of OIS members countries. However, the fact that "Palestine" is a member state does not indicate recognition by all other member states. Syria, Lybia and Israel are all members of the UN. Does it indicate that Syria and Lybia recognize Israel?

This pseudo-sourcing is goes all along this article. This is not a Wikipedian article. DrorK (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And here you have another article by Professor James Crawford that refutes most of the claims made in this article, and specifically Boyle's article. He also indicates Boyle's lack of objectiveness. DrorK (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Drork, States do not have to make formal public announcements or establish diplomatic relations in order to legally recognize the State of Palestine. This article isn't based upon the journal papers written by Boyle and Crawford back in 1990, although they are certainly of historical interest. The United States was still using its Foreign Assistance Act to sanction states and organizations that supported the PLO back then, and it still has Title 22 sanctions against countries that recognize the Hamas authorities in Gaza. Crawford's article was written prior to the Oslo Accords. In 1999 Crawford wrote "Israel (1948-1949) and Palestine (1998-1999): Two Studies in the Creation of States". His conclusions in that article foreshadowed the arguments he delivered in the ICJ Wall case. Since that article was written, the Security Council adopted the Quartet Roadmap; Crawford became a legal advisor representing Palestine; Israel no longer administers Gaza; and the Palestinian Authority has made a public declaration that it is a legal state entitled to accept jurisdiction under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute of the ICC.


 * NMMNG The article cites Geoffrey Watson The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements (Oxford University Press, 2000). Watson provides an analysis which demonstrates that the parties intend those to be legally binding "international agreements" In particular he discusses the implications of the “Agreement on Encouragement of Investment Between the United States of America and the Palestine Liberation Organisation for the Benefit of the Palestinian Authority Persuant to the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area” (11 Aug and 12 Sept 1994; State Dep. No. 94-233, KAV 4032). In US foreign policy practice, bilateral treaty agreements constitute an implicit recognition of statehood. The US State Department Digest explains: "A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties" See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223.


 * The JCPA and EI both have editorials on the relevance of Kosovo to the Palestinians. The most interesting argument IMHO came when the United States said that Security Council resolutions (like 242) were binding on member states, but not binding on non-state actors like Kosovo. harlan (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read that JCPA article? It contradicts several of the points you've brought up here. Including your claim that over 100 countries recognized Palestine as a state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, I find it very hard to follow you. You claim that a Palestinian state came into being in November 1988 the latest (and even go as far as suggesting that the British Mandate was a kind of Arab Palestinian state). I bring you a source that refutes the claim that the 1988 declaration actually created a state. Then you tell me that the Oslo Accords changed the picture. So you are basically claiming now that the SoP came into being in September 1993? And what do you do with the fact that the PA never exercised full control over the territory assigned to it, nor was it ever defined as a state in the Oslo Agreement or any later statement on behalf of any side? And what's the relevancy of Kosovo? In the case of Kosovo the declaration of independence came AFTER the Republic of Serbia had to abandon its control over the territory completely and hand it over to an international administration. A thing of this kind never happened in the Palestinian territories. You resorted to the fact that many countries recognized the 1988 declaration in order to prove that there is a state called Palestine despite lacking other features of a sovereign state, but now you say: "states do not have to make formal public announcements or establish diplomatic relations in order to legally recognize the State of Palestine". So what are we left with? A declaration with unclear recognition that led to no, or at best very limited, control over territory and population. What exactly is your point here? DrorK (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Boyle
Harlan, can we get a quote from the new Boyle source you're using? 130 sounds a bit far fetched. Are you sure this is how many countries recognize Palestine as a state rather than have some sort of diplomatic relations with the Palestinians? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw you added the quote to the article. Can we assume that he doesn't source his claim about 130 countries? How about what he means by "de jure recognition"? Wouldn't that require an outright deceleration (as opposed to de facto recognition which could be deduced from actions)? I liked his self congratulatory tone, by the way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NMMNG, I added the quotes from page 19 and the Back Cover in the endnote reference. The book is a collection of articles and research papers, which also includes the 1990 article, that said "more than 114". It illustrates the practice of states to come forward and announce their recognition of the 1988 Declaration years after the fact. Recognition is retroactive in effect, so the number of states that "recognized Palestine in 1988" actually does increase from time to time. The Jerusalem Quarterly reports "In 1988, more than 130 states recognized State of Palestine proclaimed by the PLO. (By comparison, some 160 states recognize the State of Israel, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.)"


 * 169 countries recognize the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the occupied Palestinian territory, so the claim that 130 of them recognize a Palestinian state is not too far-fetched. harlan (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Harlan, please, you are wasting our time here. Anyone can come up with numbers, and these numbers will be bigger and bigger as much as the write has interest in defending a certain Palestinian interest (in this case making it eligible to have membership in intl. organizations or a locus standi before international courts). It is commonly accepted today (even in Israel) that a Palestinian state should be established in the WB&Gaza. The questions that remain are when, how, what would be the exact borders, what kind of relation this state would have with Jerusalem, and what kind of army it would have . Many countries (probably most countries) and international organizations, save Muslim and Arab organizations, hold a position that Palestinian statehood is desirable yet non-existent at the moment. You say there are 169 countries that hold this position? My bet is that ALL countries hold this position (probably even Israel). This fact does not make "Palestine" a state. Quite the contrary - had there been a Palestinian state, there wouldn't have been so many statements acknowledging the right of Palestinian to establish a state. Have you ever heard about a statement saying that Mexicans have a right to exercise sovereignty over the Mexican territory? Have you ever heard of a call to establish a Polish state in the Polish territories? (Well, actually you must have, but not from the past 60 years or so). You have no reliable sources to support the claim that 130 countries recognize a state called Palestine, and you have no reliable sources to support the strange claim that recognition is enough to make a state. You are toying with us, making claim and then counter-claim, bringing one source, then a contradictory source. When people indicate that your sources are feeble, you bring another feeble source or resorting to another debating tactic. Now, for the last time, what exactly is it that you want? DrorK (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When in 2006 the official PNA site said 94 countries recognize Palestine as a state, and we have so far found only a handful that have recognized it since, 130 is indeed far fetched. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are NMMNG and DrorK questioning the reliability of Francis Boyle? If so, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I know of no reason to doubt his figure. Indeed, we have sources attesting to at least 110 states having recognied Palestine as a state and tens of others holding diplomatic relations. The PNA is not the representative of the State of Palestine and its figures for 2006 are outdated as it is and have not been updated since.  T i a m u t talk 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Further information about recognition:
 * Russia does not recognize SoP. The website of its Foreign Ministry uses the term "Palestinian Territories" and give information about "Mission of the Russian Federation to Palestinian National Authority"
 * Lebanon extended recognition to the 1988-declared SoP only on November 27, 2008, even though SoP became member of the Arab League long before . The assumption that the very membership in the Arab League indicates recognition is false.
 * Singapore mentioned as a country recognizing SoP, but "Palestine" does not appear in the list of the Singaporean Foreign Ministry's website as a country which maintains diplomatic relations with Singapore. In fact, there is no indication whatsoever of Singaporean recognition.
 * These are just three examples of the serious problem with the whole claim of "majority of states recognition". I can bring more when I have some more time. DrorK (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, problem #3 does not exist. Singapore is not even mentioned in our article.
 * Second of all, I'm not sure about the reliability of the source you cite regarding Lebanon's recognition, since this source directly contradicts it. In any case, the point is moot, because even if its correct, Lebanon has since recognized Palestine and so can be listed here without difficulty.
 * Finally, your source regarding Russia doesn't say anything about whether or not Russia recognies the State of Palestine. This source does, and it does.
 * Please do bring forward any other concerns you may have. The ones you have raised thus far however should not trouble you any longer.  T i a m u t talk 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Singapore is on the map of countries recognizing SoP, even though it hardly has any relations even with the PA. For some reason you value the MEDEA list, even though they do not explain how they prepared the list, and even though it contains blunt errors. Russia and Austria do not recognize a state called Palestine. Their Foreign Ministries do not list "Palestine" as a state with which they maintain some kind of relations. The fact that Lebanon extended recognition only in 2008, yet it is listed since 2001 seriously undermines the reliability of this source. DrorK (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I see that the other way around. Your source is unreliable because it contradicts the MEDEA list. Looking for an ommission of Palestine at the foreign minitry sites of Russia and Austria is WP:OR. The source is clear. These countries have recognized Palestine.  T i a m u t talk 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The MEDEA list is obviously a copy of the PNA list (it has the exact same wording, except they added that Austria is a member of the EU). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have that backwards. The MEDEA list is dated December 2001. The PNA copied that list on their 2006 copyrighted website page.  T i a m u t talk 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't know how long that list was on the PNA site. Do you think the PNA also copied MEDEA's PLO and PLC articles? They both link to the exact same texts on their respective sites. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably. The PNA is not the government of the State of Palestine. They are not a really good source on this subject, quite frankly.  T i a m u t talk 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, Boyle does seem to be on the fringe of international law interpretations, but that's not the issue here. The question is how do we reconcile several different numbers for how many countries recognize Palestine as a state, and which number should go in the lead.
 * I thought "about 100" would be ok since it a. is sourced (always good), b. is not exact (so it covers several options), c. is more than half of the number of UN members (doesn't kill the majority recognition meme).
 * I submit that an official PNA list of countries is a stronger source than Boyle's self-congratulatory unsourced statement.
 * Also, we do not have sources attesting to "at least 110" countries recognising the SoP. As I posted above, some of those sources are flawed. I noticed you didn't bother to respond in that section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anat Kurz gies a figure of 117 a couple of years before Boyle's 130. It makes perfect sense. You are being selective in choosing which sources you want to acknolwedge as true. Take it to the reliable sources noticebaord if you believe otherwise, but Boyle is an WP:RS on this topic.  T i a m u t talk 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's being selective. You prefer unsubstantiated big numbers to a smaller list of countries. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I prefer what reliable sources say to OR speculations. And by the way, DrorK, here's another source . It says Austria recognized Palestine on 14/12/1988. It also lists Lebanon, though without a date of recognition. I can't see what it says about Russia, because that page is not available. I also suspect that given its from 1989, it probably lists it as the Soviet Union. But clearly, the sources are emerging to support the MEDEA source in opposition to your source and OR speculation.  T i a m u t talk 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article from a RS he posted about Lebanon is not OR or speculation. The fact your new source doesn't list a date of recognition for Lebanon just strengthens his argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to review the sources again with you in detail. However, I'm not going to bother. Its clear you will believe whatever you want to, no matter how many sources are presented. Its a moot point anyway. Lebanon has recognized the State of Palestine, no matter which source we believe.
 * The OR speculation referred to DrorK's looking at the Foreign Ministry website of Austria and determining from its lack of mention of Palestine there, that the country does not recognize Palestine. Two sources say otherwise explicitly and there is a date of recognition. The rest of this discussion is not worth any more of my time frankly. I'm busy improving the article. You?  T i a m u t talk 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm doing is not OR in any way. You simply don't like what I'm saying. On the other hand relying on bad sources doesn't make us more knowledgeable. There is a lot of disinformation about SoP, and this article, unfortunately, promotes it rather than clearing the mists. The Soviet Union never recognized SoP. According to the Washington Post's report from 19 November 1988, the Soviet Foreign Ministry was very careful not to extend formal recognition, and issued a statement saying that the 1988 declaration was "a major contribution to the process of a fair political settlement in the Middle East" . In the "Sixth United Nations International NGO Meeting on the Question of Palestine" held in Vienna in 1989, the Austrian Foreign Ministry said: "Austria had welcomed the proclamation of the independent Palestinian State and subsequent developments and stood ready, as well as many other European countries, to play a useful role in this process" . Note that he was careful enough not to use the verb "recognizes". In that meeting, Yasser Arafat took the liberty to interpret the Austrian statement as implying recognition: "Austria has embodied these positions in its speedy recognition of the independent State of Palestine and by raising its level of diplomatic relations with the PLO", but, in fact, this was his own interpretation, and it was never confirmed by the Austrian government. Raising the diplomatic relations with the PLO is not recognition either. Today, the Austrian Foreign Ministry refers only to the Palestinian Authority and not to SoP. Why am I telling you all this story? Because your whole thesis about the existence of a Palestinian state is based upon lists of countries allegedly recognizing such state, but apparently these lists, usually provided by Palestinian bodies with particular interests, are not very reliable, and often give a very broad interpretation to the notion of "recognition". There is a simple diplomatic formula used to extend recognition. Neither the Soviet Union nor Austria used it in respect to the 1988 declaration, even though they are constantly listed as if doing so. I wonder how many additional errors are included in the list you brought. DrorK (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to make another point regarding the list you've brought from the "Paletine Yearbook". The list is oddly organized. North Korea appears twice, once under "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" with the date: 24/11/1988 and then as "Korea, North" without a date. The list includes "Byelorussian SSR" which was part of the Soviet Union. True, it has its own representative at the UN, but it was never considered an independent state. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that Byelorussia recognized SoP when the Soviet Union didn't. Namibia did not gain independence until 21 March 1990, and yet it is mentioned in the list as if recognized SoP on 19/11/1988. DrorK (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to improve the article. I went over the list of sources and found some problematic ones. You didn't bother to respond. In fact, none of the people who added those sources in an attempt to validate the number of countries that recognize SoP bothered to respond. You don't seem to be interested in making the article as accurate as possible, so what exactly do you mean when you say you want to "improve" it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging the fact that there are published sources which say that 130 countries have recognized the SoP does improve the article. It is doubtful that a complete list will ever be published. Many sources, including the US Code itself, say that the United States has discouraged, and at times, threatened other countries that have recognized the PLO, Hamas, or the SoP. Those laws still exist, and countries that support Hamas can end up being labeled "State Sponsors of Terror". The PLO is still on the list of terrorist groups, but the President signs periodic certifications and waivers.


 * Great Britain had always stacked the vote of the LoN with the membership of its Dominions and Colonies. Shortly before the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in 1944 the Soviet Constitution was amended and Article 18(a) was inserted which granted each Union Republic the power to enter into direct relations with foreign states, conclude treaties, and to exchange diplomatic and consular representatives. Byelorussia did conclude treaties with, and recognized other states including Palestine. FYI, the Soviet Union pressed for admission of all 16 of its republics, but a compromise was reached to grant Russia a veto in the Security Council and to only accept the international personality of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. See La succession d'États: la codification à l'épreuve des faits, By Pierre Michel Eisemann, Martti Koskenniemi, Hague Academy of International Law, page 268. Drork's other comments are WP:OR and WP:Synth personal theories: that "The Soviet Union never recognized SoP."; that the representative of Austria did not intend to recognize the SoP; and that "There is a simple diplomatic formula used to extend recognition." In fact, there isn't any proof for those statements in any of the sources he cited. I've previously cited and quoted the works of Talmon, Grant, Hackworth and the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States which explain that it isn't necessary to use the word recognition or to make any public statements at all. harlan (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that by loading us with irrelevant information, we will be convinced. It doesn't work, and you are wasting too much of our time and energy. I gave you several proofs that the "130 list" was unreliable. Surely there are people who want us to believe there are 130 countries that extended recognition to the 1988 declaration (are you one of them?) but with some Google search you can see that these lists are more of a wishful thinking than a reliable source. The fact that the US pressured other countries not to recognize the 1988 declaration is irrelevant. For many years, the Arab League had a well-organized policy of boycotting Israel. So what? Does it mean that more countries recognized Israel? The PRC threatens countries not to recognize ROC. Does it mean ROC is more recognized than we assume?
 * The Mandate of Palestine was certainly not a dominion, and it wasn't a colony either. It was fully controlled from London. Although the Mandate charter encouraged the UK to establish autonomous authorities (particularly Jewish),it was not an obligation, and the UK preferred to have a centralized policy. All of the legislation was done by "Orders in Council", namely ordinances of the UK government. This information is available to you with a simple Google search, I am tired of teaching you history.
 * For the last time, I'm going to direct you to this source proving that the Soviet Union never recognized the 1988 declaration. There is also no proof that Austria extended such recognition, except a statement by Arafat that was never confirmed by the Austrian Republic. Currently Austria does not list "Palestine" among the countries with which it maintains relations. You always prefer far-fetched academic researches or biased sources instead of looking at the plain written facts. As I said, you are wasting our time. DrorK (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've provided an inconclusive article ("Appears" to fall short) from the Washington Post which merely said that "as of November 19, 1988" the writers there didn't believe that the Soviet Union had recognized the SoP. That doesn't establish the fact that the Soviet Union "never recognized" the SoP, unless you count WP:Synth assumptions as evidence. The article already explains that the Mandate was a state and links to a article about that topic. I don't care to discuss your personal opinions regarding that subject anymore. harlan (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, first of all it is very rude to edit other people's words on a talk page, but that's beside the point. By your words you prove that your motives for writing this article were not pure. You asked for sources, you've got them. Now you claim these sources are "personal opinion". And what are your sources? A divine message? When I bring you clear statements on original document, you say it is better to rely on secondary sources. When I bring you secondary sources, you claim it is better to stick to the original text (which you misinterpreter) and not count on secondary interpretation. Add to that the fact that you were engaged in edit wars, add to that your forceful objection to any change in this article that is not approved by you, add to that the fact that you hide behind an alias, and give us no information about you background (this is legitimate and yet not very fair considering the way you act in this discussion). I think you are trying to troll here in a very "educated" way, but I still want to give you the benefit of the doubt. DrorK (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it somewhat amusing that harlan would claim it's impossible to create a list of countries that recognize another existing state. I guess SoP have secret relations with a few dozen countries. That's convenient.
 * The fact is that despite several editors trying, they have been unable to substantiate more than around 100 countries recognizing SoP. But they want to put as high a number as possible in the lead. It's not about accuracy, it's about pushing your agenda as much as possible without breaking wikipedia rules too much. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NMMNG I didn't add anything to this article that isn't supported by reliable published sources. You haven't done much of anything here in the Boyle subsection, but write some magnificent whinges about the numbers supplied by Boyle and the Jerusalem Quarterly.


 * I find it amusing that you begged the question of implied recognition in connection with Jerusalem and Sharkansky, but don't accept the fact that states can extend formal recognition privately or confidentially. There is no Wikipedia policy that requires other editors to perform original research for you. The Israeli MFA published a claim that 160 countries recognize Israel as a state, but only about 80 have embassies or consulates there. The 160 number includes members of the Islamic conference that have never publicly acknowledged their recognition of the state of Israel. The situation with Palestine is analogous. Boyle represented the PLO in international negotiations. He has written at some length about the steps taken by the US to prevent other countries and international organizations from publicly recognizing Palestine.


 * Drork, the edit to your comment was an accident. Occasionally, my laptop touchpad gets brushed, and selects text without my noticing it. In any event, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission did not share your view. They required the High Commissioner to report on the steps that were being taken to establish self-governing institutions and were highly critical of the mandatory administration's failure to carry out its responsibilities in that regard. The Washington Post article that you cited did not say that Russia "never recognized" SoP. You are presenting WP:Synth arguments and hyperbole that don't actually appear in the source that you cited, and whingeing about other people acting in bad faith when they point it out to you. harlan (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not "beg the question" of implied recognition, I just pointed out to you that your source doesn't quite say what you claim it does, which unfortunately happens quite often.
 * Anyway, would you say most sources support "around 100" or "130" countries recognize SoP? Why did you put 130 in the lead 2 seconds after you found it when it's not the majority view and doesn't quite sum up what the article says, but rather is one extreme of several options? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had pointed out that Sharkansky had said that many states don't view Jerusalem as a part of Israel. You tried to dismiss that fact by claiming that Sharkansky had said states that presented their credentials in Jerusalem implied their recognition. Sharkansky's remarks in that connection can only be applicable to the 80 or so countries that have diplomatic missions in Israel, but not to the substantially higher number of countries which have no diplomatic missions there.


 * Amazon's instant order update says that I purchased Boyle's book on August 8, 2009, and the Jerusalem Quarterly 39 was also published in Autumn of 2009. If you have a published source which says there is a majority viewpoint regarding the number of states that recognize the SoP, then feel free to add that to the article. harlan (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't need a published source to say what the majority view is. That is judged by prevalence in sources. See WP:NPOV.
 * We have a couple of sources that present lists, that say around 94 countries recognise SoP. We have Kurz that says 117 and Boyle now saying 130, neither of which sources or substantiates their claim. 130 is one extreme of the views presented in the article and putting it in the lead violates NPOV.
 * I should also point out that the view that SoP doesn't exist as a state is not represented in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Recognition and non-recognition of states in SoP

 * 1) Greece did not recognize the 1988 declaration of SoP. Here's an official statement about the matter, made by Greece on 22 November 1988 on behalf of all 12 members of the European Economic Community. There is no indication of recognition there, nor any indication about a possible separate Greek policy.
 * 2) Malta did not recognize SoP. This is the official Maltese statement about the matter. There is nothing there that indicate a recognition in a state (merely reiteration of the Palestinian right for independence).
 * 3) The recognition of Pakistan is not clear. The Pakistani statement from 23 November 1988 is addressed to the "Chairman of the PLO" and does not indicate full recognition in the proclaimed state.

There are clear letters of recognition from Madagascar, Kuwait , Bahrain , Indonesia , Tunisia , Mongolian People's Republic , Oman and Qatar. DrorK (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The EU letter says nothing about non-recognition of the SoP by Greece. If you think the Malta letter doesn't mention recognition of a Palestinian state you must be illiterate. In any event, the article cites Tessler, Mark A. (1994), A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2nd, illustrated ed.). Indiana University Press, page 722: "Within two weeks of the PNC meeting, at least fifty-five nations, including states as diverse as the Soviet Union, China, India, Greece, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Malta, and Zambia, had recognized the Palestinian state." harlan (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, I won't say you are illiterate, you certainly know how to read and write. The problem is the way you manipulate the information in order to make a thesis. As I said, you could have presented this thesis as a final assignment of an academic course, but this is not a Wikipedian article. Since the proclaimed SoP has no control over territories or people whatsoever, the only recognition it can receive is by official words, or to be more precise one of the words derived from the root "RECOGNIZE" (or "RECOGNISE" if you prefer British English). Indeed, all countries that informed the UN about their recognition used one of the conjugations of this root. Since you were so creative in interpreting the sources you brought, I don't trust your citation from Tessler's book. You know I don't have access to this book and I cannot verify your quote nor check what sources Tessler relied on, so this must be very convenient to you. We have a very strong evidence that the Soviet Union did not extend recognition, we have explicit letters of Greece and Malta not extending recognition. These texts are very clear and available on the net to anyone who wishes to read them. I admire you for one thing - you managed to bring the idea of verifiability ad absurdum, and you managed to prove that any saying can be justified by sources. I can even write on the article about Obama that he is an illegitimate president who fooled the American voters and cite one of your sources for that, namely Boyle's speech about Hawaii. This art of yours is really admirable. DrorK (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have never bothered to question Tessler, Boyle, or any other source at the reliable sources notice board, so I can't take you very seriously. Your attempts to gerrymander a number here that disagrees with published sources is nothing but WP:OR. harlan (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ban Ki Moon on 1/12/2009: "Today, the State of Israel exists, but the State of Palestine does not."
 * I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add that viewpoint to the article. harlan (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)