Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Map at top shows Golan as part of Israel

Map at top shows Golan as part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

which map? nableezy - 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Look closely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Never noticed that before. Though I wonder why those boundaries are even on the map at all. Those are the boundaries in the source though. We can figure out what, if anything, we should do about it. It is such a minute detail I wouldnt get too worked up over it. nableezy - 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What should the map there display? maybe I can find a better one.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just the general region, and this one is a nice map of the topography. We can just add the same type of border that you see around Gaza and the West Bank if it is necessary and somebody want to make the effort. nableezy - 17:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Palestine (country)

The notion that Palestine was a mere geographical region simply because it had no precise boundaries is nonsense. Gideon Biger doesn't make any such a claim. In "Where was Palestine? Pre-World War I perception" He calls Palestine a country and says it was a political, rather than a geographical area. He goes on to say that popular perceptions and beliefs are sometimes more important than the opinions of a few experts. The article only provides a sampling of early 20th Century encyclopedias and maps. He says "The more descriptions that are read, the more confused a reader becomes. But even though the descriptions differ, the area of agreement is still considerable."

Many published accounts prove that other governments, religious communities, and private organizations considered Palestine to be a country. In the early 19th Century the United States had no precise boundaries and many of the areas it claimed had never been explored. The British, French, Spanish, Russians, and Mexican perceptions of it did not agree as to its precise size and location. The same conditions prevailed throughout much of Latin America. During the hearings on Israel's application for membership in the UN, Ambassador Jessup said: "One does not find in the general classic treatment of this subject any insistence that the territory of a state must be fixed by definite frontiers." [1]

Here are some examples of official U.S. Government perceptions of Palestine:

• The U.S. texts accompanying the Convention of London, concluded on 15 July 1840, employed the terms "Southern Syria", "Palestine", and "the territory of the Pasha of Acre" interchangeably. The treaty was concluded between the courts of Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia on the one side, and that of the Sublime Ottoman Porte on the other.[2] Part II contained the boundaries: [3] and [4]

• American Consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914, By Ruth Kark, page 244: "Willson sent many despatches about these to Raouf Pasha the governor-general of Palestine"[5]

• UNITED STATES CONSULATE, Jerusalem, Palestine, October 1, 1879. Discusses the Governor of Palestine, Raouf Pacha and the English, French, Russian, and German consuls.[6]

• Consular reports: Commerce, manufactures, etc, Volume 2, 1881, By United States Bureau of Foreign Commerce
  • page 67 Report of the Consul of Jerusalem on present condition of Palestine[7]
  • page 68 Raouf Pacha, the governor of Palestine, who is an accomplished man of European culture, proposes to construct some roads to Hebron and to Nablous, and to repair the road to Jaffa, and he has for this purpose obtained a concession from the Sultan of 20 per cent, of the taxes the present year. The harvest is good, and the taxes large, viz, one-tenth gross from every threshing floor. With the exception of the road to Jaffa, there is nothing worthy of the name in Palestine.[8]

• U.S State Department FRUS, Mr. Wallace, Consul Constantinople, June 6, 1882, Whether Jews on becoming Turkish subjects will be permitted to settle in the waste lands of the Vilayet of Syria, excluding the Pashalik of Palestine free of charge in groups of not more than five hundred families, and whether they will also be permitted to purchase lands and settle on them in agricultural communities.[9]

• U.S State Department FRUS, No. 1053 Mr. Bayard to Mr. Straus, Mr. Gillman to Mr. Porter. No. 26. Consulate Of The United States, Jerusalem, September 28, 1887. Sir : I have the honor herewith to inclose copy, with translation, of a communication which I have received from his excellency Raouf Pasha, governor of Jerusalem and Palestine, relative to the expulsion from Palestine of Jews who are foreigners, in our case, of course, having reference to citizens of the United States who are Jews.[10]

• Commercial relations of the United States with foreign countries ..., Volume 1, By United States. Bureau of Manufactures, United States Bureau of Foreign Commerce.
  • U.S. Consul in Jerusalem, Palestine. Reported on Jewish Question, and the fact that the prohibition on Jewish immigration was meant for Russian Jews and did not apply to American or British Jews. The report also covered agriculture including the areas of the U.S. consular district of Palestine east of Jordan in the plains of Moab and Gilead, and on Government relations. There are frequent references to the governor of Palestine.[11]

British Government and Government Officials:

• Parliamentary papers, Volume 80, By Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons, In Palestine, where I recently found its efficacy as apparent, if not more so, than in Beyrout, Raouf Pasha, the present Governor, bitterly complained to me of the abusive practices of his Medjlisses, which, however, while preying upon the unprotected, granted immediate redress, with almost obsequious readiness, to the interests of those upon whom,, fortunately, the wealth and development of the land depend.[12]

• Sir Mountstuart Grant Duff "Notes from a diary, 1886-1888" I have had here a few conversations, e.g. with ... ...Raouf Pasha who has governed Palestine for the last ten years." [13]

Palestine:

• In 1854, the Kaiser's moneychanger, Ignaz Deutsch (1808-81), was appointed by the Perushim as "President of the Holy Land" [14]

• Moslem, Christian, and Jewish communities were allowed to exercise jurisdiction over their own members according to charters granted to them. Several men held the post of Hakham Bashi of Palestine (Chief Rabbi): Makhlouf Eldaoudi, Jacob Meir, and Eliahu M. Panigel

Palestine Exploration Fund:

• Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly statement, 1884, Discovery On Mount Gerizim Of A Marble Pedestal, M. Paulus, a talented sculptor resident in the Holy City, and the Governor of Palestine, His Excellency Raouf Pasha, whose enlightened zeal cannot be too highly praised, and who has taken steps to secure the preservation of this beautiful monument, kindly sent me as soon as possible different photographs of it.[15]

Jewish Publication Society of America:

• Jews in Many Lands, By Elkan Nathan Adler, Jewish Publication Society of America: "The real credit for the great development of engineering activity, which is making Palestine easy and delightful to travel in, is due to the enlightened policy of the Governor of Palestine, Reouf Pasha.[16]

Miscellaneous:

• Bible, Map, and Spade: The American Palestine Exploration Society, Frederick Jones Bliss, and the Forgotten Story of Early American Biblical Archaeology, By Rachel S. Hallote, page 18: He was held back by the man known as "The Butcher of Acre," Ahmad-al-Jazzar (often known just as Jazzar Pasha), who administered Palestine for the Ottoman authorities from the 1780s until his death in 1804.[17]

• “The Late 19th. Century Sanjak of Jerusalem”, The Israel/Palestine Question, Edited By, Ilan Pappe, London and New York, p.45, author Butrus Abu-Manneh: In 1830 the sanjaks of Jerusalem and Nablus were transferred to the control of Abdullah Pasha, the governor of Acre. By this act the whole of Palestine was united under Acre.[18]

• A Handbook for Travelers in Syria and Palestine... (1858) The Pashalic of Sidon embraces all Palestine west of the Jordan, all Lebanon, and the coast to Tripoli. The Pasha resides at Beyrout, which is now the chief town, and by far the most flourishing and important in the province. The Pasha of Jerusalem is subject to him of Sidon.[19]

• Andover review, "The world moves when we can read of the antiquarian zeal of a governor of Palestine, Raouf Pacha. Thanks to it the altar found at Mount Gerizim in the middle of 1883 was preserved. M. Clermont Ganneau thinks the relic must have belonged to the pagan temple represented on the Greek imperial coins of Neapolis."[20]

• Gillman, Henry, Appointed by Pres. Cleveland, in 1886, U. S. consul at Jerusalem, he alone of all the foreign consuls there resisted the expulsion by the Turks of the Jews from Palestine, and his statement was embodied in the remonstrance sent him by Raouf Pasha, governor of Palestine.[21]

• Our Jerusalem: an American family in the Holy city, 1881-1949‎, by Bertha Spafford Vester, Page 72:"they appealed through Raouf Pasha, governor of Palestine, to our American Consul, Selah Merrill"

• JERUSALEM'S RULER COMING; Keazim Bey, Governor of Palestine, to Visit St. Louis Fair, March 7, 1904,[22]

Palestine was obviously a country. harlan (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you refute what your straw-man said, and prove what no one denies. Of course Palestine had a governor - it was a territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was divided into provinces, with rulers for each one. Palestine was part of the Syrian Eyalet, later variously under the Vilayet of Beirut or the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem.

Nothing new here, and nothing to make Palestine a "country" in the contemporary sense. okedem (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okedem you've never mentioned any province of Palestine or Governor of Palestine before, and there isn't any mention of them in the article. How can this be old news? The article reflects an anachronistic viewpoint that there was no entity called Palestine, just a region that was divided into multiple districts with other names. You have always said that Palestine was a geographical region and reverted or deleted any mention of Palestine as a political unit, country, or state.

You keep removing the fact tag and citing Biger, but you aren't using the same terms that he employed. He called Palestine a country in both works that are cited by this article. Biger himself said that Filistin appeared on Ottoman maps and records. He explained that it was unclear to him if the special district of Jerusalem, the Mustasarif El Quds, was the political unit Filistin that the Ottomans were referring to when they talked about Palestine, or only a part of it. He cited 19th century sources, including Laurence Oliphant and Ha'or, who had advised Jewish immigrants that Palestine was indeed limited to the district of Jerusalem for the legal purpose of immigration.[23] Mr. Oliphant had inquired officially through Mr. Wallace of the American Legation in Constantinople.[24] That is no straw-man, that is a significant viewpoint that is reflected in Biger's book.

The US State Department and Commerce Department reported on relations with Palestine and its government officials in their official volumes on foreign countries. Their country reports on Palestine contained subsections on the Government, Agriculture, Import/Export, Railway and Transportation, Climate and Rainfall, Taxes and Revenues - just like their modern-day country reports. The British Consuls followed the same practice in their reporting. harlan (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never mentioned it? Oh, pardon me, did you attend my course, "Everything there is to know about Palestine", and I neglected to review this topic? How did you think Palestine was administered during the Ottoman period? This is only news to someone who never bothered reading anything about the topic.

As the articles I linked to can tell you, the political status of Palestine changed during the years, coming under different Ottoman provinces. Of course every province (I'm using province as a general name for the various Ottoman subdivisions) had rulers and a local government. This is the way things worked, but internal subdivisions are not equivalent, or even related, to the modern-day concept of statehood. okedem (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis looks more like ad hoc WP:OR to me. Actually, they are very much equivalent, or related to the modern-day concept of statehood. The verifiable WP:RS sources that I cited said that for many purposes the national communities of the Consular jurisdictions functioned as a "state within the state". The various Ottoman religious communities were also legally recognized political units in their own right. Together they constituted the "civilized belligerent communities" of Palestine that were provisionally recognized as "independent nations" by an international agreement concluded in January of 1920. In 1925, two international tribunals ruled that they were allied successor States as defined in international law. Lauterpacht and Quigley noted that the State of Palestine was a third independent country that concluded several international agreements. e..g.[25]

In 2004, another international tribunal noted the responsibility of the United Nations for the Palestinian people had its origin in the communities recognized in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine. The General Assembly has described it as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine". The court noted that in addition to the general guarantees of freedom of movement and access, specific guarantees regarding access to the Holy Sites had been included in the Treaty of Berlin, 13 July 1878. According to the Court, the League of Nations Mandate and UN Partition Plan both contained safeguarding clauses which preserved those "existing rights" and placed them under international guarantee. That establishes the direct connection by way of legal succession, and it is spelled out in an easily verifiable published source. See paragraphs 49, 70, and 129 of the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [26]

The sources that you cited said that it wasn't clear what the Ottoman perspective was when they discussed Palestine. The sources that I cited were fairly certain. They said: (1) The United States Consul published its own maps of the boundaries of Palestine; (2) that the U.S. Consul at Jerusalem, and the other foreign consulates, had legal jurisdiction over their own citizens and institutions within the boundaries of Palestine; (3) that the U.S. Consul published reports about Palestine in its volumes about foreign countries; (4) that the U.S. Consul told the Ottoman "Governor of Palestine", Raouf Pasha, that the U.S. would not prevent its Jewish citizens from immigrating to Palestine, and would not permit its Jewish citizens that had already settled there to be deported; and (5) that the U.S. Ambassador said that Turkey had never been an independent sovereignty. That is a significant published viewpoint, and its inclusion is really non-negotiable at this point. harlan (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OR? I don't think you realize what OR is - it's what you do. I only replied that the only reason the existence of a governor surprises you, is that you simply don't know anything about the Ottoman Empire.

Again, your claims don't support your premise. There were several sub-divisions that included parts of Palestine during Ottoman times. At any point, though, the region, or any part of it, weren't independent states, but only subdivisions (yes, with local government - that's the way it worked). Having recognized religious communities, or broad authorities for foreign powers, has no bearing at all on this question. Any country (Ottoman Empire, in this case) can determine that various areas within it are subject to some different laws (like the "capitalist" regions in China), but that doesn't change their level of "statehood".

Also, you seem to be jumping around - Ottoman times, or Mandate times?

Enough. Your potpourri of claims obviously don't lead to your peculiar conclusion. okedem (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What is your point? The United States and Great Britain both entered into treaties with Ottoman provinces (e.g. Kuwait) without bothering to ask for Istanbul's prior consent. The autonomous Mustasarrfik of Jerusalem was subordinate to Istanbul. In the same time period Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were autonomous colonies that were subordinate to London. The U.S. State Department considered them all to be countries.

Last week Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidot said the Palestinians have already unilaterally declared statehood, and they did not need to do it again. "Recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state."[27] Jerome Segal wrote about Salam Fayyad's plan[28] for Palestinian statehood. He said lest anyone believe that the 1988 declaration is ancient history, they should read the new Fayyad plan with more care. It cites the 1988 declaration four times, identifying it as having articulated "the foundations of the Palestinian state."[29]

Palestine already was a recognized State before the mandate was terminated. Quigley explained [30] that fact and cited the corollary of the Stimson doctrine which is contained in the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States: "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power" The fact is that neither Jordan nor Israel acquired title to the Palestinian Territory on the basis of a military occupation. [31]

The ICJ opinion explained that the Treaty of Versailles provisionally recognized the existence of the communities of the 'A' Mandates as 'independent nations'. [32] I've provided citations from Crawford's Creation of States and Talmon's Recognition of Governments for you in other threads which said the same thing.

The ICJ opinion cited the protections contained in Article 62 (LXII) of the Treaty of Berlin. So does Carol Fink in Defending the Rights of Others. That was quite obviously in Ottoman times. Those rights have frequently been characterized as "religious rights", but the guarantees included a ban against discrimination in civil and political matters, i.e. difference of religion could not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever. [33]

The ICJ cited an example where one of those "existing rights" was mentioned in Article 13 of the Mandate. The Foreign Relations of the United States confirms that all of those rights were preserved by the Mandate instrument. The resolution of the San Remo Conference contained a safeguarding clause:

"The conference accepted the terms of the Mandates Article with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that it would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." [34]

According to the mandate, any disagreements whatsoever were supposed to be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. For example:

There are also, in all the treaties of peace, clauses for the protection of minorities, and disputes regarding the carrying into effect of these clauses are to be referred to the Court. In the draft mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine, the Court's decision is to be evoked in any dispute. Summary of the work of the League of Nations, January 1920-March 1922, League of Nations Union, 1922, page 4

The Permanent Court of International Justice heard several landmark cases involving the Minority Treaties.[35] In the the Greco-Bulgarian Communities and Minority Schools of Albania cases, the Court ruled on the legal definition and status of religious communities, churches, synagogues, convents, schools, voluntary establishments and associations of racial, religious and linguistic minorities. The Court stated that a community is:"

.... a group of persons living in a given country or locality, having a race, religion, language and traditions of their own and united by this identity of race, religion, language and traditions in a sentiment of solidarity, with a view to preserving their traditions, maintaining their form of worship, ensuring the instruction and upbringing of their children in accordance with the spirit and traditions of their race and rendering mutual assistance to each other." See page 17 of the ruling: [36]

Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories, "and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down." There is no original research involved in quoting facts like that from the US State Department (Whiteman) Digest of International Law commentary. It says the subsequent litigation in the Ottoman Debt case and Judgment number 5 in the The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case established that Palestine and Transjordan were States as defined in international law. That was supported in articles written by Norman Bentwich, John Quigley, and the League of Nations Treaty series example that I cited above. Here is another WP:RS source: Boundaries Delimitation: Palestine and Trans-Jordan, Yitzhak Gil-Har, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 68-81: "Palestine and Transjordan emerged as states; This was in consequence of British War commitments to its allies during the First World War."[37]

The ICJ opinion explained that the UN Partition Plan contained similar provisions that preserved existing rights and placed them under UN guarantee. That is why there are so many resolutions dealing with Palestine and Israel. The resolution also provided for compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in the event of any disagreements. W. Tom Mallison testified about the minority rights provisions to the Senate Judiciary Committee [38] and mentioned the hearings and legal analysis in his books.[39]

harlan (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, whenever you write anything, you don't just present a few relevant sources, and make a claim. You cite a whole plethora of irrelevant sources, with some slightly relevant sources in-between.

There is a geographic region, known by various names - Land of Israel is one of them; Palestine is another. Even though its borders aren't well defined, a large part of it is agreed upon - for instance, Jerusalem is always part of it (though not always in Ottoman divisions). This region belonged to many, many, different rulers, from the Canaanites, to the Israelites, the Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, the British Mandate, and to the current situation. Even during Ottoman times, the area was divided in various ways. The name "Palestine" was used to refer to various regions, as this article details under "Ottoman rule (1841–1917)" ("Ottoman court records, for instance, used the term to describe a geographical area that did not include the sanjaks of Jerusalem, Hebron and Nablus, although these had certainly been part of historical Palestine.).

Now, if you want to claim that Ottoman Palestine displayed some characteristics of statehood, you first need to define exactly which political entity you're discussing (the Jerusalem sanjak, for instance?), and what time period. If you'd like to write an article about the subject, that would be a nice addition, as it seems our coverage of Palestine during that period is lacking.

Moving on - after the Ottomans, we had the mandate. Now, the Mandate was a special thing - not occupied land or a colony, nor a fully sovereign state - the whole purpose of the Mandate was to create a state in that region, for the Jews; this is why the UN voted on this in 1947, recommending the establishment of two states, Jewish and Arab. The Mandate wasn't a state, per the usual definitions. It was a specially created political entity, meant to serve and purpose, and be dismantled. This was not a singular thing, as several other mandate existed, both in the Middle East and in other places.

But all of that is beside the point - the discussion of what "state-like" characteristics the Palestine Mandate displayed belong in the article about the Mandate (Perhaps a good place for such discussion is in the general League of Nations Mandate).

This article is about the region, with its various names and borders. Even if the Mandate was a real state, it wouldn't have made any difference - there were several fully sovereign states in Palestine over the years - Israel, Judea/Israel, Hasemonite Kingdom, the Crusader Kingdoms. But they are just chapters in the history of a region, and cannot dominate its article.

To claim that this isn't a region is an absurd claim, contradictory to all the source we have in this article and others, and to common knowledge.

okedem (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem my edit preserved the usage of the term to describe a geographical region and added the fact that it also was used to describe a country. I have always provided sources and can quote them if you like. I have met the burden of proof for inclusion of the words "State" and "country" in this article - and then some. Wikipedia:Verifiability says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether you think it is true. There is no support in WP:UNDUE policy for advancing your single viewpoint to the exclusion of the published viewpoints of competent international tribunals, governments, and scholars.

You have generated a lot of drama over the mere mention of Palestine as a country during the Ottoman period, or as a state during the mandate or current period because this is an article about a so-called geographical area. TWO LITTLE WORDS. Other so-called geographical area articles contain entire subsections on the regional states, political history, foreign relations, colonization, independence, and the succession of states or empires in the region. Here are a few examples:

• Ireland - Political geography
• |Central American integration
• Central America - Foreign_relations
• South America Politics
• South America European colonization
• South America Independence
• China - Historical political divisions
• China - Republic of China

harlan (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Egypt and Jordan occupy and supress nation of Palestine during period. If Egypt and Jordan not be occupy at time, then Palestine would have be free nation. Nation of Palestine exist all during time, but constantly be oppress and supress illegally. The Second Temple article cannot say nothing other than Occupy Territory. Cannot and will not because that what it be now and in future. Forever it be Palestine captial, unfortunate until opressive occupy government be overthrown, people be mislead to think it be part of entity that be illegally unilateral declare in 1948 Ani medjool (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Harlan to the extent that there is no reason for this article to exclude information that would otherwise be included in an article about a geographic region. What possible counter-arguments to this are there? --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP, I see you've fallen for the straw-man argument.

Harlan - I have no idea anymore what you want, because you never bother defining, specifically, what it is you want to do. Every time you post it's 10k of text with plenty of links and quotes, but you never bother actually saying what change you want to make.

Previously, you argued against calling "Palestine" a region, which is clearly a ridicules argument. If you want to make smaller changes, please explain exactly what they are.

If you want to add anything about "state-like" characteristics of Ottoman Palestine of Mandatory Palestine, sure. If you want to claim they were actual countries/states - no, because they weren't. The Ottoman Palestine was several administrative provinces of the Ottoman Empire, with local government, but no independence; mandatory Palestine was a Mandate, created to fulfill a purpose and be dismantled, controlled from afar by a foreign power - without self-rule, there's no statehood. okedem (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I think you might be right about the straw man, Okedem. --FormerIP (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you shouldn't mention straw-men. You've resorted to utter falsehoods in your edit summaries.[40]

I actually made some very minor changes to the wording of the lead that were very well sourced. The change preserved the usage of the term as a geographic area, but also reflected the usage as an existing country or state. You reverted those changes yourself.[41] other editors simply removed the reference to a past, present, or future state of Palestine: [42]

During our discussions I actually said that Palestine was a country situated in a geographical area that was also called Palestine, and I explained that the law library of the US Library of Congress said that the Mandates were States, not regions. In the same thread I said that the American Law Encyclopedia Vol 3. entry on Dependent States said the same thing. Here are the links to that discussion: [43] and [44]

The Mandate actually did mention the territory of Palestine, which had formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, and said it existed within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Principal Allied Powers. It also mentioned "the country" and "State lands". Norman Bentwich wrote an article explaining that the government of Palestine had claimed the former Ottoman properties as an Allied successor State and had defended the title through the course of several appeals. An Arbital Court established under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne in the Ottoman Debt case decided that two States, Palestine and Transjordan, had been established within the boundaries of the territory of Palestine. In the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions case, the World Court confirmed that Palestine was one of the successor states mentioned in the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. That recognition of statehood is Res judicata.

The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories, "and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down. The Palestinian Authority is considering a proposal to ask the UN to recognize its borders. President Abbas recently said that the State of Palestine was already in existence and that the current battle is to have the state's border recognized.[45]

BTW, the independence of Palestine had already been provisionally recognized. The Mandate was supposed to lead to its full independence, not its dismantling. Great Britain had no authority whatsoever to do anything that might prejudice the rights of the citizens. It was tasked with the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

In any event the hierarchy of states was formally rejected by the Seventh International Conference of American States in the Montevideo Convention of 1933. Article 4 said:

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one does not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

harlan (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is nearly impossible to hold a discussion with you, as you never define what you want, and jump around randomly between unrelated topics, like the Mandate, or the "State of Palestine". I've said this before - if you want to discuss the state-like characteristics of Mandatory Palestine - be my guest; but remember - the authority and administration were held by Britain, not by the locals. Your interpretation of what Britain could or couldn't have done is your own opinion. The UN voted to create two states, there, dismantling the Mandate.

The "State of Palestine" has no actual basis in reality, which is why all Palestinian and world leaders speak of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the future tense, as I've shown plenty of times.

But Palestine, regardless of the imaginary "State of Palestine", or the short lived Mandate, is first and foremost a geographic region, with a history of thousands of years, under several names. What states exist of existed within it - are secondary to that. okedem (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Communities, state succession, and the principle of continuity

(outdent) Okedem, Resolution 181(II) specifically provided for the application of the principles of state succession with regard to Palestine's debts and treaty obligations. The General Assembly didn't "dismantle" the Palestine Mandate anymore than the previous boundaries that established the states of Palestine and Transjordan had dismantled it. The Mandate specifically allowed the Principle Allied Powers to fix the boundaries as they thought fit. I think by now that it ought to be perfectly obvious that I intend to restore the deleted material about the State of Palestine being valid English usage, and cite the court decisions and other material in this and other related articles. This article is subject to general sanctions. You can't insist that other editors reword or rephrase published sources to make them say things (that they manifestly didn't say) in order to conform to a single or opposing worldview.

Your arguments about foreign control, sovereignty, and dismantling things are also contradicted by the principle of continuity enunciated by the Israeli Courts in the Eichmann case. After it gained its independence, the State of Israel passed new laws that modified the civil and criminal code of the Mandate era to extend its own sovereign jurisdiction retroactively. It based the state's jurisdiction on the "communities" that had been internationally recognized by the League of Nations:

'I cannot see', said President Smoira, 'why that community in the country against whom the crime was committed should not demand the punishment of the offender solely because that community is now governed by the Government of Israel instead of by the Mandatory Power'. This was said with respect to a crime committed in the country, but there is no reason to assume that the law would be different with respect to foreign offences. Had the Mandatory legislator enacted at the time an extraterritorial law for the punishment of war criminals (as, to give one example, the Australian legislator had done in the War Criminals Act, 1945, see Section 12) it is clear that the Israel Court would have been competent to try under such law offences which were committed abroad prior to the establishment of the State. The principle of continuity also applies to the power to legislate: the Israel legislator is empowered to amend or supplement the mandatory legislation retroactively, by enacting laws applicable to criminal acts which were committed prior to the establishment of the State. Indeed, this retroactive law is designed to supplement a gap in the laws of Mandatory Palestine, and the interests protected by this law had existed also during the period of the Jewish National Home. The Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate given by the League of Nations to Great Britain constituted an international recognition of the Jewish people.--cited in Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p.656-657

The legal analysis of the ICJ said that the Covenant and Mandate also constituted international recognition of the non-Jewish communities which provided for the safeguarding of their legal rights and interests.

The "State of Palestine" is a legally recognized entity in the majority of the countries in the world today. A state does not cease to exist simply because its territory is occupied. The overwhelming majority of published references to Palestine refer to political entities mentioned in this article: the Mandate (a state), the Jund Filistin (a military district), or the "Land of the Philistines" (a homeland ruled by Kings). For example, the Palestine Exploration Fund said "Palestine is a name which in the Authorized Version is applied only to Philistia, and not to the rest of the country at all. As such it is used by Milton, when he speaks of " that twice battered God of Palestine." Our Work in Palestine, PEF, 1877. harlan (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to expand the information about the partial authority that Mandatory Palestine had, I can only encourage you. Same for Ottoman Palestine.

If you want to claim that the "State of Palestine" is an actual physical entity, I will revert you, as that claim is clearly contradictory to all statements by Palestinian and world leader, who obviously view the "State of Palestine" as nothing more than a political statement, at this time. It has nothing to do with "ceasing to exist", as it never existed in the first place (at the time of its declaration at 1988, the declaring people weren't even in Palestine). Anyway, we link to it in the first line.

Again, you mix the unrelated recognition of community rights in Palestine (both Jews and non-Jews), with the political issue of statehood.

Enough. I regret making the mistake of getting into a discussion with you. You continue with irrelevant claims and quotes, and refuse to explain exactly what you want to write.

I you want my opinion on an edit, please present it here. I can't comment on general ideas. okedem (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem you are the one who is confused. I've put the diffs here already that show what was deleted from the lede, and you haven't said anything. We had already discussed the masters thesis that Tiamat had cited on the I/P Collaboration page. You agreed that Dr Francis Boyle's article in the European Journal of International Law could be cited, so I intend to restore that.

President and Chairman Abbas said that an independent Palestinian state is an existing fact. He said that he was leading an effort to get the borders recognized.[46].

Encyclopedias are supposed to explain things. Like FormerIP, I don't think there is any possible explanation for mentioning the State of Israel, but not the State of Palestine or that two competent international courts that were responsible for deciding the issue determined that Palestine and Transjordan were both States. The legal status of mandate instruments is widely debated, but not the status of the treaties. There was always general agreement that the territory was not transferred to the mandatory power, and that the mandates were to be administered as separate countries and nationalities on behalf of the League and the inhabitants.

Palestinian leaders have been asking for recognition from other states. The majority of other states have legally recognized the State of Palestine and the right of the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty over the territory that Israel has occupied since 1967.

I'm not confusing recognition with statehhood. I provided you with a link that illustrated that civilized communities were recognized as persons of international law long before WWI. In both of the cases that the ICJ mentioned, the existing rights of communities under the 1878 treaty were preserved in legal instruments that created new 20th century states. The UN partition plan stipulations were contained in a chapter which required that the rights be acknowledged in a public declaration, embodied in the fundamental laws of the state, and in the state constitutions. I told you about that last June. The subject was discussed by Dr. Mallison during the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel in 1977. See page 49 and 50. The ICJ addressed the same issue and its impact on freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites.

During Operation Cast Lead the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1860 (2009) which said that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 that will be a part of the Palestinian state. All of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 physically exists.

After the operation, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki said that he and Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan had provided proof that Palestine had been extended legal recognition as a state by 67 countries, and had bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. See ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe.[47] The General Assembly endorsed the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict which also called for war crimes investigations.[48]

John Dugard noted that the majority of states recognize the State of Palestine, and that it was only necessary that it be considered a state for the purposes of the Rome Statute for the case to be accepted by the ICC.[49] Another ICJ jurist, Dr. Jessup, used the same rationale when he said that Israel only had to be considered a state for the purposes of article 4 of the UN Charter in order to become a member.

I've also told you before about the General Assembly "Definition of Aggression", contained in UN GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) (1974). It said that any entity (even an illegal one like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cypress) which is the target of aggression may be legally termed a State - without regard to recognition or UN membership - and benefit from the protections contained in article 2(4) of the UN Charter regarding the use of force or the threat of force by other states. see The recognition of states, By Thomas D. Grant, page 21. The UN Treaty Organization noted that portions of the General Assembly's definition have been judged to be declarative of customary international law by the International Court. [50] harlan (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, most people tend to disagree with Abbas's claim, and speak of a Palestinian State only in the future tense, as I've proven before.

But that's not the point here - you can't place "State of Palestine" in the lead, because this isn't the article about it. State of Palestine is already linked from the first line of this article. The Palestinian Territories are already linked from the lead. The current status is explained in the, how surprising, "Current Status" section; there the 1988 declaration and current status of the Palestinians (such as the non-member observer status in the UN) are explained. There's about as much text devoted to the Palestinians as there is for Israel - little, compared with the size of the article, as it should be. okedem (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem if you are worried about article space, there is no material regarding "Palestine" in the sections about the "Paleolithic and Neolithic periods", and so on. That material can be deleted and links inserted to the main articles History of the Southern Levant, or Pre-history of the Southern Levant. You discussed that once before with Tiamat.

Dugard and Boyle have both noted that the numerical majority of states and the overwhelming majority of people on the planet have long-since recognized the State of Palestine and agree with Abbas. There were two states, Palestine and Transjordan, within the boudaries of the Mandate. I can certainly mention them and the State of Palestine in the lede too, along with the State of Israel.

What you have proven in the past is that you don't know the legal difference between recognition of states and recognition of governments. Last month Fayyad was discussing obtaining both a UN resolution that would immediately recognize the State of Palestine, and his two year plan of building institutions on the foundations laid by the 1988 Declaration.[51] More than a hundred years ago, the US Supreme Court adopted the principles of international law that most modern states observe. "When a government... ...is recognized by the political department of our government as the de jure government of the country in which it is established, such recognition is retroactive in effect, and validates all the actions and conduct of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence." harlan (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As the statements of both Palestinian and world leaders refer to the Palestinian State in the future tense, they must nor have read Dugard and Boyle. When a Palestinian state is established, then we can discuss it. Until then, the term "Palestinian territories", currently in the lead, will suffice (and don't forget the link to State of Palestine in the very first line of this article. okedem (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine exist, but it be supress by entity that declare unilateral independent against UN agree plan in 1948. Ani medjool (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

national or Israeli-occupied borders shown in light gray

You could have fooled me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Country/state/area, Ottoman debt

When the British occupied Palestine it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Not a state, for sure. In Norman Bentwich's legal summary of Palestine for 1925 in Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1927), pp. 186-189, we find:

The Treaty of Peace with Turkey came into force during the year, and Ordinance No. 28 gives legal effect in Palestine to the clauses of the Treaty, and vests certain officers of the Government with power of taking action with regard to economic provisions. The Ottoman Debt (Payment of Annuities) Ordinance (No. 4) provides for the annuities payable by Palestine on account of the Ottoman Public Debt being a first charge upon the revenue and assets of the country.

From this we see that (1) if the Treaty of Lausanne created States, it didn't do so until 1925, and (2) Palestine was indeed saddled with part of the Ottoman Public Debt. Zero^talk 08:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

However, regardless of what the treaty set out to do, states were not immediately created. While Transjordan was created rather quickly, the British dawdled with the creation of states in Cisjordan. The mandate was created for the very purpose of creating a state or states; the 1947 partition plan was passed to create two states in Palestine, which would not replace any state, but the mandate.

Can you elaborate on the debt? Did the British use tax money from the mandate area to pay debts? Did Transjordan pay debts? (I know that Israel didn't, but maybe the debt was all paid by then, or just nobody cared anymore). okedem (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding statehood, the issue is over what the word "state" means. It does not necessarily mean independent nation state. See state - it is a complicated legal matter. On the Ottoman debt, I found the following in the Annual Report to the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Transjordan:

Palestine is to be congratulated on a settlement with the Ottoman Public Debt Administration with regard to its obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne. Under that Treaty it was necessary to make annual provision for 20 years, beginning with a sum of £P.186,000 and diminishing from time to time as the individual loans were amortized. Annual provision of this dimension would have been a heavy load on the country and would necessarily have led to drastic curtailment of services. The position now is, that for payments aggregating £820,000 the tax-payer is freed from the annual charge and need not suffer on that account deprivation of existing services.[52]

I guess that applied to Transjordan too, since it doesn't say otherwise. So Turkey's creditors are not going to repossess Israel any time soon (that would have been interesting :)). Zero^talk 10:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As commonly used, "state" is understood to be a sovereign entity, or, at least, part of a republic (e.g. the US, Australia, Germany, etc). The Mandate of Palestine wasn't any of these, and so the use of the word "state" in this context is just confusing; in this case, it seems to be just part of an attempt to claim Israel was established over the ruins of sovereign state, or some such nonsense. The Mandate was created for the very purpose of creating a state there, and was not one itself. It wasn't conquered territory, or a colony, or a state - it was a mandate. okedem (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Statehood Issue

When Israel applied for membership in the UN, many members objected that it did not satisfy the traditional requirements of a State. During the 383rd meeting of the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Jessup said: 'we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948 [53]

According to the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) the "newly-created states" were required to assume responsibility for payment of the annuities on the pre-war Ottoman Debt as of 1 March 1920. There was no change in the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne in that regard. See article 241 in Sèvres [54] and articles 46 and 53 in Lausanne [55]. The Treaty of Versailles was ratified in January of 1920. Article 22 of its Covenant stated that the territories and colonies had already ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them. It also recognized the existence of the communities of the 'A' Mandates as 'independent nations' on a provisional basis. [56]

In 1920 article 103 of the Ottoman Land code was repealed and a new Mahlul Land Ordinance was adopted to demarcate and regulate State land in Palestine. In 1921 the Mewat Land Ordinance was passed. Under the former Ottoman laws anyone could convert mawat or mahlul land into miri by cultivating it, registering it, and paying its unimproved value. That was no longer possible under the new laws. Anyone found cultivating waste land was prosecuted in the courts of Palestine for encroaching on State land. See 'A broken trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians 1920-1925', by Sahar Huneidi, page 215. Those facts strongly suggest the new states had come into existence sometime in 1920.

I reverted Zigmar's edit because his summary on the British Mandate subsection said that during this period Palestine was used to refer to a geographical area, not a country. [57] The text of the Mandate instrument contained twelve references to the "country" (in the preamble, Article 2, 4, 11, 17, 18, and 21). [58] Article 6, encouraged Jewish settlement on "State lands", and Article 7 required the adoption of a Palestinian nationality law. [59] Hersh Lauterpacht advised the Jewish Agency on matters related to the taxes, customs, and regulations governing the development of the country under article 18 of the Mandate. He informed the Agency that for the purposes of the most favored nation clause, the British government had concluded that Palestine was a third, independent State. see International Law: General works, By Hersch Lauterpacht, E. Lauterpacht, Cambridge University Press, 2004, page 100 [60]

The Legal Secretary and Attorney General of Palestine, Norman Bentwich, explained a series of court decisions which held that the Ottoman decrees that had transferred property and possessions to the Civil Lists for the benefit of the public were sovereign acts of State. That meant they were immune from legal challenges by the former owners in the Courts of Palestine. He went on to say that those properties now belonged to the Government of Palestine because the natural interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne was "that the imperial decrees had transferred properties of Sultan Abdul Hamid to the Ottoman State and that these properties were ceded to the Allied successor states." see Professor N. Bentwich, "State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts", XXIII British Year Book Of International Law, 1946, pages 330-333. [61]

During the negotiations for the Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne the position advanced by the Ottoman officials was based upon abandonment or dereliction of title to the territories. Here is a link which explains the various legal grounds for loss of state territory [62] The Turkish delegates claimed that the territories had already been detached from the Empire by the Armistice of Moudros, concluded on 30 October 1918. There was a discussion in the House of Lords regarding the (mis)appropriation of the funds that were seized by the British military from the agencies of the Ottoman Debt Administration when they occupied Palestine and Iraq. Here is a link to the portion about the negotiations: [63] In R. v. Ketter and other cases the British Courts held that the Treaty of Lausanne did not transfer Palestine to Great Britain. Most authorities view the change of sovereignty in Palestine under the Treaty of Peace and the Mandate as an act of dereliction on the part of Turkey. [64]

International arbitral and judicial awards are a "subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law" as provided in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. [65] Whiteman cited the Ottoman Public Debt case in a portion of the State Department Digest devoted to the legal status of the Mandates. The text of the award is available in Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948) at page 529. The case concerned the apportionment of the annuities of the Ottoman Public Debt among the various States whose territories, in whole or in part, had formerly belonged to Turkey. It was decided by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations pursuant to the provisions of article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The costs of the arbitration, including the fees of the Arbiter were supposed to be borne in equal shares by the State parties to the arbitration. The ruling on that matter said:

"The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other." cited in 1925-1926, Digest of International Law 42 (No. 29) and III Whiteman, Damages in International Law (1943) 2029-2030.

There are a number of commonly used English terms for client, tributary, or vassal states that been in use for centuries and covered by Wikipedia articles. They are very well attested and understood. For example West's Encyclopedia of American Law says: "Various terms have been used to describe different types of dependent states, such as condominium, mandate, protectorate, and vassal state. ("Dependent States." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. The Gale Group, Inc. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. (October 25, 2009). [66]) harlan (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"I reverted Zigmar's edit because his summary on the British Mandate subsection said that during this period Palestine was used to refer to a geographical area, not a country." - You were wrong because the sentence in question referred to the time of British occupation, which was before there was even a ceasefire, let alone a treaty. Zero^talk 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question also mentioned the approval of the draft mandate by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922. My edit summary said that I had added a reference which indicated Palestine was a successor state under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. I had also reverted Zigmar's edit, 'country' vs. 'area' without comment and explained that here on the talk page. There are thousands of published references to the country of Palestine in works of the 19th and early 20th Century (including the draft mandate mentioned in the passage in question).

Acts of State like the 1920 Land Laws are sometimes more relevant than the actual dates of ceasefires and treaties in matters of statehood. The question was settled by the two 1925 Court decisions. The Arbital Court was required under the terms of article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne to rule on the dispute surrounding the meaning of the term "newly-created States". The 1925 decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case required a similar interpretation of the terms used in Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne. Under then existing rules of customary international law, recognition was retroactive in effect and validated all the actions and conduct (Acts of State) of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence, e.g. the adoption of the 1920 Palestine Land Laws.

In Abmed Shauki el Kharbutli v. Minister of Defence, the Supreme Court of Israel had to rule on the validity of the mandate era laws that Israel retained in force under its Law and Administration Ordinance. The court held that by virtue of the Mandate the Mandatory Power had assumed authority over the country-- and that every act done, or law promulgated, by the Mandatory Power in contravention of the terms of the Mandate was a violation both of international law and of the law of Palestine.

In 'The Creation of States in International Law', page 424 James R. Crawford said that due to the revolution in Turkey the Treaty of Sèvres was never ratified. Nonetheless the Council of the League of Nations proceeded to approve the terms of the mandate on 24 July 1922. The Mandate came into force on 29 September 1923 after the Treaty of Lausanne had been signed, but not ratified by Turkey. In an earlier passage Crawford had said that the prevailing view is that the concept of sovereignty is inapplicable to international regimes of divided competences such as the Mandate and Trusteeship systems. He and Paul Weis (mentioned above) both cited Sir Arnold McNair's opinion in the Southwest Africa case.

Turkey ceded its property and possessions on the Civil lists to the successor states under the terms of Article 60, but did not renounce its title and rights to the territories in favor of any party. Article 16 of the treaty merely provided: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

The 1998-99 Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration regarding territorial sovereignty and delimitation required an interpretation of Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). It ruled that the matter of sovereignty remained indeterminate pro tempore, i.e. it was "settled or to be settled" on a res inter alios acta basis by the concerned parties ("a thing done between others") The PCA said [the territories] "did not become res nullius – that is to say, open to acquisitive prescription – by any state, including any of the High Contracting Parties. Nor did they automatically revert (insofar as they had ever belonged) to the Imam. [the prior sovereign]. harlan (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From reading the above -- most of it with benefit -- I get the impression that there is a difference between state and State.

If state and State were the same, "sovereign state" would be similar to "Jewish synagoge". --Xdr56tfc (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem inserting false information

It's not the case that "British Mandate Palestine (1920–1948) ... contained two states ... and the autonomous Transjordan". It becomes dangerous nationalist propaganda to add "The term Land of Israel is used to refer to the same geographic region". It's known that some Jews are trying to colonise parts of Jordan (as reported in the Jewish Tribune 28th July 2009 - Jews to reclaim land in Jordan - Jewish Tribune staff - 28 July 2009 ... Israel Land Fund chairman Aryeh King told AFP that his organization has proof that thousands of properties in present-day Jordan were historically Jewish, adding, “We have records of the ownership.”[67]) but this article is not a platform for hasbara. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you substantiate your accusation against me, or withdraw it. I couldn't understand what you want. okedem (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

86.159.70.117, if the infomation inserted is wrong, I would suggest the best thing to do is find a source that shows this. The infomation about the Mandate looks basically correct to me (although if it is wrong in some detail please correct me) and it would be (in my perception) anti-Palestinian bias, as well as historically inaccurate, to remove it. Are you saying that the info about the Jewish Land Fund (Jewish National Fund?]] should be included in the article? If so, then more detail as to the facts and why you think it is noteworthy would be a good idea. --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okedem literally harassed other editors for more than a year claiming that Palestine wasn't a country or a state. Ten minutes after he lost that argument, he Googled for sources he could use argumentatively to claim that Transjordan was an autonomous state, while Palestine was British administered. In reality both were British administered, and the lede contains arguments that are actually refuted in the main Palestine Mandate article.

The first recital of the Mandate gave Great Britain the power of administration over both Palestine and Transjordan. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territories to become independent self-governing States. See the Statement of the Principal Accredited Representative, Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore, C.330.M.222, Mandate for Palestine - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission/League of Nations 32nd session, 18 August 1937 [68] The terms of the mandate required the establishment of self-governing institutions in both Palestine and Transjordan. In 1947 Foreign Secretary Bevin admitted that during the previous twenty-five years the British had done their best to further the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish communities without prejudicing the interests of the Arabs, but had failed to "secure the development of self-governing institutions" in accordance with the terms of the Mandate regarding Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, page 1033.

The 16 September 1922 letter from the British government regarding the application of Article 25 had no connection to autonomy. The fact that self-governing institutions were established in Transjordan, but not in Palestine, had nothing whatever to do with the terms of Article 25 of the Mandate. The League of Nations had provisionally recognized the independence of the communities as nations, and the 16 September 1922 letter from the British government simply withheld the first portion of Article 2 regarding the Jewish national home from Transjordan: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." See the Note of the Secretary General regarding the application of Article 25 on pages 10 and 11 of the attachment to the Palestine Mandate [69]

Tessler and Mideastweb repeat the myth that Transjordan was part of the Mandate territory that was granted to Great Britain at San Remo, and that it was administratively separated or severed from the mandate in a series of steps which included the letter of 16 September 1922 and the Anglo-Transjordan treaty of 1928. Tessler does note that Great Britain still administered Transjordan's military and foreign affairs under the terms of the treaty.

In reality, Transjordan was annexed to the mandate in 1921 after the San Remo Conference, and the parties agreed that the status of the mandate was not altered by the agreement between the United Kingdom and the Emirate concluded on February 20, 1928. See League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574 and Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631. All of that is explained in the main British Mandate article subsection on Article 25 of the Mandate. What happened in Transjordan is exactly what was supposed to happen in the case of all the "A" mandates, including Palestine. Tessler and Mideastweb portray the events in Transjordan as if the purpose of the mandate was somehow undermined, when in fact the failure to "secure the development of self-governing institutions" happened in Palestine. That is explained in the British Mandate article subsection on Arab political rights. harlan (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Again you flood the page with irrelevant claims, refuting arguments that nobody made. "In reality", you attack me, because you don't like what the sources I've provided say. okedem (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained that in this particular instance, your sources are making factually incorrect statements. In 1923 the government of Great Britain recognized an "independent government" in Transjordan. It was not however accepted as an autonomous or independent State. Great Britain could not unilaterally alter the status of a mandate it administered on behalf of the LoN. The Journal of the League of Nations and the US State Department Digest of International Law both state that the terms of the Anglo-Tansjordanian treaties did not alter the status of the League of Nations Mandate or the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention. Tessler quite incorrectly states that the treaty did alter the status and made it an autonomous state. Both of the mandate agreements required the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine and Transjordan. That fact is not WP:OR, and it is already included in the text and citations of the main article on the Palestine Mandate.

In addition, Mideastweb and Tessler both repeat the myth that Transjordan was part of the Mandate territory that was granted to Great Britain at San Remo. You are also attempting to convey the impression that Transjordan was not "British administered", but Tessler specifically stated that the British retained control and administered the military and foreign affairs of Transjordan. WP:ELNO says editors should avoid linking to any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material. harlan (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "autonomous". It is not the same as independent, but means partial self rule, as in Territorial autonomy. I'm definitely not trying to claim that Transjordan was an independent entity, completely free from British rule, just that they were self-ruling at least in internal affairs, contrary to Palestine, which was under the direct rule of the British. If you don't like the word "autonomous", you can suggest another one to convey these facts; I chose it because it is verifiable, as used by an RS. okedem (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing the fact that Tessler misstates the facts. He claims Transjordan was part of the territory that was allocated by the San Remo Conference and that is was subsequently separated or severed from Palestine by Article 25 and the treaties. That fable is debunked in a subsection of the Palestine Mandate article.

I have a pretty good understanding of the definition of the term "autonomous state". Great Britain recognized an "independent government in Transjordan" (but not an autonomous state). The League of Nations consented to the former, but it did not consent to the latter. That has also been verified and published by reliable sources. One of those includes an entry in the Official Journal of the League of Nations which addressed that specific issue.

The failure of Great Britain to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine had no basis in the powers of administration that were granted by the Mandate. That is also addressed in a subsection of the Palestine Mandate article. It's time to sync this article and stop linking to sites or passages which misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material. harlan (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be wholly incapable of discussing anything without straying into irrelevant subjects and claims. I don't care if you think Tessler was wrong in some point, not only because he's an RS and you're not, but because it's not the point we're discussing. We're discussing the fact that Palestine (Cisjordan) was directly ruled by the British (as you yourself acknowledge), and that Transjordan had a measure of self-rule (which, again, you acknowledge). So, for the life of me, I don't know what's your problem with the current phrasing, which seems to be completely accurate. I've already offered that you suggest an alternate phrasing, if the word "autonomous" isn't clear in your opinion, but you refuse to cooperate. okedem (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The river of Egypt

There is a dispute as to what the southern border of the land of Israel is. The term used in the Torah is "the river of Egypt" some historians think it means the Nile while others think it refers to a small stream within the Sinai peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.241.5 (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree: You MUST change the wording in "Biblical texts" about the country streching from "the Nile" to the Euphrates. It MUST be from "the river of Egypt -- understood by some to be the Nile, by other a wadi in Northern Sinai running towards the Mediterean between al-Arish and Rafah" or something of the sort. --Xdr56tfc (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Better picture?

The stark satellite image at the head[70] of the article does very little to present/illustrate/reflect the subject of the article. So can we get a better one? Ideas? RomaC (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, that picture show Golan as part of Israel. It must be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

:How does an unlabeled satellite map show the Golan as part of anything, let alone Israel?? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look closely you will see that the borders are carved out and that Golan is part of "Israel proper" in that image. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

Reliable figures exist for Jerusalem.. less so for the other sanjaks of the time.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia)

"Present Condition of the City" (1907)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:

Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population..""

---

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

..... Jews Muslims Christians Total

1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000

1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ........ First Official Ottoman Census

1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 ..... ..Second """""""

1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 .......Third/last, detailed in Cath Encyclopedia link above

1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300

1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400

1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

And these numbers are NOT in dispute to my knowledge.

Thank you, abu_afak@yahoo.ie

I have found much of his —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Google map -- Where is P.?

Has anyone tried searching for Palestine in GoogleMaps? It comes up with ac city in Texas, and nothing else. Obviously Google is a massive supporter of Israel, but for such a major source of information you would expect/hope for it to be accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.119.59 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You should totally alert the internet! TFighterPilot (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Boundaries

There is a lot of nonsense in this statement here, that should be removed:

Scholars disagree as to whether the archaeological evidence supports the biblical story of there having been a Kingdom of Israel of the United Monarchy that reigned from Jerusalem, as the archaeological evidence is both rare and disputed.[26][27]

There is no significant "controversy" or dispute on this. The sources referenced in fact do NOT represent NPOV, and are HIGHLY controversial "revisionist" historians. Whats next, are we going to be quoting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other horrific propaganda as a reliable source? Proteus7 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact the sentence is entirely true and the authors of the two references are highly respected mainstream archaelogists. Zero^talk 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this, but "scholars disagree" rings alarm bells. Does this mean that scholars are roughly evenly split? Or does it mean that there exist a small number of controversial scholars whose views are at variance with everyone else?--FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)?

The archaeological evidence does not provide an unambiguous confirmation of the Bible for this period of history. In the past almost all archaeologists took the truth of the Bible for granted, but this is not true any longer. Quite of lot of leading archaeologists today regard the evidence for this period as being in conflict with the Biblical account, but this view is not universal. So calling it disputed is fair. It is not clear how to give percentages, but neither view is fringe. Zero^talk 07:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The archaeological evidence is best summed up by Biblical archaeologist J. Maxwell Miller who said: "If one is willing to make adjustments in the historical claims of the Bible, they can be correlated with the archaeological evidence if one is willing to take some liberties with the archaeological evidence."

Since I am a so-called "expert" I should be writing my new book but writer's block has once again sent me to Wikipedia. "Scholars disagree" is too obvious to say. We always disagree. That's our job. I hate Picasso, for instance, so we could say, "scholars disagree that he's a great artist." I suspect, with FormerIP, that the phrase is meant to suggest a statement nobody can support: "scholars are evenly split." Nobody could say that. From the whole profession there are two, maybe three "minimalists" who have argued that David is just a myth, like King Arthur. Recent archeological finds have greatly embarrassed them, and they're forced to call them forgeries. But here's how it really works, guys. If I tried to publish a book arguing that Picasso wasn't a great artist, I'd be snickered at. But! If somehow disparaging Picasso furthered the argument that Israel was an occupier, I'd be hailed in certain important circles as a "highly respected" thinker, a "rebel," even a "hero" (cf. Tony Judt). Someday I will find a way to link Picasso to the Occupied Territories and then half the academic world will fall at my feet! That's how it is. Meanwhile, educated laypeople like yourselves can follow the controversy by reading the Highly Respected journal, Biblical Archeology Review. I remember a good summary of the politicized "minimalist" issue about a year ago. All parties gave interviews. Good luck! Profhum (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the last few decades, the Bible story was taken to be historical truth; however, a growing number of archaeological scholars, particularly those of the minimalist school, are now insisting that Kings David and Solomon are "no more real than King Arthur," citing the lack of archaeological evidence attesting to the existence of the United Kingdom of Israel, and the unreliability of biblical texts, due to their being composed in a much later period.

This also smells of anti-zionist propaganda. Especially the "growing number" part. Letriste1977 (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I might want to dispute the neutrality of the sections that mention that there is debate about the historicity of the Bible. These sections mention that there is not agreement, but then (not surprisingly) only quote scholars that question the historical accounts. To be neutral, quotes from scholars who support the Biblical account would have to be included, in both cases. One of the quotes is above, and the other is

Niels Peter Lemche, of the Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies, submits that the picture of ancient Israel "is contrary to any image of ancient Palestinian society that can be established on the basis of ancient sources from Palestine or referring to Palestine and that there is no way this image in the Bible can be reconciled with the historical past of the region."

Pammalamma (talk)

>I completely disagree, on this isssue the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the biblical accounts are correct. This (top of section) statement is misleading and should be removed, or do we really need to play an amateur game of 'who can provide the largest number of reliable sources?' Faruq (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.49.209 (talk)

another name

The land of Israel was also known as zion. 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.54.250 (talk)

Added. Thanks for noticing. John Hyams (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a comment on this hint: The name Zion is purely religious and Biblical, the subject here is about historical records.

The Wikipedia article about the origin of the name Palestine traces the history of Palestine although the subject is about the name. In the main introduction the term Peleshet (פלשת Pəléshseth) as pronounced in the Modern Israel suggests the name of the Ethiopian Falashat Jews. The name clearly shows a Hebrew plural of the Falasha(s) as Philishtim. The naming most probably was created by the Jews of Babylon when they were brought to the Region with the Persian invasion. It is the name of a region, not a township or city kingdom. The name of the region survived through the ages because it was continuously used by its living people, and by the successive empires. The British Mandate by reviving the name after the fall of the Ottoman Empire was based upon historical records that never died since the fall of the Roman Empire. The Modern Palestine is only a British subdivision of the Middle East, which gave birth to the Palestinian nation in 1922. Without this subdivision there would not be a Lebanon or a Syria per se. However, the British subdivided the Middle East according to the most probable ethnical particularity within one region-state, and by the way the local language is pronounced as an accent but also the people's physiognomy. The Palestinian Arabic accent suggested a Palestinian nation apart from the Lebanese accent, the Syrian accent, or the Egyptian accent, all of which are different variations of Arabic. This particular accent factor is what gave the Modern Palestinians their national definition but the common physiognomic character of the Palestinians was the decisive factor in their definition as a nation. The Palestinians are not Arabians although some of them falsely claim Arabian descent, nor are they Syrians nor Lebanese or Egyptians. Nonetheless, the Palestinian Christians for sure did not come from Arabia at all. They are the most authentic natives of Palestine among all pretenders. Some modern historians suggest that some names of villages and townships in the historic Palestine if they have Hebrew intonation may be considered a clue to the Hebrew roots of the Palestinian people. The modern Israeli scholars may not agree on this hint but genetic examination can propose a plausible approach. The Palestinians may have Israelite roots because the Land has never been emptied from its inhabitants after the Roman attacks on the Temple and the revolt of Bar Kokhba. National Geographic Magazine issued an article in March 2006 entitled “Written In Our DNA”, emphasizing on the genetic side of history and the importance if genetic engineering in defining the human groups inter-relationships. The proposal deserves a thorough attention because it sheds light on the shady sides of history. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/03/human-journey/shreeve-text/2

Whatever the Region boundaries are, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman or British, the people of the Holy Land cannot be called other than Palestinians because the term covers all those who lived in Palestine over the ages, without distinction. The genetic studies of Science News and Nature magazine are good study material in this regard and I believe that genetics can pave the way to both Palestinians and Israelis towards a united republic by negotiation. They may realize one day that they are true cousins and perhaps brother nations. Please read the Wikipedia article about this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the geographical region, not the political entity

That's why I moved some of the text to the State of Palestine article, where it belongs. John Hyams (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The text moved to State of Palestine --> International recognition:

• "The Palestine Liberation Organization has enjoyed status as a non-member observer at the United Nations since 1974, and continues to represent "Palestine" there.[116] After the 1988 declaration of state, the State of Palestine was formally recognized by 117 United Nations member states.[117] Many countries, including the United States and members states of the EU, have diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, and have recognized the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as a "Country" for legal, economic, and political purposes.[118][119] Dozens of other States have gone one step further and legally recognized that same national entity as the "State of Palestine".[119][120] There have also been published reports of Israelis who have accepted Palestinian citizenship and passports.[121] Palestine is also represented at international sporting events, like the Olympics and Paralympics and films from Palestine have won awards at international cinema events, like the Oscars. (See also Cinema of Palestine).[122][123]"

Also, if that text was to be inclued, it should have included details about the Israeli political entity as well, along with a brief history summary and recognition in the world. But since this is an article about a region, we should be careful not to mix things. What's why we have a State of Palestine article, and a State of Israel article. John Hyams (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There already is much discussion about the declaration of the state of Israel, Zionism and the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. You can't delete the information on similar events as regards Palestine and the Palestinian people claiming this article is just about geography. I'm restoring the text. Please don't delete again. Add whatever you think is relevant that needs to be added about Israel to balance it out, but if read the article, you will see its already there. Tiamut^talk 19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, this paragraph is about international recognition, culture, Oscars, and details that do not belong in this article. Before you undo something (you did so first), discuss, or complain about something you think I did wrong. This article is about the region, while Oscars, formal regocnitions and other such information should be omitted, not because it's my own opinion, but because of the concensus about the nature of this article.

If you believe there other political details with regards to Israel, you can remove them in order to keep this article focused on the geographical region. I am going to use my last revert allowed, please remember that you are bound to the same revert rules. John Hyams (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed this, it can be copied to the State of Palestine article (Tiamut, I would be happy if you could do this):

• "After the 1988 declaration of state, the State of Palestine was formally recognized by 117 United Nations member states. Many countries, including the United States and members states of the EU, have diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, and have recognized the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as a "Country" for legal, economic, and political purposes. Dozens of other States have gone one step further and legally recognized that same national entity as the "State of Palestine". There have also been published reports of Israelis who have accepted Palestinian citizenship and passports. Palestine is also represented at international sporting events, like the Olympics and Paralympics and films from Palestine have won awards at international cinema events, like the Oscars. (See also Cinema of Palestine)."

John Hyams (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John Hyams, that's the third time you hae remoed this text. As I have explained, this text is relevant to this article. This article, while it covers the geographical region, covers many of the political deelopments that occured therein. We have a discussion of Zionism, the creation of a Jewish national home, the establishment of Israel. We can certainly have some information about the State of Palestine and the use of the term Palestine to refer to a political entity that has been declared within that geographical region. Please restore the information. Do not insert into State of Palestine again. It is covered in different terminology there already there. Tiamut^talk 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we are in disagreement, I call to other editors to read this thread and act according to their own judgement. Please be patient until others will state their position on this matter. Thanks John Hyams (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John the material you have repeatedly cut and pasted into the State Palestine article duplicates links and content that are already present in that article. You are creating unnecessary disruption and the editors here have asked you to stop doing that. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. harlan (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I don't understand what my edits have to do with your statement. The editor (not editors) Tiamut asked me not to include some content in the state article, and that's perfectly fine by be. Your post was not appropriate. Please refrain from accusing others of bad faith. John Hyams (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No basis for removal of material on State of Palestine or national liberation movements

This article discusses the Hanganah, Irgun, and the State of Israel. It isn't clear why editors feel they should remove material from reliable published sources about the PLO, the PNA, and the State of Palestine. Palestinians inhabit this region too and there are other states that officially recognize Palestine as a state. There are several foreign diplomatic missions in El Bireh, Ramallah, and Gaza Palestine.

Other so-called geographical area articles contain entire subsections on the regional states, political history, foreign relations, colonization, independence, national liberation movements, and the succession of states or empires in the region. Here are a few examples:

• Ireland - Political geography
• Central American integration
• Central America - Foreign_relations
• South America Politics
• South America European colonization
• South America Independence
• China - Historical political divisions
• China - Republic of China
• Colonialism and the "Scramble for Africa"
• Africa Politics harlan (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion of Haganah, Irgun and other resistance movements such as PLO should be moved elsewhere. Contributing to even more political material is not the solution for this geographical region article. John Hyams (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John, before we discuss solutions, you first need to define a problem. The examples that I cited above reflect a very strong consensus that Wikipedia articles on geographical regions can include material about the states in the region, the national and ethnic groups, their political histories, civil wars, provisional governments, and etc. harlan (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The examples you have given:

• Ireland - "Ireland" is the name of both the state and the region. Not like the Palestine case.
• Central America - the integration section does not mention resistence movements, and its just a brief summary of the main article, separated from the region article. The foreign relations section describes a unified view, without getting into political controversy.
• South America - this is a whole continent, to a restricted area like Palestine. The article is not restricted to geography like the Palestine article, it has South_America#Geography as well as Geography of South America, unlike the Palestine article (Palestine is not a continent).
• China - Same as Ireland, "China" is the name of both the state and the region. Not like the Palestine case.
• Africa - Same as South America, a continent. It has its own geography section/article.

I will agree that the Palestine article covers the region's history as well, but the historical descriptions should be, in my view (and apparently in previous editor views), restricted to chronological events/periods with regards to this land region (who held it and when). Remember, this is a highly controversial subject matter, and keeping the political subjects in their own separate articles is the fair and balanced thing to do in this case. The current content may still need fixing, as I mentioned earlier regarding the removal of resistance movement mentions. John Hyams (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The entity that many countries recognize as a state is named Palestine. It is designated as such in the UN system, and it is already in common usage in American English, e.g. "At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." June 4, 2009, Remarks by the President [71]

If you look at the talk page archives above, you'll see that Palestine (region) was merged into this article. There have been several proposals to restore that name and move the other article to Palestine (state). harlan (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is President Obama referring to the Palestinian territories, and not "Palestine". Around 4:00. [72] Breein1007 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Palestine" is not considered a state by the UN. Breein1007 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, indeed. Harlan, such a merge can never happen because the historical region includes Israel, not just the "State of Palestine". So any such merge would never be accepted on Wikipedia. Also, the term Palestine preceeded the formation of any Palestinian people or nation by centuries. When the Romans used this term in the time of the great Jewish revolt, no one in the world could imagine that many centuries later there would be a group named Palestinian people. Never during the Ottaman rule was there a group called Palestinians wanting independence. The history of this region is vast and diverse, and trying to associate the old ancient name wholly to the current political entity would not work. Sorry. John Hyams (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You two haven't said anything that would prevent an ordinary user from moving this page to Palestine (region).

The U.N already has an international treaty instrument on deposit in which several member states have agreed to treat Palestine as a state. See U.N. Treaty Series, vol. LXX, pp. 237-263. In the 2004 Wall case, the interested state parties raised a jurisdictional objection that the case was a dispute between two states, and not multilateral in nature. See "(5) This is a dispute between two States: the principle of consent" on page 38 of the oral arguments.[73] In the real world, statehood does not depend on recognition. An unrecognized state is still treated as a state.

The ICJ cited two international covenants which say the Palestinians can determine their own political status, and the General Assembly affirmed the Court's decision in that connection. President Abbas said that the State of Palestine was already in existence and that the current battle is to have the state's border recognized.[74]

The President's remarks about local politics within Israel and the Palestinian territories only means that he wasn't discussing the communities of Jews and Palestinians living outside those areas. harlan (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, good luck with your endeavors. Cheers John Hyams (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

BCE and CE

Can we drop the BCE and CE and use the proper BC and AD instead? As much as I dislike the religion, changing the letters doesn't make it a bit more secular. It's still based on the same guy. --78.69.33.197 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But euphemisms make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.235.172 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for sharing your thoughts on religion, but there's no reason to change the date format from BCE/CE to BC/AD on this article. If you check our policy on this matter at WP:ERA, both BCE/CE and BC/AD are acceptable, and should not be changed unless there is reason to do so or consensus for a change among editors. BCE/CE may indeed be a euphemism, but if you have a problem with the Wikipedia policy on these era notations then please voice your concerns here. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this edit was the first occurrence of a date and by the same, the choice of style was exercised. Whoever changed from this format for reasons of their own WP:POV should not have prevailed. WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states "defer to the style used by the first major contributor". My76Strat 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

'Great Britain' should read 'United Kingdom'

All references in this article to 'Great Britain' should read 'United Kingdom' or 'UK'.

'Great Britain' was subsumed into the UK in 1801 AD and was no longer a sovereign State and therefore could not sign Treaties or accept Mandates etc. It was the UK that did so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.70.57 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"ancient Palestine"

The term "ancient Palestine" is misleading. The article states that "Palestine" is a modern name to this geographic region, so there is nothing ancient about it. ShalomOlam (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

Most of the information in this article is also available in others (one example: History of ancient Israel and Judah). Shouldn't these be merged in some way? ShalomOlam (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this article lacks neutrality: the term Israel and "Israeli occupied territories" is highly subjective and biased. It implies that Israel occupies the territory of Palestine when this land was given to Israel from Egypt as part of a peace treaty. While there is a source stating that Israel "occupies" that territory there are numerous sources which would not refer to this as occupation. That is a point of contest not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonymous-raz (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to treaties, Egypt does not and did not own Palestine to have the right of giving it, just like Britain who did not "give" the land of Palestine to the Jews of Europe, only a "promise" has been given to "establish" a homeland "in" Palestine. The mechanism is as follows: Israel existed prior to 1967 and it "occupied" the territories. The occupation is a fact, the Israelis claim the territories and the Palestinians contest this claim as a part of Israel. The term "Israeli-occupied territories" is not subjective at all nor it is biased. It is a well established fact by virtue of the International Law, the Geneva Convention and the Chart of the United Nations. This makes the Palestinian claims for independence legitimate and legal. 74.107.120.220 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Yachiel, 12 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add after the Greek translation of "Palestinia" its English translation "Wrestler" and after the Latin, "Wrestling School or Gymnasium." It is relevant to the article and accurate, as the article does not dissect the name and its origin. It simply states the modern since the English Colonizations - adoption of the name from the ancient Roman. Additionally, the article alludes that the name Philistine (Hebrew - פְּלִשְׁתִּים‎ = 860) and Palestine (Hebrew - פלשׂתינה = 875) are one in the same because of the similar spelling. However, this is not the case as the numeric value of Palestine is = This of course is clearly circumstantial that the English translation/conversions are similar Philistine was the area which is now from south of Gaza to about Tel Aviv - Palestine was a name for the land of Israel referred to by first Greeks and later adopted by the Romans.

Yachiel (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please quote or summarize published sources that support the proposed edit. harlan (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. sonia^♫♪ 01:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read a similar origin, that Palestine was so called by the Greeks as a play on the words for both the Philistines and wrestler, a reference to Jacob who was called Israel after wrestling with God. Simple Googling netted me http://theisraelconnection.blogspot.com/2008/09/origin-of-name-palestine-truth-is.html. If you want something more academic then try http://www.jstor.org/pss/1357617 if you can access it. While this is a known possibility the lack of available non-deep web sources means it should probably be qualified e.g. The name "Palestine" is the cognate of an ancient word meaning "Philistines" or "Land of the Philistines".[7][8][9] It has been suggested that in keeping with Greek culture of the day, it is also a play on the word Palaistes, Greek for wrestler, and a reference to Jacob, later called Israel, the founder of the ancient Israeli nation. This view is not yet widely accepted by scholars." 203.25.1.208 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll put this  On hold pending confirmation from someone with access to Jstor; the blog won't be enough. sonia^♫♪ 05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And confirmed here. Thank you for your contribution and I'll add it to the article. Regards, sonia^♫♪ 04:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jacobson is an excellent source that could be further cited in the article. However we can't say things like "This view is not yet widely accepted by scholars" unless we have a reliable source making that claim. We can only cite Jacobson as givig an alternative view. Zero^talk 05:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The very first line of the source does say It is generally accepted that the Greek name Palaistinē derives from the Land of the Philistines, the Peleshet of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Isa 14:29, 31), Prst or Plst of the ancient Egyptian texts and Pilišti, Palaštu, etc. of the Assyrian sources (Noth 1939: 134; Greenfield 1971: col. 400). So while the source does not say that this theory has not been widely accepted it does say that another theory has been. Perhaps clarifying that the widely accepted view it that the Greek word is a transliteration of the ancient Semitic name and then introducing this is an alternative would be a better way of framing this. nableezy - 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I've caused any trouble; as you can tell I know little about the subject and was just patrolling this. Thanks to you all for being watchful. sonia^♫♪ 06:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No trouble at all. Sometimes it takes an outside eye to see the forest despite the trees. Zero^talk 08:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To Nableezy: note that "this view is not yet widely accepted" is a statement about the situation after the article, whereas "it is generally accepted" refers to the situation before it. So they are not the same. However, I support a version like you suggest. Can you suggest actual wording? Zero^talk 08:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can try, but this may be a bit beyond me:

While it had been generally accepted that the Greek Palaistinē had been a transliteration of the Semitic name another theory suggested that the Greek name was derived from word for "wrestler" (palaistēs). Martin Noth wrote that this was a result of attempting to transliterate foreign names into ones that could easily be pronounced in Greek. However, later scholarship has asserted a more complex relationship between the two words, suggesting a connection between the Hebrew word for Israel and the Greek for Palestine. The word Yisra'el means "wrestler with God". The word for Palestine may have been an incomplete translation of the Hebrew Yisra'el with the deity omitted from the name.

I am unable to add the actual Greek to the Greek transliteration of wrestler. This may be a bit too detailed or it may even be a complete misunderstanding of the source. nableezy - 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis shows your high incompetence of etymology. Palestine is not the current word for the country found on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean, the correct term is Philistine, an Arabic word. There isn't any connect between the words Israel and Palestine.

in the section titled "UN partition and the 1948 Israeli-Arab War" the words: "resolution 181, " should be added to the first sentence right after "in favour of".

Important Note: During the British Mandate show the existence of official documents and evidence proving the existence of the State of Palestine, and these important documents, passport Palestinian issued before the year 1948 in Palestine, and as you can see the presence of a passport that says a British passport and under the slogan Palestine and there is nothing called Israel The first sentence begins: "On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions, in favour of a plan to partition the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states...". Why in the world is the vote on resolution 181 mentioned without including the words "resolution 181"? I think it is basic info that should be inserted right after "in favour of". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.12.235 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"economic" paragraph seems out of place here, at end of this sub-section:

1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

Main article: 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

...

Another outcome of the hostilities was the partial disengagement of the Jewish and Arab economies in Palestine, which were more or less intertwined until that time. For example, whereas the Jewish city of Tel Aviv previously relied on the nearby Arab seaport of Jaffa, hostilities dictated the construction of a separate Jewish-run seaport for Tel-Aviv.

---

It seems this dives into a somewhat separate topic that may warrant more details on the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine page. Either way, this topic paragraph highlights economic dependencies without other interesting dependencies. They should all be covered if one is, so it makes sense to move or to expand thoughtfully. I care not which one, but am thinking it makes most sense to move this to the other article, as I first suggested.

Mattsenate (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"See State of Palestine"

User:Newt Winkler has come on here after a break from Wikipedia and started edit warring POV into this article. There is consensus that stands regarding the "state" of "Palestine" that says we cannot on Wikipedia blankly label it as a state in the same legal sense that we know, for example, that the United States is a state. If we look at the actual article about this proposed state, we will see this immediately. At the top of the page, it says: "This article is about the political entity proclaimed in 1988". Then it links to the geographic region of Palestine if that is what the reader wanted to see. We should have parallel language on this page. This is the article about the geographic region, and if readers are interested in the other article, they should be referred to the article about the "political entity proclaimed in 1988". I originally wanted the text to read "proposed state" instead, but when I found the alternate wording on the actual article page in question, I decided that would be more appropriate. I am not going to break 3RR here, but I hope that another editor who sees this will act for the benefit of Wikipedia and improve this article by reverting Newt's POV. Breein1007 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC) :Say it in the article on State of Palestine, not in a disambiguation tag, where it doesn't belong. And please comment on the content, not the editor. Newt ^(winkle) 01:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed out several times that the content of this article in the 20th Century subsection is really about the State of Palestine, not about the geographical area. The information that it used to contain about the OETA/Kingdom of Syria administration of the area of Transjordan was removed and should be restored, if this is article is supposed to be about a region.

BTW, the fact that Palestine was proclaimed in 1988 isn't really relevant anymore. Israel claims it can't fulfill its international obligations in the OPT, because it is part and parcel of an armed conflict with the Palestinians. It has declared the Gaza Strip enemy territory, and the US State Department travel advisories say that Palestinians seized control there years ago. They also say Palestinian Security forces are deployed in several cities in the West Bank. harlan (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

harlan, nothing in your post has anything to do with the issue at hand Breein1007 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. You are trying to use strained semantics to assert that Palestine is still merely a proclaimed state. There is no consensus on Wikipedia about that. harlan (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine article suggests otherwise. Breein1007 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. I don't think that Wikipedia content guidelines on verifiability permit editors to cite their own interpretation of another Wikipedia article to support material that has been challenged. In general editors should avoid circular sourcing. harlan (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, although Palestine is not an official state, I see no problem referring the readers to an article that describes the political entity, if this referral prevents confusion with the geographical region. This confusion often occurs in laymen searches, and by keeping the referral we may resolve some (a bit?) of the semi-protection issues for this page (the issues may migrate from this geographical article to the political article). I'm an Israeli, and personally (speaking from where the confusion is known) I think it's good that readers will know about this differentiation. John Hyams (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and harlan, if you think Wikipedia is using unreliable resources, you can always challenge them with proper grounds on the appropriate talk page. However, one's own opinion is not always the objective turth/fact. As for the Palestinian state you say exists, well if it exists then why hasn't Abu Mazen proclaimed it yet? :) Of course, it's just an off-topic remark/question, it's not the place (talk page) to open a debate on this... John Hyams (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear up the definition, the Palestinian National Authority is an authority, not a state. John Hyams (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John Hyams, I didn't suggest that we remove the link. I suggested that we label it appropriately. It is currently introduced as "the Palestinian state". This is misleading. There is still no such state. I merely suggested that we make the description "the political entity proclaimed in 1988" and then link to the article. This is the wording directly copied from State of Palestine. Shavua tov, Breein1007 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my misunderstanding, I didn't read your first post thoroughly enough. I think it would be OK then, to change the referral name to "the political entity proclaimed in 1988". John Hyams (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::Actually, the phrase "the political entity proclaimed in 1988" does not occur anywhere in State of Palestine article, except in another disambiguation tag. Disambiguation tags are not subject to reliability testing and other normal processes, and you cannot use a disambig tag as a WP:RS for another disambig tag. The reality is more complex. Therefore we should simply, and without editorial comment, redirect people to that page, so that the battles by POV editors can be fought in one place, and not a hundred. Newt ^(winkle) 06:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where's the fight? I don't see it... (nor do I want to dig out old fights) Anyway, if you want to direct readers to "State of Palestine" and you think it's good to let readers know that the Palestinians apparently got what they were crying for, then fine by me, show the world the turth, they got it, and to the layman reader it would appear like: "Hey! They already have a state, so what's all that whining about all over the news?..." Frankly, and personally speaking, I don't believe that's your goal, but if it is, I'm not going to argue. John Hyams (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John Hyams, I appreciate your sarcasm, but I will assume you are here to improve the quality of Wikipedia, and if you believe it is inaccurate to leave such a misleading statement in the article, I would hope that you would do something about it and not simply make a joke and allow POV-pushers to get their way. It's clear from the State of Palestine article that these POV-pushers are off base. On that page, it is clearly defined in the lead that it is a proclaimed state without official status. As for Newt's ridiculous claim that disambig tags do not follow Wikipedia policies, that's clearly rubbish. Breein1007 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, you are right and I agree. I also hope that other editors will comment on this issue. John Hyams (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

YNET has reported that Abbas said the state of Palestine already exists and this article used to cite the Jewish Daily Forward article that said Costa Rica had signed an official bilateral agreement with the Palestinian Authority recognizing the State of Palestine. I'll add that info to the current status section here. harlan (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If it exists then congratulations, they got what they always wanted so there is no reason to strife with Israel any longer. So much for the Israeli "occupation". Cheers (and it's not the place to discuss this :). John Hyams (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I just searched Palestine on Wikipedia and recieved information on a "geographical region" not a country, this may be the biggest bias scheme on Wikipedia. Where is the neutrality in this? Someone please change this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.198.24 (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

it's the first that I hear about palestine (פלשת) in hebrew,are you sure that it is right?

in hebrew,for a forigien non-jewish related describe,we call it cannan,or "כנען",palestine,has never been common,because of historical and political issues... 87.70.160.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

Palestine Recognition

Brasil has just recently recognized Palestine with it's borders of 1967 according to AlJazeera. [[75]] —Piasoft (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Argentina Recognizes Palestine! [[76]] —Piasoft (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested rename (move)

Please see Talk:State of Palestine#Requested rename (move) to Palestine for a discussion on moving the State of Palestine to "Palestine" over this article, which would require moving this article. Int21h (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Hebrew lang from leded

I deleted the Hebrew transliteration of Palestine as "eretz israel" from the leded because the referenced source doesn't support it - it seems someone has misunderstood what the article (Palestine Exploration Fund) is actually saying, which is that the term "Palestine" has traditionally covered much the same area as the term "eretz Israel". PiCo (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the reasoning for your removal. I thought you were removing because you didn't think the name "Palestina" was supported. Anyhow, revert my undo if I was mistaken. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ledes generally give transliterations of names, when this needed - I'm sure there's a Hebrew transliteration of Palestine, but it can't possible be "eretz israel". Anyway, perhaps there's some confusion among editors as to what this set of non-English words is for (transliterations or geographic equivalents), so I'll leave it alone. That paragraph on the referenced website is quite good, by the way, and perhaps coiuld be rehashed as the lead para for the article.PiCo (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ledes generally give local names, not transliterations. Some examples: Germany has Deutschland (not a transliteration); Georgia has საქართველო, sak’art’velo - not a transliteration of "Georgia"; Japan has 日本, Nihon or Nippon - not a transliteration, etc. Since most current inhabitants of Palestine speak Hebrew, it makes sense to give the local name of the land in that language, even though it's not a transliteration of (or even etymologically related to) the English name. -- uriber (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pelesheth

Hi. Just noticed reverts being made with notes along the lines "Pelesheth is not a name for Palestine". Just thought I'd point out that the Internet seems to overwhelmingly think that it is. For example: [77] or just Google it. I'm not sure it belongs at the head of the article though, and keeping Eretz Yisrael at least has the merit of notifying the reader of the political bias of our encyclopaedia. --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about your assertion. The page you linked (1) says that the Hebrew term "Pelesheth" is used in the Hebrew Bible exclusively in the sense of "the sea-coast of the land of Canaan inhabited by the Phillistines." You seem to be confused about the next sentence ("Not till a late period in Jewish history was this name..."). The "this name" is not referring to "Pelesheth," but to the title of the article, "Palestine." By the admission of your own source, the Hebrew place-name "Pelesheth" is never used to refer to the entire land of what is now called Palestine; just a strip of sea-coast roughly around where the Gaza Strip is today. In contrast, "Eretz Yisrael" is the Hebrew equivalent for the English geographic term "Palestine." I'm also not quite sure about your assertion that we "just Google it," since at least the first few Google results seem to corroborate the analysis of the book you linked. If you would like to advance your assertion that Pelesheth is indeed a name for all of Palestine and not a limited seacoast area, please provide greater evidence. 128.197.91.127 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It does look to me like Pelesheth is not used to refer to Palestine as we would conceive it in modern terms. But the historical area referred to as Pelesheth in Hebrew would be referred to as Palestine in English, so "Pelesheth" appears to be a perfectly valid Hebrew translation of "Palestine". It doesn't seem to me to be about what "analysis" the sources might support (WP:OR), just about the fact that "Palesheth" in Hebrew can be translated as "Palestine" in English". --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Second commenter here. The article is about the entire land of Palestine, including not only the small coastal strip called "Pelesheth" in Hebrew, but also Judea, Samaria, the Galilee, and parts of Transjordan, as described in the opening paragraph of the article. If we interpret "Palestine" as referring to all of this area, then the correct Hebrew translation would be "Eretz Yisrael," not "Pelesheth." If you interpret "Palestine" as referring to the small coastal strip, then "Pelesheth" would indeed be the most accurate Hebrew translation. However, that is not the case in this article, which clearly covers more than that small area. If you can find a source using "Pelesheth" to refer to the entire land described in the article, I would love to see it; if you can't, I don't see how your argument that "Pelesheth" is a valid translation of Palestine (interpreted as the larger area covered by the article) is tenable. -Zarivri (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My father used to read Eretz Israel as Ersatz Israel which is mildly amusing--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

1RR question

I just made some edits before seeing the notice at the head of this talk page. i do not think they contravene the 1RR condition outlined there as most are minor additions rather than deletions. I did replace a verb like changing the loaded "crushed" to "defeated" The statistical ones are very well cross referenced. Any feedback would be appreciated.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. You didn't violate the 1RR restriction. Please read WP:3RR for more information about what is, and is not, considered a revert. You made a series of consecutive, constructive edits. No reverts (as far as I can tell). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

References to introduction

Here is my problem with these references

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, (formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina); Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is a conventional name used, among others, to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.

Firstly, the name is derived from Hebrew, not Greek or Latin. It is merely rendered into these languages that attest it later. Much later.

When it says "conventional use", in which convention/s?

If the name describes the "geographic region" than the references should be from sources that are recognised as authoritative in Geography. This is confirmed by the later use of same reference which is appended to "As a geographic term, Palestine can refer to "ancient Palestine," an area that today includes Israel" I'm assuming that ancient refers to Roman history? If that is the case, there was no such province. The attested name is for Iudaea created in 6CE as an imperial procuratorial province and renamed Syria-Palaestina by Hadrian in 70CE and upgraded to proconsular province. Later (c.400CE) there were three Palaestinae, so which is it?

Neither sources as they are not conform to the description given here.

Moreover, the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) is not qualified to state what the "region" is since they are not a geographical experts on the subject but, as they say "The purpose of the PEF was (and is) to promote research into the archaeology and history, manners and customs and culture, topography, geology and natural sciences of biblical Palestine and the Levant." Geography is not mentioned. Moreover, Levant is a Medieval French name for the region, so clearly they are confused. Biblical Palestine is mentioned once, and not in the Bible, but Joel 3:1-4. So clearly not "extant literature in the 5th cent. BC" as PEF says. It is not mentioned once in Quaran. Palestinians are mentioned often, but usually with reference to coastal cities close to the Egyptian border (which was settled between British and Ottomans in 1906, and again between Egypt and Israel in 1988)

PEF and the Jewish Encyclopedia disagree with each other because one says that it "includes contemporary Israel, the Israeli-occupied territories, part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria. Its traditional area runs from Sidon on the coast, to Damascus inland, southwards to the Gulf of Aqaba, and then north-west to Raphia." while the other that "The portion of Syria which was formerly the possession of the Israelites. It includes the whole of the country between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean as well as the country immediately to the east of the Jordan. .... although in the Old Testament (Christian, not Jewish term) is applied only to the land of the Pelishtim, or Philistines, and hence denotes merely the coast district south of Phenicia [modern Lebanon]. It was the Greeks who began to denote the inland country as well by this term [c.5th Century BCE]; such an application, by a foreign people, of the name of the coast to the interior is no rare phenomenon. As early as Herodotus, who is followed by other classical writers, as Ptolemy and Pliny, the phrase Συρίε ἡ Παλαιστίνη denotes both the littoral and the neighboring inland region (Judea and Palestine), as well as the entire interior as far as the Arabian desert."

Although neither give very good description of the borders, it is clear that they describe an area which in Greek geographic perception was much larger than that suggested in the article introduction, while "Josephus, however, usually limits the name to the land of the Philistines.", i.e. the four coastal areas, as is interpreted from Joel and other (some 450) mentions of the people Philistines.

I would therefore suggest that if the region is a geographic one, that a source from an authoritative geographic work is found that will clearly define what the region is.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Part 2 - four references

4. Boundaries Delimitation: Palestine and Trans-Jordan, Yitzhak Gil-Har, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 68-81: "Palestine and Transjordan emerged as states; This was in consequence of British War commitments to its allies during the First World War."

This reference as quoted fails in two places. Firstly, it refers to administrative rather than geographic regions. Secondly it proclaims them states where as they were not, but were mandate territories.

5. Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, US State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650-652 - What may be a great, if dated, reference for legal definition (Legal Nature of Mandates (§35)), is not a very good geographic reference. It would have been better if instead of South-West Africa [Namibia] (§37) as a case in point it used Palestine. There was a dozen of the League of Nations mandates

6. Forji Amin George (June 2004). "Is Palestine a State?". Expert Law. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/international_law/palestine.html. Retrieved 2008-04-04. - This doesn't say anything about the geographic boundaries of Palestine at all

7. Fahlbasch and Bromiley, 2005, p. 14. - clearly both are historically schizophrenic! This reference gets many things wrong, as followes (p.14):

• The name "Palestine" is commonly used to designate the ancient land of the Bible, the Holy Land — "from Dan to Beer-sheba."

in The three biblical altar laws by Paul Heger (p.158-160) says that The verse מגבע עד באר שבע "from Geba to Beer Sheba" in this verse is simply an idiom to express the magnitude of the entire kingdom, or country. It is a parallel to the well-known expression מדן ועד באר שבע "from Dan to Beer Sheba," which appears seven times in Scripture, and twice in reversed form מבאר שבע ועד דן "From Beer Sheba to Dan." In none of the examples does the phrase attest that there was something specific in Dan or Beer Sheba; it simply denotes the oikoumene, the land permanently settled by the Israelites. (i.e. definitely NOT Palestine)

However, Fahlbasch and Bromiley say - "It is also the common name for the territory of the British mandate taken over by the United Nations in 1948 and held now by the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel (§2), with the Occupied Territories. Originally, however, its boundaries were not so definitely defined, and Palestine was not its name. To gain some perspective about this small, revered, and troubled spot, we consider it in its original, much larger geographic and historical setting." In fact the borders of Davidic, Solomonic and the Ezra period reign (the periods when the phrase is used) are very well defined, but had nothing to do with the British mandate! Not only that, but the United Nations did not "take over" this territory, or any other in the region in 1948!

section 1. Early and Middle Bronze Ages

• The area usually called Palestine was not originally an entity in itself but simply part of the southern Levant, - how could it be southern Levant during "Early and Middle Bronze Ages" if Levant is attested in French from mid-15th century CE?

which goes northward along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea as far as the Orontes River (a Greek version of a Persian name) and the ancient cities of Ugarit (pre-dates Israelites) and Ebla (pre-dates Ugaris by several hundred years!), the northern limits of the ancient Canaanite world (? - another ethnographic region). - none of these names come from the period the section is titled for!

• The southern Levant was also the southern end of the so-called Fertile Crescent (The term "Fertile Crescent" was coined by University of Chicago archaeologist James Henry Breasted in his Ancient Records of Egypt, first published in 1906), which extends northwest from the Mesopotamian valley (The regional toponym Mesopotamia (from the root words "meso" < μέσος = middle and "potamia" < ποταμός = river, literally "between rivers") was coined in the Hellenistic period (from 323BCE) to refer to a broad geographical area without definite boundaries, and was probably used by the Seleucids) and southwest along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea (the name even in Latin post-dates the Roman Empire and is Byzantine, reinvented c.1400, from L.L. Mediterraneum mare "Mediterranean Sea" (7c.)).
• It was the land bridge between Mesopotamia and Egypt (another medieval French name O.E. Egipte, from Fr. Egypte, from Gk. Aigyptos "the river Nile, Egypt," from Amarna Hikuptah, corresponding to Egypt.), which is often called Syria-Palestine (not that often, it was a Roman provincial name that was used for about 200 years!), or Syro-Palestine, a general geographic designation with no suggestion of political boundaries - quite the contrary, it was an administrative designation with defined borders, but not related to any specific geography.

Geographically, the southern Levant, Syria-Palestine, was the crossroads of the ancient Near East. (The term Near East came into use in the 1890s, when European powers were faced with two critical situations in the "east". The Sino-Japanese War in 1894–1895 occurred in the Far East. British archaeologist D.G. Hogarth published The Nearer East in 1902, which helped to define the term and its extent, including the Balkan Pennisula (Albania, Montenegro, southern Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece), Egypt, Anatolia, Armenia the entire Arabian Peninsula, and western parts of Iran.) - thats a very large set of cross-roads!

"Thus Palestine and Syria became a middle ground between Mesopotamia and Egypt from both economic and political points of view." - well, NO. Egypt during the existence of the Roman province by this name was a Roman vassal state, while "Mesopotamia" was a part of highly hostile Persian Empire! The only thing there was a middle ground for was war.

• The mighty kingdoms on both sides of the Fertile Crescent (in 1906 when the term was coined these were the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire, not 'kingdoms'; we don't know what the level of 'fertility' in the region was during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages because the climate was different to 1906!) considered this strip of land (its about 500kms at the narrowest!) a thoroughfare; and both of them labored to impose their authority over it (actually Rome, which was not in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, but later tried to impose its will on everywhere!), mainly so as to control the trade routes passing through it and to use it as a bridgehead for defense or offense" (Y. Aharoni, 6). (no, in 1906 they tried to build a railway through it to link British India with Egypt (occupied by British) and Europe!)
• Human habitation in the Levant is very ancient (tell us more!), known in the remains from Paleolithic times and later in the impressive Neolithic city of Jericho in the Jordan Valley, from about 7000 b.c. - chronologically this should have been said much earlier (bad editing?)
• The Early Bronze Age (3300-2300 b.c.) was characterized by the rise of the first city-states: Ebla and Byblos (modern Jubayl, Leb.) (because population grew into large villages?) - but why tell us the modern name, or even the Greek name, if we know that Byblos (Βύβλος) is the Greek name of the Phoenician city Gebal (earlier Gubla)??? in the north, and Tyre (again, English version of Greek, NOT Phoenician Tsur), Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Jerusalem (this derived from the High German pronunciation), and Lachish in the south.
• At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1550), a series of nomadic invasions, principally by the Amorites (Amurru), Semitic-speaking peoples, brought great political changes in Mesopotamia (except there were no politics then, not even the Greeks to say polis!). Moving westward and settling down (so they came from the East, North, South?), they established strong urban centers (oh? as in "characteristic of city life," in 1610s (but rare before 1830s), from L. urbanus "of or pertaining to a city or city life,"; or maybe they just built some stone structures to give it more permanence?) such as Mari (what happed to Sumer?). In Akkadian texts Syria-Palestine came to be known as the Land of the Amurru, and the Mediterranean as the Sea of Amurru. - Is that maybe becasue the Amurru lived there?
• During this time the Levant (i.e. Land of Amurru!) was generally under the control of Egypt, an early evidence of which is found in the story of Sinuhe, from the 20th century b.c. Sinuhe was an Egyptian officer who fled Egypt and took refuge in Retenu/Canaan, where his wandering took him as far north as Byblos and Qcdem, and his exploits among the various groups of people inhabiting the land later won him honors in his native Egypt. There are also execration texts from the 20th to the 19th centuries that bear witness to Egypt as a dominant power, with their many references to towns and places in Syria-Palestine (Land of Amurru), such as Ashqelon, Jerusalem, Rehob, Byblos, Arqat, Tyre, and Beqa.
• In the 16th century b.c., native Egyptian rule was interrupted by the Hyksos (not quite, the 'Egyptian' name was heqa khasewet, "foreign rulers"), a strong Semitic people (Semitic is derived from the Byblical Shem, but most recently fromt eh 19th century IET in linguistics, however, they were Canaanites).
• Known for their fortifications and great military power (well, no, they defeated the Egyptians, thats all), they introduced the horse and chariot into warfare (no, it seems Some of the earliest examples of horses being ridden in warfare were horse-mounted archers or spear-throwers, dating to the reigns of the Assyrian rulers Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III.) :They swept down from the north through the Levant (no, through the Biau desert as it was called then) and into Egypt (who called it Biau), where they ruled during Dynasties 15-17 (no only the six Fifteenth Dynasty rulers), administering their empire from the Nile Delta (or as an encyclopedia they could have said iteru or Ḥ'pī in Ancient Egyptian).
• Driving out the Hyksos, the native Egyptian rulers (pharaohes?) of the 18th and 19th Dynasties began a new era of expansion and empire building (er...rebuilding maybe?). Syria-Palestine (Canaan, they took war to the homeland of the invaders) became the scene of many passing armies and bloody battles (well, at the time, one, Egyptian). One of the earliest and most notable of these campaigns was led by the pharaoh Thutmose III (king 1504-1450 b.c.). His control over Canaan (ah, right, finally!), however, was challenged by the Canaanite kings of Megiddo, Kadesh, Mitanni, and several other city states (like a confederation ?). Leading his army by way of the sea (the Via Maris! - was a trade route, and the name is defived from Vulgate, so post-Roman!; or mabe he just took the shortest coastal route to reduce on supplies and increase surprise?), Thutmose was halted at the (yet to be recorded in Hebrew name of) Mount Carmel range in the north of what would become part of Israel some centuries later (right !). On the other side of the Carmel range, in the Jezreel Valley, the Canaanite allies were waiting (assumed a fortified defense?). The major pass through the mountain was protected by the fortress city of Megiddo (noooo, you don't say!). In an act of daring strategy Thutmose led his army through the pass, attacking the city directly and defeating the Canaanite forces (daring? A head on charge into the fortress wall? Maybe Egyptians were just mad at the 'Hyksos'?). This was only the first of many military campaigns that Thutmose led through Syria-Palesine (Cannan that is) to enlarge Egyptian control.
• The southern Levant (Canaan) would be the scene of many more confrontations between international powers (international?; I'd say very much regional, in any case, there were nations). Amenhotep II (1450-1425 b.c.) led at least two campaigns through Canaan and to the north, even crossing the Orontes (which wasn't named that yet). Seti I (1318-1304) was active against groups in Canaan and confronted the Hittites at Kadesh in the far north of Syria-Palestine (not yet so called; Hittites were from today's Anatolia, so why not say that when every other thing is named with a wrong-period name?). Ramses II (1304-1237) led many campaigns through the area, his most famous achievement being a peace treaty concluded with the Hittites.(when does one make a peace treaty after a campaign? when the campaign doesn't go so good because the supply lines through formerly-villainous Canaanites are overstretched)

His successor, Merneptah (1236-1223), claimed Egyptian control over all Syria-Palestine (Canaan) (claimed is double-speak for 'not conquered', so why not say that?), and in a hymn of victory on a victory stela, he listed all the peoples and kingdoms he allegedly conquered (but other people carved images of subdued slaves, so what happend?). This stone is often called the Israel Stela because in the list of Canaanite cities and places, Israel is mentioned for the first time, significantly not as a settled people but simply as a group in the land.(and the other groups were, we are reading an encyclopedia after all!)

NOTHING on p.14 helps to establish Palestine as a geographic region, but confuses the many issues considerably

All in all I would not use the Catholic Encyclopedia until the editing improves A LOT.

To summarize, none of these references are remotely useful or reliable for the subject of Palestine.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Page 56 of this[78] is not bad - what do you think? Two quick clarifications re your other points: (1) I believe that as a historical region, the authoritative sources on your question are always going to be historians; (2)the jewish encyclopedia reference differs because it was written in 1905 - so could not have contemplated the modern state of Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm....the actual chapter is called The Name! But, the author lacks some insight into ancient civilizations.

Almost every contemporary author I have seen makes the same mistake. They look at the area from their perspective, and not that of the contemporaries. For example to Egyptians the importance of coastal Palestinian cities was to have a buffer-zone on their Eastern frontier (there were no borders), but when going to war in the East, its the ports that were valuable. On the other hand Assyrians coming West were more concerned with negotiating the heights stretching along the western valley of the Jordan. All armies followed the trade routes because these had the all-important water wells (often mined). The Greeks were only concerned about the coastal strip because of their maritime trade, so called the entire area inland the same name because so far as they were concerned it was the same trade zone....until Alexander the Great invaded all the way to India. Romans had a different strategy, using the area as a staging place for campaigns against Persian expansion. Calling the entire area Palestine only emphasized that this was again seen as a buffer to protect Roman-occupied Egypt. This is because "Palestine" was an important wheat trading centre through which Rome could buy wheat, but Egypt was an important wheat-growing area which Rome could just take. This, is exactly what happened in "the year of four emperors".

This is why it is almost impossible to apply the title to any specific recorded historical location.

The geographic area has to be described in terms of bounding geographic features, i.g. rivers, deserts, plateaus, etc. The geographic boundaries that most sources agree on are the sea coast as far as Phoenicia (Tzur/Tyre) [because of the prevailing sea currents?] and the desert to the south-west ('Sinai'). There is broad consensus that the southern boundary was on the southern desert ('Arabian'). The northern boundary seems to have been regarded as the lowlands between the eastern mountain range and the Euphrates valley (but some define it by the Orontes valley). The eastern boundary is apparently the eastern edge of the plateau between the Jordan and the Euphrates valleys.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koakhtzvigad, I think the information in your post above (21:21, 18 January) is excellent - very clear and fits well with my understanding. It would be a great addition to improve this article - do you have any WP:RS to support it? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean sources pertaining to the strategic point of view of different regional powers through history, or sources pertaining to the geographic area boundaries? Of course I have sources for both, but the former is dispersed all over the subject category by virtue of the military history aspect of the area, which is needless to say "rich" Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to the following points you made:

• To Egyptians the importance of coastal Palestinian cities was to have a buffer-zone on their Eastern frontier (there were no borders), but when going to war in the East, its the ports that were valuable
• Assyrians coming West were more concerned with negotiating the heights stretching along the western valley of the Jordan. All armies followed the trade routes because these had the all-important water wells (often mined).
• The Greeks were only concerned about the coastal strip because of their maritime trade, so called the entire area inland the same name because so far as they were concerned it was the same trade zone....until Alexander the Great invaded all the way to India. '
• Romans had a different strategy, using the area as a staging place for campaigns against Persian expansion.
  • Calling the entire area Palestine only emphasized that this was again seen as a buffer to protect Roman-occupied Egypt.
  • This is because "Palestine" was an important wheat trading centre through which Rome could buy wheat, but Egypt was an important wheat-growing area which Rome could just take.
• The implication that all the above points explain why Assyrians / Egyptians / Hebrews used the term Philistia to apply to the southern coastal cities only, whereas the Greeks and the Romans applied the name to the whole area including Judea (correct me if i am wrong, but i interpreted this to be the conclusion you were driving at - but the conclusion must be sourced to avoid tripping WP:SYNTH)
• The geographic boundaries that most sources agree on are the sea coast as far as Phoenicia (Tzur/Tyre) [because of the prevailing sea currents?] and the desert to the south-west ('Sinai').
• There is broad consensus that the southern boundary was on the southern desert ('Arabian').
• The northern boundary seems to have been regarded as the lowlands between the eastern mountain range and the Euphrates valley (but some define it by the Orontes valley)
• The eastern boundary is apparently the eastern edge of the plateau between the Jordan and the Euphrates valleys.

If you can sources all of these points, I think they would be helpful additional pieces of information. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections

This is an article about Palestine. On that basis, ancient records that don't mention Palestine, aren't relevant (I mean the Meshe stele and the Merneptah stele). These should be deleted. PiCo (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mesha stelle and Merneptah stelle were located in what later became the region of Palestine. What is this weird WP:WEIGHT theory for removing anything not linked to Palestine? Sounds like the policy of some Palestinian nationalism, hence WP:POV. I advice you to stop this practice.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This article purports to try and define the geographic area of what came to be known as Palestine since the British mandate after the First World War. The historical Palestine is very much defined within its discrete periods and to the various cultures that used the name as it suited them at the time, including the British Empire! Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is titled "Palestine", and so has to cover more than just the geography. But you're right, it does have to define the subject-matter. It seems to me that the problem is that the term Palestine can mean so many things - a geographic area, some ancient peoples who were neighbours of the Israelites, a Roman and Byzantine province, a modern would-be country, a modern people (and also an ancient one - though I'd be very dubious of links between the two). So what does this article want to be? We certainly don't need to cover yet again the history of ancient Israel - there are already maybe a dozen articles on Wiki for that. So let's by all means start a debate on that.

Now some specifics. The Merneptah stele dates from 1207, which is rather earlier than the Philistines' arrival in the region (c.1150). The Meshe stele (c.850) concerns a pretty unimportant incident between the Iron Age states of Israel and Moab, and doesn't mention Palestine or any cognate term - in other words, it doesn't help define the meaning of "Palestine".

What should be included? As I said above, the term needs to be defined first of all. As a modern term, it relates to the would-be State of Palestine, which has fairly clearly defined borders. As a term in archaeology it's used to describe the study of a much larger area, roughly that between Egypt and Mesopotamia but excluding Lebanon - note that I'm not inventing my own definition, I'm drawing attention to a technical term used by archaeologists. (The term is actually "Syro-Palestinian" archaeology). Finally, for historians of the ancient Middle east, "Palestine" is used to describe much the same area, but with the focus on history rather than archaeology. So I think the article needs to structure itself around these three usages. PiCo (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are confused, but its not your fault.

The article has a banner (above the title) that advises the reader This article is about the geographical area. For the political entity proclaimed in 1988, see State of Palestine.

geographical

The vast majority of this article is historical and therefore needs to be amalgamated with the Main article: History of Palestine [as I have already said before]

It may be a good idea to move this article to Historical geography of Palestine and then restructure the contents so they reflect the changes in the geographical inclusions based on historical periods Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There may be some issue or other here, but I tend to agree that you are understanding things wrong, Koakhtzvigad. AFAICT, history is subordinate to geography on WP and it is normal for articles on geographic entities to include information about relevant history, perhaps with appropriate spinning off per WP:CFORK. Try arguing at United States or North America that there should be no historical content. --FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I think you mean you agree with Koakhtzvigad that I am understanding things wrong? Fair enough - I have now seen the banner at the head of the article. There's another one there about the possibility of merging this article with three other articles. I would certainly agree that four articles treating this same area is a bit much. If that's what happens, there will still be a need for an article called "Palestine", but it should treat the history of the term, not the region (to avoid overlap with all those other articles). So that's my latest proposal: merge the history stuff with the other three articles (I imagine that most of it's already there), and make this a very brief article on the origins and history of the term. PiCo (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, it seems to me disingenuous to compare Palestine with North America. However, if you want to build an article based on that model, then

1 Etymology

2 Geography and extent

• 2.1 Geologic history
• 2.2 Physical geography

3 History

• 3.1 Prehistory
• 3.2 History
• 3.3 Human geography

4 Political geography

• 4.1 Historical toponymy

I would suggest thought that the History section should precede either Human geography or Historical toponymy

And no, History is not subordinated to Geography, in WP or anywhere. They are separate but closely related disciplines

IMHO Palestine should be a redirect to Palaestina to avoid the confusion that exists now

Palestine, as resurrected by the British, existed only on European maps, and only in the theological context Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Palestine → Palestine (region) — and redirect Palestine to Palestine (disambiguation). Proposal made as requested in Talk:State of Palestine#Request to close this debate. As seen at the disambiguation page "Palestine" has multiple common meanings - mostly revolving around the West Bank/Gaza Strip but focusing on different political, geographical or other contexts Alinor (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support Palestine as a polity deserves to be a vital article and thus have priority over any other non-vital article-such as Palestine(region). I also believe Palestine(state) to be the most common use of Palestine. A disambiguation page with priority is a compromise which I accept. Passionless (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• oppose I think that the region of Palestine in its forms would be best served by the current article, which discusses them, instead of the dab page, where one would need to choose the proper article, without the text here that points to the right one with a paragraph description. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Ghits suggest that searches for the word Palestine are interested in either the Palestinian territories (West Bank+Gaza), the Palestinian state (no de facto sovereignty but large international recognition) or the historical region of Palestine (i.e. including today's Israel). Current wiki article traffic does not help to define a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because one of the three topics has been labelled Palestine for some time now, so figures are naturally skewed. There is no consensus amongst editors regarding which topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only way to end the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC debate on Palestine once and for all is to temporarily disambiguate, and we can reconsider the new wiki article traffic in a few months time after a fair comparison is made. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support The common meaning of Palestine, what is meant by Palestine, what is the most common usage, etc., is contested. Disambiguation is a very good solution for this situation. Int21h (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think it's correct that the common usage is contested at all. Palestinian Territories and Palestinian Authority are not commonly (or officially) known as "Palestine". Ancient Palestine and Palestine during the British Mandate (as distinct from British Mandate for Palestine might be validly referred to as "Palestine", but we don't actually have articles on either of those things. In short, there's nothing to disambiguate from as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Its that the State of Palestine is refered to commonly as Palestine that creates the need for the disambiguation. Passionless (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

SoP is commonly referred to as "Palestine", yes. But the issue here is the opposite "what is the common usage of Palestine?" - the Palestine (region) (the status quo) or both it and one or more of the Palestine (disambiguation)#Common meanings. As discussed here the PLO is officially designated as "Palestine" in the UNGA and regular readers may actually need info on some of the other 'common meanings' even when they first open another of the articles. I agree with the editors above who state that "common meaning is contested/shared by different topics" - and that's why we have disambiguation pages after all. Alinor (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Passionless, Alinor and Int21h, and even take it a stage further - the word "Palestine" is very commonly used as shorthand for the Palestinian territories - see a couple of highly notable examples: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and Palestine (comics). So that's four editors already who are contesting the common usage of the word Palestine. So the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is contested - we have proven it simply via our discussion here (and on ghits of course). FormerIP, if you feel strongly about this please could you provide some evidence to support your claim? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Palestine (region) is not defined in terms of discipline category. Palestine is currently listed for 4 categories: Divided regions (political/military), Fertile Crescent (disputed membership, but its an ecological region), Levant (geographic), and Regions of West Asia (overcategorisation). However, the first naming of Palestine in the Bible is ethnographic, and the second, by Romans, is [defunct] administrative (Imperial). Palestine was also used by Christianity as a theological region of the Crusades. None of these correlate with each other in terms of physical space, and most regions in the World are delineated with application of some commonly agreed criteria in the relevant discipline. Now consider comparatively the current article with Germania, another 'region' in Roman administration. Does anyone see a tad of disproportionality in coverage? Palestine is only surpassed by Roman Gaul and equals to Roman Britain, although both were far more history-intensive than the imperial backwater that Palestine became after late Roman Imperial period, and all the way until late 19th century Zionist revival Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how this relates to being against the proposal of renaming Palestine → Palestine (region) — and redirect Palestine to Palestine (disambiguation). Maybe you meant to post under the merge discussion?

What is there to understand? The current article is a de facto identifier of a national entity by having the section that deals with borders. Regions don't have borders because borders are defined as jurisdictional ares, in international or national laws. Moreover, regions are defined within broad categories within Geography, Physical geography, Human Geography and Ecological Geography. I'd like to see some references to studies that deal with these definitions as applied to the article's subject.

• Oppose: Common useage and primary definition is demonstrated by reliable sources: Encarta, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, more in this thread. There is also a clear useage preference demonstrated by traffic statistics, also shown on the other thread. Nightw 07:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Another repeated argument which failed before- Using a source based in a nation which refuses to recognize Palestine would of course not have Palestine. Both of your sources do define the PLO-which is recognized by all nations. This source doesn't have any definition for Palestine- does that mean Palestine doesn't exist at all? No. All you proved is that the west does not recognize Palestine. Passionless (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. "The West" (as you call it) accounts for the majority of the world's English speakers, and this happens to be the English Wikipedia. But this isn't politics. This is primary useage of a particular term in the English language. And there is absolutely no basis for your absurd claim that lexicographic sources are politically motivated in this respect. Take it up at WP:RS/N if you deem them unreliable. Nightw 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Oncenawhile has a good idea. To be honest, I'm surprised this does not automatically lead to a country recognised by more than half the countries of the world. Munci (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It's worth everyone having a look at this article List of states with limited recognition - Palestine is the only state with meaningful recognition where the basic name does not take readers to the political entity. This is a very strong argument for Munci's point (made by many others here). This underlines the no consensus point made above - temporary disambiguation is the only possible outcome to avoid this argument going on forever. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are about 5000 Wikipedia articles linking to this article - the vast majority of which refer to its current subject (the historical region): http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Palestine&namespace=0&limit=500. Other articles with "Palestine" in their title have about an order of magnitude less references from other Wikipedia articles. Clearly this article is the primary topic, and deserves to remain under its current title. -- uriber (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Most people are looking for the geographic region. I bet traffic statistics bear this out. –CWenger (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Overwhelmingly. Nightw 08:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

Demographics of Palestine

Since Palestine is described here as a region, there is no reason to specify its demographics. There are almost no articles in wiki over demographics of regions (no articles on Demographics of Eastern Europe, Demographics of Caucasus, Demographics of America, Demographics of Balkans, Demographics of Mesopotamia etc.), but there are on demographics of states and political entities. Since, there is already an article on the Demographics of Palestinian territories, so the current demography section is completely unneeded here (either if this page stays as Palestine (region) or being merged with Southern Levant). Unless there are objections i would merge the demographics info to another relevant pages - Mandate Palestine, Vilayets of Aleppo / Beirut and Sanjak Jerusalem.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Demographics of Palestine.

Result - No concensus. See here - Talk:Demographics of Palestine#Renaming into Demographics of the British Mandate for Palestine.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Levant, Southern Levant, History of the Southern Levant

I propose this Palestine article be merged with Levant, Southern Levant, and/or History of the Southern Levant. Even the articles seem to say they are terms for the same region, with Palestine being a regional name for a actual region article which is mostly about history and having political connotations and naming conflicts, and the Southern Levant being a regional name for a region article, and History of the Southern Levant being a history article of a region, both with no political connotations and no naming conflicts. No idea what the difference between the Levant and these articles is. Int21h (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I can't tell what the difference is between these articles is either, if there is none than of course they should be merged. Though, I do not know what the title should be as Palestine(region) may be the more common of the two names, though I guess it depends on which is more popular, the use of the word Palestine as a region today, or is the Levant a more popular term from its use in history. Passionless (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• the part of the proposal below about redirecting Palestine to Palestine (disambiguation) can be implemented regardless of the place of the current content - Palestine (region), Levant or somewhere else. So I consider the two debates unrelated. This here discusses where should be the place of the content - the other below discusses where should Palestine redirect. Alinor (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - about the name - I think that the current usage boils down to the mandate era - Transjordan was part of the mandate, but was administrated separately from the rest of the mandate, e.g. the mandate for Palestine contained two parts - Transjordan and what is now Gaza+Israel+West Bank. And I think that because Transjordan has a separate name, but the rest doesn't - the mandate name "Palestine" get used to refer to these territories (Palestine (region) that includes Israel and Palestinian territories). Alinor (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the debates as related, but independent. This is primarily a content issue, which was brought to my attention by Koakhtzvigad. Koakhtzvigad said he thought they were obviously forks, so I looked into it. And lo and behold, I agree with him, at least to the point that the issue should formally be looked into. As for naming, I don't know yet. Hopefully some insightful individuals will step forward with well reasoned, well supported conclusions. Int21h (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Palestine article covers a smaller geographical area than the other two and has easily enough material to justify an article, so it would be like merging Wales into United Kingdom. Think there's a weak case for there being separate Levant and Southern Levant articles, though, so those two should be merged. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis of the following:
  • The term "Southern Levant" is:
    • (1) not common usage (see a pitiful 75 thousand ghits for "southern levant" here[79], versus 42 million for Palestine and 142 million for Israel;
    • (2) is a historical European name for the region - see Names of the Levant; and
    • (3) appears to simply be a wikipedia attempt at neutrality.
  • The term "Palestine" as a wider region is used by Palestinians to define their nationality - their national discourse suggests they are descended from all the different peoples who have historically lived in the region. The identity and potent "History of Palestine" is so powerful that tens of thousands of people have died fighting for it.
  • If we merged them, we would have to merge it with Israel and the History of Israel in order to be neutral, which would be even more ridiculous.

However, I do think that there is an important point underlying this - I agree there seems to be a lot of overlapping information and a lot of inconsistency in Israel/Palestine/Southern Levant articles. We need a central forum to agree the boundaries of the definitions for these terms which can then be used consistently.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the articles do not have to be merged completely, and Koakhtzvigad made the argument that these articles are in turn forks of the History of Israel. I think that discussion, while related, should not at the moment be used to prevent the merging of these articles. Identities, what is used to define it, the amount of people who died for them, etc., are really best left for discourses within the article. Their naming schemes are likely to be different from those in use on the English Wikipedia, as, well, they aren't the English Wikipedia with the cultures of the English Wikipedia that come with it.

Are they significantly different regions? Are the Levant and Southern Levant different regions? Are the Southern Levant and Palestine different regions? These questions need to be answered in a well thought out, well supported manner. I do not think they are at the moment. The history article(s) were mentioned because they are related and (IMHO) should be considered as well, given their significant similarities in content. Int21h (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- per FormerIP. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - merging with Levant prior to further discussion Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Wales is an administrative region of the United Kingdom, as are the Falkland Islands. However, Wales is also an ethnographic subregion of the British Islands. It is this aspect of the proposed move that bothers me. Editors seem to be unaware of what a region is. A region does not have borders, which are defined through international or national laws. It is a mystery why Palestine is seemingly (I haven't checked all) the only "region" in the entire range of regional articles in Wikipedia that has 'borders' Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but when we consider what is real, we must remember that ideas exist. In other words, Palestine, like Greater Israel, is a political region which no longer exists on the ground but remains strong in the minds of many (both ideas are disputed, but definitely exist as ideas). The Holy Land is another example of a (religious) region covering this same area. As is Canaan and Coele-Syria. These are all real ideas that mean different things to different people - they cannot all be merged. There is a stronger argument to combine any "History of" articles, but a merger between the main articles of Levant/Palestine/Holy Land/Coele Syria/Greater Israel/Canaan is impossible. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support a merging of the Palestine#History section with History of the Southern Levant however. The Palestine (region) article should retain only a couple of paragraphs summarising the Hist of SL, up until the point that the modern political concept of Palestine becomes more relevant at which point it should have more detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Some more examples re Koakhtzvigad's question - see Kurdistan, Greater Armenia (political concept), Tibet, Tamil Eelam and Basque Country (greater region). Two things are clear from this (1) there are many historical regions important to political movements which have articles in wikipedia; and (2) there is no consistency at all re how these articles are presented. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Onceawhile, but I would say that these are all ethnographic regions based mostly on language geography that have become politicised, rather than being political regions. I.e. the resident dominant demographic desires political recognition based on geographic tenure and some historical association Koakhtzvigad (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Koakhtzvigad. You make an interesting point - that is true (to differing extents) for all the examples I gave. There is another important connection between them - nationalism (see e.g. historiography and nationalism). The region of Palestine is a fundamental ideology for Palestinians today, just as the Land of Israel was for the pre-1948 Zionists (which also did not exist at the time), and therefore it is a highly notable topic. I respect your position, but whether or not one believes Palestine really is a region is irrelevant for wikipedia - we just record, we don't take a view. The region exists in the mind of all Palestinians, and therefore is highly notable, and therefore deserves its own article. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Palestine" is, and had always been, by far the most common name for this land, which has a rich enough history and geographic features to warrant its own article. -- uriber (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Palestine is a place and can be found in history books not as a region or state, but as a land where people call home. During the Crusades Christians took over Palestine. Further more, if you don't know how decipher, much less understand what Levant is, then step off. Your obviously anti-Semitic. The name of (Levant States) was given to the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon after World War I (1914 – 18). Also, Levant can be used as a historical name for the countries along the shores of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Some used Levant to describe the coast lands of Anatolia and Syria, sometimes extending from Greece to Egypt. As you can clearly see, Palestine is a real place, not a area between Europe and Africa.

• Comment - Aside from highly emotional statements above, there is seemingly a lack of editors actually READING the article beyond the title!

IF this article is about a geographic region, not one that "exists in the minds", so it needs to express itself in geographic terms. Even the section dealing with the boundaries of the area contains only 2-3 paragraphs that actually refer to geographic concepts, using some geographic terms. By far the largest part of the article is historical!

The problem in merging this article into the Levant article/s is that Levant NEVER included Palestine since it is a French late-Medieval/early-Renaissance reference, and does not refer to the Roman/Byzantine provinces. The reason is not geographic, but political/theological. The 'inheritor' of the Byzantine province was the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the French Catholics retained territorial claims despite the loss of the lands (to Saracens, later Seljuks) they were granted by Rome. Hence Levant, and later Orient, and not Palaistinē, its former pre-Crusades name.

Palestine did not exist as a geographic or historical entity during the Ottoman occupation at all. Jund Filastin did not refer to either geographic, administrative, historical or ethnographic entity, but to the military district garrisoned by the occupying Islamic troops. The population there still predominantly spoke Greek and Aramaic! The earliest Islamic historians attest to this! The reason it was so called by the conquering army is for intimidation value since Byzantine rule was now null and void, and Islam could claim superiority over the territory first established by the still-venerated Romans.

During the Crusades that followed several hundred years later the region was not known by either the Greek or the Latin versions of the name Palestine. What the LOCALS called the area largely depended on whom they paid taxes to! The names used were predominantly administrative (property of the Roman Church) or political (granted lands), and these were retained on the European maps for centuries after they were lost in combat, because the claims to the lands were not extinguished through loss in war.

During the post-Crusade period Palestine existed only as a Christian name often used in conjunction with The Holy Land, derived from the Jewish Eretz HaKodesh. This emerged in English after the redaction of the King James Version of the Bible to DIFFERENTIATE itself from the Catholic Church's Vulgate. The Catholic Church restricted naming maps in all printed works in Europe from 16th century (until 1948 IMHO) via the Librorum Prohibitorum as advised by the ordinarius. The reason is not geographic, but theological. While the Church retained claims to the territorial lands never abandoned since the end of the Crusades, all reference to these territories had to be maintained as Christian. Denying they were Christian constituted heresy. While hereditary claims were extinguished through death or other causes by individuals, temporal claims could be extinguished only by the Pope. Hence, the non-heretical identity of the territories had to be maintained in line with the Church Doctrine, that is attesting to the time of Crucifixion, and not Islamic conquest that followed, or the Israelite kingdoms that preceded it. That time was also the time of Roman occupation, hence every printer was only authorised to use the name Palestine in printing books or maps that would be passed by the Church ordinarius.

This name was ubiquitously used in Europe for centuries, and therefore re-used by the British in 1918 quite arbitrarily since no other name was available through Church censorship.

The use of mandate by the British Empire to append to the Palestine territories after the First World War is not accidental, but was used in another document in Latin, "Librorum Prohibitorum" or less well known Index Librorum Prohibitorum Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Gregorii XVI. Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. Rom®, mdcccxxxv. Ex Typographia Reverend® Camera; Apostolic®, Cum Summi Pontificis Privilegio. After the previous edition's Preface of the previous pope, say Benedict XIV., there follows Catholico Lectori Fr. Thomas Antoninus Degola Ordinis Pradicatorum Sac. Congregationis Indicis Secretarius. who was the ordinarius in G.B. during that pope's time. After one paragraph in Latin, the secretary satisfies himself with repeating what a former secretary, Ricchinius, had prefixed to an edition of the Index in 1758; and he closes with announcing a Mandate of Leo XII. in 1828, and a Monitum of the S. Congregation in 1825.

A 'mandate', is another word for a 'letter', as in The Apostolic Letter "Our Apostolic Mandate" ("Notre Charge Apostolique"), and is therefore just a contract by which one person employs another to do a lawful thing for him/her. The employer (here League of Nations) is called the mandant; the person employed (here the British Empire), the mandatary, but in civil law practice sometimes issued to an attorney or factor. So the Human Rights Council exists based on its mandate, and its special rapporteurs also have mandates, not 'Mandates' as they are spelled for some reason, although in real terms they are nouns since there are physical documents that are Mandates in terms of legal authorization to perform tasks as specified.

The upshot of all this is that Palestine is not a geographic area. Even the section Boundaries says so by stating that "The boundaries of Palestine have varied throughout history." Geographical boundaries are either physical or human, the former hardly ever change, and the later, in the case of this area of the globe, change extremely dynamically. Consider all the forced resettlements, the norm in ancient times, that are recorded in TaNaKh alone! The resettlement policy was practiced as early as Old Kingdom of Egypt, and as late as the Armenian resettlements during the First World War by the Ottomans.

There are other problems with this section. For example the reference given is from a 1964 edition which I don't have access to. However, in recent War in ancient Egypt: the New Kingdom Anthony John Spalinger says the names may refer even to what we now call Asia, and is indefinite.

Use of Palestine by this view is conventional, not geographic. To get a geographic understanding of the subject one has to go to a time when Palestine was not a politicised term. One book available in GoogleBooks is MANUAL OF ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY By WILHELM PUTZ, 1855 (Translated from German in USA). Here, starting on page 8, he says in § 5. Geography of Palestine.

Names - In the Old Testament, the country between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is called Canaan (also the land of the Hebrews, Jehovah's, as being the peculiar possession of Jehovah), Israel (the promised Land). The name of Palestine was given at first to the country of the Philistines in south-western Canaan, but by degrees it became the term most frequently employed in the West to signify the whole country ; which was also denominated the Holy Land, as being the theatre of events recorded in sacred history. It received the name of Judǣa after the Babylonian captivity, because Judah was the chief of the tribes.

Boundaries - (in the time of the Judges): on the west the Mediterranean sea, N.[orth] Phoenicia and Syria, E.[ast] the Syrian desert (country of the Ammonites)[its border on the west is the Orontes Valley - K], S.[outh] Arabia (country of the Amalekites, Edomites, and Moabites).— David subdued Syria; and Solomon's dominions extended from Thapsacus on the Euphrates to Gaza, and south-wards as far as the Red Sea.

Mountains - the two chains of Lebanon [Libănon: Λιβανος], which is 10,000 feet high, and clothed with a forest of cedars. At a later period, this range was divided into Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon [Hermon], between which lies the valley of the Leontes, or the ancient Cœle-Syria, with the ruins of Baalbeck. The northern part of Palestine, afterwards called Galilee, forms a table-land, on the southern side of which rises Mount Tabor; thence the traveller towards the south descends into a small plain (Jezreel). The centre of the country is traversed by the mountains of Ephraim, the southern by those of Juda, and the eastern by those of Gilead.

Waters. The Mediterranean (in the Bible the Great Sea). The lakes of Merom (or Samochonitis), and Genezareth, or the Sea of Galilee; the Dead Sea (so called, because, as it is said, no living being can exist in it, or on its surface), or Lacus Asphaltites (on account of the bitumen or asphalt found there), or Salt Sea (on account of the unusual saltness of its waters). This body of water owes its origin to the judgment which overwhelmed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (with Adama, Zeboim, and Bela), and changed the fruitful valley of Siddim into a lake. The river Jordan rises from three sources in the Anti-Lebanon, and flowing through a valley formed by a wall of rocks on each side, finally loses itself in the Dead Sea. Before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it seems to have discharged its waters into the Atlantic.

All this is a geographic description of an area, which, although still historical, uses terms that geographers today can identify as landforms and hydrological landscape features. What proponents of "Palestine as a geographic area" won't like about Putz is that this section is found within the Manual's FIRST DIVISION - ASIA, B. PARTICULAR STATES, I. THE ISRAELITES (p.vii) And this is not an exception. A map produced in the 1880s http://www.gilai.com/product_51/Geological-Map-of-Palestine-Published-in-London-by-John-Murray-1883. still shows the Israelite tribal areas, and Philistia as a coastal strip in the south-west Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The name of palestine to this area became only in the last 200 years, before that, it was a part of bigger conquest (see ottoman, Mamluk ex.) so all the history need to be marg which the levant. the modern part are in israel, state of palestine, British Mandate for Palestine so it can be totaly remove or merg to the equivallent article. -yona bendelac (discussion) 15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Palestine refers to a much more specific place than Levant. Merging Palestine and Levant would cause a great deal of confusion for people looking for the specific region called Palestine. However, if the search term 'Palestine' is no longer redirected towards the current page, but rather, State of Palestine then I would agree to the move. Hence these are my conditions:

1) Searching Palestine directs users to State of Palestine

2) Users are given a message on the page State of Palestine that the Palestinian region is further discussed in Levant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andalus7 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)