Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Iceland recognizes Palestine

The Icelandic Althing has just recognized Palestine as a sovereign state ([1]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.42.129 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this done? I'm getting mixed messages from news reports. The parliament has voted to pass the motion—we knew that was coming, but has the government actually formally declared its recognition? Some reports are saying it's coming, others say it's done... Nightw 05:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the key act. In other cases we have used similar acts. Unfortunately, it is very difficult in many countries to ascertain when a passed measure becomes law and is implemented. In some cases there is genuine ambiguity. I think it is better for us to use the first moment when a nation DECIDES to recognize, rather than get mired in the legal confusion of when, technically, recognition is actually extended. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, why did we decide to hide Tuvalu? Jsolinsky (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We need a statement of recognition from the foreign ministry, which should come with a comment on borders. At the moment, the resolution simply states: "Althingi resolves to entrust the government to recognise Palestine as an independent and sovereign state". The Spanish and Belgian parliaments passed the same resolution in July. I don't think we can use this. I hid Tuvalu because we don't have any information on its position. Another editor wanted to add rows for all disputed states which we don't have information on either, just for the sake of having them there, and was using Tuvalu's blank entry as precedent. So instead of having a whole bunch of other empty lines for the sake of it, we agreed to simply not list them. Nightw 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think there is any evidence that this has actually happened yet. The Icelandic MFA has said that "the vote had given him the authority to make a formal declaration on the government's behalf, but before doing so he would discuss the move with other Nordic countries." . Though the translation is a bit garbled, the Palestine MOFA doesn't seem to think it has happend yet either [2]. The translations says: "The Minister of Foreign Affairs that will be a quick visit to Iceland to take over the decision to recognize and sign a mutual recognition agreement for the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.". TDL (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the official Icelandic recognition of Palestine from the MFA of Palestine. [3] --Ahmetyal 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Singapore

Singapore has appereantly recognized the State of Palestine back in November 1988. [4] --Ahmetyal 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

More recent sources seem to say otherwise: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/28/palestine-gets-nam-support-liberty-un-membership.html. I've reverted their inclusion until the situation is clearer. TDL (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian SSR is not Ukraine and Ukraine supports the future creation of an independent Palestinian state

The Ukrainian SSR might have recognized the State of Palestine in 1988... But Ukraine's (independent since 1991...) Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryschenko said today "We consistently support the Palestinians' right to self-determination and the future creation of an independent Palestinian state, which would live side-by-side with Israel peacefully". I also have found no evidence of Ukraine recognising a State of Palestine as an independent nation (i.o.w. after 1991). In my opinion Ukraine should be moved from section "4.1 States that have recognised" to "4.2 States that have not recognised". As it seems that Ukraine did not ‘’take over’’ this part of the legacy of the Ukrainian SSR. Agree? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations between Ukraine and Palestine were established in 2001.[5] and the State of Palestine have an embassy in Ukraine[6] and the other way.[7] Ahmetyal 17:54, 29 December 2011

I am afraid you have been bamboozled.... This 2001 Ukrainian newsspaper article in English sees the opening of the Palestine embassy in Ukraine as evidence of "de facto recognition of Palestinian statehood by Ukraine". Israel's Ambassador to Ukraine Zina Kalay-Kleitman said last July "Israel hopes that Ukraine won't recognize Palestine as a state at the session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in September". They may have diplomatic relations but that is not evidence of Ukraine recognising a State of Palestine as an independent nation. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what it means. Recognition is a necessary precondition for the establishment of full, diplomatic relations, as that's where the right of legation comes from. Furthermore, as legal successor to the former Soviet republic, Ukraine inherits all acts and treaties passed under that regime unless they are overturned or declared void by the relevant legal authority. Unless there is any evidence that it has done so in this instance (and there would be if it had been done, as it would cause quite a stir), the act of recognition by the previous regime still stands. The support for "self-determination and the future creation of a Palestinian state" is something every government and even the President of the State of Palestine talks about—nobody actually thinks a state currently exists—it's reality versus what's on paper. Nightw 14:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense.... Should this not be mentioned in the "Relevant membership, further details" section of the States that have recognised-table. For the causal reader it now appears Ukraine (and Belarus) was an independent state on 19 November 1988... It also seems Israel (and mabey Ukrainian Ministers) are ignoring "as legal successor to the former Soviet republic, Ukraine inherits all acts and treaties passed under that regime unless they are overturned or declared void by the relevant legal authority"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for the cooperation (we made the article a little better!) and happy new year! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, and same to you. Nightw 03:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Recognition map is not accurate

Thailand only recently recognized Palestine, however it has been colored green for about a year now. Who knows what else was factually wrong with this map. --Bxj (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thailand is not green now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidates

Why should we include candidates? Turkey won't get into the EU anytime soon, and it's not like any of the others affect EU policy at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO Membership

The list of states reflects recognition via the Arab League of States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, but not UNESCO.

Austria, France, and Spain voted to admit Palestine as full member of UNESCO and should be added to the list of states that have recognized its statehood. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/unesco-countries-vote-palestinian-membership

The fact that two States are members of the same international organization doesn't necessarily constitute recognition of statehood. However, when other states vote to admit an entity like Palestine as a full member, that does constitute recognition of statehood. See for example The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 204 Reporters Note 2 on "Express or Implied Recognition" and the consequences of voting in favor of membership in an international organization that is only open to membership by states.

Only States are eligible for full membership in accordance with Article II of the UNESCO Constitution. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15244&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

The State Department announced that the United States has stopped funding the UNESCO because of the vote to admit Palestine and a legal requirement to cut U.S. funds to any U.N. agency that recognizes a Palestinian state. See UNESCO votes to admit Palestine; U.S. cuts off funding harlan (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with you on the implications of the votes, but I'm not sure that we can realistically avoid original research unless we have a previously published source that states the same. Nightw 13:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest mentioning in the notes column what a particular state vote at the UNESCO was in regards to State of Palestine UNESCO membership - especially when a recognizer was voting against or a non-recognizer was voting for it. Japinderum (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

There are a lot of dead links in this article by now. I'm going to make a list of them here and venture to fix them. Nightw 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tuvalu

Am i blind? Where did Tuvalu's recognition go?

GuzzyG (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2011 (GMT)

Hidden because of no information. I suggest instead to present it like that: [8][9]. Japinderum (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If everyone is fine with it I will unhide Tuvalu, Cook Islands, Niue with comment lines as shown above. UNESCO action (even if not for/against) is the most definitive indication of their position that we have source for. Japinderum (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Japinderum (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

None of these took any action in the UNESCO vote. Please stop adding them. Nightw 08:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you state your objection earlier? I have explicitly addressed this to you: [10] "Night w?" and waited for you to come back online.

You reverted my edits[11] with explanation "none of these contain an indication of their position on statehood". But as you know many of the descriptions you added are just alike or even less related to such position: Fiji, San Marino, Singapore, Marshall Islands, etc. I have pointed this to you before - I don't object having more general descriptions of position, but this means we should include Tuvalu, Cook Islands and Niue too. Actions of these states at UNESCO (even if not for/against) is not explicit expression on their view over Palestine statehood, but is highly relevant. Japinderum (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see it until now, since it's all the way up here and I don't really check the edit history. Nightw 10:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To mention UNESCO vote in the description of positions

Many of entries for states that don't recognize the State of Palestine include reports about vague statements or general attitude (e.g. "has friendly relations with Israel") that isn't an indication of their position on statehood. I suggest pointing out action taken at UNESCO (Member states of UNESCO#Admission of Palestine) as well or at least for those cases where we don't have any other reference: Japinderum (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tuvalu abstained at the UNESCO membership vote.
• The Cook Islands government has not published an official position on Palestinian statehood. The Cook Islands are assisted in their foreign relations by New Zealand. The Cook Islands abstained at the UNESCO membership vote.
• The Niue government has not published an official position on Palestinian statehood. Niue is assisted in its foreign relations by New Zealand. Niue was absent at the UNESCO membership vote.

The result will be like this.

Another editor want's those three deleted from the table, but insists on keeping others with just as vague or even less relevant entries. Japinderum (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would say a country abstaining from a vote probably isn't notable and doesn't really add much for the reader on the subject of this article. Because of the heading, I'd say it would be better not to mention any country there unless they've said something explicitly about recognition of statehood (do not, like Eritrea/thinking about, like Spain/will do, like Sweden). Otherwise it's just cluttering the page with useless facts that leave the reader wondering why it was included. Icarus^talk 14:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  The page is already cluttered with such facts that aren't "an indication of position on statehood." (see examples above), but Night w insist on keeping "his" useless facts and rejecting "mine". I prefer keeping both (as I find them useful until better sources are found), but if those are going to be deleted, then that should apply to both. Japinderum (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Abstaining on a vote at UNESCO is hardly an indication of anything. Being absent while a vote takes place is probably even less of an indication. Fair enough, if a member actually took a stance (voted one way or the other), then by all means add it—but abstaining or not turning up? That says nothing about their position. Nightw 10:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Let's not judge what the UNESCO action means (I disagree with your opinion above, but both are just that, editor opinions. Abstentions are obviously notable - both for recognizers voting different-from-for and for non-recognizers voting different-from-against). Reporting the facts is what we should do. UNESCO membership vote is as similar you can come to UN membership vote as possible. Of course it's not the same as explicitly expressing a position on recognition, but pretty closely related to that. Japinderum (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, that it should apply to both is what I'm saying. Get rid of anything whose relevance to the subject isn't immediately clear (or not clear from the source, because this is SYNTH). And because of the heading, Singapore and others like that should be removed unless there's a source stating whether they have/have not. Icarus^talk 06:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  OK, so that means: if the decision is to be restrictive - Night w should not restore "his" descriptions/sources that I consider to be "useless facts"; if the decision is to be not so restrictive - Night w should not remove "my" descriptions/sources that he considers to be "useless facts". Japinderum (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So, the RFC finished. Night w, I'll restore Tuvalu, CI and Niue as shown above - but if you subsequently remove them again, then we have to remove some of the entries you added before that - those that are vague and irrelevant. Japinderum (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "as shown above" or how you got that result. Only 3 editors commented, neither of the other two agreed with you. So I'd say there's not really a consensus for what you wanted at all. I don't have a problem with removing the vague entries. Nightw 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What I said the RFC concluded is that both mine and yours entries that the other party classifies as "vague" should be removed. I didn't want to delete yours, so I added mine. Now, I see you removed some entries, both mine and yours (haven't checked if all of them), so that's OK. But I think there's some error in the numbering...

But in the process you made other changes to the Revision as of 04:31, 20 April 2012 by Tabletop, which I will revert. Japinderum (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dominica

Was added today. To be honest, I've been looking out for Dominica in the news and I've seen a few articles saying that it "possibly" has already done it, but if it did, it didn't make much of a splash... Anybody got any sources beyond the NAD image? A date confirmation would be good. Nightw 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this:

• [12] uploaded July, counting 122
• [13] uploaded 25 Sept, with Dominica, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Saint Vincent added
• [14] uploaded 26 Sept, Antigua is added

So I'm thinking, if Dominica did recognise, it did it between 9th (Belize) and 22nd (Antigua) of September. The 9th was also the date of the ALBA declaration [15] Nightw 13:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, we keep Liberia based only on the same picture, but remove Dominica? Shouldn't we apply the same criteria to both? Japinderum (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to email them to confirm. Nightw 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Any news? If not we should either remove Liberia or add Dominica. Japinderum (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No they haven't replied. I'm going to give it about two weeks. Nightw 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On Liberia, also found it being listed here, although this also has Norway down. Nightw 00:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They also list Syria, which recognized after the 7th July (the date on their page). The Avaaz page seems less reliable than our Wikipedia list here (backed with many sources) and especially less than the NAD-PLO link. Japinderum (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Any news? Any proposals about how to fix the discrepancy? Japinderum (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, no response. I also note that Liberia is listed by the Guardian (ref 64). I'd prefer not to have a "grey area" section like before. Liberia is accounted for in at least two secondary sources; while they may have errors, they both agree on Liberia. And we have nothing to state that Liberia has not recognised. If things were to be moved around, I'd prefer to see some kind of "unconfirmed" note (maybe with a coloured indicator) than making new sections. Nightw 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bring back the section for the states, which "possibly have recognized" and put Liberia and Dominica into it. Any recognition claimed by the Palestinian side, but without a source referring to a statement of the recognizing government should be put into that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seuthes (talk • contribs) 07:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Seuthes, I agree that the quality of sources is not uniform and there are some advantages in bringing back the multiple sections table. But I also understand the Night w desire to have firm black/white distinction.

Night w, the current coloring in the table is about who recognizes Israel. In addition we have an asterisk (*) sign for 1967 borders. Both are criteria unrelated to the quality/confirmation of the sources, so using color (or *) for two different concepts will be awful if it's even possible.

The Guardian gives only a map that seems like it's based on the NAD-PLO map or even Wikipedia map/list, so it doesn't bring anything additional - no explicit mention of Liberia, no date, no statement from Liberia or Palestine officials, not on official website. The Avaaz blog-like source contains errors, so I don't see how it "adds" something on Liberia or Norway or Syria.

Also, none of the above helps us with Dominica. Japinderum (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no indication that The Guardian has used the NAD map or Wikipedia, could you explain? We don't have a source that explicitly disagrees with the NAD on Liberia. But with Dominica there are many news articles indicating that it hasn't recognised.[16][17][18] Nightw 08:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

About the Guardian source - it's nothing more than a map on unofficial source. Previously such maps were found to be wrong. The NAD map at least has list/flags of the recognizers (e.g. we have two indications - coloring and name in the list) and the source is official PLO website.

The sources you give in your last post don't disagree with NAD on Dominica. These sources are from 22 Sept 2011 and the NAD Dominica change is from 25 Sept 2011.

So, still, Liberia and Dominica are in the same boat. Japinderum (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It does conflict. See the top of this thread. If Dominica had recognised, it would have been before Antigua. We're not looking for "official" sources. We're looking for secondary sources, which is what The Guardian is. You have both third- and non-third-party sources stating Liberia has recognised; and you have third-party sources disagreeing with non-third-party sources over Dominica. So I'm not convinced anything needs changing, apart from maybe a note in the Dominica entry. Nightw 10:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the sequence of NAD map updates is not direct proof of when a state has recognized. For example the two consecutive updates each day in a row (25th and 26th) doens't show that Antigua (the new arrival in the 26th update) recognized between 25th and 26th. The date of the NAD update shows only the latest possible date for the recognition (e.g. Dominca recognized on 25th or earlier, Antigua recognized on 26th or earlier, Liberia recognized in July or earlier). Actually the sequence of NAP map updates shows that in the end of September they decided to add to the map the latest recognitions (coming in the later part of July, August and the first part of September). They've done that on 25th, but the next day noticed that they missed Antigua and added it as well. And this doesn't contradict the possibility for Dominica recognition between 22th (we have sources stating that they haven't yet recognized on that date) and 25th (the date of the official NAD map showing Dominica recognition).

The Guardian source is just a colored map without any additional mention of Liberia or Dominica (is Dominica even visible on that map?). Has the person coloring the map bothered to zoom into obscure small islands? The person seems to not care too much for that kind of details as he colored wrong the Hainan island of China, Togo, Vanuatu, South Sudan (and SADR). Also, similar kind of sources have been proved to be of poor quality and blatantly wrong before. And what do you think the Guardian map editor utilized as a source for his recognizers list map? I expect that it's either the official NAD PLO map/list, Wikipedia (at least for the blank map) or another sources drawing from one of those.

So, what secondary sources do we have about Liberia and Dominica - two unreliable colored maps with errors (giving Liberia recognize and Dominica not recognize) and no sources contradicting Dominica recognition between 22th and 25th September (including the wrongly colored maps that are made before the 25th). For both countries we're still left only with the NAD map/list. Japinderum (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Night w, why do you think Dominica recognized on 14 September 2011? Japinderum (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's from a contact at the NAD. I don't have a proper citation for it yet, so I've tagged it. And I still doubt that it was actually done. Nightw 09:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Can your contact also inform us who the 131 and 132 (and "more than 132") recognizers are? Japinderum (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Double standards

The RFC at the top of this page concluded to remove all vague references or anything that wasn't to do with recognition of statehood. I performed the removal of my additions yesterday, but the other user has re-inserted his own additions. What did we have the RFC for? We're back to square one, just without my end of things. Nightw 10:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazing twisted description of the events. Night w, you removed both yours and mine additions. You also did many other changes unrelated to this issue. I disagreed with some of those unrelated changes, so I reverted them (taking care that I don't simply revert everything you did). And I didn't re-inserted my additions (Tuvalu, Cook Islands, Niue). What I re-inserted (at different times - e.g. when I realized what you've done) are Switzerland (yours) and SMOM (mine) entries - because they have more than the "vague position" in their line (e.g. the relations column). That's what differentiates Switzerland and SMOM from the rest of the "vague position" entries.

Since you insist so much - I just removed these two "vague position" texts. Japinderum (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why have them there at all? Your reason for keeping them is simply because they have relations with Palestine? You're going to need a better reason than that. This is about the international recognition of the State of Palestine. Relations as you know are listed Foreign relations of Palestine. We agreed above to remove all entries that didn't have information on recognition and now you're going back on that. I should've seen this coming, obviously. Nightw 11:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm tiered of your obstructions Night w. The RFC was about the position descriptions (I want UNESCO mentioned, you disagrees), not about removal of entries having established diplomatic relations.

Why do you want to remove Switzerland and SMOM? Maybe because of your strange and proven wrong assumption that "Only states can recognise states" (See two examples of the opposite: Montenegro recognized by SMOM months before establishing relations, Kosovo recognized by SMOM, relations still not established). Japinderum (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian sovereignty

Resolution 43/177 states:

"Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967"

