Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:41, 10 April 2010

Palestine Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Problemo. on one hand, the article explicitly states that after the government was annulled, the land was under egyptian control. however, now we lose 'continuum' towards the Palestinian Authority article, the current holder. then again, we cannot discount the fact that the territory was controlled by egypt and that should be reflected. any suggestions how to make this noticable, while keeping the continuum? perhaps a section in the UAR article? MiS-Saath (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Legal Fiction

According to the Montevideo Convention, and customary international law, every state is a artificial person (a legal fiction). The fictional independence of all the Class A mandates had been provisionally recognized for decades, so the establishment of a state under the protection of a neighboring Arab state was no less legitimate than the League of Nations British regime had been. Sovereignty has never been a requirement for the recognition of a state. In the case of the Great Powers, even the lowest Ottoman administrative sub-divisions were deemed capable of granting concessions or negotiating treaties, e.g. Kuwait had agreements with Great Britain.

The convention says:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

• (a) a permanent population;
• (b) a defined territory;
• (c) government; and
• (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

harlan (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This article does not reflect that even before Gamal Abdel Nasser dissolved All-Palestine in 1959, nobody took it seriously. Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military occupation, not an independent state or significant autonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.126.72 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A loose tribal confederation of families living in a legal system based on the laws of sharia was sufficient to qualify as a British protectorate. The declaration of establishment of the state of Palestine and its charter have been published in the Brill international law journal and the Foreign Relations of the United States. The All-Palestine government was recognized by all of the members of the Arab League except Jordan. A typical British or French Protectorate had no more, or less, legitimacy under international law than a state under the protection of the Arab League or Egypt. The existence of a state in international law has nothing to do with complete independence or significant autonomy.

Several landmark cases involving "sovereign" immunity for "acts of state" have involved non-sovereign or dependent states. See for example Clayco Petroleum Corporation and Bruce Clayman, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental of Umm Alqaywayn, Inc., and Armand Hammer, Defendants-appellees Footnote 1:

This court has held that the government of Umm Al Qaywayn is a foreign sovereign for purposes of the act of state doctrine. Occidental v. Buttes, 331 F.Supp. at 113. This determination was made when that nation was one of the Trucial States; the sheikdom is now part of the United Arab Emirates. This change does not warrant a redetermination of the sheikdom's status

The Great Powers routinely concluded treaties with administrative sub-districts of the Ottoman Empire (Tripoli, Kuwait, etc.) and in many instances didn't bother to forward the treaties to the sultan for ratification.

Prior to the treaty of Versailles, the neutralized state of Belgium couldn't even make a sovereign decision to defend its own the homeland. That doesn't mean it didn't exist, or that it couldn't enter into relations with other countries.harlan (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Face it, this article is heavily biased, and does not reflect that this was merely a puppet government for Egypt. It was not an attempt to create a truly independent Palestinian state in any sense. And only Arab countries recognized with, except Jordan. This article should reflect is puppet status.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1949 most of the third world was comprised of puppet states. Haiti and Cuba were puppet US-protected states, but that doesn't mean they weren't states. The Arab High Committee (AHC) informed the Security Council that it was just a coalition of local national councils that was represented in the Arab League. The AHC advised that it had requested the assistance of the other Arab states, and that Palestine had not been invaded. see THE DECLARATION OF THE ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE FOR PALESTINE, May 24, 1948. The Security Council representatives for Belgium, France, Great Britain, and the US had already met privately to discuss the "Arab invasion" before it ever happened. They agreed that the Jewish militias were the aggressors and that the Arab states were simply coming to the aid of their beleaguered brethren.

After the armistices were signed, Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149 But the civilians in Gaza had never been under belligerent Egyptian occupation.

That fact was evident during the negotiations for UN resolution 242. FRUS, 1964-1968, Volume Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Page 1015 scroll down to Document 515. It records a meeting about the wording with King Hussein, President Johnson, and Secretary of State Rusk. It says:"King Hussein tried his best to get precision on the clause with respect to withdrawal of Israeli forces. The President replied that it was difficult to be precise in one part and not on the others. There were imprecise statements in the resolution in several respects. The King then said that if it was impossible to be precise as to when or where withdrawal should take place, he hoped that it would be possible to be precise with regard to the question of who was to withdraw. The phraseology of the resolution calling for withdrawal from occupied territories could be interpreted to mean that the Egyptians should withdraw from Gaza and the Jordanians should withdraw from the West Bank. This possibility was evident from the speech by Prime Minister Eshkol in which the Prime Minister had referred to both Gaza and the West Bank as "occupied territory".

The President agreed to talk with Ambassador Goldberg in New York and he and Secretary Rusk told the King that we would be back in touch with him by noon the following day with respect to his suggestion for inclusion of the word "Israeli" before the word withdrawal in the resolution. harlan (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

not a state. You've proved nothing, but you did show one person's opinion letter. Sorry, but the world except the Arabs labeled the invasion by the Arabs as aggression in the end. Period. Also, do you think South Ossetia and Abkhazia are states, just because someone says they are? Even tho like the APG, barely anyone else saw it like that?Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that while 1948-members of the Arab League did indeed recognize All-Palestine with prominent exception of Transjordan, no other Arab / Muslim state did (Libya, for example, was already an independent state at the time and did not recognize All-Palestine, even after joining the Arab League in 1953). Politically, All-Palestine was Nasser's way of poking a stick in The Hashemite's plan of taking over the Arab areas of mandatory Palestine, including at his border. During the Sinai War of 1956, Israel took over the Gaza Strip for a short period of time, which further demonstrates the absurdity of considering All-Palestine as anything but a legal fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.126.72 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

any reputatable sources other than Avi?

because this guy is plain biased, and I can find few other sources online other than pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli sources which talk of thisTallicfan20 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Many countries followed the diplomatic practice of the US. You can find all of the official information about that in the FRUS. The State Department Legal Advisor, Ernest Gross, had provided the White House with a written opinion that explained that the communities in Palestine had a legal right to declare governments in the territories that they inhabited when the mandate ended, on 15 May 1948. He also advised that recognition was a matter of sovereign and executive discretion, i.e. the United States was not bound to recognize either state simply because it had voted for partition. He advised against recognition of any party that claimed jurisdiction over all of Palestine.

Ben Gurion tried to leave the matter of borders open to developments. The Truman White House talked Elihu Epstein into saying that the Jewish state had been established within the boundaries adopted in the United Nations resolution. He was instructed by Clark Clifford to mention that in the text of Israel's request for US recognition.

The termination of the Palestine Mandate gave the local Arab councils of Palestine the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. It seems that you either loved the Mufti, or hated him. The US government was officially in the latter camp. Through their consulates, they offered the "friendly advice" that the All-Palestine government not be recognized. That was done for two reasons: because of the Mufti's involvement with the enemy during the war, and the fact that the government had claimed jurisdiction over all of the territory of Palestine. That was an open invitation for the Revisionists to urge the Government of Israel to do the same, and prolong the war. The US considered the Egyptians and Jordanians to be military allies of the Palestinians, not occupying powers. The US recognized the decisions of the Jericho, Nablus, and Ramallah conferences to form a political union between Central Palestine and Transjordan, and the decision of the Mufti's followers to form an independent government under the auspices of an Arab League-backed trusteeship, to be administered by Egypt in the Gaza Strip.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. That doesn't mean that you have to write articles that say some people thought Hitler was a nice guy, and that he was kind to his mother. On the other hand, the German people didn't loose the right to lawfully inhabit their own territory or exercise their right to self-determination because they elected him. The same holds true for the Palestinians in Gaza. harlan (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

you missed my point. There are other authors out there other than Avi, and NPOV doesn't allow for overtly slanted articles. Also, Palestine was never a state. Palestinian Arabs wanted Greater Syria before "Palestine," and they rejected the partition over land that was British and then the UN's, not theirs. Palestine never existed as a state before, and did not during the mandate.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Flags

After the Arab Revolt was declared in 1916 by the Sharif of Mecca the Kingdom of Syria, Transjordan, and the various Palestinian governments adopted it's flag, or minor variations based upon it.

