Talk:Oslo Accords/Archive 1

Archive 1

The "air quotes" in the first section

I understand this is a sensitive article at a sensitive time, but the air quotes in The Oslo process is the "peace process" that started in 1993 makes little sense and isn't by Wikipedia standards. Either it was a peace process or it was not, and if "peace process" is a concept that needs explanation, link to Peace_process.

Request in short: Either remove the quotes or rewrite. --jax (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It was never removed 142.186.54.90 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oslo Accords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504194404/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/36917473237100E285257028006C0BC5 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/36917473237100E285257028006C0BC5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

In the section entitled "Criticisms," I think the following quote would be quite germane: Bold text Ziyad Abu Ein, PA Deputy Minister of Prisoners Affairs: "The Oslo Accords are not the dream of the Palestinian people. However, there would never have been resistance in Palestine without Oslo. Oslo is the effective and potent greenhouse which embraced the Palestinian resistance. Without Oslo, there would never have been [violent] resistance. In all the occupied territories, we could not move a single pistol from place to place. Without Oslo, and being armed through Oslo, and without the Palestinian Authority's "A" areas, without the training, the camps, the protection afforded by Oslo, and without the freeing of thousands of Palestinian prisoners through Oslo - we and this Palestinian resistance would not have been able to create this great Palestinian Intifada." [Al-Alam TV, July 4, 2006] 2A01:6500:A043:4188:3107:7445:165C:E5BD (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — Newslinger talk 23:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The quote is doctored anyway. Zero^talk 00:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Security coordination

I think it would be informative to add a security coordination section:

The Oslo Accords brought on the security coordination between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Military intelligence coordination officialy began in 1996. After the Western Wall Tunnel riots, the Palestinian leadership effectively ceased security coordination with Israel, but it was renewed after the signing of the Wye River Memorandum. During the second Intifada coordination was intermittent, and it did not function effectively in 2000-2006. The following years, the security coordination bore significant achievements, and has become a significant factor in maintaining security for both sides. A security analysis presented to the Israeli government by Shin Bet in 2016 praised the security cooperation. According to the IDF, Palestinian security forces were responsible for about 40% of arrests of terrorism suspects in Judea and Samaria in early 2016. Following the announcement that Israel will unilaterally annex territories in May 2020, the Palestinian Authority ceased security coordination with Israel. In August 2020, the annexation process was put on hold following the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement, and in November security cooperation was restored.

References

Taramasalata-icre (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. - Daveout(talk) 14:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

There is no mention that Arafat, Peres and Rabin shared the 1994 Peace Prize largely because of the Oslo Accords which were at the time viewed with (probably misplaced) optimism. Cross Reference (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggested re-writing of "Alternatives" section

I felt this section was severely lacking, both narratively and in terms of citations (I can't see, for eg, that the New Yorker citation really substantiates what it's claimed it does). Editors with the necessary credentials, please feel free to add the following should it be useful (and please feel free to edit as appropriate -- I may come back and add more):

Although the Oslo Accords did not explicitly endorse a two-state solution, they did create self-governing institutions in the West Bank and Gaza, and as such have been interpreted as anticipating a two-state future.

Ian Lustick argues the embrace of a two-state solution at the height of the Oslo process has since dissipated and an alternative proposal is a one-state solution, which would combine Israel and the Palestinian territories into a single state with one government.

Brendan O'Leary suggests the success of a one-state solution might lie in its drawing on existing identities and institutions rather than imagining them gone.

Alternatively, Uri Avnery equates a one-state solution with "turning Israel into a non-national state", and argues "Israeli superiority in nearly all practical fields-economic, social, military-would be such that the Palestinians would be turned into an exploited underclass devoid of real power". Avnery goes on: "The national struggle would by no means cease. It would make it much easier for Jews to buy Arab land on the West Bank, control immigration, and take other measures to safeguard their national superiority." Yr Enw (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done First, sorry for the delay in reviewing this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem ready at this tile. You have an orphan sentence, While Oren Yiftachel and don't specify who Avnery is. Feel free to reactivate once these concerns are addressed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, no problem and thanks for the response. I can't remember where that Yiftachel sentence was going so I'll just leave it out for now, but hopefully have addressed the other issue as well. Reopened the request. Yr Enw (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Suggested edit under "Criticism" section

Might I suggest adding the following sub-sections and narrative to the Criticism section (feel free to edit the narrative):

Undermining Palestinian security

Graham Usher argued the Accords provided "unconditional security for the Israelis and conditional security for the Palestinians." He noted how the security arrangements were "no more than the practical implementation of Israel's territorial and security ambitions in the occupied territories" and failed to redress "the imbalanced distribution of military and territorial resources held by Israel over the PA."

Writing in the immediate aftermath of the Accords, Usher argued the multitude of various security forces provided enormous scope for political patronage and criticized Palestinian security forces for operating without "even a semblance of due process," undertaking mass arrest sweeps without judicial warrant or sanction.

Undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood

Seth Anziska argued Oslo provided the "vestiges of statehood without actual content", formalizing the "ceiling of Palestinian self-rule". Pointing to statements from Rabin that referred to a permanent solution of Israel existing alongside a Palestinian 'entity' that was (in Rabin's words) "less than a state", Anziska argued the Accords were a legacy of Begin’s opposition to Palestinian statehood.

Deferring final status negotiations

Shamir Hassan noted how the Accords contained no "palbable effort to resolve the core issues that collectively define the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" such as borders, Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.

Daniel Lieberfeld suggested Israel was constrained by its need for approval from key domestic institutions or constituencies, which meant excluding final-status issues from the negotiations. Lieberfeld argued it was unclear how such concerns were expected to have diminished within a few years to make final-status talks possible. Yr Enw (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Pppery, thanks very much. My apologies, however, because I've just noticed Menachem Begin is mentioned without any previous ref. It might be a bit confusing for a reader to be reading about Rabin and then suddenly Begin comes out of nowhere. I wonder if a link to Begin's article might be warranted on that section, and perhaps using his full name? Yr Enw (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done that too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

remove "around" to eliminate th oxymoron "centered around"! TreyGreeneDetroit (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done That doesn't seem like an oxymoron to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

In the section "Implementation of the Israeli withdrawal", change "By March 1998, none of the withdrawals had occurred in October 1998, the parties signed the Wye River Memorandum, promising ..." To "By March 1998, none of the withdrawals had occurred. In October 1998, the parties signed the Wye River Memorandum, promising..." Unpleasant breakfast (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

The sentence:

"banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank"

is biased in the extreme.

Israeli's are also banned from entering Area A and heavily discouraged from entering Area B. The Palestinians agreed to this when they signed the accords.

Please either remove it or add the above. 51.9.10.2 (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the rightness or wrongness of the restrictions themselves, I think the mention of the Palestinian restriction is because international law recognises the West Bank as Palestinian territory, and thus it bears remarking upon. It doesn't necessarily bear remarking upon that Israelis cannot enter land that international law doesn't recognise as Israeli in the first place. Yr Enw (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Although, it should mention the restrictions. Were the restrictions on Israeli citizens in the Accords themselves, or did they follow after? Yr Enw (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Source for "self-determination" quote

I am looking for a source for this sentence:

They marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process aimed at achieving a peace treaty based on Resolution 242 and Resolution 338 of the United Nations Security Council, and at fulfilling the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination"

Specifically, no where in Oslo I or Oslo II or SC242 or SC338 is "self-determination" mentioned. It's also unclear where the quote "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" is from.

I will edit this to reflect statements supported by the cited sources. DMH43 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Irrespective of your EC status (which I'm aware is under scrutiny), I think this is a good point. The Accords only mention self-government, *not* self-determination and that's an important distinction given the criticisms of the Accords of falling short of Palestinian expectations. The quote you mention is not cited, and in an ARBPIA article it probably should be. And neither does the body of the article mention the resolutions at all. JVL makes the link between the two and explicitly talks about "self-determination", but that's not considered reliable on WP. I'm reluctant to change anything until we have a better alternative, though. Yr Enw (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth May I tag you in this, given you had reverted the edits (understandably so, given the EC debate). I do think a lot of the info this user added is important, and do you have any objection to me potentially trying to rework some of it back into the article? Yr Enw (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Undo revert of Dovidroth

My EC membership was revoked and then restored. While it was revoked, Dovidroth reverted my change. I suggest we undo that revert since my additions provided valuable context and a more precise overview of the Oslo process. DMH43 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

this is @Dovidroth's revert DMH43 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the substantive content that you added (which was reverted) relates to the interim nature of Oslo? Is that correct?

The other aspect, which I un-reverted, was the mention of Oslo aiming at Palestinian statehood, which is an extremely problematic statement (hence why I reinstated your deletion of it). Yr Enw (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That's right, and also the few sentences about Shlomo Ben Ami's description of Oslo.

I do also think the less substantive changes are important since they make the writing more precise and in my opinion easier to understand. DMH43 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I saw that this morning. I may add it back in when I have the time. Are you still non-EC, or are you posting here with a view to gaining more consensus to prevent a revert war? Yr Enw (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have EC membership now. I'm posting here to get more engagement with the community and understanding of what people find controversial edits. DMH43 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m less keen, personally, on reinstating the bit in the lede about the substance of agreements being hashed out later, bc I think technically it wasn’t the substance of the Oslo agreements left to be agreed, but rather those agrements agreed to agree later. Yr Enw (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, if you can share a source for this detail that would be very interesting for me. I had thought one of the big points of Oslo was that the final settlement would be decided in later discussions (see for example "Israel on the other hand, had insisted that a five-year transition period should begin without a prior agreement about the nature of the permanent settlement. At Oslo the PLO accepted the Israeli formula.") DMH43 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree, one of the big points of Oslo was that the final settlement would be decided in later discussions. But the way you had written the lede made it sound like the Oslo agreements themselves (distinct from any later agreement) would be decided later. Apologies if I'm still not making sense. Yr Enw (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now I see.

I had written:

The details of these agreements were to be decided in future negotiations. The Oslo process specified the principles by which a permanent settlement should be reached.

How about:

The Oslo process specified the principles by which a permanent settlement should be reached, the details of which were to be decided in future negotiations.

DMH43 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me have a think. I'm feeling like the second sentence is superfluous, but it would be useful to get a third editor's opinion too. Yr Enw (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Upon rereading the sentence currently in the article, I think it's sufficient. So lets not reincorporate this one change. Here is what the article currently says:

They marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process aimed at achieving a peace treaty based on Resolution 242 and Resolution 338 of the United Nations Security Council

I think that sufficiently captures what I was trying to say. It's a little misleading to say that the Oslo process specified the principles, since that is more specific to Oslo I rather than Oslo II. While Oslo II left certain issues to be negotiated as part of permanent status negotiations, it did specify many details.

I would still like to here your opinion on reverting the remainder of my change which adds the following under ===Undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood===:

In his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, former Israeli foreign minister (at the time of the 2000 Camp David summit) Shlomo Ben-Ami describes the Oslo process:

One of the meanings of Oslo was that the PLO was Israel’s collaborator in the task of cutting short an authentically democratic struggle for Palestinian independence... The Israelis conceived of Arafat as a collaborator of sorts, a sub-contractor in the task of enhancing Israel’s security.

There's probably room to elaborate here, but I figured a small change first is better than one big change. DMH43 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding that to the Criticisms. I was thinking yesterday whether the Oslo criticisms are becoming long enough to warrant their own article, but we'll wait and see. The balance in this present article is a bit off, as the scholarship now tends to see Oslo much more negatively than maybe was the case 20 years ago. Yr Enw (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I'll try to work on a longer form criticism article and tag you in a draft. DMH43 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite section "==Palestinian Authority and Legislative Council=="

The current section titled "==Palestinian Authority and Legislative Council==" too heavily relies on quotes from the accords themselves rather than secondary sources which can provide some analysis and interpretation. We are already citing "International Assistance to the Palestinians After Oslo" elsewhere in the article, so I'll propose a new section based on this.

The Palestinian National Authority was created by the accords as a temporary institution, meant to operate during the interim period. Its authority was specified by the accords as to be limited geographically, with full control over Area A and partial control over Area B. The PA was not specified as having control over its borders, airspace, sea access, defense policies, or natural resources such as land and water. Further, economic aspects such as trade and the movement of people were to be dependent on Israeli policies. As detailed by the accords, and as a response to Israeli demands for prioritizing security as part of Oslo, a primary expectation of the PA was to ensure Israeli security via its own police force.

The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) was described as an elected (in 1996) legislative assembly, to operate alongside the president, who held executive authority over legislation (the president's signature was required on all legislation enacted). The PLC was specified as having the authority to legislate on matters within the PA's purview, and not issues related to negotiations with Israel, foreign policy or final status negotiations, which remained under the authority of the PLO.

DMH43 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Propose to move "Norway's role" to the bottom of the "criticism" section

"Norway's role" seems the least important and relevant considering the impact of oslo. DMH43 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support I think you can probably just do this, per WP:BEBOLD Yr Enw (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite last paragraph in Intro

The current last paragraph in the intro:

A large portion of the Palestinian population, including various Palestinian militant groups, staunchly opposed the Oslo Accords; Palestinian-American philosopher Edward Said described them as a "Palestinian Versailles". Far-right Israelis were also opposed to the Oslo Accords, and Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist for signing them.

This paragraph has several issues:

1. the link to Palestinian political violence is not exactly appropriate for this context.
2. the text "palestinian militant groups" is inappropriate and not supported by the citation. The citation clearly states "Islamic movements" and "parties on the left" and NOT "palestinian militant groups".
3. There's no information about the basis on which the accords were opposed.

I propose the following paragraph instead:

The Oslo Accords were met with strong Palestinian opposition mainly because the accords left key Palestinian issues to final status negotiations. As part of the accords, the PLO had agreed to forfeit 78% of mandate Palestine, without any guarantees on the remaining 22%, which were subject to future status negotiations. Palestinian-American philosopher Edward Said described them as a "Palestinian Versailles", describing that as a result of the accords, the West Bank and Gaza Strip have "become at best, disputed territories".

Far-right Israelis were also opposed to the Oslo Accords, and Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist for signing them.

DMH43 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I disagree, I think the political violence (both Israeli and Palestinian) is relevant but it does read a bit WP:OR if not cited (though this instace is cited), but I do think it's necessary. That said, at present, that info is not supported by the body of the article. So we should have something about that, if we can find it. I'll try and do some digging, I'm sure they'll be something valuable, maybe in literature about Hamas.

2. Personally I'm indifferent about what we call them, but your point is a good one -- Use the language of the source.

3. Yes, we should do some digging and perhaps for the moment use what's in the criticism sections. Although we should be careful not to make it sound like the Islamic movements and leftist parties made those criticisms (unless they did and we can source it). Yr Enw (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Some comments about your comments:

1. I think we could add some information about actions from the militant groups, although I haven't done that here since it is still the intro section.
2. Got it.
3. I have added it in my rewrite above^, based on the text in the source that was already being used in this section.

Here is a section from Hamas Contained:

For its part, Hamas condemned the Oslo Accords, as it opposed the recognition of Israel on which they were premised. It joined forces with Marxist and other nationalist groups to form a rejectionist front that called for the continuation of jihad.13 As peace talks were launched, Hamas maintained military operations against the Israeli army and settlers, even though this put it at odds with public sentiment.14 But early hope regarding the peace process faded swiftly. Following Goldstein’s killing spree, Hamas expanded its attacks to target civilians in Israel with its bombs in Afula and Hadera.

How about saying briefly (since this is still the intro, with the possibility of expanding more in the article itself):

In response to the accords, Hamas launched operations against the Israeli military and settlers. Far-right Israelis were also opposed to the Oslo Accords, and Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist for signing them. Further violence against civilians would also break out in the years following the signing of the DOP.

DMH43 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, like you say, it's the intro. Personally, I would prefer to begin by expanding the discussion of post-Oslo violence in the article body (where we can use things like the book you quoted), before touching the lede. Hamas barely get a mention at present (and only by Efraim Karsh), and obviously they weren't the only ones involved in those ops. So, maybe we can do some respective digging and try and fashion out something for an "Aftermath" section, to come before the present "Criticism" section? This weekend I'll hopefully have a look at my books. Yr Enw (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree an aftermath section would be great and i do plan to work on one, but it sounds much more complicated than this change which is mostly about making the criticism more precise. DMH43 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, but per MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE anything in the lede paragraphs needs to appear in the body of the article, which - at present - I don't think it does. Mention of Hamas certainly doesn't, so for me the priority would be sticking that in. Yr Enw (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added an Aftermath section, and would greatly appreciate any feedback. DMH43 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting me know. I’ll try and add to it tomorrow Yr Enw (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

References