Talk:Palestinian Authority

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)

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 is the desired capital of an independent Palestine.
31°46′N 35°15′E

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)

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." [1] (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." [2] (MSN encarta)
• "Capital: Ramallah / Gaza City (de facto), East Jerusalem (claimed)" [3] (flags of the world website)
• "Ram Allah" listed as capital [4] (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)" [5] (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." [6] (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. [7] (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".[8]

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)