![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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.
|
No new information appears to have been added in a year. Could someone update this? TX Ciclista ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The footnoting in the article is inconsistent. There appears to be two intermingled sets. One set (4 in total) refers to the "references" section while another (14+) refers to external links. Footnotes should be standardized, with one numbering scheme and all references placed under the "References" section using proper citation techniques. TX Ciclista ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also changes in tense (some sentences use past and present interchangeably). I will try to edit these in the near future. TX Ciclista ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed original research:
Why I changed it back:
Bit of an edit conflict, I wrote this before last exchange: Although HKT's "discarded" is too strong a word (while "reiterated" is misleading) the 2004 letter was widely and accurately imho seen as a victory for Sharon and an Israeli desire for expanded borders, while the less reported 2005 statements, were again reasonably seen as the reverse, and a return to earlier US positions. [1]. The article should reflect this, and I will try to create a compromise version, avoiding OR with the help of this op-ed by two very knowledgeable observers. John Z 05:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
First, my response to HKT's comments (in order, one for each paragraph):
Now, regarding John's comments:
Now to HKT's final edit:
Chuckstar, I like your last edit of the first paragraph which avoids disputable points - it is not in the article any more but I happen to agree with the views of the 2 leading experts I cited on what official US policy has been and was, and just made a small, cited addition.
However I can't say the same for the version of the second disputed paragraph. Saying that they do not need to be reconciled is original research, and quite wrong IMHO. Brzezinski - a former NS adviser, and Quandt, one of if not the most respected expert on US Mideast diplomacy disagree with you, and see them in some kind of conflict, even if eventually somehow ingeniously reconcilable, as do I and every other commenter on the two of them I have ever seen. HKT's discard is too strong, but it is better than reaffirm, which makes it sound like the 2005 statement reaffirms the 2004 one. The standard, sourced, view is 2004 Israeli "win", 2005 Palestinian "win". John Z 08:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Chuck, though your talk comments haven't appeared yet, I'm OK with your latest version. I see that the comment I added to the first paragraph, and that you removed wasn't really necessary, as it repeated something I had said in the previous sentence. I think this was a signal that it is time to go to sleep. :-) . I hope and believe HKT will like it too. G'night or morning or afternoon, whatever the case may be. John Z 09:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know who did what to whom after the militant groups agreed to a ceasefire? This article is vague about who actually violated the ceasefire and when. -- Fiolou 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC) fiolou
I must not have read these sentences clearly before, because there are several critical problems with them.
Several points - Mainly, these sentences just do not say what you are reading them to say, and most of the arguments you mention, and I counter below are just not relevant to the issues You are of course right that the older US policy favored return to Jordan, but the phrasing does not imply this or anything incorrect - the key point is that US policy favored Israel returning lands to Arabs, not to which Arabs. That Bush's letter to Sharon was a significant change to US policy and seen as an unexpected Israeli triumph was universally commented on - from everybody, right, center and left; Zionist and anti-Zionist - do you have any source that says this was not the case? It was the first time ever that US policy seemed to explicitly rule out full withdrawal. Do you have any source which says such a thing was expected after Barak's proposals? I'll try to modify it as best I can to make it more clear, anyways.
The date of when "giving land to the Palestinians" became an issue in international diplomacy is in the mid 70's, while Israel had preferred it as early as 1968, with the Allon Plan giving some land to them. US support of this idea is quite complicated. At the very latest, for the US it became an issue with 1988 commencement of US-palestinian dialogue under Reagan, even earlier, the 1982 Reagan plan, initially accepted by Arafat, and the negotiations for the planned 1978 Geneva conference stand out. (Basically, it appears that there would have been a Madrid style conference, with Israel and Palestinians sitting down 13 years earlier.)
That King Hussein ever refused return of the West Bank is strange (why?) and simply false - he frequently rejected return of parts of the West Bank, but he never rejected it in toto, because it was never offered it in toto, even with minor and mutual boundary adjustments, a la 242, which Jordan was the first of the states involved in the 67 war to accept. That Israel would move back to (roughly) the 49 lines is not novel; it was explicitly and very emphatically stated in immediate postwar US diplomacy (The Rogers Plans, the Jarring initiative). The only novel thing, which elicited puzzled comment at the time, was why Bush mentioned the 49 lines instead of the very similar 67 lines always mentioned before as the basis.
