Talk:Oslo I Accord

East Jerusalem
In regards to the Oslo agreement, I was under the understanding there was a proposal that a Palestinian state would have its parliament building and courts in a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty but with Arab civil authority under Palestinian local government. Something like the Vatican city state inside Rome.It could be that this idea was a part of the Norwegian " back channel" negotiations that both party's now deny? --Infocat13 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Oslo Accords is there a mention of another Arab state to be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.152.46 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Cessation of settlement building
This sentence is patently false, as it currently stands (from the Reaction section):

After the signing of the agreements, Israel refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5845886.ece March 4, 2009 article "Hillary Clinton made further awkward demands of the incoming Israeli government today as she pledged to tackle the construction of settlements on occupied land and criticised plans to demolish Arab homes in East Jerusalem."

Not only does the Times article indicate that settlements are being still built, they are furthermore being built on "occupied land."

I would appreciate an edit to clarify the meaning of the sentence in question or further elaboration. Unsigned, since I'm not a WP registrant and was just doing fly-by information browsing until I came upon the statement in question.

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.190 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this section is non notable, as it concerns only the period from 1991-1997, which is not a meaningful comparison, since the Oslo Accords are still in existence.

'After the signing of the agreements, Israel refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban. However, it continued expanding existing settlements which fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991-1992 level. Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991-1992 14,320 units. After Oslo: 1994-1995 3,850 units; 1996-1997 3,570 units.'Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For evidence of new settlement construction see this http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-begins-new-settlement-despite-u-s-opposition-1.276244 Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Anglo-American Treaty of 1925, Jewish settlement of all the land west of the Jordan river is to be encouraged. This Treaty is still legal and valid. The USA is in breach of its Constitution when it tells Israel to stop building on its land. The USA is appeasing evil in the name of oil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.3.244 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Loss of credibility
Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and its emphasis on suicide bombers deliberately targeting civilians riding public transportation (buses), the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by the Israeli public. In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv found that: 39% of all Israelis support the Accords and that 32% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years. . By constrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis support the Accords and 18% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years; decreases of 13% and 16% respectively. Furthermore, the May 2004 survey found that 80% of all Israelis hold that the Israel Defense Forces have succeeded in dealing with the Al-Aqsa Intifada militarily. 

All of the architects of the accords listed in the People section are either from Norway or Israel. Is this indeed correct? 209.135.35.83 19:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should there be a redirect to this page from "Oslo Agreement(s)"?

Bias
This stuff is biased. Can we have a view from different perspectives? Not only pro-israeli ones? i mean, what was the cause of the al-aqsa intifida? something must have caused it to begin? we need full truth not half truth. you guys are blaming the palestinians as if they were the only ones who crippled the oslo accords

Arafat had no intention of honouring the Oslo accords. He said so the following day in Arabic. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.3.244 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

76.20.243.35 02:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, people are reading this and they don't need to hear patently false Zionist assertions of hundreds of Israeli's being suicide bombed during this time period. A quick search through Israel's ICT database should make that obvious enough.

You are right Israel wasn't perfect in keeping the Oslo agreement however, because there are still settlements in the West Bank however, other than that Israel kept their end of the deal pretty well. Israel supplied the P.A. (Palestinian Authority) with arms, recognised the P.A. and educated for peace which were all in accordance with their Oslo commitments.

The Palestinians however didn't meet their Oslo agreements of ending terror, destroying terror groups, educating for peace and protecting Jewish holy sites that fell under their control during the transfer of land with the Israelis.

By the way the Israelis that were killed in terror attacks after Oslo aren't false. Whoever said that clearly doesn't know anything about what's going on in the Middle Est because there is evidence as to how many terror acts were committed against Israel by Palestinians after the agreements. Furthermore this discussion page is to discuss the improvements of the article. It's not for you to express your anti-Israel views everywhere.

For a start, the following passages represent Israel's and Israeli's positions more than the Palestinians':

"On both sides there were fears of the other side's intentions. Israelis suspected ... According to the Israeli government, the Israeli's trust in the accords was undermined ... "

Pgan002 (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

my 2 cents
A lot of palestinians feel that the PLO sold them out at the accords, why should palestinians recognise Israel's right to exist, and Israeli's don't have to recognise Palestine's right to exist. The moderate palestinian who accepted the expensive price for peace didn't see any peace, he only saw human right violations, genocide and bulldozers leveling his house with his family still inside and if he defends himself he is labelled a terrorist. Isreal withdraws from an area then wait for an excuse to bomb it and retake it. those are some hints about the causes of the al-aqsa intifida.

> Lets not forget that prior to 1964 the Jews were the Palestinians and an Arab was insulted to be called a Palestinian as it was the same as being called a Jew! If you read the San Remo Treaty and the British Mandate you will find that Arabs were specifically denied political rights west of the Jordan river as they had been give 78% of Palestine east of the Jordan river. The treaty also prohibits the ceding of land. So the Arabs obtained their 'rights' but the Jews are still being denied theirs. The Arabs massacred all the Jews of Hebron in 1929 when there was no state, no occupation and no llegal settlements. So what was their complaint then? Clearly, its not about land, its about murdering Jews in the name of Allah. > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.3.244 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree here. There seems to be a lack of information from the Palestinian perspective.

Well I'm just throwing it out there but perhaps someone should tell Hamas to stop hiding behind their civillians and Israel won't need to do any of that stuff. Israel would except the Palestinian's right to exist if Hamas wasn't in the equation.

Stop the Palestinian 'doublespeak'
I made changes to a paragraph since it DID NOT TELL THE ENTIRE STORY. There were 20+ Palestinian terrorist attacks that left 25+ people dead between the signing of the DOP and Baruch Goldstein's shooting spree in Hebron.

Palestinians are always heard on talk shows and radio shows falsely claiming that Goldstein started the attacks. When one looks at REAL facts they realize that what the PLO says is just rubbish based on continuing a campaign of demonization.

Neutrality
In reference to the discussion page:

People should stop trying to present one side as being right, and the other utterly responsible for all violence. A careful examination of the events will show clearly that leaders on both sides have been working hard to perpetuate violence. I wrote about this in my blog, but didn't want to put it on the article page, lest someone considers it inappropriate. So I'm leaving it here on the discussion page. Instead of trying to point out what the "other side" did wrong, how about finding the truth and registering the course of events?

Saying that "it's no one's fault" is not neutral. That is a very specific conclusion. The way some articles deal with this problem is by stating each side's claims in separate sections.

After all, that's what NPOV is all about, and I think this article has aimed well at doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.175.153 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is evidence of moral confusion! Islamofascism is no different to Nazi'ism. Both are inherently and demostrably evil. Evil cannot and must not be appeased. But all we read here is how Israel must be nice to the people who daily demonstrate their genocidal intent. Do you deny Israels right to defend itself? There is no 'cycle' of violence. Israel has been told by 'the world' that its response to attacks must be reasonable and proportionate. The evil of Islamofascism wont be defeated by pussy footing around. Hitlers armies were not destroyed using evenhandedness! The only way to defeat an implacable enemy is to crush it utterly with everything you can muster. Israel must be free to eliminate its enemies, for they are our enemies too!

Edit-warring
I see that there have been some disputes at this article for the last couple weeks. Please folks, remember that edit-warring is a completely ineffective way of getting your preferred changes to stick on an article. As soon as there is a dispute, please explain the disagreement at the talkpage, so that other editors can understand what's going on, to see if a compromise is possible, and to allow other editors to comment on how to proceed. Just battling it out in edit summaries is not the way to go. See also Dispute resolution. --Elonka 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance of the Accords
Hi there. I've corrected the wording of the sentence referring to Israel's settlement policy after signing the Oslo Accords. In fact, the growing of the settler's population did not slow down but continued as before, also the building activity was not only 'inside existing settlements' but around those and sometimes quite far away, thus expanding very much the surface occupied by settlers even if no "new" settlements were declared. Added 1 source (there was none before). For any doubts, I'm ready to discuss here and give more sources. Cheers Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see your source on the construction of housing units before and after the Oslo accords. Statesman1 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Statesman1, sorry but I undid for the moment your revision and rewrote the text, mainly because you messed up the source reference, so I couldn't check its accuracy. I apologize for undoing, it was just needed to get again working the source I added (FMEP). It should be of course noticed that the construction of housing units slowed down sharply, so I put this in the text, but the source is needed, and then I don't think that the number of units is the only factor to be taken into account when talking about settlement policies. As to where the Palestinians build, I deleted this, as it is completely irrelevant: there was no promise in the Oslo Accords that they would stop constructing in the land that was to be, in a later stage, their state. Also Israel cannot "cede" States land, as it does not own it. I don't recall that constructing in area C was something not allowed under the Oslo Accords, if you think so, please give the source. Thanks Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to your same source so that you can have full confidence over its accuracy.

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/housing-starts-in-israel-the-west-bank-and-gaza-strip-settlements-1990-2003

Israel's self-imposed ban on new settlements and diminished construction of housing units in existing settlements clearly indicate the settlement policies. In addition to areas A & B Israel ceded vast State lands in return for broken promises. Why ignore the Palestinians illegal building in the remaining area C administered by Israel? Statesman1 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Statesman1, you must really excuse my reverting your reverse, as this is the only way I have to get my source 9) working (by your reverse of my edits you inadvertently broke the link, I'm afraid). Thanks for providing the source for your information of the housing units, I've included it - a little shortened to the two main data as not to sprinkle too many figures in the sentence - with source 10, as you see, now both work. I've also corrected the housing figures you gave as they appeared to be very slightly different from the figures given in the source, probably just a summing error, I would be glad if you checked the accuracy, if I've made a mistake there or took the wrong column, please correct it.


 * I've also re-included -somewhat shortened- your sentence that Palestinians built in C-Area (I deleted that they did it in A and B area, as this would appear just as normal business and therefore irrelevant). I repeat that I strongly object to this sentence, as I can't recall any instance where Palestinian construction activity in C-Area has been labelled by an Israeli government instance as an obstacle for peace or a breach of trust. So I insiste, I put the sentence back for the moment, but in order to keep it we must give a source that shows how this building activity was seen as an obstacle for the implementing of the Oslo Accords. Please look for one.


 * You may feel that the article should be NPOV and balanced towards Palestinians and Israel, I agree on that, but I think in the next sentence about shootings and attacks a very good reason is given why Israel considered that the Accords where not implemented by the Palestinian Authority. I just can't recall that buildings in Area C were considered by Israel as an major obstacle, whereas settlement building or expansion was indeed labelled as a major obstacle by Palestinian officials. Do you think we should give a source for that also? I can look for it. Thanks. Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Source change: I changed the source 11 about the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians from JewishMagazine to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is in fact the source given in JewishMag. The information is exactly the same, but I think it is better to give a Ministry as a trustworthy source, because in JewishMagazine, the information is embedded in a viewpoint article which might not appeal to all readers. OK? Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link on the Palestinians building in area C around Jerusalem without permit. http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=1127 Please don't turn the text upside down on the expansion of settlements and population increase. This is quite misleading on the actual scope of construction. Statesman1 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Statesman1, I agree with your edits about the settlements, that's fine with me. But I don't think very much of your source 11) about the building in Ara C - not because I doubt the fact, the fact seems to be proved. But I doubt quite a lot that the illegal construction activity in the Jerusalem area amounts to much more than a breach of Municipality norms - in the article I can't find anything that suggests that this had any effect on the implementation of the Oslo Accords or was considered by Israeli officials as an obstacle to go on with the Accords. What's more, it seems to refer mainly to Jerusalem residents who held Israel ID cards and thus are not subject to the Palestinian Authority, they cannot very well be considered as "the Palestinian side" when talking about the concerns that stalled the implementation of the Accords.


 * I don't know if the Oslo Accords had detailed provisions for construction activities, but the 1995 Interim Agreement between the PA and Israel had, and it states exactly one restriction for building in area C: "3. a. The Palestinian side shall ensure that no construction close to the Settlements and military locations will harm, damage or adversely affect them or the infrastructure serving them." If you find a source that says that Palestinians did exactly that and thus endangered the Agreement, I'm fine with including it. If not, building in area C, with or without permit, is not relevant for the "Acceptance of the Oslo Accords" which is the subject we are dealing with here. Don't you think so? Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've just rewritten the first sentence of the paragraph as to clarify why such importance is attached to the settlement issue, given that it is not mentioned in the Oslo Accords. The three sources I added show that this issue, despite not being part of the Accords, was understood often as 'being in the spirit' of Oslo. Hope you find the sources okay. The last edits by Statesman1 have been very slightly affected (new syntax); please look if everything stays fine with you. Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * More than 2 months later, I deleted the sentence which refers to the building activity of Palestinians in Area C, because no source links this activity to the Oslo Accords. If anybody comes up with a source that describes this building activity as an obstacle for the implementation of the Oslo Accords, we should restitute it. If not, the sentence is not useful here. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Area C is administered by Israel thus Palestinian construction without permit is prohibited while the Oslo accords stipulate no ban on building settlements in that area. Statesman1 (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The question here is not if building is permitted or not (nor if Israel has any legal rights to administer Area C or to ban anything there except for military purposes) but if construction in this areas has been claimed anywhere as being an obstacle for implementation of the Oslo Accords. Please look for such a source or I'll delete the sentence again, because we must stick to the subject of this entry, and that's not who built what but obstacles to the Oslo Accords. There is no sense in keeping this sentence just for the purpose to blame both sides. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Signing ceremony
Oddly, in this video, http://whitehouse.c-span.org/video-bill-clinton-arafat-rabin.asp, we don't see Arafat sign the document. I wonder why. Also, a good link to add, perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonyPussycat (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unclear sentences
Please clarify the following sentences in the article. Pgan002 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"The hope of a New World Order was short-lived."


 * Arguably, there was a new world order after the end of the Cold War. But what does that order, or lack of hope for it, have to do with the Oslo Accords?

"The Gulf War (1990-1991) did much to persuade Israelis that the defensive value of territory had been overstated, and that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait psychologically reduced their sense of security.[7] The Gulf War had also shown that a superior air force and technology was more important than territory in winning a war." [emphasis added]


 * So Israelis became persuaded that the invasion reduced their sense of security? Or they did not become persuaded, it just reduced their sense of security? Also, it seems that the second clause of the first sentence should be a lead sentence, while the rest of this text should be one sentence.

"An agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. This agreement will include ..."


 * The first part is not a sentence, and its context is not clear. The future tense is also confusing. Is this agreement part of the Accords, or does the Annex say that this matter is something to be agreed in the future?

"Internal security and public order by the Palestinian police force consisting of police officers recruited locally and from abroad (holding Jordanian passports and Palestinian documents issued by Egypt). ..."


 * Not a sentence. Also, the bullet points that follow have no introductory sentence.

"They understood those statements as an attempt to justify the signing of the accords in accordance with historical-religious precedent, with step agreements to reach final goal."


 * Of course agreements are made to achieve a goal. Why did they object to such an attempt?

"The Oslo Accords may appear not to have considered factors that would influence its interpretation."


 * There is no mention of what the factors the accord should have better considered. It seems that the sentences that follow are about things that the accord did address but were not followed through.

"Some academics have argued that the principles of the Oslo Accord cannot be accepted by both sides, and would only further separate the Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom believe they have a claim to the land they are fighting over, by creating a superior side and an inferior side."


 * This is the sentence after I tried to tidy-up the original sentence. It's still not clear to me what the sentence is saying. How does the accord create a superior side and an inferior side? Why would it separate the two sides, considering that it was designed to bring them together, and assuming that both sides agree to the accord?

in the criticism sections
I notice they talk about one incident with the Patriarch Caves and the Settlements, but they don't talk about the fact that there also was continued terrorism and suicide bombings etc. from the Palestinian side, which hurt Israeli confidence in the Oslo Process. Not to mention, there is also criticism that had there been no Oslo, the PLO, after the death of their patron the Soviet Union, would have gone kaput, and eventually the Palestinians would have made a peace. This is said by famous and revered historians like Efraim Karsh. Also, Arafat is alleged to have violated Oslo numerous times even directly after it, when he criticized it in an interview after the handshake, and when a PLO guy called it a Trojan Horse.Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just prior to Oslo the PLO was in terminal decline and terrorism was at an all time low. The Left for some derranged reason were unhappy about this and so they plotted to bring Arafat and his gang back to Israel to stir up trouble. After Oslo terrorism ramped up dramatically. If this was a Peace Process its introduction was completely and utterly counter productive. We know that the day after the Oslo signing Arafat made a speach in Arabic in which he told 'his' people that it was all a con and that one day soon all of Palestine would be theirs. And they all got Nobel Peace Prizes for this!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.3.244 (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Signing parties
On the page it says that this was between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians links to the Palestinian National Authority page who were not the ones signing the Oslo accords as the Palestinian National Authority was founded based on the Oslo Accords, the actual signatory party would be the Palestinian Liberation Organization. 83.244.98.113 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Hamas
The introduction of the article mentions "Further strain was put on the process after Hamas democratically won the 2006 Palestinian elections. Hamas has often offered Israel long term ceasefires, but refuses to recognize it, or accept agreements previously made by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority."

However, as common sense dictates, it's hard to claim that an event that occurred in 2006 had any impact on a peace process that began 13 years earlier in 1993. In fact, experts on the phenomena of Hamas suicide bombings note that the failure of Oslo years earlier gave Hamas the legitimacy to win control of Gaza. Prior to Oslo, Hamas and Islamic Jihad had to recruit bombers. After 1995 or so, they were volunteering.

One of the main reasons that Palestinians voted out Fatah in Gaza is because of the disillusionment with the peace process that Fatah brought on them.

Furthermore, citing a source as openly biased as Alan Dershowitz on such a complex topic is far from credible.

I strongly suggest better sourcing and research on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.40.10 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"framework for the future negotiations and relations"
I think this phrase is much too vague. The lead should explain what this means in more specific terms, especially the word "framework." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.182.143 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Netanyahus comment
Netanyahus comment in 2001 has no relation to Rabis statement in 1995. A "military zone" and a "security border" can mean to separate things. A "security border" doesn't mean no 1967 land borders, and Netanyahus comment: "I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders" is clear that he didn't accept the 1967 borders. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rabin in no way accepted the 1967 borders either. Authoritative (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Rabin's comment is or isn't related, isn't the entire section exceptionally WP:UNDUE?  Rami  R  22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The remark is not UNDUE. Its a very important quote that should be in the article. But the part about Rabin is irrelevant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A single "off the record" quote deserves an entire section?  Rami  R  22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe not an entire separate section, but the entire quote deserves to be in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism - but it's the entire section
The section on "Violations" (where I have already edited out a very vague, if not unfair, sentence) turns out to have been COMPLETELY lifted from Answers.com - a flawed article in & of itself. I would have deleted the plagiarism, but that would have left an entirely blank section - should I return when I have more time & list all the violations in place of the silliness that's there now?? FlaviaR (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Answers lifts everything from Wikipedia, not the other way around!Readlotsof books (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I removed the Purdue Professor quote since it is worthless. It arbitrarily blames everything on "Arab violations" but does not state what those violations are - i.e., there is no information there, just pure opinion. The quote is taken straight from an Israeli government website, so it by no means can be considered a factual, unbiased account. If we are going to compile opinions, then why pick this particular professor? How about quote every political science professor in the world? Thousands came out against Oslo because its flawed, but most pointed out the agreements unfairness to Palestinians. We can quote Edward Said, for example. My point is, a selective quotation from one person with no context is worthless for a Wikipedia article.Readlotsof books (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oslo War
The Oslo Accords are known as the Oslo War in Israel. This is because there was greater peace before than after the Oslo Accords. Arafat used the naivety of the Leftists who met illegaly in Oslo to construct the Accords. Arafat was able to return from exile to Israel and renew his armed struggle against the Jews armed with a Nobel Prize and money for weapons and US training of his army of terrorists. Peace for Israel was not good for Leftists such a Peres. There was no money or further acclaim for them. When Rabin told Peres that he was going to tear up the Oslo Accords because he could see that Arafat had no intention in keeping to any of the requirements, he sealed his fate. Rabin was murdered by his body guard on instruction from Peres, having had a Rightist stuge fire blanks to hide the true nature of the plot. Such is the Lefts treasonous complicity with terrorists for self aggrandisment.

Ratification
It looks like the PLO never ratified the accord, only Israel did. Worth mentioning, isn't it?

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/renew-talks-with-the-plo-ask-plo-ratification-of-oslo-accords/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.156.173 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Foul play Brewcrewer
Another foul play of User:Brewcrewer, who reverted text about Norway's role twice. Indeed, you used no less than 4 false arguments.
 * 1) it is not written properly: While it is sometimes not easy to find good language without long quotes and without distorting the source, I think you do not like the message, rather than how it is written.
 * 2) no page number: An extremely weak argument.
 * 3) link to source is dead: Calling a valid link dead is realy very foul play.
 * 4) its a singular view represented w/o context or opposing views: You might study elementary WP-rules. There is no need to provide sourced edits with opposing views; you may add it yourself. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Arafat speech
As an Israeli reading this article in English to see things from a different perspective, I am disappointed.

The reason many educated Israeli people did not believe the Oslo accord will work, and a reason Yitzhak Rabin lost much credit, was a proclamation by Yasser Arafat some ~six months after signing the agreement, comparing the Oslo accord to Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which is a treaty known as one Muhammad broke. This is, for many living in Israel, a proof that Arafat did not intend to honor the agreement. The speech was in English at Johannesburg.

I expected to see this point possibly contrasted with conflicting evidence, but it's not even mentioned. This article thus lacks essential information, both for those unaware of the proclamation, and those who wish to read a second opinion.

Please, fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.103.73 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you seen a reliable source that discusses this that could be used ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is one: http://books.google.ie/books?id=dPPYTDi1jiYC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=arafat+oslo+Treaty+of+Hudaybiyyah&source=bl&ots=9QOYLOSCM_&sig=zBZB43IjQKaE4Ow50B6hEaBhMw8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KUPqUvjjOMbxhQeXuYG4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=arafat%20oslo%20Treaty%20of%20Hudaybiyyah&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlucky Irish (talk • contribs) 12:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks okay. 79.179.103.73, you can add the content you think should be present from the source. I've already prepared the citation for you, just copy it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"right of the Palestinian people to self-determination"
In the introduction, the article has a quote that Oslo is based upon the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".

Where is this quote from? It needs a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchartered (talk • contribs) 23:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The so called Palestinians have no right to any land within the 1922 Mandate for Palestine territory. The Arabs were given Jordan, 78% of the putative Jewish National Home. The Mandate specifies that no more land be ceded and that with Arabs having political rights in Jordan they will have no political rights west of the Jordan river, in Israel. The so called Palestinians have had their self-determination fulfilled since 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.152.46 (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Critisism -> Continued settlement expansion
The Critisism -> Continued settlement expansion section seems to have nothing to do with the Oslo Accords, or even the implementation of the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Accords have - ironically - in fact been criticised extensively for leaving the question of settlements so wide open; there was no language that speaks to any of the criticisms in the section, which seem like they are general criticisms of Israeli policy, not criticism of Israel's policy vis a vie the Oslo Accords. Israel could have ten million people living in settlements and still be in compliance with the Oslo Accords. Accordingly, I am planning on deleting that section soon unless people want to discuss here first. --Djbclark (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I know it is very hard to be neutral about this subject. But this section: This would combine Israel and the Palestinian territories into a single state with one government. An argument for this solution is that neither side can justly claim a state on all of the land.[22] An argument against it is that it would endanger the safety of the Jewish minority, maybe even to the point of genocide. is pretty awful. The second argument is unsourced. And even if it was sourced, it's just two random arguments by partisans in favor/against a one-state solution. I don't understand what they are doing in the article. ImTheIP (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Such arguments are relevant in order to establish whether the envisaged two-state solution is balanced as advertised, given the circumstances. Whether it should be discussed here or elsewhere, and how, I don't know. Nemo 21:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oslo I Accord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110106141627/http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/articles/Kemp/052602existential_threats_to_israel_an.htm to http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/articles/Kemp/052602existential_threats_to_israel_an.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to Wikisource
Hi. Is it possible to create a section somewhere ("External Links" maybe...) that links to the text itself on wikisource?--Roxette5 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I used a template, see near the end. Zerotalk 22:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016. &#x0020;Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oslo Accords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150720224802/http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-8/no.-2/extraordinary-increase-in-settlement-construction-as-diplomacy-falters to http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-8/no.-2/extraordinary-increase-in-settlement-construction-as-diplomacy-falters

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed video
I am going away from the general discussion about these videos to this specific article because I think the addition of the video here was completely appropriate and this is one of the cases where I really don't see the problem. The video doesn't have Hebrew audio and it is very relevant to the article, showing the signing ceremony of the accords. Speaking of which, there is no section about the ceremony itself, but that's not a major issue right now. I think the video should be placed in the article, but don't feel strongly about precise placement (lead, content, gallery, etc.) —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2017
Elhegamohamed (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 15:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oslo (play) - please add to See also section
I strongly recommend adding the wikilink "Oslo (play)" to the /*See also*/ section. The 2016 Broadway play, by noted playwright J. T. Rogers, is a widely-praised dramatization of the previously unheralded role of Norwegian diplomats, and others, in developing the back-channel communications that (resportedly) saved the Oslo negotiations from collapsing.

The play was developed in consultation with key diplomats in the event, and has been reported, by the principal one, to be a realistic representation of previously unreported, and obscure, key events in the Oslo negotiations.

It is common, in international affairs, that key diplomatic efforts go unnoticed -- and are often even kept secret to help protect the delicate negotiations (especially between extreme enemies like Israel & the PLO). But that information is vital to a thorough and accurate coverage of the key events, and thus relevant for inclusion in the Wikipedia articles about the Oslo Accords.

~ Penlite (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: wording / verifiable source
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord#Nobel_Peace_Prize

"The Accords, however, never resulted in peace."

This has many problems:
 * 1) "never" - nobody can predict the future, it is possible there will be peace in the future
 * 2) "however" - useless verbiage
 * 3) unsourced and hence unverifiable

I suggest this:

-- Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be an improvement. However, it's kind of biased in that it assumes that the accords had "peace" as a goal, or that "peace" is a neutral concept. I think we could state something like "The Accords had not reached the stated objectives as of [year]" or whatever. Does that source support this statement? If not, it's easy to find sources saying the Oslo accords "have not been implemented" or something. Nemo 21:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible sources
Donald Neff could be one source for international reactions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Neff&type=revision&diff=923176101&oldid=923175724 Nemo 21:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Footnote 13: Jordan Valley
The linked article 1.) is unnecessary as Rabin's speech is already given word by word in the other footnote 2.) is polemic and biased 3.) states false facts: Rabin said that the Jordan Valley would remain under military control while civil authority could be Palestinian. Netanyahu offered to Palestinians roughly the same agreement in 2010/11 before finally deciding to annex the area in late 2019 - neither more nor less. By stating that Netanyahu was "more to the left than Rabin" the article adds an unfounded criticism of Netanyahu (from the very far right) to the usual criticism of Rabin. As only admins have the right to make changes to the articles, could someone please get rid of this note? Stefanbw (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATES FOR 1994 IN OSLO..jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 13, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-09-13. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATES FOR 1994 IN OSLO..jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 10, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-12-10. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing "attempt" in first sentence misleading
The first sentence is:
 * The Oslo I Accord or Oslo I, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or short Declaration of Principles (DOP), was an attempt in 1993 to set up a framework that would lead to the resolution of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Note the use of the phrase "attempt... to set up a framework", which I think is misleading since Oslo I was signed and so was Oslo II which indicates that the framework of Oslo I was indeed set up. Further, the agreements in the accords were to various extents implemented (eg the establishment of the PA).

I suggest we change the first sentence to:


 * The Oslo I Accord or Oslo I, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or short Declaration of Principles (DOP), was the first of a pair of interim agreements establishing a framework aimed at achieving a permanent settlement to lead to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It was the first face-to-face agreement between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). As the name entails, the DOP was focused on laying out the principles by which a settlement would be reached; in a sense, it was an "agreement to agree" . DMH43 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "attempt" was the wording of an IP, I have no objection to removing it. I think though your phrasing "a permanent settlement to lead to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" is wrong, the settlement did not lead to the conflict. There is too much verbiage in that sentence. I would take out "framework" and "lead" and "permanent" and say something like

"The Oslo I Accord or Oslo I, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or short Declaration of Principles (DOP), was the first of a pair of interim agreements aimed at settling the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."
 * Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, How about:
 * The Oslo I Accord or Oslo I, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or short Declaration of Principles (DOP), was the first of a pair of interim agreements between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was the first public face-to-face agreement between the government of Israel and the (PLO). As the name entails, the DOP was focused on laying out the principles by which a settlement would be reached; in a sense, it was an "agreement to agree" DMH43 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess though, there is a significant body of sources that says the Accords failed. "By 1999, not a single Oslo deadline had been met." . "Oslo led to a series of claims and counter-claims of breaches of the accords that formed a negative spiral of mistrust and feelings of enmity." "In the end, Oslo failed. [...] The Oslo agreement was full of holes. [...] The underlying understanding of the Oslo agreement was that Rabin was committed to go on. [...] And then his assassination obliterated this. [...]  In the end, the two sides breached the agreements signed in the 1990s. [...] Oslo was supposed to build trust. It did the opposite."
 * Currently the article doesn't discuss the outcome at all. It seems there is some discussion in Oslo Accords. Probably it should be more clear that that is the main article and this is a sub-article devoted more to the structure and process of the accord than its outcome. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to have descriptions of the outcome of Oslo I and Oslo II in the respective articles. And description of the outcome of the whole process in the Oslo article (or as a separate one as you described, although I can imagine that might become too unwieldy of an article).DMH43 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)