Talk:Israeli–Palestinian peace process

Split

Split off peace process from main article, which basically just contained peace process and links. FT2 12:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I rememeber reading once that Mauritania has diplomatic relations with Israel. Does anyone know if this is true?A2Kafir 22:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like statements like the one below to be justified with examples, linking to another if required, otherwise the statement is baseless and biased.

The U.S. has veto power in the U.N. Security Council and is able to block resolutions it opposes, and it has frequently vetoed resolutions critical of Israel actions, while criticising other nations for similar actions.

--212.179.227.105 10:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Humus sapiens

POV.

Why do you insist on putting Iran? why do not you put all the muslim world? Are the arabs one entity regarding this issue? Not all arabs fought Israel. If you insist on putting Iran than you have to show the US and Canada and Europe and Australia in Blue. The claimed Israeli territory is a lot larger then what is represented in the map. They even occupied more then their claimed size.

You can put a map showing what Israel has occupied of neighbouring territories and what conflicts started since its establishment. That will be more factual.

The map that Humus sapiens is rv to is simply propaganda used by israelis and zionists and is anti-arabs and Iran.

129.130.15.91 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Iran belongs here because neither Hezbollah nor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad help peace process. Nobody says that all Arabs fought Israel: see Arab League and the Arab-Israeli conflict. As for your theory that "conflicts started since its (Israel's) establishment", see Riots in Palestine of 1920, Jaffa riots of 1921, Riots in Palestine of 1929, Great Arab Uprising of 1936-1939. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is not an arab. That is why the map does not belong here. You can put it in israeli iraninan relations.

The map is absolute propaganda. Those countries do not represent an entity on this issue. Egypt and Jordan are signed to the treaty. This map is trying has many false claims as described above. It is simply propaganda. 129.130.15.91 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not only about today. How many wars Egypt and Jordan fought with Israel? You can have your opinion about Iran, but MA's and ayatollah's statements, Iranian involvement with Hizballah and Karine A fiasco evidence that you are wrong. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

With your reasoning you should absolutely include France and Britain as they also fought war alongside Israel against Egypt. Possibly you should also include the US when they helped israel with the biggest airlift of weapons in history in the october 1973 war. With all of this you still can not include countries like Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, etc.. . Actually you can not include but Syria and Egypt. Furthermore in the case you include Egypt, the map also does not belong here because it is outdated. In conclusion the map is propaganda and distorts reality and should be here. You can keep it in your website. It is only your POV and zionsits-propagandists like you. 129.130.15.91 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reread the title of this article. Those wars didn't involve Palestinians and were irrelevant to the peace process. See WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do not YOU read the title closely? Who is involved in those negotiations. You are pointless. You are only try to force you POV.129.130.15.91 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The peace process is much more that negotiations. This is your 2nd warning to stop personal attacks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely the peace process is far more than negotiations. Since this is abut israeli-palestinians you can not just puzlle the reader with a distorted view of the countries that are involved. I think the best picture is to show the UN partitions of the land of Palestine into two states or the current occupied territories by Israel including the palestinian territories. I donot mean to attack you. But your insistence on the map with all the reasons I provided just aggrevate the situation. I did not get the first warning. where did you mention it? 129.130.15.91 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is expected to abide by WP:NPA and other WP:RULES. It is funny that you mention "the UN partitions of the land of Palestine" because the next day after the British Mandate expired, the armies of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq (see the map - that is why it is relevant) invaded its territory. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe I am abiding by the rules. I am not saying you are bad or anything of that sort. As to propagnada it can be positive or negative. As to zionism some people are proud of being a part of it. I do not see the breach. when I say POV it means POV. When I say pointless I mean there is no point. I do not see how you are getting offended. Going back to the main points here, along the same lines of your reasoning, I can argue about including Britain and France and even the US. Just try to stick to the title. It is only about israeli and palestinians. Unless you think that the palestinian came from all over. In that case although the case would be baseless, you would have to include the soviet union, europe, ethiopia, in addition to what you have and more since this is where the israelis came from. 129.130.15.91 02:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

There are several parts of this article which have been unsourced for quite some time -- over six months. I'm posting a note here, that any such unsourced sections can be removed by any editor. Since there appears to be some low-level edit-warring over this article, I just wanted to give fair-warning, that the unsourced parts may be completely deleted soon. --Elonka 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No Jimmy Carter? WTF!?

This article is a joke. The peace process didn't start in 1991! What about the Camp david accords? An encyclopedia article needs to actually talk about every item in the "Arab-Israeli peace diplomacy and treaties" section. 79.144.242.190 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. PBS Reference. TekBoi [Ali Kilinc] (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Camp David Accords was between Israel and Egypt, not Israel and the Palestinians. --GHcool (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1991 was chosen on purpose

The article is worse than a joke. In its present form it is simply propaganda. The choice of the year 1991 and the Madrid Conference is a good example of this. The Madrid Conference was when the "peace process" was "taken out of the hands" of the United Nations and essentially restricted to a US/Israel/Palestinians(partly) process to circumvent international law and to give Israel more "leverage" in enforcing a fait accompli. It is no accident that this was pushed through by GHW Bush, since the Israelis retained a potent blackmail over him as a consequence of their joint actions with him in sabotaging the US presidential election of 1980. Cuadro (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cuadro, Please familiarize yourself with WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

saudis refuse to meet with israel

Should we add that the saudi's refuse to meet with Israel untill their demans are met first.http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2009/ioi/090915-turki-gestures.htmlSolarsheen (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

saudis refuse to meet with israel

We should start a section on the Obama phase of the peace process: the indirect proximity talks now underway and the precursor to this phase. Any takers?--NYCJosh (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

translations

Funny how this webpage isn't in arabic or hebrew... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.229.169 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PLO supported a two-state solution for decades?

In the "2010 direct talks" section, the following sentence has been added: "The PLO have supported a two-state solution for decades." The above was cited to a book published in 1994. Considering that the PLO did not support a two-state solution prior to 1994, it is extremely doubtful that such information could be cited to this book. I'd like to see the specific quotation from page 718 of that book or else I will remove this dubious sentence within a couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the source added, you can verify it through books.google.com.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3kbU4BIAcrQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mark+A.+Tessler.+A+History+of+the+Israeli-Palestinian+conflict&hl=sv&ei=B40fTdT6NsOVOsDs1fII&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false JackhammerSwirl (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, a close reading of the source does not say anything about the PLO supporting a two-state solution. I'm editing the statement to reflect the source accurately. Thanks for providing the link. --GHcool (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Road Map and Gaza

why is the Gaza withdawal included in the Road Map section ? I can't see the connection between the two. In fact arguably the Gaza withdrawal is unrelated to the peace process. Is it a POV to suggest he Gaza withdrawal was a peace initiative ?

HOLAAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.176.23 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not, isn't one of the core issues of the peace process is borders and settlements? So, Israeli disengagement, giving the PA control over whole of Gaza and having evacuating its settlements in the area, seems to me like a huge step forward toward peace. --109.67.179.108 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

negotiation details.

I have removed this [1] from the article.

According to the NYT much more detailed 5 page piece(page 2)

Abbas opened the negotiations over land with a map showing how Israel could annex 1.9 percent of Palestine in return for tracts of land equal in size and quality; Olmert produced map of 6.3 percent, suggesting that for the percentage of Palestine Israel would annex, it would compensate Palestine with 5.8 percent, plus a 25-mile tunnel that would run under Israel from the South Hebron Hills to Gaza. “The built-up area of all the settlements was 1.1 percent,” Abbas said, “so when I offered them 1.9, it was more than enough.” Olmert’s bid was somewhat less firm from the start: “I gave him reason to believe that I would go down to 5.9, but that would be final.” Notionally, the leaders would then be looking to the United States to help them split the difference; this was what Abbas, at least, expected. (Since the talks ended, various compromises in the 4 percent range have been floated by teams working at the James Baker institute at Rice University.)

Which show that the quoted info of 7% and 5.5% is either inaccurate(missing the tunnel) or possibly from an earlier stage of the negotiation. Since it is obvious that those numbers are an opening bids in an ongoing negotiation, I see no reason to add every offer ever made, especially when the whole move is summarized above. --109.67.179.108 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict → Israeli–Palestinian peace process – The current title is too long, and this is the more widely used term. Charles Essie (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, that's way better. Support in principle per WP:CONCISE Red Slash 04:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Conciseness. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bias wording

I know that many RS engage in misrepresentation so I pause to edit out the following misrepresentations. Each problematic quote is followed by my suggested replacement, let me know if you have any concerns, if not I will make the edits soon.

1. "Hardliners believe that no territorial concessions should be given to Palestinians and want to maintain an Israeli sovereign state over the whole area it currently occupies"
2. "Hardliners believe that Isreal should annex all Palestinian territory"
3. "A common theme throughout the peace process has been a feeling that the Palestinians ask for too much in their peace demands and offer little in return."
4. "A common theme throughout the peace process has been a feeling that the Palestinians give too little in their peace offers."
5. "All recent US Presidents have maintained a policy that Israel must give up some of the land that it conquered in the 1967 war in order to achieve peace"
6. "All recent US Presidents have supported Israeli demands for some of the land that it conquered in the 1967 war in exchange for peace"
7. "Ehud Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank"
8. "Ehud Barak reportedly demanded from the Palestinian President 5-11% of the West Bank"
9. "80% of the settlers were to remain under Israeli sovereignty"
10. "80% of the settlers were to become under Israeli sovereignty"

Sepsis II (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with each of your changes except #5 to #6. An alternate wording that I would propose would be "All recent US presidents have been supportive of the continued occupation of the land that Israel conquered in the 1967 war, while at the same time supporting the return of some of the land that it conquered in order to achieve peace". I feel that this wording is more accurate and could be more readily supported by reliable sources. The current source for that text is certainly not neutral on this issue and should be replaced. --Tdl1060 (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The US supports using the 1967 lines, with minor and mutual swaps, as the border between Israel and Palestine. --Dailycare (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Israeli–Palestinian peace user templates

Here are a couple of new user templates:

This user supports a peaceable Israel within an approximation of its 1967 borders.

This user supports the existence of an independent Palestine at peace with its neighbours.

 

Enjoy! :)
Gregkaye (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So called Egyptian initiative

@Shrike: Nobody is claiming that there was not a proposal which was reported. That is not the issue. Can we get some perspective please? Look at all the initiatives in this article. They are all public and many lasted for years. Do you really think that a rumour of an initiative, denied by everyone concerned, deserves a place here? A couple months from now, nobody would remember anything about it. This is pure WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This was reported by WP:RS hence its notable.WP:RECENTISM is merely an essay.--Shrike (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: WP:BRD and WP:TE are also essays. The point is that the essay is relevant here. Just Google for this story, and there is no mention anywhere except the brief 8 September period when the announcement was made on Army Radio. Nobody anywhere took it seriously, except a few people in Israel. Again, look at the rest of the article and see if it compares with the Oslo agreement etc. Kingsindian (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There are so many newspaper sources in this article and all of them talks about some events that happened back then.So I don't see any problem with this tidbit its no different then other stuff so the claim of WP:UNDUE is not relevant.--Shrike (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Nobody is saying that newspaper sources are not relevant. Just read the section "Attempts to make peace". All of them are long attempts, some of them lasting years, and discussed at the highest levels either internationally at the UN, or between the two parties with US mediating. The sections dealing with "Abbas plan" and "Alleged Egyptian plan" have nothing of that quality. Both of them are pure recentism and should be dumped. Kingsindian (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok fine I will delete two recent sections? I prefer that only academic sources will be used.--Shrike (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Kingsindian (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Abbas' plan being removed. He plans on presenting it to the UN in two weeks. The lasting for years argument is silly when something is brand new. Someone looking for the latest peace plan status would come here and that is the current peace plan being floated. I am going to put it back with the updates from today on Abbas' plan. If you disagree please feel free to say why, but stating that it hasn't gone on for years really is not an argument to exclude something new. - Galatz (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: I don't disagree that you have some points, that a person who is looking for Abbas's plan might want to find it here. However, WP is not news. This is simply a plan, one of many. There are all kinds of plans floated all the time. For example, there are UN general assembly resolution for 30 years repeating the same plan. That does not mean that one has to include each of them in a separate section in this article. If there are serious negotiations, secret or otherwise, we can include them when they happen. This is an article for a long-term view of the peace process. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that just because its floated doesn't mean it should be included here. Netanyahu mentioned at the UN about wanting to work with Arab partners for a plan, and I do not believe that belongs here unless it gets legs and actual meetings. I do not believe Abbas' plan is in the same boat. He has been actively traveling discussing it with world leaders and plans to address the UNSC about it. At this point it seems to me at least, to be worthy of inclusion here. I am sure when the camp david accords were first mentioned people questioned whether or not it will get legs and go anywhere. In essence all plans have failed, so its hard to know what criteria to include or not include. - Galatz (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: This is what WP:RECENTISM says. Wait a few weeks or months and see what happens. WP is not required to keep up with news. If it is significant and gets anywhere, it can be included. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli peace process vs. Israeli–Palestinian peace process

I suggest we clearly focus this article on the Israeli–Palestinian aspect to the peace process. We should refer to other related peace processes, but recognize that those are not the core subject of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Israeli precondition that Abbas not Hamas be partner

the claim that this is because Abbas not Hamas is head of the "PA" is incorrect and irrelevant. Clearly this doesn't mean that Israel is incapable of negotiating with Hamas, In addition Israel has also indicated its unwillingness to negotiate with a Fatah-Hamas joint PA http://www.timesofisrael.com/washington-disappointed-by-palestinian-unity-move/ And finally of course Abbas rejects the term PA - it says it is now the State Of Palestine http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-new-pa-passports-will-be-issued-for-state-of-palestine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.46.95 (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that its not a precondition its a matter of fact. Abbas is the officially recognized person who is the person who is the head of the PA or whatever term you want to use for them. Its like staying you are only willing to go into a store with the precondition that you pay the cashier for the items you purchase, not the guy hanging out near the milk. You dont need to make it a condition when its just how things work. - Galatz^Talk 19:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually its more like if you refuse to buy from a store until they sack the cashier ! As I said, Israel also refused to negotiate when Hamas joined a unity government with Abbas with Netanyahu laying out his precondition that "Fatah can "have peace with Israel or a pact with Hamas - he can't have both" http://news.yahoo.com/fatah-hamas-reconcile-agree-recognize-israel-then-walks-004600627.html;_ylt=A9mSs2m02opWHlsAYwxLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByZm5kMHEyBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--#

Its "just how things work" sounds more like you don't discuss ownership of an asset while the other guy is stuffing it away

Oh and furthermore if its in your opinion - so obvious ("just how things work") that Hamas can't be a negotiating partner (despite getting most voted in the 206 eletion) why is the possibility of Israel -Hamas neotiations mentionned in the article at all as being ruled out by precondition (except without using the word precondition). Obviously the reason you object t the word "precondition" being used even though its totally appropriate is because Netanyahu consistently claims as though its a concession - that he wants talks without precnditions - and its not a POV but simply a fact that this isn't true as is shown by his precondition on Hamas - he just means he wants Israel to continue settlement expansion (in contradicton of the Road Map)

Hamas official position is that all Israelis are legitimate targe

This appears to be based on a statement of a Hamas spokesman in 2014 after a house in Gaza was bombed killing 7 people http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Hamas-All-Israelis-now-targets-for-missile-attacks-361965 Does this count as an "official position" ?