Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Web Analytics
Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions Talk:Camp David 2000 Summit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Camp David 2000 Summit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Camp David 2000 Summit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

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)

Contents

[edit] Maps

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).

[edit] 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.

[edit] Calls for peace

(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)

[edit] Jewish and Arab refugees

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)

[edit] Proposed changes to article

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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)

[edit] Categories

I believe these categories listed at the end of the article are all relevant. Please do not delete them without explanation and discussion first. There may be other categories that are also relevant. Articles can be in multiple categories, and sub-categories, etc.. Articles can't be easily pigeonholed into one sub-category. Especially this article. And the category system at Wikipedia is not set up that way. It is not a strict category system where every article must fit in only one category. To click and go to the categories you need to go to the bottom of the article itself. I can't get the category code to be clickable in this section of the discussion page. So I used the "no wiki" formatting button on the category code listed below. In order to at least see the current category titles, and the code for it. --Timeshifter 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


  • [[Category:Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts]]
  • [[Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]
  • [[Category:United States-Israeli relations]]
  • [[Category:Middle East peace efforts]]
  • [[Category:Arab-Israeli conflict]]
Static Wikipedia 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu