Talk:Oslo Accords

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Undo revert of Dovidroth

My EC membership was revoked and then restored. While it was revoked, Dovidroth reverted my change. I suggest we undo that revert since my additions provided valuable context and a more precise overview of the Oslo process.

talk) 21:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
this is @
talk) 17:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
As far as I can tell, the substantive content that you added (which was reverted) relates to the interim nature of Oslo? Is that correct?
The other aspect, which I un-reverted, was the mention of Oslo aiming at Palestinian statehood, which is an extremely problematic statement (hence why I reinstated your deletion of it). Yr Enw (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, and also the few sentences about Shlomo Ben Ami's description of Oslo.
I do also think the less substantive changes are important since they make the writing more precise and in my opinion easier to understand.
talk) 14:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah yes, I saw that this morning. I may add it back in when I have the time. Are you still non-EC, or are you posting here with a view to gaining more consensus to prevent a revert war? Yr Enw (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have EC membership now. I'm posting here to get more engagement with the community and understanding of what people find controversial edits.
talk) 16:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I’m less keen, personally, on reinstating the bit in the lede about the substance of agreements being hashed out later, bc I think technically it wasn’t the substance of the Oslo agreements left to be agreed, but rather those agrements agreed to agree later. Yr Enw (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, if you can share a source for this detail that would be very interesting for me. I had thought one of the big points of Oslo was that the final settlement would be decided in later discussions (see for example "Israel on the other hand, had insisted that a five-year transition period should begin without a prior agreement about the nature of the permanent settlement. At Oslo the PLO accepted the Israeli formula.")
talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes I agree, one of the big points of Oslo was that the final settlement would be decided in later discussions. But the way you had written the lede made it sound like the Oslo agreements themselves (distinct from any later agreement) would be decided later. Apologies if I'm still not making sense. Yr Enw (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see.
I had written:
The details of these agreements were to be decided in future negotiations. The Oslo process specified the principles by which a permanent settlement should be reached.
How about:
The Oslo process specified the principles by which a permanent settlement should be reached, the details of which were to be decided in future negotiations.
talk) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me have a think. I'm feeling like the second sentence is superfluous, but it would be useful to get a third editor's opinion too. Yr Enw (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading the sentence currently in the article, I think it's sufficient. So lets not reincorporate this one change. Here is what the article currently says:

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

I think that sufficiently captures what I was trying to say. It's a little misleading to say that the Oslo process specified the principles, since that is more specific to Oslo I rather than Oslo II. While Oslo II left certain issues to be negotiated as part of permanent status negotiations, it did specify many details.
I would still like to here your opinion on reverting the remainder of my change which adds the following under ===Undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood===:
In his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, former Israeli foreign minister (at the time of the 2000 Camp David summit) Shlomo Ben-Ami describes the Oslo process:

One of the meanings of Oslo was that the PLO was Israel’s collaborator in the task of cutting short an authentically democratic struggle for Palestinian independence... The Israelis conceived of Arafat as a collaborator of sorts, a sub-contractor in the task of enhancing Israel’s security.[1]

There's probably room to elaborate here, but I figured a small change first is better than one big change.
talk) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm fine with adding that to the Criticisms. I was thinking yesterday whether the Oslo criticisms are becoming long enough to warrant their own article, but we'll wait and see. The balance in this present article is a bit off, as the scholarship now tends to see Oslo much more negatively than maybe was the case 20 years ago. Yr Enw (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Maybe I'll try to work on a longer form criticism article and tag you in a draft.
talk) 18:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Rewrite last paragraph in Intro

The current last paragraph in the intro:

A large portion of the Palestinian population, including various Palestinian militant groups, staunchly opposed the Oslo Accords; Palestinian-American philosopher Edward Said described them as a "Palestinian Versailles".[2] Far-right Israelis were also opposed to the Oslo Accords, and Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist for signing them.[3][4]

This paragraph has several issues:

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

I propose the following paragraph instead:

The Oslo Accords were met with strong Palestinian opposition mainly because the accords left key Palestinian issues to final status negotiations. As part of the accords, the PLO had agreed to forfeit 78% of mandate Palestine, without any guarantees on the remaining 22%, which were subject to future status negotiations. Palestinian-American philosopher Edward Said described them as a "Palestinian Versailles", describing that as a result of the accords, the West Bank and Gaza Strip have "become at best, disputed territories".[2]
Far-right Israelis were also opposed to the Oslo Accords, and Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist for signing them.[5][6]

talk) 00:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

1. I disagree, I think the political violence (both Israeli and Palestinian) is relevant but it does read a bit
WP:OR
if not cited (though this instace is cited), but I do think it's necessary. That said, at present, that info is not supported by the body of the article. So we should have something about that, if we can find it. I'll try and do some digging, I'm sure they'll be something valuable, maybe in literature about Hamas.
2. Personally I'm indifferent about what we call them, but your point is a good one -- Use the language of the source.
3. Yes, we should do some digging and perhaps for the moment use what's in the criticism sections. Although we should be careful not to make it sound like the Islamic movements and leftist parties made those criticisms (unless they did and we can source it). Yr Enw (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! Some comments about your comments:
  1. I think we could add some information about actions from the militant groups, although I haven't done that here since it is still the intro section.
  2. Got it.
  3. I have added it in my rewrite above^, based on the text in the source that was already being used in this section.
Here is a section from Hamas Contained:
For its part, Hamas condemned the Oslo Accords, as it opposed the recognition of Israel on which they were premised. It joined forces with Marxist and other nationalist groups to form a rejectionist front that called for the continuation of jihad.13 As peace talks were launched, Hamas maintained military operations against the Israeli army and settlers, even though this put it at odds with public sentiment.14 But early hope regarding the peace process faded swiftly. Following Goldstein’s killing spree, Hamas expanded its attacks to target civilians in Israel with its bombs in Afula and Hadera.
How about saying briefly (since this is still the intro, with the possibility of expanding more in the article itself):
In response to the accords, Hamas launched operations against the Israeli military and settlers. Far-right Israelis were also opposed to the Oslo Accords, and Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist for signing them. Further violence against civilians would also break out in the years following the signing of the DOP.
talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, like you say, it's the intro. Personally, I would prefer to begin by expanding the discussion of post-Oslo violence in the article body (where we can use things like the book you quoted), before touching the lede. Hamas barely get a mention at present (and only by Efraim Karsh), and obviously they weren't the only ones involved in those ops. So, maybe we can do some respective digging and try and fashion out something for an "Aftermath" section, to come before the present "Criticism" section? This weekend I'll hopefully have a look at my books. Yr Enw (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree an aftermath section would be great and i do plan to work on one, but it sounds much more complicated than this change which is mostly about making the criticism more precise.
talk) 16:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Right, but per
MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE anything in the lede paragraphs needs to appear in the body of the article, which - at present - I don't think it does. Mention of Hamas certainly doesn't, so for me the priority would be sticking that in. Yr Enw (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added an Aftermath section, and would greatly appreciate any feedback.
talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Cool, thanks for letting me know. I’ll try and add to it tomorrow Yr Enw (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 978-0-19-532542-3
    .
  2. ^
    ISBN 978-1-134-05233-2. Archived
    from the original on 21 January 2023. Retrieved 19 November 2020. Oslo was opposed by the Islamic movements such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, parties on the left such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and also by intellectuals, mainstream politicians and former peace negotiators such as Haydar Abd al-Shafi, Karma Nabulsi and Edward Said. The latter famously described the agreement as...
  3. ^ "What were the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians?". www.aljazeera.com. Archived from the original on 19 October 2023. Retrieved 2023-10-18.
  4. ^ "Israel-Palestine peace accord signed | September 13, 1993". HISTORY. Retrieved 2023-10-18.
  5. ^ "What were the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians?". www.aljazeera.com. Archived from the original on 19 October 2023. Retrieved 2023-10-18.
  6. ^ "Israel-Palestine peace accord signed | September 13, 1993". HISTORY. Retrieved 2023-10-18.

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

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

The Palestinian National Authority was created by the accords as a temporary institution, meant to operate during the interim period. Its authority was specified by the accords as to be limited geographically, with full control over Area A and partial control over Area B. The PA was not specified as having control over its borders, airspace, sea access, defense policies, or natural resources such as land and water. Further, economic aspects such as trade and the movement of people were to be dependent on Israeli policies. As detailed by the accords, and as a response to Israeli demands for prioritizing security as part of Oslo, a primary expectation of the PA was to ensure Israeli security via its own police force.[1]
The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) was described as an elected (in 1996) legislative assembly, to operate alongside the president, who held executive authority over legislation (the president's signature was required on all legislation enacted). The PLC was specified as having the authority to legislate on matters within the PA's purview, and not issues related to negotiations with Israel, foreign policy or final status negotiations, which remained under the authority of the PLO.[1]

talk) 01:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ a b Le More, Anne. International Assistance to the Palestinians After Oslo: Political Guilt, Wasted Money. N.p., Taylor & Francis, 2008.

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

"Norway's role" seems the least important and relevant considering the impact of oslo.

talk) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Criticism of the "Continued settlement expansion" section under "Criticism"

The section currently says the following:

While Peres had limited settlement construction at the request of US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, Netanyahu continued construction within existing Israeli settlements, and put forward plans for the construction of a new neighborhood, Har Homa, in East Jerusalem. However, he fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991–92 level and refrained from building new settlements, although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban. Construction of Housing Units:

  • Before Oslo: 13,960 (1991–1992)
  • After Oslo: 3,840 (1994–95) and 3,570 (1996–97).

During the years of the Oslo peace process, the population of settlers in the West Bank nearly doubled, and no settlements were evacuated.

This contains unsourced and misleading claims:

  1. There is no evidence to suggest that Shimon Peres limited settlement construction at the request of Madeleine Albright. The cited article doesn't even talk about Peres.
  2. Benjamin Netanyahu did not put forward plans for the construction of Har Homa. Expropriation of the land took place in 1991 under Yitzhak Shamir. Then construction was initially approved under Peres in 1995 who subsequently decided not proceed with construction. Then in 1997, Netanyahu re-approved its construction.
  3. It is highly misleading to compare the level of settlement construction in 1991 and 1992 to subsequent years because of the unprecedented wave of immigration to Israel during the 1990s post-Soviet aliyah. A broader look at settlement construction trends shows an uptick in construction from 1996 and 1997 to 1998 and 1999, when Netanyahu was prime minister.
  4. While it is true that Netanyahu refrained from building new official settlements, there is a documented rise in Israeli outpost construction during his administration. Notable examples include Hill 777, Adei Ad, Mitzpe Yair, and Sdeh Bar Farm.
  5. While the Oslo Accords did not stipulate a ban on settlements, the issue of settlements is enumerated as one of the items to be discussed in final status negotiations in Article XXXI point 5 of Oslo II.

Resayz (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could probably just get away with making these changes without needing to consult the Talk page first, but appreciate the rationale being given. That section was one of about 3 subsections in the criticism section that I think are leftovers from the days WP was plagued with
WP:OR. My feeling is it's there because Oslo is often (erroneously, in my opinion) interpreted as paving the way for a Two-state solution and settlement building is often considered to undermine the territorial basis for the TSS. Yr Enw (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:ARBECR, Resayz is not extended-confirmed and so is not allowed to edit the article, or even to engage in this type of commentary on this talk page. I'll leave it because it is responded to, but anyone is entitled to delete it. Zerotalk 10:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
oh of course. The lack of edit request threw me off, I forgot EC even existed Yr Enw (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something. But it seems that
WP:ECR says that non-EC users can post edit requests on Talk: pages, provided they are not disruptive (paragraph A1). "Disruption" refers to the Talk page discussion, not to the scope of the edit request, as clarified in the last sentence. So unless there is factual disagreement about Resayz's points, I think the disputed article section should be fixed, or at least marked as questionable with the appropriate template. Pavelpotocek (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, we should discuss it. I think the ArbCom ruling says that edit requests must use the specific edit request template, however, because they haven’t specifically stated how they want it changed. Yr Enw (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oslo_Accords&oldid=1209551496"