Template talk:Israeli–Palestinian peace process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Time for an IPConflict Template?[edit]

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. --יהושועEric 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that maybe a template just on the various peace initiatives might be useful (and a good place to start) -- one could list the individual initiatives such as Oslo, Geneva, Arab league/Saudi initiatives, the unilateral pullout(s), etc. Also the major issues involved: the demographic threat, refugees/right of return, terrorism, the settlements, type of self-government, and the status of (east) Jerusalem (and probably others, I don't know them all.) There are also the various types of solutions classes: two-state solution, binational solution, transfer, etc... all but the first are minor ones though, thus this might not be useful. There are also the leaders involved: Rabin, Arafat, Clinton, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Abbas, and some Hamas guys. One could also list the major brokers: United States, "The Quartet", Norway (Oslo), the Arab League/Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (somewhat.) --Deodar 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I started the template and put it on the page. It still needs a little work, but its a start. --יהושועEric 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its a great start. --Deodar 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I did more work on it, any ideas on what else it needs? --יהושועEric 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I shrunk the fonts for aesthetics. I would like to not call the parties "Combatants" as it does now -- although on some days they can be described that way, but I'm not a complete cynic. I think including a list of the main issues of contention that are ongoing -- terrorism, settlements, demographic threat, refugees, status of (East) Jerusalem, Israel's right to exist, etc. It would also be cool to make it a little narrower, but just for aesthetics, it seems overly wide right now. --Deodar 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The template is a great idea. I agree with Bhouston that the "Combatants" heading should go. Maybe "Parties" or no heading at all. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:05, 29 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. --יהושועEric 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job, but I am not sure Infobox Military Conflict is the best template for it, because "Combatants" is hardcoded in it. It should not concentrate on the current situation. The IPC did not start in 1948 (rather in 1880s, or at least in 1920s), I don't see why Gaza is singled out. The list of leaders should include Amin al-Husayni, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, Ahmed Yassin, Chaim Weizmann, and many more names. The British Mandate and peace proposals are missing. Also, the map implies that the conflict is territorial, which is only a part of the story. E.g. see Peel Commission & map. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I added the start of a key concerns section -- I am sure there are a few more. I couldn't find an appropriate article on the "demographic threat" in my first search for one. --Deodar 01:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I added Right to exist as a key concern -- it is related to the demographic threat, the refugees and Hamas' refusal to recognized Israel. But maybe that article is not the most appropriate one to reflect that nexus of issues, its current form of that article is sort of simplistic as compared to how I view the concern in the context of the conflict. Maybe it would be better to link to "Zionism" instead? --Deodar 01:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to link Zionism instead. --Deodar 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Still not a great solution. Meh. --Deodar 01:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've settled on Jewish state. --Deodar 02:00, 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)

History/Context verses Current Issues split?[edit]

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)

Who makes the split between "history" and "current issues" and where it should be made? ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure exactly but I would think the initial creation of Israel and the Arab rejection would be in the context/history section -- it is directly relevant but it is not an immediate issue. I think that things like the 7 Days War would also be context/history. Also the various deceased leaders of Israel and Palestine -- they were important but they are obviously not currently involved. Palestinian terrorism (the article is currently named "palestinian political violence"), the settlements, East Jerusalem, what to do about the refugees, the second intifada, Abbas, Haniya, the Gaza disengagement are more current. I would even say that the Oslo agreements are history/context now. Maybe there should be a section called "Involved leaders" which separates out the main leaders involved right now from the dead and involved ones -- that would help significantly. I think that together with the existing "ongoing concerns" section, a new "currently involved leaders" (or something similar) section and a new specific history/context section would be a major improvement for those new to the subject. --Deodar 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I would call Olso current, as many issues in regards to the agreement are still refered to as a part of Israel-Palestinian law, though the Palestinians have dissregarded almost all of their obligations. (see Aish/Hasbarah/Honest Reporting's "Relentless." Israelis are still learning about it in modern international politics textbooks. --יהושועEric 08:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying I know the exact split between current issues and historical issues. Maybe it would be enough to separate out the leaders and brokers that currently matter from those that don't (i.e. the many dead ones like and the ones that currently are out of power.) --Deodar 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The conflict did not start in 1948 and a split between current issues and historical issues looks like a WP:OR. As for the leaders, the template already includes a few "dead ones" and I don't see that as a good criteria for inclusion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I wasn't saying excluding the dead ones from the template but rather from a current leaders section -- both Arafat and Rabin could not be more connected to the conflict. I was thinking just of a current leaders section... thus Abbas, Haniya, Olmert, and Peretz. I notice actually that both Olmert and Peretz (as well as Ehud Barak) are not currently listed on the template -- is this an oversight or do you feel they are not relevant? Best. --Deodar 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed verses Occupied Territories?[edit]

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)

Eric and Ian are revert waring over "Occupied Territories" or "Disputed Territories" in the description -- see [1], [2], [3], [4]. I favor using the neutral description of "Israel, the West Bank and Gaza". This solution was first suggested by Amoruso in this edit [5]. --Deodar 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a fair solution. --יהושועEric 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Ian Pitchford 18:05, 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. --יהושועEric 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the "result", "location" and "territorial changes" info (but keep the date info) is all somewhat redundant and thus unnecessary. It already lists the three regions under the map -- we just dealt with that. While there has been an pullout of Gaza, there is still rockets being manufactured in Gaza and fired from Gaza into northern Israel and there are still regular IDF missions into Gaza -- thus from my perspective it is still very much a part of the conflict. The "result: ongoing" is redundant because just above that it says the "Date: 1948-present" -- for me "present" implies that it is ongoing. I would also argue that "Territorial changes: Gaza" is not a very clear claim to anyone new to the situation. --Deodar 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

heavy bias[edit]

What does "concerns" actually mean ? Why is Palestinian refugees a concern and not Jewish refugees ? 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)

I am just remembering what were the main negotiation issues were at the Camp David II accords. I was trying to list the main issues that keep the conflict going -- why it has no yet been resolved. Maybe we should find a solid reference that lists the concerns? Please add to it. I think you would know more about the Israeli perspective than I would.
Also I did try to list Palestinian terrorism in the list of concerns by the inclusion of this article: Palestinian political violence -- if you read the article it basically describes terrorism, it just is currently named weird. But your addition is also useful, it basically says the same thing from a different perspective. --Bhouston 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is a CNN guide to the conflict [6]. It lists as the main issues: "Jerusalem", "Jewish settlers / Palestinian state", "Maps: Occupied lands", "Palestinian refugees", and "Map: Refugee locator". It is similar to the current list.
PBS's guild to the conflict [7] lists the key players as: "Ehud Olmert", "U.S. Role", "Mahmoud Abbas", "Hamas", "Settler Movement", and "Ismail Haniyeh". Again similar to our current list. --Bhouston 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Current list seems balanced with 3 concerns on Israel's side - Jewish state, political violence and terrorism (there are some differences). Concerns on palestinian side - refugees, settlements, palestinian state, east jerusalem - that's 4. Although "barrier" is a concern too listed on conflict category. Anyway, writing the word "terrorism" in the template is extremelt important. It's a POV term, but it's recognised and designated as such by the whole western world , the united states and the european union. We have terms like settlements, refugees and east jerusalem which Israel will dispute. This template is supposed to show what the conflict is about, and it's evident that Israel's primary concern over the last 20 years was with its threats to its civilian population. I'm only saying this here if someone objects to this article being used in the template, which I think is critical. Like you said, palestinian political violence is the term others will use, and it's more historic nature and focuses on differnet angles. Amoruso 14:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Refugees from arab lands needs to be added to this template. It is a highly highly relevant issue which is mostly overlooked. Elizmr 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that Jewish refugees are historically relevant and not an ongoing issue in the various negotiations -- I do not believe they were discussed in any recent peace negotiations, although I may be wrong. I favor creating a history section of the template as I discussed with Humus sapiens above, but he was against it. This would be perfect for inclusion in that section. --Deodar 23:13, 7 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)

You are talking past me. I have said repeatedly that there should be a historical section to the template and that issues such as the Jewish refugees and others should go in it. My argument above to Humus sapiens you are referring to is being taken out of content -- I was saying that that concern should not go in the "ongoing concerns" section -- I was trying in that section to capture the current sticking points of the recent negotiations. --Deodar 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ben, please do not misrepresent me. As can be seen above, I expressed a number of concerns: e.g. the map implies if the conflict is territorial; the conflict did not begin in 1948 and the split between current and historical issues is an OR, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You are missing what the specific issue that Elizmr and I were discussing. Maybe a new section on whether 1948 or 1889 should be used as the starting date for the conflict should be made on the talk page. I wasn't a party to adding that date or reverting it. With regards to the map, it wasn't somethign me and Elizmr were discussing. Others seem to be happy with the current issues section, but we can rename it to "recent negotiation issues" if that helps. Best. --Deodar 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do only "sticking points of recent negotiations" qualify as current issues? I feel that is OR. And we don't even know the content of the camp david talks, do we? Elizmr 14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
See above PBS and CNN lists of main issues cited above -- from that perspective I can't see how they are OR, but I welcome your counter argument. --Deodar 01:46, 9 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)

Some Missing players (incomplete list)[edit]

Hezbollah, Iran, the USSR, the UN, NGOs,....Elizmr 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah isn't that relevant to the Israel Palestinian conflict in my opinion. It is more relevant to the Israel Lebanon conflict or the Arab-Israeli conflict -- yes they do comment on the IP conflict and they supposedly kidnapped on behalf of the conflict but most people do not treat them as a real party to the IP conflict. Although if you can find neutral sources that claim they are central that would be cool (please note the above PBS and CNN lists of major issues I found earlier, if we could find more thrid party lists of issues we could use those as models.) The UN is mentioned in the Diplomatic Quartet along with Russia (although mentions of USSR's role in the conflict should go in the history section since it hasn't existed for about 15 years now.) I find that Iran is a bit player sort of how Saddam and his reimbursement of suicide bombers was a bit player. The NGOs are important and I would love to add them but there is no central article. I would very much favor adding this category I created a while back - Category:Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- as one of the players -- and people can then explore the various groups. I would also favor adding the article on media coverage to this template. I did also propose a while back to create a specific history subsection of the template for the various links related to relevant history articles -- but Humus sapiens disagreed as you can read above. --Deodar 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a section called "international influences" could be set up right under "parties to the conflict". The Quartet as a body as a broker is distinct from the various members of the Quartet as players in the conflict. As far as the influence of the greater Muslim world on the conflict: I thought the cooperation between Hezbollah and Hamas and the use of Al-Manar tv to incite Palestinian suicide bombing was pretty well-known. Look at Al-Manar and Hezbollah. I'll come up with more refs for you if you like. The Iranian president devotes quite a chunk of his considerable airtime talking about Israel and the Palestinian situation, hosting conferences about it, participating in incitement, etc. He is quite a powerful person and Israel is high on his agenda. I don't see how this could fail to be relevant to the conflict. Elizmr 00:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
How about calling it "Third-party actors"? NGOs and media isn't truly international but rather third-party actors don't you think? Also, the template is already huge, thus summary articles are better than specific articles if you want to list minor third-party actors. If you can find references from neutral summary accounts that list the main actors and issues that would be best, such as the PBS and CNN lists I found about -- thus yes, I am taking you up on your offer above. --Deodar 01:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any basis for using "neutral" (as if there were really such a thing) summary accounts as the basis for what goes in such a template. Elizmr 14:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Bring in some references. Let's talk specifics Elizmr. --Deodar 18:29, 8 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)

Iran is listed on the new Template:Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. --Deodar 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anotehr article for Ben to read: [9] AND ANOTHER [10] Elizmr 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflict start date: 1948 or 1889 or other?[edit]

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)

A better question is: why the events like 1920 Palestine riots, 1929 Palestine riots or 1936-1939 Great Uprising were left out? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good they were left out. These events are by Arab citizens of Palestine but not necessarily Palestinians. The conflict between Israel and Palestinians started in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, and in my opinion, this conflict doesn't exist. The Arab Israeli conflict is the only conflict where this is a sub section of the conflict created in a late stage for purposes convenient to the Arab side of the conflict. Amoruso 03:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The argument that the Arab Israeli conflict is the only conflict works for me. What I disagree with is that IPC is a separate conflict that began in 1948. In this light, why do we need a separate template? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The IPC is a very real, seperate issue. The Arab-Israel conflict in general is with external enemies against a state. It is a state-state conflict. The IPC is an internal fight that is not a clear state-state conflict. The two sides both claim the same territory as their state/homeland. It is related, but a seperate, valid issue. There was a Jewish-Muslim conflict before 1948, but the IPC started in 1948. There was no "Israel" before that date. --יהושועEric 16:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate Eric's remarks, but Palestinians as a distinct nation were not claiming territory as a homeland in 1948. At that time the Arab states collectively disagreed with the creation of a Jewish homeland on any part of this land, but I don't see evidence that they wanted to create a separate homeland for a distinct Palestinian people. They saw it as Arab land, muslim land, waqf land in a more general sense. The issue was not a Palestinian homeland for Palestinian people but the prevention of any sort of a Jewish homeland in the holy land. When they invaded right after Israel declared itself, they didn't set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan kept the West Bank and Egypt kept Gaza, right? So it can't be said that the IPC started in 1948 because that that time the Palestinians weren't players yet, except that the Arab states did not allow the refugess to be absorbed and began to use them as pawns in the international arena. I tend to agree most with Amoruso above. Elizmr 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The key sentence is this one "The issue was not a Palestinian homeland for Palestinian people but the prevention of any sort of a Jewish homeland in the holy land." If one reads through this article, Great_Uprising, that HS linked to above you'll find that one could argue as easily that they were not so much trying to prevent a Jewish homeland but rather trying to preserve their control over the region and not be displaced -- there are two sides to the coin, both equally valid. I think that 1948 or 1964 makes the most sense rather that earlier dates -- because while one can argue that Palestinians didn't exist as a cohesive force before the creation of the PLO, one could also argue that Israel didn't exist prior to its official declaration of existence. --Deodar 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ben, you are wrong. Vaad Leumi, Histadrut, Haganah, were established in 1920 and in 1946 it was reported that "There thus exists a virtual Jewish nonterritorial State with its own executive and legislative organs" [11]. Compare with: "The Arabs are divided politically by the personal bickerings of the leaders, which still center round the differences of the Husseinis and their rivals; and socially by the gap which separates the small upper class from the mass of the peasants-a gap which the new intelligentsia is not yet strong enough to bridge. Consequently they have developed no such internal democracy as have the Jews. That their divisions have not been overcome and a formally organized community developed is in part the result of a less acutely self-conscious nationalism than is found today among the Jews. It is, however, also the outcome of a failure of political responsibility. The Arab leaders, rejecting what they regard as a subordinate status in the Palestinian State, and viewing themselves as the proper heirs of the Mandatory Administration, have refused to develop a self-governing Arab community parallel to that of the Jews." (ibid.) Of course, "Palestine" here refers to British Mandate and "Arab" to what today would be called "Palestinian". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:46, 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:


While I believe the conflict's correct date is 1964 per above, the more and more I look at it, this template is problematic I think... for example, who says that Jordan area is not relevant for map ? Per Black September in 1970 and per the Palestinian population in Jordan it certainly seems so. Therefore, I think the map has to be deleted/changed (not to mention the palestinian refugees camps in Lebanon...)
It seems that for Israel, the individuals who were involved are more conerned with Hamas members ("terrorists") both outside and inside the territories than official PA members. Official PA members are more suited for a template concerning Israel Palestinian peace effort template perhaps. But if it's a conflict and a historical one at that...
along that thought, the palestinians/PLO/PA is wrong. "Palestinians" should be removed for obvious reason, like "Israelies" shouldn't be added. But HAMAS must be here and it's hard to categorize this. What I suggest is using something similar to the Arab - Israeli conflict template.
And indeed, I think the eventual conclusion will have to be to either not include the template or re-write it in a similar way to the Arab-Israeli conflict template. You'd notice most organizations listed there are already Palestinians btw.
Template is actually very nice Ben, and I appreciate your efforts. I'm sorry that it seems hard to get around these issues. Amoruso 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
A few things:
  • I am looking for a template that contains the leaders as we have them, the ongoing concerns with respect to the negotiations, the important historical issues, and the map. If we need to rename this such that it is specific to the peace process that would be fine with me. I am looking for a template to put on the Rabin page, the Arafat page, the Abbas page and well as the articles that deal with the main negotiation points (and historical points if we do desire.) I am looking to pull together the equivalent of the CNN or PBS guides to the conflict.
  • I agree with you in that I think that the PA as one side and the Israeli government as the other party is the best way to go for the peace process template. It is true that listing the PLO and Palestinians but not Hamas or Israelis is sort of unbalanced.
  • We could try to also create a filtered down version of the Arab-Israeli conflict template that is specific to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and see how that goes -- that may be a complimentary template, and less overwhelming one, to this one.
What do you think? --Deodar 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As a test, I quickly did a refocus of the template towards the "peace process" angle. In fact we are actually tracking the layout of this article on the topic very closely already: Israeli-Palestinian_peace_process. I guess implicitly when I think about the conflict I view it in terms of how to solve it and thus in terms of the "peace process" angle and that is why the template already had that focus. Also one should note that Eric did much of the initial template work and contents, not I. --Deodar 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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 · Timeline · 1st Intifada ·2nd Intifada Barrier · Unilateral disengagements

David Ben-Gurion · Golda Meir · Ahmed Yassin

Amoruso 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea -- I was thinking along the same lines. I left in the "Unilateral disengagements" but I removed the rest. I sort of view this as part of the peace process, although it is sort of like a forced move, but it was addressing one of the main concerns -- settlements in Gaza and what to do about that territory. Is that a controversial view of them? --Deodar 05:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Quite, yes. The Unilateral disengagements were criticized from the left side of the map - Meretz etc, because of doing something not in acceptance and co-ordination with the Palestinian side. The original idea of Kadima's solution in many ways is to find a solution best for Israel seeing as the peace process is DEAD and hopeless (and later changed to - "after exploiting all peace process options"...) Amoruso 05:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the international view of the disengagement: Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan#U.S._government_position. It seems to suggest that it was viewed as a move towards peace. --Deodar 05:41, 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)

If you have time, you should start the articles on "arabic ban" (a term I have never heard of) and "end of conflict" (which I have no idea what it should include.) Just create stubs with one or two reference articles to get going. The other suggestions sound great. Remember that you can edit the template too. --Deodar 05:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Arabic ban" is a "ghetto-word" I just used, as I'm tired ;) 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 then ? 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)

Remeber that Hamas will not even recognize Israel today. The conflict is very much alive. I think it deserves its own template, or one with both conflict and peace process items included. --יהושועEric 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I can agree if the conflict template will be a minimized version of the Arab-Israeli conflict template. I think a template that combines both is impossible if one wants to use a map etc. Amoruso 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
How about one of us move this page to "Template:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process"? Then we can start on the next one if you so desire... --Deodar 17:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
ok, in the process now. Amoruso 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I support changing the template to peace process. I don't understand why End to hostilities is piped to Economic and political boycotts of Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary negotiation concerns - areas for improvement[edit]

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)

Quick note, I will contribute to improving this area of Wikipedia but I have significant outside commitments that preclude me from undertaking major efforts until late November. I can only procrastinate on Wikipedia in small doses. --Deodar 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Peace Process[edit]

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. --יהושועEric 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe its historical now. I think the template makes sense in a general sense just like the article on the peace process makes sense. But whether or not it should be applied to various articles relating to the conflict is more of an question that may need to be answered on a per article basis. It may be less relevant to the article on Hamas than it is on the articles on Rabin and Arafat and Abbas. I do think it does tie together a lot of articles into a coherent whole. --Deodar 06:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Ben. I prefer to look at this (my POV) philosophically. As a process, it has its moves and stops. And some moves are in a wrong direction. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I like this title for the template better as well. Elizmr 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Some questionably captioned links[edit]

In the section on Primary negotiation concerns there are several links that strike me as questionably captioned, in a few cases even misleadingly captioned:

  • Economic and political boycotts of Israel captioned as "End to hostilities": this seems actively misleading.
  • Arabs and anti-Semitism captioned as "Incitements". "Incitements" suggests something balanced, but this article is only about one aspect of one side's incitements.
  • Karin A captioned as "Prohibitng illegal weapons": the caption suggests something broad, but the article is about one incident.
  • Two Seas Canal captioned as "Water issues": the caption suggests something broad, but the article is far narrower.

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)

the question of "broad" etc has to do with lack of existing articles, but these give a good idea. You can change incitements to arabic/palestinian incitements if you believe that's more "fair". boycotts are a sign of hostility which also lacks a general article - this term was used because it's the official israeli term of סוף הסכסוף - meaning a comprehensive end to conflict/hostilites which includes issues discussed in that article. The right of return is discussed in Palestinian refugees. Amoruso 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In my view the links should be titled "Boycotts", "Arab anti-Semitism", "Karin A", and "Two Seas Canal". I'm not sure all of these are broad enough topics to be included at all. There is a Right of Return article, but it covers the "Right of Return" of many different countries. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point Jmabel. I brough up most of those issues earlier on this talk page here Template_talk:Israel-Palestinian_Peace_Process#Primary_negotiation_concerns_-_areas_for_improvement. --Deodar 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about the "Primary negotionation concerns"[edit]

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)

No response? OK. They are coming down. --GHcool 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a primary concern of Israel obviously. I don't understand your argument, bringing back atleast the terrorism obviously, Israel's obvious concern and most notable one. Amoruso 13:56, 1 February 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)

As has been explained before, the fact that a key "negotiator" doesn't recognize that its "partner" in negotiations has a right to exist is rather critical. Also, the Arab league doesn't recognize Israel, and is behind a decade's old boycott of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The Arab League has tabled a significant Peace Plan at the Beirut Summit. Egypt has brokered talks between the Palestinians and Israelis before.[13] Also, the template is not a place to describe the political positions of various leaders. This is politicizing the template. It is only designed to be a collection of links to a relevent subject presented in an easy to use manner.Bless sins 04:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The group that made war on you, boycotted you for your entire existence, and still doesn't recognize your existence, cannot be considered an "International peace broker". You really must stop trying to POV and whitewash articles, it's getting silly already. Jayjg (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already showed you how Egypt has brokered peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Secondly, the Arab League is also doing that by offereing both sides a peace plan. In exchange the Arab League wants to recognize Israel's existence, and to end the boycott. See Beirut Summit.Bless sins 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith 3RR reports which claim I am somehow "reverting" when I re-wrote a paragraph that you yourself complained about mean there's no dialog possible between us. I recommend you remove it as an error in judgement. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What does this have anything to do with the topic? Please address my concerns.Bless sins 18:49, 9 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)

What talks? Egypt said it agreed with the U.S. that some stuff should be done. What talks are actually being held, and where? Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The talks are bieng held in Sharm el-Sheik, and will be attended by Olmert, Abbas, King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.[16]Bless sins 03:37, 25 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)

When did those talks start? Who attended them? And when did Egypt become the Arab League? Bless sins, it's extremely important that you stop whitewashing articles; the integrity of Wikipedia depends on more honest editing. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does the exact date of those talks matter? Is your next question going to ask me the time when those talks started? Jayjg it is extremely important - if a dispute is ever to be solved - that you stop making personal attacks, and focus on the article. Do you not agree that Haniyeh is dismissed?Bless sins 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Egypt is not the Arab League, it is merely one of four participants in talks which affect it as more than most. Egypt controls the Gaza Strip's southern border, and is concerned about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood derived Hamas. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How does bieng concerned about your own security prevent you from bieng a broker? The U.S. is also concerned about its own security. DOes that mean it can't be a broker as well?Bless sins 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess that makes Israel a broker too. Please be sensible. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Israel can't broker talks between itself and others. That's nonsense! Anyways, the source i have provided you clearly say that Egypt has "brokered" talks. Do you have reason to believe the sources are making false statements?Bless sins 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Egypt can't broker talks between itself and others either, and one headline in The People's Daily does not make something verifiable. Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Egypt is described as brokering talks between "the Israelis, Palestinians, and the US". I don't see Egypt anywhere in that sentence.Bless sins 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Serious pov issues[edit]

  • Why does the "peace process" begin with Camp David, and not the numerous repeated PLO offers of negotiation which were rejected throughout the 1980s?
  • What makes George W. Bush an international broker, but not, say, Abdullah al Saud?
  • Why is it necessary to mark that Ismail Haniyah "rejects the legitimacy of Israel", when he and his movement have repeatedly offered negotiations, offered cease-fire, and even engaged in unilateral cease-fires, but not necessary to mark that every single participant on the Israeli side has never recognized Palestine as a state, only grudgingly and inconsistently recognizing the PLO as "representative of the Palestinian people" and making vague offers of a Bantustan quasi-state in the indeterminate future?

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)

Hamas, per policy and per its charter, refused to recognize Israel's existence or legitimacy. "Palestine" is, in fact, not a state, though it may be at some future date. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the State of Palestine is recognized by most countries (except Israel).Bless sins 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. LOL! Does France recognize it? Does Italy? Brazil? Uruguay? Australia? Canada? Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
None of those countries recognize it, only a few lightweights like Russia, India and China. And as the previous poster correctly stated, the majority of UN Gen. Assembly members recognize a State of Palestine. The absence of Uruguayan recognition, though, is surely a crippling blow to his argument.
The HAMAS charter continues to call for the dissolution of Israel, but numerous official and unofficial statements from the top leadership have indicated their willingness to change this position (the maximal position offered thus far was a 100-year cease-fire on the basis that "we're not able to recover all of our lands at this time"). The Israeli basic laws contain no reference to Palestinian territories either way (I think the position at the time was that Palestinians did not exist, and anyway Jordan was the Palestinian State), and no Israeli government, or even a mainstream opposition politician, has ever recognized Palestine either, all they have offered is a "recognized" internal enclave, fully surrounded by Israeli territory and subject to severe restrictions, which many independent commentators have said would not qualify as a state by most definitions of the term.
In view of all this, the "JEWS GOOD -- BUSH GOOD -- ARABS BAD -- HAMAS BAD" tone of the template cannot be regarded as anything but POV pushing.
As a side note, the last editor just made a provably factual statement, with a wikilink to back it up, the response was "Um, no. LOL!". I do not think this level of argument is helpful to the encyclopedia.
Eleland 13:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, we're no fools here; unofficial statements mean nothing, and I haven't seen any official statements regarding a 100 year ceasefire. And I think we all understand what a hudna is - a strategic ceasefire until the Palestinians are strong enough to destroy Israel. By the way, can you provide an unambiguous source indicating that Russia, India, and China recognize the "State of Palestine"? Perhaps a statement from their governments that they do so, or a scholarly source indicating that? So far all I've seen is original research. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess Ha'aretz [18] and CNN [19] are just dupes of Hamas. Not to mention this interview [20] straight from Ismail Haniyah where he talks of a definite 50-year cease fire, while maintaining an ambiguous position on outright ("If all that we were talking were mutual recognition, we would agree...These are hypothetical questions.").
And what is this talk of "the Palestinians [becoming] strong enough to destroy Israel"?? One of the poorest, most devastated, most oppressed societies on Earth is going to amass the power to take on one of the largest military powers on the planet, complete with nuclear arsenal -- how?? This picture of tiny, fragile Israel against the Arab spectre was unsustainable 40 years ago, let alone today.
Russia, China, and India maintain bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority on the same track as other state-to-state relations. China and India clearly and unambiguously recognize a State of Palestine. On the narrowly focused issue of whether to recognize a State of Palestine, or only a Palestinian Authority, I do not know what Russia's position is either way. (Russian President Putin: "our meeting was on our bilateral relations ... At the bilateral level we discussed ..."[21] , Chinese President Hu, according to the authorized government portal site to China, "noted that China is one of the first countries that lent support to the Palestine National Liberation Movement and recognized the state of Palestine" [22], and according to India's foremost public affairs magazine, "India was the first non-Arab country to recognise Palestinian statehood." [23].
While WP:AGF is always foremost on my mind, I must confess to a stong feeling that my work tracking down sources will make no difference whatsoever, and that you will continue to enforce your view of what is pro-Israel over all other concerns, adopting or abandoning Wikipedia policies as you see fit to accomplish this goal. In future, I will not conduct these laborious exercises in response to your flippancy. I will simply edit the articles to a more neutral version, in accordance with my best reading of plicy, and if you decide to block me -- well, it will inevitably bring in the attention of more reasonable administrators, and let the chips fall where they may.
Eleland 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how anything you've said contradicts anything I've said. I don't see any references to a 100 year truce. As for becoming strong enough to destroy Israel, Palestinians have many powerful friends, demographics are a big factor, and Hamas follows a fanatical ideology that doesn't really require much grounding in reality anyway. The Spiegel interview was particularly revealing, particularly the way he dodged the questions. I liked that little interchange "Why don't you recognize Israel" "Why doesn't Israel recognize us?" "But they did" "But what did that get us?" Classic misdirection. Regarding recognizing the State of Palestine, the China reference is a good one, the Russian one inadequate, the Indian one ambiguous. It will be helpful to find all of them, because I plan to clean up the State of Palestine article, which currently has only original research supporting it. Jayjg (talk) 14:00, 26 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)

Thanks for making that unsupported assertion. I'm looking for sources which unambiguously support it. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Salem Fayyad / Ismail Haniyah[edit]

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)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As usual, you have not responded to the substance of my argument. Since Palestine is effectively divided into two governments, neither of which is fully constitutional, the leaders of both governments should be listed.
Eleland 01:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, so the only changes you made were to list the leaders of both governments? Or, can it be that, as usual, you have not addressed the substance of your edits? Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, of course not. As I discussed in the previous thread, and noted in my edit summary, I completely rewrote the template. I began this separate thread after an IP editor, presumably thinking we'd just neglected to update with the new Prime Minister, replaced Mr. Haniya with Mr. Fayyad. Eleland 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious POV Issues, part II[edit]

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)

Your many edits to the template had little to do with this one-sided summary given here. Regarding the State of Palestine, Bless sins claimed "widespread international recognition", and you provided one clear citation, for China, one ambiguous one for India (the State of Palestine is one proposal for statehood, the citation itself merely referred to 'Palestinian statehood'), and you admit the Russian one is ambiguous. Hamas keeps offering ceasefires, but still refuses to recognize Israel's existence, as clearly outlined in its charter, and as hundreds of reliable sources will attest. The rest of your edits you have yet to explain. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Since you only raised certain specific objections, I didn't see a need to explain everything else line-by-line.
"State of Palestine" rather than PLO listed as the negotiating party since A: Some parties to negotiation, most notably Hamas, are not part of the PLO. B: Listing a state and a quasi-governmental organization appears to privilege the Israeli side of the equation, and presuppose a certain legitimacy on one side over the other. Palestine is recognized as a state by a great many countries, including India, China, and all the Arab League countries. Just as it would be highly POV to change "Israel" to "the Zionist entity", it is POV to implicitly deny Palestinian statehood.
Added two much earlier events to "history of peace process" because the definition of the "Peace Process" as limited to the Oslo peace process is limited to certain American sources, and does not reflect a wider view of the situation. UN 181 was clearly an attempt to solve the Palestinian Question, that is, a process for making peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The PLO 10-point plan is significant since it was the first change in the position of what was then the only representative of the Palestinian people from rejectionism to official openness to the possibility of compromise.
Removed two protocols intended to implement Oslo accords, since A: they were relatively minor treaties intended to enforce already existing accords, B: they are basically defunct since the 2nd intifadah.
Added Arab League peace initiative since it is an enormously significant offer, a complete normalization of relations from the Arab League in exchange for a two-state solution. Its previous absence was particularly odd; I must admit it seems like it was missing only since it wasn't supported by America.
Added Israeli separation policy (Hitnatkut) since it is a major shift with a significant impact on the peace process.
Added Palestinian/Hamas cease-fire offer (Hudna) since it is a significant proposal to end, or at least freeze, Israel-Palestine conflict from one of the major participants.
Removed talk of "incitements" since A: it was artificially limited to Arab antisemitism, when anti-Arab attitudes are cultivated by Israelis and diaspora partisans of Israel B: It has never been a central plank of negotiations, only a secondary concern.
Removed talk of "illegal weapons" since A: it was only linked to the article about a specific ship B: it's not clear how it's "illegal" for Palestinians to arm themselves since the right of individual & collective self-defense is a central plank of international law C: it was artificially limited to Palestinian weapons when Israel has developed a massive arsenal of weapons which are far more dangerous, including nuclear, chemical, and possibly biological weapons
Removed talk of Jewish expulsion in 1948 since they have all been integrated into Israeli or other society, and their plight has never been a primary negotiation concern or even a negotiation concern at all. It seems that it was only included in a misguided effort to "balance" the reference to Palestinian refugees; but the two situations aren't balanced at all!
Changed "terrorism against Israel" to "Palestinian political violence" since A: The article was named that after a protracted dispute and we ought to respect the results of that dispute B: Israel's concerns are not limited to terrorism but include military attacks and incursions (the capture of Gilad Shalit, for example) which are not terrorism.
Removed "water issues" since we don't have an article about water in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (I was originally going to make a redlink but I changed my mind for some reason), the linked article is about one highly specific and highly unlikely proposal which is again not a primary negotiation concern. Re-inserting it as a redlink might be a better idea.
Changed "East Jerusalem" to "Status of Jerusalem (al Quds) since limiting the discussion to East Jerusalem is highly artificial and has the effect of denying the existence of Palestinian claims on the whole of Jerusalem. Including the Arabic name was for completeness and isn't strictly necessary.
Changed Haniyah to Fayyad per talk page section
Removed "George W. Bush" since his lone inclusion was frankly bizzare. GW did not play nearly as substantive a role in the process as Bill Clinton, who at least provided the pretense of "honest broker"-ship. But in any case, it is unwise to personalize these issues. The US is part of the Quartet and thus still included.
Inserted United Nations for reasons that should be obvious; the UN has played a role in trying to resolve the conflict since before 1948. The problem that one side is generally unwilling to abide by UN resolutions does not mean that the UN did not play the role of a broker.
Inserted Arab League in view of the Arab Peace Plan which is a major peace initiative launched under its auspices.
And now a general comment: I'm aware of no wikipedia policy that requires me to laboriously explain every single edit I make. If you have specific objections, raise them. Currently I'm racing around finding sources and explaining minor details, while you're making flippant and unsupported pronouncements of personal opinion. I'm sick of this. It just seems like stonewalling designed to make it extremely difficult for anyone to make edits that are unflattering to your political views. Where are YOUR explanations of why George W. Bush is more of a "broker" than, say, Abdullah al Saud? Where are YOUR sources saying that the 1948 Jewish expulsions are a primary negotiation concern in this conflict? Where are YOUR sources saying that Wye River and Sharm-el-Sheikh are a bigger part of the "Peace Process" than the Gaza disengagement or the Arab League plan?
Eleland 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The "State of Palestine" is a legal fiction, that cannot negotiate with anyone. All talks have been carried out with the PLO and its successor, the PA. Hamas won't recognize Israel, so it cannot negotiate with it.
  • UN 181 was a partition plan, not part of a peace process.
  • The 10 point program was not part of a peace process, but rather indicate a tactical shift in the PLO's plans to destroy Israel - it suggested that the PLO might destroy Israel in stages, rather than all at once.
  • The two memoranda were important parts of Oslo II, an actual peace plan, even though Arafat never intended to abide by it.
  • The Arab League has been at war with Israel for 60 years now, and still is - claiming they are part of the "peace process" is absurd, they are one of the combatants.
  • Disengagement is Disengagement, not "Hitnatkut / Separation" - call it by its English name. Hudna is not an offer of peace, it's a tactical disengagement in the hopes that one can build up strength again for future attacks. Both of them were already in the list, under their proper names.
  • Arab antisemitism is an offical/semi-official government policy, as part of the broader war engaged in by Arab countries against Israel. It is pervasive, and there is nothing at all comparable on Israel's part.
  • "Illegal weapons" are illegal and relevant because they are direct violations of the peace accords. Israel's weapons are not.
  • Regarding the refugees, you're right, the two situations aren't "balanced" because the Palestinians have been kept as refugees as a weapon against Israel. Nevertheless all refugee issues will have to be sorted out as part of a comprehensive peace process, including the Jewish refugee issues.
  • Regarding "terrorism against Israel", if you were really concerned about "proper names", you would have called disengagement disengagement.
  • The U.N. has been a forum for one-sided condemnation of Israel; its actions since 1948 have only hindered and lessened the possibility of peace.
  • See Arab League comment above; combatants aren't peace brokers.
Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a lot of WP:OR there, Jayjg. Why don't you produce some WP:RS to back up your assertions? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
How on earth would my response to Eleland be OR, but his original statement not be? We are both making arguments as to why various material should be kept/removed from the template. Your comment is nearly meaningless in this context, and appears motivated solely by previous animosity you have displayed towards me. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the template mention the Palestinian National Authority? Possibly instead of the PLO? Addhoc 11:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Madrid Conference was prior to the PA's creation. Perhaps both should be mentioned. nadav (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Who says that the state of Palestine is a legal fiction? You do? Good for you. A great many nations disgaree. In other words, there are multiple POVs, and the article should not reflect your own POV to the exclusion of others. All direct talks have been carried out with the PLO on the basis that it is the representative of the Palestinian people -- this basis is accepted even by Israel, per exchange of diplomatic notes.
The ten point program was the first official PLO policy which opened the possibilty of negotiation. Even if it had been a nefarious plot to destroy Israel by degrees, it opened the possibility of negotiation. Again, your POV is relevant but it should not exclusively carry the day. The section I linked to basically makes the same point you're making; why are you opposed to including this relevant information?
Thank you for pointing out about Hitnatkut; I got my Hebrew mixed up. The article I wanted was "Hafrada" not "Hitnatkut". This term is translated as "disengagement", "separation", or "apartheid", but the majority of sources seem to settle on "separation". It also refers to the broader "disengagement" policy rather than the Gaza plan alone, which is preferable.
The argument on Arab antisemitism seems sensible to me. Therefore change the line from "incitements" to "Arab antisemitism", I still disagree that it's a primary negotiation concern but it's better to at least have it under an honest name.
Illegal weapons are a violation of the peace accords. As are "targeted killings", re-invasions and re-occupations, systematic destruction of homes, farms, and infrastructure, willful and organized interference in Palestinian elections, mass arrests of relatives and friends of alleged militants without charge, etc etc. Indeed, most qualified neutral observers believe that virtually all Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza are completely illegal on the basis of 4th Geneva, UN 242, and others. Including the Palestinian violations alone serves only to favor Israeli POV. Perhaps it would do to seperate the "concerns" into long-term "big picture" concerns like refugees, secure borders, etc, and ongoing violations like weapons smuggling, targeted killings, etc.
Notwidthstanding your somewhat valid statement about the REASONS for the Palestinian refugee problem, you seem to be admitting that the problem is much more of a sticking point than Jewish refugee issues. You do not seem to disagree that the Palestinian refugees are a "primary negotiation concern" and the Jewish refugees are not; after all, Jews LEAVING the country is the last thing Israel wants.
I'll ignore one of your comments except to note that it seems to impugn my personal motives unfairly.
Your personal opinion of the UN is not relevant. Simply including a body as a "mediator" does not imply anything about the quality or motives of the mediation.
The claim that the Arab League is a "combatant" is particulrily strange; the absence of a final definitive peace treaty does not imply "combat". The Arab League has made a widely reported peace proposal offering full normalization of relations in return for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1948 ceasefire lines.
Eleland 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As you point out, all direct negotiations have been carried out with the PLO, not with the "State of Palestine", which is a legal fiction.
  • Which reliable, non-partisan sources consider the PLO's 10 point plan to be part of the "peace process"?
  • The disengagement plan is already listed in the template.
  • Weapons are specifically discussed in the accords. Are these other items?
  • The Jewish refugees want compensation, so it's still a sticking point. Much of the refugee talks are about compensation.
  • The U.N. hasn't mediated any peace process as far as I'm aware; it mostly restricts itself to one-sided, ritualistic, condemnations of Israel. Can you point to specific examples of U.N. mediation?
  • The Arab league both attacked Israel in 1948, and created an economic boycott that continues to this day. It is the driving force behind opposition to Israel. The Arab League is no more a "broker" than Israel is. Israel has also offered various peace terms. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
To respond to some of Jayjg's points.
  • Negotiations are being carried out by the Palestinian National Authority, of whom Abu Mazen is the president.
  • From whom do the Jewish refugees want a compensation? The Palestinians? I don't think so. They want compensation, primarily, form other Arab countries. The Palestinians can't do anything about that problem.
  • The U.S. recently placed economic sanction on the Palestinians. Does that mean that they are not part of the peace process as well? Also, 1948 is history. The peace process is more of a 1990s thing. The Arab League has offered terms of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians numerous times. Fianlly, Egypt has specifically brokered talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.Bless sins 13:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Does he represent them? I think Hamas would disagree. He seems to represent Fatah.
  • Arab countries are an intimate part of this conflict and process.
  • The U.S. didn't place sanctions on the Palestinians, it simply stopped giving them money. The money is the U.S.'s, to do with as it sees fit. The Arab League is a combatant, just as Israel was, and Israel offered peace terms as well. Egypt is a party to the talks, not a broker. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In case you haven't noticed, Hamas, is no longer part of the government. In any case the negotiations are conducted by PNA, not Hamas.
  • Not really. This template is Israel- Palestinian Peace Process, not Arab-Israeli peace process. In any case, has Israel brought up the issue (of Jewish refugees) at any of the Oslo or Camp David meetings?
  • The news articles clearly say that Egypt is a broker.Bless sins 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In case you haven't noticed, Hamas insists that it is indeed the only legitimate government. There doesn't appear to be a PNA any more.
  • Yes, but Arab countries have intimately involved themselves in this conflict, from 1947 when they opposed the partition, to 1948 when they attacked Israel, etc.
  • One article headline does not create a fact. Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would People's Daily, China Daily, or "Washington Diplomat" be considered reliable sources? Also, random googling for "Egypt" and "broker" might have turned up some of these links, but a "power broker" is not a "peace broker". Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 31 July 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)

Wait, so now you're only claiming two sources, not six? Also, please review WP:V: "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Jayjg (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I can get you more sources, but there's nopoint. Wikipedia doesn't say we need six sources. So ou are saying that BBC and CNN are not reliable sources? Are they or not?Bless sins 06:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It all depends on context, of course. A source is reliable in relation to its relevance to and expertise on the subject matter, and in relation to how exceptional the claims it makes are. Jayjg (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What determines the "exceptionalness" of claims? The personal opinion of editors? Bless Sins provided articles from three first-rate Western media organizations and the official organ of the Chinese Communist Party. You provided bupkis for sources, and yet you're making wild, paranoid, and exceptional claims that the Arab League is the hidden hand behind Palestinian national aspirations (without sources of course) and that Egypt is a combatant against Israel. Do you believe that Wikipedia policies exist as "gotchas" to sandbag and disrupt editing you don't personally agree with? If not, start providing sources for your own claims, or stop making them. Eleland 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are not exceptional claims - read the articles. TewfikTalk 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"State of Palestine", Hamas as negotiating partner[edit]

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. nadav (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't substantially disagree with the points you are raising. My primary reason for replacing "PLO" with "Palestine" was to avoid the appearance of elevating one side above the other -- we have a national flag next to an organizational emblem, as if a legally established government is dealing with a a rebel faction.
I think it would be appropriate to leave on the Palestinian flag, but replace the text with "Palestine represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization".
Your point on Hamas is also valid, but I don't think my edits implied that Hamas was a party to the talks -- just that Ismail Haniyah was one of the leaders involved in the peace process. My understanding of the "peace process" is that it's a broad and multifaceted situation, not just limited to US-Israel-approved direct talks - actually this was the entire reason I edited the template in the first place. Perhaps we could list Haniyah with a footnote along the lines of: "De facto leader of Gaza Strip; not involved in direct negotiations".
Eleland 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your first suggestion makes some sense (I prefer it without the piping because the term "Palestine" alone has multiple meanings). Regarding your general vision for the template, I respectfully disagree. As you can see from the thread above, the minute we expand the template to include material beyond the topics and people that were formally part of the negotiations, we are stepping into very subjective territory. It is best to keep a navigational template of this sort as clearly defined and unambiguous as possible, because it is not an article, and there is no room for extensive explication and footnotes about the links on it. nadav (talk) 04:06, 1 July 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)

Given my explanation above, would there be any objection to replace the PLO with the Palestinians as the negotiating party (and replace the emblem with the flag accordingly)?--Doron 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc, also after seeing the medcab case[edit]

Shouldn't Tony Blair, instead of George W Bush, be listed as international broker? Addhoc 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing Bush. Addhoc 11:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for breaking deadlock[edit]

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)

I think that's a good idea. Besides this template does seem to be a bit of a synthesis.Bless sins 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian and Israeli Flags[edit]

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. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed ;) What I was trying to do was to give both flags a "middle" vertical alignment but keep the labels ("Palestinians", "Israel") at the bottom of the cells. Doing this may require a nested table or putting the labels in their own row. nadav (talk) 21:50, 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)

They already were the same size in one dimension: height. By making them the same width, the Israeli flag was taller than the Palestinian flag, making it appear much larger. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Brokers: Diplomatic Quartet out-of-date[edit]

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)

You may be right, but it's only been two weeks since Annapolis. I think we should wait to see whether anything develops that warrants removing the Quartet and replacing it with only the United States. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the Quartet should be kept. The Annapolis conference is very recent, and there is no evidence that it will lead to anything concrete. Infact, there is speculation that the real purpose of Annapolis is Iran, not the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.Bless sins (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic incitements[edit]

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)

Since no one responded, I guess I'm going to go ahead and remove this.Bless sins (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Egypt should be removed[edit]

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)

I have included Egypt 'under' Arab League, and the Quartet parties under the Diplomatic Quartet.Bless sins (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No state solution[edit]

What about the no state solution proposed by Chomsky and anarchists?--Darrelljon (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Section "Current leaders"[edit]

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)

Agree. -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2014 (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)