Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 1, 2020. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a section on "interpretations" of the Khartoum resolution, but proceeds to only detail revisionist-type interpretations, only obliquely mentioning the mainstream interpretation that this was a rejectionist document. In a clear example of distortion, whoever wrote this article points to a passage Benny Morris's Righteous Victims blaming Israel, but ignores that same books assertion that the resolution was indeed a "defiant, rejectionist platform that was to bedevil all peace moves in the region for a decade."
I've added this to the Morris quote so that the article to accurately reflects his view on Khartoum.
I wonder, then, if the Odd Bull reference, which has no page number associated with it, is similarly disingenuous.
Finally, I've removed the Sachar quote as it doesn't clearly relate to the resolution; the tangential reference seems to have been inserted as a way to buttress the Morris half-quote. Gni at you've included it, I don't think it really obfuscates the fundamental point at all, just makes for a more balanced discussion.
User:Gatoclass, I could take the easy way out, and point to the fact that since you added these revisionist interpretations to the article in the first place, the burden of proof is on you to show that they are the majority position. But this is really not needed. Shlaim is a self-declared revisionist “New Historian”. Revisionism, by definition, is the process by which currently accepted mainstream views are re-examined, and new interpretations are presented. Revisionist views may, in time, become the mainstream position, but since we already have in the article a fellow “New Historian” – Morris – who rejects that view, it is clearly evident that even among the ‘New Historians’ who are critical of Israel, Shlaim’s position is not widely accepted. Indeed, your own text confirms this, as you say “the Khartoum Resolution has often been presented as a clear example of Arab rejectionism, some scholars..” – notice the clear delineation between the position most often held, and that of “some” (weasel word) scholars, who do not deny the mainstream position, but add some nuances to it.
If you need any further proof that the mainstream historical interpretation is that Khartoum was rejectionist, have a look at these:
There are countless others. If you want to make the point that in spite of what the resolution clearly says (no negotiations), negotiations did take place, and quote Shlaim on it, that’s fine, but things that happened in spite of what the resolution says should not take preference over what the resolution clearly says, and what you acknowledge - that the resolution appears to be an 'outright rejectionist platform'. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) - I think we can amicably resolve this, since you wrote that you don't care which view leads, and I am not insisting that we label people. I'll edit to remove the labels while keeping the order, and we can hopefully move on. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Mike, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry I didn't realize you were a new user when I reverted your edit as Khartoum resolution yesterday, or I would have been a little less outspoken in my edit summary.
While I'm not entirely averse to some of the changes made, I do see a number of problems that would need to be hammered out first. To begin with, it isn't correct to suggest the Arab states had military superiority - the opposite is the case. Secondly, UN Resolution 242 has very little to do with Khartoum. Gatoclass 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is false. Sedat offered to agree a Peace treaty in return for full withdrawal of Israel from Egyptian territories in 1971. See for example Ben Ami (2006) pg 134 "President Sadat for the first time in the history of the conflict committed Egypt, in his response to Jarring’s questioning, "to enter into a peace agreement with Israel". Sadat’s commitment can be seen as a belated response to Israel’s peace guidelines of 19 June 1967 or as a correction, as it were, of the notorious three Khartoum nos. The tragedy was that by now the Israeli government had drifted yet further to the right." [7] Or William B. Quandt Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967 pg 89 [8] Or Baylis Thomas, How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict pg 196 [9] Dlv999 ( talk) 11:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khartoum Resolution. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The west bank and Gaza are coloured blue. Did the PLO or any other Palestinian representation was a Signatory? If it was why it's not mentioned in the article? Also What does the Golan heights represent? It is claimed by Syria which is in green, not by Palestine.-- Nngnna ( talk) 11:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I decided it would be proper to put this to RfC to ensure WP:NPOV, since an edit mini-war occurred between myself, an admittedly pro-Palestine editor, and a pro-Israel editor over my placement of a blockquote in the lead. The blockquote was removed by 211.229.221.206 twice with the same justification: “No need to make this into a blockquote in lead”.
〜 Festucalex • talk 09:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
“ |
|
” | ||
— "The Three Noes", Khartoum Resolution, Paragraph 3 |
for aesthetics and readability? For neutrality I also recommend having either both {{ Expand Hebrew}} and {{ Expand Arabic}} or neither and replacing the
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Hebrew. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
- Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
- Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
- You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is
Content in this edit is translated from the existing Hebrew Wikipedia article at [[:he:Exact name of the Hebrew article]]; see its history for attribution.
- You may also add the template
{{Translated page|he|Exact name of Hebrew article}}
to the talk page.- For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Arabic. Click [show] for important translation instructions.Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Arabic Wikipedia article at [[:ar:Exact name of the Arabic article]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated page|ar|Exact name of Arabic article}}
to the talk page.For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.
،لا صلح مع إسرائيل
،لا تفاوض مع إسرائيل
لا اعتراف بإسرائيلNo peace with Israel,
no negotiation with Israel,
no recognition of Israel"The Three Noes", Khartoum Resolution, 1967
The Khartoum Resolution ( Arabic: قرار الخرطوم) of 1 September 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit, which was convened in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, in the wake of the Six-Day War. The resolution is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three Noes" ( Arabic: اللاءات الثلاث) or "The Three Noes of Khartoum" ( Arabic: لاءات الخرطوم الثلاث). [1] [2]
Resolution Text
Textheading with Resolution Text, Wording or Content for clarity. 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 10:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
References
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 1, 2020. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a section on "interpretations" of the Khartoum resolution, but proceeds to only detail revisionist-type interpretations, only obliquely mentioning the mainstream interpretation that this was a rejectionist document. In a clear example of distortion, whoever wrote this article points to a passage Benny Morris's Righteous Victims blaming Israel, but ignores that same books assertion that the resolution was indeed a "defiant, rejectionist platform that was to bedevil all peace moves in the region for a decade."
I've added this to the Morris quote so that the article to accurately reflects his view on Khartoum.
I wonder, then, if the Odd Bull reference, which has no page number associated with it, is similarly disingenuous.
Finally, I've removed the Sachar quote as it doesn't clearly relate to the resolution; the tangential reference seems to have been inserted as a way to buttress the Morris half-quote. Gni at you've included it, I don't think it really obfuscates the fundamental point at all, just makes for a more balanced discussion.
User:Gatoclass, I could take the easy way out, and point to the fact that since you added these revisionist interpretations to the article in the first place, the burden of proof is on you to show that they are the majority position. But this is really not needed. Shlaim is a self-declared revisionist “New Historian”. Revisionism, by definition, is the process by which currently accepted mainstream views are re-examined, and new interpretations are presented. Revisionist views may, in time, become the mainstream position, but since we already have in the article a fellow “New Historian” – Morris – who rejects that view, it is clearly evident that even among the ‘New Historians’ who are critical of Israel, Shlaim’s position is not widely accepted. Indeed, your own text confirms this, as you say “the Khartoum Resolution has often been presented as a clear example of Arab rejectionism, some scholars..” – notice the clear delineation between the position most often held, and that of “some” (weasel word) scholars, who do not deny the mainstream position, but add some nuances to it.
If you need any further proof that the mainstream historical interpretation is that Khartoum was rejectionist, have a look at these:
There are countless others. If you want to make the point that in spite of what the resolution clearly says (no negotiations), negotiations did take place, and quote Shlaim on it, that’s fine, but things that happened in spite of what the resolution says should not take preference over what the resolution clearly says, and what you acknowledge - that the resolution appears to be an 'outright rejectionist platform'. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) - I think we can amicably resolve this, since you wrote that you don't care which view leads, and I am not insisting that we label people. I'll edit to remove the labels while keeping the order, and we can hopefully move on. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Mike, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry I didn't realize you were a new user when I reverted your edit as Khartoum resolution yesterday, or I would have been a little less outspoken in my edit summary.
While I'm not entirely averse to some of the changes made, I do see a number of problems that would need to be hammered out first. To begin with, it isn't correct to suggest the Arab states had military superiority - the opposite is the case. Secondly, UN Resolution 242 has very little to do with Khartoum. Gatoclass 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is false. Sedat offered to agree a Peace treaty in return for full withdrawal of Israel from Egyptian territories in 1971. See for example Ben Ami (2006) pg 134 "President Sadat for the first time in the history of the conflict committed Egypt, in his response to Jarring’s questioning, "to enter into a peace agreement with Israel". Sadat’s commitment can be seen as a belated response to Israel’s peace guidelines of 19 June 1967 or as a correction, as it were, of the notorious three Khartoum nos. The tragedy was that by now the Israeli government had drifted yet further to the right." [7] Or William B. Quandt Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967 pg 89 [8] Or Baylis Thomas, How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict pg 196 [9] Dlv999 ( talk) 11:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khartoum Resolution. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The west bank and Gaza are coloured blue. Did the PLO or any other Palestinian representation was a Signatory? If it was why it's not mentioned in the article? Also What does the Golan heights represent? It is claimed by Syria which is in green, not by Palestine.-- Nngnna ( talk) 11:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I decided it would be proper to put this to RfC to ensure WP:NPOV, since an edit mini-war occurred between myself, an admittedly pro-Palestine editor, and a pro-Israel editor over my placement of a blockquote in the lead. The blockquote was removed by 211.229.221.206 twice with the same justification: “No need to make this into a blockquote in lead”.
〜 Festucalex • talk 09:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
“ |
|
” | ||
— "The Three Noes", Khartoum Resolution, Paragraph 3 |
for aesthetics and readability? For neutrality I also recommend having either both {{ Expand Hebrew}} and {{ Expand Arabic}} or neither and replacing the
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Hebrew. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
- Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
- Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
- You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is
Content in this edit is translated from the existing Hebrew Wikipedia article at [[:he:Exact name of the Hebrew article]]; see its history for attribution.
- You may also add the template
{{Translated page|he|Exact name of Hebrew article}}
to the talk page.- For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Arabic. Click [show] for important translation instructions.Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Arabic Wikipedia article at [[:ar:Exact name of the Arabic article]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated page|ar|Exact name of Arabic article}}
to the talk page.For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.
،لا صلح مع إسرائيل
،لا تفاوض مع إسرائيل
لا اعتراف بإسرائيلNo peace with Israel,
no negotiation with Israel,
no recognition of Israel"The Three Noes", Khartoum Resolution, 1967
The Khartoum Resolution ( Arabic: قرار الخرطوم) of 1 September 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit, which was convened in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, in the wake of the Six-Day War. The resolution is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three Noes" ( Arabic: اللاءات الثلاث) or "The Three Noes of Khartoum" ( Arabic: لاءات الخرطوم الثلاث). [1] [2]
Resolution Text
Textheading with Resolution Text, Wording or Content for clarity. 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 10:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
References