This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
IsraeliāPalestinian peace process template. |
|
Palestine Templateāclass | |||||||
|
There are great templates out there for the Israel-Arab conflict (see Template:Arab-Israeli conflict) as well as anti-Semitism (see Template:Anti-Semitism). The Israel-Palestinian conflict is so complex and there are so many articles related that it may be time to start creating one or more templates to bring these articles together into a cohesive whole. So to start the discussion, which articles should make the first cut of an attempt at a template? -- Deodar 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote that the top has the flags of Israel and the PA, and a link to their respective page. Underneath should be a link to the article for the conflict. Below maybe links to articles involving the Gaza Strip (and pullout) and the West Bank. Something about the governments should be mentioned aswell. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I started the template and put it on the page. It still needs a little work, but its a start. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Changing the word combatants would be very difficult (and out of my expertise), as I used the military conflict infobox as a backbone for the template. On another note, I am going to copy this to the template's talk page. Further discussion on it should take place there. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the "Combatants" problem. This no longer explicitly invokes the infobox it was modeled on. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The history/context is so overwhelming that I believe it does a disservice to readers to mix it completely in with current issues. Thus maybe we can split the template into two major sections with subsections within them. Maybe call one "context and history" and the other one "current issues". -- Deodar 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never head the term "disputed territories" before but rather I am used to "occupied territories" or "Palestinian territories" or "Gaza and the West Bank". What are the standard names preferred by Wikipedia to describe the area? I don't think that Ian Pitchford edits can be described as simple vandalism. -- Deodar 12:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
A user added Gaza to territorial issues of the conflict. As that is listed under territorial changes, I am removing it from the new location. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What does "concerns" actually meanĀ ? Why is Palestinian refugees a concern and not Jewish refugeesĀ ? East Jerusalem, settlements... too much pro Palestinian. If we use the regular used term "settlements" (biased in itself), we can also use the regular used term "terrorism" , so I've added terrorism to concerns. Even saying that east jerusalem or israeli settlement is a CONCERN implies heavy troubling bias. Amoruso 11:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason that you consider the Jewish refugees as historically relevant only is that Israel (and other places like the US) absorbed them after they had to leave their homes. The Arab countries preferred to let the Arab refugees stay in camps for political purposes. The fact that the numbers of refugees each was was just about equal is highly relevant. Just because it doesn't get press doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the template. That is, if you are interested in creating an unbiased template and not just a template to prove your own points. Elizmr 00:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens raises a very good point about the time of the conflict (I think it should be actually 1964-, the date of the PLO) and that the conflict is not necessarily territorial. As for the Jewish refugees, I'm agreeing with Deodar. Unfortuantely/fortuantely, the issue of Jewish refugees is not an ongoing concern - its only issue is whehter the Palestinian refugee claim is justified or not, and if it is, some compensation should be made to the jewish refugees families as well. Jewish refugees are mentioned in the right of return dispute section in that article. I make a comparison between this to Terrorism against Israel. If that is dropped by editors in the future, then indeed Jewish refugees should be added... as long as not, it's balanced enough IMO. Amoruso 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
btw, the justification for terrorism against israel in addition to palestinian political violence is that terrorism against Israel is an ongoing concern also from non palestinian groups like hizballah. it's connected to the palestnian conflict though, because Israel is concerned palestinian territories will be used for attacks by groups like hizballah or al qaida for example, so these are 2 seperate issues. I'm placing this to refute counter claims in the future to drop this article from template. Amoruso 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah, Iran, the USSR, the UN, NGOs,.... Elizmr 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
May be irrelevant now, since the title has changed but here's a source on Iran
[8]
Elizmr 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Anotehr article for Ben to read:
[9]
AND ANOTHER
[10]
Elizmr 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been some debate as to when the conflict started. While I haven't touched this part of the template, people have brought it up in discussions with me, thus I guess it needs to be dealt with in an organized fashion. Thus I ask people who care, what date should we list and why? Let's get this sorted out. -- Deodar 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What follows is an informal summary of current positions. It is not intended to be a vote, just a summary of the current situation. If I classified your position wrong, please correct it. -- Deodar 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Current summary of year and advocates:
Oh yes I think this looks much better and I propose this template to be only a peace efforts template and use the arab-israeli conflict as additional template for relevant articles (or a minimized version of it - tough call). That's my opinion. As for the peace template these should be dropped as non relevant I think:
Main Conflict Page Ā· Timeline Ā· 1st Intifada Ā·2nd Intifada Barrier Ā· Unilateral disengagements
David Ben-Gurion Ā· Golda Meir Ā· Ahmed Yassin
Amoruso 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
further suggestions if this materialises: Put Israeli Peace Camp in a seperate new category, Add Madrid talks, Wye River Memorandum and Hebron Agreement to peace process...move Barrier to primary issues discussed, that's suitable. to Create/find articles to do with "safe security borders" perhaps jordan river article, and something about recognition of israel/the "arabic ban"/end of conflict (the common hebrew term)... Menachem Begin should be kept if Camp David Accords is added. Amoruso 05:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Arabic ban" is a "ghetto-word" I just used, as I'm tiredĀ ;) The idea is the Economic and political boycotts of Israel. In the past, the Arab league had a strict policy of enforcing foreign companies not to engage in business with Israel and some of it still exists today in some ways. I wonder if the idea to make it a peace template is agreed and non controverisal thenĀ ? btw, another section can be "alternative proposals" and include the geneva accords, benny elon's plan and more. Amoruso 05:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a few of the primary negotiation concerns whose targets seem like they could be improved topically. The main ones that I notice are:
I think they are all legitimate issues but articles linked to aren't really the right ones. I ran into this problem earlier when I linked to Right to exist then Zionism before finally settling on Jewish state.
It may be that a few more articles are needed in Wikipedia to cover these real issues appropriately? I know there is a lot on the water issues distributed among multiple separate Wikipedia articles and it may just be a matter of bringing it all together.
Also, it would be good to ensure that the issues discussed in the template are summarized in the main article on the peace process, thus we should start adding them to the main page with citations. In a way, if the main peace process page is fully cited and agreed upon, this template should be a no-brainer summarization of it. -- Deodar 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no real peace process at the moment. The road map didn't happen. The Prime Minister and biggest party in the PA at the moment does not even recognize Israel's right to exist. I am not sure if this template really makes sense. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In the section on Primary negotiation concerns there are several links that strike me as questionably captioned, in a few cases even misleadingly captioned:
Also, I would expect a list of negotiation concerns to include the claim on both sides to a Right of Return (and the right to be compensated for abridgements of the Right of Return). - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think its misleading and Orwellian to suggest that Arab boycott of Israel and Palestinian political violence are part of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process. They both seem more like tactics of violent conlict rather than peaceful compromise. -- GHcool 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If nobody responds to this by January 26, I'm deleting these two links on the template. -- GHcool 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Making a footnote to the effect that someone doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist is unneccessary. The template is not designed to give sepcific details about each position. If someone listed Israel's right to exist under "Primary negotiation concerns", that would be legitimate. Bless sins 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
ALthough I still maintian my points, there have been recent changes. Prime minsiter Ismail Haniyeh has been dismissed. [14] Egypt is hosting tlaks between Israelis and Palestinains which is supported by Jordan. Egypt has done so in the past, and is not doign this for the first time. [15] Bless sins 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's another headline: "Egypt, US Agree Help Broker Palestinians-Israeli Negotiations: Mubarak". [17] Bless sins 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's another one: "Egypt plays Mideast peace broker". The article later describes Egypt as a "a key broker between the Israelis, Palestinians, and the US." Bless sins 03:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This template is seriously beholden to the unbalanced and discredited narrative of the U.S. media, in which the "Peace Process" is defined as whatever America is doing in the region, even if it's standing directly in the way of peace.
Eleland 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm Jayjg, a LOT of countries recognize the State of Palestine. Infact, it hard to tell whether more countries recognize Palestine than Israel. Bless sins 02:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ismail Haniyah should be listed, rather than Salem Fayyad. Mr. Fayyad's appointment to the post of PM has no legal basis, since he was not confirmed by the Palestinian legislature. (Which Fatah just today invaded and occupied.) Actually, Haniyah's claim to be PM is invalid, too, since he needs to be confirmed by Abbas. But since Palestine is effectively divided into two governments, neither of which is fully constitutional, the leaders of both governments should be listed.
If it is objected that "Hamas isn't part of the peace process", I would refer you to previous discussions where I've laid out their attitude -- they are willing to hold to a very long term (50+ years!) "cease-fire", while refusing to confirm or deny intent to recognize Israel permanently. The charge that "Hamas won't negotiate" is Western propaganda designed to absolve Israel of responsibility for its rejectionist stance.
Eleland 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
To summarize previous discussions:
I ( User:Eleland) made three specific and one general point about the template. User:Jayjg responded, partially, to the third, saying that the Hamas charter denounces the existence of Israel and that Palestine is not a state.
User:Bless sins said that the State of Palestine has widespread international recognition. Jayjg laughed at him and said this wasn't true. I provided citations proving that China and India recognize the State of Palestine, and that Russia pursues bilateral relations on the level of equals, but may not explicitly recognize Palestine as a state (I had no information either way.) Jayjg pronounced two of these citations insufficient but did not specify why.
In parallel, I said that Hamas had made repeated offers of cease-fires and negotiations, while leaving its policy on outright recognition deliberately ambiguous. I pointed to an article in the major liberal-mainstream Israeli paper Ha'aretz, and to a CNN article, which supported this. Jayjg argued that "unofficial statements mean nothing" but did not say why. He also argued that "we all know" Hamas' peace negotiations were merely a strategic tactic to gain military strength, but did not say how or why "we all know" this, or provide any references.
Jayjg focused on the narrow issue of a 100 year cease fire, rather than the 50 or 30 year cease fires I found direct references to. He performed a personal blog-style fisking of the Der Speigel interview, and then condemned me for "original research" in the next breath.
While consensus clearly does not exist, I believe it is equally clear that no seriously argued objections have been raised to my original point. I don't believe at this time that anyone is in danger of violating WP:3RR, but it's clear that an edit war is underway. Therefore I'm reverting to my last, and requesting mediation.
Eleland 02:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Jayjg, is BBC a reliable source or not? The article says: "We welcome Egypt's efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians." [24]
Is CNN a reliable source or not? "Egypt is a key American ally in the Mideast and a broker in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians." [25] Bless sins 06:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. My views, after seeing the mediation case.
A template like this should only include unambiguous, uncontroversial facts. We cannot pretend that Israel was negotiating with a formal, widely recognized sovereign state. During the Madrid conferences and afterwards, it was always the PLO and its offshoots that were sitting at the other side of the negotiating table. If not even the mediators (USA, European countries) recognized this "state" then how can we included it without any further explanations as the incontrovertible negotiating partner? Just the idea of it is silly, since the very purpose of the negotiations was to make Palestine a de facto state.
Regarding Hamas, despite some (probably not most) of its words and theoretical offers, we should remember the phrase "it takes two to tango." There is no negotiation taking place when one side is just talking to the wall. Israel does not listen to Hamas, does not talk to it, and wants nothing to do with it. There are no peace meetings between the two, and I think it is absurd to include it as a party to the talks until they actually start being participants in formal talks. Words are just words until they are formalized in actual discussions and treaties. nadavĀ ( talk) 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The title of the template is "Israel-Palestinian Peace Process", not "Israel-PLO Peace Process". It is true that all accords and agreements until now have been signed with PLO representatives, but only as representatives of the Palestinian people, being recognized by Israel as such. Other issues in this template did not involve the PLO at all (such as the Camp David Accords) or explicitly excluded the PLO, at least de jure (such as the Madrid Conference). In principle, if Hamas was willing to comply with Israeli demands, the negotiations could continue with Hamas representatives just as well. Therefore, the template should state the Palestinians as the other negotiating party, and display the Palestinian flag.-- Doron 05:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Tony Blair, instead of George W Bush, be listed as international broker? Addhoc 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply move the page to Template:Oslo_Peace_Process or some such. This would avoid any confusion about the subject being covered, while not seeming to endorse a particular POV about what is and is not part of the "peace process".
Eleland 19:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A recent edit summary commented on the two flags: "Wasn't able to get the flag positions/sizes right". That's because the proportion of the width to the height of the Israeli flag is 8:11 (sometimes shown as 2:3), but for the Palestinian flag it's 1:2. Without cropping one flag or stretching the other, it's impossible to show them exactly the same size. ā Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
By making them the same size in one dimension they will be equally represented even if the other side is different. Since the flags are actually in different proportions they should be portrayed that way in the template. SJSA 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Several years ago, sure, the Diplomatic Quartet was the relevant mediating entity. But as of the Annapolis Conference in November 2007, the U.S. has eclipsed the other three in importance. I don't think the Quartet is currently accurate anymore. -- Laser813 ( talk) 06:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently "Antisemitic incitements" is listed as a negotiation concern. The label links to Arabs and antisemitism. As far as I know, antisemitic broadcasts and television programmes have never been discussed at any of the summits or conferences. Can someone please provide some evidence that this is one of the topics of negotiations. Bless sins ( talk) 19:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
in the Brokers list, the Arab League is Already their, shouldnt Egypt be discluded, and included under the Arab League??
-- Arab League User ( talk) 06:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the no state solution proposed by Chomsky and anarchists?-- Darrelljon ( talk) 12:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The section "Current leaders" is somewhat strange, non-specific and superfluous here. I would like to remove it, to keep the template a little compacter.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The handshake image is POV pushing. There could be a 'peace' without a handshake. I propose a change of image. - DePiep ( talk) 02:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite see what the problem is with the handshake. Obviously there could be peace with out a little handshake, or is the above implying that there is something symbolic about the image that he feels is unneutral? I think the issue needs more discussion before unilaterally changing it.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The Trump peace Plan should be added as the newest two state proposal. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.196.169.7 ( talk) 07:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Al Arabiya, the state news agency of Saudi Arabia, has, on 7 October, 2020, released the final installment of a three-part interview with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Ambassador to the United States during the period of the Clinton negotiations. While his overall views should be interpreted to reflect the governmental position of the Saudi government at the current moment, Prince Bandar makes firsthand assertions about the timeline of the negotiations and the positions of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership during the critical moments that lead to the agreement's unraveling at the end of the Clinton presidency. While existing sources in this article are enlightening and reflect the best understanding of this pivotal moment in history that we have, the previously unreleased firsthand accounts of the Saudi Ambassador regarding Arafat's approach to the negotiations and the US government's interpretation of that approach provides key supplementary insight into the reasons why the Clinton deal ultimately fell apart. Suggested change (addition) is as follows:
"On October 7, 2020, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, asserted in an interview for the Saudi state media outlet Al Arabiya that Arafat ultimately accepted the agreement, and was holding out both for key revisions in the text and the support of regional Arab powers, to counter a perceived backlash from Syria. Ambassador bin Sultan claims that Arafat's delays had lead the Clinton administration to believe that he was rejecting the proposal, and that it shouldn't be passed along to the incoming Bush administration."