The occupied territory is not mentioned by accident, but consistent with numerous other resolutions. Palestinian sovereignty is explicitly expressed here. Sovereignty is the legal right to rule over a territory. This is at least true where the UN is expressing this explicitly in its resolutions. Occupation does not nullify the sovereignty. The French government did not lose its sovereignty over France in WWII. The "need to enable to exercise their sovereignty" means the need to end the occupation and to turn the occupied state into an independant state.--Wickey-nl (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Expressing the desire for Palestinians to exercise sovereignty is not the same as recognising a Palestinian state. In fact, it is worded so that it appeals to a future event, "the need to enable". It's a semantic nicety, but those are what the UN excels at. CMD (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Having sovereignty and exercise sovereignty are two different things. The resolution expresses that the Palestinians already have sovereignty over occupied territory and that in the future they should exercise it. "their territory occupied since 1967" expresses unambiguous the present possession of territory. It cannot be a reference to the future. That is why they are called occupied Palestinian territories. Having sovereignty assumes the existence of a state. The preamble and par. 1 of the resolution suggest that this is the right interpretation.--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If they haven't exercised their sovereignty, then they don't have a state. That they call the area the "occupied Palestinian territories" instead of the "State of Palestine" or something similar further backs up the idea that UN documents don't treat them as a state. CMD (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The "occupied Palestinian territories" are called so because they are not Israeli territories. And in Resolution 58/292 Palestine is called the State of the Palestinian people.--Wickey-nl (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And it expresses it as part of a desire. The UN hasn't recognised a Palestinian state, which is why there was such furore over Palestine 194. If you have some reliable secondary sources that say otherwise, it would be great to see them. If not, an addition of that opinion information would be WP:OR. CMD (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To end the discussion: different facts

• In 1988, the PLO declared the "State of Palestine"
• In 1988, the UN recognized the declaration; the EU neither opposed, nor recognized the State
• 130 states recognized the "State of Palestine", whether independant or not
• The UN-bid is about UN-membership, not about the recognition of the "State of Palestine"
• Independence is the exercise of sovereignty over a state; a state can be occupied or free
  

--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

State of Palestine in the UN

Resolution 43/177 states:

"Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988"

Could the proclamation be acknowledged without acknowledging the State of Palestine itself? The answer is no. The two are linked together. Only acknowledging the proclamation would be nonsense. For clarity, the acknowledgement was in the UN, not by the UN. The acknowledgement was supported by most UN-members, to be precisely, by 98 % of the voters: Votes. The western countries abstained, because they did not yet want to acknowledge the State of Palestine.--Wickey-nl (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I correct myself. The resolution speaks for the General Assembly, so the proclamation is acknowledged by the UNGA, not by the separate members. And the acknowledged proclamation says: The State of Palestine exists. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely possible to acknowledge that the State of Palestine has declared independence but not recognize them as a sovereign state. Many states which voted in favour of this resolution (ie. Thailand, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria, Suriname, Peru, Guyana, Ecuador, etc.) didn't recognizing Palestine for another 20 years. Others who voted in favour (ie. Singapore, Samoa, Panama, Myanmar, Mexico, etc.) still haven't recognized Palestine. TDL (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

States that voted in favour of the resolution implicitly recognized the State of Palestine. That is why the western countries abstained. The fact that some states did not (immediately) translate it into official bilateral relations does not change that. In fact, the individual recognitions are not of importance. The General Assembly acknowledged the State of Palestine. The preamble of the resolution suggests, that recognition of Palestine was the straight intention of the GA.--Wickey-nl (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the text of the resolution only states that the GA acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine. Your conclusion that this implies recognition of the State of Palestine is WP:OR unless you have WP:RS to back it up. Interpreting the intention of the resolution is the responsibility of RS, not us. TDL (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 should have all the accurate info per WP:RS. (Haven't read it that carefully, so don't know for sure.) CarolMooreDC 19:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

UNGA resolution and vote

See also #Number 132 above.

We all know that UN/UNGA/UNSC do not recognize states. They only take decision on the status as observer or member of states and other entities - in relation to the UNGA, UN and other such bodies/organization. But the issue is what should we do about "implied recognition" (see description at [19]). In the UNGA vote the countries stated whether they agree or not with having the State of Palestine as UN observer (effectively, the UN observer status to be transferred from the non-state entity PLO to the State of Palestine - potential source to confirm that is http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml - but it's not yet updated - as of 30-Nov-2012 it still shows PLO/Palestine as non-state observer entity and does not show the observer State of Palestine)

The questions arising from that are the following:

1. An article list non-recognizer voting "for" State of Palestine UNESCO membership status - does this mean "We recognize it as state"?
2. An article list recognizer voting "against" State of Palestine UNESCO membership status - does this mean "We don't recognize it as state [anymore]"?
3. An article list recognizer voting "against" State of Palestine UNESCO membership status - does this mean "We recognize it as state, but we don't want it to be UNESCO member"?
4. An article list recognizer voting "abstain" State of Palestine UNESCO membership status - does this mean "We don't recognize it as state [anymore]"?
5. An article list recognizer voting "abstain" State of Palestine UNESCO membership status - does this mean "We recognize it as state, but we are unsure whether we want it to be UNESCO member"?
6. An article list non-recognizer voting "for" State of Palestine UNGA observer status - does this mean "We recognize it as state"?
7. An article list recognizer voting "against" State of Palestine UNGA observer status - does this mean "We don't recognize it as state [anymore]"?
8. An article list recognizer voting "against" State of Palestine UNGA observer status - does this mean "We recognize it as state, but we don't want it to be UNGA observer"?
9. An article list recognizer voting "abstain" State of Palestine UNGA observer status - does this mean "We don't recognize it as state [anymore]"?
10. An article list recognizer voting "abstain" State of Palestine UNGA observer status - does this mean "We recognize it as state, but we are unsure whether we want it to be UNGA observer"?

In any case I think the 2012 UNGA and 2011 UNESCO votes should be mentioned in the extents as those are quite notable events.

My opinion is that answers 1 and 6 are "yes"/implied recognition. The same reasoning is applied when a state gets UN member status - everybody who is "for" recognizes it and if the decision is taken "by acclamation" - it's recognized by everybody who hasn't explicitly stated otherwise. I propose moving those to the "Diplomatic recognition" table or to an intermediate "Implied recognition" table - or as a new date column in "Diplomatic recognition" - similar to the two columns in International recognition of Israel. Japinderum (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is going on elsewhere. I've tried to get a centralized discussion going at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues but no interest. We may need a community wide Rfc. but first and foremost we need WP:RS saying what the case is, not our WP:Original research! CarolMooreDC 17:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, drawing that conclusion without sources is WP:OR. I watched the debate/vote live, and one sate (Denmark perhaps?) specifically stated that their vote in favour of the resolution should not be mistaken for formal recognition, which had not yet decided to do. We already have a table with all this information at Palestine 194, so there is no need to duplicate it here. TDL (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Per above, United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 should have all the accurate info per WP:RS. (Haven't read it that carefully, so don't know for sure.) CarolMooreDC 19:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's not draw conclusions, but beware of so-called RS that no doubt will now spring out everywhere - we should not blindly copy whatever some "source" writes. Even generally reputable sources are often confused by such matters.

TDL, do you have a link to the pre- and post-vote debate? Maybe we could use some of the statements here. Also, the Palestine section that you removed from UNESCO members article - not all of its content and sources is present at Palestine 194 as you say in the edit-summary. When do you plan to move the rest?

CarolMooreDC, the UNGA 2012 resolution is important, but not so much as to warrant some all-reaching all-changing decision. Actually the resolution doesn't lead to a profound change of the situation. For Wikipedia is kind of bad, because everybody rushes to fight some "status upgrade" change on whatever Palestine-related article he stumbled on. On the same time nobody cares to fix the flag templates utilized in a wrong context all over Wikipedia - the most common error is to EGG-link to "Palestinian territories" in list of members of various organizations - where the member is PNA, PLO or the State of Palestine. Japinderum (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

About Denmark - yes, that's why states do such statements - when they want implied recognition to not be applied to that particular act. Japinderum (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Map out of date?

It is hard to tell.. what with so many different interpretations as to what has or has not been recognised. But isn't the main map on this article now out of date? New Zealand and Sweden for example both voting for recognition at the UN vote. The map does not show this. Sianska79 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

They just voted to accord the observer seat to the State of Palestine. Unless there are statements from Sweden and New Zealand that their votes were official acts of diplomatic recognition, then we can't move them. The representative from New Zealand actually said in his statement that the question of recognition of the State of Palestine was a separate issue. Nightw 01:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Night w. What should be done in the article is to add such statements to the position descriptions. Japinderum (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Individual opinion?

I have deleted an empty section [20], explaining in my es. It was reverted without any notice: [21]. Why? -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the section is there so that users can add the missing information and because your explanation is not motivated (how can it not be relevant?). Just my opinion.--Sal73x (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a detailed explanation of Israel's position and a history of progress towards recognition. It was a large section until a few days ago, when it was blanked on the argument that the contents went unsourced for a long time. The section is there to encourage other editors to add something. Nightw 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The section was indeed removed due to being unreferenced for 11 month [22]. However, it was recently reinstated [23] minus the unrefernced since January 2012 template, any references or edit summary.--Mor2 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Diplomatic relation

The 'diplomatic relation' column in the table state that "either with the Palestinian National Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization, or the State of Palestine. The institution is specified where known."

Can anyone explain that? sine only PLO have a capacity to enter diplomatic relations.--Mor2 (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Could probably remove the PNA. But almost all diplomatic relations of those in the first table were made with the State of Palestine. Those in the second table will be with the PLO. The table at Foreign relations of Palestine will have the sources. Nightw 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 132

See 30 April 2012 "The road to peace has gained us the recognition of more than 132 countries... Abbas said". We have a list of 130 or 131 (with SADR). So, who are the 131 and 132? Japinderum (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, we have 25 October 2012 "Currently, 132 countries recognize the State of Palestine" and November 2012, showing Grenada "We know that 131 countries [refering to 2012-11-29 UN vote],..., have already formally recognised our State". So, it seems Grenada is 131th and SADR 132th (as of Nov.2012). "More than 132" is either a tongue-in-cheek error or it refers to somebody, who isn't UN member (so that no to contradict the Nov2012 source). Japinderum (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 UNGA resolution[24] states "Recognizing also that, to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to the State of Palestine," - our list has only 131 UN members (and 1 non-UN - SADR). Who is the 132th UN member? Japinderum (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Have somebody found a more recend NAD-PLO map with flags image showing the 132nd state? Japinderum (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"133 countries that took the courageous step of recognizing the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders." - who are the 132th and 133th? Japinderum (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

[http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/479/76/PDF/N1247976.pdf?OpenElement Резолюция ГА ООН №16/19 от 29.11.2012 «Статус Палестины в Организации Объединённых Наций».

Quote: признавая также, что к сегодняшнему дню 132 государства — члена Организации Объединенных Наций признали Государство Палестина]--Murza-Zade (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I quoted above. The question is who is this 132nd UN member (the article lists only 131) and who is the 133rd mentioned later by NAD-PLO (SADR or another UN member). Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not yet found any sources of these--Murza-Zade (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic does not recognise State of Palestine now

Czech Republic recognized State of Palestine in the past, but does not recognise SoP now. On web page of MFA of the Czech Rep. [25] it is now written: "The Czech Republic currently tolerated the status quo of the Palestinian representation in Prague, in spite of a de facto does not recognise the existence of the State of Palestine." Also official name here is writen as: "Autonomous Territories under Palestinian National Authority" (this term is used by Czech government now always), not State of Palestine. A Czech vote against the status of SoP by an observer State in the UN was in accordance with this position of the Czech Rep. Jan CZ (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement on the Czech MFA doesn't state that they've withdrawn their recognition. Just because they don't recognize the de facto existance of the state, doesn't mean that they don't de jure recognize their independence. Until a more definitive source is found, I don't think that their status should be changed.

Also, the term "State of Palesine" is still used by the Czech MFA: [26]. TDL (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Term "State of Palesine" is not used by the Czech MFA, Your source show only name of mission, see "The Czech Republic currently tolerated the status quo of the Palestinian representation in Prague..." and this is his unilateral name.

Of course, this does not mean the formal withdrawal of recognition. But it's a fairly substantial information on the relationship of the Czech Rep. to Palestinian aspirations, and should be recorded. True, probably without color indication, which indicates the official withdrawal of recognition, which is not yet this case. Jan CZ (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is not written "don't recognize de facto existence", here is written "de facto don't recognize" (formal) existence of the State of Palestine (and tolerated the status quo of his embassy). Jan CZ (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should definitely be mentioned. Whether Czech Republic should be moved to the table of non-recognizers (or colored specially as "withdrawn") is another issue (it's difficult to use that explanatory sentence for that - it says SoP embassy is tolerated, but there is no recognition... without a source quoting the government act announcing official position is "we no longer recognize SoP" or "we tolerate, etc...." or "we subscribe to all Czechoslovakia recognitions, [including SoP]" or a source for decision of the Czech president on receiving SoP accreditations, etc. it will be difficult to confirm either way). Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

https://is.muni.cz/repo/955354/Prezident_a_zastupovani_statu_navenek.docx

Uznání de facto je prozatímní, omezené a odvolatelné. Spočívá v tom, že s daným státem (vládou, hlavou státu) fakticky jednáme. V takovém případě jde o jednání některého orgánu, který je k tomu oprávněn. Může jít o prezidenta, ale i o jiný orgán (vládu, Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí). Prezident může například pozvat na návštěvu hlavu státu, který zatím neuznáváme de iure, a poskytnout ji pocty příslušející přijetí zahraniční hlavy státu anebo se státem sjednat mezinárodní smlouvu. Uznání de iure je plné, konečné a neodvolatelné. Patří do práva hlavy státu zastupovat stát navenek. Žádná jiná ústavní norma totiž výslovně neupravuje pro jiný orgán kompetenci uznat jiný stát. Nicméně faktický stav je u nás jiný.

Při zániku Československa získala plnou suverenitu Česká republiky, která do té doby byla členským státem československé federace. V rámci tohoto procesu si jednorázově přisvojil právo uznat jiné státy parlament – Česká národní rada. Ta formou ústavního zákona uznala za Českou republiku všechny státy, které ke dni svého zániku 31. 12. 1992 uznávalo Československo. V tomto světle je zajímavý náš postoj ke Státu Palestina. Stát Palestina byl vyhlášen 15. 11. 1988 Jasirem Arafatem na zasedání Palestinské národní rady v Alžíru a dosud jej uznalo přes 110 států. Tento stát uznává i Česká republika. Československo totiž uznalo Stát Palestinu krátce po jeho vyhlášení a navázalo s ním diplomatické vztahy na úrovni velvyslanectví. Při rozdělení Československa uznala Česká republika všechny státy, které uznávalo Československo. Jednou dané uznání de iure je neodvolatelné. Česká republika tedy uznává Stát Palestinu, byť se to v politice neprojevuje. Protože však toto uznání je dáno ústavním zákonem, musí jej vláda respektovat. V běžné politice dosud vláda podporuje americké stanovisko a prezentuje postavení Palestiny jako zvláštní samosprávy na okupovaných územích, nikoli samostatného státu. Tato dvojakost se projevuje i v tom, že v Praze působí velvyslanectví Státu Palestina, zatímco Česká republika provozuje jen styčný úřad v Ramalláhu pro kontakt s palestinskými orgány, který nemá postavení velvyslanectví. --Murza-Zade (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Found this interesting source on the Czech--Murza-Zade (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this source, this source and its author (Prof. cz:Zdeněk Koudelka) I know. This situation (current position), I went with him. Yes, the current position of the Government of Czech Rep. is in breach of international law. And even the MFA does not flow in accordance with national law. However, it's an existing official position, which is realistically reflected in relation to the Palestinian State. That the procedure is illegal does not change the fact that it is applied. The reality is that our Government today simply de facto does not recognize the State of Palestine. Jan CZ (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Israel's opinion

{{synthesis|date=December 2012}}(uh)
[27] Exactly why is Israel's opinion this relevant here? I do not see why Israel's position in this should be this prominent (or present at all). It is just another country. All voting and positions at the UN is more important, because that is where it happens. Even stronger: why should other states have their separate section? -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious: if Israel is a "third party", who is are the first two parties? Palestine and...? I think you'll a difficult time arguing that Israel's opinion is "just another" opinion on this issue. Nightw 21:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

UN. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The UN has nothing to do with states recognising one another. Nightw 02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The one another is not the topic of this article. Israel is just one of 193 states or so that can recognise (or not) Palestine. There is no reason to introduce (as OR then) the mutuality you point to. And more on the topic here (you have slightly diverted from): Israel's opinion on Palestinian statehood (with or without mutuality) is just one of 193 opinions. There is no reason to put that in a top section, even before any other detailed facts. In fact this opinion does not deserve a section at all for WP:UNDUE (I tagged). I can add that the section does not cite any RS. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this section is poorly sourced/written.--Mor2 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Anyone want to copyedit and/or source it? Nightw 07:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes it is. I'm the primary author, and that's it's exactly what the topic is. That's why there is a table of countries showing whether or not they have diplomatically recognised. And no, Israel is not "just another opinion". It's the occupying power. It's position has a direct influence over the situation. The second table contains several of those "other opinions" that hold a lack of an agreement with Israel — or the fact that it's still under Israeli occupation — as the reason for their non-recognition. So it's not undue at all... And (since this is the second time you've done this here) you should know that "synthesis" is a conclusion drawn from multiple sources that isn't supported by any of the sources. This section (as you point out) doesn't have any sources, so you need to do your wikilaw homework there. Nightw 07:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, User:Night w removed a tag [28] without discussion, no es reference, let alone consensus. I reinstalled it. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed my reply to you directly above. You haven't identified what the original conclusion drawn here is. In fact you added the tag when there were no sources to speak of in that section. You can't get synthesis from no sources... Nightw 02:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Holy See

User Johnkatz1972 added a source to Holy See–Palestine relations about "On December 17, 2012, the pope in a meeting with Palestinian president Abbas made an official endorsement of the UN General Assembly resolution which recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state.Pope tells Abbas of hope for Mideast solution after UN vote" The source also states "The Vatican welcomed the resolution, which amounted to an implicit recognition of a Palestinian state." - maybe something should be added to the Holy See position description here. Also, maybe the Holy See is the 133rd recognizing state (but I would expect a lauder announcement about that echoing in the media... Holy See is not Grenada). Japinderum (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a note to Palestine 194 about this, but I'm not sure if it's really significantly different from the position we already describe in the article. Perhaps we should replace the quote currently in the article with the recently released one. TDL (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

...

Myanmar and Eritrea are really strange... СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus upgrades status of Palestinian Mission to Embassy

I see that latest electronic edition of the Israeli Newspaper, Haaretz, is saying the Cypriot Govt now gives the Palestinian Mission to Cyprus the status of an Embassy. Doesn't change the recognition issue but does show a trend perhaps? Freedom1968 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Guatemala

Guatemala recognized the independence of Palestine [29] --Murza-Zade (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Google recognition

Should add this someplace?(Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)).

Diplomatic relations with El Salvador

Someone please make the edit [30] - ILBobby (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

" Israel and several other countries"

Regarding the recognition of Palestine, it has been claimed that only Israel and "several" other countries do not recognize Palestine as state. The entire EU and almost all European countries, USA, Canada, Japan altogether more than 60 countries, including most influential countries, are not "several countries" The current wording is unbalanced non neutral and confusing for the readers. --Tritomex (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, one merely has to glance at the map to note that your claim of the entire EU is false. Secondly, how does your changing of "several countries" to a list of 5+the EU, and then several, help clear up the readers confusion? I'm fairly sure putting an arbitrary list is far more confusing than the current wording, which is complemented to the right with a map the readers could look at, and complemented below with an actual list of every country. CMD (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with CMD. As pointed out above, you've got your facts wrong. Your revision, claiming that "the countries of European Union ... do no recognize ... Palestine" is wrong. Also, as per our list, 52 states don't recognize Palestine (excluding Israel) not "more than 60". Secondly, your revision doesn't even address the concern you've raised here. You object to referring to 52 as "several", but your revision still excludes 29 states which you refer to as "several". So 29 is several but 52 isn't? What is the cutoff? All you've done is tack on a random list of states which you deem to be "influential countries". This gives undue weight to your unsourced POV.

If you don't like the word "several", then I'm open to changing it. But tacking on an arbitrary list of states is not a neutral way to present the info. TDL (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In my view the main problem is with the wording several, and with singling out Israel in this context.The other aspect of this issue, namely the importance (political and economical influence) of those countries is of secondary importance. The correct wording here would be many countries. Also, listing Israel with this countries is unnecessary if other countries like those of EU, USA etc are not mentioned. So to summarize I would agree with the current wording if the phrase several (for 50+ countries) is replaced with term many.--Tritomex (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Israel is singled out as it's the country with control over the area. Similarly (although obviously not identically), Georgia is singled out on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Serbia is singled out on International recognition of Kosovo. Many/Several sounds like the same sort of wording to me, it's either way still ~50/~200, but changing that word is very different to inserting an arbitrary list. CMD (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Israel's non-recognition is indisputably significant in this context (if it recognized there would no longer be any dispute) which justifies it being mentioned individually. I'm not a big fan of "many" as it is just as vague as "several", but how about "a significant minority"? This is more precise as it gets across the point that there are more than a few, but less than half. TDL (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

30% is not not several. 53 country is eighter 53 or many. Also the minority qualification is reflected only in numbers of countries (which is not precisely stated) as among those 53 countries are the majority of highly developed countries, which is not neglectable information. For example in the case of International recognition of Kosovo it is writer that "22 out of 27 (81%) European Union (EU) member states, 24 out of 28 (86%) NATO member states, recognized Kosovo." In the case of Palestine this would be 7/27 and 5/28. --Tritomex (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"53 country is eighter 53 or many. " - That may be your opinion, but that is quite subjective and there are many ways to describe a number. Just as you argued that 52 isn't "several" but 29 is "several", I could argue that 52 isn't "many" but 75 is "many". While I agree that "several" isn't the best description, you're replacing one WP:WEASEL word with another, the only difference being that your revision portrays the non-recognizers as more sizable.

"Also the minority qualification is reflected only in numbers of countries" - Precisely, that was exactly the point. We must take into account the relative number of countries, otherwise the statement is meaningless. 53 stars in the sky is NOT "many". 53 grains of sand on the beach is NOT "many".

The EU and NATO numbers are not listed on Kosovo's article because you deem them to be more significant as a result of them being "highly developed countries". They are provided because Kosovo is in Europe, so again in that context it is relevant. It would give undue weight to list the number member states of random international organizations which recognize Palestine, simply because you deem to be significant, because they have no relevance here. If you'd like to list the number of recognizers in relevant organizations, the only obvious choices for Palestine are the Arab League (21/21 excluding Palestine) or the OIC (55/56 excluding Palestine).

If you don't like my last suggestion, other options are the magnitude neutral: "Israel and a number of other countries", "Israel and the countries which support it", "Israel and other non-recognizers". TDL (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Israel and a number of other countries" is a fine proposition.--Tritomex (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

State of Palestine is not recognized by Poland

According to official Polish list of states published in collaboration with Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a realization of the Regulation of the Minister of the Interior and Administration ([31]), State of Palestine is not recognized by Poland. Poland treated Palestine as “territory with undetermined or disputed international status” (p. 65). So, Poland should be removed from the “States that have recognised” list. Aotearoa (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, weird. According to the UN, communist Poland recognized the State of Palestine in 1988.[32] And also according to the PNA.[33] --Ahmetyal 13:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, is not according to UN. UNESCO source (not UN) is only unofficial note submitted by few countries without any confirmation of facts showing in it – this document is not official statement of UNESCO nor Poland, this is only point of view of Algeria, Indonesia, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Yemen (this is only explanatory note prepared by 6 countries and presented during the session of the Executive Board of UNESCO (not during the General Conference), without any information whether this document was formally adopted or not.). I found also the questions raised in 2007 by a Member of Polish Parliament to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta [34]. The second question is: "Czy Rzeczpospolita Polska utrzymuje stosunki dyplomatyczne z innym jeszcze podmiotem, który nie jest państwem, poza tym Zakonem Kościoła katolickiego oraz Stolicą Apostolską?" (Is the Republic of Poland maintains diplomatic relations with yet another entity that is not a state, except this Order of the Catholic Church and except the Holy See?). The Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the minister, said in the official answer provided in the Polish Parliament [35]: "Polska nie utrzymuje stosunków dyplomatycznych z innymi podmiotami międzynarodowymi niebędącymi państwami za wyjątkiem Suwerennego Zakonu Kawalerów Maltańskich, Stolicy Apostolskiej oraz Palestyny." (Poland does not maintain diplomatic relations with other international entities that are not a states with the exception of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the Holy See and Palestine). Ministry of Foreign Affairs explicitly mentioned the Palestine as "international entity that is not a state." So, Polish official point of view is very clear – Palestine is not recognized as state. Aotearoa (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• • But on the other hand the same Polish MFA says: [36] Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary EMBASSY OF PALESTINE?
  • And as we know from international diplomacy, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador can not be representative of the unrecognized by you state!--analitic114 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Poland has recognized PLO, and later PNC, not State of Palestine. Order of Malta has also Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Poland, but Order of Malta, like Palestine, is not recognized by Poland as a state. In other site MFA listed Izrael i Obszar Podległy Palestyńskiej Władzy Narodowej (Zachodni Brzeg i Strefa Gazy) – Israel and Areas Subordinated to Palestine National Council [37]. And letter of MFA: File:Answer of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.jpg – Palestinian Embassy in Warsaw is the Palestinian National Authority Embassy, not the State of Palestine Embassy (translation: Letter from Vice-director of the Department of Africa and the Middle East [of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] to Vice-director of the Protocol [of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] (Warsaw, August 19, 2010): In response to your letter No. PD 191/343/10 on the name of the Palestinian embassy, the Department of Africa and the Middle East is pleased to announce that it maintained the position provided by Director K. Połomski in June 1997, that at present stage of the formation of Palestinian statehood should be preserved the current name of this diplomatic post, ie the „Embassy of Palestine”. Representatives of the Palestinian National Authority regularly announce a declaration of create Palestinian state and to ask the members of UN to its international recognition, what constitutes a means of pressure on the Israeli authorities. The question of the possible reaction to such Palestinian declaration is the subject of discussion at the EU forum. Poland makes the recognition of the state of Palestine conditional on achieving a peace agreement between the parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). In this article we have Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 128 (66,3%) have recognised the State of Palestine as of 15 December 2011, not Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 128 (66,3%) have recognised the State of Palestine or Palestine National Council as of 15 December 2011. No Polish sources confirmed this, but official sources denied this. Aotearoa (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Can I therefore remove Poland from the list? Aotearoa (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

These sources are primary primary and your interpretations seem based on coincidental terminology. "Palestine" could refer to anything, most likely in this case to the PLO, which uses that name in international relations as per Res. 177. We need a secondary source to back up your interpretation. Nightw 11:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes, Poland should be removed from the list. Poland recognizes Palestine as a disputed territory and the Palestinian Authority as autonomous authorities. Poland does not recognize the State of Palestine. According to the Poland, the vote in UNESCO is only pragmatic cooperation for education and culture. Important is vote in the UN and there is an abstention vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.123.64 (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

UN - resolution vote, switzerland

In the UN-resolution which called palestine an observer-state, switzerland voted in favour of the recognition. why is switzerland listed as not diplomatically recognizing palestine? --helohe (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Voting in favour of the UNGA resolution doesn't necessarily imply that they have recognized the State of Palestine as a sovereign state. See here, for example, where I've collected a number of quotes by various states emphasizing how their vote on the resolution should not be taken to imply that they recognize the State of Palestine. Most relevant to your question, Switzerland's representative said "This decision does not involve a bilateral recognition of a Palestinian State, which will depend on future peace negotiations." We have a master list of recognition plus UN votes at Palestine 194. TDL (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Grenada and Haiti establish diplomatic relations with Palestine

Please edit the page accordingly [38] - ILBobby (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the link! TDL (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

turkmenistan

[39] dates of relation with palestine--Murza-Zade (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it over at Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. TDL (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

MFA Colombia: Colombia established diplomatic ties with Palestine on 3. October 1988.

So, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Palestine and Colombia established diplomatic ties back in 1988. [40]. The source is in Spanish, so can someone clarify this? I am not sure if they are refering to the State of Palestine or PLO. --Ahmetyal (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just realized that 3 October 1988 is quite early. Palestine's first recognitions came on 15 November 1988. --Ahmetyal (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the date listed over at Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The source you link to mentions an embassy accredited to the "Autoridad Palestina" (ie Palestinian Authority) and not the State of Palestine. That coupled with the fact that the State of Palestine didn't declare independence until 15 November 1988, and that Colombia is not listed by the PLO Negotiations Office as having recognized the State of Palestine ([41]) I think makes it safe to assume that the source isn't referring to relations with the State of Palestine. TDL (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible British Recognition

The House of Commons will vote tomorrow on the issue of recognition of Palestine. . The result will be worth watching for this article. Ezza1995 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this! The House of Commons has voted in favour of recognising Palestine with a majority of 262 MPs. I've adjusted the article accordingly st170e^talk 22:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This was a non-binding, purely symbolic vote that does not constitute recognition. See this. It's certainly worth mentioning, but they shouldn't be listed as recognizing until the government actually takes the step of recognizing. TDL (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

International Criminal Court

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has confirmed that Palestine will officially become a member of the International Criminal Court on 1 April 2015, the UN press office said on Wednesday.(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/palestine-member-international-criminal-court-un#) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.175.152 (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Vatican City

The Vatican has recognized Palestine. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/vatican-recognizes-state-of-palestine_n_7274096.html --Ahmetyal (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This just popped up in my newsfeed: Actually, the Vatican Recognized Palestine in 2012—Not Today. Not sure what to believe. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on International recognition of the State of Palestine

Cyberbot II has detected links on International recognition of the State of Palestine which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.avaaz.org/en/independence_for_palestine_9/

  Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on International recognition of the State of Palestine

Cyberbot II has detected links on International recognition of the State of Palestine which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.avaaz.org/en/independence_for_palestine_9/

  Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Swedish Recognition

The map at the top of this article should be updated to reflect Sweden's recognition of Palestine on the 30th October 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.58.66.106 (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweden redacted their recognition of Palestine.86.11.229.4 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No they didn't. IJA (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not satisfied with IJA's answer. It seems that Sweden did recognize the State of Palestine[42], just like France[43] and Ireland is on the move[44]. Blaue Max (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IJA was (I believe) responding to the second IP's comment in November, not the original post in October. Sweden is listed on this page, as they have recognized, but France and Ireland have yet to formally recognize Palestine. (Their parliaments just called on the government to recognize.) TDL (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes they did. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/185839 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That source is dated October 5 2014, weeks before Sweden recognized on 30 October, and published this: [45]. Obviously they couldn't have withdrawn recognition before it was even granted. TDL (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

While the government recognises Palestine, the parliament doesn't, so I believe the map is wrong. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)