Talk:Abraham Accords

“Intended to evoke”? Who wrote this. The Accords were superior to anything any previous President achieved, until Biden destroyed them.

Refs
I added the Haaretz analysis as requested. It's not very complimentary, perhaps others will be able to find more supportive commentaries on the various documents.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Third party tag
The claim is being made based on a primary source that Sudan has joined the Abraham Accords, the latter being a piece of paper signed by US, Israel, UAE and Bahrain. I see no evidence that Sudan has signed this paper or that it has even said that it will. The joint statement of US, Israel and Sudan makes no mention of it. Up to now I have not seen any third party sources claiming that, does anyone have some?Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, there are now (today) some sources saying that Sudan has signed the Abraham Accords. We should still wait a bit because the Trump admin has overegged the pudding on several occasions in this regard. Personally, I don't see how they can say they have signed the Abraham Accords when that is supposed to be a 4 way agreement (ie normally those 4 would all have to agree to them becoming 5). It won't hurt to wait a bit and let's see the actual piece of paper that was signed.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it is still not completely nailed down- https://www.axios.com/israel-sudan-normalization-biden-white-house-78f08a6c-1c64-445f-9db6-c04125da2e6b.html Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is clear they haven't, but we will see if they are on the path to doing so. EytanMelech (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, here we are, coming up October, Haaretz says "The agreement with Sudan was never finalized." https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-a-year-after-normalization-deals-israel-and-new-arab-partners-in-joint-un-statement-1.10231759. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/sudan-israel-will-not-discuss-khartoum-embassy-sudan-fm Any normalization is still a good way off, going by this, if it ever happens at all.Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

gostaria de traduzir isso? att 2804:14C:5BB3:8BED:F168:F8E8:A3C8:2E61 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Naming
As can be seen in the article body, there is material to the effect that the US State Department will refer to agreements of this type as "normalization agreements" and not as "Abraham Accords".

Should a short sentence to this effect be in the lead? Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Political grandstanding by a new administration seeking to undo a previous administration's work is a bit of trivia. It is doubtful if it belongs in the article at all, and certainly not in the lead. And perhaps needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, contrary to the blustering made in a press conference, the US State dept. continues to use the name Abraham Accords:, , , etc... Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not blustering if you cannot find usage dated after it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided the links, above, they are all still on the Dept of State web site. This is political grandstanding, nothing more. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Dated after". Show me any usage after Ned Price Q&A. Here on WP, we called them normalization agreements anyway, that being what they were and all.Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here on Wikipedia, our article is called Abraham Accords, because that's what these normalization agreements are called. Not just here, but on the State Dept. web site. That's what they continue to be called, even today, a week after Price's blustering. A politician's grandstanding at a press conference is not encyclopedia-worthy. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, no, they are not, they are called Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement, the  Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement etc  because that's what they are. The Trump admin wanted to lump every normalization agreement into the "Abraham Accords" as a PR exercise. It was just one big joke, first it was only the UAE and then a rush to include Bahrain in there, Sudan eventually signed the Declaration, Morocco hasn't and won't, etc. All tosh.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All the guff that used to be on the WH website is gone and remaining is this, The Abraham Accords Declaration ie the one page thing that was signed by UAE, Bahrain, Israel and US, the agreements are at the bottom (the Sudan "agreement" is just that Declaration and only that and the Morocco agreement doesn't include the Declaration at all).Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided the links, above, and anyone can click on them and see you are wrong. e,g: Bahrain: . Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you actually read what I write? I provided wikilinks to the UAE and Bahrain normalization agreements articles above already.Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was a response to the false claim that "All the guff that used to be on the WH website is gone and remaining is this, The Abraham Accords Declaration" That is false, as anyone can see by clicking on the links I provided. The US State department continues to use the term "Abraham Accords, prominently, on every web page related to them. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your link 1 and my link are the same link, that's what's left about the accords, your other two links may mention them but are not about them. There used to be pages and pages of stuff about them, I think they have been archived now with the Trump presidency material. The point remains, there will be no more usage of this expression according to State and I think that's a very sensible approach. You can prove me wrong by showing any official usage of the term post the Ned Price speech. Or, since we are still waiting on a Sudan normalization agreement, let's see what they call it when it finally shows up.Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You just persist in these easily proven false claims. Click on the US Dept of State Bahrain page, you are taken to a page where prominently displayed, in the middle of the page , in bold letters is " The Abraham Accords ". Click on that, and you go to The Abraham Accords Declaration", where 'The Abraham Accords Declaration' is the big bold title. Go to the bottom of that page and click on "ISRAEL-BAHRAIN AGREEMENT" and you are taken to the full text of the agreement, which, big surprise, is titled "ABRAHAM ACCORDS: DECLARATION OF PEACE, COOPERATION, AND CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMATIC AND FRIENDLY RELATIONS ". If and when those are taken down or changed, they might be worthy of mention. Until then, what we have is some political blustering in a press conference by an administration apparatchik. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)  blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100
 * Proof of pudding is in eating, right? So we'll see.Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Restored the material in the article with a source that you should approve of, I agree the federalist is an untrustworthy right wing rag even if they were telling the truth on this occasion.Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sudan joins the Abraham Accords
Israeli Official: Sudan Expected to Join Abraham Accords

What? The US, Israel and every media under the sun has been telling us that Sudan joined AA already. Guess not.Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "We agree, with great fanfare and sealed in a phone call with Trump, that we will sign the agreement at another time." Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC over at Donald Trump
There's currently an ongoing RFC at Talk:Donald Trump over whether or not to include mention of the Abraham Accords in that article. Any page watchers here, feel free to participate in the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The RfC has been reopened. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Activity on this page has certainly picked up, since the aforementioned RFC was re-opened. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Reuters source January 28, 2020
The source for the first sentence of the Background section shows an url error that I can't fix because the source is the source of the error. The original url now leads to another Reuters article that also has another url. I couldn't find the original article, "Trump leaps into Middle East fray with peace plan that Palestinians denounce", under another url online. I added the archived version but I don't know how to fix the red error msg. Any suggestions on how to do that? Never mind - I typed a copy of the cite, and the typed copy doesn't have the red error msg. The url still links to the Reuters "Factbox" article but, as I said before, the error is in the source. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Who plagiarized whom?
The article bears a startling resemblance to the |LinkedIn page of Samuel Shay, the chairman of the Israel-UAR business forum. So who copied whom?

The exact same wording in WP and on LinkedIn page: On October 23, 2020 Israel and Sudan agreed to normalize ties, making Sudan the third Arab country to set aside hostilities in two months. The agreement was negotiated on the U.S. side by Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner, Middle East envoy Avi Berkowitz, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security official Miguel Correa.

Another oddity: The second sentence crediting Kushner et al was also cited verbatim by several news outlets: Reuters, NBC, Asharq Al-Awsat, Globe and Mail, Telegraph, and others. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible grammatical error in the lede?
"As part of the agreement, the U.S. removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and giving it a US$1.2 billion loan."

Shouldn't the sentence read:

"As part of the agreement, the U.S. removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and gave it a US$1.2 billion loan." JohnR1Roberts (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Commentary in Background section
"...committed peace broker Bill Clinton" Sennis1 (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition in "Background" section
If I I'm not mistaken source 26 at the end of the background section has just been added in 2024?

I disagree with this addition because this section only described which areas were given to Palestinian and Israel and the prominent country leaders involved. I feel it was unnecessary to add an unrelated quote about the American and Israel presidents' legal situations from some random and pretty obviously biased opinion piece.

If you read the article the quote is from, it's very anti-Trump (claiming that Trump is not nearly as much for Palestine as he should) and that particular quote was just to further delegitimize Trump in this decision, even though this is widely known as a giant step forward in Middle East negotiations (at least at the time). Furthermore, Trump's legal issues specifically are unrelated to this topic.

Are the authors trying to imply that there is unprecedented corruption that has affected the accords? If so, why not state that explicitly in the paragraph? In my opinion, that take is very sketchy. 2601:408:680:3AC0:1502:8664:97C6:9D65 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)