Talk:All-Palestine Government

message: 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)
thread_title: Unnamed section

message: 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)
replies: text: Thats the wrong flag 2A0D:6FC2:6041:7C00:BDB0:B391:2681:211A (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: should link here.--189.33.2.165 (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All-Palestine government]] 

message: #) What is the difference in law between the "All-Palestine Government" which was established by the government of Egypt on non-Egyptian territory, and was completely a creature of the Egyptian government, which had full control over all aspects of it from top to bottom, and (for example) the Vikdun Quisling regime established by Nazis in Norway?  As far as I can tell, the Vikdun Quisling regime had more real substantive autonomy with respect to its occupying power than the "All-Palestine Government" did... 
#) What substantial legal continuity can exist between the League of Nations mandate of the 1920s and the "All-Palestine Government" of the 1950s when the British government conspicuously refused to hand over sovereignty or territory to any entity on any side during its "law of the jungle" withdrawal in May 1948, and when the "All-Palestine Government" vehemently and vocally rejected UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which was the official United Nations endorsed proposal for legally and politically transforming the mandate situation into something else? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe evidence of you repeatedly violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? nableezy - 02:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonmoos this is the article talk page. You are violating Wikipedia policy by trying to turn it into a forum for general discussions and by asking other editors for assistance in conducting your original research. The article already cites a number of reliable published sources on international law, including the U.S. State Department and Kluwer Law International. They each explain in great detail the applicable principles of state succession and continuity of laws. harlan (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Harlan, the fact that you use Wikipedia to publish your own thesis and propagate for political causes seem to be okay in your view. The fact that you dare deleting others' comments from this talk page also seem in line with your standards. The fact that someone challenge your thesis and brings evidences to refute it, triggers your reaction that it is an "original research" irrelevant even for a talk page. Of course, your tag team partner is here to massage your back while you fight the "infidels". DrorK (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try me one more time. nableezy - 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Drork I didn't write the analysis that is contained in the sources that I've cited. Your constant harping on that topic on various talk pages and noticeboards has only earned you unfavorable attention. Please limit your discussion to content, not other editors. harlan (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Harlan -- I have no intentions of editing this article in any major way, or of participating in extended debates on this talk page, or of joining in any pre-existing flamewars on either side.  However, I remember how you dragged down the "UN Partition Plan" article for months with your abstract metaphysical extended personal interpretations of primary source documents and "original synthesis" of selectively-chosen legal philosophies, and was distantly hoping to save this article from the same fate.  If you can't even undertake to offer any kind of direct cogent reply to a few basic simple pointed (but relevant) questions, and instead take refuge in your extended interpretations of primary source documents (the very definition of "original research", as far as I can see), then I'm afraid that's a bad sign... AnonMoos (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonmoos, you should limit your comments to this article's content and stop trying to score points by making asinine comments about other editors. Please take your discussion about the Vikdun Quisling regime somewhere else. harlan (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, dude -- my questions were short, snappy, and pertinent (and they were about legal questions, usually your favorite subject) -- as opposed to your endless pontifications and personal theory-spinnings. AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Harlan managed to intimidate yet another Wikipedian with some help from Nableezy. Apparently, he has taken the role of Wikipedia's Professor Moriarty. Just to make things clear - Harlan, as well as Nableezy, do not really believe in what they write here. They have an anti-Israeli agenda, and they are clever enough to instill it in a way that would look scientific. They also have enough power to intimidate anyone who tries to stop them. DrorK (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but Harlan hasn't "intimidated" me, and I have no real interest in your apparent long-running flamewar with Nableezy (nor any intention of joining it on either side).  What I do care about is that Harlan is trying to introduce his own private personal world of abstract hypothetical metaphysical legal-philosophical speculations (largely derived by introspective meditation on original primary source documents) into Wikipedia articles again.  And my opinion of the usefulness of Harlan's work to Wikipedia articles is not improved by the fact that Harlan seems to be completely unable to give any satisfactory answers to a few simple pointed skeptical questions (here or elsewhere).  In the current context, we all know that Harlan prefers the "All-Palestine Government" to the Vikdun Quisling regime, but I'm not interested in that, nor am I interested in the reasons why Harlan prefers one to the other, nor am I interested in Harlan's subjective emotional feelings of outrage that I dared to compare Vikdun Quisling to Haj Amin al-Husseini (though objectively the two would seem to have quite a bit in common!).  What I am actually interested in is what the formal difference in legal status is between the two regimes.  Unfortunately, when confronted with this somewhat basic question, Harlan's glib tongue (which normally has no difficulty in running on at great length about such subjects) seems to be suddenly frozen. AnonMoos (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some general questions

message: Someone suggested here that that pre-1948 Palestine and Transjordan were states. I hope other Wikipedia articles don't include such nonsense. I read the sources. The person who brought them doesn't really know how to read an academic text. None of them uses the term "state" in the way we use it normally. This is okay in a given context but not in an encyclopedic article. Lustright (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  States? 

message: What was the flag of the all-Palestine government? I'm pretty sure it was not the "Fatach" flag (used since 1964), but was it the Arab Revolt flag, which is presented here? Greyshark09 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was the flag of the revolt (see here for a detailed overview of the history of the Palestinian flag and how this one was chosen by the All-Palestine Government). nableezy - 20:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nableezy, by the way did you notice the article says All-Palestine Government was established in March 1948? It is contrary to the page lead section here, i think it needs review and fixing. It is important to describe the accurate way of things.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Nableezy -- That's a very interesting article; thanks for posting the link... AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on All-Palestine Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140525024736/http://unispal.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems that the article for the "All-Palestine Protectorate" and the "All-Palestine Government" are actually one and the same thing?
If true, how can this be remedied?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Palestine_Protectorate
-- Geekeasy (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Article? 

message: change 'isreali invasion" to a more presice and acccurate equivlent 185.24.206.252 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel did invade Gaza in December 48, Im not sure what you think is inaccurate about that. See for example here or here. nableezy - 18:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2018 

message: Duplicate article, covers the same topic and is dealt with in the All-Palestine Government page already nableezy - 18:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  To the best of my knowledge the "All-Palestine Protectorate" is not recognised as ever existing by anybody except Greyshark and (possibly) Daniel Pipes.  It is not enough. Zerotalk 04:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[All-Palestine Protectorate]] 

message: There's more to this short-lived government than a simple announcment. Avi Shlaim is basing his reporting (in "The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza") on Arif el-Arif and others. If, as one of the commentators in this talk has suggested, Shlaim is "biased", what about all the pro-zionist and establishment/court historians telling the Zionist official narrative - from Gelber to you-name-it? Shlaim is not only a more prominent historian than any of them, he's detached from the Israeli academia and military establishments, thus less biased, I would propose. 
In any case, in this article, he proposes a much more nuanced (and very-well sourced) narrative. One of the most important aspects testifying for intent and the precedence of this event, is related to the proposed delegation to the UN. A "protectorate" would not attempt to declare itself independent. 
p. 42 
For people reading Arabic, see ,  (Arif el-Arif, Al Nakbah, 1956–1961, vol 3, pp. 703-704
Ommnia (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decleration of independcne, delegation to the UN and more 

message: You misunderstand the purpose of the disambiguation headers. They are not article content. The purpose of the headers is to guess what articles someone might have been searching for when they arrived by mistake at this one, then to give them a link to the right place. It is just giving some help to readers who are lost. Think about someone who is looking for One-state solution but used search terms what brought them here instead. What search terms were they using to get here? "Palestine" was obviously one of them. Zerotalk 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what a disambiguation header is. I just think that it’s improper for Wikipedia to refer to Israel and Palestine combined as Palestine. Smartypants2006 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That could be a reason to reword the link, which I now did. It wasn't a valid reason to delete it altogether. Zerotalk 06:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab header