Talk:Camp David Accords

message: Proposal  :            	→ Camp David Accords
Rationale :  	Disambiguation not required?
Proposer :             	David Kernow 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".
* Support as nom. David Kernow 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and discussion

message: I think it is confusing to include reference to Judea and Samaria in this article. In political parlance the term West Bank is more widely used and more clear, especially in contexts like this. I am going to clean up that part of the article, therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.81.172 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *lol*...Sorry for the spam, but your remark is simply hilarious, IZAK. Vargher 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Judea and Samaria) 

message: Just a small detail: The articel completley forgets the fact that both Sadat and Begin were awarded the Nobel Peace Price for their efforts, negotiations and the final Egyptian-Israeli peace accord... 
Egyptian school books for example always point out with a certain pride that "Sadat was awarded the price" and not "Sadat AND Begin", so it would be good to point that out as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.193.177 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel price 

message: The brief, two sentence biography of Saddam Hussein doesn't seem appropriate for this article.  It seems to imply that Hussein's power struggles were "consequences" of the Camp David Accords; as if the Camp David Accords started a snowball effect ending in "the toppling of [Saddam's] regime in 2003." This is a dubious assertation, even if it is indirectly implied.  I propose we delete the second sentence and keep the first one.  --GHcool 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussein 

message: An interesting reminiscence from Carter about how he convinced Sadat not to pack his bags and leave (in the last paragraphs of the article): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070121/ap_on_re_us/carter_conference  Badagnani 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reminiscence from Carter 

message: I would be greatful if the someone who continually reverses my statistics would cease doing it. 
Learn some maths. If 415,000 Israelis visited Egypt in the peak year, and Israel has 5 million Israelis travelling abroad annually, then 415,000/5,000,000 = 8.3%. 
If 28,000 Egyptians visited Israel on the peak year, and 1.8 Egyptians travel aborad annually, then 28,000/1,800,000=1.5%. So on average, five times more Israelis visit Egypt than Egyptians visit Israel in percentages from tourists, and fourteen times more Israelis visit Egypt in absolute numbers. These are facts. Counterboint (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have the Israeli travel (departure) volume for 2006, but the peak travel year to Egypt is given as 1999.  Without knowing the total Israeli travel for 1999, an exact percentage cannot be specified. The figures do not mean what the text claims they mean.  I am accordingly removing the spurious conclusion.  It is clear that in absolute numbers more Israelis visited Egypt in the peak year for such travel than Egyptians visited Israel in their peak year. In proportion to total foreign travel, I believe all we can say is that the figures indicate or suggest that Israelis going abroad have been much more likely to visit Egypt than Egyptian travelers are to visit Israel.  This still illustrates the original assertion, without resorting to questionable and controversial use (or misuse) of  statistics. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's make some things clear here; i have claimed in this talk page that the egyptian's main reason to travel is for work. although the egyptian population is more than 10 times the israeli one, the number of israeli travellers is higher than that of the egyptians, however even that does ot reveal the full fact. the figures are talking about all travellers, not only tourists. people who travel to a place for work, religious aim, or even visiting their relatives donot necessary have to admire the place they are going to. another fact is that a huge number of egyptian travellers go to mecca, and medina as a part of islam of which in known as hajj each single year, that's not the destination of any israeli traveller, besides that that does not mean that those egyptians who travel there for religious reasons have any sense of admiring the saudi government, or people. there is also agreements with much many arab states for the egyptian labor specially in education. a  result of that can be seen as the increasing numbers of egyptians in arab states more than non-arab ones. currently, i am really busy, and should not be free enough to continue discussion as before before the 3rd of June. till then, i am asking u people to find sources that mention the number of tourists of each country, how many of them visit the other. i really believe that u shall find out that almost an ignorable percentage of egyptian travellers are tourists in comparison with that of the israelis. by the way GHcool, i liked ur suicide reporting...did not think any one would do that. Yours faithfully, One last pharaoh LOL (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I certainly wouldn't want to publish wrong facts. Shame on me for not checking it better, you are right. Israeli statistics bureau:"In 2006, there were approximately 3.7 million departures of Israelis abroad - a 1% increase compared to 2005, and an all-time high. " the 5 mil certainly didn't seem a crazy figure to me. The war doesn't really affect it much. Israelis are crazy travellers and they also spend abroad more than Europeans, even though their (The Israelis') income is lower. Thanks for your note. Counterboint (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the figure to 2 million (see page 12: "The number of Israelis departing abroad in 2006 was approximately 2 million").  "3.7 million departures" means that many of the 2 million Israelis that departed abroad did so more than once.  Thanks for finding this source.  --GHcool (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but I assumed the Egyptian statistics are counting visits and not visitors, as well, without evidence to the contrary; so be it Counterboint (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Al-Ahram Weekly source quotes the guy from the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism as saying "1.8 million Egyptians travel abroad every year." That's good enough for me, but I added a "citation needed" tag for "The highest number of Egyptians visiting Israel was 28,000 in 1995." --GHcool (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism Comparison 

