Talk:Israeli–Palestinian peace process/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. - GalatzTalk 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)

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) 09:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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" ?

Yes. --GHcool (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A detailed and convincing argument Ghcool. Is this the official position of the Israeli government then ? “This is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. The reality is that this is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people." http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-im-on-the-brink-of-burning-my-israeli-passport-9600165.html

Maybe he didnt need to elaborate because the answer was obvious. Of course the spokesman saying something makes it an official position. If any company or organization makes a statement on their position, its considered their position. Why would anyone think differently? - GalatzTalk 14:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really the company as a whol is it ? just one person in reaction to one event. No evidence tha tit was endorsed as a "for ever" policy. And for such an apparently significant statement it doesn't even seem to have made his wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Abu_Zuhri (I'm sure you can add it). And your logic applies also to the Israeli minister or doesn't she count as a spokeswoman for the government of which she is a member ? Not that I'm a big fan of Hamas (or the current Israeli government) but POVs don't enter into it do they ? Its accuracy, standards of evidence and consistency that interest me here.

What about the Hamas Covenant stating that they plan to destroy Israel? - GalatzTalk 17:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Still cherrypicking to get the sweet dumbedown version of history over? You can quote senior Hamas people for any number of opinions, from targeting civilians, from considering settlers, though civilians, as effectively, to be treated as invasive soldiers and therefore legitimate targets, to declarations that civilians are not to be targeted. You can look at the statistical breakdowns of Hamas violence, and it works out that in the 2nd Intifada 2002-2005, they targeted civilians, as they had, in 1994-5. Official policy is best understood by statistical analysis, not statements: Israel doesn't target civilians officially, and shoots them every day for throwing stones, and, in war, systematically and knowingly blows up hundreds with the usual pretexts. So, before plastering the page with selective quotations, look at the counter evidence, and privilege the statistics, which show what really goes on.(Aoibhín de Búrca, Preventing Political Violence Against Civilians: Nationalist Militant Conflict in Northern Ireland, Israel And Palestine, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 pp.92-138, 107-8, to cite just one study) Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Or Naftali Bennett's pledge to destroy Palestine http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-08/annexation-plan-sparks-threat-to-topple-israel-government But you do seem to have changed the subject from the issue of Hamas and Israel and a targetting civilians policy

I've again removed the mischaracterization which was never explained here. Sepsis II (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Surely Hillary Clinton's leaked email from her presidential campaign in 2015 is not indicative of official US views on the peace process. I therefore believe that this edit is unwarranted and I will remove the offending sentence within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And I will put it back, if no one else does. You don't convince yourself on talk pages, you try to reason with other editors. The email is not from her Presidential campaign, and she was Secretary of State overseeing US policy for some years, and since she is a presidential candidate her views as expressed there are certainly important.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I would encourage you to include the sentence somewhere where it is relevant (perhaps here). This section is a one paragraph overview on official US policy. Leaked private statements made by presidential candidates in private (especially ones who held no office during the time the statement was made) do not belong here. Should we include every statement made by people such as Kissinger, Schultz, Rice, etc. on the peace process as if it were the official US view on the topic? Should we include the views of Donald Trump? I would urge you not to go down this slippery slope. --GHcool (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump has never held office. And this is not 'every' or 'any' statement. It reflects the opinion of a key player in US 'peace' talks for several years. As a compromise, I will agree to take it out and place it here, until November 4, and then it can go back in. Nishidani (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest instead taking it out for good and replacing it with something Hillary Clinton said or did when she was secretary of state acting as a representative of the U.S. government. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not an objection. If Hilary Clinton believes that peace talks are just a façade, that is relevant to her judgement as former Secretary of State, and to her position as future President of the US. I have no hurry over this, but if, as is highly probable, she does enter the White House, it's difficult to see how this is not relevant to how she will handle the Middle East policy agenda.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The way the current paragraph (and the ones about the Palestinian and Israeli views) is worded makes it appear as an attempt to be a short primer on the different official views of the country and the most popular views of its citizens. It boils down the peace process down to its essential elements and does not get into the nitty-gritty details about exactly which person said what to whom at any particular moment, or what doubts or hopes one might have on any particular day. I think this is the correct approach.
My feeling is that Clinton was expressing doubts that the peace process would be fruitful at the time when that email was sent, not that the entire concept of the peace process was a facade, that she always believed that all her life, or that she will make that a guiding principal of her foreign policy if she becomes president. Furthermore, she said it in a private email while she didn't hold public office. I would not include this sentence just as I would not include statements made by Kissinger, Schultz, Rice, Kerry, or any other secretary of state or presidential candidate before or between times when they held public office. That is why it belongs somewhere else, but not here. --GHcool (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain if she is confirmed that this becomes relevant to American policy. As to how to interpret it, well, I have my private views, (i.e. peace talks have been a farce for 15 years at least) but they don't count. Ultimately, the relevance of the email leak will be restablished by the number of comments it elicits in the serious press coverage of the area. In the meantime, I'll take it out and put it here, without prejudice. Thanks for deiscussing it with me: it is blind reverting that troubles me, not disagreement.

According to a leaked email, Hilary Clinton in 2015 thought peace talks were a façade: responding to a remark by Netanyahu affirming he thought a two-state solution necessary, she said the occasion should be exploited, writing:'A Potemkin process is better than nothing.'[1][2][3]

  1. ^ Barak Ravid,'Clinton in 2015 Email: Facade of an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process Better Than Nothing,' Haaretz 15 October 2016.
  2. ^ Philip Weiss, 'In email, Clinton calls for a ‘Potemkin’ peace process,'Mondoweiss, 17 October, 2016
  3. ^ Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man, ['What Clinton Gets so Wrong about Israel-Palestine,'] +972 magazine 16 October 16, 2016.

The series picture deserves a change

This is the photo at the helm of the article.

It seems amateur for such a complicated subject. I think it should be replaced with Rabin and Arafat shaking hands - XenaV2 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli–Palestinian peace process. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Israeli–Palestinian peace process. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Cheers. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli–Palestinian peace process. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin, before the other text under the heading "Future role of the United States in the peace process," please, insert the following neutral fact:

"On Sunday, January 15, 2017, The Times of London reported that President-Elect Trump announced that Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump's husband, would work to "broker a Middle East peace deal[.]" Yourfav (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

& after the text under the same heading, please insert the following neutral fact:

"On Tuesday, February 20, 2018, in a speech to the UN Security Council, Palestine Authority President Abbas ruled out the United States as a broker for peace with Israel on Tuesday, calling for an international peace conference by mid-2018." Cite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinian-leader-calls-for-peace-conference-by-mid-2018/2018/02/20/6e200016-1660-11e8-930c-45838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.0b9e7172ac1d Yourfav (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

"eport" = "report" 2605:E000:9149:A600:3114:D79F:64C6:D378 (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the section "Major current issues between the two sides," "incitement" is incorrectly spelled as "incitment."

FIXED. --GHcool (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove "Some" from header "Some difficulties with past peace processes" +more

sorry to crowd this page, just don't have the clearance yknow. I reccomend the edit in in the above because the "some" is unnecessary.

I also suggest the following: - removing "A common feature of all attempts to create a path which would lead to peace is the fact that more often than not promises to carry out "good will measures" were not carried out by both sides." at the start of the aforementioned section because the source only mentions one side's violation of one condition and editing it to say this wouldn't fit with this part of this section. Maybe summarize this deal or link to the program it's regarding "Road Map for Peace" somewhere else.

-Remove 'furthermore's and 'lastly's

-and a bunch of other things but i'll just grind and get my big boy badge lol have a good one Gromte (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

Does anyone object to the use of shortened footnotes in this article? ImTheIP (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Timeline Clarity

I was reading through this article and I have to say that the Timeline is in a really rough shape. I would like to ask for help in fixing the time line so that it truly reflects a clear timeline of years, not headings without dates. Currently some if the timeline makes sense, but if you read through it, the timeline jumps around. This article has the capacity to be very clear and concise on this subject. (I was actually looking for information on this topic and found this page. Definitely in need of clarity.)12.227.66.34 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to clarify with this edit. I'm not saying its perfect, but its a step in the direction you were speaking about. --GHcool (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Israeli leadership's rejection of a Palestinian state's right to exist

The "Israeli views on the peace process" section seems very lacking given it makes no mention of the fact that the current (April 2022) Israeli leader Naftali Bennett denies the rights of the Palestinians to ever have a state. This is his long term position and also the stated view of several other Israeli leaders such as Danny Danon and Tzipi Hotovely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The Palestinians do in fact have a state but it is occupied by Israel. So unclear what he and the others mean by this, that they won't recognize it, perhaps? International recognition of the State of Palestine includes 138 states already. Or if they mean that Israel intends never to end its occupation or start any kind of peace process leading to a state, then that would lend weight to the run of apartheid accusations being leveled against Israel. The international community, including the US, say they want a 2 state solution. Hard to reconcile the position of the Israeli leadership with this. It is well covered in lots of sources, might be time to try and write something up, I agree. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Israeli unilateral plans

They need to be at least mentioned and briefly explained. For instance the Allon Plan (only listed under "see also"), or the 'Jordanian Option', which still needs an article (see Talk: Allon Plan#Separate 'Jordanian Option' art. is needed). Arminden (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Section titled "Qatar's initiative for peace"

Neither of the two provided sources talk about "initiative for peace", only prisoner exchange. Google search on "Qatar's initiative for peace" outputs 3 results: 2 about Darfur and 1 link to this Wikipedia page. It looks like this section should be deleted. Mark Matusevich (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process/Archive_1&oldid=1219892832"