Talk:Oslo Accords

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)

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)

@Yr Enw: Per 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. Zero^talk 10:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Reception section

I propose to remove the subsection titled "Undermining Israeli security" since it does not discuss any substantive points. It's just a collection of fear-mongering quotes from Karsh not based in any concrete facts or observations.

I also propose to remove the unbalanced tag unless someone can explain why it's unbalanced. The scholarly consensus on both sides is that oslo was a failure, largely due to it entrenching the occupation rather than ending it. DMH223344 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yr Enw and @מתיאל DMH223344 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cleveland:

But it was the clauses on redeployment and the limitations imposed on Palestinian authority that drew the most criticism.

Pappe:

The insistence on partition and the exclusion of the refugee issue from the peace agenda rendered the Oslo process at best a military redeployment and rearrangement of Israeli control in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. At worst, it became a new arrangement of control that made life for the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip far worse than it was before.

Shlaim:

In all these different ways, the Oslo process actually worsened the situation in the occupied territories and confounded Palestinian aspirations for a state of their own.

Finkelstein quoting Said and Benvenist:

The essence of the September 1993 Oslo agreement, according to Edward Said, was that it gave ‘official Palestinian consent to continued occupation.’ Indeed, the PLO agreed to serve as ‘Israel’s enforcer’. ‘The occupation continued’ after Oslo I, Meron Benvenisti similarly observes, ‘albeit by remote control, and with the consent of the Palestinian people, represented by their “sole representative”, the PLO’. A close reading of the September 1995 Oslo II agreement only reinforces these judgments.

Khalidi:

Thus, although they nominally accepted that the Palestinians were a people, the Oslo accords in fact did no more than formally consecrate Begin’s scheme: we have seen that the canny Polish-born lawyer understood that the terms he had obdurately insisted on at Camp David in 1978 “‘guarantee that under no condition’ can a Palestinian state be created.”

Ben Ami:

Constructive ambiguity facilitated an agreement in Oslo at the price of creating irreconcilable misconceptions with regard to the final settlement at Camp David and beyond. Ambiguous, full of lacunae, essentially built on the delusion that trust could be built between the occupied and the occupier, the Oslo Accords contained the seeds of their own destruction.

DMH223344 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your argument about the scholarly consensus, and that Karsh is full of shit, but I changed my mind about removing him because the section heading has now changed from “Criticism” (which, to me, sounds like it’s a review of scholarly sources - as the section used to be) to “Reception”, which is much broader in what it sounds like it should encompass. Like I said though, I agree with your points, so I’m not going to fight strongly about it. Yr Enw (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment about End of Oslo

The lead currently says

The Oslo process largely ended with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, and the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada.

I really don't think this is accurate. The Oslo agreements were signed and went into effect. Rabin was assassinated in 1995, the second intifada began in 2000. The interim period and final status negotiations should have begun in 1998. It seems accurate to say that the assassination, failure of camp david, and the second intifada brought doubt to the peace process, but I don't think it's accurate to say it ended the *Oslo* process.

I'll remove this line from the leade DMH223344 (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say the current situation is that when the sides find it convenient they point to Oslo and otherwise pay it no mind, even though the envisaged process has gone nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeds of peace

Why is seeds of peace mentioned in See Also? It seems only tangentially related. DMH223344 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO says “One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics”.. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles seemed to be related to me because they both fall under the category of Israeli and Palestinian peace efforts. I also felt they were tangentially related because this Oslo Accords article has a photo of Clinton, Rabin, and Arafat in the upper right…

And look!!! 👀

Here are the three of them again!!!

Photograph of Middle East Leaders at the Middle East Peace Agreement Ceremony - NARA - 1995490

Wafflefrites (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

palbable

Typo?