Talk:Arab Peace Initiative

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demerged[edit]

Arab Peace Initiative doesn't redirect to the Beirut summit anymore. Read the Summit's talk page to find out more reasons. Eshcorp 14:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rehauling this page[edit]

This page is really shabby. It hardly contains any discussion, there's almost no analysis, and it barely mentions the very large number of people that have commented on the initiative. I will start rehauling this page, particularly considering that the coming Obama administration is said to be considering supporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalali (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask the eds. to change this statement in order to put it in agreement with the actual wording of Article11 (of UNR 194). The sentence reads, in part: "...a just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194 (which calls for Israel to allow any refugees who want to return to Israel and to provide compensation for those who do not want to return)." I'm not sure why this entire Resolution is boiled down to this one article and then (only the author(s) can explain "why?") draining even this of a salient feature. The sentence should read:


"[...] a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194 which, in part (Article 11): "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." Or...............

"[...] a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194: (add the link to UNR 194 here)."

I won't even complain that the actual statement simply starts by saying: "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours[...]". See? "refugees", not of any nationality: just "refugees". Many consider the, estimated 800K to 1.2M, Jews who were forced from their respective countries prior, during and (shortly) after the 1948 conflict certainly should be considered for the love-fest which is planned for Israel. Another day, perhaps.

Just don't compress this entire "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194" which consists of 15 Articles; about 1500wds; deals with 4 different new agencies, committees with various functions, some over-lapping; lines of authorities; chains of command and enough for EVERYBODY to do for the next 10 years even if the thing was to BE implemented, which, of course, it was not.... PLEASE don't compress this down to what the Israeli's must do. ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon44 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: l'm no good at this stuff: l don't know how to sign my handle, which is: paleocon44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon44 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS or PSS: THERE it is!! Now HTH did I do that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon44 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated it to mention it refers to all refugees. Metallurgist (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I think it is still shabby. I tried to do some cleanup on it but it is hard to fix all the issues it has. ImTheIP (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

For most of this part, it seems pretty simple. The Authority welcomed it with open arms; Hamas bitterly resisted it for the most part with a few nigglers putting up resistence to the main line. The international world wanted it badly.

The question of how to describe the Israeli response is a toughie. It's mostly a moot point since they can't have peace if Hamas refuses peace. Still, I've read so many negative responses and so many positive ones as well. The Squicks (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the changes that you've done over the past couple of days. i agree with placing emphasis oevr the hamas-fatah divide. i've seen some good quotes recently as well that i'll add in soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalali (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Passover Massacre"[edit]

There is a great deal of attention to the "Passover Massacre", whose connection to the Arab Peace Plan is assumed to be that the one was designed to "sabotage" the other. The only evidnce given for this view, however, is Sheikh Yassin's statement that the attack was sending "a message to the Arab summit to confirm that the Palestinian people continue to struggle for the land and to defend themselves no matter what measures the enemy takes." You'll agree this isn't the same. Abdelaziz al-Rantisi denied any connection of the events. <Hussein Dakroub, "Militant Palestinian Groups Reject Arab Peace Overture to Israel," Associated Press, March 28, 2002> Right now, the article treats this connection as a undisputed fact; it cites two articles of which the first doesn't even contain this assertion, and the second merely offers the above-quoted Yassin line. --Mardhil (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two seperate issues here. (a)There is the question of whether or not the massacre faltered the intiative by bringing in an Israeli military response. The fact that it did is well documented by the sources in the article. (b)Then, there is the question of whether or not the massacre was done to deliberately done by Hamas to sabtoge the initiative. That question is in dispute, and can't be treated as fact.
The article currently conflates the two. That's a serious problem and I'll try to edit it to make it more clear: It is a fact that the massacre set back (prehaps even killed) the initative while it is not a fact that the massacre's planners intended to do that. The Squicks (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to make that more clear. The Squicks (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing edits, The Squicks. Now it's an even better article.--Mardhil (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The Squicks (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article now reads the Passover Massacre happened the day before the plan was adopted and also the day the plan was adopted. The plan was accepted by the Arab League on 27 March, the day of the attack. The first mention (the day beforer) is wrong. I hesitate to make the change myself as I know a lot of Smart People are working on tis page. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The temporary truce[edit]

I reverted the change that included information about a temporary truce floated by Hamas, since it's not relevant to the fundamental topic of this article-- whether or not Hamas members support or oppose the permanent peace plan.

I will admit that the article seems hard on Hamas, but it is hard on the Israelis as well. In truth, both of them have been skeptical of the plan and both have not moved forward much. The Squicks (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Handala.gif[edit]

The image File:Handala.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The "Addendum"[edit]

The introductory section to this article is getting substandard. For example, it states that "[t]he Arab League later attached an adendum endorsing the claim of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel". However, there is no mention of this addendum anywhere else in the article. In fact, the article contradicts the introductory section (for example, in the "Israeli statements" section, there's a quote which states that "Yossi Alpher, a political consultant and writer and former senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said on November 2008 that: "The initiative is unique in terms of the comprehensive “payoff” it offers Israel and, with regard to refugees, both the absence of any direct mention of the right of return and the recognition that Israel's agreement to a solution must be solicited. It represents huge progress from the days in 1967"."). In addition, the only reference provided to prove the existence of the addendum is an article from the Jerusalem Post, which just mentions it in passing, without providing any details. I've tried searching the net for more information on this addendum, but haven't found anything.

unless someone can provide a direct reference to the addendum (preferably the text of the addendum itself), i suggest that this reference be removed for all the reasons that i mention above.(talk)

I agree, I don't think the addendum exists. The cited Jerusalem Post article has factual errors -as our article notes, the Israelis didn't reject it, they basically ignored it. What happened is that the initiative was at first (publicly at least) solely Saudi, from Abdullah, published in the NYT, iirc. Then it was made more formal at the conference, the major addition about refugees was at Lebanese insistence because it wanted priority for the refugees there. The "addendum" may refer to differences between early versions, or just the views of some Israelis focusing on refugee provisions as a reason for rejection. As pointed out, the final language is from GA 194, accepted by Israel in 1948. So I think this sentence should be removed too. There is a lot of irrelevant OR (by synth) in the article now - e.g about Khartoum, which I may remove also if there is no objection. This article and the 2002 and 2007 meeting articles should be made more consistent, and perhaps eventually merged. John Z (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just saw your change, which I agree with. I also agree with your suggestion that irrelevant discussion re khartoum et al should be taken out. i'll try to reorganise the introductory section as well. as it stands, there is discussion of what olmert think, then to what americans say, then to netanyahu, then to the PA, etc. it jumps from issue to issue without any clear idea of what is driving the discussion. in any event, the section has to be updated to reflect the fact that netanyahu is now PM, and that Olmert is out. i'll try to reintroduce some order into all this. (talk) 14:154, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Support for the second intifada"[edit]

The section entitled "the israeli situation" contains the following sentence: "The massacre also highlighted the support in the initiative's body text for the second intifada." I've just reread the initiative right now and can't find any reference to the second intifada. unless someone can come up with a specific reference, i'm going to take this sentence out. zalali (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think the plan gave any such indictation. The Squicks (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the quote "the major problem with it is that it only called upon Israel to do a series of things and there was no call upon the Palestinians to stop terrorism." Clearly, the plan did not in any way encourage people to do terrorism or to fight or anything like that. It simply did not mention it at all. Joel Singer's statement is indeed correct. The Squicks (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "major problem" was that it was mostly designed to bring Saudi policies toward Israel from their former strange fantasy state (when prominent Saudis constantly kept insisting that that all Israeli Jews were "Bolsheviks" whose goal was to bring Communism to the middle east) and update it to the 1980s -- but it had absolutely nothing specific to offer with respect to the actual situation in 2002 (as opposed to 1987)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resistance to the summit[edit]

i will be changing this passage a little because the way it is currently phrased suggests that there was strong opposition in the arab region to making an offer of this kind. however, many of the factors that this section currently cites were in fact very minor issues that are not really relevant. for example, the decision by the lebanese government not to allow an intervention by yasser arafat was not based on a political decision as suggested by the article, but was merely an application of a law which it made it illegal to communicate by phone with the occupied palestinian territories and/or israel. that law has been recently relaxed in order to allow telephone calls to the palestinian territories. i will therefore be changing this section in order to reflect this. zalali (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iran and the API[edit]

http://www.mideastweb.org/iranian_letter_of_2003.htm should this be added to the article? 91.198.254.100 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Arab Peace Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arab Peace Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Arab Peace Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab Peace Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2017[edit]

Change multiple instances of "Passover Massacre" that are not linked to appropriate Wikipedia article to being linked to appropriate Wikipedia article. 72.201.147.111 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claims without sources[edit]

@Aroma Stylish: Can you explain your edits? In this change you added a block of text with claims that are not supported by the sources and with sentences that are not grammatically correct. For example, "The 1948 Palestinian exodus, Israel's homeland security against terror attacks, and the nature of Jerusalem are the three most prominent such issues" is an odd statement that is not supported by any of the three sources provided. The following sentences' claims are also not supported by sources.

In articles relating to the Israel-Palestinian conflict every little fact must be sourced. Thus, it is not ok for you, or any other editor, to write what you "think" the Israeli position is in relation to the Arab Peace Initiative. What is written must be explicitly stated in sources relating to the API otherwise it should not be on Wikipedia.ImTheIP (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Content is indeed supported by sources and it's important to explain the Israeli position, specially when it comes to the rejection of the Palestinian right of return. For example, the BBC says "Israel rejected the 2002 plan outright after it was first proposed at an Arab summit in Beirut, but Mr Olmert is now giving it a guarded welcome, albeit with reservations linked to the issue of refugees. However, the foreign policy spokesman for Israel's right-wing Likud party, Zalman Shoval, told the BBC that Israel could never accept the parts of the plan that call for the return of refugees who had lived in the territory of pre-1967 Israel... If 300,000-400,000, or maybe a million, Palestinians would invade the country, that would be the end of the state of Israel as a Jewish state," he said. That's not why we created the state."" While this source that I recently added explain Israeli security concerns regarding the pre-1967 borders. I also added a source for the Israeli refusal to divide Jerusalem. However, I deleted the first sentence which doesn't seem to be useful. Next time before removing content take into account WP:Preserve, even more in this case when it's important for the article to mention Israeli reservations to the Arab Peace Initiative which could also explain its rejection.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree that the Israeli position should be explained, if one exists. Preferrably using book sources which in general are more reliable than news articles. Had I found the Israeli position described in any reliable source I would have added it, but I didn't.

Now let's go through each of the sentences so that I can explain why I removed them:

Israel has stated that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants would turn Israel into an Arab state.

The sentence has three sources but none of them actually discusses the "return of millions of Palestinian refugees" or the possibility of turning Israel into an Arab state. And to the best of my knowledge the State of Israel has never claimed that the influx of millions of Palestinian refugees would turn Israel into an Arab state. Certainly not in relation to the API anyway.

Israel has also had concerns about compromise on Jerusalem due to the city's historical and religious significance to Jews, especially since East Jerusalem contains the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, and that a unified Jerusalem has been Israel's proclaimed capital since the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980.

The source is an analysis by Raphael Ahren. Thus, the views expressed in it should be attributed: "According to Raphael Ahren, the Israeli government ...." The source does not mention the Temple Mount nor the annexation of East Jerusalem. Thus, the part following "due to the city's historical and religious significance to Jews," violates WP:SYNTH.

It is also concerned about the possible danger of making a complete withdrawal to the borders of 1967, which would possibly render Israel more vulnerable to attacks.

Here the source does not mention the API at all so again, the text violates WP:SYNTH.

The allegedly non-negotiable nature of the initiative's provisions, which must be accepted first before any further dialogue can take place, forms a stumbling block for the Israeli government,

The source does not discuss the "allegedly non-negotiable nature of the initiative's provisions."

Israel had asked for amendments after the 2002 summit

This actually is sourced, but in a quite contrived way: "Urging Israel not to immediately ask for amendments to the plan as it had five years ago, Arab League head Amr Moussa" Is it Amr Moussa that claims that Israel asked for amendments in 2002 or is it BBC?

Feel free to salvage the text by finding proper sources. I weren't able to, i.e WP:CANTFIX ImTheIP (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this isn't clear? "'If 300,000-400,000, or maybe a million, Palestinians would invade the country, that would be the end of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.'"--Aroma Stylish (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is from Zalman Shoval who was a spokesperson for the Likud party which in 2007 wasn't part of the Israeli government. So the quote is not a proxy for the Israels position but would be usable to describe what Zalman Shoval thinks (or thought). ImTheIP (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::No Israeli government has ever accepted the "return" of millions of Palestinian refugees, not even Ehud Barak. Per source: "Israel rejected the 2002 plan outright after it was first proposed at an Arab summit in Beirut, but Mr Olmert is now giving it a guarded welcome, albeit with reservations linked to the issue of refugees." (you want something more explicit? See this, no need to keep splitting hairs)--Aroma Stylish (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC) :::Another one: "Mr. Sharon wanted three commitments: backing for the Gaza withdrawal, American recognition that Israel would hold on to parts of the West Bank, and an American rejection of the right of millions of Palestinian refugees from the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and their descendants to return to their lands in what is now Israel."--Aroma Stylish (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have one article saying that Olmert has "reservations linked to the issue of refugees" and another that says that he "rejects return of any Palestinian refugees." These articles are unrelated and it violates WP:SYNTH to link them to try and infer what Olmert's "reservations" were about. The NYT article quoting Sharon is not related to the API. It cannot be used as a source for Sharon's (or anyone else's for that matter) opinions about the API because it again violates WP:SYNTH. What is required is a book source or something that lays out the Israeli opposition. Wikipedians can't put together a "narrative" based on collections of quotes from news articles.ImTheIP (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Every single Israeli government since the API was published (and before) rejects the proposition to absorve millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. That's a fact, not WP:synth. The sources that talk about Israeli reservations to the API mention this. Stop splitting hairs and try to have a constructive behaviour.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it shouldn't be difficult for you to locate proper sources.ImTheIP (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update 2022 Arab Summit[edit]

The initiative was again approved at the end of the Arab League Summit in Algiers:

"Commitment to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, with all its elements and priorities, and commitment to a just and comprehensive peace as a strategic option for ending the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands, including the Syrian Golan, the Shab'a Farms, and the Lebanese Kafr Shuba Hills, and resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of the principle of "land for peace", international law, and the relevant resolutions of international legitimacy"

https://www.aps.dz/algerie/147096-31e-sommet-arabe-d-alger-declaration-d-alger Tarek lb (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

edit request to fix dead links[edit]

Dead link: 17. "Excerpts From Speech by Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia". The New York Times. March 27, 2002. Retrieved January 12, 2009. [dead link]

Article text: "Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia made a speech to the Arab League on the day of its adoption saying that: In spite of all that has happened and what still may happen, the primary issue in the heart and mind of every person in our Arab Islamic nation is the restoration of legitimate rights in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.... We believe in taking up arms in self-defence and to deter aggression. But we also believe in peace when it is based on justice and equity, and when it brings an end to conflict. Only within the context of true peace can normal relations flourish between the people of the region and allow the region to pursue development rather than war. In light of the above, and with your backing and that of the Almighty, I propose that the Arab summit put forward a clear and unanimous initiative addressed to the United Nations security council based on two basic issues: normal relations and security for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, and the return of refugees."

Replacements:


Dead link: 88. "Arab League Envoys Postpone Israel Visit"[dead link] The Guardian

Article text: "Jordan and Egypt were appointed by the Arab League as its representatives to meet with Israeli leaders to promote the Initiative. These countries were chosen because Egypt and Jordan are the only Arab countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel. Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul Ilah Khatib and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit met with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Jerusalem on July 25, 2007, which was the first time that Israel received an official delegation from the Arab League."

Replacement: "Arab League Envoys Postpone Israel Visit". The Oklahoman. July 10, 2007. Archived from the original on September 26, 2023. Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Another user fixed the dead links, but retained the existing sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for pointing this out.
It looks like the second half of my request has now been taken care of: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1180017585&oldid=1180015616&title=Arab_Peace_Initiative
However, the new source for the text in the first half (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1180015616&oldid=1177947720&title=Arab_Peace_Initiative) only covers part of the quote, as does the first source I suggested. However, the second source I suggested does appear to have the full quote, so either it or another source with the full quote should be added.
Solomon Ucko (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Peace_Initiative&oldid=1211435727"