• Pan-Arab Flag
• History of the Syrian Flag
• Various Palestine Flags including the one used by the All-Palestine government. harlan (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All-Palestine government

should link here.--189.33.2.165 (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done harlan (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Post WW I use of the term "state" for the territories of the mandate

To User:Harlan wilkerson:

For the time being, I am going to yield to you on this matter. Nonetheless, I suggest that you find a more accessible source to lean on. I've tried to access the source you're using to support your point, but don't see how to do it without turning over a credit card number, which I'm not prepared to do. Without it, I cannot even verify that this term refers to post WW-I events, as opposed to post WW-II events.

But regardless of that, and even accepting that this does refer to the post-WW I period, I would argue that, in the absence of a generally verifiable source, that the use of the word "territory" is simply more acceptable. It carries less specific connotations than does "state", and in point of fact, the planned entities, regardless of their legal status, were undeniably "territories", but whether they constituted "states" is a matter of definition, and over this there is likely to be some dispute, even with the source you provide.

I ask you to consider changing the term to a more neutral term, such as territory. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

State is the neutral term for any territory with an organized population, and a government with the capacity to engage in foreign relations. Great Britain delegated the conduct of Palestine's foreign affairs to the local government. It entered into several international treaty agreements, including postal union agreements with Italy, the United States, and others. Many of those agreements are available online via the UN Treaty Organization. See 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). )

For example, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions says "(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

There is a subsection of the British Mandate of Palestine article devoted to the subject:

Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, "and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down." The text of the treaty is available online

Article 241 of the Treaty of Sèvres and Article 46 and 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne provided that the newly-created States in Asia in favor of whom territory had been detached from Turkey would participate in the repayment of the Ottoman Public Debt, and provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve any disputes. The text of the treaties is available online here and here

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. Whiteman cited the Ottoman Public Debt case and the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case in a portion of the State Department Digest devoted to the legal status of the Mandates. The French text of the award is available in Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948), "Affaire de la Dette publique ottomane. Bulgarie, Irak, Palestine, Transjordanie, Grèce, Italie et Turquie. Genève, 18 avril 1925", pages 529-614 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 particular 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."

The 1925 Judgment No. 5 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. The Court held that the government of Palestine, not Great Britain, was responsible (subrogated) as the successor state. The judgment is available online The Attorney General of Palestine, Norman Bentwich, published an article in the British Yearbook of International Law which was also cited by Whiteman. Bentwich explained that the Courts of Palestine and the UK had decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state. The article is available online, 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. harlan (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is not necessarily with the use of the term "state" but with Harlan's motives. Harlan presents here a highly controversial thesis as if the Arab Palestinian People existed for centuries, and the various governments in the south-west Levant for the past 500 years, or even more, have either implemented or heralded the Arab-Palestinian right for self determination. This theory leads to the false conclusion that the State of Israel is a kind of Rhodesia, i.e. an illegitimate entity established by colonials on the expense of the local native population. Harlan consistently ignores the fact that a distinct Arab-Palestinian identity came into being only in the 20th century, and that the population of the south-west Levant was not entirely Arab in the past 200 years or so, and included a great deal of Jewish and other non-Arab residents. He also ignores sources like the Hussein-McMahon correspondence in which the British side said explicitly that the south-west Levant was not to be considered Arab, the 1917 Balfour declaration, the League of Nation's mandate charter that makes the establishment of Jewish national home in Palestine the goal of the British mandate administration, and many other sources. He bases his thesis on either new pro-Palestinian opinionated articles, or upon deliberately misinterpretation of reliable sources. Harlan, who presents himself as an expert of international law, refuses to submit information about himself or about the source of his expertise. His edits are almost entirely pro-Palestinian propaganda, and he forcefully imposes his opinion with the help of a few other pro-Palestinian editors (including one admin). Complaining about him would result in punishment of the complainer. Arguing with him would result in an endless debate which he would drag forever despite knowing he is wrong. An attempt "to be bold" and edit the article against his will, would result in a lynch. There are many pro-Palestinian organizations in Europe and North America that aim at manipulating websites. I suspect the "Harlan gang" is part of these associations. Let it be clear - propaganda is a legitimate exercise of freedom of speech and of the right for engaging in political activity, however Misplaced Pages is hardly the place for it, and the policy of presenting misleading information as facts and intimidating those who object is not in line with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. DrorK (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Start-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles