Talk:Palestinian National Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestinian National Authority is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Western Asia This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Globe icon
 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.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents


[edit] Legal status of the Palestinan National Authority

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

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

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

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

What is the Jordanian position of the PNA status?

What does the United Nations say about the issue?

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

These are good questions. I will attempt to answer some of them. The Palestinian Authority was created by the Oslo Accords. It's original purpose was to govern the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip during an interim period, until such time as a Palestinian state was created by a Final Status Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. However, no such agreement was ever reached. What that means is that the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are stateless. They have no passports. Israel has effective control of all the territories, despite the presence of the PNA, hence they are still considered to be under military occupation. Sanguinalis 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to lead

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

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

[edit] Area figures and maps

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

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

[edit] PNA no longer in control of Gaza Strip

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

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

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

[edit] East Jerusalem as a "desired capital of an independent Palestine"

I'm removing the following from the infobox:

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

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

[edit] Style -- make PNA the affirmative "subject" of the Overview

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

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

This sentence could be modified toward better NPOV as follows:

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

Or this would work as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Embasies and missions

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

[edit] Areas A, B and C

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

________________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Proposed Solution

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

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