message: I never noticed it until now, but the notion that "in 2006 five million Israelis traveled abroad" is absurd.  There are only about seven million people in all of Israel and 2006 was the year of the Second Lebanon War! It is an impossible statistic and I suggest it be deleted immediately.  Also, encyclopedia.com might sound like a reliable source, but that doesn't mean it is one.  --GHcool (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I certainly wouldn't want to publish wrong facts. Shame on me for not checking it better, you are right. Israeli statistics bureau:"In 2006, there were approximately 3.7 million departures of Israelis abroad - a 1% increase compared to 2005, and an all-time high. " the 5 mil certainly didn't seem a crazy figure to me. The war doesn't really affect it much. Israelis are crazy travellers and they also spend abroad more than Europeans, even though their (The Israelis') income is lower. Thanks for your note. Counterboint (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the figure to 2 million (see page 12: "The number of Israelis departing abroad in 2006 was approximately 2 million").  "3.7 million departures" means that many of the 2 million Israelis that departed abroad did so more than once.  Thanks for finding this source.  --GHcool (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but I assumed the Egyptian statistics are counting visits and not visitors, as well, without evidence to the contrary; so be it Counterboint (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Al-Ahram Weekly source quotes the guy from the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism as saying "1.8 million Egyptians travel abroad every year." That's good enough for me, but I added a "citation needed" tag for "The highest number of Egyptians visiting Israel was 28,000 in 1995." --GHcool (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Five ''million'' Israelis???

message: User:GHcool Removed it claiming it does not belong to this article. Where do you think it should be then?
I think it has an important bearing on bilateral relations after the accords.Counterboint (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be more appropriate in the Foreign relations of Egypt article.  Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of Egyptian human rights violations against Israeli citizens

message: there was a post in arabic translation like this : (اتفاقية كامب ديفيد عبارة عن اتفاقية تم التوقيع عليها في 17 سبتمبر 1978م بين الرئيس المصري الخائن محمد أنور السادات ورئيس وزراءإسرائيل الراحل مناحيم بيغن) that refer Pres. Anwar as the traitor !!!! ,since when Wikipedia post a singular opinion !! isn't it an insult too ...!!!
-Amr Farouq-Power passion 0101 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  about Camp David peace treaty  

message: ::Note to anyone visiting for third opinion: there are two issues here (1) Should article contain a section on current state of Israel-Egyptian relations, and (2) if so, is 2006 poll which asked Egyptians about attitudes towards Israel, among other countries be included.--Sjsilverman (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a stab at starting this, but problems go beyond organization: Lots of unsourced assertions and a certain amount of original research and POV being expressed.  --Sjsilverman (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Your response proves my point.  My edits were not intended to "portray" one side or the other in any way, but to make a better article.  In fact, although I think the section on "Cold Peace" has a lot of problems, including original research and POV, not only did I not try to "suppress" it, I moved it in its entirety to Egypt-Israel foreign relations, where, in my opinion, it belongs.  This article, again in my opinion, should be limited to discussion of the Camp David Accords.  Public opinion immediately after the accords is relevant to the article.  Public opinion about Israel 30 years after the accords is relevant to the Egypt-Israeli relations article (where I put it) but not to this one.  Otherwise, we'd have to repeat the same discussion in every article about every event that influences the relationship between the two countries.  I don't see why we need identical "cold peace" section here, and in the Egypt-Israel Peace treaty article, and in the Egypt Israeli relations article.  By the way, I agree with you about the difference in Egyptian and Israeli attitudes towards peace, but I try to leave my POV out of my wikipedia edits. --Sjsilverman (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah but therein lies the rub. It's not my POV nor anyone's POV, but statistics from news sources, not research either. (If you'll read above in the voluminous discussions on the topics, you'll see several Egypt supporters tried in vain to prove otherwise). I'm afraid that cutting away with the "cold peace" section, leaves the reader unable to conclude anything else but an unbalanced POV, since its what would be left does not do anything to balance the totally normal assumption of a a reasonable but ignorant mind (of the region) that this peace is a wondrous reconciliation between the two peoples - not doing justice to the Israelis, nor to the Egyptians. And I do not necessarily agree that this would necessitate all accords and agreements include a "then and now" perspective (indeed a problematic requirement) - it all depends on the availability of facts, and on how leaving them out might create prejudiced opinion. For example, if this was a somewhat less dramatic and emotional accord such as the SALT I nuclear disarmament agreement, on which there may be no clear statistics and disparity in popularity (just supposing) - you'd be right.Counterboint (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are proposing is described (and discouraged as original research) in WP:SYN.  You've taken reported facts (a poll) to make an argument that is not made in a reliable secondary source about the facts (the article that reports the poll). You do so by juxtaposing it with another single poll taken five years earlier.  Even if original research were permitted, this would be bad original research.  I don't think that a Daniel Pipes opinion piece is a reliable secondary source that represents any sort of consensus view, but even if it were, it's about the entirety of the Egyptian-Israeli relationship (in 2006 -- a lot had changed by 2010, particularly with respect to Gaza, and of course even more has changed over the past week).  In short, you are pushing your point of view, doing it with original research, doing it poorly, and doing it in the wrong place.--Sjsilverman (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel this way. I still think that in some constellation or different phrasing these facts belong in the article. How about put it to vote. Counterboint (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Seems to me this is a good candidate for a third opinion.  I believe there are two issues (1) whether this article should have section on current state of Egyptian US Relations and (2) if so, whether 2006 poll should be included.  --Sjsilverman (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Reorganization and forks 

message: nothing in the article about this ?
Essam Sharaf the Egyptian presidentime minister told Turkish TV that the Camp David Accords were not a sacred thing and open to discussion. 'we could make a change if needed' 
EdwardLane (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not a sacred thing" 

message: Most of this section was written by Johnhagen who has also used some of this same text before in other edits. It is not sourced at all except for one book of historical fiction. If anyone can back any of this up, provide better sources, etc., then good, otherwise I am going to delete all of it in the next few days. Thanks. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the accords 

message: Refer to the paragraph beginning:
"The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day, and are given as a mixture of grants and aid packages committed to purchasing U.S. materiel."
This implies that this US aid was somehow required by or some condition of the accords.  After looking at the text of the accords, I can find no such obligation on the part of the US.  I have seen this Wikipedia article, specifically this paragraph, quoted as part of a claim that the US was obligated to provide subsidies to Israel and Egypt, and that the obligation under the accords continues to the present day.
If there was no such obligation under the accords, I suggest this be re-written to clarify that this aid was given voluntarily by the US.  Perhaps the author meant to claim that passage of the accord allowed the aid to be given in without fear that it would be misused, or perhaps that it was given in order to entice the parties to sign.  Whatever the reason, an explanation behind the reasons for the aid would serve the article better than the remainder of the paragraph as written, which is simply a listing of the aid given since 1979.
On the other hand, if there was some sort of obligation that the US provide support as terms of the accords, that needs to be explained as well, with reference to the source, which may be some treaty or other document that is strictly speaking, not part of the accords but related to them in some way.Eljefe3126 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Obligations Under the Accords 

message: For this link here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm#relations
There's nothing in the page about the $1.3 billion. It's just general statements and links to other pages that (might) have proof here. I have a source that supports the claim if I should include it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.46.14 (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source doesn't back up the claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Camp David 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/20110126132105/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm#relations to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm#relations
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502195917/http://www.tau.ac.il:80/jcss/Hjerus1.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/Hjerus1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502195917/http://www.tau.ac.il:80/jcss/Hjerus1.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/Hjerus1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Camp David 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/20110903011255/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Camp%20David%20Accords to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Camp%20David%20Accords
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903011255/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Camp%20David%20Accords to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Camp%20David%20Accords
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329074242/http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/1CFBE54A74E1AB8B852560DA006DE34D to http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/1CFBE54A74E1AB8B852560DA006DE34D
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/Hjerus1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A dead link under external links needs to be fixed with the correct url, web archived url, or new citation. 
Dead link: "Camp David 25th Anniversary Forum". 
</br> Jay2net (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Fix 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Camp David 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  tag to http://israel.foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/peace-process/page/2/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216211951/http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/accords.phtml to http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/accords.phtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216152443/http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/frame.phtml to http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/frame.phtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216081558/http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/index.phtml to http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/index.phtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612011440/http://www.ismi.emory.edu/PrimarySource/Camp_David__25th_Anniversary_Forum.pdf to http://www.ismi.emory.edu/PrimarySource/Camp_David__25th_Anniversary_Forum.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Begin Initiative section, it refers to a telephone call from a US citizen that was key in the arrangement between Begin and Saddat.  Who was this citizen?  It must have been someone of influence to be able to reach the Israeli prime ministers office and whose idea was taken seriously by Begin and Sadat.  No source is referenced, yet quotes are used suggesting a source.  What is the source? Herkynz (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Text has been deleted as unsourced MrClog (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2019 

message: This article should include the following categories:
*Anwar Sadat
*Presidency of Jimmy Carter
And the templates:
 WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! Thank you. ImTheIP (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 

message: The key to the arrangement between Begin and Sadat took place on Sunday, August 6, 1978, as a result of a telephone call made that morning to the Israeli Prime Minister's office by a United States citizen who had an "Idea For Peace." The Prime Minister had not yet arrived at his office and the caller spoke to Mr. Yechiel Kadishai, a Begin staff head. Kadishai said that "no one was speaking with anyone and we expect a war in October." He also told the caller that if any high level talks were to occur the caller could be assured that they would be using his approach. Begin arrived, was informed of the plan, and contacted Sadat who agreed to the plan on that day. On the next day, U.S. Secretary of State Vance traveled to the Middle East to obtain firsthand confirmation of the agreement between Israel and Egypt. The following day, Tuesday, August 8, the Camp David meeting was scheduled to take place in exactly four weeks time; on September 5, 1978. The plan was that Israel agreed on August 6 to return the land to Egypt. Sadat’s then waning popularity would be greatly enhanced as a result of such an achievement. Israel's security was insured by the specific activities to take place during the “transition period.” Those activities also were included in the "Idea for Peace" communicated to Begin's office on August 6. 50.235.118.90 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The phone call. 

message: I noted that some references do not include the book/journal/article. This makes the source not reliable. Also some claims are missing referencing, for example (I quote from the article): ""While Begin, who took office in May 1977, officially favored the reconvening of the conference, perhaps even more vocally than Rabin, and even accepted the Palestinian presence,"
--Lindejarings (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Got more details for Source 25, since  im using it for a research assignment. Full title of the book is The Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict : Middle East Politics and the Quest for Regional Order by Avraham Sela, ISBN 079143538-5, published by The State University of New York Press. hope this helps Cannonboi (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, i got that one wrong. That book that is being cited in the article as source 25 is The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East by Avraham Sela. I would recommend updating the info under source 25 to reflect the correct book. The afformented decline of the arab-isreali conflict focuses more on the time leading up to the accords (or thats all page 100 of that book got up to) Cannonboi (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: While Tony Blair used dodgy evidence to sex up the case for war, is not this document doing the same for peace? With civilian homes being turned to dust, and a Refugee Camp being bombed, it is clear that the "Framework for Peace" has failed to achieve its' stated aims. Given this, might not article include a section about the fine-sounding words of the Framework - set against real world events on the ground?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.196.0 (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sexed up case for peace