Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

About recognition of the independence of Palestine

Dear Alinor!

I propose to discuss the following list of States, recognition on the part of which is specified in the list of UNESCO and do not have any other more or less authoritative sources:

№ State 0Date of recognition0 Notes
1. Somali 15-11-1988[1]
2. Afganistan 16-11-1988[1]
3. Zambia 16-11-1988[1]
4. Madagaskar 16-11-1988[1]
5. Djibouti 17-11-1988[1]
6. Guinea-Bissau 21-11-1988[1]
7. Cape Verde 24-11-1988[1]
8. Niger 24-11-1988[1]
9. Togo 29-11-1988[1]
10. Chad 1-12-1988[1]
11. Sierra Leone 3-12-1988[1]
12. Uganda 3-12-1988[1]
13. Republic of the Congo 5-12-1988[1]
14. Democratic Republic of the Congo 10-12-1988[1]
15. São Tomé and Príncipe 10-12-1988[1]
16. Gabon 12-12-1988[1]
17. Botswana 19-12-1988[1]
18. Nepal 19-12-1988[1]
19. Burundi 22-12-1988[1]
20. Central African Republic 23-12-1988[1] [2]
21. Bhutan 25-12-1988[1]
22. Benin 1988 or 1989 [1]
23. Equatorial Guinea 1988 or 1989[1]
24. Ruanda 2-01-1989[1]

I suggest, if not there will be some new sources and information about these countries, I suggest to them to create a separate section, where it will be a table with non-recognized state of Palestine in exile in 1988-89, but now do with the PNA or the SOP neither policy neither diplomatic relations and bilateral meetings + required for this text--analitic114 (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x "Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State, submitted by Algeria, Indonesia, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal" (PDF). 12 May 1989. Retrieved 2010-11-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |description= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Foreign relations of CAR
Yes, these are some of the #Weakly supported in the recognizers section.
Here these are colored khaki for "no official source confirming recognition of the State of Palestine".
I agree with moving these to "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section (or to some new section), but I don't know if Night w (and others) agrees or not.
And what should we do with the dark gray colored states - those where we have official statements, but with ambiguous wording? Alinor (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, I think that no new sources in these countries they should be excluded from the analysis (about the theme that I suggested), and only then handle the rest.
Just Permanent Mission of Palestine to the UN with a list of embassies I personally have little confidence, sometimes the information there might be erroneous.
That will happen without bringing me into this table about 93-96 (maybe more) of countries, many of which information is confirmed.--analitic114 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The list of "missions of Palestine" at the PLO UN delegation site is not about countries recognizing the State of Palestine or about "Embassies of the State of Palestine". And yes, it also has some inaccuracies. It is used as a source only for "Mission of PLO at XXX", not for "recognition of SoP" - so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not sure I understand what you say. I already said (and shown here) that I agree with separating cases with "no official source confirming recognition of the State of Palestine" from the rest that have official source confirming the recognition.
There are three cases here:
  1. officially confirmed recognition of the State of Palestine (light gray color in the table; section1) ~60
  2. official source with ambiguous wording (dark gray color in the table; section1&2) ~15
  3. only unofficial sources about State of Palestine recognition (khaki color in the table; section1&2) ~40
In addition there are:
  • conflicting or inconclusive sources about State of Palestine recognition (section2) ~5
  • PLO/PNA relations, but no State of Palestine recognition (section3) ~40
  • No information about recognition/relations - list below the table ~50
I understand your proposal as "move case3 to section2" (this seems OK for me) or as "move case3 to a new separate section" (I think less sections is better). Is this correct?
And my other question is whether we should do "move case2 to section2" or "move case2 to a new separate section". Alinor (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"move case3 to a new separate section" (I think less sections is better)." -I agree with this (if no any new sourses), and for this (And my other question is whether we should do "move case2 to section2" or "move case2 to a new separate section".) i think as long as is necessary to look more sources (but if you prefer, you can move into the new section).
What about my statements about the Palestinian diplomatic mission (on the UN website) - just as sometimes the time I use the Embassy of Palestine (that is the existence of diplomatic relations - that is, and the recognition of an independent state)--analitic114 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you OK with "move case3 to section2" (section2 is "conflicting or inconclusive sources")?
"Embassy of Palestine" is about "Embassy of PLO" and not about "Embassy of the State of Palestine". PLO is designated "Palestine" at the UN [1] - that's why in countries having diplomatic relations with the PLO and giving its mission embassy status these PLO missions are called "Embassy of Palestine". These are no indication of State of Palestine recognition or relations. Alinor (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
With the first statement (on transfer) agree (OK)! As to the second (of embassies) - if the given name of Palestine Embassy of the State (Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, website of the government or the president of the country) - this is the recognition of independence (ie as it is the existence of diplomatic relations). It seems it?--analitic114 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Embassies. Yes - if it's a "Embassy of the State of Palestine" mentioned on the MFA website of country XXX this shows that XXX recognizes SoP. What I said is that PLO UN delegation list about "Embassy of Palestine" is different and can't be used to show SoP recognition. Alinor (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I suggest that in addition to the "move case3 to section2" discussed above we also do:

  1. "move case2 to a separate section".
  2. add case2 coloring to File:Palestine recognitions only.png (currently it has colors for case1 and section2).
  3. change coloring of File:Palestine relations.png to show 'recognition explicit official source+relations' (dark green), 'recognition ambiguous official source+relations' (light green), 'recognition conflicting/inconclusive/unofficial source+relations' (khaki/dark orange), 'recognition conflicting/inconclusive/unofficial source, no relations' (light orange), 'no recognition, relations only' (blue). Alinor (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If Nigth W not against, OK!--analitic114 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

analitic114, see here for maps colored per above points. The table is not yet arranged per case1/case2/case3. Alinor (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Night w is interfering (see below) - use the sandbox instead until this is settled. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid the answer is, quite bluntly, no. We're not listing unofficial acts of recognition; quite simply, if a state doesn't officially recognise, then it won't be listed in that section. Here, "officially confirmed" apparently means confirmed by a handful Wikipedia editors. The second point: "official source with ambiguous wording" shouldn't exist, seeing as that would imply that we are making our own deductions, rather than relying on those of third-party publications. For example, in one map Argentina is represented as "recognition conflicting/inconclusive/unofficial source+relations" when a simple news search will conclude that this is false, since almost every article you'll read will quote the statement from the Foreign ministry: "The Argentine government recognizes Palestine as a free and independent state within the borders defined in 1967". If a metaphorical avalanche of secondary sources make the exact same claim, it amounts to WP:POINT to imply that this is perhaps less than factual. See WP:BURO and WP:FROG for this kind of thing. Nightw 10:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some issues that your comment disregards:
  1. The table doesn't list 'recognizes Palestine as a free and independent state', 'recognizes a Palestinian state'("a" - some potential future free, independent and sovereign Palestinian state, maybe build upon the PNA structures or declared/established by these structures - as envisioned by the 1993 Oslo Accord), 'recognizes Palestine state right to exist', etc. (these positions are called 'ambiguous') Instead the table lists "recognizes the State of Palestine" ("the" state already declared in 1988).
    these are: Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina (moved here after official source was found)
  2. Some official sources include circumstantial references to SoP (such as congratulations note signed by 'SoP leader, PLO leader, PNA leader' - contrasted with similar congratulations notes for states that don't recognize SoP that are signed by 'PLO leader, PNA leader' only) as week as mentioning of "Nov 15 - national day" (and nothing more) - those are also colored as 'ambiguous', because we refrain from making an interpretation ourselves that publishing such note or listing Nov 15 as national day amounts to SoP recognition.
    these are: Kuwait, Malta, Qatar, Brunei, Sudan, Gambia, Philippines, Cameroon, Georgia
  3. Strange as it is - despite the efforts of analitic114, me and others - we couldn't find official sources confirming SoP recognition by some states. This should be noted somehow (khaki color, separate section or otherwise). For example Argentina - it's "Unofficial ... sources about recognition of the State of Palestine". Not "unofficial recognition" (that I see mentioned in your comment), but "unofficial sources about recognition". What is false here? So far we don't have an official source.
    these are: Tunisia, Afghanistan, Madagascar, Zambia, Djibouti, Cyprus, Egypt, Ukraine, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Cape Verde, Niger, Ghana, Togo, Zimbabwe, Chad, Laos, Sierra Leone, Uganda, RCongo, DRCongo, Angola, Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Oman, Poland (we have the letter from Poland MFA that they DON'T recognize SoP), Botswana, Nepal, Burundi, Bhutan, Rwanda, Central African Republic, Iran, Benin, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Lebanon, Argentina[2], Bolivia, Suriname, Swaziland, Vanuatu, Lesotho
For additional details see #Weakly supported in the recognizers section and other discussions above.
Please note also, that for some of these cases the available official sources point in the direction that the state in question is highly supportive of the Palestinian cause, but nevertheless doesn't yet recognize 1988 SoP as a state and instead deals with the PLO and the PNA and would welcome a future establishment of "real" Palestinian state ASAP. But because of the strong unconditional support these are often misreported as recognizing the SoP. On a side note - I think it would be a valuable addition if we add a column or make a list mentioning states that support "1967 borders" - regardless if they recognize "the SoP", "a Palestine state" or use language about "two-state solution pending Israeli-Palestinian talks".
I would be happy if you can find sources for those that we couldn't, but I wouldn't like that we apply WP:V in a sloppy way and simply disregard the issues above. Alinor (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
And to summarize the proposal above - I don't like multiplying the sections, but unfortunately this seems the best solution - to have the following sections: "explicit official source for SoP recognition", "ambiguous/inconclusive official source", "unofficial source for SoP recognition/conflicting unofficial sources", "PLO/PNA relations, no SoP recognition". Alinor (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Your attempt to differentiate between the "State of Palestine" and "an independent Palestinian state" is not reflective of secondary sources. The letter was sent to Abbas and the ambassador is now accredited to the "State of Palestine", yet you're attempting to imply that the Fernandez government might not have actually recognised this State of Palestine, but rather another, unnamed one. Not even the pro-Serbian editors at International recognition of Kosovo have come up with such crap to over-complicate things for the reader. What of the countless media reports that have come to a different conclusion? Are they simply disregarded, along with Wikipedia:Secondary sources? Absurd. Nightw 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"Fernandez government might not have actually recognised this State of Palestine, but rather another, unnamed one." - I say the same thing - if it's another one and not 1988 SoP, then this should be reflected in the table. Kosovo situation is much more clear - a state either recognizes Republic of Kosovo or doesn't. But in our case here it's more complicated, because we have recognitions of: 1988 SoP, 1994 PNA that aims to establish a state, Palestine cause/Palestine state right to exist in general (could be related to SoP, to PNA-potential-state, to both, to neither/another-third-option). Secondary sources are not disregarded, but are just distinguished from official sources (by khaki color).
"the ambassador is now accredited to the "State of Palestine" " - if we have such link, then it's fine - but so far I haven't seen such. Alinor (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So, should we proceed with the following sections: "explicit official source for SoP recognition", "ambiguous/conflicting/inconclusive official source for SoP recognition", "only unofficial source for SoP recognition", "PLO/PNA relations, no SoP recognition"? Alinor (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought my answers above were pretty clear. Try reading the first sentence again. Nightw 09:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Is not reflective of what? Of random journalistic reports? Even those that contradict official government websites? We should not reflect those.
Recognition of "an independent Palestinian state" of the PNA means support for the PNA initiative to attain statehood and independence (we already have sources pointing to an expected Sep2011 PNA event as potential declaration of statehood/independence). Recognition of "the State of Palestine" means diplomatic recognition (in most cases coming along establishment of diplomatic relations) of the state declared in 1988 by the PNC of the PLO. One doesn't preclude the other (as both SoP and PNA are related to the PLO who deals with foreign governments) and in addition some states issue vague statements where it isn't easy to distinguish whether its one or the other.
Anyway, various examples provided by Analitic114 below and above show that we need to separate at least the khaki (SoP recognition mentioned only in unofficial sources) from the rest (official sources either showing explicit SoP recognition or ambiguous/conflicting/inconclusive) that includes these two 'recognition options' described in the previous sentence.
PЄTЄRS position on the noticeboard was even more radical - not to use unofficial sources at all (and I agree with that too).
I think that besides unofficial vs. official we should also have separate sections for 'explicit official' vs. 'ambiguous/conflicting/inconclusive official'. Alinor (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:V, we should definitely reflect what published secondary sources report, whether you agree with them or not. Ignoring what the vast majority of sources claim and calling official documents "vague" is original research: you're relying on your own interpretation of the official source for verification, rather than what reliable sources claim.
And your interpretation, it seems, depends purely on the presence of a single phrase: "Recognition of "an independent Palestinian state" of the PNA means support for the PNA initiative to attain statehood and independence ... Recognition of "the State of Palestine" means diplomatic recognition ... of the state declared in 1988 by the PNC of the PLO". This is original research, pure and simple. Separating entries because they don't fit your homemade checklist is POV. You have an agenda here, Alinor, and you would do well to realise it. Tread carefully; you've already been banned from one topic. Nightw 10:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Night w, trying to mix reliable source with unreliable ones will not help you in any way. Nobody is ignoring anything, but a random journalistic texts and similar can't be used to contradict official government MFA websites. And some official documents are vague/ambiguous - this is even stated in one of your preferred sources.
Separating sources according to what they state is not OR in any way. The topic we have at hand here is not so clear cut - so lumping together sources stating different things is OR. And as you see it's not only me who says so.
I don't have any agenda other than presenting the available information in a way compliant with NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. The same agenda that I had at the topic that I was temporary banned. And as you can see the edits/arrangement that I made/supported are the ones currently established as status quo. I wasn't banned because I have an agenda, bad intentions or anything like this - I was banned because POVed editors that had an agenda were willing to engage in edit-wars to enforce their non-consensus POV and as result some of my edits have gone over 3RR. And as you know both of us have gone over 3RR/1RR here - so far none of us has requested the other one to be banned because of this - but at the other topic they obviously didn't want anybody hampering their attempts to enforce their POV. So, my ban was the price needed to be paid in order for these articles to become NPOV. And now they are. Alinor (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The mass media has not been deemed a "unreliable source" by Wikipedia. Whether you think it is, I care not. The only thing being "contradicted" is your own criteria that you've made up. I'll repeat it again: you can't use this to define the status of anything. That would be original research. Official statements are primary sources. How it is interpreted (and subsequently presented here) is up to published reliable sources, not your made-up criteria based on the presence/absence of choice phrasing. Read: "We only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves ... Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)". Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In general you are correct, but in this specific case you aren't - we are dealing with very subtle differences here, such that are often overlooked/reworded in journalistic interpretations. We don't do any OR, we just copy what we find in the sources. But if there is a contradiction between a journalistic report and an official MFA website - we use the more reliable of the two, the MFA website. Especially in cases where the MFA website includes full quote of a statement or even scanned copy of an official document. And also, because of the subtle details in covering the issue at hand, we should clearly show to the reader whether the information we present comes from an official source or an unofficial source. It's not the same if we have a Russia MFA statement that they recognize SoP and if we have an unofficial yellow-pages like directory site listing locations of foreign embassies that mentions SoP. Alinor (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Often overlooked/reworded in journalistic interpretations..." This is an unverified claim. If the vast majority of reliable media sources report the same thing, that has to be represented as the majority view (see WP:WEIGHT). It's your misunderstanding of (or ignorance of) WP:V that's the issue here. Interpretations of sources can only be done by reliable secondary sources. Even if there's a scanned copy of an official document that says quite clearly recognition has been granted, it still needs to be cited alongside a secondary source that verifies the interpretation that recognition was, indeed, granted, and that we therefore have a right to portray the information in that way. As for your last sentence, of course it isn't: which entry is relying on a directory? Again you're misunderstanding WP:RS. Nightw 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I can give you examples of overlooked/reworded/wrong journalistic/bloggers/experts/etc. interpretations over these details of the subject here. And for entries relying on directory - see UAE, Hunagry, Ukraine, Poland, etc. - they rely on unofficial yellow pages, online directories, etc. (and on the submittal-to-UNESCO-prepared-by-few-states, where we already found some contradictions - the Indonesia date, the Poland MFA letter denying recognition, etc.)
Anyway, I don't suggest that we automatically disregard "all" unofficial sources. I suggest that we are extra cautious and strive for better WP:V and WP:RS adherence (primary or secondary - the sources should be as reliable as possible). And the problem we have is not when there is official source about SoP recognition, but the unofficial sources haven't got it yet. The problem is the opposite - when there is no official source about SoP recognition, but some unofficial sources appear to claim that there is such recognition. And what I and Analitic114 suggested is we that entries that are supported only by unofficial sources are somehow distinguished from those that are supported by official sources (initially I suggested colors - in the later revisions of sandboxA; later I implemented separate sections - following discussion above and Analitic114 efforts at the Russian Wikipedia - see sandboxB). These proposals do not disregard the unofficial sources - they just distinguish them from the official sources. And on the noticeboard there were opinions expressed by another editor that we should be even more radical and disregard unofficial sources. I propose that we don't go to this extreme. Alinor (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
See for example these - [3],[4] - obviously they don't refer to 'recognitions of the State of Palestine', but to 'recognitions of a Palestinian state, to be established later by the PNA'. The 22Jan2011 article speaks about "Russian ... statement of recognition of an independent Palestinian state on Tuesday" (we have source showing Russia SoP recognition since much earlier). There is also "...and Uruguay have all formally recognized Palestinian independence." (error - we have sources showing that this wasn't so until Mar2011 Uruguay statement). Then "The Palestinian Authority said that Paraguay, Peru, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic are expected to announce their support soon." (we have sources showing SoP recognition by Paraguay, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic from 2005/2008/2009 already). So this single sources shows both things - that journalists make mistakes in reporting the subtle differences in often ambiguous government statements and that recognition of SoP is different from recognition of a Palestine state as an idea. Alinor (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated content

related to this

Big part of the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority article content is related to the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the foreign relations and recognition of the State of Palestine that is unrelated to the PNA and that was established by the PLO and whose government functions are executed by the PLO Executive Committee. Thus this content should be removed from the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority article. Alinor (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated content as of a couple of hours ago, you mean? As of your copy-paste rehash of this article into another version of questionable content with no respect for attribution or policy. There's a collapsible box at the top of this talk page thanks to your crummy editing skills; it seems you intend to rack up more of them. The article here can be renamed if necessary. There won't be any removal of anything. Nightw 05:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree on rename? Because if you don't, then refrain from deleting the PLO relations article. This is a notable topic. Relation to the current article is shown by the edit-line discussion link. If needed additional explanation can be placed at the talk page. I will wait some time for you to answer if you agree on rename and if you don't answer or don't agree I will revert to the RohilPCS version of the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization article. Alinor (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree to rename to "Foreign relations of Palestine", as long as you do a proper move request. Nightw 08:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to Foreign relations of Palestine - this is vague, unclear and unacceptable for article name. If you don't agree to rename to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization, then the PLO article will be restored - dealing with the foreign relations of PLO, the UN observer entity officially designated "Palestine". Then we will have to reduce content duplication. Alinor (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No. They should be covered in the same article. The ambiguity of the name "Palestine" is exactly what is needed as it refers to all institutions associated with the PLO and the PNA together. Nightw 09:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
And I regret (not really) to inform you that the PLO article will not be restored unless there's a consensus for it. If you think you can evade the obligations imposed on you at AE by simply creating another article of the same content, then I'm afraid you've become delusional. Nightw 09:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I remind you (again) that the AE procedure was opened by a third party over your actions and applies to you too.
I don't think that your deletion of the PLO foreign relations article has a consensus and I will take appropriate actions at its place/talk page and elsewhere.
No, the name "Palestine" is ambiguous/vague/unclear and thus "Foreign relations of Palestine" is unacceptable for article name. And since PLO is the entity that conducts the foreign relations of PLO, SoP and PNA the most appropriate name for the article is Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. A few users objected moving this article there - IMHO without giving sensible reasons - so Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority will remain, but this doesn't mean that Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization will not exist - in fact, this topic is more notable and bigger part of the content deals with it. Alinor (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see. So this is basically you spitting the dummy and throwing your toys out of the stroller then? You didn't get your RM approved, so you've copy-pasted this article's content under another name and are now claiming this article to be "duplicated content". Quite amusing. Nightw 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I said that PLO relations article will have to be created if this one isn't moved back then at the move discussion (see the comment timestamp in the PLO relations edit-line). What I claim is that Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is a notable topic and we should have an article about it. That's why I created such article. Yes, content from this article here was copied there - because it's about the topic of Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. If you don't agree to redirect Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority there, then fine, Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority can remain as a separate article covering only the PNA relations.
IMHO since the PLO relations include PLO relations, SoP relations and PNA relations we can use Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization for all of these, but if you insist we can have both it and a smaller scope Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Alinor (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Pray tell: exactly which parts of the current article were not included in this article? That is, IF this indeed was an attempt to appropriately fork the content, what parts of this article were not subsequently rendered as "duplicated content"? Nightw 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
All were included, because I didn't want to start the article with a controversy. And about what parts will remain here - the paragraphs/sentences discussing PNA (in many of the sections there are such), information on the missions to the PNA located in Ramallah/Gaza, on treaties applied by the PNA, on PNA member/observer status at international organizations, maybe something else that I forget currently. Of course some rewording/re-arrangement will be needed. Alinor (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
See here. Alinor (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
About the main table - following the establishment Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization the column "SoP recognition" can be replaced (and moved to the right) with a column about 'recognizes PNA right to establish a Palestinian state' and a column added about '1967 borders'. OK? Alinor (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition I will implement changes mentioned in the 15:04, 20 February 2011 comment above. Alinor (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I've already stated my objection to the changes. Please, stop repeating the request. Nightw 10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You asked a question about content arrangement and I replied. Would you comment on that? Or do you prefer the content to remain duplicated? Alinor (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this about the addition of new columns? Could you draft a single entry so I can get an idea? Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is about a way of focusing the article on PNA relations and not on SoP relations as it currently is. You still haven't commented on any of the sandboxes for Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization unlike what you said, so I'm afraid there is no point in making additional proposals just to be ignored by you. I explain above about one possible solution to the duplication issue. If you don't like it you can propose something else. Alinor (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Aren't we discussing the sandbox proposal below (the last comment at 08:16, 3 April 2011)? Or is that another proposal? Nightw 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The section where we were to discuss the sandbox was archived (you are aware of the archiving, right?). This sections is about what to do with the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority after the establishment of an article for the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. And anyway, in the sandbox there are no new columns added, so I don't see how the sandbox is connected to your 11:38, 2 April 2011 comment. Alinor (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ghana

Found such an interesting link [5] - Embassy of the State of Palestine in Ghana. Waiting for comments. (Sorry, that does not involved in the discussion of articles in English, are currently actively engaged in patrols in Russian wikipedia)--analitic114 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. We can move Ghana to the first group here. Alinor (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 54 days and 345 kilobytes of arguing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority → Foreign relations of Palestine — This article covers foreign relations conducted by both the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, as well as those conducted on behalf of the State of Palestine. The name "Palestine" would incorporate all of these and more effectively establish the context. Nightw 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal to split

Right... and "Israel" is not just Israel, but also the Kingdom of Israel. And "Egypt" is not just Egypt, but also Ancient Egypt. And "India" is not just India, but also British India. It would be extremely difficult to do such a split and not entirely practical or effective either. Nightw 05:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that currently there is no other Israel than the State of Israel, no other India than the Republic of India, no other Egypt than the Arab Republic of Egypt.
In the case of Palestine (disambiguation) we have three current entities commonly associated with the term "Palestine" - the Palestine Liberation Organization, the State of Palestine, the Palestinian National Authority.
So, I object move to Foreign relations of Palestine - using only "Palestine" in the article name is vague and undefined/ambiguous (thus inappropriate for article name). The "Palestine" that conducts international relations at the UN is the PLO [6] and also the PLO represents abroad the PNA. In addition the PLO-EC performs the functions of SoP government. So, IMHO, a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is better - because PLO relations cover also PNA relations and SoP relations. Alinor (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a problem since all organs can (and are, currently) covered on the same article. A split would also be impractical, as I've said, since the lines between the organs are often blurred. Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem - if we are going to lump all of these together, then it should be at Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization, because the PLO is the "common link" between these entities. But, if this isn't done, then there is no problem with making a split of Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority - in any case the second should cover only issues related to the PNA (its in its article name after all). Alinor (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You're claiming that the name "Palestine Liberation Organization" will effectively cover everything, but that "Palestine" will not? If I remember correctly, your attempt to move it there was opposed by multiple editors. This is a better alternative. Nightw 12:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, PLO covers all three (PLO, SoP, PNA), because it represents abroad the PNA and PLO-EC executes the functions of SoP government. And my previous proposal to move the article there was supported by 3 editors (me and another 2) and opposed by 2 editors (you and another one). If we don't agree to move to Foreign relations of PLO, then a split remains as viable solution. Alinor (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And "Palestine" means Palestine, regardless of the institution -- it covers all three. It's not a viable solution at all. Or if it is you certainly haven't proved it to be one. It's highly impractical. Nightw 11:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"Palestine" is a region and there are four entities related to this region that conduct international relations - Israel, PLO, SoP, PNA. The PNA and SoP are established by the PLO. In international relations the PLO represents itself and the PNA. The PLO-EC also executes the functions of SoP government (and the main/only activity of SoP are the international relations). So, Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is the most suitable place for the international relations of the PLO, SoP and PNA (and not Israel). Anyway, a split is also viable. Alinor (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes? and we cover all three in this article... so problem solved. Nightw 07:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Article name should be non-ambiguous regardless what it covers. So, if all three are going to be covered in the same article, then we should use 'FR of PLO', because the PLO is the only of the three entities that's related to the other two (PNA is ultimately accountable to the PLO, PLO-EC is the SoP provisional government). Alinor (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Both of these sandboxes are the same, are they not? Nightw 11:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, they are different. Alinor (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename

Contributors to previous discussions, The Celestial City, RolandR, Soman, Int21h, Andrewa, Harlan, Uriber, Ziansh, Avraham, Oncenawhile, Metallurgist, Greyshark09, Arielkoiman, Malik Shabazz, NickCT, Frederico1234, Cptnono, Brewcrewer, Dreamertan, Passionless and Cobaltcigs have been notified of this thread. Nightw 11:36, 7 April 2011, 08:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Night w, would you give link to a comment/edit by Harlan at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority or Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority? Alinor (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Night w, what is your criteria to select what editors to inform about this discussion? Alinor (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
? responded on your talk page. Nightw 09:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to Foreign relations of Palestine. A majority of UN member states have recognized Palestine, and thus I think it is safe to use that wording in Wikipedia. Likewise there are a number of states not recognizing the State of Israel (just slightly less than non-recognizers of Palestine), but that doesn't mean we should move Foreign relations of Israel to Foreign relations of the Zionist Entity for NPOV. --Soman (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    Some corrections of facts. Almost all states (more than simply "majority" - in fact I haven't seen a single source about a state that opposes) recognize "a Palestine state" and the right of PNA to establish such state in the future (the PNA foreign minister announced their intention to do so in Sep2011 [8]). The number of recognizers of the already declared in 1988 State of Palestine is different - 60 to 74 to 117 (depending on which sources you use see here). The number of states that don't recognize Israel is between 21 and 23 (we don't have sources for 2 of these). So it's wrong to claim that recognition of Israel is as disputed as the recognition of "a Palestine state" or of the State of Palestine (two different concepts). The idea that the PNA will establish "a Palestine state" is (almost?) universally recognized, the State of Israel has "wide" recognition (with only ~11% in opposition), the 1988 declared State of Palestine has "some" recognition (30% to 60%).
    The State of Israel is the only political entity representing "Zionist people", governing the territory controlled by the State of Israel, etc. - it contrast "Palestine" is a geographical region, where for territory outside Israel we have the PLO representing the Palestinian people abroad, the PNA as local administration (with the goal to establish a state) and the State of Palestine (declared in 1988 and conducting diplomatic relations with states that recognize it even without having control over any territory). The State of Israel is the only Israeli entity conducting foreign relations. In contrast we have three Palestinian entities. And of these, the PLO is the one that represents abroad both the PLO and the PNA and whose Executive Committee (the PLO-EC) functions as SoP government. That's why I support either a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization or a split of it.
    So, the issue is not about NPOV - it's about vagueness and having the correct article title. Palestine (the geographical region) doesn't conduct foreign relations. The PLO, SoP and PNA (political entities) conduct such. Alinor (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • This type of semantic games is akin to stating that it is not the Unites States managing the foreign relations of the United States of America, but the State Department. PNA is not a state, and the process of coverting PNA to an independent state proved a dead-end. PNA remains an administration under the PLO. The PLO conducts foreign relations on behalf of Palestine, and has wide recognition in international bodies as the legitimate representative of Palestine. Thus all these relations, of SoP, PLO and the day-to-day contact the PNA administration has with foreign governments all neatly fall under the umbrella of 'Foreign relations of Palestine'. --Soman (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    "The PLO conducts foreign relations on behalf of Palestine" - no, it conducts foreign relations on behalf of itself and the PNA and represents Palestinian people and is consulted by the UN on matters concerning the Palestinian territories. In addition the PLO-EC functions as government of the State of Palestine (that has no control over any territory - thus is akin to a government-in-exile, albeit the physical location of the PLO-EC is in Ramallah). That's why I support a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. But "Palestine" is a term used as reference to three different entities and is not suitable for article title. Titles should be specific, not vague and undefined. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    'Palestine' is quite specific (i.e. a country), and not as ambigous as Alinor tries to portray it. IRL, it is a commonly used wording. Not universally used, but neither is Israel. During WWI, 'France' was not under a single unified administration. There was the fully occupied north, the south Vichy and the Free French in exile. However, France did not disappear as a geographic concept and political entity. --Soman (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    State of Palestine is "a country", but 'PLO, the UN observer non-state entity designated "Palestine"' is not a country and 'PNA, the local self-government administrative authority in small parts of the Palestinian territories under Israel occupation' is not a country. All three are called "Palestine" in different contexts, that's why a title 'FR of Palestine' is ambiguous. Alinor (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The U.N. has recognized the PLO, the creator of the PNA, by the name "Palestine" and as the "representative of the Palestinian people". Let's keep it simple guys (and gals.) Int21h (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to have a page about PLO relations it should be Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. What the UN uses to refer to it is a separate issue. We can lump together the foreign relations of PLO, SoP and PNA in the PLO relations article, but it's article name shouldn't be Foreign relations of Palestine - see Palestine - in the article name we should use the name of a political entity, not a geographical region. Alinor (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not think "what the UN uses" is a separate issue. In my opinion, the PNA is subordinate to the PLO, and hence speaking of either is speaking of the other, and this proves my point. The Hamas-Fatah conflict is also a good example of this. Most international relations are with the PNA through the PLO, so when there was a split in the PNA, most nations went with what the PLO said, which was Fatah, even though the PNA under commonly accepted democratic principles should be Hamas controlled. (I could be wrong...) As for naming, "state", "republic", etc. are just syntax sugar, and are usually ignored in common usage, unless it is ambiguous as to which political entity you are referring, eg. North v. South Korea. But there is no other Palestine, so the "State of" is superfluous. Here, they are largely synonymous, but land that is either controlled or claimed by the State of Palestine, not the historical region, is most likely meant where I come from (the United States), not any different land/region. But, I believe I already made this argument and many of the Wikipedia community did not agree with me. :( So... Int21h (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, there's no confusion with the region here. Foreign relations is purely a political topic. Readers aren't confusing Foreign relations of Mongolia with the region of Mongolia. To imply this is different would be more than POINTy. Nightw 07:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
"what the UN uses" is a separate issue. - because the article name should show the actual entity performing the relations (e.g. PLO) - not a designation utilized for it by some third party (be it the UN or somebody else). Especially when the same designation is also utilized for other entities.
"state", "republic", etc. are just syntax - no, because we have different entities here. State of Palestine is a specific political entity - it's different from the PNA and the PLO (PLO-EC only performs the functions of SoP government - but the PLO continues its separate activities, in addition to SoP. The PNA is a prime example of a PLO initiative separate from SoP).
We should not use in the article name a wording that doesn't make the topic obvious. Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is OK, Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority is OK, Foreign relations of the State of Palestine is OK, Foreign relations of Palestine is not OK because it's open to interpretation whether it covers international relations of the PLO or SoP or PNA or some combination of these (it can be redirected/disambiguated, but should not be the place of this article). Alinor (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was clear from your first !vote. Nightw 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My comment above was about supporting a split (as proposed by another editor). Here I state clearly my opposition to your proposed move. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Support The political entity Palestine is represented at the United Nations under the name Palestine. This name is the most common name for the state-to-be and country-in-exile that the Palestinnian people claim as their own. State of Palestine should be called by its offical name, simply "Palestine", and for Wiki purposes Palestine (state), as disambiguated from Palestine (region). In any case, the State of Palestine page does make what the official name and we should be naming pages accordingly. Beginning with this one, let's do so, and bring or pages in line with reality. To Alinor: it is untrue to say that everything could be covered under a FR of the PLO page, and splitting between the PA and PLO is not feasible, since there is much overlap and the distinctions are sometimes unclear. As noted in the state of Palestine article, it is Palestine that is best described as a transitional association between the PA and PLO (and not the PLO which is the main body encompassing the PA and Palestine as you have erroneously asserted). Tiamuttalk 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It'd be impractical to separate the institutions, since the lines are so blurred. For example, many bilateral documents signed by Abbas use more than one of his titles, directly mixing the institutions. It's confusing for the reader to separate them. Nightw 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no political entity "Palestine". The UN observer is the entity PLO and the UN uses the designation "Palestine" for it.[9]. The entities SoP and PNA are related to the PLO, but they are separate.
The SoP official name is not "Palestine", but "State of Palestine" - for sources see here.
I don't assert anywhere that "PLO which is the main body encompassing the PA and Palestine". I said that since PLO represents abroad the PNA we can use FR of PLO page for all, or use FR of PNA page only for List of diplomatic missions to the Palestinian National Authority.[10]
"It'd be impractical to separate the institutions, since the lines are so blurred." - maybe it's not easy to do, but we should do our best. We should not lump together separate political entities, just because a few Wikipedia editors find it easier to call everything "simply Palestine".
Abbas signing documents with his 3 titles (related to SoP, PLO, PNA) instead of "simply Palestine" shows the importance of the distinction between these three entities. Because as you know some documents are signed with only some of these titles. That's because the separation between these titles has practical importance and is not merely decorative. Alinor (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"There is no political entity 'Palestine'" = plainly OR + POV. And your repeated attempts to verify the State of Palestine's official name as anything other than "Palestine" have so far failed. And "Palestine" is the PLO's official designation at the UN, so I must profess utter confusion at what you're trying to argue. Even if it weren't "Palestine", there's no political entity officially called "North Korea" or "Laos" either, but the folks over at those articles don't seem to have an issue. That's because WP practise is to use the common, English name. In this case, the common name linking these three institutions would be "Palestine". Nightw 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary. I proved that "Palestine" is not the official name of the State of Palestine - see here (e.g. I showed to you that there is no source supporting your claim and that the sources that we have about the State of Palestine use "State of Palestine" - should I give you links to all official documents that include this official name?). The political entities are PLO, SoP and PNA. All of these are sometimes referred to as "Palestine" by the UN, by the general public, or by somebody else. Nobody questions that. The problem is that this is unsuitable to be part of a foreign relations of X article name. About common name see my comment below. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure you did... Much less than "proving", you didn't even convince any of the editors involved in that discussion. This is irrelevant anyway, since this article is not exclusively about the State of Palestine, and even if it weren't the official name of the state proclaimed, it's still the common name. Maybe you should cast another !vote. What is it you're up to? Four? Nightw 08:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"any of the editors" - this means "only Night w". The only other comment is by Tiamut where he gave one link about PNA and not SoP. Do you have some new source or what? Alinor (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The articles should be merged. The PNC declared that the PLO is the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine after the Rabat Conference. It reiterated that in the text of the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine. General Assembly resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system. So, there is no "1988 SoP" that is separate from the PLO. The General Assembly resolution [11] which granted "Palestine" its current UN privileges noted that it is a full member of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, the Group of Asian States, and the League of Arab States. The General Assembly resolution also noted that general democratic Palestinian elections were held on 20 January 1996 and that the Palestinian Authority was established on part of the occupied Palestinian territory. Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) says

    “full powers” means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty;

Palestine has deposited full powers with several treaty organizations including the UN, OIC, and League of Arab States agreeing to be bound to treaties on diplomatic immunity, extradition, transportation, and economic development. Here are links to some of the UN deposit notices:[12] [13] [14] [15] Those full powers for the signature of agreements on behalf of Palestine are issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority. [16]

Several of the written statements submitted to the ICC Prosecutor by legal scholars noted that the Oslo Accords were: never fully implemented; violated by both sides; and lapsed in 2000. See for example the memo of ICC visiting scholar Errol Mendes [17] and the Al Haq position paper [18] The latter explains that the PNA and PLO have always had overlapping functions in foreign relations (per Geoffrey R. Watson, "The Oslo Accords International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements", ISBN13: 9780198298915, page 245) and they no longer bother to observe the division of labor in foreign relations. It mentions for example that the PLO representative to the Arab League in Cairo is also designated as the PNA representative. The Jewish Daily Forward reports the PNA is seeking recognition from other countries and that Costa Rica had signed a bilateral agreement recognizing the State of Palestine with the representative of the PNA at the UN.[19] The Foreign Minister of Palestine is an official of the PNA. President Abbas has confirmed the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to appealing to the UN Security Council for a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with Arab support.[20] The PNA and PLO both conduct foreign relations on behalf of "Palestine" and the "State of Palestine". harlan (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • harlan, as usual you give lengthy post with links to issues that nobody disputes. And by using generic "Palestine" instead of the specific names PLO, PNA or SoP in your comment you are not proving that they are all one and the same. Also, throwing some personal OR between multiple links to sources and quotations doesn't make it less of an OR. For example your "The PNA and PLO both conduct foreign relations on behalf of "Palestine" and the "State of Palestine" - could you give me a source showing that "PNA conducts relations on behalf of the State of Palestine"? Not about "Palestine", not about "PNA is entitled to establish a Palestine state". I haven't seen such source so far. On the contrary, sources that we have show that PNA will declare a state in Sep2011.[21] It's not yet known whether it will be a successor to the SoP declared in 1988 or it will be a separate one. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Once again Alinor, I'd appreciate it if you would provide published citations instead of making-up ad hoc arguments out of thin air. Here is one more long explanation. On page 194-196 of John Quigley, "The Statehood of Palestine: International Law and the Middle East Conflict", Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 0521151651 the Mashreq transportation treaties that I listed above are discussed at length. The author says (a) that the treaties were only open for signature by states (page 194); (b) that the practice of the Secretary General, as the Legal Affairs section of the Secretariat has explained, is to decline instruments of adherence to multilateral treaties from entities that the Secretary General determines not to be states (page 195); (c) that the Secretary General notified the other parties that Palestine had become a party (194 & 195); (d) that the Secretary may append a historical note to his notification of receipt in the annual "Multilateral Treaties Deposited With The Secretary-General" explaining the basis for the decision that the entity is a state, and that he did so (page 195); (e) that the rules of the ESCWA only allowed states to be members of the commission and the PLO was originally admitted as a state; (f) on page 213 the author explains that many treaties have been concluded for Palestine, and while some have been concluded in the name of the PLO or PNA, these three treaties were concluded in the name of Palestine. The ESCWA decided in 2007 to harmonize its transportation treaties with the League of Arab States (LAS).[22] The PNA Minister of Transportation is Palestine's representative on the LAS Council of Arab Ministers of Transport. This article incorrectly states that the PLO and PNA are joint parties to the treaties. The deposit notice actually names Palestine as the party. The historical note cites a document emanating from the competent authorities of the State i.e. the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority, who designated the person or persons to sign the instruments for the State.
  • On pages 3, & 197-200 the Quigley says that a declaration was sent to the International Criminal Court on PNA Letterhead invoking a clause in the name of Palestine that allows a non-member state to accept the jurisdiction of the Court. He notes that despite its name the Rome Statute is a multinational treaty. The Justice Minister and Foreign Minister of the PNA deposited a "declaration in conformity with Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute" on behalf of the "Government of Palestine" "for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of crimes committed on the territory of Palestine" with the International Criminal Court in the Hague (a foreign intergovernmental treaty organization). Here is a link from the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which discusses that PNA declaration and explains that Article 12(3) "allows a State which is not party to the Statute to accept the jurisdiction of the Court." See page 2 of 5 of the pdf file [23]
  • The Ministers specifically explained that they themselves had (a) submitted documents to ICC Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo that proved "Palestine" was a legal state; (b) delivered a set of documents that shows that "Palestine" as a state has the ability to present a case to the court and to ask for an investigation into crimes committed by the Israeli army; and (c) provided proof that "Palestine" was recognized as a state by 67 countries and had formal bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. [24]. *Note they did NOT say Palestine was only recognized by 67 countries, they said they had provided proof for 67. Wikipedia editors have wasted mega-bytes on WP:Synth analysis. The ICC's jurisdiction is strictly limited to those cases where a "State" is either unwilling or unable, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of the national judicial system, to investigate and prosecute the responsible individuals (for example Hamas war crimes). See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.[25]
  • The Registrar of the Court responded directly to the Justice Minister of the PNA, informing him that pending a judicial determination, "a declaration under article 12 paragraph 3 has the effect of the acceptance of jurisdiction with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5 of relevance to the situation and the application of the provisions of Part 9 and any rules thereunder, concerning States Parties, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence." [26] Territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and personal jurisdiction over Palestinian terrorist groups was transferred to the Palestinian Authority under the terms of Annex III Protocol Concerning Legal Matters, of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement (1994). The Palestinian Authority is cooperating with the ICC OTP and an international commission of independent experts appointed by the 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Agenda item 7, on the Human rights situation in "Palestine" to follow-up on the investigation of the UN fact finding mission report on Gaza in accordance with HRC/RES/13/9. See paragraphs 49-59 of the report [27].
  • I gave you links to Dr Michael Kearney's Al Haq position paper which demonstrates that the PA can legitimately prosecute individuals responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC and that the PA has the ability to enter into international agreements on behalf of Palestine. It concludes by asserting that "the ICC may validly consider Palestine to be a state for the purposes of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute and may accept the transfer of jurisdiction from the PA to the Court in line with the Statute and the principles of international law." Kearney also cited "Geoffrey R. Watson, The Oslo Accords International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements", ISBN13: 9780198298915, page 245 in that connection and stated that "this PLO-PA ‘division of labour’ with regards to foreign relations seems difficult to enforce given the overlap between the two organizations." [28]
  • I supplied you with a link to an article which explained that the PNA is seeking recognition from other countries and that Costa Rica had signed a bilateral agreement with Riyad Mansour, "the P.A.’s U.N. mission chief" recognizing the "State of Palestine".[29] You have never acknowledged that. Here is an article about "Palestine’s Ambassador to the UN" which says "In 2005 the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, appointed him [Riyad H. Mansour] to succeed Nasser al-Qudwa as Permanent Observer."[30] Here is a press release which says Ambassador Riyad Mansour, is the permanent observer of the Palestine Authority to the United Nations.[31] Here is a link to General Assembly resolution 61/23 1 December 2006 which instructs the Secretary General and the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat to continue to develop and expand the documents collection of the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL), and to continue to provide an annual training program on its operation for the staff of the Palestinian Authority;[32] Here is an annual report from the Special Rapporteur of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People which, among other things discusses UNISPAL and the annual training provided for the staff of the Palestinian Authority.[33] Do you have a published source which says that the Palestinian Authority staff is not an integral part of the permanent observer delegation staff? harlan (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    John Quigley is PLO-affiliated. You also provide above big chunks of texts by various origins, including journalistic interpretations, some of which are incorrect in contradicting official sources such as MFA websites. I have explained this multiple times in various previous discussions - and given the sources - but you "have never acknowledged that". Other of the texts you provide above are unrelated to the dispute and nobody questions the facts. You mix correct with incorrect information, sourced and unsourced information and finally claim that because of this mixing you are right about something - but it isn't clear what you actually want to prove. Your post ends with "Do you have a published source which says that the Palestinian Authority staff is not an integral part of the permanent observer delegation staff?" - I have not said such thing. On the contrary - PLO, as originator of the PNA and its representative abroad is free to invite PNA staff to work in its delegations around the world, including the delegation at the UN. And in the sentence right before that one you give a source that UNISPAL provides training for PNA staff. So? The EU also provides training for PNA staff. The whole world provides different types of support to the local self-government administration of the urban centers in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. The whole world tries to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians there by increasing the effectiveness of this administration - the PNA. Nobody questions that. This is irrelevant to the issue we discuss. Alinor (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    Alinor, I'm quoting published newspaper accounts verbatim. You are doing the "journalistic interpretations". Please provide a reliable published source which says that John Quigley and or Cambridge University Press are "PLO-affiliated". Please provide a published source which says Ambassador Riyad Mansour, is NOT the permanent observer of the Palestine Authority to the United Nations, or that he was NOT appointed by the President of the PA. Page 13 of the Al Haq position paper is repeating Israeli government allegations:

    "It has been noted by Israeli officials that: (1) the PLO representative in Egypt is designated as a PA official, in violation of Article IX(5)(a) of Oslo II;"

  • You are wasting everyone's time here and at several other articles because you will not, or cannot, cite published sources of analysis for your unpublished thesis. harlan (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    You are quoting journalistic interpretations that contradict official MFA websites - I gave you links in our other discussions.
    There is no "permanent observer of the Palestine Authority to the United Nations". There is a 'PLO permanent observer to the UN' that is designated 'Palestine permanent observer to the UN'.[34] - you get confused because currently the same person holds the post of the PLO-EC chairman and of PNA president (and also of SoP president) - and because the PLO represents the PNA abroad.[35] Whether Israel has objections over details of Egypt relations with the PLO and the PNA or how Egypt refers to their representatives or how these representatives present themselves - this is not related to the issue of PLO observer status at the UN - but you are accustomed to posting irrelevant links in such mix ups. You are the one making "unpublished thesis" and wasting everyone's time. What do you claim? That the PNA is a UN observer entity? Here you can see the UNGA resolutions granting observer status, changing designations and transfers of observer status, granting of additional rights. Which is the UNGA resolution about PNA observer status at the UN? Alinor (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am citing published analysis from reliable secondary sources verbatim: Geoffrey Watson, Errol Mendes, John Quigley, Michael Kearney. Can you tell me which published source of analysis you are citing and where it says that what Watson, Mendes, Quigley, and Kearney said is contradicted by the MFA website? We can include that as an opposing published viewpoint if it isn't WP:Synth or WP:OR. harlan (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    The 'verbatim quotes' you give don't say "PNA is one of the UN observers" (even if they did this will contradict the sources I gave above). You cite multiple things, mix these with uncited thoughts and use this mix to claim something different or unrelated. The MFA site contradictions are with some journalistic interpretations/news reports that you cited before about specific states that recognize SoP, etc. The MFA site contradictions are not with the 'general theoretical analysis of legal status and claim rights' type of links. I ask again - What do you claim? If it's that "the PNA is a UN observer entity", then please provide the UNGA resolution about PNA observer status at the UN - like we have for all observers. Alinor (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — Per reasons explained above, per WP:COMMONNAME. Also per WP:NOT#BATTLE, we should attempt to avoid turning article titles into places where we prove whether or not "Palestine" or "Israel" is a "real" entity. Note that Foreign relations of Libya is not Foreign relations of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor is there any real difficulty in discussing the Kingdom of Libya's foreign relations there. We can accommodate PLO/PoS/PNA together, and nearly all readers (no matter how focused) trying to understand the topic will understand more rather than less because we do so.--Carwil (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on COMMONNAME. Article names should be specific, non-ambiguous and not vague and undefined. For the regular "Foreign relations of X" articles there is no ambiguity in using the short form name of the state. But in our case here we have three entities that conduct international relations and each of them is commonly referred to as "Palestine". That is clearly shown at Palestine (disambiguation). As you can see "Palestine" is not exclusively associated with neither of these three entities. That's why Foreign relations of Palestine is unsuitable as article name. The argument that the UN uses "Palestine" as reference to the PLO and that the PLO represents the PNA abroad and the PLO-EC functions as SoP government (e.g. the PLO is related to all three of these entities) only shows us that we should either move the article to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization or do such a split. E.g. if the article will be about relations of "Palestine that is a UN non-state observer entity and that established the other entities", then we should use in the article title the name of this entity in a specific non-ambiguous way, e.g. PLO. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    So, per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME we should not move this page to Foreign Relations of Palestine. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    There are 3, yes: the PNA is subordinate to the PLO which proclaimed the State and is recognized as its representative. So really, only one: Palestine of PLO run by the PLO's PNA. Int21h (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    PLO is not recognized as SoP representative. PLO is recognized as Palestinian people representative. PLO-EC is tasked by the PNC to perform SoP provisional government functions until the PCC appoints another SoP government. "Palestine of PLO run by the PLO's PNA" is also wrong. SoP is run by PLO-EC. PNA is 'accountable' to the PLO-EC. But SoP is not run by the PNA. There are SoP-PLO and PNA-PLO links, but there is no SoP-PNA relation or link whatsoever. Maybe this year such SoP-PNA link will be established (by action of some PLO institution), but this is not yet done. Alinor (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — per WP:COMMONNAME. also, I support moving to "Foreign Relations of Palestine", since the article itself houses the declarations from the nations who has recognized palestine as an independent nation; and not as an organization. - ℤiαηsh✍ 08:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    On the same policy page see WP:PRECISE. "Palestine" is common name for three entities - PLO, SoP, PNA - and non of these is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - see Palestine (disambiguation). In such case the article name should be specific instead of vague and ambiguous - it should be 'FR of PLO' or 'FR of PNA' or 'FR of SoP'. Of these 'FR of PLO' can cover all three entities, but if needed we can have separate articles for some of them. Of these Also, if the article is going to be about "recognition of PNA right to establish a Palestine state" then again Foreign relations of Palestine is unsuitable as such topic includes many more issues and activities. See also Foreign relations of Korea - albeit "Korea" is a common name for Republic of Korea, but since it's also for DPRK that's why neither of these is located at 'FR of Korea'. Yes, RoK and DPRK are "opponents" unlike PLO/SoP/PNA where there are certain "close relations" among them (PLO-SoP and PLO-PNA, but no SoP-PNA) - but the issue here is about the ambiguous meaning of "FR of Palestine" and that it's not a suitable article name per WP:PRECISE/WP:COMMONNAME. Alinor (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You argue that none of these is primary topic, but collectively, under the unambiguous political prefix "Foreign relations of...", they undoubtedly are. That you think "FR of PLO" can effectively cover all 3 institutions but that "FR of Palestine" cannot shows how incredibly flawed your reasoning is. North and South Korea are two wholly distinct entities—separation of the PNA, the PLO and the State of Palestine in the subject of foreign relations is hardly as defined as those of the Korean governments. Stop wasting people's time with crummy analogies. Nightw 09:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"FR of PLO" is specific and shows the entity whose relations are described in the article. "FR of Palestine" is ambiguous. Yes, under some interpretations both can have the same meaning. This irrelevant to WP:PRECISE/WP:COMMONNAME - we should use the specific reference in the article name, not the ambiguous one. That's why currently 'FR of Palestine' is a redirect page (to 'FR of PNA'). If we make a split with 'FR of PLO', then 'FR of Palestine' will become a diambiguation page.
You and I may be not aware of or confused by "separation of the PNA, the PLO and the State of Palestine in the subject of foreign relations", but as sources show this is strictly followed in the real world - should I point you to sources showing these distinctions? Alinor (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, let's leave ROK and DPRK out of this since there's only a state of war between them.
WP:PRECISE only suggests that we should not use FRofSoP when we mean FRofPNA. As shown with Libya above, FRof/Name of Geographic entitity/ seems to be perfectly precise in describing an article that covers the state entities associated with that name.
So, at root the issue is not just naming conventions but the idea that FRofSoP, FRofPNA, and FRofPLO ought to be in separate articles. Could you please explain your reasoning for that?--Carwil (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not about war or common origin. It's about using a term in an article name that has multiple meanings. It's about two entities with the same common name - and how none of them gets the common name in its FR of X article.
WP:PRECISE says that in ambiguous cases (such as Palestine (disambiguation) with three political entities participating in international relations) the specific names should be used in the article titles.
I don't say that FRofSoP, FRofPNA, and FRofPLO should be in separate articles. I said that all of them or some can be in one article ('FR of PLO' -or- 'FR of PLO' and separate 'FR of PNA' -or- ...). If they are combined in a single article there should be a reason for that (for combining in 'FR of PLO' the reason is that PLO represents PNA abroad and PLO-EC functions as SoP government - both of these statements are supported by sources). They should not be combined simply because we would like it that way or because it's easier to do. In any case, combined or separate articles, the titles of the articles should use the specific name of the entity whose relations the article covers. Not the name of the geographical region that the entity is associated with - a region that the other entities are also associated with. I support moving the article to 'FR of PLO' and I don't see what is wrong with that - in addition to the specific reasons why PLO relations can cover also SoP relations and PNA relations - the PLO is the originator of both SoP and PNA and is observer at the UN. Does editors here assume that PLO is not important or what? Because the states around the world clearly consider PLO important enough to allow it to establish embassies, etc. Alinor (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, way to advocate WP:NPOV with such an impartial statement.</sarcasm> Nightw 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that a majority of the world's states recognise the State of Palestine (and that is WP:V'd), this article really isn't about the State of Palestine; it instead discusses foreign relations conducted by both the PNA and the PLO. How do foreign relations of the PLO come under the heading "Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority"? The move request is a way to broaden the title to include both institutions. It's not an attempt to legitimise Palestinian statehood. And to ignore the common English name in order to do the opposite is more than pointy. Nightw 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The State of Palestine (declared in 1988 and currently not controlling any territory - operating only in foreign relations abroad) is recognized by 60 states (we have official sources for these). For 14 more we have official source either with some circumstantial SoP reference (such as mentioning of 15 Nov as national day) or statement about recognition of "a Palestinian state" (future state to be established by the PNA?). For 43 more there is only an unofficial source - either about SoP recognition or recognition of "a Palestinian state". You can see the sources here. I wouldn't call this a WP:V majority of states.
How do foreign relations of the PLO come under the heading "Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority"? - that's why I proposed a move to 'FR of PLO' before and support the idea of split and to have both 'FR of PNA' and 'FR of PLO' articles. Your current move request is that instead we should change a sensible article title 'FR of PNA' to an ambiguous, non-precise and non-specific one. This is contrary to the Wikipedia naming conventions. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, no matter how many times you wave that ridiculous sandbox of yours in my face, it's not the article, and it never will be. It's a workpage of the original research and dodgy synthesis that you've become known for. And that you're attempting to use your own biased sandbox in this discussion to somehow support obviously incorrect information? Is pathetic. Nightw 18:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not known for such things that you accuse me. Is this a personal attack or what? I don't like your attitude and editing practice either, but I refrain from commenting on "what is Night w".
I don't claim it's "the article" - it's a place where you can see the sources. On a side note - where do you see OR there?
I don't "use the sandbox as argument" - I use it as a place where the sources are placed - if you prefer I can copy all of them over here every time you make a bogus claim. Alinor (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
A bogus claim? You mean like "The State of Palestine is recognized by 60 states"? Anyone with half a brain can tell you that's wrong. At the start of this year, there were thousands (most likely tens of thousands) of articles reporting that Brazil recognised the State of Palestine. A statement was delivered; it was acknowledged by the Israeli government, by the Argentine government and many others. No-one has denied it. It was reported across the globe, but you've managed to overlook all of that completely—without a single source to justify—, and you don't count Brazil (nor scores of other countries) in your figure. That's original research. And you've put it into some workpage with a bunch of other POV phrases and a not-so-skilled attempt at covering biased information with over-complicated contradictions designed to confuse the reader into thinking something totally different. ...And then used it here to wave in people's faces as a "correction". What a load. Nightw 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Your claim is bogus as can be seen by the sources on the sandbox I linked. Your claim is biased and contradicts the official sources. There are sources for "recognize the State of Palestine" and there are sources for "recognize a Palestine state". You lump these together. I agree it's easier to do so, but this is not what we do here. Alinor (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I accept the WP:COMMONNAME argument made above, but I'm a little worried about this move for a number of reasons. 1) Obviously, the proposed new name would seem to make "Palestine" seem like more of a "state" than the current name does. The fact is, Palestine is probably less of a "state" than when this article was created, given the West Bank-Gaza split. 2) I dislike these POV, "It is a state"/"It isn't a state" wars. Can't we all just acknowledge it's a quasi-state, and come up with some accepted terminology which acknowledges that fact (i.e. Palestinian territories)? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
On the first point, I think that largely depends on one's predisposition with regards to the subject. To me "Palestine" is a nation—it may not be a properly functioning state yet, but it's a separate polity with its own governmental institutions (all of which, not just the PNA, are currently outlined under this article). But people who are either pro- or anti-Palestine will no doubt see this move as an attempt to portray it as a country like any other. The purpose of WP:COMMONNAME is to uphold NPOV by allowing us to ignore multiple conflicting POVs and relying instead on what name the reader will most commonly look for. So us deliberately avoiding the use of the common name (under the pretext of WP:NPOV) is actually contrary to our very intent. Nightw 20:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
And "Palestinian territories" is no good, since neither the State nor the PLO have anything to do with that entity. Nightw 20:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Night w, on a side note I'm glad you realized that it's not only PNA out there.
Nations (in the sense of people, shared ethnicity, etc.) don't have international relations in the diplomatic sense that "foreign relations of X" articles are about (of course people-to-people contacts occur in the world, but this is a separate issue from the official political relations) - the political entities of the nations conduct these relations. PNA conducts relations, SoP conducts relations, PLO conducts relations. So, if 'FR of Palestine' is about the relations of the Palestinian people in non-political sense then the 'foreign relations' part of the title should be changed; if 'FR of Palestine' is about relations in political sense then the 'Palestine' part of the title should be changed to specify the political entity conducting these relations (i.e. the PLO). "what name the reader will most commonly look" - that's what disambiguation pages and redirects are for. Currently Foreign relations of Palestine is a redirect for a reason. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite the fantasies of the PA and their allies, there is no functioning state of palestine in any meaning of the word. There are two entities that have separate "foreign relations", which themselves split part of the land claimed by each of them (I cant even say "claimed by palestine" or "claimed by the palestinians" it just doesnt make sense). The PLO was recognized as the "legitimate representative of the palestinian people" NOT of palestine. So you cant say that its akin to the State Dept. Until they establish a functioning state (If ever), it should remain FRPNA. Also, concur with greyshark and nickct. Metallurgist (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't about the State. The article describes foreign relations of three largely integrated but officially separate institutions, only one of which fits under the title FRPNA. "Palestine" is the name commonly used for all three and the name commonly and effectively linking all three. Nightw 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
We are not supposed to make such "effective links" ourselves - the PLO is the entity that we have sources showing that it "links" the other two. If we are going to fit the relations of all three entities in a single article, then it has to be 'FR of PLO'. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that the PLO/PNA/SoP distinction is made even clearer in the lead. Whatever the labyrinthine technicalities of the correct definitions, Palestine is used very widely as the wp:commonname - we should not get lost in the detail. It is much more readable to have one article to encapsulate all the forms of Palestine which explains these definitional issues to people - and which will act as a good place to summarise all the smart points that Alinor makes. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    I support a single article - but it should have a non-ambiguous and specific name - 'FR of PLO' - per WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a need for you to post something under every comment? You've contributed nothing new here. We are aware of your stance on the proposal. You're like a parrot. Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth...! Nightw 18:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
My name is used in the above comment, but anyway - I would appreciate it if Night w refrains from useless comments like that above. It would have spared me writing the previous sentence. Alinor (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis on that it is recognized as state by a majority of countries, nations and people in the world. They can vary in extent and degree, but they recoginize it nevertheless. Also, if I am looking information up, I am looking for "Palestine" and not PNA. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    The 'majority of states' (I would say 'all states') recognize the PNA right to declare a Palestine state in the future. But if we speak about recognition of the already declared SoP (not by the PNA) it's not so obvious whether it's a majority of states or only 60 of them (see sources here). In any case we should name the article according to WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME - thus in the ambiguous case here we should specify the entity conducting the relations - the PLO - it represents in a different ways the other two entities (PNA and SoP). Alinor (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, stop filling this thread with nonsense from that ridiculously POV sandbox you've conceived. The numbers are given in the article, and the lowest is >50%.
Have you even read these guideline pages you're blindly citing? WP:PRECISE states that articles should not contain needless disambiguation (in your own words: "'Palestine' is common name for three entities - PLO, SoP, PNA". Since the article covers all three of these, precision would dictate simply "Palestine".
"Per WP:COMMONNAME" ... Per what part??? The common name for the subject we're dealing with you rightly identify (in your comment 07:51, 12 April) as "Foreign relations of Palestine". So what part of the policy are you citing as reason for opposing? Nightw 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The numbers in the article are under dispute, as you are well aware. The current article is not a stable status quo version. You are under AE obligations to resolve it, but instead you lodged this move request as procedural trick to avoid having the discussion you are obliged by AE to participate in.
What is POV in the sandbox? You were obliged to answer this long time ago, but you didn't. Instead we should deal with petty tricks.
Anyway, you ask about the policies - see below excerpts of what I refer to:
WP:PRECISE - "However, because pages cannot share the same title, it is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have another meaning."
WP:COMMONNAME - "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, ..., editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above." Alinor (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What other article might be titled "Foreign relations of Palestine"? There's only one article covering Palestinian foreign relations... And I'm not "obliged" do anything. If I want to make changes to the article, I'll discuss them first, but other than a rename (hence the RM request...) I don't have anything particularly pressing in mind. Your proposals above are still ongoing, but as of yet haven't received any significant level of support (shock horror). Nightw 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The title you propose is ambiguous and by reading it it's not obvious about relations of what entity the article is about - about PLO relation, SoP relations or PNA relations. Alinor (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It's about all of them... So there's no issue of ambiguity. The subject is ambiguous in nature anyway, since there's no definite line between the different institutions in many cases. Whatever. I'm not continuing to debate this with you, since you're obviously unwilling to listen to anything any of the editors on here are telling you. Nightw 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a definite line between the different entities (PLO and SoP are not institutions) - yes, there are some PLO-SoP and PLO-PNA linkages (but no SoP-PNA linkages) - some institutions have the power to act in the name of two entities, the same person holds posts in different institutions in each entity - and all three share the same "goal" (Palestinian people to become independent from Israel). That's why "at first sight" some people get confused and can't differentiate between the entities - but this doesn't mean that Wikipedia articles should use confusing names. Alinor (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The AE decision on a complaint lodged by third party against Night w was that Night w and Alinor as the most actively editing recently - these two editors should not make edits to the article unless discussed - you are obliged to participate in the discussions - not only those started by you, but also those started by me. Instead of complying with the AE decision you archived the not complete discussions - without my agreement. Alinor (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Is anything you just said relevant to this move proposal? ...Just more whinging over past petty grievances. Get over it. And stop insisting that I'm "obliged" to respond to "discussions started by you". What rot. Nightw 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes you are. If you don't participate - then don't complain when appropriate changes are implemented. Alinor (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's remember that the "State of Palestine" makes up a very small portion of this article's subject. This is one of three Palestinian institutions with foreign relations. The legitimacy of Palestinian statehood isn't really relevant here. Nightw 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    No, actually the biggest part of the article - the table of recognitions and the paragraphs about it - it is focused on SoP. Maybe this is a shortcoming of the article and more content should be devoted to other issues - but currently that's the status quo. Palestinian statehood is relevant - this is the major issue of foreign relations of any of the entities. And yes, I understand editors expressing concern that using 'FR of Palestine' article title is problematic not only because it's ambiguous and non-specific - but also because it implies non-disputed actually implemented statehood. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not see how we can justify lumping in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank together. They have different governments. There is even a small possibility of a Three-state solution. Not how that wikilink addresses the first point (the two different are different at least leadership wise). Furthermore, "Palestine National Authority" and its relations deserve their own article. So this may need to be split up but a rename doesn't fix anything. So procedural oppose since it is not the actual solution we are looking for. Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Cptnono the Hamas de facto government and the PNA do not claim to be governing different states, just different parts of the same one. In March 2008 the leadership of the two sectors signed a declaration at Sana'a, Yemen in which they affirmed the unity of the Palestinian people, territory, and authority. See for example, Quigley, The Statehood of Palestine pages 216-217. The Palestinian institutions in the West Bank, continue to function for Palestine in international diplomacy. The PLO Executive Committee and the Palestine National Council determine the formation of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine "in accordance with circumstances and the evolution of events". See General Assembly document A/43/928 [36] The President of the PNA has been in talks with Hamas officials in the West Bank and called today for the PLO Constitution Committee to be convened. According to the 2005 rules members from all Palestinian factions must be represented in the committee.[37] harlan (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      PNA doesn't claim to govern a state. On the contrary, the PNA has announced that they expect to declare a state in the future (Sep2011).[38] Hamas government institutions in Gaza claim to be the legitimate PNA government and this of course contradicts with the claim of the PLO supported PNA institutions in the West Bank. Do you have a source showing that Hamas government accepts to be represented abroad by the current West Bank government? The Gaza and West Bank administration hold talks on different occasions and every time they support the goal of "unity", but so far such isn't achieved and Cptnono point is valid - WP:CRYSTAL - such unity may be achieved or it maybe will not be achieved.
      The A/43/928 document is a letter by PLO representative to the UNSG. It's not endorsement of SoP by the UN. And also, it's not about the PNA (in 1988 there was no PNA - it was envisioned in 1993 accords and implemented in 1994), but about SoP provisional government. Here "provisional" means "until such time as the Palestinian people exercises full sovereignty over the land of Palestine" (and Sayigh, Yezid interprets that as "government-in-exile" in his 1999 work). The PLO-EC is to perform the functions of provisional government until it presents to the PCC the actual provisional government for approval. This hasn't happened yet, so the PLO-EC continues to act as provisional government of SoP. This is entirely unrelated to the PNA and I don't see why you mention it.
      The Israeli Jerusalem Post link is interesting. Compare it with this non-Israeli report. They basically say the same thing, but the Israeli source writes "PA President Abbas" instead of "President Abbas". Becasue "President Abbas" in the context of PLO (the report is about what "Abbas asked the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization") means "SoP President" (and PLO-EC is performs the functions of SoP provisional government) - and Israel doesn't recognize the SoP. Then it's explained that a PLO Constitution Committee established in 2005 and not operating since 2006 is to be re-convened in order to amend the PLO Charter before 31 September 2011 when the PNA is expected to make statehood announcement (so, maybe SoP and PNA will be merged in Sep2011 - but they are not yet). Alinor (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see how we can justify splitting the two, since they both act in the name of the same institution. Libyan foreign relations are all covered rightly under the same article, despite that there are now two competing governments recognised internationally. Nightw 07:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      "they both act in the name of the same institution" - which institution? Both PLO and PNA act in the name of the Palestinian people/nation - but this isn't an institution. That's the problem - the foreign relations article title should specify the institution conducting the relations. And we can easily split these - I have explained how in the other discussion section above on this talk page. Alinor (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • States have governments, population, and territory. Most of the B.S. here is caused by one disruptive editor who refuses to accept published sources which explain that the PLO and PNA are "the Government of Palestine" and that they have overlapping functions in the area of foreign relations. FYI, the PLO circulated declarations as General Assembly documents which explained that it was the provisional government of the State of Palestine. I provided a link to one in my post immediately above. Here is a quote from another one

        The Central Council, at its meeting held in Tunis in the period between March 31 and April 3rd, 1989 held that: Based on the Basic Order of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the resolution of the Palestine National Council ["PNC1'] passed in its 19th session, the Central Council has resolved, in order to assert Palestinian sovereignty and the Palestine State, to nominate Yasser Arafat, the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, as President of the State of Palestine. The Council has charged the Executive Committee with the responsibility for drafting the by-laws, the guidelines and working regulations, in accordance with the PNC's resolutions, including those of the duties of the President of the State and other institutions. All said regulations shall be presented to the Central Council in its next session for its endorsement. The Executive Committee shall, until the formation of a Government, continue to assume the responsibilities of the Provisional Government in accordance with the PNC resolution -- See the text in IV Palestine Yearbook Int'l L. 312 (1987/88).[39] harlan (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

        PNA is not "government of the State of Palestine". The PLO-EC functions as "provisional government of the State of Palestine". See the link that you provided above.[40] You are making a mix-up thesis not supported by sources - the PLO informed the UN about SoP declaration, etc. - but that in no way means that the "UN recognizes SoP", that SoP is observer state at the UN or that PNA is SoP government. The "new" link that you provides shows nothing more - it shows that PCC elected Arafat to be SoP President and tasked the PLO-EC with regulating the duties of the post SoP President. It also re-iterates what the previous link stated - that the PLO-EC will perform functions of SoP provisional government until PCC approves the SoP government-in-exile.Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. Of course this is unrelated to the PNA since it's about 1989 events and PNA was envisioned in 1993. What do you claim? That the PNA is the government of SoP? Alinor (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Alinor we don't need your analysis of the link I provided to UN Document A/43/928. You always employ circular logic and fallacies based on missing intermediaries instead of published analysis. The thing that is really annoying is that I'm citing published analysis which specifically debunk's your unpublished thesis. You are arguing against the inclusion of published material that contradicts your unpublished thesis based upon your own interpretations.
        • The fact that the PLO is part of the provisional government does not preclude the PNA from being part of the provisional government. John Quigley cites and quotes UN Document A/43/928 on pages 155-156 of "The Statehood of Palestine" and devotes an entire book to the proposition that the PLO/PNA are the "government" component of the "population, territory, and government" that make up the present State of Palestine. Of course a government is not a state, but you are begging the question if you claim that a government cannot conduct the foreign affairs of a state. You constantly insist that "Palestine" in the UN is only the PLO and fail to mention that the PLO, e.g. the PLO-EC and PLO-Palestinian National Council, are part of the law making, foreign relations, and treaty making arms of the "provisional government of the State of Palestine". So, they are not merely the representatives of the Palestinian people. On page 195 Quigley cites the reference to the ECOSOC resolution in the Secretary-General's historical note and an earlier discussion (page 145) of the admission of the PLO by the UN ECOSOC as a member of the Economic Commission for Western Asia in 1977. Several members objected that the Commission was only open to states and claimed the PLO was not a state. The Legal Affairs department noted that the Council had in the past created the category of associate members considering that, not being States, they lacked the capacity to become full members of these commissions and said that mixed-type membership (i.e., both States and other entities) would be an important change in the constitutional practice of the past thirty years. It summed-up however by saying "there is no legal impediment to the Council granting membership to the PLO in ECWA. However, for the above-stated reasons, it would appear more consistent with constitutional practice for the Council to create a special category of membership in ECWA to accommodate the PLO. See page 37 [41] Quigley and others note that the ECOSOC disregarded the objections and admitted the PLO as a member of the UN Commission. The rules of the ECWA and ESCWA indicated that Palestine was admitted as a member state of the Commission, e.g. See page 5 [42] Quigley also cites Eric Suy, "The Status of Observers in International Organizations ", Recueil des cours de l'Académie de droit international, Vol 160, 75, 132-133 at 168 (1978 II) and Theodor Meron, The Composition of the UN Regional Economic Commissions and the PLO, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 28, 1979.
        • On pages 186-187 Quigley says that (a) statehood was not enumerated in the Oslo agenda items for a final settlement; (b) that Palestine had already made known its position on statehood in 1988 before the Oslo process began; and (c) that the Interim Agreement of September 28 of 1995 contained a safeguarding clause, Article 31(6), which preserved the parties previous claims and positions.
        • I've given you links and page numbers to the published analysis of John Quigley, Michael Kearney, Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC Registrar, and newspaper articles which reported that the PNA Justice and Foreign Minister hand-delivered a Declaration to an international intergovernmental treaty body accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC on behalf of the "Government of Palestine". At the time, the ministers said that "Palestine is a legal state". Kearney's paper doesn't say that the PLO has criminal jurisdiction or operates courts, it demonstrates that the PA does: "It demonstrates that the PA can legitimately prosecute individuals responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC regardless of the nationality of the individuals concerned and that the PA has the ability to enter into international agreements. It concludes by asserting that the ICC may validly consider Palestine to be a state for the purposes of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute and may accept the transfer of jurisdiction from the PA to the Court in line with the Statute and the principles of international law." At the time, the PNA Justice Minister mentioned in these reports was an ex officio member of the League of Arab States (LAS) Council of Arab Ministers of Justice. The PNA Foreign Minister was an ex officio member of the (LAS) Council of Foreign Ministers, and an ex officio member and Deputy Chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Council of Foreign Ministers. See for example paragraph 6 of OIC Report Of The Thirty-Sixth Session Of The Council Of Foreign Ministers Palestine is a member state in those organizations and the various councils of ministers adopt treaties and model legislation such as harmonizing transportation treaties, "The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice, Cairo, April 1998 [43] and "The Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism, adopted at Ouagadougou on 1 July 1999 [44]
        • FYI, a visiting scholar at the ICC, Errol Mendes, wrote that the PNA has the authority to enter into international agreements under the 2003 Basic Law (page 23). He also wrote: "The Oslo Accords can not be taken as the basis on which to judge whether there is an effective and independent government for Palestine to qualify for as a state. It should be taken as a method of resolving a belligerent occupation under Resolution 242 and 338 of the Security Council and agreeing on the division of powers and territorial jurisdictions within the occupied territory between two existing states while the belligerent occupation continues.(page 23)" Even more to the point for our discussions he wrote:

          There is an element of irrationality for anyone to suggest that the Palestinian State can not even declare independence after the Oslo Accords expired on September 13, 2000 as it contained an obligation to refrain from doing anything to undermine the object and purpose of the Accords such as a unilateral declaration of independence. There is no international law authority supporting this position and if it was accurate, it would also call into question the legitimacy of Israel’s actions since the expiration of the Oslo Accords, given the illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank. Moreover, the Palestinian Declaration had been pronounced long before the Oslo Accords and its permanence and legality has been recognized by over half the world’s states (page 30).[45]

        • You've never provided a single published source of analysis which says that the PLO/PNA can not be the competent government authorities of the State of Palestine that was declared in 1988, but I have cited several which say that they are responsible for conducting the foreign affairs of that State. harlan (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
          harlan, I'm not arguing against inclusion of published material, but against your unpublished thesis that contradict the sources we have. You try to mix your unpublished thesis among multiple citations. And sometimes it's also unclear what your thesis actually is and what you propose to include in the articles.
          "The Statehood of Palestine" book that you give above doesn't say the things as you claim - you present here what you understood from that book, but the exact quotations do not say the same thing. The same as your previous false claim the the UN treaty database mentions "the State of Palestine" on the Arab Mashreq transport agreements pages. You continue to mix "the State of Palestine" (as declared in 1988[46]) with "PLO, the UN observer non-state entity designated "Palestine"[47]". Sometimes PLO-EC is acting in its capacity of SoP provisional government - in relations with states that recognize SoP. Sometimes PLO-EC is acting as the executive body of the PLO - the organization recognized by the UN (and others) as representative of the Palestinian people. Quigley/others point to PLO membership of ESCWA as an example of international support for the statehood rights and claims of Palestinians. This doesn't mean that 1988-declared-SoP is member of ESCWA and such thing is not said in any source. Do you have a UN/ESCWA resolution about SoP joining ESCWA or succeeding the PLO seat there?
          Your link [48] is to outdated file (1995), where the more recent one ([49], 2003) is updated exactly at that place you point to. I have given you these before, but you continue to refer to the outdated one (that obviously contains a technical error that was corrected in subsequent revisions of the document).
          Quigley/others debate over every word of the Oslo Accords - but the fact is that neither "the State of Palestine" nor the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence are mentioned there. The PLO obviously has the intention to push forward the SoP, and the establishment of the PNA by the PLO obviously strengthens the PLO position, but currently SoP and PNA are not related officially - they may become related in Sep2011[50][51] - but let's wait and see.
          ICC only said that it will treat the PNA like a state for the purpose of specific articles of its statute. As you can see at [52] neither PNA nor SoP nor PLO are "States Parties to Statute of the ICC". Of course this is another "precedent" in support of the idea of Palestinian statehood rights and claims. Where are "precedents" used? In courts? What is the court that has jurisdictions to declare an entity to be or not to be a state? There is none such court. All these "precedents" are only for theoretical analysis (e.g. Quigley/others, Harlan/Alinor, etc.) and political influence (e.g. PLO/SoP/PNA and other states refer to them in their diplomatic activities). As you can note - the PNA itself doesn't claim to be a state or to be the government of the State of Palestine.
          Whether Oslo Accords ceased to be in effect in 2000 or not is disputed - Israel doesn't agree with the thesis of Errol Mendes you cite and most of the other states around the world also disagree with it.
          The State of Palestine is recognized by and is member state of the OIC and AL. I have also given you sources about that. So what? Nobody disputes this.
          I never claimed that "the PLO/PNA can not be the competent government authorities of the State of Palestine that was declared in 1988" - I said that "the PNA is not the government of SoP declared in 1988" and I we have plenty of links showing who the government of SoP is - the PLO-EC[53][54][55][Sayigh, Yezid (1999)].
          "they are responsible for conducting the foreign affairs of that State" - no. Only PLO-EC functions as SoP provisional government. Not the PNA. I assume that you are again referring to your false claim about UN Treaty Database (here you have even given an incorrect quote of it - 14:09, 15 March 2011). But it's about "PLO, the UN observer non-state entity designated "Palestine"[56]" and says[57] "Agreements adopted under the auspices of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) are open for signature by the members of ESCWA. Palestine was admitted to membership in ESCWA pursuant to ECOSOC resolution 2089 (LXIII) dated 22 July 1977, which amended paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Commission. Full powers for the signature of the Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." - you can see that the mentioned 1977 resolution about ESCWA membership is for the PLO[58] - that later got the designation "Palestine"[59].
          So, the government of the State of Palestine declared in 1988 is the PLO-EC and not the PNA. Eventually a PNA-SoP link may emerge following the Palestinian National Charter amendments and the PNA announcement of Sep2011.[60][61] We shall see what this link will be, whether the PNA will become SoP government or a different arrangement will be made. Alinor (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Our article on the State of Palestine (which should simply read Palestine (state) answers yor question: "An analysis outlining the relationship between the PLO, the PNA (or PA), Palestine and Israel in light of the interim arrangements set out in the Oslo Accords begins by stating that, "Palestine may best be described as a transitional association between the PA and the PLO." It goes on to explain that this transitional association accords the PA responsibility for local government and the PLO responsibility for representation of the Palestinian people in the international arena, while prohibiting it from concluding international agreements that affect the status of the occupied territories. This situation is said to be accepted by the Palestinian population insofar as it is viewed as a temporary arrangement.[1]" Tiamuttalk 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
          Tiamut, the quote you give is about Palestine, the UN observer non-state entity[62] and not about the State of Palestine declared in 1988. Alinor (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Franky, this is is ridiculous. Organizations do not carry out foreign relations. All our "Foreign relations of ..." pages deal with the foreign relations of countries, not organizations. The Palestinian people are represented in foreign relations under the name of "Palestine". Both the PLO and the PA participate to varying degrees in carrying out that representation, but they are representing Palestine and the Palestinian people, and not their respective organizations. Tiamuttalk 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Generally it's governments who carry out foreign relations, not "countries". Of course in almost all cases there is one government/country/state/territory. The case here is different - some countries and organizations recognize PLO as representative of the Palestinian people and have relations with the PLO.Arab LeagueUN Some additionally recognize the SoP, but since the PLO-EC performs the functions of SoP government[63] and usually the same person holds the posts of PLO-EC chairman and SoP president - this doesn't result in a "rift" or other problems (besides when the post of SoP president is vancant[64] - but this only shows that PLO and SoP continue to exist as separate entities, albeit related ones). The UN (and others) use the designation "Palestine" for the PLO.[65] Following agreement with Israel about local self-government administration in limited parts of WB/GS (mainly in Palestinian urban centers) and the establishment of this PNA by the PLO many states have contacts with the PNA, it has a MFA and the PNA 'capital' Ramallah hosts many foreign representation offices (not embassies). Nevertheless the PLO continues to represent it abroad trough the PLO missions,[66] shares personnel with the PNA MFA, usually the same person is holding the posts of PLO-EC chairman and PNA president - thus again, no "rift" or other problems between the organizations (besides when after elections PNA institutions such as PLC/PNA Prime minister or PNA president are held by people that doesn't participate in the PLO - such as Hamas where the result is a "rift" - see Fatah-Hamas conflict). The goal of the Oslo Accords is to eventually establish a Palestine state based on the PNA - that's why following the establishment of the PNA there was a gradual process of transfer of responsibilities from PLO to PNA - the "transition" described in the source you provided above. So far SoP is unrelated and separate from this process (maybe it will get involved in Sep2011 [67][68]) - it doesn't control any territory[69][70] and is not recognized by Israel who controls its claimed territory (and allows the PNA to perform some administrative functions in limited parts of it[16]) - SoP functions as government-in-exile[71][72][17] (albeit the PLO-EC physically meets inside its claimed territory SoP doesn't have control over it[note 1]) and is not related to the PNA. Alinor (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, we have three separate entities - PLO, SoP, PNA - with specific relationships PLO-SoP and PLO-PNA (and maybe eventually SoP-PNA - in Sep2011[73][74] - but let's not go in WP:CRYSTAL). All of these participate in international relations. In such case article names should point to the specific entity, otherwise they become ambiguous. If we are going to keep all this in a single article it should be 'FR of PLO' (because of the specific relationships PLO-SoP and PLO-PNA) or otherwise we can have separate 'FR of PLO' (covering PLO and PLO-SoP) and 'FR of PNA' articles. Alinor (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Alinor, the active ARBCOM remedies from the original WP:ARBPIA included a reminder to editors like yourself that it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions. I've repeatedly asked you to cite and quote reliable published sources of analysis and stop offering your interpretations of primary sources and personal observations as fact. You deleted an entire subsection on foreign recognition from the State of Palestine article over my objections and now you are claiming that the PNA and PLO are jointly considered to be the parties to agreements for which the Secretary General, as depositary, advised the other state parties that "Palestine" had become a party. Spamming the talk page with quotes lifted from the personal blog of the two cousins, Ken Jones and Jason Kimbel, who assert that the State of Palestine "is currently in exile" is evidence of extremely poor judgment and unreliable sourcing on your part. Do you have a published source of analysis that says the party to the transportation treaties for the Arab Mashreq is not "Palestine" the member state of the ESCWA? I'm not confused about what the ESCWA rules say; what the Secretary General's notices to the other parties say, or what John Quigley's analysis said.
In the discussion of those treaties in "The Statehood of Palestine" (pages 194-196), Quigley cited the published policy regarding the full powers and signatures required under the "all states formula" of the "Summary Of Practice Of The Secretary-General As Depositary Of Multilateral Treaties". See pdf file page 37 The "Vienna formula"; the,"all States formula"; & page 46 "Chapter VI Full Powers and Signature" [75] It says there that full powers can only be issued by the officials of a government of a State. Quigley also said that the PLO had originally been admitted by ECOSOC as a "member state", of the UN commission for ECWA (now ESCWA after the addition of Egypt). He explained that these treaties were only open for signature or ratification by states and that the Secretary does not accept deposits for multilateral treaties from entities that he determines are not states. He cited dozens of authorities in addition to Suy and Meron there - and in the footnotes to the discussion of "Palestine in the United Nations Economic and Social Council" on page 145 to support his analysis. The ECWA and ESCWA rules which are available from both the UN and ESCWA also say that Palestine was a state member of the UN commission and that it calls on the services of the United Nations Economic and Social Office (ECOSOC) in Beirut. See both the 1995 rules (pdf file page 5) [76] and footnote 2 and paragraph 2 of the 2003 rules (pdf file page 6). [77]
The Legal Affairs department publication Quigley cited explains that "practice of the General Assembly", is to be found in unequivocal indications from the Assembly that it considers a particular entity to be a State even though it does not fall within the "'Vienna formula". Such indications are to be found in General Assembly resolutions. The General Assembly has adopted resolutions which (a) acknowledged the Declaration of the state of Palestine; (b) that Palestine is presently a full member of several international organizations of States; and (c) that a Palestinian government had been established on part of the territory of Palestine. The text of the resolution granting Palestine its current observer privileges does all of those things. See UN document A/RES/52/250 [78]
FYI, Dore Gold asserted that granting the representatives of Palestine those privileges "violated the Oslo principles". See page 3 of the pdf file [79] He complained that the resolution mentioned the establishment of the Palestinian Authority on part of the territory of Palestine. He said it represented a transparent effort to create a political link between the draft resolution and the status of the disputed territories. The General Assembly didn't mind. It voted to give Palestine enhanced rights that the representative of Uruguay noted were reserved for UN member states. At the time, Palestine acquired more rights and privileges than either of the two non-member observer States, Switzerland and the Holy See. See for example: "The Holy See backs off from its claim for full membership of the UN, settling for the rights already held by Palestine.</a>
Amira Hess was a reliable source for her own opinion back in 2009, but not for the statement asserted as fact that the declaration of the State of Palestine "was recognized by dozens of countries, but never implemented on the ground." The establishment of the PNA was part of implementing the declaration. Her article mentions Fayyad's program of building the institutions of state. Jerome Segal said lest anyone believe that the 1988 declaration is ancient history, they should read the new Fayyad plan with more care. It cites the 1988 declaration four times, identifying it as having articulated "the foundations of the Palestinian state." See Haaertz, "The 1988 Declaration of Independence" [80] and Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State on the PNA subsection of the UN Permanent Observer for Palestine website [81]
These programs are graphic examples of the various PA Minister's conducting foreign relations directly on behalf of their state, "Palestine". Many of the international donors recognize the State, while others have pledged to recognize the State in the future. For example here is a link which says Fayyad signed an agreement that provided funding to build state institutions with the EU. [82] Fayyad's other programs are funded through a PA-UN Multidonor Trust Fund for the OPT and the UN's $575m Consolidated Appeal (CAP) for 2011, which "was developed in full consultation with the PA". The UN report says "In six areas where the UN is most engaged, governmental functions are now sufficient for a functioning government of a state." [83] The International Monetary Fund published a report saying the Palestinian financial institutions are ready for statehood.[84] These sources say that the PA has established security, law enforcement, and judicial institutions of state in part of the territory of Palestine.
FYI, Fayyad is an independent member of the Third Way Block.[85] He was not a member of the PLO and has never presented credentials to the UN from the PLO. Here is a UN Press Release which says that a Representative of "Palestine", Ali Al-Jarbawi, Minister for Planning and Administrative Development of the Palestinian Authority delivered the keynote address to a UN Seminar, entitled “The Programme of the Palestinian Authority ‘ Palestine: Ending the occupation, establishing the State’”. There are not three distinct entities mentioned in that example. Quigley writes (page 192) that when the question was raised, the General Assembly Credentials Committee decided that representatives of the permanent observer mission of "Palestine" can participate in the business of the UN without presenting credentials from either the PLO or PNA. The UN reports and resolutions about "Representation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" and "Status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" were co-sponsored by Palestine and specifically mention "their State, Palestine" and the fact that no credentials are necessary pending its full membership. They describe the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 as "their territory" and say that "the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not cover that territory". See A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly resolution, A/RES/58/292, 17 May 2004 and the discussion of those resolutions on page 192 of John Quigley, "The Statehood of Palestine". The verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the resolution indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had replaced the words “Armistice Line of 1949”.[86] Do you have a published analysis which says that SoP, but not "Palestine" is the official name of their State or that the UN disputes its status?
On page 188 of The Statehood of Palestine Quigley says that Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin proclaimed that a Palestinian state could only be declared with Israel's approval. But the General Assembly has subsequently adopted resolutions which stipulate that Palestinian statehood is not subject to any veto or the peace process. See operative paragraphs 1&2 of A/RES/55/87, 21 February 2001. [87]
If you don't provide published sources which contain analysis to directly support your disputed assertions, I think it is way past time to ask an admin to rollback some of your edits. harlan (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
harlan, I repeatedly asked you two things: "what do you claim/what do you want changed in the articles?" and "which source supports this?" (since source that you give are not exactly about what it seems you claim). You haven't done so. You continue to push for your own thesis based on a mixup of relevant and irrelevant sources, personal assumptions and interpretations.
About the SoP government-in-exile - you don't like two of the sources I gave above, but then you can look at the other sources I have given along these - [88], [89]. For the same thing using the official term utilized by SoP institutions themselves see [90] and [91] - "A provisional Government shall be formed for the State of Palestine", "provisional system of government until such time as the Palestinian people exercises full sovereignty over the land of Palestine", "The Palestine National Council hereby entrusts the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization with the powers and responsibilities of the provisional Government until such time as the formation of the Government is declared."
There is no UNSG or ESCWA source showing any relation between the State of Palestine and any part of the UN System. The Quigley source also doesn't say such thing - it only gives the example of PLO/PNA participation at ESCWA as precedent for a state-like act that is to support his thesis that Palestinian people are treated as separate from Israel, with their own sovereignty, right of self-determination/independence, etc. I have asked you multiple times to present the UN/ESCWA resolution granting SoP membership or for succession of PLO by SoP - you haven't provided such. I have provided you the sources for PLO admission to ESCWA,[92] for PLO adopting the designation "Palestine" (not for PLO succession by "State of Palestine")[93] and for UNSG accepting 'PLO/Palestine' to be represented jointly by PLO/PNA.[94] (you have given incorrect quote of this source previously) And no section was deleted from SoP article - I proposed to keep it, but others said that it's duplicated in the article here, so a 'main article: ...' was added and the section shortened. The updated ESCWA rules you mention don't say "State of Palestine is member of ESCWA", but "The present members of the Commission are: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Egypt and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were admitted by decision of the Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 2088 (LXII) and 2089 (LXII) of 22 July 1977."[95] - "Palestine" is PLO[96] and is member since 1977[97]. The "Legal Affairs department publication Quigley cited" is this and it doesn't mention "Palestine". It explains which entities are considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as States by the international community" - and neither PLO nor SoP nor PNA are one of these. This is the UNGA resolution that acknowledges the 1988 SoP proclamation (e.g. the UNGA announces that it has been informed about this declaration) doesn't in any way recognize SoP, nor does it give SoP any status in the UN System (including ESCWA[98]) - and the PLO remains to the present as UN observer non-state entity[99] - just as it has been since 1974.[100]. Subsequent resolutions that grant additional rights to the PLO (referred to as "Palestine" by the UN) doesn't change that (there is no source showing something else). PLO and PNA are members/observers at several organizations, but of course not "as State". SoP is member at OIC, AL and maybe NAM, IPU, G77 (it's unclear if NAM/IPU/G77 membership is held by SoP or PLO or PNA) and of no UN System organization. I think the main issue that gets you confused is that the UN uses "Palestine" as designation for the PLO non-state observer entity[101][102] - you mix up this Palestine with the State of Palestine declared in 1988. What procedural rights some of the observers have at the UNGA (to speak, to present documents, etc.) is irrelevant to what you seem to claim (what is it? That SoP is UN observer and ESCWA member and that PNA is the SoP government? All of these contradict the sources we have). Anyway, if you are interested you can see that the Holy See[103] has more rights than the PLO.[104]
"The establishment of the PNA was part of implementing the declaration [of the State of Palestine of 1988]." - any quote for that? The sources presented so far show the opposite.
Any quote for "PA Minister's conducting foreign relations directly on behalf of their state, "Palestine""? Not for PA foreign minister conducting relations on behalf of the PNA or tasked by the PLO to conduct relations on behalf of PLO/Palestine or conducting relations on behalf of PNA/PLO/Palestine and seeking recognition of PNA idea to declare and establish a Palestine state. Links that you give show general support around the world and show that the PNA institutions "are ready for statehood" (not that they already have "established ... state in part of the territory of Palestine." as you claim). But they haven't even declared their PNA-based state yet. They have the intention to do so in Sep2011"Yes we are ready (for statehood). Are we ready for September? Absolutely," al-Maliki said and maybe the Sep2011 declaration will be somehow linked to the 1988-SoP-declaration.[105] That's about declaring a Palestine state by the PNA in the future. About establishing sovereign control "in part of the territory of Palestine" by this future-PNA-state and/or the 1988-declared-SoP they will need Israel to terminate its occupation[106][16] - unilaterally or following negotiations with PLO/PNA or forced by outside influences (diplomatic and/or military).
"UN Press Release which says that a Representative of "Palestine"," - yes, that means of the PLO who is referred to by the UN as "Palestine".[107]
"specifically mention "their State, Palestine""[108] full quote is "Expressing its hope that the Palestinian people will soon exercise sovereignty in their State, Palestine," (emphasis mine) - so the source you gave contradicts your claims (and of course nobody claims that Israel has credentials to represent the Occupied Palestinian Territory or the Palestinian people). The other source you gave also says "Affirming the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty and to achieve independence in their State, Palestine," and "Expresses its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a just and comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States, Israel and Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders and living side by side in peace and security." - also contradicting your claims. The next source you gave includes statement by representative at the UN speaking on behalf of the UN observer non-state entity "Palestine", who says "What is negotiable is the process that will lead to the establishment of two viable, independent and sovereign States — Israel and Palestine — based upon the pre-1967 borders." and the statements by the UN members are similar - they all contradict your claims.
"Do you have a published analysis which says that SoP, but not "Palestine" is the official name of their State or that the UN disputes its status?" - all sources given by you and me above show that the "State of Palestine" (declared in 1988) has no status whatsoever at the UN and that "Palestine" is the designation used in the UN System as reference to PLO, a non-state entity who is a UN observer. See Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice;" and "Other entities having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and are maintaining permanent offices at Headquarters - Palestine".
So, if you want your claims ("The State of Palestine is UN observer, UN ESCWA member and the PNA is its government") mentioned in the article - please provide sources stating that. I doubt you can - since such have to contradict all the sources you, I and others have provided so far. Alinor (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


First of all, you can take your personal arguments against Quigley, Meron, Suy, and the hundred or more countries that recognize the state of Palestine somewhere else. You are violating active WP:ARBPIA remedies when you engage in prolonged unsourced wikilawyering to exclude verifiable published views because you disagree with what the authors had to say. The expression of support for the Palestinians to exercise sovereignty in their occupied state does not mean that the state does not already exist. That is a point that Errol Mendes and John Quigley make rather emphatically in the links and quotes I provided above.

Secondly I pointed out the published sources which say that the General Assembly acknowledged the establishment of an elected Palestinian government on part of the territory of Palestine in 1998 - and that the question of credentials had subsequently been raised. The representatives of Palestine conducting routine business in the UN do not present any PLO credentials. Like Fayyad, Ali al-Jarbawi [109] is an independent minister who is not a member of the PLO. Your claim that he was representing the PLO, and not the state of Palestine is WP:Synth. That is another example of the circular logic you are using based upon the fallacy of a missing intermediary.

You continue to quote documents from 1989 when the PLO headquarters was located in Tunisia. I pointed-out to you on a previous occasion [110] that the PLO headquarters is located in Rammallah, Palestine today. So, the PLO is not "in exile". See [111] and [112]. Forming a "Provisional" government has nothing whatsoever to do with being "in exile". Here for example, is a reply to the UN from the "Provisional Government of Israel in Tel Aviv", dated 22 May 1948. [113] FYI, the PLO was paying the salaries of teachers and other public sector workers in the occupied territories and there were PLO members living there 1989.

I gave you a link to the press notice above which said PM Fayyad signed an agreement to fund "state institutions" with the EU [114] and a report which says UN, the Quartet, and the international donors have been funding the development of "state institutions" for several years under the Palestinian National Plan and that the UN CAP and Trust fund are also used for that purpose. The UN report also says (page 16) that the CAP was developed in full consultation with the PA and that donors should consider it and the Trust fund critical complements to the "PA’s state-building efforts".[115] The AHLC was established by the government of Norway in 1993. Many of the donor states and organizations have recognized the state of Palestine all along: United States, Canada, Egypt, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Jordan, Tunisia, Russia, Germany, Italy, Kuwait, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, the World Bank, the Islamic Development Bank, the Saudi Fund for Development.

I obviously want the article renamed to foreign relations of Palestine. But for right now, I'm demanding that the correct party named on the UN deposit notices, i.e. "Palestine" be named as the contracting state party and that the article explain that the compenent state authorities who issued the full powers are the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority. I've given you third-party verifiable primary and secondary sources which establish all of that. The article currently contains unsourced WP:Synth: "The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority jointly [note 17] are accepted as party to the following international agreements about transport in the Arab Mashreq: Road, Rail, Maritime." The Secretary General sent deposit notices to the other state parties advising them that Palestine had become a party. Quigley and the ESCW say that Palestine is a ESCWA member state. This is not a content dispute, this is an WP:ARBPIA policy violation dispute. You've been asked to provide sourcing for the analysis contained in the current version of the article and you obviously don't have it or refuse to provide it. harlan (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have personal arguments with Quigley&co - I have personal arguments with your interpretations of theirs and others sources. Quigley&co sources you give don't support your claims, on the contrary. "The expression of support for the Palestinians to exercise sovereignty in their occupied state does not mean that the state does not already exist." - the State of Palestine exists de jure/per CTS/according to the 1988 PNC declaration/according to the states who recognize SoP/have established diplomatic relations with SoP/as "government in exile". But SoP doesn't have control over any territory (its territory is occupied by Israel)/doesn't exist per DTS/according to the UN/according to the states that don't recognize SoP and don't have relations with it. So, SoP is a de jure-only state without de facto control of any territory (except embassies and other extraterritorial properties on the territory of foreign states). I can give you again the sources for that if you can't find these in past discussions and on the articles. Almost universal worldwide support for PLO/PNA right to establish a state in the Palestinian territories is present (actually I don't know a source showing any objection to that. Even Israel "supports" it - they have signed the Oslo Accords - albeit Israel wants this to be achieved trough negotiations, where naturally the PLO/PNA patience to endlessly negotiate may run out at some point - and recently there are sources showing that it may run out in Sep2011). All this doesn't support your claims.
"I pointed out the published sources which say that ..." - no, you haven't. The sources you gave don't say such things. What does "Member of the PLO" mean in reference to a person? Member of some of the PLO institutions (PNC, PCC, PLO-EC)? Member of some of the 10 PLO member organizations (Fatah, DFLP, PFLP, etc.)? Nobody claims that PLO permanent representatives at the UN are one of those - they are appointed by PLO-EC/PCC/PNC, but it's not necessary that they hold a post in some of these institutions. And more so for other officials of PLO or PNA institutions (PLC, PNA cabinet, etc.) who conduct relations with the UN. I ask you again to provide a source stating that the State of Palestine is UN observer, UN ESCWA member and its government is the PNA. So far you have provided none such source. You and I have given plenty stating the opposite.
Nobody claims that the PLO is in exile. The SoP is in exile November 2001 - in the sense that it doesn't have control over its own territory. I have given you sources showing that SoP institutions meet in Ramallah, but this doesn't mean that they have control over Palestine or the Palestinian territories. I have given you sources showing that they don't have such control. In the case of State of Palestine a "provisional government" means "the provisional system of government until such time as the Palestinian people exercises full sovereignty over the land of Palestine."[116] - according to the PNC that declared SoP. It's called "in exile" by sources such as [117] and others given above. It seems that you are confused by the 'Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority' envisioned in the Oslo Accords that became established as the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). It's not related to SoP and SoP provisional government functions continue to be executed by the PLO-EC - regarless of PNA establishment in 1994.[118][119] There is no source showing any relation of PNA with the SoP.
"PLO members living there" - irrelevant. You and your family live in your country, but this doesn't mean that you have control over it. Even if you establish some organization and declare as its aim to get such control.
The links you gave about foreign donors supporting the PNA institution building process say such things as "September 2011 target date for completion of institutional readiness for statehood set by the PA and supported by the Quartet." , "well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future", "institutions of a potential State of Palestine", "persistent measures of occupation", "fall short of what is required to lay the economic and institutional basis for statehood throughout the occupied Palestinian territory", "progress in building the structures of a future Palestinian state", "strengthen the institutions of the future Palestinian state", "foundations of a future viable Palestinian State", "a way that guarantees the end of occupation and the establishment of the state", "to help prepare the Palestinian Authority for statehood". All this is about a potential future Palestine state to be established based on the PNA institutions that are currently build with the foreign support you cite. This is not about the State of Palestine declared in 1988 and its separate institutions. Of course most probably these would be merged together by the PLO - but we don't know yet how this will be arranged.[120]
"I'm demanding that the correct party named on the UN deposit notices" - OK, the source says "Palestine - Agreements adopted under the auspices of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) are open for signature by the members of ESCWA. Palestine was admitted to membership in ESCWA pursuant to ECOSOC resolution 2089 (LXIII) dated 22 July 1977, which amended paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Commission. Full powers for the signature of the Agreements were issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority." Quigley and the ESCWA do not say that the State of Palestine is a ESCWA member state. You claim that, but they say the opposite - Quigley says that PLO (designated "Palestine" at UN-ESCWA) gaining membership in ESCWA is an argument supporting their claim for establishment of independent sovereign state, supporting their right to do so and showing that many states already treat the PLO like a state - in addition to those that recognize the State of Palestine declared in 1988; UN ESCWA says that PLO is its member.[121][122][123]
The article currently says "The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority jointly [note 17] are accepted as party to the following international agreements about transport in the Arab Mashreq: Road, Rail, Maritime. Note17: Palestine was accorded membership in ESCWA pursuant to ECOSOC Resolution 2089 (LXIII) dated 22 July 1977. Full powers for the signature of the Agreements were issued by the leaders of the PLO and the PNA.[124]" - what do you want changed? The footnote to be moved in the text? You know that here "Palestine" means PLO, the UN observer non-state entity[125] designated Palestine across the UN System,[126] including UN ESCWA.[127][128][129]. We don't need your WP:SYNTH mixing unrelated sources with your own interpretations to support your claims stating things contradicted by all sources we have.
So, your three claims remain unsourced: the State of Palestine is UN observer, UN ESCWA member, PNA is its government. So far you have provided sources showing the opposite. If you so much insist that the ESCWA footnote is moved above in the text, fine. Alinor (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. I've only been able to take a glance over the above back-and-froth, but most of it seems like semantics designed to overcomplicate the issue. Wikipedia shouldn't take sides and I think the most compelling arguments made were that Palestinians are represented internationally under the name Palestine and this is the name that most people will type in the search box. Good luck! Rennell435 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That's why there is a 'FR of Palestine' redirect. But the article title can not use an ambiguous term that can be a reference to three different entities. If by "Palestinians are represented internationally" you mean the entity recognized as their representative at the UN - that's the PLO, the UN uses "Palestine" as designation for the PLO, so the article should be moved to 'FR of PLO' (and 'FR of Palestine' should remain as redirect). Alinor (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you, I've understood how you think it should be. But after reading through the discussion I belive the arguments in favour of the original proposal to be much more compelling. So I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Respectfully of course! :) Rennell435 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. From all the arguments above, and from all non-biased sources I've ever read, it is obvious that this article should be renamed to reflect the fact of the State of Palestine in international recognition and law.Biraqleet (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
How is that a problem? Nobody is suggesting moving it to "Foreign relations of the State of Palestine"... Nightw 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The user above mentioned SoP. From his comment it seems that he thinks the article should be titled "FR of Palestine" because SoP has 'international recognition'. This position implies that 'Palestine=SoP' and disregards 'Palestine=PLO' and 'Palestine=PNA'. And while there is a SoP-PLO link, there is no SoP-PNA link - and that's what I note above - if an article is going to be titled 'FR of Palestine' (with topic SoP relations) then we should have a separate 'FR of PNA' article (the current title) - thus the position of the above user contradicts the proposal to move 'FR of PNA' somewhere else. Alinor (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palestine has not existed since 1948. If the article is renamed Foreign Relations of Palestine, any material that relates to foreign relations after that date will be deleted as off-topic.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Palestine is the name of a geographical region, historical non-independent entity, the Roman name for Israel/Judea—anything but a current political entity. Unless Palestine becomes a state, and at least a UN member, there's nothing to discuss here. There is also nothing wrong with the current name, as the PNA is descended from the PLO. —Ynhockey 20:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Huh? You're arguing that the PNA, subordinate to the PLO, is attributable for the actions of its parent organisation? And for those of the "State of Palestine"?—something it has nothing to do with? Whether you think the political entity exists or not is irrelevant, since a) the UN disagrees with you, and b) foreign relations are being carried out on its behalf—under the name "Palestine". Nightw 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
If we are to use the "Palestine, the UN observer entity" reasoning, then we should move the article to 'FR of PLO', because the PLO is the UN observer entity that the designation "Palestine" is utilized for by the UN.[130] Alinor (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If the UN changed the name of the observer representative for Palestinians from PLO to "Palestine", why would use the old name (PLO) and not the current and official name (Palestine)? Its clear that Palestinians are represented in the international arena under the name "Palestine". ow long is Wikipedia going to ignore that fact? Tiamuttalk 07:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The official name of the PLO is not for the UN to decide. Just like the official name of Israel or any other state is not decided by the UN. The official name of the PLO is still PLO. What the UN can decide is what designation to use when referring to one of its member states, observer entities, etc. For example FYROM is used by the UN as designation for a state whose official name is "Republic of Macedonia" according to its own law.
"Palestine" is the designation utilized by the UN for the PLO. But also the same term is utilized by others to refer to SoP and to the PNA. If the topic of the article are the relations of all three of these entities (SoP, PLO, PNA), then it has to be titled 'FR of PLO' because PLO is the only one of the three that has relationship with all of the others. There are SoP-PLO and PNA-PLO links, but there is no SoP-PNA link. Such may be established before Sep2011, but there is none currently. Alinor (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - common name, in contemporary usage "Palestine" has a well understood meaning. Well understood outside of Wikipedia at least. Despite a set of users disliking that fact that this name continues to be used for a people and a territory (and a state), the name is what is used outside of Wikipedia. And as such it should be the name on Wikipedia. nableezy - 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    "people" and "territories" don't have "foreign relations". Governments of states and other similar entities have foreign relations. "FR of Palestine" is ambiguous since it's unclear whether it refers to relations of SoP, PLO or PNA. Alinor (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name, which distinguishes between the ancient region and the current political attempt. In addition to the reasons outlined above, the NPOV and confusion concerns warrant that the status quo remain.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Alinor, Brewcrewer. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the proposed new name would add imprecision to the article's name and reduce clarity about the scope of the article. The proposed name would also mean Wikipedia would be, in effect, "taking sides" regarding a complicated political issue, and thus violates WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but how on earth does the proposed name add imprecision? Have you read the article? It's about foreign relations of three highly-related but wholly-distinct entities that all come under the name "Palestine". The PNA is just one of these entities and it has absolutely nothing to do with one of the other three (and subsequently nothing to do with at least one-third of the article). And how would it be "taking sides"? We're not proposing any reference to "statehood" in the title. It's just Palestine. Nightw 07:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It adds imprecision because its ambiguous. "just Palestine" is ambiguous when there are 3 entities using this name. And of course it implies statehood - just look at the comments above - many people who don't bother with the details assume automatically that 'FR of Palestine' is about a state (so, Palestine supporters support the move proposal and Israel supporters oppose the move proposal). If you want the article to be about all three entities, then it should be 'FR of PLO', because PLO is the only of the three entities that's related to the other two (PNA is accountable to the PLO and represented by the PLO abroad; PLO-EC is SoP provisional government). Alinor (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per common name, common sense, and international recognition. If 95+ States, plus the UN say Palestine is a State, it's not Wikipedia's role to gainsay them, regardless of how irksome that might seem to any editor or group of editors.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    The UN doesn't say that "Palestine is a State", on the contrary.[131] The "Palestine" that the UN deals with is a non-state entity, the PLO.[132] And that's the problem with this move proposal - besides the SoP we have also the PLO and the PNA. And "Palestine" is utilized as designation for all of these, that's why 'FR of Palestine' is an ambiguous title and this is contrary to Wikipedia article naming policies. Alinor (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing either of you said about recognition of the "state" is relevant. This naming proposal isn't because the majority recognise the state. It's because the article discusses three distinct entities that can only collectively be discussed under the common designation for all three, and because that is the name that most readers will look for. Nightw 07:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The common link between the three entities is the PLO - the entity internationally recognized as representative of the Palestinian people, also PLO represents the PNA abroad and the PLO-EC is the SoP provisional government. So, the article should be 'FR of PLO'. The ambiguous title 'FR of Palestine' that some readers may look for can remain as redirect to 'FR of PLO' (or as DAB page if 'FR of PNA' remains as separate article). Alinor (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The common link between the three entities is Palestine, and its the common name used in international organizations for representaties of the Palestinian people. The PLO does not represent the PNA abroad, it represents Palestine and the Palestinian people. The PNA is an interim administrative body that governs the portions of Palestine that enjoy self-government and enters into international agreements on their behalf. The only umbrella article name under which both the PNA and PLO can be discussed is Foreign relations of Palestine. Tiamuttalk 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No. "Palestine" is used in UN System organizations as designation for the PLO.[133] The PLO is recognized in the same organizations as representative of the Palestinian people.[134] The PNA is established by the PLO, is accountable to the PLO-EC,[135] and is represented abroad by the PLO.[136][137][138][139] This is the de jure situation. Of course, in practice the PLO appoints many PNA officials to various international relations tasks. PNA doesn't enter into international agreements on behalf of "portions of Palestine". Physical territories doesn't conduct "international relations" - political entities do (most commonly these political entities are governments of sovereign states). That's why Palestine (the region) and the Palestinian territories doesn't have foreign relations and that's why 'FR of Palestine' is not a suitable title for the article. In our case here, where we have one state and two non-state entities (see Palestine (disambiguation)), using 'FR of Palestine' is ambiguous and misleading (because 'FR of X' articles in almost all cases are about sovereign state governments it implies that the article is about the foreign relations of the State of Palestine government. But it isn't only about that.) Foreign relations are conducted by the PLO, by PLO on behalf of the PNA, by PLO-EC (SoP provisional government) and SoP President on behalf of SoP. Also, of the three entities the PLO is the oldest and has the most 'relations' with the outside world, including the UN observer status.[140][141] So, 'FR of PLO' is the most appropriate place for these relations (of course we can also have a separate 'FR of PNA' and/or 'FR of SoP' articles) with 'FR of Palestine' remaining a redirect as it is currently (or a DAB page if we have separate FR of PNA/FR of SoP articles). Alinor (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break

Hey, this whole discussion is now deep in Too long, didn't read territory for anyone who isn't either a lawyer, a wikilawyer, or obsessed with this issue. Could the long-response posters please summarize your case here. There are three positions right? Foreign relations of Palestine covering all issues, Foreign relations of the Palestinian Liberation Organization covering all issues, and separate articles for Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, Foreign relations of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and possibly Foreign relations of the State of Palestine although some backing that position dispute the last page's existence. So can proponents explain these positions, succinctly (like the heading suggests)? Otherwise, you'll be debating among yourselves, alone.--Carwil (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ministers of the PNA are ex officio representatives of the state of Palestine at the OIC, Arab League, Group of 77, & etc. They are allowed to participate in the business of Palestine at the UN and do not have to present credentials from the PLO. Many like PM Fayyad and

What is this? More unsourced OR/SYNTH thesis or a claim+source that doesn't state what the claim states? You know, these statements look almost true, very convincing, but when you look at the sources (if any) you see that they don't say what's claimed, but something slightly different. Alinor (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is an international treaty on terrorism that was signed by the Interior Minister and Justice Minister of the PNA on behalf of the "member state" Palestine: "The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism", Adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice Cairo, April 1998 [142] Like each of the Arab Council's of Ministers, The Arab Interior Ministers' Council is an organization established within the framework of the Arab League. It is composed of the Interior Ministers of all the Arab States.[143] The Council's Secretariat General is based in Tunisia. A full time Secretary General is in charge of the Secretariat General. He is elected from among the candidates of the members states for a renewable three year term. harlan (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The PNA is not mentioned in the links you gave. Also, keep in mind that member of the Arab League is the State of Palestine and not the PNA.[144] Alinor (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Argument for Foreign relations of Palestine

  • This is reflects the current subject of the article, which covers FR conducted by all three institutions;
  • Can easily accommodate FR of the PLO, PNA and the State of Palestine under one article;
  • On the other hand, it would be extremely difficult to do a split of any kind, and not entirely feasible or effective either, since there is much overlap and the distinctions are often unclear;
  • It's easiest for readers to understand, rather than having three separate articles on what is essentially the same thing;
  • The Palestinian people are represented in foreign relations under the name of "Palestine";
  • Would bring this article in line with its daughter articles: List of diplomatic missions of Palestine and List of diplomatic missions in Palestine;
  • Supported by Wikipedia's naming conventions:
    • it's the name readers would most commonly look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles),
    • it's as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously (there is no other Palestine in the context of politics, which is established by the prefix "foreign relations"),
    • it's concise — shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones, and
    • it's consistent — titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred;
  • Disputes are irrelevant: commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment. Nightw 06:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    There are multiple issues with the above comment:
  • "current subject of the article" - No, the current article covers relations of all three entities (PLO, SoP, PNA) - these are separate entities and each of them has certain relationship with the PLO, but not all of them have relationships between each other. These are not "Palestine institutions".
  • "difficult to do a split...distinctions are often unclear" - No, the distinctions are clear, albeit it's not so easy to get to sources that describe these (but we have these sources already, so there is no problem). So, if needed, no problem to do a split.
  • It's not "the same thing" - these are three different entities and SoP has no relationship with the PNA whatsoever - so it's misleading to say "PNA and SoP are the same thing".
  • "The Palestinian people are represented in foreign relations under the name of "Palestine" - No, most international organizations recognize the PLO as their representative, including the UN,[145] who uses the word "Palestine" as designation for the PLO - but the entity who deals with the UN remains the PLO - not SoP.[146] On the other hand some states have relations with SoP.
  • No need to bring this in line with the articles mentioned, albeit their names can be changed if needed.
  • Wikipedia's naming conventions - On the contrary to what is said above, in this case there are three entities commonly associated with the word "Palestine (disambiguation)" in relation to politics - PLO, SoP, PNA. Some of them are not related to each other in any way, so the above reasons don't apply and the article title should specify whose relations the article is about. And 'FR of Palestine' will remain as redirect in any case, so "readers looking for it" would find the article without any problem.
  • No judgments needed, we just need to use a non-ambiguous name. Alinor (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • After the Oslo Accords expired on September 13, 2000, the PLO and PNA stopped observing the division of labor in the field of foreign relations. Representatives of Palestine who engage in foreign relations with the UN and other international organizations include incumbents in PNA Ministerial level ex officio positions who are neither required to be members of the PLO nor required to present PLO credentials, e.g. PM Salam Fayyad, Planning Minister Ali Al-Jarbawi, & etc. harlan (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    Whether Osolo Accords expired or not is disputed by various scholars, but the fact on the ground is that Israel, PLO, USA, Russia (the signatories to the Accords) continue to abide by these agreements. Including in foreign relations. Your claim "not required to present PLO credentials" is not supported by sources - a person doesn't need to be "member of PLO" (whatever that means for a person - PLO is not a parliament to be member of it - the PLO has institutions and member organizations, no person is "PLO member" directly) in order to be appointed by the PLO-EC for some task, including conducting of international relations. Alinor (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The UN discontinued the use of the "PLO" designation in 1988. Attempts by Wikipedia editors to revive its usage in instances where "Palestine" appears in the published sources is WP:Synth. harlan (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    The PLO continues to exist and to use its name in many official documents, including in foreign relations with states around the world. It seems that you claim that they should stop doing that and that we should disregard all these sources. The article is not only about PLO relations with the UN, but about all PLO international relations. Alinor (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Alinor the PLO has been designated as a terror organization by many governments. Wikipedia cannot be used to make heretofore unpublished claims or engage in per se libel by labeling independent party PNA Ministers as members or representatives of the PLO simply because they conduct foreign relations on behalf of "Palestine". The Palestinians have been electing and appointing non-PLO officials for many years now. That is why the UN does not require the representatives of Palestine to present PLO or other credentials. You are engaging in WP:OR guesswork. harlan (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    PLO has been designated as terror organization by many states in the past, but currently they are not so much (if any) - on the contrary there are PLO delegations, missions and embassies accepted officially by the host state governments all around the world. Which entity is this "Palestine" you mention in relation to the libel ("foreign relations on behalf of") - PLO, SoP or PNA? And I don't see any libel in the PLO-PNA relationship since the PNA is established by the PLO, represented by the PLO abroad, is "accountable to the PLO Executive Committee" and "its ultimate authority is the PLO".[147][148]
    "UN does not require the representatives of Palestine to present PLO or other credentials." - any quote for that? Also they have to present some credentials - otherwise you and I can go there pretending to be official representatives. Sources we have show that the PLO is the UN observer non-state entity.[149][150] Do you claim that SoP is UN observer state? Alinor (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Argument for Foreign relations of the Palestinian Liberation Organization

  • Foreign relations are conducted between political entities (mostly governments of states, with few exceptions), not by "people/nations" or physical territories. When a name is used only for one entity+nation+territory article titling is easy, but in this case we have one nation and three entities.
  • The term Palestine (disambiguation) is commonly associated with three separate entities conducting international relations - PLO, SoP, PNA. Of these only the PLO has institutionalized relationships with the others:
    • PNC, the legislative body of the PLO, has established the SoP in 1988 and PLO-EC is tasked with the functions of SoP provisional government.
    • PLO has established the PNA in 1994 (as interim self-government authority for Palestinians in territories occupied by Israel, envisioning establishment of a Palestinian state in the future following additional PLO-Israel negotiations) and PLO represents the PNA abroad.
    • There is no link whatsoever between SoP and PNA.
    • Article titles should be non-ambiguous - in the context of political entities (and their foreign relations) "Palestine" is ambiguous and non-specific as it can mean either one of the three entities.
  • WP:PRECISE - "However, because pages cannot share the same title, it is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have another meaning."
  • WP:COMMONNAME - "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, ..., editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above."
  • If we decide that the topic of the article should be the relations of all three entities, then we should use the 'FR of PLO', because that's the entity involved in the representation of all of them.

Argument for three (or possibly two) articles

  • Lumping together the relations of three separate entities requires a certain amount of Wikipedia editors "decision" and may be considered inappropriate.

No idea where to reply

In response to this: My position is still the same. The unity is not even official yet and the UN meeting on it hasn't even happened yet. Even when it all does go through, we have the same problem we had several years ago. "...of Palestine" is too vague. And when a state is made (10 years form now?) the article will need to be fundamentally rewritten if it is to be relevant to that entity. So yeah, renaming this IMO is a waste of time and looks like Wikipedia editors attempting to advocate a nonexistent state as if it was a state. We should not be giving that impression even if that is not the intent of editors.Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following that up. I see exactly the same thing. However, I also see Wikipedia editors attempting to push their own political opinions one way and the other. I don't know how anyone can accuse supporters of "advocating" whilst ignoring similarly POV comments by opponents. Almost every comment in this discussion presented a politicised opinion. The only arguments that I see as being relevant are what the readers will most commonly look for, what the most common name used for all three is, what the official name is in international foreign relations, and precision. Renaming this is a no-brainer to anyone who simply takes a glance at the article. The Palestinian National Authority has absolutely nothing to do with over two-thirds of the content. Even Alinor (the main opponent to the proposed rename) realises that the current name is off-topic. Nightw 11:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cptnono and with some of the Night w points. Yes, PNA is only 1/3 of the content. And in order to cover all of the content the article should be moved to 'FR of PLO' - PLO is the only one of the three entities that is related to the other two (PNA is accountable to and established by the PLO, PLO-EC is SoP provisional government) and PLO is recognized internationally as representative of the Palestinian people. After all the organization name is PLO - regardless of what designation the UN uses for it (politicized). And of course 'FR of Palestine' is going to be supported/opposed along the Palestinian/Israeli line (politicized). That's one more reason why we shouldn't use such title. 'FR of Palestine' can remain as redirect, so readers using such link will have no problems reaching the article. Alinor (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zimbabwe

All that is found on Zimbabwe - a few of these links here [151] [152] [153], waiting for comments--analitic114 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the visa information pages will require a certain amount of interpretation/assumption on our side (reasonable, but still inappropriate) - this was discussed also before - in relation to some Caribbean state and maybe also for Zimbabwe. The zimtrade.co.zw source is explicit about "SoP Embassy" and should be added to the article, but unfortunately it's unofficial, so Zimbabwe will remain where it is currently - "SoP recognition shown in unofficial sources". Alinor (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dajani in Brownlie et al., 1999, p. 121.
  2. ^ a b Israel's control of the airspace and the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip
  3. ^ Map of Gaza fishing limits, "security zones"
  4. ^ Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process: "Israel will guard the perimeter of the Gaza Strip, continue to control Gaza air space, and continue to patrol the sea off the Gaza coast. ... Israel will continue to maintain its essential military presence to prevent arms smuggling along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi Route), until the security situation and cooperation with Egypt permit an alternative security arrangement."
  5. ^ Gold, Dore (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  7. ^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  8. ^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  9. ^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  10. ^ Staff writers (20 February 2008). "Palestinians 'may declare state'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2011-01-22.:"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence".
  11. ^ Gold, Dore (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  13. ^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  14. ^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  15. ^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  16. ^ a b Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification. Israel maintains minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air,[2] sea beyond internal waters,[2][3] land[4]) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C".[5][6][7][8][9] See also Israeli-occupied territories.
    [10][11][12][13][14][15]
  17. ^ Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 624. ISBN 9780198296430. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established."
  18. ^ PLO picks new leaders at landmark meeting
  19. ^ PLO parliament elects new members.
  20. ^ Palestinian affairs.
  21. ^ Palestinian President Abbas attends a PLO executive committee meeting in Ramallah
  22. ^ Palestinian PM: Declaration of statehood just a formality: "The Palestinians already declared independence unilaterally on Nov. 15, 1988. The declaration was recognized by dozens of countries, but never implemented on the ground."
  23. ^ Top Ten Governments Currently In Exile:"The state of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988, but in exile. A declaration of a "State of Palestine" was approved on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The declaration was ignored, and eventually rejected, by the State of Israel. Israel controls the territories since 1967 Six-Day War when it captured them from Egypt and Jordan. Currently, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) envision the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, living in peace with Israel under a democratically elected and transparent government. The PNA, however, does not claim sovereignty over any territory and therefore is not the government of the "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988. Enough said."
  24. ^ Palestinians 'may declare state':"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence,"


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_State_of_Palestine/Archive_6&oldid=1136277891"