Source: "Exclusive interview - Part 3 | Prince Bandar bin Sultan on supporting Palestine but not its leaders" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTSrlONiDU Smertspionam ( talk) 03:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
IsraeliāPalestinian peace process}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ā
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Why is this not included? Shadow4dark ( talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
IsraeliāPalestinian peace process template. |
|
Israel Templateāclass | ||||||||||||||
|
Palestine Templateāclass | |||||||
|
There are great templates out there for the Israel-Arab conflict (see Template:Arab-Israeli conflict) as well as anti-Semitism (see Template:Anti-Semitism). The Israel-Palestinian conflict is so complex and there are so many articles related that it may be time to start creating one or more templates to bring these articles together into a cohesive whole. So to start the discussion, which articles should make the first cut of an attempt at a template? -- Deodar 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote that the top has the flags of Israel and the PA, and a link to their respective page. Underneath should be a link to the article for the conflict. Below maybe links to articles involving the Gaza Strip (and pullout) and the West Bank. Something about the governments should be mentioned aswell. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I started the template and put it on the page. It still needs a little work, but its a start. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Changing the word combatants would be very difficult (and out of my expertise), as I used the military conflict infobox as a backbone for the template. On another note, I am going to copy this to the template's talk page. Further discussion on it should take place there. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the "Combatants" problem. This no longer explicitly invokes the infobox it was modeled on. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The history/context is so overwhelming that I believe it does a disservice to readers to mix it completely in with current issues. Thus maybe we can split the template into two major sections with subsections within them. Maybe call one "context and history" and the other one "current issues". -- Deodar 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never head the term "disputed territories" before but rather I am used to "occupied territories" or "Palestinian territories" or "Gaza and the West Bank". What are the standard names preferred by Wikipedia to describe the area? I don't think that Ian Pitchford edits can be described as simple vandalism. -- Deodar 12:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
A user added Gaza to territorial issues of the conflict. As that is listed under territorial changes, I am removing it from the new location. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What does "concerns" actually meanĀ ? Why is Palestinian refugees a concern and not Jewish refugeesĀ ? East Jerusalem, settlements... too much pro Palestinian. If we use the regular used term "settlements" (biased in itself), we can also use the regular used term "terrorism" , so I've added terrorism to concerns. Even saying that east jerusalem or israeli settlement is a CONCERN implies heavy troubling bias. Amoruso 11:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason that you consider the Jewish refugees as historically relevant only is that Israel (and other places like the US) absorbed them after they had to leave their homes. The Arab countries preferred to let the Arab refugees stay in camps for political purposes. The fact that the numbers of refugees each was was just about equal is highly relevant. Just because it doesn't get press doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the template. That is, if you are interested in creating an unbiased template and not just a template to prove your own points. Elizmr 00:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens raises a very good point about the time of the conflict (I think it should be actually 1964-, the date of the PLO) and that the conflict is not necessarily territorial. As for the Jewish refugees, I'm agreeing with Deodar. Unfortuantely/fortuantely, the issue of Jewish refugees is not an ongoing concern - its only issue is whehter the Palestinian refugee claim is justified or not, and if it is, some compensation should be made to the jewish refugees families as well. Jewish refugees are mentioned in the right of return dispute section in that article. I make a comparison between this to Terrorism against Israel. If that is dropped by editors in the future, then indeed Jewish refugees should be added... as long as not, it's balanced enough IMO. Amoruso 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
btw, the justification for terrorism against israel in addition to palestinian political violence is that terrorism against Israel is an ongoing concern also from non palestinian groups like hizballah. it's connected to the palestnian conflict though, because Israel is concerned palestinian territories will be used for attacks by groups like hizballah or al qaida for example, so these are 2 seperate issues. I'm placing this to refute counter claims in the future to drop this article from template. Amoruso 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah, Iran, the USSR, the UN, NGOs,.... Elizmr 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
May be irrelevant now, since the title has changed but here's a source on Iran
[8]
Elizmr 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Anotehr article for Ben to read:
[9]
AND ANOTHER
[10]