The 2000 Barak proposals were only shocking to a portion of the people of Israel and some supporters elsewhere - they were at most nothing but what the rest of the world had been strongly favoring in the UN for many, many years, with only the US government as a partial exception. Longstanding US policy was not to recognize a state which did not exist in fact, not "a policy of non-recognition" along the lines of the Stimson Doctrine, but the article did not imply anything of the kind.
It is not really relevant, but that Brzezinski and Quandt are notably biased is not well established, and imho not true, as they are both very highly respected experts, the second being probably the most respected academic expert in this field - You can find positive comments about him by people ranging from Karsh to Finkelstein. John Z 22:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
..is there a statistical background section ? All of this information belongs in other articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Although I've written part of that section I think Sean is probably right. It'd be nice for that information to be somewhere on wikipedia though - maybe moved to the West Bank page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.13.113 ( talk) 09:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That looks really biased and unessacery, seems like a pro-israeli have written it to discredit Palestinians and Iran. It lack sources too, its should removed since it is cleary NPOV. NPz1 ( talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This section could do with some cleaning up. For instance, the numbering doesn't correspond to the numbering in the document, and some points are cut-and-pasted rather arbitrarily. Perhaps this could be summed up in prose? Ideally, by a secondary source, since I'm sure this is a contentious issue. Ketil ( talk) 12:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to explain my edit here, the violence after that visit began with attacks on Israelis by Palestinians. While I'm not objecting to the removing of the term 'terrorist', I think "mutual violence" suggests that both started attacking the other simultaneously, which isn't true (and which isn't what the rest of the paragraph says). -- 128.240.229.68 ( talk) 10:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I replaced part of the article that was beyond the scope of it. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 15:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The Reform of PA culture section has quite a POV statement saying that Arafat "died in mysterious way.". Is this POV or not? Although his death can be seen as mysterious i'm sure that not every major source see's it that way and as such it is an opinion. What do others think? 82.20.70.162 ( talk) 17:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The section "PA's role towards terror and Israeli reactions" doesn't seem to deal with the first part of that topic at all (PA terror involvement). Instead it is all about Israel and Israel's actions, ending with an opinion by Amira Hass, possibly the Israeli jounalist most critical of the Israeli government. It seems this section should contain examples of the PA's involvement in terror, such as the Karine-A weapons smuggling affair, evidence of money transfers to the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Arafat's encouragement of viloence against Israelis on PA TV and this kind of thing. HarderD ( talk) 15:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Fleshing out my undo it seems to me POV to suggest that the Palestinian territories alone are for legitimate dispute - the previous occupied territories seems a fairly accepted neutral term: there even seem to be wikipedia pages for "israeli-occupied territories" and "palestinian territories" but unless I've missed it with a quick google there is no page "disputed territories" referring to that region. So the use of disputed is not widely accepted except in pro-Israel circles so its not NPOV and anyway it is not factually accurate either to suggest that the region east of the 67 borders is the only region whose status needs to be resolved (in fact although Netanyahu has insisted the 67 borders are not the basis for talks that could be interpreted as ceding more or less land to the Palestinians - and that "nothing is decided until everything is decided" is an long standing Israeli position and suggests no claims to territory are set in stone ahead of a final agreement - and finally land swaps have been sidely considered key to any resolution). On the Palestinian side some Hamas members do claim territory west of the 67 borders and Hamas is part of the Palestinian government at the moment so its not obvious that their claims can be dismissed. The other points made in the history were that Hamas could be discounted as they are not part of the peace process or Road Map - well the simple statement regarding which territories are to be resolved doesn't require them to be, and there is no current peace process and its not obvious that Israel is part of the Road Map either (as this article notes Ariel Sharon rejected the Road Map requirement of a settlement freeze very early - although Hamas went on ceasefire at that time). anyway I'll let the wikipedians resolve this having made my points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 ( talk) 14:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
undid last change with "disputed" not "occupied" and added link for Palestinian territories (links to its page that starts: "The Palestinian territories or occupied Palestinian territories (OPT or oPt)" so occupied seems to the accepted NPOV term, happy to accept a wikipedian consensus on this, should the agreed term "occupied" or "disputed" be used elsewhere on wikipedia though ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 ( talk) 11:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The 19-year Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized. There was never a sovereign entity called Palestine. The PLO was established in 1964 when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control. Israel ceded vast uninhabited State lands to the PA in return for broken promises. The Roadmap does not require a return to the fragile 1967 lines but calls for the establishment of permanent peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 79.179.122.254 ( talk) 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) you don't seem to have responded to any of my points re the fact that occupied territories is accepted and even has a wikipedia page with that title etc - your latest revert provided no reason to justify the use of "disputed" but says (without evidence) that the PA has violated every provision of the Road Map, this point even if true is for starters irrelevant, and this page states "While the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas accepted the Roadmap", just today the PA has stressedh non-violent resistance http://www.timesofisrael.com/fatah-statement-urges-resistance-to-idf-settlers/ and you yourself have said that the PA recognises Israeli claims to territory west of the 67 borders. Though it wouldn't be unlikely that the PA despite initial acceptance might not comply wit the Road Map when the Israeli PM from the outset flatly rejected meeting Israel's settlemetn freeze requirement under any circumstances. My final points - unanswered - is that Israel itself seems to say nothing is decided in advance: "nothing is decided until everything is decided" and that "everything is on the table" http://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-israeli-negotiator-everything-is-on-the-table/ including obviously the disputed Israel territories west of the 67 borders I suppose your irrelevant comments re the PA and the Road Map stems from your claim that Hamas's claim to the Israeli territories can be dismissed as they are outside the Road Map and I pointed out that Israel also rejected the Road Map. you don't dispute this then ? Why are the 67 borders "fragile" ? who thinks this ? Israel or Palestine ? would they be less fragile if moved closer to Tel Aviv ?? you do know that Israeli diplomats have said that they are easily defendable by the regional superpower Israel http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-israeli-diplomats-in-washington-1967-borders-are-defensible-1.375235#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 ( talk) 11:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Road map for peace. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Road map for peace. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/647/re2.htmnegotiatWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "arafat died in mysterious way" to "arafat died in a mysterious way" this is under PA's role in terror and israeli reactions or whatever it was called thank you i love you 2001:56A:F3F7:3400:C4FC:D256:B103:8CB0 ( talk) 16:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
מפת הדרכים (לשלום) should be transcribed as Mappat hadrakhim (lashalom) , خارطة طريق السلام as Khāriṭat ṭarīq as-salām. As of now, the Taw and Ta marbuta are incorrectly (not) represented, while the Hebrew name reflects the vernacular abbreviation rather than the official term by omitting the word שלום, and the Arabic case endings are inconsistent (why only salāmu receives a case ending, and it's also the wrong case ending. The term is usually pronounced without the case endings: Khāriṭat ṭarīq as-salām) Elendil 03 ( talk) 05:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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.
|
No new information appears to have been added in a year. Could someone update this? TX Ciclista ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The footnoting in the article is inconsistent. There appears to be two intermingled sets. One set (4 in total) refers to the "references" section while another (14+) refers to external links. Footnotes should be standardized, with one numbering scheme and all references placed under the "References" section using proper citation techniques. TX Ciclista ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also changes in tense (some sentences use past and present interchangeably). I will try to edit these in the near future. TX Ciclista ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed original research:
Why I changed it back:
Bit of an edit conflict, I wrote this before last exchange: Although HKT's "discarded" is too strong a word (while "reiterated" is misleading) the 2004 letter was widely and accurately imho seen as a victory for Sharon and an Israeli desire for expanded borders, while the less reported 2005 statements, were again reasonably seen as the reverse, and a return to earlier US positions. [1]. The article should reflect this, and I will try to create a compromise version, avoiding OR with the help of this op-ed by two very knowledgeable observers. John Z 05:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
First, my response to HKT's comments (in order, one for each paragraph):
Now, regarding John's comments:
Now to HKT's final edit:
Chuckstar, I like your last edit of the first paragraph which avoids disputable points - it is not in the article any more but I happen to agree with the views of the 2 leading experts I cited on what official US policy has been and was, and just made a small, cited addition.
However I can't say the same for the version of the second disputed paragraph. Saying that they do not need to be reconciled is original research, and quite wrong IMHO. Brzezinski - a former NS adviser, and Quandt, one of if not the most respected expert on US Mideast diplomacy disagree with you, and see them in some kind of conflict, even if eventually somehow ingeniously reconcilable, as do I and every other commenter on the two of them I have ever seen. HKT's discard is too strong, but it is better than reaffirm, which makes it sound like the 2005 statement reaffirms the 2004 one. The standard, sourced, view is 2004 Israeli "win", 2005 Palestinian "win". John Z 08:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Chuck, though your talk comments haven't appeared yet, I'm OK with your latest version. I see that the comment I added to the first paragraph, and that you removed wasn't really necessary, as it repeated something I had said in the previous sentence. I think this was a signal that it is time to go to sleep. :-) . I hope and believe HKT will like it too. G'night or morning or afternoon, whatever the case may be. John Z 09:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know who did what to whom after the militant groups agreed to a ceasefire? This article is vague about who actually violated the ceasefire and when. -- Fiolou 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC) fiolou
I must not have read these sentences clearly before, because there are several critical problems with them.
Several points - Mainly, these sentences just do not say what you are reading them to say, and most of the arguments you mention, and I counter below are just not relevant to the issues You are of course right that the older US policy favored return to Jordan, but the phrasing does not imply this or anything incorrect - the key point is that US policy favored Israel returning lands to Arabs, not to which Arabs. That Bush's letter to Sharon was a significant change to US policy and seen as an unexpected Israeli triumph was universally commented on - from everybody, right, center and left; Zionist and anti-Zionist - do you have any source that says this was not the case? It was the first time ever that US policy seemed to explicitly rule out full withdrawal. Do you have any source which says such a thing was expected after Barak's proposals? I'll try to modify it as best I can to make it more clear, anyways.
The date of when "giving land to the Palestinians" became an issue in international diplomacy is in the mid 70's, while Israel had preferred it as early as 1968, with the Allon Plan giving some land to them. US support of this idea is quite complicated. At the very latest, for the US it became an issue with 1988 commencement of US-palestinian dialogue under Reagan, even earlier, the 1982 Reagan plan, initially accepted by Arafat, and the negotiations for the planned 1978 Geneva conference stand out. (Basically, it appears that there would have been a Madrid style conference, with Israel and Palestinians sitting down 13 years earlier.)
That King Hussein ever refused return of the West Bank is strange (why?) and simply false - he frequently rejected return of parts of the West Bank, but he never rejected it in toto, because it was never offered it in toto, even with minor and mutual boundary adjustments, a la 242, which Jordan was the first of the states involved in the 67 war to accept. That Israel would move back to (roughly) the 49 lines is not novel; it was explicitly and very emphatically stated in immediate postwar US diplomacy (The Rogers Plans, the Jarring initiative). The only novel thing, which elicited puzzled comment at the time, was why Bush mentioned the 49 lines instead of the very similar 67 lines always mentioned before as the basis.
The 2000 Barak proposals were only shocking to a portion of the people of Israel and some supporters elsewhere - they were at most nothing but what the rest of the world had been strongly favoring in the UN for many, many years, with only the US government as a partial exception. Longstanding US policy was not to recognize a state which did not exist in fact, not "a policy of non-recognition" along the lines of the Stimson Doctrine, but the article did not imply anything of the kind.
It is not really relevant, but that Brzezinski and Quandt are notably biased is not well established, and imho not true, as they are both very highly respected experts, the second being probably the most respected academic expert in this field - You can find positive comments about him by people ranging from Karsh to Finkelstein. John Z 22:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
..is there a statistical background section ? All of this information belongs in other articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Although I've written part of that section I think Sean is probably right. It'd be nice for that information to be somewhere on wikipedia though - maybe moved to the West Bank page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.13.113 ( talk) 09:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That looks really biased and unessacery, seems like a pro-israeli have written it to discredit Palestinians and Iran. It lack sources too, its should removed since it is cleary NPOV. NPz1 ( talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This section could do with some cleaning up. For instance, the numbering doesn't correspond to the numbering in the document, and some points are cut-and-pasted rather arbitrarily. Perhaps this could be summed up in prose? Ideally, by a secondary source, since I'm sure this is a contentious issue. Ketil ( talk) 12:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to explain my edit here, the violence after that visit began with attacks on Israelis by Palestinians. While I'm not objecting to the removing of the term 'terrorist', I think "mutual violence" suggests that both started attacking the other simultaneously, which isn't true (and which isn't what the rest of the paragraph says). -- 128.240.229.68 ( talk) 10:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I replaced part of the article that was beyond the scope of it. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 15:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The Reform of PA culture section has quite a POV statement saying that Arafat "died in mysterious way.". Is this POV or not? Although his death can be seen as mysterious i'm sure that not every major source see's it that way and as such it is an opinion. What do others think? 82.20.70.162 ( talk) 17:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The section "PA's role towards terror and Israeli reactions" doesn't seem to deal with the first part of that topic at all (PA terror involvement). Instead it is all about Israel and Israel's actions, ending with an opinion by Amira Hass, possibly the Israeli jounalist most critical of the Israeli government. It seems this section should contain examples of the PA's involvement in terror, such as the Karine-A weapons smuggling affair, evidence of money transfers to the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Arafat's encouragement of viloence against Israelis on PA TV and this kind of thing. HarderD ( talk) 15:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Fleshing out my undo it seems to me POV to suggest that the Palestinian territories alone are for legitimate dispute - the previous occupied territories seems a fairly accepted neutral term: there even seem to be wikipedia pages for "israeli-occupied territories" and "palestinian territories" but unless I've missed it with a quick google there is no page "disputed territories" referring to that region. So the use of disputed is not widely accepted except in pro-Israel circles so its not NPOV and anyway it is not factually accurate either to suggest that the region east of the 67 borders is the only region whose status needs to be resolved (in fact although Netanyahu has insisted the 67 borders are not the basis for talks that could be interpreted as ceding more or less land to the Palestinians - and that "nothing is decided until everything is decided" is an long standing Israeli position and suggests no claims to territory are set in stone ahead of a final agreement - and finally land swaps have been sidely considered key to any resolution). On the Palestinian side some Hamas members do claim territory west of the 67 borders and Hamas is part of the Palestinian government at the moment so its not obvious that their claims can be dismissed. The other points made in the history were that Hamas could be discounted as they are not part of the peace process or Road Map - well the simple statement regarding which territories are to be resolved doesn't require them to be, and there is no current peace process and its not obvious that Israel is part of the Road Map either (as this article notes Ariel Sharon rejected the Road Map requirement of a settlement freeze very early - although Hamas went on ceasefire at that time). anyway I'll let the wikipedians resolve this having made my points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 ( talk) 14:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
undid last change with "disputed" not "occupied" and added link for Palestinian territories (links to its page that starts: "The Palestinian territories or occupied Palestinian territories (OPT or oPt)" so occupied seems to the accepted NPOV term, happy to accept a wikipedian consensus on this, should the agreed term "occupied" or "disputed" be used elsewhere on wikipedia though ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 ( talk) 11:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The 19-year Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized. There was never a sovereign entity called Palestine. The PLO was established in 1964 when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control. Israel ceded vast uninhabited State lands to the PA in return for broken promises. The Roadmap does not require a return to the fragile 1967 lines but calls for the establishment of permanent peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 79.179.122.254 ( talk) 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) you don't seem to have responded to any of my points re the fact that occupied territories is accepted and even has a wikipedia page with that title etc - your latest revert provided no reason to justify the use of "disputed" but says (without evidence) that the PA has violated every provision of the Road Map, this point even if true is for starters irrelevant, and this page states "While the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas accepted the Roadmap", just today the PA has stressedh non-violent resistance http://www.timesofisrael.com/fatah-statement-urges-resistance-to-idf-settlers/ and you yourself have said that the PA recognises Israeli claims to territory west of the 67 borders. Though it wouldn't be unlikely that the PA despite initial acceptance might not comply wit the Road Map when the Israeli PM from the outset flatly rejected meeting Israel's settlemetn freeze requirement under any circumstances. My final points - unanswered - is that Israel itself seems to say nothing is decided in advance: "nothing is decided until everything is decided" and that "everything is on the table" http://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-israeli-negotiator-everything-is-on-the-table/ including obviously the disputed Israel territories west of the 67 borders I suppose your irrelevant comments re the PA and the Road Map stems from your claim that Hamas's claim to the Israeli territories can be dismissed as they are outside the Road Map and I pointed out that Israel also rejected the Road Map. you don't dispute this then ? Why are the 67 borders "fragile" ? who thinks this ? Israel or Palestine ? would they be less fragile if moved closer to Tel Aviv ?? you do know that Israeli diplomats have said that they are easily defendable by the regional superpower Israel http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-israeli-diplomats-in-washington-1967-borders-are-defensible-1.375235#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 ( talk) 11:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Road map for peace. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Road map for peace. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/647/re2.htmnegotiatWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "arafat died in mysterious way" to "arafat died in a mysterious way" this is under PA's role in terror and israeli reactions or whatever it was called thank you i love you 2001:56A:F3F7:3400:C4FC:D256:B103:8CB0 ( talk) 16:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
מפת הדרכים (לשלום) should be transcribed as Mappat hadrakhim (lashalom) , خارطة طريق السلام as Khāriṭat ṭarīq as-salām. As of now, the Taw and Ta marbuta are incorrectly (not) represented, while the Hebrew name reflects the vernacular abbreviation rather than the official term by omitting the word שלום, and the Arabic case endings are inconsistent (why only salāmu receives a case ending, and it's also the wrong case ending. The term is usually pronounced without the case endings: Khāriṭat ṭarīq as-salām) Elendil 03 ( talk) 05:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)