Talk:2000 Camp David Summit/Archives/2011/December

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Untitled

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone with obvious bias and rather poor English has inserted his opinions throughout the article. Someone hasn't told him that references go at the end, not in the middle. In general, standards here ought to be raised.

Thanks for the tipoff. I think I cleaned it up a bit.--Timeshifter 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

the article seems to indicate that the Sharon visit to the Temple Mount is responsible for the al-Aqsa intifada however there is considerable evidence that the intifada was planned starting right after the end of the Camp David Summit. abulanov 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The version of events (of offers made) at Camp David seems a rather little-known Palestinian. In the interests of impartiality i feel the author should either quote a source of these details or provide an Israeli version of events.

I have reorganized the page (added headers to different parts) and largely rewritten the section dealing with the breakdown of events. Rather than two ungrammatical paragraphs from each perspective that largely did not acknowledge the existence of the other (was this intentional, perhaps?), I split it up instead along issues, with a sub-subsection for each of the three (if there are any more, add them, but it seems that these were the three sticking points). This feels cleaner, and I think it will be harder to re-POV. (Am I being naive?) I hate the "X says A, Y says B" format, but we are dealing with an impasse, after all, and each side has its reasons for not going farther

I hate how the Arab-Israeli conflict has been handled by so many Wikipedians, and I hope that I've fairly recounted the differences here. Let's try to keep this page relatively clean and NPOV. --Max power 18:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section on "territories" which was basically a bunch of Dennis Ross quotes blaming Arafat for the failure of negotiations. Still a bit rough though. Tedneeman 00:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've helped smooth out the rough spots by actually using information provided by the people who were there, as opposed to others who have speculated about what was said. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maps

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There seems to be disparity between Dennis Ross [1] and FMEP [2] (see also [3]) concerning the territorial settlement that Clinton proposed.

In particular: did the Clinton proposal include any kind of Israeli-controlled "buffer zone" or "security zone" separating the Palestinian territory from the River Jordan (and thus entirely surrounding the territory with Israeli control)? Ross' suggests no, FMEP's says yes, but that the land was "ultimately under Palestinian sovereignty". —Ashley Y 12:38, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I'm in favor of taking all reference to David Ross and his maps out of the article, since his book is highly contentious and very pro-Israeli and anti-Palestine. His maps don't seem to agree with any other maps out there, except for citations to him. See these in comparison[4] which say that these maps are not disputed by either side. Surely undisputed maps are better than partisan maps?

I've also reworked the Aftermath section, which was inaccurate anyway. It claimed that Arafat later accepted the Camp David proposal, but if you look here[5] and check the dates, it's clear he accepted the Clinton Parameters released in December, 5 months after the summit. --Tedneeman 23:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The FMEP claims its maps are not disputed by either side, but clearly at least one person (Dennis Ross) disputes them. As for Dennis Ross, he was actually there, the chief American negotiator, so that gives him an insight that none of these others (who weren't there) have. And the way to deal with conflicts like this is, of course, to list both viewpoints. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a factual disparity rather than a POV disparity. I agree we should show both versions (unless one version can be shown wrong by everyone's agreement). If anyone can discover whether or not the Clinton proposal included an Israeli buffer zone all the way up the river, that would definitely be useful information. Or maybe the maps actually refer to two different proposals at different times, or somesuch? —Ashley Y 04:44, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

As I understand it, neither side presented maps at the talks themselves, so both these maps are reconstructions based on beliefs about what was offered. I tend to trust Ross more, because (as I've said) he was actually there, and intimately involved. They are definitely maps of the same offer, though; Ross presents a different map for a later proposal. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of re-reading the revellant section of Shattered Dreams, which gives some details of the evolution of the proposals. I hope to be able to submit something rather sooner than later. Cheers ! Rama 15:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The FMEP claims its maps are not disputed by either side, but clearly at least one person (Dennis Ross) disputes them. As for Dennis Ross, he was actually there, the chief American negotiator, so that gives him an insight that none of these others (who weren't there) have.

Dennis Ross is a rabid pro-Israeli so he can't be trusted.

--61.24.87.16 03:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC). The percentage numbers seem to vary depending on the source. I like this info quoted below because the final percentage of 90% seems to be what many are saying. http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

4. Land Area of Palestine.

The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.

In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).

This article still confusingly refers to Dennis Ross' 97% number as part of the Camp David Summit. "97%" wasn't offered until the Clinton parameters, in December 2000, 6 months after Camp David. See Ross' own statements here and here, nevermind Clinton's original formulation, "between 94-96% of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian State ... compensated by a land swap of 1-3%" made at the December 23rd meeting. Both sides would sign onto this as the basis for the Taba negotiations "with reservations", which is to add that Israel didn't "offer" so much as Clinton "proposed", and in December, not July. Ross' actual claim on the final Camp David offer was a proposed 91% with a 1% land swap, which does correspond to the claims made by the other participants, even if the map he drew doesn't. --buermann 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I corrected the percent to 91%. I added a reference link to the map you pointed out:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html --Timeshifter 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Territory/UN Resolution

Uner the Territory section you say that Resolution 242 says that Israel must give back its occupied territories. This glosses over what is a hotly debated topic and may seem biased/misleading. UN Resolution 242 purposely doesn't say that Israel has to give up ALL of its occupied territory. The drafters of the resolution have explicitly stated they meant for Israel to keep some of the land it won. The Palestinians have ignored this fact and treat the Resolution as saying Israel must return to per 1967 borders.

Calls for peace

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

(Of course I meant this C for P section, not intro in my edit comment.) I reverted because the old version contained only indisputable facts and was more accurate, within that amount of space. Of course if one wanted to write several paragraphs or sections, it could be made better. (However, there are new books from first hand sources coming out which should shed light on the subject, so I think it better to wait before making changes. As to the question of whether Arafat accepted the Clinton proposals, surely the definitive answer is given not by what people said after the fact, "Arafat's claims", or "Ross said" but what Clinton said at the time. This is clear - the Clinton administration publicly stated that both sides accepted the proposals on January 3. Arafat faxed Clinton a letter with his IMHO minimal and weak reservations on December 28, the same day that Israel sent its reply to Clinton. Arafat's letter was clearly positive, as was the Israeli reply to Clinton, and Arafat's formal acceptance was delivered in person on January 2. So the Israelis were only a bit quicker, and nobody thought at the time that the delay was terribly portentious. Everybody behaved as if both sides had accepted the proposals, as indeed they clearly had. Ross's account is just not trustworthy, and has been basically refuted by publication of Arafat's response letter in Clayton Swisher's The Truth About Camp David. (While Israel's response is still partly secret - though I think it may be in the process of being publicized now in the new books.) Aside from the Swisher book, one should take a look at an excellent, quite well referenced article in June 2005 (I think) Tikkun. --John Z 8 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

Pretty much the same comments for the August 20 changes. For another reference, see Clinton's speech to the Israel Policy Forum in e.g. The Israel-Arab Reader, by Laqueur and Rubin, where he personally states on January 7 that "both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters" (the press spokesman said the same think a few days earlier.) - no mention of deadlines or missing them. Again, the Tikkun article is very good, and has a great list of old and forthcoming references. I'll put up Arafat's acceptance letter on WIkisource if I can't find a link, wasn't on the web a few months ago. The latest changes were also a little ambiguous and possibly wrong, it is not clear how much of a delay there was in the Palestinian acceptance. The article has followed the FMEP citation which is an excellent idea as they are a source which is as neutral and accepted by both sides as exists. The stuff about terrorism sounds reasonable, but I couldn't find a source for it - mideastweb gives different reasons for Sharon's rejection of Geneva, so it looks like original research, possibly false. --John Z 16:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The reference in this section to Ross' statements to the effect that Arafat responded to the Clinton paramaters "with questions and reservations that went outside the parameters" while Israel's were "inside" is virtually meaningless. More importantly the Israeli reservations have never been published, making Ross' opinion completely unverifiable, even if we define what it means to be "inside". Accounts vary widely even as to how many pages they ran, e.g.: a six page document [6], a 10 page letter [7], a 20-page outline [8], or a 22 page enumerated list [9]. The only thing all primary sources seem to agree on was that, to quote Bill Clinton, "Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations." [10] --buermann 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit. It looks like you have studied the issue. This page has been static for the most part, for a long time, and could use some updating. --Timeshifter 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish and Arab refugees

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the Refugees section, I deleted a line about Jews migrating/fleeing from Arab lands to Israel in 1948. This is quite irrelevant to the question right of return for Palestinians. This is only relevant if one believes that Israel's stated position is a justified collective retribution against Palestinians for injustices committed by Arab governments against Jews. Clearly the treatment of Jews by Arab nations was wrong, but it does not justify reciprocal oppression by Israel of Arab refugees merely because they are part of a larger ethnic group containing some members who have committed injustices against Jews in the past. (unsigned comments by 192.250.34.162)

While what you say might be true, the text you refer to was under a section entitled "Reasons for impasse", and it seems to describe the goings-on during the summit. In other words, whether irrelevant or not, it appears this argument was made by the Israeli side at the summit, which is why it is mentioned here. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes to article

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I am planning, sometime in the future, on expanding this article considerably. As it is, many important topics, such as Israeli settlements and security arrangements related to airspace and so forth, are not even mentioned. What I want to do now, though, is list some proposed changes to the article structure that shouldn't affect the neutrality of the article (or lack thereof), in case there are objections. Some are minor, but some involve deleting a significant amount of material.

This is minor, but it seems to me the article should be named 2000 Camp David Summit. The current title Camp David 2000 Summit is a bit awkward.
The Trilateral Statement which was issued at the end of the talks is really not very interesting, and I don't think it's necessary to reproduce the whole text. Instead we should just summarize its main points in a sentence or two. The full text of the Trilateral Statement can be made available at Wikisource, if it's not there already.
As the article is now, the description of the negotiations begins with a paragraph outlining differing views on who is to blame for the failure to come to an agreement. In my opinion, this paragraph should be moved to the end. Instead, we should begin with a discussion of the opening positions of each side (differing views of 242, for example), and then describe in detail the differing proposals on the specific issues made during the course of negotiations. After that we can have the "who is to blame" stuff.
The "Aftermath" and "Calls for peace" sections should be dramatically reduced. These sections are problematic, since they duplicate material which really belong in Al-Aqsa Intifada, Taba summit, Road map for peace, and other articles, with the inevitable result that edit wars in those articles will have to be refought here. Instead, we should just have brief references to Taba summit and Al-Aqsa intifada (events which were immediately precipitated by the failure at Camp David), and leave out later events like the Road Map and Geneva Accords altogether. This article is not the place for a summary of all events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 2000.
I realize this last point affects a lot more articles than this one, but the huge navigational template at the end of the article is really annoying.

Sanguinalis 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 08:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC). I think it is great that you want to add more info.

I don't really see the need for deletion of anything at this point. The article is not too long, and the aftermath stuff is fairly concise and relevant to the Camp David material. People like to learn about an event in some context. And this little bit of context has already been edited many times. So it is a good summary of aftermath stuff that is in a form that has already passed a lot of scrutiny. It is a good introduction to the many followup wikipedia articles. That is what encyclopedias do. I also happen to like the navigational template at the end. For the same reason I like the aftermath stuff. Context and a short introduction to further encyclopedic exploration.

The Trilateral statement is very short and seems to be one of the few things agreed to by all the parties. And it is a good summary of the "unprecedented" nature of these final status negotiations, and their plans for future negotiations.

People think of this summit as the "Camp David 2" summit. So it may be easier to find the article with its current title in any alphabetical lists this page happens to be found in anywhere. But I don't mind it being changed to "2000 Camp David Summit." And the old URL redirecting to the new title.--Timeshifter 08:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My objection to the "Calls for Peace" section is that it is nearly one third of the article (not including the external links and the navigational template), and has become a full-blown summary of the Mideast peace process since 2000. I regret making the suggestion to delete it, though I still think at some point we may want to consider moving it to its own article. You have a point, the article is not too long yet, so there's no pressing need to make such a change right now. Sanguinalis 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that people kept adding material to that section after our discussion, and some of the material may have been true, but it was unsourced, and it became too complicated to accurately summarize so much in so short a space. So I deleted everything after the short Taba summary. Taba is directly relevant to Camp David since it was a direct aftermath to Camp David. And the same players were involved. But after that Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel, and a whole new ballgame ensued. Way too many players, plans, and ins and outs after Taba to even begin to fairly summarize it in a NPOV way. I thought that section and the aftermath section were NPOV before, but then all the addendums were added, and some were relevant addendums. So it was obviously becoming way too much.--Timeshifter 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Taba makes a good cutoff. Sanguinalis 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are a lot of problems with this article, and I have listed what seem to me the worst ones below. Some are outright falsehoods, some are NPOV violations, and in some cases important information is missing. I plan to make appropriate changes over the next several days (help from other editors is welcome and I'm willing to discuss any points of disagreement, of course). I realize sources are needed, and I plan to provide them as I go along.

took place between United States President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat: Reading the article, one gets the impression that the summit consisted of Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat talking in an empty room. In reality there were teams of Isreali and Palestinian negotiators and a team of American mediators. Barak and Arafat only met face-to-face once during the summit, briefly. Most of the time we should be saying "the Israelis" and "the Palestinians", not make it look like Barak and Arafat did everything.
the interim process put in place under Oslo had not fulfilled Palestinian expectations, and Arafat argued that the summit was premature: This is too vague. One of the specific reasons put forth by the Palestinians for saying the summit was premature was that Isreal had not yet done the third Further Redeployment, which according to the Oslo Accords was supposed to be completed before final status negotiations.
Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were not offered enough, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more: This is a not, in fact, what the Palestinians said. The Palestinian position is that the West Bank and Gaza are their soveriegn territory by international law, so it is not Isreal's to "give" hence they were not "offered" anything.
Ehud Barak offerred...Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state: Not true. In the Israeli proposal the Palestinians would have been given sovereignty only some outer suburbs of Jerusalem. What most people think of as East Jerusalem--the part of the municipality under Jordanian rule until 1967--would mostly have been annexed into Isreal.
all refugees would receive a compensation package from the Israeli government: Misleading. Israel was proposing to set up an international fund, to which other countries besides Israel would contribute, to which the refugees could make their claims. There was never a proposal to provide an individual package to each refugee.
before any gradual Israeli withdrawal, all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Arafat, however, refused. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. There is no evidence that any dialog of this sort took place.
Arafat...walked away from the table: The Palestinians did not break off negotiations.
...without making a concrete counter-offer: The Palestinians had specific proposals on each of the issues, that were just as "concrete" as the Israeli proposals. For example, on territory, the Palestinians clearly said, before, during, and after the summit, that they would agree to the 1967 border. What could be more "concrete" than that? In any case, the Israeli proposal on territory could not be said to be "concrete", as they provided no map.
There were three principal obstacles to agreement: Actually there was a fourth, not even mentioned in the article, generally referred to in the diplomatic record as "security" provisions. The Palestinian state was not to have a military, and Israel demanded the right to control the airspace of the Palestinian state and deploy IDF forces on its territory.
Although offered much of East Jerusalem, the Palestinians...: see above
In particular, they called for...an Israeli acknowledgment that they too had been responsible for the creation of the refugee problem.: The Palestinians hold that Israel bears all of the responsibility for the refugee problem.
to demonstrate the right of Jews to visit a site that remains holy to Judaism: This is put forth as the reason Sharon made his walk on the esplanade. We should not be speculating as to why Sharon did it. Some maintain that his real motive was to sink the peace negotiations, and statements like these cannot be proven or disproven.

Some things that aren't mentioned that should be:

That negotiations continued in various settings after the summit ended, all the way up until the breakout of the intifada.
That the Palestinians offered Israeli custodianship over the Wailing Wall plaza (and I believe the Jewish Quarter of the Old City as well).
Barak's weak political position during the summit (he nearly lost his governing coalition).
The lack of any official written record as to what transpired.

Sanguinalis 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this page. Sounds like you have lots of good sourced info. My contribution has been mainly on the territorial percentages. Other than that I have done little except to watchlist the page, and try to fend off vandals. I am glad a couple knowledgeable editors have recently showed up. Hopefully with the time to improve this article. --Timeshifter 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I plan to work through the items on the list little by little, and hopefully other editors will contribute at some point. There are signs now that the peace process may be revived, and if that happens we can expect renewed attention to this article. Your efforts in fending off the vandals are certainly appreciated; I know how frustrating that can be. Sanguinalis 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein

Latest comment: 17 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion

Why is there an entire paragraph on the views of one man that was not present at the summit? I understand that Finkelstein wrote in a peer reviewed journal, but it makes no sense to include an entire paragraph on his view without any other "outsider" views on the summit. If there is a paragraph on Finkelstein's views, I would have to insist that there be an equally long paragraph on the views of Alan Dershowitz written in The Case for Israel. If this cannot be granted, then Finkelstein's paragraph must be deleted. --GHcool 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One does not have be present at the summit to analyze the premises, reasoning, info, interviews, etc. that are available publicly. --Timeshifter 06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point. According to NPOV, we should include both pro/con from notable and reliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not miss the point. I did not comment on that particular point. Please do not make assumptions or assume bad faith. You seem to frequently not assume good faith. An admin should know better in my opinion. If you want to comment on GHcool's points, feel free, but please stop the collateral personal attacks across multiple talk pages. --Timeshifter 07:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on the topic. If you respond, try to focus on the argument at hand and not on off topic issues and not on a person who makes an argument. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You made me the topic. Try following your own advice and the wikipedia guidelines. You could have made your first comment without saying "You missed the point." --Timeshifter 16:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand Timeshifter's argument, it is that he/she understood the point I was making (that WP:NPOV insists that we either exclude Finkelstein's views or include every other significant view), but decided not to comment on it. I assume good faith, and acknowledge that Timeshifter has no obligation to comment directly on my point, however, I do think that if we stick to the point, we will be able to come to a consensus faster. --GHcool 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

GHcool: I can't speak for Timeshifter, but I agree with you that Dershowitz should be represented in the 'Reasons for Impasse' section. Why don't you find a key passage from his book and insert it? Otherwise, I will look for a passage myself. Sanguinalis 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sanguinalis, I believe that neither Dershowitz nor Finkelstein are particularly important opinions that deserve recognition under 'Reasons for Impasse.' My reason for bringing up Dershowitz was as a counterargument to the cherry picking of Norman Finkelstein for no real reason except to violate WP:NPOV and WP:Undue Weight to service a political POV. There is no reason to cherry pick any commentator that was not directly associated with the negotiations, in my opinion, but if we do cherry pick Finkelstein, then we must also cherry pick several other "scholarly" views as well including Dershowitz's. --GHcool 05:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Many people misunderstand WP:NPOV in my opinion. Wikipedia describes all significant POVs from reliable sources. It achieves a neutral wikipedia point of view by presenting all sides and letting the reader make up their own mind. Not by coming to some kind of false, official, "neutral" wikipedia viewpoint on any particular point or issue. No editor has the right to remove sourced info from a reliable source. Regardless of whether that viewpoint has yet been balanced with all the other viewpoints. Anybody can add the other viewpoints. Any of the info can be rewritten for clarity, etc., but not completely removed. --Timeshifter 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand WP:NPOV quite clearly. Furthermore, I understand WP:Undue weight. For these two reasons combined, Finkelstein's opinions should be removed from this article. --GHcool 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not correctly understand WP:NPOV. One does not achieve NPOV by deletion of significant POVs. Au contraire. One achieves NPOV and due weighting by adding the other significant POVs. Feel free to add them. Deletion of significant sourced info is a serious breach of wikipedia guidelines and people have been blocked for it. See WP:ANI. --Timeshifter 09:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GHcool here. Finkelstein is a minority view given WP:Undue weight that undermines WP:NPOV. If you feel that some questionable action has been taken, then please file a report. Otherwise it really comes off as a threat when you make such mention, whether or not that is your intent. Tewfik^Talk 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the article should give more weight to what has been said by the participants at the summit than to outside commentators. That is one reason I moved the 'Reasons for Impasse' section to a lower position in the text. However, GHcool and Tewfik seem to be saying there should be no space in the article for views of "outsiders" at all. That seems to me much too restrictive. The ideal Wikipedia article would give the reader at least an acquaintance with all significant viewpoints. A significant viewpoint doesn't have to be a majority viewpoint. Dershowitz and Finkelstein are certainly influential, each well known (some might say notorious) to all knowledgable observers of the subject. They easily meet the test of significance. We can argue about how much weight to give each of them, but it should not be zero.Sanguinalis 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is a great amount of resistance to deleting Finkelstein's view of the 2000 Camp David Summit. This was what I feared, and it is a shame that it has to be that way. It appears to me that there are only two ways for this article to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight: either cut Finkelstein's opinion from the article or flood the article with dozens of other significant opinions of commentators that were not present at the Summit. Since the first effort seems to have failed, I invite other Wikipedians (including myself if and when I have the time) to flood the article with any and all significant opinions on the Camp David Summit. The article will be much, much longer with literally whole paragraphs of "fat" that could have been cut had there been agreement that Finkelstein's view be excluded, but at least the article would comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. --GHcool 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First you talked about brining in Alan Dershowitz to balance Finkelstein; now apparently a "flood" is required. I think you're overreacting just a tad. If it came to that, there are various ways we could deal with the material. If essentially the same argument is attributed to multiple sources, they can be collapsed ("Normal Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky responded to Dennis Ross's assertions by arguing that...") In the worst case we could always create a new article Views of the 2000 Camp David Summit. Anyway we should be so lucky - every Wikipedia should have the ultimate goal of presenting "any and all significant opinions". Sanguinalis 02:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanguinalis, its not that no outside views should appear per se, but as GHcool articulates above, Finkelstein's (and Swisher's) view represents such a minority position that undue weight demands they only be given minimal space, and certainly not half of the "reasons for impasse" section as they have now. If we can agree to that (as you seem to suggest in your comments), then we don't disagree on very much at all. Tewfik^Talk 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Finkelstein's view are a minority. They are the same as the overwhelming majority of legal experts, probably even Israeli ones. Thus giving only equal time to "pro-Israel" ones is perfectly reasonable. In any case, instead of flooding and disrupting wikipedia, or threatening to do so, which are no-nos, why not quote/refer from both sides of the FInkelstein Ben Ami debate, where Finkelstein makes the same points IIRC,(or any other semiformal debate one can find - e.g. Malley/Agha vs. Morris/Barak) - the debate format naturally providing balance and limitation and self-selected notability. F vs D together is not a good idea since the two have made it a personal food fight. 4.234.15.45 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK to shrink the Finkelstein paragraph as long as the gist is there. As to Swisher, I think the real problsm is that too much space is given to reviews of his book. We can free up some space in this article by creating an article devoted to Swisher's book itself and moving the reviews there. The anonymous editor makes some excellent suggestions. Sanguinalis 02:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think Finkelstein's views are a minority in Mid-east polisci academia. (What that says about academia is a different matter.

I certainly don't think that Dershowitz, writing in the 'case for Israel', a non-peer-reviewed work from Wiley's non-academic imprint, is equivalent to the Finkelstein article.

I certainly don't think NPOV requires that sort of balancing; find a scholarly article. Hornplease 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just re-worked the "Reasons for impasse" section and added the Dershowitz commentary. The Clayton Swisher stuff is total fat and should be cut since Swisher is a non-notable person and the website is an unreliable source. I haven't deleted the paragraph devoted to Swisher's views yet, but I intend to in the next week or once an agreement is reached. I invite others to add the views of their favorite authors, pundits, experts, scholars, or editorials provided that they come from a reliable source. As for the myth that Finkelstein's views represent the majority view:

The Accusation: "I strongly disagree that [Norman G.] Finkelstein's view [of why the 2000 Camp David Summit failed] are a minority.[sic] They are the same as the overwhelming majority of legal experts, probably even Israeli ones." - 4.234.15.45. Talk:2000_Camp_David_Summit#Norman_Finkelstein. 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
The Reality: Nearly all the American diplomats present at the summit including Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross agree that Yassir Arafat was to blame for the failure of the Camp David and Taba summits to achieve a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It goes without saying that most Israelis that were at the summit, including Ehud Barak and Shlomo Ben-Ami, agree with this assessment. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, a peer-reviewed historical reference book covering the entire region, clearly states, "In the weeks following the summit, most of the criticism for its failure was leveled at Arafat" (Eran, 145). Not "some of the criticism," but "most of the criticism" meaning that a majority of critics blamed Arafat on the failure to reach an agreement at the Camp David and Taba summits. Even editorials critical of Israel will admit that "[o]ne thing nearly all pundits seem to agree on is that Yasser Arafat's rejection of the land-for-peace offer made by Ehud Barak at Camp David in the summer of 2000 was indefensible."[11][12] Thus, Norman Finkelstein's view that Israel was to blame for the failure to reach an agreement at the Camp David and Taba summits is clearly the minority view, not the majority view. --GHcool 05:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GHCool, I think that Dershowitz writing in his book is not perhaps the most scholarly of sources.

More generally, the quotes you give, while useful, do not change the fact that in the years since 2000 the academic consensus is that 'blame' - not that that word is used - is much more evenly distributed than you suggest. (Not that I nec. agree with that.) What it implies is that Finkelstein is not a minority view. I suggest the Judt review of work covering that period that came out somewhere as a start for other opinions; I'll see if I can find it, though it must have retreated behind archive walls by now. Hornplease 07:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GHcool: It is quite true that most of the initial criticism, especially in the US mainstream media, was directed at Arafat, it is fine to put that in. This is partly due to the Arafat pathetically keeping an absurd promise to not publicize what went on at the talks, to the extent he ordered the arrest of Akram Hanieh. Later reports, like ones you quoted, created a more balanced landscape, as Homplease notes. I particularly meant Finkelstein's view of the legalities, which is what is quoted here. I don't think there is much dispute that the overwhelming majority of legal experts find Israel's positions weak. What you call an "Accusation" is but an opinion, one which garnered some agreement. I agree with not overweighting this section with so much repetitive back and forth, and keeping it focused, but still contend that the facts and wikipedia policy dictate that there be rough balance in the space allotted to each side. The contention about the US diplomats is disputable. Malley and Miller for two have been more balanced. Clinton, as quoted in Swisher's book, seems to claim that the reasons for blaming Arafat were political rather than in the interest of unbiased history. The former Prime Minister and Foreign minister of Israel have seen fit to enter the debates in print, which indicates respect for their opponents as a rough equal, not a fringe element. If Finkelstein is notable enough for Ben Ami, can he be too unnotable for Wikipedia? (which is not to say he must be included) As I suggested, fairly and equally representing the views of the participants in such debates where at least one of the participants is of unquestionable noteworthiness and relevance (with perhaps a little later, balanced relevant comment if desirable) seems to be a good way to approach this section. My sincere appreciation to Sanguinalis for his compliments. 4.234.96.176 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can somehow prove that that is the consensus, we cannot give such a view undue weight. I don't know that Ben-Ami was responding specifically to Finkelstein, but even if he were, since Ben-Ami only deserves a brief mention as a reiteration of the basic premise of that side, he wouldn't buy Finkelstien more than the brief mention that he should already be getting. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "that" which is the consensus on "blame." (Unless you mean "on the legalities", which only tangentially belong here.) What I am saying is that there is no consensus on blame, so we shouldn't give the appearance of one. I am just stating the commonsense policy that if there is no consensus in academia or elsewhere on on side or another, then the fair and Wikipedian thing to do is to not give either side undue weight. If one has to assign "blame", we should represent the debate and give roughly equal time to each. To reiterate my point, which I see was not clear enough above, I suggested using something from the FInkelstein- Ben Ami debate that aired on Democracy Now[13], or from the debate in the pages and letter columns of the New York Review of Books between Malley & Agha vs. Barak& Morris that is linked to at the bottom of the article. Government officials do not generally enter into polite, semi-formal debates with crazy flat-earth fringe views, so we have Barak, Morris and Ben Ami implicitly attesting to the seriousness we should treat their opponents' views with.4.234.78.48 07:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Prince Bandar and Nabil Amr

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently has this text in the 'Reasons for Impasse' section:

Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[4] Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan also criticized Arafat for not accepting the offer from Barak telling him that he would never get a better offer.

There is no reference provided for Prince Bandar's criticism of Arafat, but I'm pretty sure the source is the 2003 interview of Bandar by Elsa Walsh of the New Yorker (the same interview is cited multiple time in Alan Dershowitz's book). I was able to find the New Yorker article online [14], and even a cursory examination shows that Bandar was talking about the Januray 2001 Taba negotiations, not Camp David. I am removing the reference to Bandar in this article, his criticisms of Arafat are simply not pertinent to Camp David.

As for Nabil Amr, the link provided in the article is no longer working. Apparently this is a reference to a 2002 open letter to Yassir Arafat which Amr published in London. I haven't been able to find the text of Amr's letter. Two passages purportedly from this letter were quoted in pro-Israel blogs at the time:

How many times did we accept [the compromise proposals] and then reject them, and afterward accept them again? And we never wanted to learn the lessons of either the acceptance or the rejection. How many times were we asked to do something that we were capable of doing, but did nothing? And afterward, when the solution was no longer within reach, we wandered around the whole world in the hope of getting once again what had been proposed to us - only to learn that between our rejection and our acceptance the world had already changed and presented us with additional conditions that we did not consider possible.

[15]

Didn't we dance to the failure of Camp David? Didn't we deface pictures of President Bill Clinton who courageously put on the table the proposal for a Palestinian State with minor modifications? Aren't we doing just that, dancing in the face of a grand failure? Yes. But were we honest in what we did? No. We were not, because today, after two years of bloodshed, we call for exactly what we refused, only after we became sure it was impossible to achieve!

[16]

It would be interesting to read Amr's letter in full. But these passages are open to interpretation and to my mind do not amount to a clear accusation that Arafat was responsible for "scuttling the talks" at Camp David in July 2000. I'm not going to remove the Amr sentence just yet because it would orphan the article on him. I do think it should be rewritten. And it should not be the only quote from a Palestinian in the 'Reasons for Impasse' section. Sanguinalis 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweeping claims

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources

"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people."

"Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

GHCool changed some of the previous sweeping claims to different sweeping claims. See this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Camp_David_Summit&diff=126323574&oldid=126185514

In the "Reasons for impasse" section these changes were made:

"In the USA and Israel, the failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat,..."

was changed to

"Throughout most of the world, the failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat,..."

In the majority of Europe and the vast majority of Arab world - as well as among some Israeli scholars [17] and a few members of the US negotiating team [18] - it is widely believed that both parties shared responsibility for the deadlock at Camp David. [19]. See Charles Enderlin, Shattered Dreams, and Tony Klug articles. [20] [21]

was changed to

"In the vast majority of Arab world - as well as a small minority of Israeli scholars [22] and a few members of the U.S. negotiating team^{[citation needed]} - it is widely believed that both parties shared responsibility for the deadlock at Camp David."

It also looks like some of the inline reference links were eliminated, too. Deleting sourced info (and the links for it) from reliable sources is an infraction of wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the case of conflicting sweeping claims the wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate that the various viewpoints with reliable sources should all be left in the article. People can make up their own minds about what sources to believe. They need to have links to those sources in order to get a fuller picture. No reader should have to take the word of wikipedia editors. --Timeshifter 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to this analysis. Firstly, I thank Timeshifter for criticizing my edits without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. This analysis is a great example of the tone and diction one should take in criticizing a fellow Wikipedian's edits.

Nevertheless, I sharply disagree with Timeshifter on his/her interpretation of WP:RS. I feel that I acted fairly when I edited the "failure to come to an agreement" sentence to reflect world opinion rather than Israeli/U.S. opinion based on the research in The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, a 944 page peer-reviewed volume on the entire Middle East (roughly Morocco to Iran) routinely updated and used as a reference by historians all over the world (I own the 2002 edition). I cited the source correctly following the standards of both Wikipedia and the MLA Style Manual. If there is agreement that this claim is "exceptional," then I'll try to find another reliable source for it, but this reliable source is cited correctly and used accurately.

Second, the "vast majority of Arab world" sentence. I changed it for the same reason Timeshifter argues I should not have changed it. I felt that the reference to "the majority of Europe" was an exceptional claim unsupported by citations to reliable sources. I deleted some of the inline reference links because they were not reliable sources: MidEast Web? Gush Shalom? I deleted the "see also" intext citation because it looked sloppy. If you want to use Enderlin, Klug, or even Finkelstein, please use footnotes. --GHcool 19:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. As far as I know nothing in Reliable sources prevents quoting from authors and other sourced info found at MidEast Web, Gush Shalom, etc.. The WP:NPOV guideline achieves a neutral tone by providing info from all significant viewpoints. Gush Shalom is a significant viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with "see also" links either. They are common. I agree that the main citations should be in footnote form. But additional relevant info in "see also" links is fine. To be clear I object to all sweeping claims coming from a single source. Both the old sweeping claims, and the new ones from you. I suggest quoting directly from the sources for those type of claims, and mentioning the sources in the text also, not just the footnote. That way the sweeping claims are not in the narrative voice of the wikipedia article. WP:NPOV mentions avoiding using the narrative voice of the article to make claims. It is better to say that so-and-so claims, or such-and-such encyclopedia states, etc.. If there are conflicting sweeping claims, then both need to be in the article with their sources. Even if there is only one source, then the sweeping claim needs to be in the article if it is a reliable source. More sources can be added later. Since the claim is not in the narrative voice, then no propagandizing is occurring from wikipedia. People can decide for themselves how much credence to give to them. Sweeping claims are oftentimes overreaching anyway, and the truth lies in the middle or elsewhere altogether. Wikipedia reports the claims, not the "truth". --Timeshifter 08:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. MidEast Web is a very nice website with interesting articles and opinions, but I would hardly call it a reliable source. Gush Shalom is a fringe Israeli political group with a website that does not comply with academic standards. I find it rather astonishing that Gush Shalom's website and a the few leftists that post on MidEast Web are considered in the same league as The Continuum Encyclopedia, Clinton's book, Ross's book, or even the Journal of Palestine Studies. This has nothing to do with "the truth" vs. "claims." This is an issue of academic integrity. I maintain that if one disputes a claim from a reliable source, then one must reference an equally or more reliable source than the one containing the claim. You can't "balance" the the hundreds of scientists that say global warming is real by referencing Exxon's website. --GHcool 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have thousands of edits and have posted sourced info from many sides concerning many contentious issues. I have posted hundreds of citation/reference links, and corrected or detailed many other reference links others have posted. Citations from mainstream, left, right, up-down, green, libertarian, socialist, pro-this, against that, etc.. Wikipedia is not some official arbiter of the truth like academia and some mainstream media pretend to be. Wikipedia posts sourced info from all significant POVs that meet wikipedia's version of reliable sources. From that guideline is this:

"Scholarly and non-scholarly sources. Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable."

There is more info at WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research. --Timeshifter 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshifter in general, particularly about using contentious sweeping claims and replacing them by other sweeping ones. Talking about a few US diplomats may be misleading - there were not 10,000,000 diplomats on the American team. I think that of the US diplomats who have spoken out since, the ones who say both sides share "blame" may be the majority. GHCool (and many newer contributors to Wikipedia, it seems) have an overly restrictive attitude to "Reliable Sources" IMHO, which is not really grounded on the text of this guideline or Wikipedia practice. Of course, the Continuum Encyclopedia seems to be an excellent source (haven't seen it) and we should and generally do pay particular attention to such academic sources. But there are several caveats - it is as far as I can tell, likely slanted towards the (center-right) Israeli side - most or all the writers are Israeli academics, the editor is a center-right Israeli academic (who has written fine books that I have) but still one should always know where an author is coming from. Secondly, and more importantly on the issue of this summit, and the blame game ( which I think can be taken too seriously) it was published in 2002, and is simply out of date on this issue. As I and others have pointed out, there is no question that the initial blame was mainly heaped on Arafat ( probably this was centered in the US & Israel), so one could say there was a (near) consensus in 2002, and the encyclopedia could be used to support a consensus claim for then, but things definitely changed since with the publication of many articles and books, and as far as I can tell, the sides are about tied in the blame game now. One can go too far in this though. The article should be on centered the facts of the summits and sequelae, which could stand some work, which I don't have the time for right now. Of course I agree with GHCool's appreciation of and contribution to the civility of the discussion. 4.234.78.35 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with the citation from the Continuum Encyclopedia. The article cited was written by Oded Eran, who was a member of Israel's delegation to the Camp David summit![23] Therefore the article can prima facie be assumed to be biased. It is OK to use it as representative of the Israeli POV, but not the neutral POV. Sanguinalis 03:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know that he was on the negotiating team. The entire encyclopedia article is several dozen pages long and goes through the entire history of Arab-Israeli peacemaking starting from the beginning of the conflict, so I think its safe to say that the article as a whole is pretty neutral with perhaps a slight bias toward Israel, but you are right that the neutrality is questionable when concerning the Camp David Summit since the author was there. Well done, Sanguinalis. --GHcool 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was this reliably-sourced Swisher and Rosenberg info deleted?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Diff of GHcool deletion of this material:

Clayton Swisher wrote a rebuttal to Clinton and Ross's accounts about the causes for the breakdown of the Camp David Summit in his book, "The Truth About Camp David"[24]. Swisher, the Director of Programs at the Middle East Institute, concluded that the Israelis and the Americans were at least as guilty as the Palestinians for the collapse. MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a think-tank in Washington, praised the book: "Clayton Swisher's 'The Truth About Camp David,' based on interviews with [US negotiators] Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross and [Aaron] Miller himself provides a comprehensive and acute account -- the best we're likely to see -- on the [one-sided diplomacy] Miller describes." ^[1] Others [25] condemned Swisher's work as neither objective nor accurate.

Here is the footnote link below since it only works correctly in the article, and not on the talk page.

"Bush Gets It Right". By MJ Rosenberg. Israel Policy Forum. May 27, 2005. #228

The other inline links in the above indented paragraph work fine. --Timeshifter 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I direct you to what I wrote already wrote earlier on this talk page: "The Clayton Swisher stuff is total fat and should be cut since Swisher is a non-notable person and the website is an unreliable source. I haven't deleted the paragraph devoted to Swisher's views yet, but I intend to in the next week or once an agreement is reached." That was more than a week ago and nobody gave a good argument for keeping it there. --GHcool 04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument was made, and I now repeat, that the wikipedia guidelines require putting in all significant viewpoints. I am returning the sourced info. Please do not delete it again. What you are doing is called blanking. --Timeshifter 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines and your own standards dictate the removal of Swisher's opinions because it is an insignificant viewpoint. Please establish that Swisher's viewpoint is significant through publication in or of a scholarly text before re-adding the paragraph. --GHcool 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Clayton Swisher's viewpoint is certainly significant. The fact that has book was reviewed in Foreign Affairs, and generally positively ("Challenging the pieties and political correctness of American discourse, Swisher makes a convincing case") is enough to establish that. Sanguinalis 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please fill out the references better. These below are not very helpful unless in the reference section there is already a detailed reference for the particular book.

^ See the September 9, 2000 speech by Abbas listed in the references
^ Sher (2006), p. 102
^ Albright (2003), p. 618
^ Sher (2006), p. 101 and pp. 247-249.
^ Sher(2006), pp. 110-111

Need full author name, year, full title, and if at all possible, a URL. --Timeshifter 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the Footnotes section. Bibliographic information for all those sources are listed in the References section (under the heading "By the participants"). Maybe the organization could be better, but all the information you are after is there (except URLs, sorry there's just vastly more information available in books). I think a good model is the Six Day War article, one of the most thoroughly referenced articles on Wikipedia, which has a Footnotes section, and a separate References section which the footnotes refer to. I am open to suggestions has to how to reorganize the footnotes and references for clarity, without for example repeating the info for Gilead Sher's book three times. Sanguinalis 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean. I added a sentence to the top of the footnotes section to clarify where to find the full reference details. I also added the first name to author names in the footnotes. To make them consistent with the names used in the full references. Makes it easier to coordinate the 2 sections, and aids in remembering the authors over time.

As for URLs I was referring to convenience URLs for the books. So people can verify for themselves the book title, author, year, etc.. Such as links to ISBN numbers, book publishers, book sellers, etc.. I especially like links to Amazon.com or Google books, because people can read quotes in context by using their full text search capability. I think quotes are often used out of context in wikipedia articles. --Timeshifter 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed some unclear info for a rewrite

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I removed the following, because it is very unclear. Please clarify the info before returning it. Also, please NAME the source of the info in the text of the article. Please put the quotes in the article instead of in the references.

though counter offers over specific details have been detailed by Israeli negotiators, and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.^[2]^[3]^[4]

Here below is the long reference linked to from the above info:

Levin, Kenneth. The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege. Hanover: Smith and Kraus, 2005. "[M]ost of the European states followed Clinton in seeing the Israeli offers as very forthcoming and placing the onus for the summits's failure on Arafat .... Nor did [Arafat's] regime's post-Camp David complaints regarding Israel's not recognizing the Palestinian refugees' 'right of return' win over the Eruopeans or Americans" (422).

Please break up long sentences, too. --Timeshifter 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Concerning the above section. I am not trying to delete it. I am trying to get it filled out more so it meets this guideline:

See WP:REDFLAG.

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

I would like to see a whole paragraph instead of just this sentence of exceptional claims:

"The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit."

I would like to see some quotes from the articles, with the names of the authors, and the years of the articles. All in the text of the wikipedia article instead of buried in the footnotes. That way it does not look like the info is in the narrative tone of the article, and endorsed by wikipedia. That is not allowed on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that is allowed on Wikipedia and it happens all the time. Secondly, even if you were right, that's not a case for deleting the entire sentence; rather it would be a case for rewriting the sentence. Thirdly, this is hardly an "exceptional claim" since earlier in the same section, we quote and cite The Continuum Political Encyclopedia, Bill Clinton, The Oslo Syndrome, and Dennis Ross essentially saying the same thing. Fourthly, this so-called "surprising or apparently important claims" is "widely known." Fifthly, these claims are "supported ... by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community." Sixthly, this so-called "exceptional claim" is "supported by multiple reliable sources" (Continuum Political Encyclopedia, Oslo Syndrome, Ha'Aretz - although I admit that the Ha'Aretz article would be better sourced to the original article and not a reprint). For all of the above reasons, I am reverting this sentence and its citations. Timeshifter is more than welcome to edit it to include quotations, etc., but we have not yet heard a convincing argument for its wholesale deletion. --GHcool 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The "failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat" but there was actually no offer for him to agree to. See Robert Malley's account [26] [27]. If I have time I'll transcribe Clinton's admission that Malley's version is correct from Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace. --Ian Pitchford 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"although Israel, the United States, and other nations dispute this interpretation."

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

An anonymous editor added some unsourced info to this section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Territory

See this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Camp_David_Summit&diff=132866758&oldid=130847587

I do not object to the info if it is true. But it is vague and unsourced in it current form. So I removed it for discussion. This is a section on obstacles. "Israel, the United States, and other nations dispute this interpretation" needs to be in a separate sentence, paragraph, and/or section. --Timeshifter 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, we need to describe major positions. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the Israeli and Palestinian views need to be described, and their differing views on Resolution 242 absolutely belong in the section on obstacles. After all, it was agreed by all parties that the summit would be based on Resolution 242 (among other things), and if the principal parties of the summit disagreed on what that resolution required that is certainly a major obstacle. Furthermore, when we describe the negotiations, it is appropriate to summarize arguments which were put forward by the parties during the negotiations themselves. There are many accounts which verify that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators referred to 242, during the summit, to buttress their positions. Since the United States was mediator of the summit, the views of the US government on the matter are relevant as well. However, I don't believe there was ever an official statement from the U.S. government, in the context of the Camp David summit, that either the Israeli or the Palestinian position of 242 was definitively wrong. In particular, Dennis Ross, in his memoir, takes great care, when describing 242, to not exclude either side's interpretation. As to "other nations" which supposedly dispute the Palestinian view: (1) it is not relevant to this section of the article, since no other nations participated in the summit in an official capacity; (2) it is the reverse of the truth anyway, since virtually all nations besides the U.S. and Israel support the Palestinian interpretation of 242. I am reverting to the original version. Sanguinalis 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. It is MUCH clearer to me now. Maybe you can put all the above info in that section somehow. With sources. In the last few versions it just seems like a bunch of run-on sentences that make little sense. Tit-for-tat positions, but without context and a timeline related to the 2000 Camp David Summit. Plus vague wording like "other nations dispute". I knew Israel did not support 242. I am still not clear what the U.S. position was then. I don't know what the U.S. position on 242 is now. --Timeshifter 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean, though: "After all, it was agreed by all parties that the summit would be based on Resolution 242 (among other things)..." --Timeshifter 02:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The trilateral statement at the conclustion of the talks says "Both sides agree that negotiations based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are the only way to achieve such an agreement". I'm pretty sure similar bilateral statements were issued before the Camp David summit as well, though I can't find one at the moment. So Resolution 338 was one of the "other things" I had in mind. Also there were commitments going back to the Oslo Accords, the Madrid Conference, and even the Israel-Egypt peace accords that indicated what a Permanent Status agreement would look like. Sanguinalis 01:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for impasse

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The reasons for impasse section should really acknowledge that all the European nations basically backed Clinton's interpretation, i.e. Arafat made no counter offer so the failure was Arafat's fault. It's also really worth talking about how this failed summit weakened Ehud Barak and helped Ariel Sharon come to power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.159.68 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

how to request an arabic version of a page ??

i noticed that there is no Arabic version of this page, how come an important page like this to the Arab-Israeli conflict not translated into Arabic??

Figures, Percentages, and More

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a controversial topic with many layers, characters, backstories, and political considerations. However, perhaps due to the presence of these complex minutiae, many laymen are comfortable reducing the broader failure of Camp David 2000 to one purportedly telling statistic: "Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip." Therefore, it is important that this statistic be explicated and, if the situations calls for it, contested.

The traditional, easily consumed narrative of CD2000 also includes Clinton's cut-and-dry condemnation of Arafat. I believe that anyone with a college-level understanding of this conflict will read this article and perceive it to be a virtual facsimile of how politicized elements in the United States and Israel view the failure of Camp David. That the "Reasons for Impasse" section begins with The Continuum Political Encyclopedia's sweeping indictment of Arafat is proof enough of this. As such, in light of what I am about to post, this article has a bias problem that needs to be addressed.

One of Britain's most lauded journalists addressed this issue in an article published in 2001 by The Independent. Robert Fisk is the Middle East Correspondent for that very same periodical. Based in Beirut, "he holds more British and international journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent" according to his Wikipedia entry, and he presents differing statistics and figures that go along with a different interpretation of the failure of Camp David. The title of the article is, "Barak shares blame for the failure of Camp David 2000, Clinton aide says." For economy's sake, I will include some of Fisk's more important words, paraphrased of course. (*You can click here for the actual article):

Despite Israeli and US claims that Arafat rejected 96% of the Palestinian occupied territories, one of Bubba's senior Middle East advisers now says that Clinton and Ehud Barak were equally responsible for Camp David's downfall. Published in the New York Review of Books, Robert Malley - who was Clinton's special adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs - opines that Barak failed to honor several Israeli agreements – assurances which Clinton had guaranteed to the Palestinian leadership. Barak, Malley continues, did not fulfil promises to withdraw from a handful of villages around Jerusalem, nor did he follow through with a promise to release Palestinian prisoners. This provoked an angry confrontation with Clinton. It should also be mentioned that Mr. Malley's article was co-authored by Hussein Agha, a former advisor to Arafat.

In actuality, Palestinian leaders and American sources – the latter avoiding Tel-Aviv's consternation by talking anonymously – have indicated that the 96% number represented merely the percentage of the land over which the Israeli government was prepared to negotiate – not 96% of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Arab East Jerusalem was not included in the negotiations, a portion of land illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War – nor did the negotiations include the large chain of Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories.

Along with the pledge to lease back settlements – constructed under international law on Arab land – to the Israeli government for 25 years, the total Palestinian land from which the Israeli government wanted to withdraw amounted to about 46 per cent – nothing close to the 96 per cent claimed after Camp David.

Mr Arafat failed to explain these details after Camp David. He instead focused his words on Israel's reluctance to give Palestinians sovereignty in E. Jerusalem – which was symbolically important but definitely not the only reason for Camp David's failure.

The Israelis merely offered "control" over some Arab streets in Jerusalem to the Palestinians– a smaller version of the tiny "bantustans" that had currently existed in the West Bank – and vague "control" over the Al Aqsa mosque and the surrounding area, the territory underneath (including the rubble of the Jewish Temple) being under Israeli control. The Palestinians were intended to receive a small portion of territorial waters in the Dead Sea – upon which they could hardly build any homes.'

This is my first post on a discussion page, mainly because this is an preeminently important topic for US-Israeli relations, US-Palestinian relations, and the future of our American foreign policy vis-a-vis the aforementioned. Rather than simply pasting Fisk into the currently existing Wikipedia page - a page that has no doubt been painstakingly compiled by those with a greater understanding of this issue than me - I deemed the respectful thing to do was offer Fisk's opinions to y'all here. Regardless, I believe Fisk needs to be refuted for the "Reasons for Impasse" section to remain the way it is. Too many of the statistics and narratives included in this section are presented as incontrovertible, none moreso than the "91%" and "100%" figures for the WB and Gaza, respectfully (statistics that I parroted as a college student). Robert Fisk, who probably knows more about this topic than all of us here combined and whose opinion torpedoes most of the currently existing subsection, deserves a respectful mention here, no?

Asherzai21 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)