Talk:Palestinian National Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Correct name

Correct name: Interim Palestinian Authority

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


[edit] Article is racist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Saunders

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

Regarding this sentence:

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

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

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

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

Ed Poor

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

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

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

It is not relevant to this article

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

Uh, not by its own right.

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

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

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

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

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

The following is deleted until clarified:

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

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

[edit] Misleading religion claims

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

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

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

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

Then we have this item:

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

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


[edit] American civil courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] On the recent cleanup by Jayjg

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

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

--

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

--

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

[edit] "Capital: Jerusalem"

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

[edit] Area and Maps

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

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

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

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

[edit] Issue of "de facto capital"

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

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


[edit] Inflammatory section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desecration of holy sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was also discussed earlier (above).

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

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

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

[edit] Explanation of some clean-up

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


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


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

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

[edit] Introduction

"a semi-autonomous state institution"

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • without any para-military or military groups or formations

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

[edit] Coat of arms

Enlarge

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

.

[edit] Allegations of lawlessness in Palestinian areas

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

[edit] Not a country

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

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

[edit] Palestine

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


[edit] Seems fair and accurate to me

Should remove the NPOV. Done.

[edit] Current Events

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

[edit] Clean Up

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

[edit] Palestinian States proposal

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

[edit] GDP per capita

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

[edit] Caqpital

Where is the capitaql.

[edit] Jerusalem

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

[edit] Islam/demographics

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


[edit] Capital/Largest City/Map

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

[edit] Overwikification?

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

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

[edit] Dead link

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

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

[edit] Dead link

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

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

[edit] Dead link

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

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

[edit] Dead link

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

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

[edit] PA vs. PNA

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

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

[edit] Why not Paris ? It's nice

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

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

[edit] Liberation Party is relevant?

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/l/Talk%7EPalestinian_National_Authority_49bf.html"