Talk:Palestinian Authority/Archive 1

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

Correct name

Correct name: Interim Palestinian Authority

Note: some of these early comments are several years old and refer to much earlier (and possibly rather different) versions of the article.


Article is racist

This whole article is full of racist, zionist lies, to the point that I don't even know where to begin, except to suggest that readers check out Palestine for a slightly more neutral article, as well as the following off-site links: http://www.electronicintifada.net, http://jerusalem.indymedia.org, http://www.palsolidarity.org, http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org. j.

Electronic Intifada as a "neutral" source? Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
??? While the site is definitely not pro-occupation, and in that sense not "neutral" since many people are pro-occupation, in what way is the site "generally" not factual? Most of what it claims, the Israeli side admits to also, and is in fact proud to do so, although with justification that resembles classic dehumanization. Just my two Agorot Ramallite (talk) 5 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

As of this writing Dec-2001, many Palestinians no longer see the Palestinian Authority as the true representatives of the Plaestinian people. They are being seen more and more as tools of the Israelis, and another way for Israel to control the Palestinians through military means. Until justice is done, and Israel is forced to leave all occupied territories, no Peace will come about. Yasser Arafat is fast losing his popular support. Unless Israel and the USA do something soon, to create a Palestinian state, The Palestinian Authority may collapse, and civil war will result. I am sure that this in the long run is Ariel "the Butcher" Sharon's agenda. - Joseph (Proud Canadian, Palestinian Refugee)

That is an imporant point. I may happen to disagree with this perception (I believe that Arafat has never been interested in doing what the Israeli government wants), but an encyclopaedia entry on a government can rightly discuss how the people view the legitimacy of that government. If the people you spoke about were only a tiny percent, it would not warrent mention. But I have read that a significan minority of Palestinians feel this way, and this may ultimately change the PA in a dramatic fashion, or overturn it entirely. I am sure that this can be added to the entry. I will add something on this, and let me know if it sounds Ok and has a NPOV (neutral point of view) RK

OK, I can live with this, the main point is conveyed. It is interesting that now, Jan 30, Yasser Arafat is a virtual prisoner of Israel. Palestinian support (of the PA) has increased marginally, perhaps this was Israels way of avoiding collapse. Many groups/factions of Palestinians now ask, Yasser Arafat: "you made peace with the Zionists and Americans where did it get you, what did we win?: they now dare to say to him that armed struggle (of any kind) is the only way. The situation is very bad. Joseph Saad

I would have to conquer the article is so slanted toward the negative and biased against Palestine that is should be scrapped. The statements within it may be true (I am not an expert I don't know) but the overall jest is not balanced. It focuses primarily on the negative, does not give an accurate history of the PA or convey causal relationships for the negatives is does portray. I would fix it myself but I am not informed enough and at the moment do not have the time to do the hours of research required.

Jason Saunders

I agree that so much of it is unbalanced that it is not worth keeping. JoshNarins 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I only found this article now, and I actually found it slanted too much toward the Palestinians. But what amazes me is that you are not informed enough yet you find it slanted. Unlike you, I AM informed, and I WILL find some time to make the article more neutral soon.
--Gabi S. 16:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence:

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is a semi-autonomous state institution nominally governing the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza?.

What does "semi-autonomous" mean? Does the PA have sovereignty in Gaza? or in the West Bank? Is Gaza still an occupied territory -- with Israeli military forces guarding/controlling/oppressing it? How about West Bank, which is divided into A, B and C sectors? Are all 3 classes of sectors still "occupied" by Israel?

The Palestinians claim they are (Israeli/settler presence still creating a de-facto occupation); according to the Fourth Geneva Convetnion, the creation of a self-government (in this case, the PA) is a way of ending a military occupation; I did not come accross comprehensive legal position documents of either side on this subject. --Uri

Please note that I am not asking whether Israel is right to occupy these. I am just asking what they are doing. Only after the 'pedia articles comprehensively state what is happening in the Middle East will it be possible to start writing the articles explaining the advocacy. (Hmm, on the other hand, maybe the dispute over what really has happened is equally contentious. Oh, well, we oughta at least try.)

Ed Poor

before being bombed by Israel, and a sea port was being constructed in Gaza but met a similar fate

The fate of the sea and air ports is discussed below.

Meanwhile, the guest workers have emerged as a new underclass in Israel.

It is not relevant to this article

More recently it has been used by Israel as a defence for its refusal to resume peace talks.

Uh, not by its own right.

Also, it is not obvious even Israel even desires such a change, as the Palestinians population has beeen radicalized by Irseali military incursions, which have killed and maimed many Palestinians.

Biased and incorrect. Look up Israeli (sp!) opinion polls; if there's something both the Left and the Right agree upon is that Arafat & Co. pose a serious impediment. --Uri

My apologies; I shouldn't have said "remove his emotional opnion." "Restore reasonably unbiased version" might be better, I hope. Would Q want to discuss this?

Many Palestinians and some Israelies hold that Israeli forces were deliberately attempting to destroy the Palestinian Authority infrastructure.

This was redundant, as the point has already been stated. Everybody knows that Israel is targetting PA infrastructure too. --Uri

The following is deleted until clarified:

The PA maintains a 45,000-man uniformed organization employing armored cars and whose members carry automatic weapons. Officially termed a "police force", it is in reality something in between a militia and an army. In violation of the Oslo Accords, it is about 3 times the size permitted.

Where does the 45,000 figure come from? Note that later in the article the count is said to be 30,000. Also the Oslo accords specify the limit as 30,000 which is 2/3 of 45,000 and not 1/3 as claimed. --Zero 13:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Misleading religion claims

The following item is misleading and of doubtful relevance to this page:

  • The Abraham's Oak "Holy Trinity" Monastery located in Hebron belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church was seized on July 5, 1997 by Palestinian Authority policemen who physically removed the monks and nuns. Several of the monks and nuns required hospitalization.

In fact, what was going on was a dispute between two rival Russian Orthodox churches that the PA intervened in. The PA took it from the group in control of the monastery and give it to another group which claimed it. Details here. --Zero 00:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

hosptalizing the monks and nuns was, of course, necessary.
there are two separate incidents...one in 2000 one "In 1997, however, at the request of Alexy II, Palestinian police expelled "White" church clerics from Hebron's Monastery of Abraham's Oak and installed their "Red" church counterparts." last line of the page. the other in 2000 "Two American nuns, including a sister of ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos, stubbornly stood their ground Monday in a monastery Palestinian police tried to seize over the weekend." [1][2]

Then we have this item:

This is false. The ancient synagogue (a ruin discovered in 1936) was not damaged. The damage was to a yeshiva built nearby in the 1990s. More information here. --Zero 00:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"When the Palestinians signed the Oslo II agreement, they promised to "ensure free access to, respect the ways of worship in, and not make any changes to, the Jewish holy sites" on land given up by Israel. [They made the same promise in the Gaza-Jericho accord in 1994 and the Hebron accord in 1997.] Among the listed sites: the venerable "Peace Upon Israel" (shalom al yisrael) synagogue in Jericho and the yeshiva at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus. Today, neither exists. In October, Palestinians burned down the synagogue. They smashed Joseph's Tomb to rubble and trampled its holy books, and announced that a mosque would be built on the site. [3]


American civil courts

In my opinion, the goings on in American civil courts are utterly irrelevant to the topic of this page. I'm only not deleting that section because I have enough on my hands at the moment. Sooner or later, it is gone. Same with the same story in Hamas. --Zero 11:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Verdicts against the PA are relevant, since the court found the PA guilty in providing safe haven to Hamas and Fatah's terrorist groups. MathKnight 10:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So if a court in Egypt or Jordan finds Israel guilty of killing civilians, you won't mind including it on this page?
  1. Hamas is not a state, but a terror organization, and as such, the US courts has legal right to confiscate Hamas founds.
  2. Also, Israeli court have still judicial sovereignity over the PA (hence Palestinians can appeal to Israeli court) and the legal right to confiscate money. The PA does not yet have a state of a state (pun not intended).
  3. Egyptian and Jordanian courts have no judicial sovereignity over Israel.
  4. These are undisputed facts and should be stated in this article - since a major claim against the PA is that it harbours terrorism.
MathKnight 16:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in the lead section blatantly questioning the legitimacy of the Police Force. This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the terming of the Force as a "para-military" organization; however, I would not head an article about the United States with complaints about the international legality of actions by the U.S. Army, and these accusations are likewise inappropriate. I understand that Palestine is subject to heated debate and argument; however, Wikipedia articles are not the place to foster such debate.

The statements seemed well supported by the footnotes and links. While the information is valid, do you think it belongs somewhere else? Jayjg | (Talk) 04:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence about the Police Force: yes, I do think it should be moved somewhere else, to an area that deals with Palestinian military matters. As I said before, it does not belong in the intro. As I sad to you previously, though, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

If you think something is in the wrong place, then deleting it is not the thing to do. Perhaps you should suggest a better place for it. Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the recent cleanup by Jayjg

First, thanks for the clean up. I don't know how so many grammatical and organizational errors got past me. I think it is because I did the revision all in one go. I need to start considering doing section edits, it appears to be more efficient, and probably helps other editors keep track. Now, specifically, regarding the quotations about the size of the PA police forces, you are quire right, the Guardian was a good source which I missed. The other 2 sources in the footnote were Israeli government sources and that's what drove that edit. I am fine with the partial revert. Also, I don't know how all that info at the end got deleted. As I was trying to save, the system told me that someone changed the article while I was working on it. I hit 'back', saved my work elsewhere, went to the history tab to examine the changes, only to see that there were none in several days, so that alert must have been a glitch. I then clicked the current revision and and did a cut and paste from my saved work. I don't know where the lost information went, I didn't mean to delete it. Also, there were several hyperlink references throughout the article which are invalid, perhaps expired. What's to be done with them? Are they to be deleted alone or also the statements they're supposed to support? Finally, I am concerned about the devotion of the vast majority of the article to criticism and heaps upon heaps of negative quotations. There is not nearly enough technical information, about departments, budgets, accomplishments, responsibilities, etc. Just mounds of criticism, without an adequate balance from PA supporters. It seems a monumental task to include all this, considering how much real estate is devoted to criticism and negative quotations.--AladdinSE 08:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been acting up under the stress, and odd things like duplications and partical duplications keep happening, particularly when one submits and then gets an error message, and then attempts to submit again. Regarding expired hyperlinks, this is a problem. Ideally they should be listed as references at the bottom, with an accessed date; there's a template for doing that. Also good would be finding fresh links that support the point. As for the imbalance, yes, it is imbalanced. Part of the problem is that the P.A. has been such a shoddy, inept, and corrupt government that there is little good one can say about it; kind of like trying to find good stuff to say about the Zanu-PF government of Robert Mugabe. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--

I was doing some basic research into the PA, and I was disappointed at this entry. If someone has something on the structure of the PA and how officials are chosen, I would be grateful. --130.127.119.76 02:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--

The section on Elections is confusing, in that it appears to contain a mixture of obsolete and more recent information; this problem is exacerbated by the use of wording such as "Currently" (as opposed to "As of 2005" or whatever, which is less ambiguous). -- Jonadab, 2005 May 9.

"Capital: Jerusalem"

Mustafaa, the link you provided specifically says that "Yasser Arafat signed a law [...] to make Jerusalem the capital of the future Palestinian state" (emphasis mine). This is by no means the same as declairing Jerusalem to be the capital of the PNA (which is silly, and as far as I know, was never done). -- uriber 20:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Area and Maps

I'm removing the "area" figure from the infobox, since it's simply incorrect - it seems to include all of the area of the West Bank (much of which is not under control of the PNA), but excludes the Gaza Strip (most of which is under the PNA's control).

Also, the maps are wrong, as they do not show which areas are controlled by the PNA.

If someone can find figures of how much area is allocated to the PNA (as "Area A", "Area B", and "Area H1" in Hebron), and non-copyrighted maps of these areas, this would be a significant contribution to this article. -- uriber 18:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

My source for the area was http://formin.finland.fi/netcomm/org/orgdata.asp?elem_id=1155&LAN=EN . But yes, it does seem to be wrong; http://www.arij.org/pub/pubarabic/envdegredation/ gives what look like more reliable figures. Here's two maps: http://www.palestinemonitor.org/maps/bantustans.htm, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/pamap.html . - Mustafaa 19:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Issue of "de facto capital"

According to the Palestinian Authority constitution, it's current legal documents, and the sentiments of the Palestinian people, the desired capital is Jerusalem. The official Palestinian position is that East Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian state. Having a listing on this page of "capital" or even "de facto capital" is misleading, as Palestine is not yet a state or country in order to have a capital city. Therefore, Jerusalem is the desired capital. At the Camp David talks in 2000, negotiations over Jerusalem centered around giving Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem, as well as the nearby village of Abu Dis. In Western media, the notion of Ramallah being the "de facto capital" has been circulating for some time, wrongly based on the following: 1- It is economically and culturally vibrant compared to the other cities of the West Bank, 2- It is proximal to Jerusalem, and 3- While hopping around from city to city in late 2001, it is where Yasser Arafat happened to be staying for the night when a double suicide bombing in Haifa caused an Israeli retaliation against him by grounding him there, leaving him imprisoned in his Ramallah compound until he was close to death in 2004, and therefore putting a lot of focus on Ramallah. But Ramallah has never once been mentioned or considered a "capital" nor is it now by the PA or the Palestinian people. The more accurate descriptions include "commercial hub", "cultural hub", or "more affluent".

De facto means in practice, which is the case. Jerusalem certainly is not the capital now, regardless of what the P.A. wants. And you haven't mentioned your other changes. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please provide a citation for your assertion that Ramallah is "in practice, the case". The whole notion is ridiculous anyway, a non-independent state cannot "in practice" have a capital. In theory maybe, but definitely not "in practice". As for my other changes, they changed what were clearly POV. Ramallite (talk) 17:51, June 21, 2005 (UTC)


Inflammatory section

Have removed the section about alleged acts against religious places because source was definitely POV and writing one-sided comments on very disputed events. For example, the invasion of the Russian Orthodox church was explained above in this discussion but editors did not correct to NPOV. The Palestinians claimed that the fugitives in the Church of the Nativity sought refuge and protection there from advancing IDF soldiers who were invading Bethlehem that night, contrary to what the article claims. The destruction of Joseph's Tomb was mostly accurate, but not placed under context of Israeli Army action in the city of Nablus preceeding these events. As numerous editors failed to correct these claims to a NPOV, it is better deleted.

The Jerusalem Times is a Palestinian Weekly, and does not use the phrase "Terrorist Activity" when referring to reasons Palestinians are arrested by Israel. It is well known that Israel has an "administrative detention" policy of nabbing "SUSPECTED" militants and holding them without trial. Therefore, most of the detainees are not convicted of any activity, let alone militant or terrorist activity. Therefore, the reference that Palestinians are in Israeli jails because of "terrorist" activity misquotes the newspaper and is a definite POV, and was therefore removed. Ramallite (talk) 21:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing properly cited information, it is considered vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of vandalism because I keep trying to abide by the rules. Please read [4]. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 01:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What exactly in that section do you think was violating WP:NPOV? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That section basically says "Here is a list of religious sites that have been desecrated in areas under Palestinian control". In the Israel article, should we also make a list of bad things that have happened in areas under Israeli control? That list would be so long it's not even funny.Yuber(talk) 01:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber makes a good point. Unfortunately, I am not naive enough to believe that I could get away with a similar list of Israeli violations because this site (or some editors) seem to have double standards. Anyway, back to Jayjg's question:

Desecration of holy sites

Implies that this is a systematic and deliberate past-time by the PA, many of whose officials are Christians. This is false and inflammatory, and reflects the POV of somebody who is engaged in defamation.

Under the Oslo Accords, the PA accepted the obligations to safeguard the holy sites, Jewish and Christian, and ensure unrestricted access by worshipers.

Again, Palestinians are made up of Muslims and Christians. The Oslo Accords were more specific towards Jewish places of worship.

The Abraham's Oak "Holy Trinity" Monastery located in Hebron belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church was seized on July 5, 1997 by Palestinian Authority policemen who physically removed the monks and nuns. Several of the monks and nuns required hospitalization.

This has already been described in the discussion above and has a NY Times reference. Arafat was buddies with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexi, and when the latter asked Arafat to get the "white" priests out of the monastery for him, Arafat complied. It has nothing to do with an attack on a Christian place per se, as the author is stating it to be.

Hours after the Israeli evacuation from Shechem (Nablus) on October 7, 2000, Palestinians desecrated and burned down the Patriarch Joseph's Tomb. The Associated Press reported that within two days "the dome of the tomb was painted green and bulldozers were seen clearing the surrounding area". It was destroyed again on October 16, 2003. (See The IDF statement, Shechem.org, WND, Palestinefacts.org)

Quoting IDF statements when writing about the middle east is a direct POV. There was a battle around the tomb that morning, Palestinian kids were thowing stones at Israeli soldiers in the beginning days of Intifada II, and that's how events went out of hand. The PA apologized for the incident and promised to rebuild, with Saeb Erekat claiming that "we are not proud of what happened" (paraphrase). From what I know, it is functional now.

Palestinian fugitives evading the IDF forced their way into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and damaged the building during their stay therein. [4]

Again quoting an extremely biased source of the type that Wikipedia does not consider reputable. This was the most misrepresented story regarding religious sites: Israeli troops invaded Bethlehem late at night, and Palestinian fighters attempted to fight them off unsuccessfully. When the army flowed in, the fighters took refuge in the one place where they thought the Israelis wouldn't dare follow. The Israelis then circulated stories that the fighters had deliberately taken over the church and taken the priests and nuns in there hostage, stories that were flatly denied by the clergymen inside. [5],[6].

The Palestinian Authority has allowed the PLO to use The Church of Saint Nicholas in Beit Jala as a base for machine gun and mortar attacks on the Israeli community Gilo.

Gilo is a settlement nestled on occupied West Bank territory, and there were numorous shooting incidents (no mortar attacks that I read of) at it from the opposite hills which contained the aforementioned church. The PLO pledged to stop the shooting (and did successfully for a while) until the Israelis re-invaded Bethlehem and Beit Jala which re-ignited the fighting.

A yeshiva built next to the site of a 1000-year-old synagogue near Jericho, entrusted to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords, has been burned and razed.

This was also discussed earlier (above).

This whole section was an inflammatory piece that is meant to state "Look how bad those Palestinians are" and a similar point of view againt Israeli atrocities would never past muster on this site. That is why I felt it best that it either be modified with an opposing point of view (in order to satisfy the NPOV requirement) or removed. Since any attempt to provide the opposing description of events, from far more reputable sources, were constantly deleted by administrators, it was best to remove it altogether. Ramallite (talk) 01:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Yuber: I agree. An article on this subject would be fair enough (if duly NPOVed, which Ramallite's previous post suggests would be a big task); making it a subsection of this article is clearly POV, and does not conform to normal practice for description of governments. It's like having a subsection on, say, orphanages funded by the PNA; relevant somewhere, but scarcely here. - Mustafaa 01:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: when he says "This has already been described in the discussion above", Ramallite is alluding to the section #Misleading religion claims above - and is right. - Mustafaa 01:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of some clean-up

  • The Palestinian Authority has historically been associated with the PLO, with whom Israel negotiated in the Oslo accords; as such, it had been headed so far by Yasser Arafat and manned almost exclusively by PLO officials, most of them locals who have participated in the Tanzim (Operations), a militant branch of the PLO and Fatah established during the First Intifada.
This is not correct. 80% of PA employees (from clerks to top officials) were local Palestinians who, though belonging to different political parties, were not considered PLO officials. However, a significant number of top-level officials were in fact PLO officials who were referred to as "returnees" by local Palestinians because they returned from exile in Tunis and elsewhere. Much to the chagrin of Palestinians, a lot of those returnees were also responsible for the corruption and negligence they brought with them. Most returnees were not associated with militant factions in Palestine, since they were considered outside bureaucrats who were not in touch with the general public.
  • Arafat's administration was criticized for its lack of democracy, the wide-spread corruption among officials, and the division of power among families and numerous governmental agencies with overlapping functions. Thus, Yasser Arafat controlled 8 distinct security organizations through various mechanisms, and his education ministry boasts more than 20 chairmen. After a single round of elections in 1996, which he won by a land-slide, Arafat cancelled elections for an indefinite period; critics claim that the resulting structure bears a strong resemblance to the dictatorial Middle Eastern regimes.
Cleaned this up, adjusted chronology.


  • In spite of attempts to pre-empt the PLO (and Arafat personally) from the West Bank and Gaza in the 1970s and the 1980s, both the Western powers and Israel had decided by the time of the Oslo Accords that Arafat's presence would be the least of evils,
This is a POV
  • he was always able to control the antagonists by repressing them with the help of his comrades; an added value is that he was able to create a smoke-screen over his actions, by asking his subordinates for something, and then at worst claiming that they did so spontaneously, as a part of their struggle with their comrades. Members of the hierarchy are rewarded for their membership with the power, goods and income flows (such as controlling the taxation of some kind of activities).
Unclear, unencyclopedic, unsubstantiated statements.


  • While granting the aforementioned advantages, this alleged scheme
scheme is a POV word
  • Arafat's overall control had diminished, parts of it being split among his subordinates. This in turn meant that he was less able to cope with non-PLO organizations, mainly the Islamic militant movements Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While on the street, the PLO and these movements are often at odds, critics claim there's a higher-order relationship among them when it comes to external affairs, in which Arafat regulated the movements' activities (see violence against Israel), for the sake of what he called "Palestinian national interest", in return for protecting them. See PLO and Hamas for more discussion on this relationship. However, the Islamic movements do enjoy a great degree of independence when it comes to internal affairs, and so after Arafat's demise as the oracle of this so called "national interest", they may become openly hostile to the PLO.
I took this section out because 1) it's a rehash of a previous point, 2) its language is POV, 3) it is not relevant to the title of the section, 4) it's not properly cited for having so many claims. If anybody wants to reinsert it, please consider a more appropriate location, and also properly cite and NPOV it.

Ramallite (talk) 22:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

"a semi-autonomous state institution"

there can be nothing "state"-like about the PA, as stipulated in the Oslo Accords.Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority has control over both security-related and civilian issues in Palestinian urban areas (called in Oslo accords "Area A"), and civilian control over Palestinian rural areas ("Area B").

Does not currently have control over most of area A Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)

The Oslo accords did not explicitly deal with the future of the PA, but there was an unwritten understanding on both sides that it would become the basis of an independent Palestinian state in the process of the final settlement.

at best, this is pure speculation and thus is OR. Furthermore, the PA is an interim body with many functions and restrictions that are incompatible with a sovereign state, so the premise is false. Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)


The West Bank The Palestinian Authority enjoys so far an international recognition as the organization representing the Palestinian people (albeit a limited one). It has an observer status in the United Nations

the PLO under "Palestine" has observer status at the UN prior to the establishment of the PA Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)

and receives considerable funds as aid from the European Union, the United States and Israel. The Gaza International Airport was built by the PA near Gaza, but operated for only a brief period before being shut down by Israel, following the outbreak of Palestinian violence against Israel in 2001.

Wikipedia uses "Al-Aqsa Intifada" to describe the violence and all its aspects Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)

The PA maintains official uniformed armed services which ranges from 40,000 to 80,000-man(1) employing armored cars and whose members carry automatic weapons. Officially termed a "police force", it is criticized as being something in between a militia and an army, which would be a violation of the Oslo Accords which limit the PA to a police force of 30,000 without any para-military or military groups or formations.

Much is unsourced and inaccurate. corrected. Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
The sourced stuff said 80,000; how can you insert an unsourced 50,000? Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

Sorry - my typo Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

  • without any para-military or military groups or formations

This statement is italicized in the text, and seems to refer to the text of the Oslo Accords. I can't see this text anywhere in the original accords [7] (although maybe I didn't look hard enough). And how come it is italicized? Whose emphasis? Doesn't this look like OR? I think I'll remove it pending verification of source Ramallite (talk) 8 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I am skeptical of this picture being the actual coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority. Can anybody cite sources for this? I was searching for the Coat of Arms of Palestine on Google Images, and found this, and it seems more believable as a coat of arms. --Revolución (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Coa-ps.gif

.

Allegations of lawlessness in Palestinian areas

Perhaps this section should be moved its own article under carefully selected events that show Palestinians in a bad light. Alternatively, perhaps there should be an equally exhaustive section on Israeli incursions and slaughter in PA territory and against the PA, although it might make the size of the article somewhat unmanageable! - 81.100.216.53 21:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a country

The PNA is not a country, so you should remove some items of the box.

Hello! I can only attest to one point: the UN Human Development Index (HDI) and ranks have been assessed for Palestine and most UN member states; however, the Palestine article and others do not have the standard country infobox/template for various reasons, so the decision was made to include the HDI for Palestine in this article (with infobox) instead. If you have any questions, please ask. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 15:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Palestine

Shouldn't this article be merged with an article called Palestine ("Country").


Seems fair and accurate to me

Should remove the NPOV. Done.

Current Events

This article needs ongoing changement because the new governing party Hamas doesn't recognize the Oslo Accord and will "smatch" (stop being committed to) it, which means mit will declare a state on the WB and GS. Once the state is declared, we should change the "State of Palestine" or make a new one.

Clean Up

This article needs cleanup to info that doesn't come from a trusted source.

Palestinian States proposal

I think a page with the five (or more!) different Palestinian States briefly described would be very useful. I find the differences between the State of Palestine and Palistinian National Authority to be confusing on first read. I think the five would be the Historic State, the UN Mandate, the State of Palestine, the PNA, and then an article on the future palistinian state. I don't know enough about it to really dig into this, but it would probably help clear things up. Specifically, what is driving this is that since the infobox was updated a lot of the data has been changed from Area A, B and C to WB and GS. I would argue that PNA would HAVE to describe things in terms of Oslo, while a future PS would describe it in terms of the full territory. Thoughts? WayeMason 11:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

GDP per capita

I was wondering why there's isn't a GDP per capita entry on the infobox.

Caqpital

Where is the capitaql.

Jerusalem

Shouldn't we recognize it as being the de jure capital of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine. Robin Hood 1212 14:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam/demographics

Obviously the most prevalent separating issue is between political blocks, but how are sunni/shia relations in the PA areas? Joffeloff 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Capital/Largest City/Map

I just changed the capital, largest city, and map and have sourced all three of them. East Jerusalem is the desierd capital for Palestine according to the Wikipedia article of Jerusalem. The largest city is Gaza. The map did not previously include the Gaza Strip, so I have added it. W123 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Overwikification?

Some of this article, particularly the last section(s), seem to be "overwikified" -- every other word is a link. I don't think it's necessary to wikify every single date or word (for example, "election"), nor is it standard process to wikify every occurrence of a significant wiki-item (e.g. "Gaza Strip"). Only items whose content would enhance the reader's understanding of the current article should be linked (what the style guide recommendations refer to as "major connections...and...technical terms"), and of those only the first occurrence (or, if the article is REALLY long, maybe the first occurrence in a section) should be linked. (See Wikipedia Manual of style and style guide recommendations.)

Anyone else have thoughts on this? I'll check back in a few days and if no one objects I'll tidy it up a bit. Bookgrrl 04:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

PA vs. PNA

Are these used interchangeably? The article seems to go back and forth, which is a little confusing. If one is more correct (or NPOV) than the other, we ought to use it consistently; if some people prefer the other, we ought to make note of that and explain whatever debate there is. Nareek 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think PA is more generally used, but PNA is technically correct, representing the full name. --Eliyak T·C 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not Paris ? It's nice

Someone can't have a capital if it's only desired. You have to atleast control it. Else you could say that Jews had Jerusalem as a capital for 3000 years now. That should be removed from the template. Amoruso 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, seems like this article is pushind anti-Semitic Islamofacsist POV. Israel belongs to the Jews and everyone knows it. Cerebral Warrior 11:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I came to the discussion page to comment about this as well. And I agree, Paris would be better. -THB 08:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Liberation Party is relevant?

I removed the following statement because it is unsourced and apparently not relevant (wrong time period). Please clarify the relevance, or at least the context, before returning the statement to the article.

"The Liberation Party (Hizb ut-Tahrir) participated in the West Bank, before it was occupied, it currently refuses to do so."

--Hoziron 01:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Currency

When I used to work as a laborer in Palestine we got paid in US dollars. I'm Jewish, so I had to change them to shekels to be able to buy anything where I live, but the boss kept dollars because I was the only Jew on the crew except for him and the Arabs preferred to be paid in dollars. Are there any Palestinians here who could say how common it is to be paid in dollars? 82.81.103.16 08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PA Security Forces

There needs to be inclusion of the following, who participates, controls and funds them.

  • Preventive Security Agency
  • Civil Police
  • National Security Service
  • General Intelligence
  • Presidential Guards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.35.35.36 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

A coutry or not?

I am a delegate in the Fifth Borneo Global Issues Conference, sometimes called the Mini-UN. If you haven't heard of it, I don't know why. It had several well-known guest speakers, such as David Belemy and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Professor Maathai. In it, students in schools throught South-East Asia are selected and assigned a country. I have been assigned the Sultanate of Oman, and sitting next to me in the committies is the deledate of the Palestine Authority. However, several times the delegate of Israel has called for Palestine to have his voting rights removed, as he it "not a country" and "in the UN, Palestine cannont vote". I do not know if this is correct, so I would like a little help.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.6.224.42 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Is this the best article for "country" references?

Re-posted from Talk:Palestinian territories, as no response provided there yet

I am conscious of POV issues surrounding the name "Palestine", so I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but I would like to know what the best article link is for Wikipedia lists of nations etc. I am asking here purely from an implementation perspective, as I have been doing a lot of work recently for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. There are a lot of articles that contain lists of nations, dependencies, etc. List of countries is perhaps the best example. On those lists, there are flag icons followed by a wikilink to the main article for the nation. (e.g.  France). What is the most appropriate article link to be used in conjunction with this region? I have seen two articles widely used, namely Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority. Often, the latter usage is rendered as Palestine. so the wikilink still points here but the displayed text is "Palestine". Use of this article as the wikilinked article seems a bit odd to me, as it refers to the governing organization rather than the region, but perhaps for some NPOV reason, maybe it is the best choice. I don't know - that's why I'm asking here. Is there any consensus on what we should standardize upon for Wikipedia? We need consensus on two things - the wikilinked article, and the display text (if different). Thanks, Andrwsc 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to lead

Firstly, I would request, User:Asucena, that you review the wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:No original research. Adding statements without any reliable sources is a violation of the policy, and must be removed. Secondly, please remember, that per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, your edits to this and affiliated articles will be carefully vetted, just as if an employee of the Israeli government were editing the Israel and relevant governmental articles, or a US congressional staffer was editing the article about his or her boss. Please remember, that while anyone may edit wikipedia, they must do so in accordance with wiki's policies and guidelines. I would suggest, in your case, that you have discussions about any changes to the article here on its talk page, since you are an employee of the PNA. This way, everything will hopefully remain above board and in compliance. Specifically about your edit, please bring a reliable source here on the talk page that backs up what you wish to say. Thank you. -- Avi 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really common knowledge that the PNA is the first truly independent government of the Palestinian people in many years I'm sure you know that. Secondly, I am (one of) Palestine's National Authority representatives here on Wikipedia and in my duties I am required to provide accurate information of our official standpoint - in this case that standpoint is "that we are the first truly independent government by Palestinians, for Palestine --Asucena 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"Common knowledge", however, is (in general) not useful on Wikipedia; the nature of the work here means that pretty much everything has to be demonstrated with reliable sources. It's pretty easy when something is, as you say, common knowledge; there will be many reliable sources asserting the same point, so just pick one and cite it. As far as your duty is concerned: it puts a much heavier burden on you than on other editors, because the presumption has to be that you are biased in favor of your employer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Area figures and maps

The PNA does not control the entire West Bank, neither nominally or de facto. Therefore, presenting the combined area figures for the West Bank and Gaza Strip as pertaining to the PNA is misleading. Also, presenting maps of the entire GS & WB as "maps of the PNA" is equally wrong.

Unless there is a well-justified objection, I'd like to remove the "area" (and "density") figures. As for the maps, I would like to replace them by a map indicating areas under PNA control (areas "A" and "B"), but since I haven't been able to find a good map for this, I might leave the current maps for now, with a proper comment. -- uriber 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PNA no longer in control of Gaza Strip

Since the Palestinian National Authority is no longer in control of the Gaza Strip, it is, in my opinion, no longer correct to state Gaza City (or Gaza) as the largest city in the Palestinian National Authority. It is the largest city of the Palestinian territories, but not of the PNA (since Hamas took control of Gaza strip on June 14, 2007). So shouldn't we declare Nablus as the largest city in the PNA controlled area? ColdCase 14:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should even look at the possibility to establish an own article for the Hamas government in Gaza Strip and leave this here as the article describing the government in Westbank, since it seems to be according to the PNA law. The Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip may not be according to the PNA law, but still there is no doupt Hamas has the control over Gaza Strip and the PNA having no control over the Gaza Strip. Therefore these are two governments which to not recognize each other, and according to the reality out there, it would need a new article for the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip as it is de facto the 'new' government out there. ColdCase 14:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See this cnn article in which Palestinian legislator Saeb Erakat, an Abbas ally, told CNN that the PNA is no longer in control of the Gaza strip. If you are of other opinion, please give your references here, thx. ColdCase 02:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem as a "desired capital of an independent Palestine"

I'm removing the following from the infobox:

East Jerusalem[1] is the desired capital of an independent Palestine.
31°46′N 35°15′E / 31.767°N 35.250°E / 31.767; 35.250

Whatever is desired as the capital of a future "independent Palestine" has little to do with what the actual capital of the Palestinian National Authority is. AFAIK, The PNA never even claimed Jerusalem as its own capital. Also, Wikipedia itself is not a valid reference. -- uriber 17:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Style -- make PNA the affirmative "subject" of the Overview

Greetings. I realize this is a controversial article with POV disputes. One way to deal with POV would be grammatical style. In some sections, esp Overview, the PNA is not the grammatical subject ("character") of the sentence. Instead, the sentences are about the PLO or diasporta and tell us what the PNA is not. In an article, rather than tell us what the subject of the article is not, it would be better to say what the subject affirmatively is or does. If the current -- grammatically negating -- style reflects some degree of POV, then the proposed encyclopedic style would be more neutral. In any case, it would be better writing style. For example:

The Palestinian diaspora, living outside the West Bank and Gaza, which constitutes the majority of the Palestinian people, are not allowed to vote in elections for PNA offices.

This sentence could be modified toward better NPOV as follows:

PNA offices are elected by voters in the West Bank and Gaza, not by the Palestinian diaspora, which constitutes the majority of the Palestinian people.

Or this would work as well:

While the Palestinian diaspora constitutes the majority of the Palestinian people, PNA offices are elected by voters in the West Bank and Gaza.

Note that these modifications do not change the informational content, yet aim to improve the neutral delivery. The lead of the Overview section is more tricky and I don't quite see a neutral reason for the emphasis on the PLO rather than the PNA. Here is the sentence:

The Palestinian Authority is distinct from the PLO, and it is the PLO, not the PNA, which enjoys international recognition as the organization representing the Palestinian people.

For an affirmative sentence about the PNA, I would suggest:

The Palestinian Authority governs parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with international support, while it is the PLO which enjoys international recognition as the organization representing the Palestinian people.

Again this modifications wouldn't change the informational content, yet it would make for a more neutral delivery. My one concern is how to affirmatively and neutrally describe the international "support" or whatever that the PNA itself enjoys. Notice how the current version sets up a contrast but does not give us the affirmative data. What do you think? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Embasies and missions

I followed a link here from Australia, which mentioned Australia has a conselate in the PNA. DOes the PNA maintain diplomatic missions and if so, where? Basejumper2 08:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Areas A, B and C

Could we get a picture showing the division of the territory between these areas? Emma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.218.11 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

The Israeli government has made it very clear, through the erection of several "anti terrorist walls"(as they call it) that it is not interested in any way in establishing a country of unity with both arabs and israelis living in one country. These walls remind me very much of a similar situation in the partitioning of Berlin and the Berlin Wall. Any further attempts of establishing such a government would be senseless. In my opinion, Tsrael and Palestine should be split into two equal parts, with one common land border and with equal access to the Mediteranean and the Dead Sea. Jerusalem should become an independant city state, and so, all problems (theoretically) should be solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.150.47 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to propose solutions, here we just state facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.167.31 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawlessness section

Hi. You might consider a spin-out for this section. In any case, lawlessness is not a common term for this content. So a renaming of the section would be helpful: how about a combo with Civil disorder and crime? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal status of the Palestinan National Authority

I have a question for you all, and I always try to look it up either at their site or Israeli sites or on encyclopedias like this one and STILL haven't found a satisfactory answer. Just what IS the legal status currently of the Palestinian National Authority? Is it a sovereign entity? I know it is not yet a state. I know that many states have diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine, but this is a subtle legal difference like distinguishing between the Vatican City State (a sovereign city-state) and the Holy See (a diplomatic subject with which nations have diplomatic relations). It is the Holy See that is a member of the UN, for example.

Is the PNA in actuality (legally speaking) and most ironically, a diplomatic subject of Israel? I know this might be a sacrilege to many, but since it is not a state yet, is it like an associated state of Israel? Such as the Cook Islands are an autonomous nation in relation to the Realm of New Zealand, but have some sovereign distinctions from New Zealand.

Is it a matter of depending on differing views. Because it is not sovereign, is it some kind of sui-generis entity? Are PNA passports issued? Are there PNA citizens, or are they still residents of the West Bank subject to Israel? And, if those areas under PNA control are not under Israeli occupation or control anymore, and they are not a state, what exactly ARE they?

As I recognize there might be differing views, a simple question might be. Just what is the Israeli position of the PNA status?

What is the Jordanian position of the PNA status?

What does the United Nations say about the issue?

Thanks everyone. --Larry G 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions. I will attempt to answer some of them. The Palestinian Authority was created by the Oslo Accords. It's original purpose was to govern the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip during an interim period, until such time as a Palestinian state was created by a Final Status Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. However, no such agreement was ever reached. What that means is that the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are stateless. They have no passports. Israel has effective control of all the territories, despite the presence of the PNA, hence they are still considered to be under military occupation. Sanguinalis 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
United Nations General Assembly resolution 43/177 (A/RES/43/177) decided 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"; so when the U.N. talks of "Palestine", they are in effect referring to the PLO. The Israeli Prime Minister stated "the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PL0 as the representative of the Palestinian people": See page 183 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 on the Construction of a Wall case (below). The PLO, in turn, created the Palestinian Authority: See pages 44-49 of the written statement submitted by Palestine, 29 January 2004, in the International Court of Justice Advisory Proceedings on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The United Nations Resolution 3236 of 22 November 1974 says "Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people". Also of note is the General Assembly Resolution 3210, which "Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings." Also see Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations.
So it would seem as though the PLO is the source of authority, drawing its own authority claiming to be descended from the Arab Higher Committee, an organization of unknown origin yet somewhat recognized by the British and the UN, as well as multiple Arab states. The PLO is supposedly recognized by the U.N., Israel, the Arab League, and I'm sure others as I've pointed to above. I am still trying to digest the material above, and would appreciate input. Int21h (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

capital

jerusalem is not the palestinian xcapital its not theres it is israeli wether its proposed means nothing. i dont care if its planned to be the capital until it is the capital dont write jerusalem as the capital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.93 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be different POVs about what is the capital, but we can't just list "Jerusalem" as the capital in the infobox and not say anything about it in the article. We need to describe the whole situation in more detail, not just state that one city is the capital. I don't know if these are reliable sources or not but here are some quotes:
  • "Eastern Jerusalem is claimed as the capital city of the Palestinian territories but the seat of the Palestinian Authority is in Ramalla, and for day-to-day purposes this is the administrative capital." [8] (AMEinfo)
  • "the Palestinians’ hope that they may eventually use East Jerusalem, which Israel controls, as their capital. The agreements that established the PNA in 1993 forbid placing the Palestinian capital in Jerusalem." [9] (MSN encarta)
  • "Capital: Ramallah / Gaza City (de facto), East Jerusalem (claimed)" [10] (flags of the world website)
  • "Ram Allah" listed as capital [11] (Ministry of foreign affairs of the republic of Poland)
  • " The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).’ (Extract from The Palestinian Declaration of Independence)" [12] (Palestine, the Land of Muslims, by Shelina Janmohamed, February 1999, p. 1)
  • "Under Netanyahu, Israel continues to control Jerusalem, but now with the bitter opposition of all Palestinian forces." [13] (The tug of war over the status of Jerusalem: Leaders, strategies and outcomes; 1997)
  • "On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization National Council declared a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem." p. CRS6. "Palestinians maintain that east Jerusalem will become the capital of the Palestinian state. Israel, which has claimed Jerusalem as its capitol since 1948, annexed east Jerusalem in 1967, and claims that Jerusalem’s status is not negotiable. No other country recognizes Israel’s annexation of east Jerusalem." p. CRS7. [14] (Issue Brief for Congress, 2002)
I suggest in the body of the article, something like "Ramallah is the de facto capital, although Palestinians claim East Jerusalem, which is under Israeli control, as their capital city." In the infobox, I suggest either just "Ramallah" or "Ramallah (de facto)". I'm not sure which sources to use. All the sources listed above seem pretty much consistent with what I suggest saying. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In order to compromise (I'm getting sick of all those anonymous vandalisations) I have changed the entry to Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto). Maybe one should add Gaza City, but ....see Governance of the Gaza Strip.
I'm all for a brief section explaining the claims an counter-claims; but That's already dealt with here: East Jerusalem#Status and very extensively here: Positions on Jerusalem. Bleddynefans (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is just beacuse they claim Jerusalem to be their capital doesn't make it so. It's allready explained in the article that they claim it, but fact is that currently Ramallah is their capital de facto and de jure. So I'm now going to change it to Ramallah and if somebody wants to know what they claim to be their capital they can read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now i've changed it; RamallahJerusalem claimed as capital.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit again, as it's already a compromise. Fipplet seems to be really hard on deleting any reference to Jerusalem. I've taken a look at Fipplet's edits; shows a lot about him. BTW: why are you Fipplet not signing your contributions??? Bleddynefans (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if it's a compromise, Jerusalem isn't the capital. I didn't delete any reference to Jerusalem, Ive added the text "Jerusalem claimed as capital." as a footnote, besides in the article it's mentioned that they want Jerusalem as their capital. Ok, listen now. Just because they claim Jerusalem to be their capital doesn't make it so, cause then if Sweden claimed it to be their capital it would be Swedens capital too etc. The PNA doesn't have any sovreignity over Jerusalem and they don't control Jerusalem so what they claim to be their capital has very little to do with what actually is their capital.

About signing contributions: Im not that good at wikipedia im not sure how you sign but I would be happy if you told me.

Ok, I think I know what you're talking about is this correct? Fipplet (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's start a rational argument foer once and have a look at Israel: "Jerusalem" is described as capital in the infobox. There is a reference Israel#cite_ref-capital_0-0 describing the claims and counterclaims, but the claim of Israel for Jerusalem being its capital is stated in the infobox—and in the infobox itself it's not qualified as a claim, it's a fact....
The Jerusalem Law states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" and the city serves as the seat of the government, home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and parliament. The United Nations and most countries do not accept the Jerusalem Law (see Kellerman 1993, p. 140) and maintain their embassies in other cities such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya (see the CIA Factbook and Map of Israel) The Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state and the city's final status awaits future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (see "Negotiating Jerusalem", University of Maryland). See Positions on Jerusalem for more information.
So why these persistent objections for the PNA claim for (East) Jerusalem being stated in the infobox here? de facto or de jure control doesn't come into the argument at all. It's a claim we're talking about, and my edit clearly distinguished claim and de facto situation. For what it's worth I've taken part of the above reference and incorporated it here. Bleddynefans (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. We're talking about the PNA capital not Israels. The capital of Israel is a different discussion and it's far more complicated. Maybe it's my bad english but i don't understand this sentence: "There is a reference Israel#cite_ref-capital_0-0 describing the claims and counterclaims, but the claim of Israel for Jerusalem being its capital is stated in the infobox—and in the infobox itself it's not qualified as a claim, it's a fact...."

In the infobox it says Capital But Jerusalem isn't the capital of PNA in any way. It should be mentioned that they claim Jerusalem but the article already mentions that and Ive added a footnote. That's enough. cause it says capital. And As Ive said before a claim doesn't make it their capital. Below the Capital we can write Claimed capital city which is not under Palestinian Authority or Sovreignity Jerusalem. Then all is right but that's unnecessary. This is an encyclopedia. You can look up the PNA capital or the PNA claimed capital but in that infobox it says Capital.

Hi. I just tagged this page with the usual caution that the article is subject to the ArbCom general sanctions for Israel - Palestine articles. For all parties: this means that collaborative editing is required -- please do not attempt to impose your view via editing, but rather proceed by reasoned discussion, attention to WP policies, and respect for consensus-building. Otherwise, discretionary sanctions may be imposed. I say this because it looks from the history that folks are trying to move forward by reverts and edit summaries, which are not as helpful as Talk page discussions. Thanks to all. HG | Talk 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV we have to go by what the sources say. A Google Books search for ""Palestinian National Authority" capital" hardly turns up any mention of Ramallah at all, but turns up many mentions of Jerusalem being claimed or desired to be the capital. This suggests to me that Jerusalem should at least be mentioned in a footnote. I think it's OK to list "Ramallah" as the capital in the infobox, with a footnote which mentions Jerusalem or East Jerusalem as a claimed or desired capital, but I think it's better to list "Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto)" in the infobox: it provides more complete information and in my opinion it shows better what the sources say. For most countries, that sort of detail isn't needed when listing the capital in the infobox, but in this case there's a lot of controversy so for NPOV it's good to present that controversy to the reader. I like the version with the long, informative footnote. I think it's better to put Ramallah first, i.e. "Ramallah (de facto), Jerusalem (claimed)". (Or possibly "East Jerusalem"; would it be getting too complicated to put "(East)" in parentheses before Jerusalem?)
I'll try to paraphrase this sentence that someone else (Bleddynefans?) wrote into simpler English, trying to keep the same meaning: "There is a reference Israel#cite_ref-capital_0-0 describing the claims and counterclaims, but the claim of Israel for Jerusalem being its capital is stated in the infobox—and in the infobox itself it's not qualified as a claim, it's a fact..." This seems to me to mean something like this: "There is a reference (link) which describes what each side claims. In the infobox on the Israel page, it doesn't show the claims of both sides. It only shows the claim by Israel: that is, it only shows Jerusalem as the capital. And when it says this in the infobox, it doesn't say "(claimed)" or anything else to soften (qualify) the statement: it just states that Jerusalem is the capital, as a fact." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Ok, if you look at my edit you see that it says Ramallah and then a footnote where it says "Jerusalem claimed as capital" just as you said. But anyway Jerusalem isn't the capital and I hope everyone agree on that, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox that way. Cause if we write Jerusalem (claimed) next to Capital you say Jerusalem is the capital even though you write (Claimed) next to it. And it isn't, they don't have control or sovregnity over Jerusalem.

Maye im wrong but the PNA never claimed Jerusalem to be the capital of PNA. They only claim it to be the capital of a future palestinian state. And that has little to do with the capital of PNA. Therefore it shouldn't even be a footnote cause PNA isn't the Palestinian state. Sure we can write "PNA wants Jerusalem to be the capital of a future palestinian state" but that's have little to do with PNA's capital. You all must see the difference between PNA and a future palestinian state. PNA's capital is Ramallah. That's were their government is. A future palestinians state claimed capital is Jerusalem, capital of PNA is Ramallah not Jerusalem.

And the thing about Israel, I think that has little to do with the capital of PNA so I don't see why were talking about Israels capital. But to answer your question why it isn't the "claimed" capital of Israel. It's because Israel has complete control and sovreignity, de facto and de jure over the western part of Jerusalem and in the western part of Jerusalem they have thir government and court etc. And therefore the capital city of Israel is Jerusalem even though they only have sovreignity over the western parts. Cause west Jerusalem isn't a city. And I think the claimed capital city for a future palestinian state is Jerusalem for the same reason. there's no city called East Jerusalem even though they only lay claims to these parts.Fipplet (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the PNA regards Jerusalem as its capital, even if it is currently unable to exercise sovereignty there. The Palestine Basic Law, approved by the PLC in May 2002, states unambiguously "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine".[15]
Other sources recognising Jerusalem as the PNA capital, or noting that it is claimed as such:
  • World Statesmen.org: "Headquarters: Ramallah Seat of Legislature: Gaza City (declared capital: East Jerusalem)"
  • Palestine Trade Center: "The City of Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine."
  • Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign: "Jerusalem, the Palestinian capital, is shut off behind the Wall"
  • The Rough Guide to Jerusalem: "Arab East Jerusalem is where the PNA would really like to have its seat of government, and for most of the international community, the area retains its status as the unofficial capital of Palestine".
And there are many more. Our role in Wikipedia is not to adjudicate on the legitimacy or validity of these sources, but to note them. RolandR (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy as it stands now (as a compromise)

Disputed (Ramalah is de facto capital while Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of a future Palestinian state).

but somebody actually deleted the entire footnote. I think there must be a few words of explanations; either as footnote or section in the main article. I've reinstated the full footnote, keeping the infobox itself unchanged from the last edit. Any objections? Bleddynefans (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this formulation. Ramallah is indeed the administrative centre, and could be described as the de facto capital; but Jerusalem is claimed as the current capital. Until Israeli restrictions forced the closure of various institutions and made access to the city difficult, it was indeed the de facto capital. And, as I note above, the Palestine Basic Law, proposed by the PNA and adopted by the PLC, defines Jerusalem as the capital as a fact, not as an aspiration. I think we should rephrase the description as Disputed (Ramalah is the administrative centre, while Jerusalem is claimed as the capital). RolandR (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the longer footnote, Bleddynefans: I was going to suggest that. RolandR, you make some good points, and thank you for providing some additional sources. Your suggested wording sounds OK to me, or how about this variation: '''Disputed'''. <small>([[Ramallah]] is the administrative centre, while [[Jerusalem]] is claimed to be the capital of Palestine.</small> . ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Your wording would also be fine, CT. If we are all agreed, perhaps someone else could make the necessary edit -- I'm in danger of breaching 3EE on this! RolandR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've rephrased the infobox entry according to the consensus formed above, and added a reference to the Palestine Basic Law in the footnote. I deleted some superfluous bits (such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya and the Map of Israel link) from the reference. Bleddynefans (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that what is claimed to be the capital of Palestine has little to do with what the capital of PNA is. Therefore i think it is beter with Disputed (Ramalah is de facto capital while Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of a future Palestinian state). or RolandRs suggestion: (Ramalah is the adminstrative capital while Jerusalem is claimed as capital). RolandR (talk) ive rephrased it a bit. Fipplet (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work: I think we've found a version we can all accept. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations and many other nations do not acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, nor of Palestine [16] (Axis of Logic). This city is still disputed. Considering the tensions that exist between the two governments, I believe it is fair that, if the "Israel" page is to list Jerusalem as its capital, then so too should the "Palestine" page. By allowing one page to display the "claimed capital" and not another is unequitable, especially considering the current ongoing conflict.

I have restored to the previous consensus (a debate i did not take part in) plese do not change again until agreement is reached on this page. There is a big difference between PNA and Israel. For a start Israel actually controls Jerusalem. Anyway get agreement before changing something thats been that way for months. And please in future sign your posts as shown on the edit page to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of ministers

Ok, I couldn't find an updated list of the palestinian cabinet anywhere online, so here's one I've got from the PASSIA Diary 2010 edition (www.passia.org), and double checked to make sure it's updated. This was part of my work and I don't have the time to edit it in in a nice way, so it'd be nice if someone could do that. Well, here it goes:

  • Prime Minister - Dr. Salam Fayyad
  • Minister of Agriculture - Ismail Daiq
  • Minister of Culture & Arts - Seham Barghouti
  • Minister of Detainees & Ex-Detainees Affairs - Issa Qaraqe'
  • Minister of Education & Higher Education - Lamis Al-Alami
  • Minster of Finance - Dr. Salam Fayyad
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs - Dr. Riad Al-Malki
  • Minister of Health - Dr. Fathi Abu Moghli
  • Minister of Information - Dr. Salam Fayyad
  • Minister of the Interior - Saed Abu Ali
  • Minister of Justice - Dr. Ali Khashan
  • Minister of Labor - Dr. Ahmad Majdalani
  • Minister of Local Governement - Dr. Khaled Fahed Qawasmeh
  • Minister of National Economy - Dr. Hassan Abu Libdeh
  • Minister of Planning & Administrative Development - Dr. Ali Jarbawi
  • Minister of Public Works & Housing - Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh
  • Minister of Social Affairs - Majida Al-Masri
  • Minister of Telecommunication & Information Technology - Dr. Mashhour Abu Daka
  • Minister of Tourism & Antiquities - Dr. Khloud Daibes
  • Minister of Transportation - Dr. Sadi Al-Krunze
  • Minister of Waqf & Religious Affairs - Dr. Mahmoud Al-Habbash
  • Minister of Women's Affairs - Rabiha Diab
  • Minister of Youth & Sport - Dr. Salam Fayyad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.95.69.219 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

External links

I think the links to the MEMRI websites are not proper for wikipedia. it is well known that memri was started by the israeli secret service (mussad) and that MANY of the translations coming from memri are bad translated. meaning, the translations have a political agenda and the translation is not correctly done. 90.35.85.29 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the "Others" subsection many links are to websites that are disputed on reliability and bias, eg. Middle East Media Research Institute as mentioned above, some are Israeli or US lobby groups pressing their point of view. Some refer to specific newspaper/www article that is not quoted in the text at all, no referennces being drawn from them. Some links are semi-dead or the article is available as pay-per-view only.
Before I try to remove some of these, can others please have a look and give their opionions here! Maybe we should add provisos to these links like "Source Disputed"...Bleddynefans (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think too that there is too many links. Don t forget that the subject is Palestinian National Authority. I made the needed changes. --Helmoony (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Economy and demographics belong in State of Palestine

Why is an Economy and Demographics section in this article? The PNA does not have an economy, the PNA does have demographics as described. These are subjects relating to the State of Palestine/Palestinian territories, whether under PNA control or not. I empahasize these subjects are inclusive of areas not under PNA control, and really have little to do with the PNA. People are confusing government with nation. I think they should be moved to the State of Palestine article, which is the national article, de jure or not. (The PLO is the UN recognized representative of the Palestine people. The PNA, the government of a good part of Palestine, was created by and subordinate to the PLO. The State of Palestine was declared by the PLO.) Int21h (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the State of Palestine is not controlling any of these territories, it is currently a government-in-exile. SoP is recognized by many states, but it doesn't control any territory currently (it claims the Palestinian territories that according to the UN are occupied by Israel and where the PLO has established interim administration of some areas - A and B - the PNA).
Economy is obviously related to the PNA - it deals with trade laws, etc.
Demographics is also related to the PNA (albeit not so clearly) - the PNA is administration that has legislative jurisdiction over Areas A and B and thus over the population there.
Of course Palestinian territories (referring both to PNA Areas A/B and to the rest non-A/B territory) may also have some coverage of these issues. Alinor (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The economy is obviously related the consumption of beef as well. Still, its relation to the consumption of beef doesn't mean it belongs in the beef article. The same argument goes for the demographics. The PNA is a political entity, nay, a government, and as such has in common many of the properties of the "government of" articles. Someone needs to point to "government of" articles with economic and demographic sections, else I will take the initiative and move these, as I do not believe they are directly relevant to the article. I emphasize directly because, as we all know, this article is related to Kevin Bacon, but that does not mean very much. Int21h (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree and removed the economy and demographics sections, as both have articles of their own and this is an article on the governmental authority of Palestinian territories. I also may remove the infobox, as mentioned above. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - president, prime minister

Currently the infobox contains strange name for president and only one for prime minister. Aren't these two in dispute between Hamas/Gaza and Fatah/West Bank? Alinor (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure on the details, but I believe the infobox should be removed in its entirety from this article, as I mentioned above. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Citations in Article

Before I start, I will first acknowledge that I have not edited or created many new articles over the past few years.

Having said that, there are many occurrences of "citations needed" in this article which I think should be addressed or cleaned up. Considering this, should it be necessary to add the corresponding Wikipedia infobox into the relevant sections of this article? Allan kuan1992 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Economy and demographics belong in State of Palestine

Why is an Economy and Demographics section in this article? The PNA does not have an economy, the PNA does have demographics as described. These are subjects relating to the State of Palestine/Palestinian territories, whether under PNA control or not. I empahasize these subjects are inclusive of areas not under PNA control, and really have little to do with the PNA. People are confusing government with nation. I think they should be moved to the State of Palestine article, which is the national article, de jure or not. (The PLO is the UN recognized representative of the Palestine people. The PNA, the government of a good part of Palestine, was created by and subordinate to the PLO. The State of Palestine was declared by the PLO.) Int21h (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the State of Palestine is not controlling any of these territories, it is currently a government-in-exile. SoP is recognized by many states, but it doesn't control any territory currently (it claims the Palestinian territories that according to the UN are occupied by Israel and where the PLO has established interim administration of some areas - A and B - the PNA).
Economy is obviously related to the PNA - it deals with trade laws, etc.
Demographics is also related to the PNA (albeit not so clearly) - the PNA is administration that has legislative jurisdiction over Areas A and B and thus over the population there.
Of course Palestinian territories (referring both to PNA Areas A/B and to the rest non-A/B territory) may also have some coverage of these issues. Alinor (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The economy is obviously related the consumption of beef as well. Still, its relation to the consumption of beef doesn't mean it belongs in the beef article. The same argument goes for the demographics. The PNA is a political entity, nay, a government, and as such has in common many of the properties of the "government of" articles. Someone needs to point to "government of" articles with economic and demographic sections, else I will take the initiative and move these, as I do not believe they are directly relevant to the article. I emphasize directly because, as we all know, this article is related to Kevin Bacon, but that does not mean very much. Int21h (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree and removed the economy and demographics sections, as both have articles of their own and this is an article on the governmental authority of Palestinian territories. I also may remove the infobox, as mentioned above. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - president, prime minister

Currently the infobox contains strange name for president and only one for prime minister. Aren't these two in dispute between Hamas/Gaza and Fatah/West Bank? Alinor (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure on the details, but I believe the infobox should be removed in its entirety from this article, as I mentioned above. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Citations in Article

Before I start, I will first acknowledge that I have not edited or created many new articles over the past few years.

Having said that, there are many occurrences of "citations needed" in this article which I think should be addressed or cleaned up. Considering this, should it be necessary to add the corresponding Wikipedia infobox into the relevant sections of this article? Allan kuan1992 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox on this page be put on the Palestinian territories article instead? Isn't it a bit weird to state the population and area of a political party? Jprulestheworld (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly a political party. Its an interim administrative body set up as a result of the Oslo Accords to oversee governance in Palestinian population centers in the Palestinian territories. It was assigned this task, intially intended to extend over a 5-year period, until final status negotiations with Israel could be concluded. However, because no settlement has been reached, its become instead more of a proxy police force for the Israeli authorities which works on containing resistance to the occupation on their behalf. Which is part of why Hamas has gained such popularity in the Gaza Strip. That perspective, however, is strangely not mentioned in our article and must go down on my massive to-do list. Tiamuttalk 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the infobox move. Instead, I think this article should include and be incorporated into the Politics of Israel template, as it is an interim governmental/authoritative structure, not a country. In other words, the infobox, if desired, should be on the Palestinian territories article, and this should receive a government infobox. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved the template to Palestinian territories. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Just Reverted these edits. The current infobox is the consensus for apparently(?) two years now. Before making such drastic changes to the consensus position, there should be more of a discussion, otherwise this will certainly start an editwar (which must be avoided!). Until there's a consensus to change, please desist from such drastic moves.Bleddynefans (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd love for more of a discussion, and would hate an edit war :^) I'm not quite sure how to get more participation, as I've never really dealt with much controversy. What do I need to do? I personally think two years without a disagreement on the talk page on a higher profile page (implied consensus) would be grounds for a move, though. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
After having left this topic open for several months and not eliciting any feedback, I have moved the infobox over to Palestinian territories. Other territories, such as Puerto Rico and Aceh, have the infoboxes, so I don't think this is radical at all. Please feel free to update the infobox as necessary to reflect the move. Also, at the same time I am removing it from Palestinian National Authority, as this is a governing political body of sorts, not the country/territory/region itself. As far as this needing consensus, I think it's unwise to prevent an edit just because there's no evidence of support; instead, if you feel so inclined to revert it, please give a functional reason for doing so. As an alternative to the infobox, I imagine one could be created for Palestine like the Politics of Bermuda article or something. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly object to this move. Your argument on consensus might be vaild, if ihis were not a article within the scope of the highly controversial and sensitive area of the Arab–Israeli conflict. There must be some sort of consensus on important aspects of an article like this., the removal of the infobox drastically changes the nature of the whole article. I find your arguments and the expamples you give wholly unconvincing and therefore I had to revert back to the status quo. Bleddynefans (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Where would I take this to get more feedback? I posed the question earlier but got no reply. No one else seems to have voiced objections, and there is no logic in leaving the infobox where it doesn't belong. I welcome any further discussion, but don't know where to turn. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

PNA or PA?

A recent edit changed all references from PNA to PA. I'm not familiar with the correct abbreviation, but it seems to be from the title of this article, as well as the intro paragraph, that the current organisation is Palestinian National Authority, and thus would be abbreviated as PNA? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The name used by the PA/PNA itself always includes "National" in it, Israel on the other hand refuses the inclusion of the word "National", and would not go easy with it when it is printed on documents, thus although all signs and speaches would include the word "National", the identification cards published for the palestinians (by the palestinians) but controlled and constantly verified by israili for daily transactions of palestinians with the israili authorities (applying for movement permits, building permits, crossing a checkpoint ...etc) does not include the word national on it, the name without National is mentioned in oslo accords. this is on one hand, on the other hand, some palestinians also stick to not using National because of National being a synonym of patriotic in arabic, and some palestinians consider this falsification and subliminal message (clearly those who do so do not consider the PA respectable or patriotic or caring for the palestinian national rights). so the "official" name pushed by the PA would be PNA, in real life, you would find both forms, those who use PA use it for reasons that are practically (from a political perspective) on opposite poles. --Mayz (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew & English

Any source confirming these are official languages? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think English might be official, but Hebrew, even though widely implemented is definately not an official language of the PA.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Positions on Jerusalem". Wikipedia. Retrieved July 13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_Authority/Archive_1&oldid=1222301409"