Elizmr 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been some debate as to when the conflict started. While I haven't touched this part of the template, people have brought it up in discussions with me, thus I guess it needs to be dealt with in an organized fashion. Thus I ask people who care, what date should we list and why? Let's get this sorted out. -- Deodar 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What follows is an informal summary of current positions. It is not intended to be a vote, just a summary of the current situation. If I classified your position wrong, please correct it. -- Deodar 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Current summary of year and advocates:
Oh yes I think this looks much better and I propose this template to be only a peace efforts template and use the arab-israeli conflict as additional template for relevant articles (or a minimized version of it - tough call). That's my opinion. As for the peace template these should be dropped as non relevant I think:
Main Conflict Page Ā· Timeline Ā· 1st Intifada Ā·2nd Intifada Barrier Ā· Unilateral disengagements
David Ben-Gurion Ā· Golda Meir Ā· Ahmed Yassin
Amoruso 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
further suggestions if this materialises: Put Israeli Peace Camp in a seperate new category, Add Madrid talks, Wye River Memorandum and Hebron Agreement to peace process...move Barrier to primary issues discussed, that's suitable. to Create/find articles to do with "safe security borders" perhaps jordan river article, and something about recognition of israel/the "arabic ban"/end of conflict (the common hebrew term)... Menachem Begin should be kept if Camp David Accords is added. Amoruso 05:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Arabic ban" is a "ghetto-word" I just used, as I'm tiredĀ ;) The idea is the Economic and political boycotts of Israel. In the past, the Arab league had a strict policy of enforcing foreign companies not to engage in business with Israel and some of it still exists today in some ways. I wonder if the idea to make it a peace template is agreed and non controverisal thenĀ ? btw, another section can be "alternative proposals" and include the geneva accords, benny elon's plan and more. Amoruso 05:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a few of the primary negotiation concerns whose targets seem like they could be improved topically. The main ones that I notice are:
I think they are all legitimate issues but articles linked to aren't really the right ones. I ran into this problem earlier when I linked to Right to exist then Zionism before finally settling on Jewish state.
It may be that a few more articles are needed in Wikipedia to cover these real issues appropriately? I know there is a lot on the water issues distributed among multiple separate Wikipedia articles and it may just be a matter of bringing it all together.
Also, it would be good to ensure that the issues discussed in the template are summarized in the main article on the peace process, thus we should start adding them to the main page with citations. In a way, if the main peace process page is fully cited and agreed upon, this template should be a no-brainer summarization of it. -- Deodar 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no real peace process at the moment. The road map didn't happen. The Prime Minister and biggest party in the PA at the moment does not even recognize Israel's right to exist. I am not sure if this template really makes sense. -- ×××ש××¢Eric 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In the section on Primary negotiation concerns there are several links that strike me as questionably captioned, in a few cases even misleadingly captioned:
Also, I would expect a list of negotiation concerns to include the claim on both sides to a Right of Return (and the right to be compensated for abridgements of the Right of Return). - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think its misleading and Orwellian to suggest that Arab boycott of Israel and Palestinian political violence are part of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process. They both seem more like tactics of violent conlict rather than peaceful compromise. -- GHcool 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If nobody responds to this by January 26, I'm deleting these two links on the template. -- GHcool 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Making a footnote to the effect that someone doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist is unneccessary. The template is not designed to give sepcific details about each position. If someone listed Israel's right to exist under "Primary negotiation concerns", that would be legitimate. Bless sins 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
ALthough I still maintian my points, there have been recent changes. Prime minsiter Ismail Haniyeh has been dismissed. [14] Egypt is hosting tlaks between Israelis and Palestinains which is supported by Jordan. Egypt has done so in the past, and is not doign this for the first time. [15] Bless sins 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's another headline: "Egypt, US Agree Help Broker Palestinians-Israeli Negotiations: Mubarak". [17] Bless sins 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's another one: "Egypt plays Mideast peace broker". The article later describes Egypt as a "a key broker between the Israelis, Palestinians, and the US." Bless sins 03:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This template is seriously beholden to the unbalanced and discredited narrative of the U.S. media, in which the "Peace Process" is defined as whatever America is doing in the region, even if it's standing directly in the way of peace.
Eleland 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm Jayjg, a LOT of countries recognize the State of Palestine. Infact, it hard to tell whether more countries recognize Palestine than Israel. Bless sins 02:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ismail Haniyah should be listed, rather than Salem Fayyad. Mr. Fayyad's appointment to the post of PM has no legal basis, since he was not confirmed by the Palestinian legislature. (Which Fatah just today invaded and occupied.) Actually, Haniyah's claim to be PM is invalid, too, since he needs to be confirmed by Abbas. But since Palestine is effectively divided into two governments, neither of which is fully constitutional, the leaders of both governments should be listed.
If it is objected that "Hamas isn't part of the peace process", I would refer you to previous discussions where I've laid out their attitude -- they are willing to hold to a very long term (50+ years!) "cease-fire", while refusing to confirm or deny intent to recognize Israel permanently. The charge that "Hamas won't negotiate" is Western propaganda designed to absolve Israel of responsibility for its rejectionist stance.
Eleland 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
To summarize previous discussions:
I ( User:Eleland) made three specific and one general point about the template. User:Jayjg responded, partially, to the third, saying that the Hamas charter denounces the existence of Israel and that Palestine is not a state.
User:Bless sins said that the State of Palestine has widespread international recognition. Jayjg laughed at him and said this wasn't true. I provided citations proving that China and India recognize the State of Palestine, and that Russia pursues bilateral relations on the level of equals, but may not explicitly recognize Palestine as a state (I had no information either way.) Jayjg pronounced two of these citations insufficient but did not specify why.
In parallel, I said that Hamas had made repeated offers of cease-fires and negotiations, while leaving its policy on outright recognition deliberately ambiguous. I pointed to an article in the major liberal-mainstream Israeli paper Ha'aretz, and to a CNN article, which supported this. Jayjg argued that "unofficial statements mean nothing" but did not say why. He also argued that "we all know" Hamas' peace negotiations were merely a strategic tactic to gain military strength, but did not say how or why "we all know" this, or provide any references.
Jayjg focused on the narrow issue of a 100 year cease fire, rather than the 50 or 30 year cease fires I found direct references to. He performed a personal blog-style fisking of the Der Speigel interview, and then condemned me for "original research" in the next breath.
While consensus clearly does not exist, I believe it is equally clear that no seriously argued objections have been raised to my original point. I don't believe at this time that anyone is in danger of violating WP:3RR, but it's clear that an edit war is underway. Therefore I'm reverting to my last, and requesting mediation.
Eleland 02:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Jayjg, is BBC a reliable source or not? The article says: "We welcome Egypt's efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians." [24]
Is CNN a reliable source or not? "Egypt is a key American ally in the Mideast and a broker in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians." [25] Bless sins 06:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. My views, after seeing the mediation case.
A template like this should only include unambiguous, uncontroversial facts. We cannot pretend that Israel was negotiating with a formal, widely recognized sovereign state. During the Madrid conferences and afterwards, it was always the PLO and its offshoots that were sitting at the other side of the negotiating table. If not even the mediators (USA, European countries) recognized this "state" then how can we included it without any further explanations as the incontrovertible negotiating partner? Just the idea of it is silly, since the very purpose of the negotiations was to make Palestine a de facto state.
Regarding Hamas, despite some (probably not most) of its words and theoretical offers, we should remember the phrase "it takes two to tango." There is no negotiation taking place when one side is just talking to the wall. Israel does not listen to Hamas, does not talk to it, and wants nothing to do with it. There are no peace meetings between the two, and I think it is absurd to include it as a party to the talks until they actually start being participants in formal talks. Words are just words until they are formalized in actual discussions and treaties. nadavĀ ( talk) 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The title of the template is "Israel-Palestinian Peace Process", not "Israel-PLO Peace Process". It is true that all accords and agreements until now have been signed with PLO representatives, but only as representatives of the Palestinian people, being recognized by Israel as such. Other issues in this template did not involve the PLO at all (such as the Camp David Accords) or explicitly excluded the PLO, at least de jure (such as the Madrid Conference). In principle, if Hamas was willing to comply with Israeli demands, the negotiations could continue with Hamas representatives just as well. Therefore, the template should state the Palestinians as the other negotiating party, and display the Palestinian flag.-- Doron 05:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Tony Blair, instead of George W Bush, be listed as international broker? Addhoc 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply move the page to Template:Oslo_Peace_Process or some such. This would avoid any confusion about the subject being covered, while not seeming to endorse a particular POV about what is and is not part of the "peace process".
Eleland 19:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A recent edit summary commented on the two flags: "Wasn't able to get the flag positions/sizes right". That's because the proportion of the width to the height of the Israeli flag is 8:11 (sometimes shown as 2:3), but for the Palestinian flag it's 1:2. Without cropping one flag or stretching the other, it's impossible to show them exactly the same size. ā Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
By making them the same size in one dimension they will be equally represented even if the other side is different. Since the flags are actually in different proportions they should be portrayed that way in the template. SJSA 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Several years ago, sure, the Diplomatic Quartet was the relevant mediating entity. But as of the Annapolis Conference in November 2007, the U.S. has eclipsed the other three in importance. I don't think the Quartet is currently accurate anymore. -- Laser813 ( talk) 06:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently "Antisemitic incitements" is listed as a negotiation concern. The label links to Arabs and antisemitism. As far as I know, antisemitic broadcasts and television programmes have never been discussed at any of the summits or conferences. Can someone please provide some evidence that this is one of the topics of negotiations. Bless sins ( talk) 19:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
in the Brokers list, the Arab League is Already their, shouldnt Egypt be discluded, and included under the Arab League??
-- Arab League User ( talk) 06:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the no state solution proposed by Chomsky and anarchists?-- Darrelljon ( talk) 12:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The section "Current leaders" is somewhat strange, non-specific and superfluous here. I would like to remove it, to keep the template a little compacter.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The handshake image is POV pushing. There could be a 'peace' without a handshake. I propose a change of image. - DePiep ( talk) 02:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite see what the problem is with the handshake. Obviously there could be peace with out a little handshake, or is the above implying that there is something symbolic about the image that he feels is unneutral? I think the issue needs more discussion before unilaterally changing it.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The Trump peace Plan should be added as the newest two state proposal. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.196.169.7 ( talk) 07:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Al Arabiya, the state news agency of Saudi Arabia, has, on 7 October, 2020, released the final installment of a three-part interview with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Ambassador to the United States during the period of the Clinton negotiations. While his overall views should be interpreted to reflect the governmental position of the Saudi government at the current moment, Prince Bandar makes firsthand assertions about the timeline of the negotiations and the positions of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership during the critical moments that lead to the agreement's unraveling at the end of the Clinton presidency. While existing sources in this article are enlightening and reflect the best understanding of this pivotal moment in history that we have, the previously unreleased firsthand accounts of the Saudi Ambassador regarding Arafat's approach to the negotiations and the US government's interpretation of that approach provides key supplementary insight into the reasons why the Clinton deal ultimately fell apart. Suggested change (addition) is as follows:
"On October 7, 2020, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, asserted in an interview for the Saudi state media outlet Al Arabiya that Arafat ultimately accepted the agreement, and was holding out both for key revisions in the text and the support of regional Arab powers, to counter a perceived backlash from Syria. Ambassador bin Sultan claims that Arafat's delays had lead the Clinton administration to believe that he was rejecting the proposal, and that it shouldn't be passed along to the incoming Bush administration."
Source: "Exclusive interview - Part 3 | Prince Bandar bin Sultan on supporting Palestine but not its leaders" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTSrlONiDU Smertspionam ( talk) 03:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
IsraeliāPalestinian peace process}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ā
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Why is this not included? Shadow4dark ( talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)