Talk:Oslo I Accord

message: In regards to the Oslo agreement, I was under the understanding there was a proposal that a Palestinian state would have its parliament building and courts in a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty but with Arab civil authority under Palestinian local government. Something like the Vatican city state inside Rome.It could be that this idea was a part of the Norwegian " back channel" negotiations that both party's now deny? --Infocat13 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: East Jerusalem

message: This sentence is patently false, as it currently stands (from the Reaction section): 
After the signing of the agreements, Israel refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5845886.ece
March 4, 2009 article
"Hillary Clinton made further awkward demands of the incoming Israeli government today as she pledged to tackle the construction of settlements on occupied land and criticised plans to demolish Arab homes in East Jerusalem."
Not only does the Times article indicate that settlements are being still built, they are furthermore being built on "occupied land."
I would appreciate an edit to clarify the meaning of the sentence in question or further elaboration. Unsigned, since I'm not a WP registrant and was just doing fly-by information browsing until I came upon the statement in question.
-----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.190 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this section is non notable, as it concerns only the period from 1991-1997, which is not a meaningful comparison, since the Oslo Accords are still in existence.  
'After the signing of the agreements, Israel refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban. However, it continued expanding existing settlements which fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991-1992 level. Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991-1992 14,320 units. After Oslo: 1994-1995 3,850 units; 1996-1997 3,570 units.'Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For evidence of new settlement construction see this http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-begins-new-settlement-despite-u-s-opposition-1.276244 Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cessation of settlement building

message: Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and its emphasis on suicide bombers deliberately targeting civilians riding public transportation (buses), the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by the Israeli public.  In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv found that: 39% of all Israelis support the Accords and that 32% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years. .  By constrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis support the Accords and 18% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years; decreases of 13% and 16% respectively. Furthermore, the May 2004 survey found that 80% of all Israelis hold that the Israel Defense Forces have succeeded in dealing with the Al-Aqsa Intifada militarily. 
----
All of the architects of the accords listed in the People section are either from Norway or Israel.  Is this indeed correct?  209.135.35.83 19:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Loss of credibility

message: This stuff is biased. Can we have a view from different perspectives? Not only pro-israeli ones? i mean, what was the cause of the al-aqsa intifida? something must have caused it to begin? we need full truth not half truth. you guys are blaming the palestinians as if they were the only ones who crippled the oslo accords
Arafat had no intention of honouring the Oslo accords. He said so the following day in Arabic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.3.244 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias

message: A lot of palestinians feel that the PLO sold them out at the accords, why should palestinians recognise Israel's right to exist, and Israeli's don't have to recognise Palestine's right to exist. The moderate palestinian who accepted the expensive price for peace didn't see any peace, he only saw human right violations, genocide and bulldozers leveling his house with his family still inside and if he defends himself he is labelled a terrorist. Isreal withdraws from an area then wait for an excuse to bomb it and retake it. those are some hints about the causes of the al-aqsa intifida.
>
Lets not forget that prior to 1964 the Jews were the Palestinians and an Arab was insulted to be called a Palestinian as it was the same as being called a Jew! If you read the San Remo Treaty and the British Mandate you will find that Arabs were specifically denied political rights west of the Jordan river as they had been give 78% of Palestine east of the Jordan river. The treaty also prohibits the ceding of land. So the Arabs obtained their 'rights' but the Jews are still being denied theirs. 
The Arabs massacred all the Jews of Hebron in 1929 when there was no state, no occupation and no llegal settlements. 
So what was their complaint then? Clearly, its not about land, its about murdering Jews in the name of Allah.   
>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.3.244 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  my 2 cents 

message: In reference to the discussion page:
People should stop trying to present one side as being right, and the other utterly responsible for all violence. A careful examination of the events will show clearly that leaders on both sides have been working hard to perpetuate violence. I wrote about this in my blog , but didn't want to put it on the article page, lest someone considers it inappropriate. So I'm leaving it here on the discussion page. Instead of trying to point out what the "other side" did wrong, how about finding the truth and registering the course of events?
Saying that "it's no one's fault" is not neutral. That is a very specific conclusion. The way some articles deal with this problem is by stating each side's claims in separate sections. 
After all, that's what NPOV is all about, and I think this article has aimed well at doing so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.175.153 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I see that there have been some disputes at this article for the last couple weeks.  Please folks, remember that edit-warring is a completely ineffective way of getting your preferred changes to stick on an article.  As soon as there is a dispute, please explain the disagreement at the talkpage, so that other editors can understand what's going on, to see if a compromise is possible, and to allow other editors to comment on how to proceed.  Just battling it out in edit summaries is not the way to go.  See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit-warring

message: Oddly, in this video, http://whitehouse.c-span.org/video-bill-clinton-arafat-rabin.asp, we don't see Arafat sign the document.  I wonder why.  Also, a good link to add, perhaps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonyPussycat (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing ceremony  

message: I notice they talk about one incident with the Patriarch Caves and the Settlements, but they don't talk about the fact that there also was continued terrorism and suicide bombings etc. from the Palestinian side, which hurt Israeli confidence in the Oslo Process. Not to mention, there is also criticism that had there been no Oslo, the PLO, after the death of their patron the Soviet Union, would have gone kaput, and eventually the Palestinians would have made a peace. This is said by famous and revered historians like Efraim Karsh. Also, Arafat is alleged to have violated Oslo numerous times even directly after it, when he criticized it in an interview after the handshake, and when a PLO guy called it a Trojan Horse.Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the criticism sections 

message: On the page it says that this was between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians links to the Palestinian National Authority page who were not the ones signing the Oslo accords as the Palestinian National Authority was founded based on the Oslo Accords, the actual signatory party would be the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
83.244.98.113 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing parties 

message: The introduction of the article mentions "Further strain was put on the process after Hamas democratically won the 2006 Palestinian elections. Hamas has often offered Israel long term ceasefires, but refuses to recognize it, or accept agreements previously made by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority."
However, as common sense dictates, it's hard to claim that an event that occurred in 2006 had any impact on a peace process that began 13 years earlier in 1993. In fact, experts on the phenomena of Hamas suicide bombings note that the failure of Oslo years earlier gave Hamas the legitimacy to win control of Gaza. Prior to Oslo, Hamas and Islamic Jihad had to recruit bombers. After 1995 or so, they were volunteering.
One of the main reasons that Palestinians voted out Fatah in Gaza is because of the disillusionment with the peace process that Fatah brought on them.
Furthermore, citing a source as openly biased as Alan Dershowitz on such a complex topic is far from credible.
I strongly suggest better sourcing and research on this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.40.10 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Hamas 

message: I think this phrase is much too vague. The lead should explain what this means in more specific terms, especially the word "framework."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.182.143 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "framework for the future negotiations and relations" 

message: Netanyahus comment in 2001 has no relation to Rabis statement in 1995. A "military zone" and a "security border" can mean to separate things. A "security border" doesn't mean no 1967 land borders, and Netanyahus comment: "I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders" is clear that he didn't accept the 1967 borders.  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rabin in no way accepted the 1967 borders either. Authoritative (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The remark is not UNDUE. Its a very important quote that should be in the article. But the part about Rabin is irrelevant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A single "off the record" quote deserves an entire section? Rami R 22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not an entire separate section, but the entire quote deserves to be in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netanyahus comment 

message: The section on "Violations" (where I have already edited out a very vague, if not unfair, sentence) turns out to have been COMPLETELY lifted from Answers.com - a flawed article in & of itself. I would have deleted the plagiarism, but that would have left an entirely blank section - should I return when I have more time & list all the violations in place of the silliness that's there now?? FlaviaR (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism - but it's the entire section 

message: I removed the Purdue Professor quote since it is worthless.  It arbitrarily blames everything on "Arab violations" but does not state what those violations are - i.e., there is no information there, just pure opinion.  The quote is taken straight from an Israeli government website, so it by no means can be considered a factual, unbiased account.  If we are going to compile opinions, then why pick this particular professor?  How about quote every political science professor in the world?  Thousands came out against Oslo because its flawed, but most pointed out the agreements unfairness to Palestinians.  We can quote Edward Said, for example.  My point is, a selective quotation from one person with no context is worthless for a Wikipedia article.Readlotsof books (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: It looks like the PLO never ratified the accord, only Israel did. Worth mentioning, isn't it?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/renew-talks-with-the-plo-ask-plo-ratification-of-oslo-accords/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.156.173 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratification  

message: Another foul play of User:Brewcrewer, who reverted text about Norway's role twice. Indeed, you used no less than 4 false arguments.
*1) it is not written properly: While it is sometimes not easy to find good language without long quotes and without distorting the source, I think you do not like the message, rather than how it is written.
*2) no page number: An extremely weak argument.
*3) link to source is dead: Calling a valid link dead is realy very foul play.
*4) its a singular view represented w/o context or opposing views: You might study elementary WP-rules. There is no need to provide sourced edits with opposing views; you may add it yourself. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foul play Brewcrewer 

message: As an Israeli reading this article in English to see things from a different perspective, I am disappointed.
The reason many educated Israeli people did not believe the Oslo accord will work, and a reason Yitzhak Rabin lost much credit, was a proclamation by Yasser Arafat some ~six months after signing the agreement, comparing the Oslo accord to Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which is a treaty known as one Muhammad broke. This is, for many living in Israel, a proof that Arafat did not intend to honor the agreement. The speech was in English at Johannesburg.
I expected to see this point possibly contrasted with conflicting evidence, but it's not even mentioned. This article thus lacks essential information, both for those unaware of the proclamation, and those who wish to read a second opinion.
Please, fix this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.103.73 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen a reliable source that discusses this that could be used ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

text: That looks okay. 79.179.103.73, you can add the content you think should be present from the source. I've already prepared the citation for you, just copy it.  Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arafat speech 

message: In the introduction, the article has a quote that Oslo is based upon the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".
Where is this quote from? It needs a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchartered (talk • contribs) 23:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" 

message: The Critisism -> Continued settlement expansion section seems to have nothing to do with the Oslo Accords, or even the implementation of the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Accords have - ironically - in fact been criticised extensively for leaving the question of settlements so wide open; there was no language that speaks to any of the criticisms in the section, which seem like they are general criticisms of Israeli policy, not criticism of Israel's policy vis a vie the Oslo Accords. Israel could have ten million people living in settlements and still be in compliance with the Oslo Accords. Accordingly, I am planning on deleting that section soon unless people want to discuss here first. --Djbclark (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Such arguments are relevant in order to establish whether the envisaged two-state solution is balanced as advertised, given the circumstances. Whether it should be discussed here or elsewhere, and how, I don't know. Nemo 21:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisism -> Continued settlement expansion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oslo I Accord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110106141627/http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/articles/Kemp/052602existential_threats_to_israel_an.htm to http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/articles/Kemp/052602existential_threats_to_israel_an.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi. Is it possible to create a section somewhere ("External Links" maybe...) that links to the text itself on wikisource?--Roxette5 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I used a template, see near the end. Zerotalk 22:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Wikisource 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel.  Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oslo Accords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150720224802/http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-8/no.-2/extraordinary-increase-in-settlement-construction-as-diplomacy-falters to http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-8/no.-2/extraordinary-increase-in-settlement-construction-as-diplomacy-falters
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am going away from the general discussion about these videos to this specific article because I think the addition of the video here was completely appropriate and this is one of the cases where I really don't see the problem. The video doesn't have Hebrew audio and it is very relevant to the article, showing the signing ceremony of the accords. Speaking of which, there is no section about the ceremony itself, but that's not a major issue right now. I think the video should be placed in the article, but don't feel strongly about precise placement (lead, content, gallery, etc.) —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed video 

message: Elhegamohamed (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Train2104 (t • c) 15:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2017 

message: I strongly recommend adding the wikilink "Oslo (play)" to the /*See also*/ section.  The 2016 Broadway play, by noted playwright J. T. Rogers, is a widely-praised dramatization of the previously unheralded role of Norwegian diplomats, and others, in developing the back-channel communications that (resportedly) saved the Oslo negotiations from collapsing.Brantley, Ben, "Review: A Byzantine Path to Middle East Peace in 'Oslo',"  July 11, 2016 , New York Times retrieved May 6, 2017Jones, Chris, "'Argo' and the new play 'Oslo' are stories about heroes nobody knows," April 21, 2017, Chicago Tribune retrieved May 6, 2017Rose, Charlie (interviewer), with interviewees diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen, playwright J. T. Rogers, and director Bartlett Sher, with other segments, in Charlie Rose: The Week, May 5, 2017, (Video) as aired May 6, 2017, Public Broadcasting System (PBS), retrieved May 6, 2017
The play was developed in consultation with key diplomats in the event, and has been reported, by the principal one, to be a realistic representation of previously unreported, and obscure, key events in the Oslo negotiations.Rogers, J.T. (playwright), Theater: "'Oslo' and the Drama in Diplomacy", June 17, 2016, The New York Times retrieved May 6, 2017
It is common, in international affairs, that key diplomatic efforts go unnoticed -- and are often even kept secret to help protect the delicate negotiations (especially between extreme enemies like Israel & the PLO). But that information is vital to a thorough and accurate coverage of the key events, and thus relevant for inclusion in the Wikipedia articles about the Oslo Accords.
~ Penlite (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oslo (play) - please add to See also section 

message: Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord#Nobel_Peace_Prize
"The Accords, however, never resulted in peace."
This has many problems:
# "never" - nobody can predict the future, it is possible there will be peace in the future
# "however" - useless verbiage
# unsourced and hence unverifiable
I suggest this:
-- Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be an improvement. However, it's kind of biased in that it assumes that the accords had "peace" as a goal, or that "peace" is a neutral concept. I think we could state something like "The Accords had not reached the stated objectives as of [year]" or whatever. Does that source support this statement? If not, it's easy to find sources saying the Oslo accords "have not been implemented" or something. Nemo 21:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: wording / verifiable source 

message: Donald Neff could be one source for international reactions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Neff&type=revision&diff=923176101&oldid=923175724 Nemo 21:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: The linked article
1.) is unnecessary as Rabin's speech is already given word by word in the other footnote
2.) is polemic and biased
3.) states false facts: Rabin said that the Jordan Valley would remain under military control while civil authority could be Palestinian. Netanyahu offered to Palestinians roughly the same agreement in 2010/11 before finally deciding to annex the area in late 2019 - neither more nor less. By stating that Netanyahu was "more to the left than Rabin" the article adds an unfounded criticism of Netanyahu (from the very far right) to the usual criticism of Rabin.
As only admins have the right to make changes to the articles, could someone please get rid of this note?
Stefanbw (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 13: Jordan Valley 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATES FOR 1994 IN OSLO..jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 13, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-09-13. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATES FOR 1994 IN OSLO..jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 10, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-12-10. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD