Talk:Land for peace

The current results section as it is written today is complete OR. The sources references do not connect the events they describe as being a result of the "land for peace" strategy. It is just anti-Palestinian POV and one notes that there is no mention of ISraeli expansion of the settlements that has occured since this strategy has begun or the resistance that Netanyahu put up again this strategy in the mid-1990s. This section feels like someone is taking the opportunity to engage in Palestinian bashing.--70.51.232.124 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the OR section. --70.51.232.124 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about as a compromise we call this the criticism section, because the events of Gaza post-disengagement are used to criticize land for peace.--Urthogie 02:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

But this is where I argue it is OR. The Gaza disengagement is not arguable a land for peace deal in that it was unilateral, land for peace is a better description of the failed Oslo process where both sides were parties to the events. The chaos and unrest in Gaza post-disengagement is legitimately an aftermath of the disengagement, but it is already detailed in that article. --70.51.232.124 02:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know what I'm saying is that land for peace is criticized because of what happened in Gaza. I'm not saying Gaza was land for peace by saying that.--Urthogie 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually I just read through the disengagement article and it doesn't talk about the aftereffects in Gaza except very briefly. I know there is criticism of the land for peace on both sides, but the results section sources didn't connect the events describes to the land for peace process. I think land for peace has failed as well, as it is sort of obvious after more than a decade of attempts. But the results/criticism section as it was was not appropriate, which is why I initially tagged it as POV. --70.51.232.124 02:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't using the wikipedia article as my source for citing the Gaza disengagement as something that is used to criticize land for peace. A simple google search will show you many sources which bring up this point.--Urthogie 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

As it stands the article has a single paragraph on the "pros" of land for peace and then a much larger section of criticisms. I'm concerned that this gives undue weight to opposing views, but I don't know enough about the issue to expand the article myself. Cynical (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, it is reality, and not the article, that places undue weight. The downsides actually have overmatched the upsides in this. Jtrainor (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The section doesn't mention the blockade of the Gaza Strip or the fact that a peremptory norm of international law precludes it from expanding its borders as a result of war. harlan (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• −

  On 19 June 1967, Israel offered "to give up Sinai and the Golan in exchange for peace," an offer that was rejected.

  +

  On 19 June 1967, shortly after the Six-Day War, the Israeli government voted to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a permanent peace settlement and a demilitarization of the returned territories. This decision was not made public at the time, nor was it conveyed to any Arab state. then ....

  :
• The reference cited didn't mention that Isreal delivered this offer to any Arab state. In fact there a page on Wikipedia called Yom Kippur War that mentions This decision was not made public at the time, nor was it conveyed to any Arab state. I cited a journal article published by AVI RAZ at Oxford university press called "The Generous Peace Offer that was Never Offered: The Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967" :
• ^[1] :

Mohamed819 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Copied content over from Yom Kippur War. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply