Talk:Road map for peace

message: No new information appears to have been added in a year.  Could someone update this? TX Ciclista (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: The footnoting in the article is inconsistent.  There appears to be two intermingled sets.  One set (4 in total) refers to the "references" section while another (14+) refers to external links.  Footnotes should be standardized, with one numbering scheme and all references placed under the "References" section using proper citation techniques. TX Ciclista (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about Style and Mechanics 

message: Removed original research:
*Bush never said "Israel would retain major population centers". He did not express what would happen or what should happen, only what would realistically happen. My edit uses probably as an imperfect synonym for realistically. I only did that for stylistic reasons -- to avoid repeating the same word too many times -- but would support changing it to realistically if people think I've changed the meaning too much.
**True. Bush is no prophet. The article has been adjusted to reflect that.
*Bush never "discarded" this statement. The letter of April 14, 2004 expresses his opinion of where the negotiations will end. His statement of May 26, 2005 expresses his opinion of where the negotions should start. These are two different things.
**He did discard his earlier statement. He said that his May 2005 statement "will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations." Please read the quote again.
*Similar reasoning on the right of return. However, his statement on right of return was a little more certain, so probably may not be the right word to use there.
**On the contrary, it could be argued that "seems clear" is less certain than "it is unrealistic." ;)
*I thought of just letting the quotes stand on their own, but we need to somehow inform the reader how those positions are different than previous U.S. positions. The quotes on their own don't do that. Chuck 03:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with original research is that it is based on interpretations not readily evident in notable sources. See WP:NOR. HKT talk</font> 03:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the edits. I changed them a bit to reflect that Johnson's policies were not endorsed (nor were they unqualifiedly rejected) by most administrations. Brzezinsky likes to view his and Carter's views as "traditional American", but that's going too far. Most administrations didn't make clear position statements on borders, and some administrations were basically uninvolved with any peace process. Lack of explicit and unqualified rejection of Johnson's views by later administrations hardly makes those views "traditional American" ones (a phrase that makes Johnson's views sound like well established US policy and public opinion). HKT talk</font> 06:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops, I thought I pressed save. Well, I seem to have lost them. That may be for the best, though, cause it was late and I'm not sure I was entirely civil. :) I really don't feel like retyping them all, but would be happy to respond if people have specific issues/questions. You have already identified one of them. In the other paragraph, I just thought if we disagree on what the quote means, but there seems to be a broadly accepted opinion, why don't we just repeat that as opinion, rather than claiming one thing or the other is fact. I agree in being hopeful that HKT will agree, at least in principal.  Chuck 12:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair to me. Thanks for the work. As far as your points above, Chuck, maybe I'll get to them later (though it doesn't seem like there's much point to it now). When I reverted your edits before, I didn't notice that I changed the date (I was also pretty tired), but I wasn't making the claim that Bush's statement was written. In any event, lack of sleep can affect critical thinking (obviously). Sorry about that, and I'm glad to have this cleared up. HKT talk</font> 15:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks for a lively discussion, guys. HKT, I'd like to think my comments are insightful, but there's probably not a huge rush to read them or to comment on them, since we seem to have found that magical wiki land of consensus. :)  Chuck 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Just a small correction: I believe that President Carter was the first US President to call for a Palestinian State. He said it during a "town hall meeting" in Massachusetts, I believe. I can find a citation for you if need be.
Does anyone know who did what to whom after the militant groups agreed to a ceasefire?  This article is vague about who actually violated the ceasefire and when. --Fiolou 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to road map 

message: :"On April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush wrote a letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seeming to herald two significant changes to longstanding U.S. policy which had most recently been embodied in the road map. For the first time during the road map process, Bush indicated his expectations as to the outcome of the final status negotiations. The letter was widely seen as a triumph for Sharon , since Bush's expectations seemed to favor Israel in two highly contentious issues."
I must not have read these sentences clearly before, because there are several critical problems with them. 
*"...seeming to herald two significant changes to longstanding U.S. policy..." This is utterly false, and this article need not assimilate the well established biases of Brzezinsky and Quandt. Giving land to Palestinians was a non-issue until the administration of George H.W. Bush and the Madrid Conference in 1991. Johnson was referring to giving land back to Egypt and Jordan, not to giving land to Palestinians. The land issue with Egypt was settled during Carter's administration, and Jordan emphatically refused return of the West Bank. The concept of Israel conceding land to the '49 lines is highly novel, and the world was shocked in 2000, when Clinton mediated at a proposal by Barak to concede the vast majority of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinians, excluding the largest Israeli population centers. It was not only shocking for Israel to offer that much land, but even for the US to suggest that Israel do so. The Bush letter wasn't "widely seen as a triumph for Sharon," as the Washington Post editiorial suggests, but it was generally expected to be US policy after the Barak proposal. "Longstanding U.S. policy" was the non-recognition of a Palestinian state; it was George W. Bush that altered this policy by being the first US President to explicitly call for the establishment of such a state (though one could potentially argue that this was the unspoken policy of the US for the past 14 years). It's nothing but rubbish to claim that Israeli concession of all land to the '49 borders would constitute longstanding U.S. policy. HKT talk</font> 20:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush statements 

message: ..is there a statistical background section ? All of this information belongs in other articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why... 

message: That looks really biased and unessacery, seems like a pro-israeli have written it to discredit Palestinians and Iran. It lack sources too, its should removed since it is cleary NPOV.NPz1 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Iran part 

message: This section could do with some cleaning up.  For instance, the numbering doesn't correspond to the numbering in the document, and some points are cut-and-pasted rather arbitrarily.  Perhaps this could be summed up in prose?  Ideally, by a secondary source, since I'm sure this is a contentious issue. Ketil (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knesset's conditions 

message: Just to explain my edit here, the violence after that visit began with attacks on Israelis by Palestinians.  While I'm not objecting to the removing of the term 'terrorist', I think "mutual violence" suggests that both started attacking the other simultaneously, which isn't true (and which isn't what the rest of the paragraph says).  -- 128.240.229.68 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure its as obvious as you state that the Palestinians started the attacks as Bush left. This article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/05/israel2 describes Israelis raiding a Palestinian camp as Bush was leaving the region. I'd also prefer to see the Ariel Sharon quote stating a settlement feeze was impossible remaining too - that section has been in this article for years without complaint and is an important reflection of Sharon's view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start and deadlock 

message: I replaced part of the article that was beyond the scope of it. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Roadmap in the peace proces 

message: The Reform of PA culture section has quite a POV statement saying that Arafat "died in mysterious way.". Is this POV or not? Although his death can be seen as mysterious i'm sure that not every major source see's it that way and as such it is an opinion. What do others think? 82.20.70.162 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform of PA Culture POV or just badly written? 

message: Fleshing out my undo it seems to me POV to suggest that the Palestinian territories alone are for legitimate dispute - the previous occupied territories seems a fairly accepted neutral term: there even seem to be wikipedia pages for "israeli-occupied territories" and "palestinian territories" but unless I've missed it with a quick google there is no page "disputed territories" referring to that region. So the use of disputed is not widely accepted except in pro-Israel circles so its not NPOV and anyway it is not factually accurate either to suggest that the region east of the 67 borders is the only region whose status needs to be resolved (in fact although Netanyahu has insisted the 67 borders are not the basis for talks that could be interpreted as ceding more or less land to the Palestinians - and that "nothing is decided until everything is decided" is an long standing Israeli position and suggests no claims to territory are set in stone ahead of a final agreement - and finally land swaps have been sidely considered key to any resolution). On the Palestinian side some Hamas members do claim territory west of the 67 borders and Hamas is part of the Palestinian government at the moment so its not obvious that their claims can be dismissed. The other points made in the history  were that Hamas could be discounted as they are not part of the peace process or Road Map - well the simple statement regarding which territories are to be resolved doesn't require them to be, and there is no current peace process and its not obvious that Israel is part of the Road Map either (as this article notes Ariel Sharon rejected the Road Map requirement of a settlement freeze very early - although Hamas went on ceasefire at that time). 
anyway I'll let the wikipedians resolve this having made my points.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is disputed ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Road map for peace. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pna.gov.ps/new/repintrod02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030823061937/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/651/re1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/651/re1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=155181
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315123847/http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/comprehensive-settlement-population-1972-2006 to http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/comprehensive-settlement-population-1972-2006
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) 03:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Road map for peace. 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/20111213223042/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/653/re1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/653/re1.htm
*Added  tag to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/647/re2.htmnegotiat
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111130327/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/wb_closure1203_300.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/wb_closure1203_300.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715065345/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/32943465E443DEFE8525700C0066B181 to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/32943465E443DEFE8525700C0066B181
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305232600/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/OCHABarRprt05_Full.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/OCHABarRprt05_Full.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) 06:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: change "arafat died in mysterious way" to "arafat died in a mysterious way" this is under PA's role in terror and israeli reactions or whatever it was called thank you i love you 2001:56A:F3F7:3400:C4FC:D256:B103:8CB0 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All set, although I still think the phrasing there is clunky. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2021 

message: מפת הדרכים (לשלום) should be transcribed as   Mappat hadrakhim (lashalom) , خارطة طريق السلام as Khāriṭat ṭarīq as-salām. As of now, the Taw and Ta marbuta are incorrectly (not) represented, while the Hebrew name reflects the vernacular abbreviation rather than the official term by omitting the word שלום, and the Arabic case endings are inconsistent (why only salāmu receives a case ending, and it's also the wrong case ending. The term is usually pronounced without the case endings: Khāriṭat ṭarīq as-salām) Elendil 03 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription