Template talk:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Time for an IPConflict Template?

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)

[edit] History/Context verses Current Issues split?

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)

[edit] Disputed verses Occupied Territories?

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)

[edit] Changes

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)

[edit] heavy bias

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)

[edit] Terrorism

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)

[edit] Some Missing players (incomplete list)

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)

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

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:

[edit] Concerns

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 Isreal 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)

[edit] Primary negotiation concerns - areas for improvement

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)

[edit] Peace Process

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)

[edit] Some questionably captioned links

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)

[edit] Concerns about the "Primary negotionation concerns"

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Template_talk%7EIsrael-Palestinian_Peace_Process_f71a.html"