Template talk:Israeli–Palestinian peace process

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I think its a great start.  --Deodar 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did more work on it, any ideas on what else it needs? --יהושועEric 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm going to link Zionism instead.  --Deodar 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not a great solution.  Meh.  --Deodar 01:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've settled on Jewish state.  --Deodar 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an IPConflict Template? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Who makes the split between "history" and "current issues" and where it should be made? ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History/Context verses Current Issues split? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Eric and Ian are revert waring over "Occupied Territories" or "Disputed Territories" in the description -- see , , , .  I favor using the neutral description of "Israel, the West Bank and Gaza".  This solution was first suggested by Amoruso in this edit .  --Deodar 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a fair solution. --יהושועEric 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Ian Pitchford 18:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed verses Occupied Territories? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changes 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Bring in some references.  Let's talk specifics Elizmr.  --Deodar 18:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Iran is listed on the new Template:Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.  --Deodar 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Missing players (incomplete list) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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" . 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)
thread_title:  Conflict start date: 1948 or 1889 or other? 

message: 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:
* "End to hostilities" linking to Economic and political boycotts of Israel.  Just doesn't seem obvious, HS noticed this as well.
* "Incitements" linking to Arabs and anti-Semitism.  The target seems to general.
* "Prohibitng illegal weapons" linking to Karin A.  The target seems to narrow.
* "Water issues" linking to Two Seas Canal.  The target seems to narrow.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Primary negotiation concerns - areas for improvement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I like this title for the template better as well.  Elizmr 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Process 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some questionably captioned links 

message: 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)
replies: text: No response? OK.  They are coming down.  --GHcool 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The Arab League has tabled a significant Peace Plan at the Beirut Summit. Egypt has brokered talks between the Palestinians and Israelis before. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: What does this have anything to do with the topic? Please address my concerns.Bless sins 18:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: The talks are bieng held in Sharm el-Sheik, and will be attended by Olmert, Abbas, King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.Bless sins 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I guess that makes Israel a broker too. Please be sensible. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Concerns about the "Primary negotionation concerns" 

message: Shouldn't Tony Blair, instead of George W Bush, be listed as international broker? Addhoc 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing Bush. Addhoc 11:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from Addhoc, also after seeing the medcab case

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion for breaking deadlock 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian and Israeli Flags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Brokers: Diplomatic Quartet out-of-date

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I have included Egypt 'under' Arab League, and the Quartet parties under the Diplomatic Quartet.Bless sins (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt should be removed

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree. -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Current leaders" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Handshake? 

message: The Trump peace Plan should be added as the newest two state proposal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.196.169.7 (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information 

message: Al Arabiya, the state news agency of Saudi Arabia, has, on 7 October, 2020, released the final installment of a three-part interview with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Ambassador to the United States during the period of the Clinton negotiations. While his overall views should be interpreted to reflect the governmental position of the Saudi government at the current moment, Prince Bandar makes firsthand assertions about the timeline of the negotiations and the positions of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership during the critical moments that lead to the agreement's unraveling at the end of the Clinton presidency. While existing sources in this article are enlightening and reflect the best understanding of this pivotal moment in history that we have, the previously unreleased firsthand accounts of the Saudi Ambassador regarding Arafat's approach to the negotiations and the US government's interpretation of that approach provides key supplementary insight into the reasons why the Clinton deal ultimately fell apart. Suggested change (addition) is as follows:
"On October 7, 2020, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, asserted in an interview for the Saudi state media outlet Al Arabiya that Arafat ultimately accepted the agreement, and was holding out both for key revisions in the text and the support of regional Arab powers, to counter a perceived backlash from Syria. Ambassador bin Sultan claims that Arafat's delays had lead the Clinton administration to believe that he was rejecting the proposal, and that it shouldn't be passed along to the incoming Bush administration."
Source: "Exclusive interview - Part 3 | Prince Bandar bin Sultan on supporting Palestine but not its leaders" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTSrlONiDU Smertspionam (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2020 

message: Why is this not included? Shadow4dark (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump peace plan?