Jump to content

Talk:Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 110.137.184.148 (talk) at 10:40, 16 September 2020 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2020: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Israeli English

Accords

@Bloom6132: per your last edit comment, that is not true. Both Egypt and Jordan were party to the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Armistice precedes Peace Treaties. Jordan and Israel were still technically at war (post the 1973 ceasefire following UNSCR 340). This is not the case for the UAE. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: Well, with that logic, one could argue that the UAE and Israel were also "technically" at war, since neither side was willing to recognize the other. And the UAE refused to recognize Israeli passports. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no declaration of war. See the list at Declaration_of_war#Declared_wars_since_1945. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See this re the definition of a treaty: "it is the content of the agreement, not its name, which makes it a treaty" As such, war is not the precondition for a peace treaty. A legally binding agreement is. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132: that link proves that war is not the precondition for a treaty - it has nothing to do with the key word "peace". See our article Peace treaty: "A peace treaty is an agreement between two or more hostile parties, usually countries or governments, which formally ends a state of war between the parties" and see the sources therein. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in that very article you cite, it states: “The fact that the current international law system avoids the use of the term 'war' also avoids the conclusion of a peace treaty based on the existence of war.” —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Technical" move request

@Anthony Appleyard: unfortunately @Bloom6132: misused WP:RM/TR when he asked you to move this page per [1]. Whether this is correctly described as a peace treaty is a contested matter.Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If you looked carefully (before spuriously throwing around unfounded accusations), I did not put my request under the "Uncontroversial technical requests" heading. I placed it under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves", which this clearly is.—Bloom6132 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132: Unfortunately you lied in your submission, because the move was explicitly discussed. Also two separate editors moved it. You had no consensus for this, and misled an admin. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the little my opinion worth, the agreements have been commonly referred to as peace deals or agreements in their reporting: Trump on Twitter, BBC, ABC, Times of Israel, SBS, Fox News. Claiming that the common name is wrong, or that there is a significant perspective from a number of authoritative sources that these aren't "peace agreements" in the broadest terms, lies dangerously close to original research and almost a fringe perspectives as far as I see it. While a technical move may not have been the best avenue to institute the move, I think there is a policy basis for such - i.e. I don't think the administrator was misled. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 07:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ItsPugle, what is unacceptable is that Bloom6132 wrote: "That was moved (without discussion)... which was subsequently reverted (again w/o discussion)..."[2] The above thread shows that Bloom lied about the lack of discussion. Since both Zoozaz1 and I moved the page, there were at the time two editors supporting the "accords" title, and only one supporting "peace treaty". Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An edit summary does not replace a talk page discussion. Once again, brush up on your grasp of WP policy before engaging in calumny. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above. The discussion was here on the talk page. Rather than continue, you moved to undermine the discussion by misleading a well meaning administrator. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor who moved the page (Zoozaz1) never participated in the discussion "here on the talk page". No one is buying your accusation about "misleading". You're already in for a reprimand at ANI for abusing the process of that forum. That says all we need to know. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move: The discussion supports moving the page to drop 'peace' in the title. While Abraham Accords was floated as a new name, there was not consensus on that. That can be pursued down the line in another discussion | MK17b | (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement → Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement (or deal / accords / pact) – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, the title should not include the word "peace". Most sources do not refer to this as a "peace treaty", because that is not what it is. The normal definition of peace treaty requires a prior state of war, which these two states have never had. There is an element of stereotyping in assuming that because the country is Arab, it must have previously been an enemy of Israel. See International recognition of Israel - would people call an agreement between Israel and Venezuela a "peace agreement"?! Of course a number of media outlets, and the US President on Twitter, have called this a peace treaty – perhaps because it is more catchy / politically impactful. But most media outlets have not made that mistake – the vast majority of sources for this topic call it simply an "agreement", and it is technically an "accord". Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Sources explicitly stating that it is not a "peace agreement":
(1) UCLA's Nazarian Center for Israel Studies "Establishing diplomatic ties is a big step forward, but it’s not a “peace agreement” as some have called it since the two countries have never been at war."
(2) Quincy Institute: "What has been achieved is not a peace agreement, but an agreement to formalize relations between two countries – Israel and the UAE – who were never at war and who already have unofficial, discrete relations."
(2 sources added by Onceinawhile 14 August 2020 (UTC) [3])
Yeah, an institute that receives money from the Koch brothers and Soros is such a reliable source to cite as authority. Give me a break. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for now. It may technically 'not' be a peace treaty, but the common use in the news media overwhelmingly uses that term in headlines (not sure what English news organs you are reading - I have very rarely seen it called 'accords' anywhere ...). Wiki isn't a newspaper, and the article's title is not that important right now. Wait a while - see how more scholarly sources approaches this a few months down the road, then re-visit the issue if necessary. - HammerFilmFan 50.111.14.143 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC) !vote format standarised by ItsPugle to make it more visible when reading[reply]
  • Strong oppose – contrary to what OP states, WP:COMMONNAME favours the use of "peace agreement", as used in the "vast majority of sources" such as The Washington Post, Forbes, The Guardian, Global News, and Deadline, to name a few. Shall I continue, or do you get the point by now? All this talk of "normal definition" is tantamount to original research, and imputing stereotyping when none exists nor was intended is synthesis at best. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132: that is WP:CHERRYPICKING. The vast majority of sources do not call it a peace agreement. The links you have given were just quoting Trump verbatim (since he was the first to announce it) - Trump's record for accuracy is patchy. I have provided two reputable sources above who explicitly explain that this is not a peace agreement, and this news is not even 24 hours old. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable sources? You should sell me some seaside property in Iowa while you're at it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Countering policies with an essay. Why don't you give examples of sources that actually say "accord" and omit the word "peace"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Happy to:
(3) The Guardian: Israel signs historic deal with UAE that will 'suspend' West Bank annexation; Trump hails US-brokered pact as ‘peace agreement’ but cracks quickly appear as Netanyahu denies change of plan... "Trump described the pact as a “peace agreement”. However, the UAE’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan later tweeted that the country had agreed instead to “cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship”.
(4) The Times "Historic deal"
(5) NPR: "historic deal" ... "an agreement"
(6) Bloomberg "an agreement"
(7) Reuters "an accord"
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd prefer using the term "cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship" instead? So much for WP:COMMONNAME … —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still 10 sources (5 cited by me and 5 by CMD) that include the word "peace" … —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You only showed 2 above - a youtube video and the Deadline article. Your WaPo, Guardian and Forbes articles only mentioned "Peace deal" when quoting Trump, not in their own voice. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DW is paraphrasing what Trump said in the Oval Office on August 13, 2020(video 0:15 ): Just a few moments ago, I hosted a very special call with two friends, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and crown prince Mohamed bin Zayed of United Arab Emirates where they agreed to finalize a historical peace agreement. The direct quote is from the press conference later that afternoon in the press briefing room. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) BBC also uses "peace deal" only when paraphrasing Trump: n a surprise statement by US President Donald Trump, who helped broker it, the countries called the accord "historic" and a breakthrough toward peace. as do CNN (The deal was announced by ... Trump, who told reporters in the Oval Office that he had a "very special call" with leaders from both countries, ..., and that they had agreed to a peace agreement.) and Haaretz Trump, in a tweet, called the agreement a "HUGE breakthrough," describing it as a "historic peace agreement between our two GREAT friends." Haaretz also quotes Netanyahu using the term: Annexation still on the table, Netanyahu says, but U.S. asked Israel to 'temporarily postpone' applying sovereignty to parts of West Bank in order to advance the peace agreement Except for France24, none of the sources use "peace deal" or "peace agreement" to describe the agreement in their own words. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: I agree with your summary. The issue is the word "peace" - whether we end with agreement / deal / accord is fine either way. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: in that case, would you maybe consider switching "accords" to "agreement" in your move request, to emphasise that the main thrust of it is to remove "peace"? Discussion get confused if there are two separate amendments at play at the same time, and !voters may oppose on one ground but not the other.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: done - thanks for the suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Details are important. Clearly, you shouldn't call an agreement that is not a peace agreement a peace agreement.ImTheIP (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see how including 'peace agreement' in the title is compatible with one of the five pillars, WP:NPOV. Since sources disagree, and many authoritative ones state it is not a peace treaty, to espouse that in the title is to privilege one viewpoint. To oppose is to espouse a known political spin (amply documented, that this has important ramifications in getting Netanyahu and Trump out of a political mess), one calibrated to act as ammo for arguments on foreign policy achievements in the November elections. On a second point, sources also state quite clearly that a key element in the accord is to secure a broad anti-Iranian front, which has a bellicose intent. True, Si vis pacem, para bellum, but contextually this is an alliance between allies to form a common front in a prospective war against a third party, and thus cannot be described in absolute terms as a 'peace agreement' neutrally.

It could reorder the long stalemate in the region, potentially leading other Arab nations to follow suit in forging an increasingly explicit alliance with Israel against their mutual enemy in Iran.Peter Baker, Isabel Kershner, David D. Kirkpatrick and Ronen Bergman,Israel and United Arab Emirates Strike Major Diplomatic Agreement, New York Times 13 August 2020

  • Move to Abraham Accord – The name has been reported in many sources. Why are we trying to create a name when a precise, concise, and commonly reported name exists? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Abraham Accord as per Coffeeandcrumbs (love your username btw) -The evidence suggests that is the proper name of the agreement, and it is unambiguous in representing such. The current title would absolutely redirect to such, but I think Abraham Accord is a reasonable balance of the media's naming and the official name. From my understanding too, further agreements are almost guaranteed to be developed so I feel that moving to a less ambiguous title would benefit us as editors both now and in the future. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 11:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but not without problems. We need to know who came up with 'Abraham Accord' before considering that option. The White House statement said this is how it will be called (in English - what is the term to be used in Arabic?) If this is a condition set by the White House, the term is loaded to serve in attracting the evangelical vote in November (Abrahamic religions) - and silly, because Christians do not figure among the two signatories: it is an agreement between Islamic and Jewish states. Prior agreements between Jordan, Egypt and Israel never gave rise to such verbal gimcrackery, and have names reflecting the reality of what the agreements were designed to be. That is the only rationale I can think of to explain such an odd naming. In the meantime, the choice to be made is between 'peace agreement' and 'agreement'. Once that is decided, one can consider the neutrality of the White House term.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I type "abraham accord" into Google it gives me a "Did you mean?" suggestion. Google is not the arbiter of truth, but that strongly suggests to me that the name isn't at this point well-established. "Israel–United Arab Emirates accords" or "Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement" seem to me to be the most accurate and NPOV atm.ImTheIP (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try Google again, the name 'Abraham Accord' seems to be what this and other events will coalesce around. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, one should consider normalization agreement.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the few who think that 'Abraham Accord' is appropriate or, even contrafactually, 'common' usage, I'd like to remind them that this is biblical language, and reflects a crass understanding of what the phrase implies, typical of people who play with biblical termninology without ever reading the Bible. Abraham, at his wife's bidding, drove his son by Hagar into the desert, disinheriting them. This Ishmael becomes the patriarchal ancestor of Arabs. Abraham disowned the ancestor of the Arabs at his wife's urging. So there is nothing 'Abrahamic' about calling the obverse 'Abrahamic'. Someone will probably twig to this offensiveness, and even joke at the irony that Netanyahu's wife is named after Abraham's spouse, Sarah. Sheesh. But one expects obtusity from the White House, esp. when evangelicals have to be wooed this year. Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it’s appropriate or offensive has no bearing with the title of the page used on Wikipedia (WP:CENSOR). If it’s WP:COMMONNAME then it’s the name we should go with. Northern Moonlight 22:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is obvious policy. The point is, no one familiar with this encyclopedia should be mentioning WP:COMMONNAME to justify a preference for one of four terms used miscellaneously in a mere two days of reportage, esp. for an agreement not yet formally signed. We've seen all of this mediatic hoopla before with the touted |Peace to Prosperity plan for the West Bank, which was dead in the water, still-born, on delivery, had nothing to do with peace or prosperity, and which was shelved within weeks. We exercised patience, caution and a certain wariness about the risk of being sucked into political name games here.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t agree with using WP:COMMONNAME in this case, please say so instead of directing your complaint towards Wikipedians (no one familiar with this encyclopedia should be mentionning). Northern Moonlight 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well argued, e.g. re commonname and sourcing.
Oppose Abraham, not well based, not convincing. A fringe push in RL from an outsider? -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no risk for confusion because there is no other bilateral agreement between Israel and UAE. That's the whole point. :)ImTheIP (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... which is the point nom states. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments above. This is just the first of what will be many agreements between the two countries. In fact, the main purpose of normalizing relations is to facilitate further bilateral agreements. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this thread, so far no RS has been provided that shows that this is the formal name (i.e., title of the agreement, as written by signatores). -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a formal name whatever that means. We also do not need an official name, only a common name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Agreement" is very vague, and does not accurately explain what the accord is about. Pivoting to the word "accord," as many other editors have suggested, is not a bad idea. Using a different word for peace is a good idea, if peace is not the correct word under international law. Replacing it with Abraham Accord, suggested by User:Trying to reconnect and User:LightandDark2000 amongst others, is also a reasonable idea. However, simply reducing it to agreement is unspecific and could make listing future agreements between the UAE and Israel more difficult to make articles for. PickleG13 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement" or "accord". As far as I'm aware, the UAE never declared war on Israel, and nor did they participate in any direct military confrontaions. Iroh (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging with Israel–United Arab Emirates relations which was created in 2010 when the two countries started to work together extensively. As my second choice, support moving to "Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement" but I really don't see the need for a separate article. As all of the sources cited above noted, Israel and the UAE have not been at war. They’re formalizing relations they’ve had for years by establishing diplomatic relations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It is regarded by the signatories and observers as a peace deal, as it includes the prevention of annexation. Whether it really is depends on our personal opinion. However, I am not opposed to moving it to Abraham Accords. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't "include the prevention of [formal] annexation," it merely puts it on hold: The agreement revealed Thursday stipulates that Israel will "suspend" annexation as a prerequisite to gaining full diplomatic relations with the UAE. ([4]) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is regarded by the signatories and observers as ... -- few quotes for this, and obviously the authors did not even name it as such. And a lot of observers say different. I prefer the analysis by OP: sources, COMMONNAME, etc. Variant names can be mentioned in the body text. -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A peace treaty does not in fact posit a prior state of war, only a future state of peace. There have been many treaties of peace, amity and commerce without prior states of war. Srnec (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as 'agreement' on its own is not specific in what it refers to and is not as clear as the current title. I would also support a move to Abraham Accord as a precise and commonly used name. Andysmith248 (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As regards the "official" name Abraham Accords, what is notable is that no-one is using it. The most recent rs, including from the Trump admin, in relation to the upcoming signing ceremony all only refer to it as the Israel UAE /agreement/normalization/deal. There is no way that Abraham Accord is common name, not even close.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The arguments made by Onceinawhile is solid enough to justify the move. Pahlevun (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. This is an agreement, not a peace agreement. I oppose the Abrahamic thing, as it is a stupid and silly name, used by Trump for electoral purposes, as user Nishidani pointed out above, and of course not all Arabs are part of this agreement, only the goverments involved. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

Please add editnotice about this notice in the article per other Arab-Israeli articles:

and please adding editnotice about using American English in the article

180.245.101.217 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The article was created by a Canadian, which presents a nice mixture of the two country articles, Israel which uses American English and United Arab Emirates which uses British English. CMD (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, some articles editors created using incorrect English. But at least please create and implement editnotice about ArbCom Arab-Israeli in the article as per other Arab-Israeli articles. 180.245.101.217 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an ArbCom PIA notice at the top of the page. CMD (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that editnotice is yet to implemented in this article. 180.245.101.217 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: There is no ArbCom notice when you edit the article. Try edit e.g. Israel and you will see a notice. Christian75 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation of the West Bank

I believe this should be a prominent separate part of the article as it's internationally disputed and the most controversial conversation here in the middle east. Some information: Sheik Zayed of the UAE and the Trump administration: are claiming the treaty avoids the annexation of the west bank. Netanyahu of Israel on national television said: “I am still committed to annexing parts of the West Bank to Israel, it's not off the table, but can only happen in coordination with the US.," Netanyahu said.

Anyhow, I believe this should be researched and written about in the main article in a separate section.

The Article I believe must also include what's likely the benefits brought about to both parties from the treaty, i.e., the UAE's political stance on the international arena is highly damaged by its controversial role in Yemen's civil war and the proxy conflict in Libya, and that there's an expected weapon boost to the UAE from the US especially advanced drones, i.e., talk about alleged the military gain for the UAE brought about by the treaty. As well as, talking about the pre-electoral boost the trump administration is hoping to get from the treaty, and research whether the west bank annexation was truly ever going to occur or as one news agency put it as "trading an imaginary annexation for a peace treaty" since the plan was halted and never occurred on the previously stated date their date anyhow Thank you. I am new to Wikipedia editing so apologize if I am breaking any protocol. --Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-in-uae-deal-netanyahu-trades-imaginary-annexation-for-real-life-diplomacy-win-1.9071474

  1. ^ https://www.axios.com/netanyahu-uae-deal-annexation-plans-suspension-1fb0d2d1-8ebc-48f6-81c7-35641ba7cd09.html
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/world/middleeast/israel-uae-annexation.html

Role of the United states?

There is a quote from the US ambassador describing the agreement as a "'a huge win' for President Trump". As I read the article there is no mention of the role the US played in this. Given the prominence of this quote, should some mention of what the US contributed be worked in? 199.46.251.140 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-From a quote by the UAE crown prince:

“During a call with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, an agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories,”[1]

-The negotiations were closely held in the White House, with only a limited number of officials aware. Meetings and Thursday’s phone call were either omitted from schedules or listed with obscure language, according to an administration official.
-The fact that Mr Netanyahu said the Annexation plans of the west bank should be coordinated with the US administration.
-The fact that the peace plan was announced by Mr. Trump from the white house
-The fact that the official signatory celerbartion will be held in the white house in the following weeks.
I believe are all facts that make the current line satisfying or would benefit if these points along with Mr. Jared Kushner's efforts were to be :added to the US section. --Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Dr.EbrahimSaadawi. I am not exactly a fan of Jared Kushner, but I added the following content to his BLP yesterday. "On August 13, 2020, Kushner's plan from earlier in the year resulted in the establishment of diplomatic ties between the United Arab Emirates and Israel.[115][116] According to The New York Times,

"six weeks of indirect talks through Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, culminated in Thursday’s phone call between Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates."[117]

The three referenced sources are articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and MSNBC online. I also added another source crediting Kushner with playing a key role in the agreement from The Atlantic. It is a gross omission not to include some mention of Kushner. In fact, the article as it reads now, is not factually consistent with The New York Times news article. I suggest having a look at the sources which are available in the Kushner BLP, and updating this article as other editors deem appropriate.--FeralOink (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a paragraph on such stuff. It bears noting that the agreement directly contradicts stated Trump adminstration policy set forth in the Kushner plan from just months ago. soibangla (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/politics/trump-israel-united-arab-emirates-uae.html

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2020 (second)

We normally speak of the UAE in the singular, right, like the United States? "The UAE is doing X" not "The UAE are doing X"? If so, please change the second sentence from "to formally normalize their relationship with Israel," to "to formally normalize its relationship with Israel," 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated: since we're summarizing Jared Kushner's words, not quoting them, please change "less" to "fewer" because "less" pertains to non-count nouns like rice and water, and "fewer" to count nouns like soldiers. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've updated "less" to fewer, and it looks like another editor (thank you whoever you are) already fixed the lead :) ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 11:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"See also"

I recommend to add a link to Israel–United Arab Emirates relations, which has a stronger connection to this article's subject than the older agreements of Israel with Jordan and Egypt. Ofek (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linked in the Background section.Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy wars

Currently, Iran supports different factions in proxy wars from Syria to Yemen, where the UAE has supported the Saudi-led coalition against the Iran-aligned forces fighting there

This is a gross violation of NPOV. Iran is isolated as a state actor uniquely engaged in proxy wars in the area. Together with Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, the United States, Russia and Turkey, to name the major 'actors', all have continued to participate in wars, siding with, financing or providing arms to one or another of the political factors or terror groups from Afghanistan to Lebanon. If Iran, as a major regional actor, does what any other nation does when its immediate geostrategic interests are threatened, i.e., chooses sides and, in doing so, can be defined as engaging in a proxy war, so do all of the above states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

To single it out is to assume that Iran is the only one of the dozen or so that 'instigates' wars, or intervenes in the region, which is nonsense. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

In the "Others" section, I would like to add Malaysia's reaction to this peace agreement. I would like to add as written below:

Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said that Malaysia's position on the Israel-Palestine issue has always been the same, whereby it rejects the illegal and unilateral action by Israel to implement its plan to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank.

Source: https://www.thesundaily.my/local/malaysia-firm-on-two-state-solution-for-israel-palestinian-conflict-hishammuddin-CN3492455 GinormousBuildings (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. the sun daily isn't considered a reliable source Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABSENCE OF MENTION OF CROWN PRINCE OF ABU DHABI

May I draw attention to a problem in the article? In the first sentence in the section Background it says, "As early as 1971, the year in which the UAE became an independent country, the first president of the UAE Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan had referred to Israel as "the enemy.

In the next section Agreement it says, "A joint statement issued by Trump, Netanyahu, and Zayed, read: "This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region."

Now with just the usage Zayed it would be a reference to the first UAE Sheik. But it is not. Here we are talking about Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the curren Crown Prince of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. But there is no full reference to him before the mention of "Zayed" in the agreement section.

Could this be fixed up please? Andyjourn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjourn (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this reversion

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement&diff=973345068&oldid=973337341

It’s not an opinion piece, it’s reporting by the NYT, perhaps the best single source for this kind of content, and the edit is simply an improvement over the edit it replaced. The edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias even here

I just came back to Wikipedia after nearly a year off, largely because I couldn't stand the barely-disguised personal and political biases of editors. Here, yet another thoughtful editor blanked the entire section on the United States reaction, referred to Donald Trump's spokesperson as a "sycophant" (clearly a subjective opinion), and now the section reads only a quote from Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Unbelievable. Welcome back to Wikipedia, that great source of knowledge, written by unbiased editors, for whom I'm supposed to "assume good faith". Foreignshore (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking was done by a political activist editor, who, 1) should be allowed nowhere near the editing apparatus of an encyclopedia, 2) treats editing as a game in which points are scored against opponents (NOT a collaborative approach), and 3) clearly feels emboldened to continue their editing strategy by the current editing climate, supported as it is by admins who are too weak to wade into the mire to do anything about it. Hence their bold edit you reverted. Thankfully it looks like the heavy lifting to retain the Trump administration's reaction to the peace agreement was done earlier up this talk page. If you can source your edits to the fabled, revered and selectively chosen RS, there's very little that even emboldened political activist editors can do to blank them. So at least independent editors still have that, for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Foreignshore: if you continue the wrongthink, eventually, some activist mod will find a way to ban you. wp:cabals 2601:602:9200:1310:99E:D3D0:14E4:B585 (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I defy anyone to show me a similar article about a foreign policy achievement by a president that cites not just one, but three members of the foreign policy apparatus of that president under “Reactions,” including the president’s son-in-law who was the primary administration participant in the talks. By contrast, this “political activist” editor added two positive reactions to the deal from uninvolved observers who would not typically be forthcoming with anything resembling praise for Trump. And anyone who thinks Trump does not surround himself with sycophants to an extraordinary degree, having repeatedly demonstrated that he values loyalty over competence by replacing career professionals with loyalists, is simply not paying attention. The reactions of his foreign policy advisors are virtually worthless. And the “courage“ of the editor to personally attack me behind an anon IP is duly noted.soibangla (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: Your activity on this topic, both the article and the talk page, is making it difficult for me to continue contributing. It isn't a matter of disagreeing with you necessarily. For example, I would not have included ANY reactions from members of the Trump administration regarding Trump's foreign policy achievements, unless they were informative, e.g. if they voiced disagreement! (This does happen, during the 2016 campaign and just yesterday, although it wasn't about the Israel-UAE accord. The two incidents that I can recall offhand involved Vice President Pence. In each case, Pence made an on-the-record statement to the press, to which there were follow-up inquiries by the press as to why he disagreed with Trump on the topic under discussion, and his reply.) That sort of thing--which is not gossip nor attributed to "unnamed sources"--does warrant mention.
Rather, my concern is due to your repeated disregard of WP:TALKPOV. Note that the Be Positive section states, "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject." The Stay Objective section states: "Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue." Your reply to the prior discussion in this section of the talk page is clearly inconsistent with those aspects of the Wikipedia Talk Page Guidelines:

"anyone who thinks Trump does not surround himself with sycophants to an extraordinary degree, having repeatedly demonstrated that he values loyalty over competence by replacing career professionals with loyalists, is simply not paying attention."

There are other instances on this talk page and in the article edits (including edit summaries) which are inconsistent with the guidelines per WP:SOAPBOX. For example, I added the wikilinked description of Jared Kushner as incumbent Senior Advisor to the President of the United States, which is factually correct. In this later edit, you removed his official title as well as the wikilink (instead of piping it, if you felt that was better) and replaced it merely with "Trump administration official". Your accompanying WP:NOR edit summary is: "what would we expect the primary Trump administration official involved in negotiating the agreement to say" without explaining why you removed his title.
You consider New York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman to be a credible WP:RS, which is reasonable. However, when you initially mentioned him in the Reactions section, you included the phrase, "Longtime New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has for decades written about international geopolitics". Your edit summary ("see, THIS is valid, what Trump officials say is not") is gratuitously pejorative toward the Trump administration and again, WP:SOAPBOX. (Including Friedman's view is not a problem, but the lack of WP:NPOV in the edit summary is.)
-I perceived part of your edit as WP:PUFFERY. I modified it, keeping the rest of the content on Friedman intact, unchanged from how you wrote it. I merely removed the phrase, "who has for decades written about international geopolitics" with an explanation in the edit summary.
-However, a few edits later, you added the phrase back, disingenuously stating in the edit summary that "he’s not just any columnist, he’s won three Pulitzers for his work on such topics, especially Middle East, his reaction is a big deal", as though I had removed the Friedman passage yet not explaining your justification for reverting the phrase I did actually remove.
-A few hours later, another editor removed that same phrase about Friedman ("who has for decades written about international geopolitics"), replacing it with NPOV language. He added a relevant and WP:RS tertiary source as well, which is especially valuable given that the article has mostly secondary sources because of its recency as a current event.
-In less than a day, you deleted this editor's source, and replaced the wording with that same language ("Longtime New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has for decades written about international geopolitics..."). Your edit summary, "why downplay his credentials? his BLP does not call him a globalist, which is considered a perjorative by some" disregards the all the prior edits and summaries, with no explanation why you deleted the link.
Clearly, we were not downplaying Friedman's credentials. In addition, both myself and the other editor had removed your usage of "longtime". I did so because it is a vague term discouraged by WP:MOS guidelines for WP:RELTIME, among other reasons. You added it back, with no explanation. A final point: the phrase isn't even semantically valid, as all geopolitics is inherently international in nature, i.e. there is no "national geopolitics". I want to put in place the revised wording, but will wait for your response here.
You added a direct quote from the New York Times to the lead.
-In the immediately following revision an editor removed it, with this edit summary, "Nobody cares what NYT have to say about it either. That is also NPOV as it's one opinion piece of many given undue prominence. Lead is for outlining the facts on an encyclopedia, not more.".
-Four hours later, you added it back but unlike your earlier edit, you no longer indicated that it was a direct quote via the New York Times.
-Next, I deliberately reworded it in order to avoid a potential copyvio as the phrasing was identical to the wording of the New York Times article from which it was sourced. Given that it remains in the lead, I wrote this edit summary, "changed lead sentence to clarify that there was NOT a formal diplomatic relationship between UAE and Israel prior to now (seems redundant but maybe discuss on talk page?)".
soibangla, I do not want to engage in petty revert battles with you. I would like to avoid a WP:TENDENTIOUS situation. I am not accusing you of such behavior, merely trying to promote a collaborative way of interacting, one that is conducive to productive editing.
It is essential to avoid blatantly biased language on talk pages and article edit summaries. Articles pertaining to the Trump administration tend to elicit strong opinions. There are many WP editors who have strong negative biases (or even intense loathing) regarding Donald Trump! However, they observe the Wikipedia Guidelines so that only factual, WP:NPOV and WP:RS are used, without any WP:NOR.--FeralOink (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions from Trump administration officials shouldn't be here

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement&diff=973400438&oldid=973400287

I think they have no merit here and should be removed. The section should include only people outside the administration. Note: I added the Biden positive reaction. soibangla (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why? Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction from the United States would typically involve government figures of the United States. Do you object to the reactions of other countries involving figures from their country's respective governments? Every single one of them does just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this directed at me? I agree with you that it should be included. Trying to reconnect (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, at the OP. Sorry for any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: I see no reason why statements from members of the Trump Administration should be removed. Can you explain why their presence on the page has "no merit"? Alssa1 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I simply cannot believe that this needs to be explained. soibangla (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These not similar things (not to mention they are 2017 links), and even if they were, are still not a valid reason for exclusion. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to include reactions from the Trump admin no matter they are self serving. Alternative sources pari passu will make it plain if that is the case.Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: well it does need to be explained. Alssa1 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. I suppose it's fine to have a section which includes comments from Trump's foreign affairs apparatus, but what else would one expect them to say about a president who demands loyal sycophants like none we've ever seen before? But a "Reactions" section is intended to include observations from noninvolved parties. And even if we weren't talking about Trump, I'd have the same position if they were comments from any other president's foreign policy apparatus. It just doesn't belong in this section. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your diatribes and politically-motivated edits are unhelpful. Can you explain very simply and clearly why there is an issue with its inclusion? Alssa1 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alssa1, why did you just rollback several of my edits consisting of ref fixes and content, without explanation? soibangla (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there are exceptions, but over a decade, my memory is that reactions deal with responses from states external to the reality being discussed. (b)I dislike reactions sections: They are easy to do, since editors don't have to read say 10 articles and excerpt material to make a narrative synthesis on a theme. Historical writing should be thematic, and deal with all actors impartially. I don't think anyone reads reaction sections. (c) The Palestinian reaction should be excerpted and reworked in terms of the tens of authoritative articles which discuss them as losers in a win-win-win deal for the three major actors in this agreement. The article, ironically, mirrors the US/Israel/UAE move by essentially ignoring the the fallguy in this scenario. They deserve a separate section.Nishidani (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no diatribes and politically-motivated edits from me. There are, however, several of my edits that you rolled back without explanation. Why did you do that? soibangla (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are, and I'm not the only one who has recognised this. So could you kindly refrain from engaging in such behaviour in the future? Alssa1 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. The pronounced sycophancy has been extensively reported over the entire Trump presidency by numerous reliable sources. Now, why did you rollback my edits? soibangla (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to have a long-winded discussion with you about it. The 'Political bias even here' is referring to your edit. Kindly cut it out. Alssa1 (talk) Alssa1 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that link references anything I've said. Can you explain very simply and clearly why there is an issue with its inclusion? I clearly did. Kindly cut out rolling back several of my edits without explanation and still refusing to explain after three requests. soibangla (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's referencing an edit you've made, specifically this one. If you had clearly explained, I wouldn't have been asking you to explain it (minus the superfluous political diatribe). If you're unable to understand why what you've been doing is a problem, perhaps you should stop making edits? Alssa1 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to pick a fight with me is duly noted. I will now proceed to disengage. soibangla (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in "picking a fight". You make an amendment, you're then told to take it to talk and seek consensus. Instead of engaging positively, you fail to explain your position and when challenged you behave passive-aggressively by responding with: "I simply cannot believe that this needs to be explained" and linking to an irrelevant google search. Your pattern of edits and way of engaging is simply not reasonable, and I would appreciate it if you would engage more positively in future. Alssa1 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you misrepresent what I did with Instead of engaging positively, you fail to explain your position. I removed content with explanation in the edit summary, it was reverted, I immediately took it to Talk, and in my second sentence I explained: The section should include only people outside the administration. Then you asked for further explanation, I provided a link to extensive coverage of how Trump's cabinet members fawned over him as he basked in adulation, to show they obviously aren't going say anything to upset him. And this is why their comments shouldn't be under "Reactions." You accuse me of bias despite the two "Reactions" edits I added were from Biden and Friedman, both of whom praised the agreement. And then you went and rolled back several of my edits without explanation. soibangla (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I haven't I accused you of bias; all I have said is you have engaged in diatribes and politically-motivated edits, that's not the same thing. What you have said here: "Trump's cabinet members fawned over him as he basked in adulation, to show they obviously aren't going say anything to upset him" is indicative of the issue; it's your reading of the situation and not really needed in a section dedicated to reactions to the Israel-UAE deal. But anyways, I'm not going to engage any further with this. Alssa1 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Uninvolved editor here, but I'd like to suggest a bit of a compromise with this. Personally, I think excluding these perspectives purely because they're Trump loyalists (I use that term in the least prejudicial way) goes directly against WP:NPOV, however, the WP:BALANCE of proponents and opponents with them being there is not just. Having two prominent Trump loyalists' opinions represented with larger proses each than Trump's main political opposition (and one of the most influential political figures in current-day United States) is not balanced. I think it's worth adding them back in a rewritten and shorter form (or adding more to Joe Biden's response), and seeking out any other significantly notably voices, particularly others aligned with Biden to help balance it out numerically. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

Mohammad Bin Mazyad Al-Tuwaijri is a Saudi Arabian politician, a minister ranked advisor at the Royal Court when Asked about the issue during an online seminar on Monday, Saudi royal court adviser Mohammad al-Tuwaijri called the U.A.E.’s deal a “sovereign decision” and “entirely their call.” However he also said that Saudi Arabia stands behind a 2002 initiative that called for normalized relations only after Israel withdraws from territories occupied in the 1967 war and claimed by the Palestinians for a state. Dr. Mohmad (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/saudi-fm-says-no-ties-with-israel-until-peace-with-palestinians-639205 Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add international reaction image

Because the article is protected, I propose here to add the image on international reaction that I have created in its corresponding paragraph. For the sources, it would be in the Catalan Wikipedia, where I usually edit. Greetings, KajenCAT (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Loksmythe (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map needs to be updated. Mahadaalvi (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davefelmer edits

Davefelmer if you look at the source, you will see it refers to economic “collapse,” so I object to your characterization of the edit as “partisan.“

What seems partisan to me is your insistence on continuing to refer to “President” Trump long after it has been established he is president. This is not typical in any article about any person. I continue to insist that inclusion of comments by Trump foreign policy team members, especially Kushner, is inappropriate under “Reactions,” and further insisting on continuing to refer to Trump as “President” makes it even less appropriate, as it now smells like outright idolatry. There are a good number of Americans who insist that he be addressed as “President” at all times as a means of “triggering the libs.” If we’re not gonna remove the Trump team’s comments from the section, the least we can do is advise readers of their relationships to Trump.

I also believe that the reported incentive for UAE to acquire US weapons is appropriate under “Analysis.” We need to assess “what’s in it“ for the various parties. Both Trump and Bibi have domestic political motives, and UAE wants F-35s and drones. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/uae-nixes-meeting-israel-35-arms-deal-row-report-200824235236086.html Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a good number of Americans who insist that he be addressed as “President” at all times as a means of “triggering the libs."
You can't be in any way serious after posting that cringe-worthy and embarrassing nonsense, surely. I'm not American so I can't speak to any mental traumas being suffered by some Americans, but if they get "triggered" by hearing the President of the country being referred to as The President, that is simply their problem and not one of an encyclopedia. It's his official title! And it is stated once in every section he's mentioned in which is fine.
Your source is a graph which just shows the GDP falling, nowhere does it refer to a "collapse" unless you are inferring it yourself, which is WP:OR. And no, random speculation from a minority of sources is not a basis to publish theories like the potential arms deal perk as if it's widespread analysis of the deal when there's nothing to even back it up.
And I wouldn't go around accusing people of 'idolatry' if I were you. At the end of the day, I don't even like DJT, at all. However, my duty as an impartial editor trumps my personal feelings and allows me to see that there is definitely a degree of not-so-subtle bias attempting to be applied to all topics concerning the man, which can be easily distinguished through editor patterns and comparing his articles with those to do with previous US Presidents like Obama and Bush. If it continues, I will unfortunately have to present the evidence to an arbitration project in order to cull said editors acting unfaithfully on the project. Davefelmer (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are not familiar with trolls in America who insist that Trump be addressed as "President" at all times, as a way of getting a dig at people who don't like him. As I said, it is not typical in other WP articles to repeatedly refer to any president as "President" long after that has been established early in the article. That, combined with the inclusion of three of Trump's foreign policy team members' comments, smells suspicous when considering that going into this election he has no significant foreign policy achievements to point to, he needs a win he can boast about, and there are some who want to pump-up this achievement up as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
The NYT source provided with the edit characterized it as an economic "collapse" and the chart I provided shows just that: never on record since 1947 has quarterly GDP declined anywhere near the way it did in the 2nd quarter. Not. Even. Close.
The random speculation you refer to is from the NYT, one of the most reliable sources on this planet, their reporters on such topics are experts, and it is sufficient to make the statement in the edit with that source alone, and I showed you a subsequent NYT story showing that the arms deals are proceeding.
I will unfortunately have to present the evidence I look forward to that. Please remember to ping me.soibangla (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your partisan editing needs to stop NOW, soibangla. You make your position clear with statements like this: "That, combined with the inclusion of three of Trump's foreign policy team members' comments, smells suspicous when considering that going into this election he has no significant foreign policy achievements to point to, he needs a win he can boast about, and there are some who want to pump-up this achievement up as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize". (In fact, there have been subsequent and prior foreign policy "wins" by the Trump administration.) Please refer to my earlier statements on this talk page. Also, I noticed that you are following me around Wikipedia, by reverting/removing my edits on Kushner's BLP. (I said nothing until now, although I found it unnerving enough to flee to other article topics.) As a woman editor on Wikipedia, I do not appreciate a pattern of avoidance and harassment by other editors. You have done both, in a short time span, on these political articles. Please stop.--FeralOink (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Afiasengupta2020 (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please add in the first paragraph that this agreement is yet to be signed in order to make it clear.

It already says "If an agreement is signed..."Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs to be updated

The image of a map under the “Reactions” subsection indicating which countries support or oppose the agreement needs to be updated. Pakistan has clarified its “opposition” stance as of August 18th, 2020. Mahadaalvi (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain

On the 11th September 2020, it was announced that Bahrain and Israel would establish full diplomatic relations.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Bahrain establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel, Trump announces". Times of Israel. September 11, 2020.

Requested move 11 September 2020

Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement → Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization agreement – WP:PRECISE Simply put, agreement or peace agreement is either somewhat incorrect or vague. While today it is clear that the Israel–United Arab Emirates (peace) agreement refers to this specific one, over time the name becomes less and less clear. We should seek precision in defining what actually happened, and what actually happened was the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Also (partially) per WP:COMMONAME. See CNN, NBC, Reuters, Washington Post, and New York Times. The sources are far from unanimous, and there are plenty that say peace agreement or agreement, but this is just the most accurate and precise name. I've also proposed a similar change on the Bahrain-Israel peace agreement article, where the sources are much clearer. Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoozaz1: have you seen the RM thread at the top of this page? It has been open for a month and has a very clear consensus to change the name. It just needs someone to close it. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Agreed, there indeed is consensus to change the name. But I don't see consensus as to what name to change it to (unless you see it differently – I only took a cursory glance). I see quite a lot of support votes for "Abraham Accords" (which, for the record, I personally don't support). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, Yes, I do think that the other discussion just needs someone to close it, which is why this requested move will likely occur in a large part after the closure of the other one. While I think agreement is preferable, I also think that normalization agreement is preferable to both. Zoozaz1 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure it wouldn't be better to wait for a close on the existing RM. Comparing the Bahrain announcement (straightforward agreement to full diplomatic relations) with this case it is not entirely clear that this agreement is as clear cut as that one. It might be better to just leave it as agreement without any qualifier until something actually happens for real. Also note Kosovo Serbia where the qualifier "economic" was added (ie not as well political).Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As changed on the Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement, this would be the correct title here as well. | MK17b | (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Apparently the "Abraham Accords Declaration" is a (undated?) document signed by all 4 parties and then there are separate agreements for UAE/Bahrain with separate official titles each signed by the 2 parties and witnessed by Trump and which refer to it. However the UAE agreement also mentions the 13 August US/Israel/UAE joint statement and refers to that as the Abraham Accords. Bit of a mess, really. Anyway, most rs seem to be going with "normalization" (+ deal, pact, agreement, accord or whatever) and so should we.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Change "15 Spetember 2020" to "15 September 2020". 173.177.73.20 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and thank you! – good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2020

See also section: Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement, instead of deleted Bahrain–Israel peace agreement. 121.129.249.185 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 121.129.249.185 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks for noticing! Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

X= The UAE thus became the third Arab country, after Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, to formally normalize its relationship with Israel,[1][2][3] as well as the first Persian Gulf country to do so.

Y= The UAE thus became the fourth Arab country, after Egypt in 1979 , Jordan in 1994 and Mauritania in 1999 to formally normalize its relationship with Israel, ,[1][2][3] as well as the first Persian Gulf country to do so. Alzohary6 (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would need a source. | MK17b | (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit

According Hannu Juusola [fi] at the University of Helsinki,...

Add “to” —> According to Hannu.... Bradleybclark (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done | MK17b | (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Please standardize abbreviation of the United States from US to U.S. or elsewhere because i found that there are inconsistencies regarding abbreviation of the country, in infobox there say "U.S." but in article body says "US". In addition this article needs to be written in American English. Thank you. 110.137.184.148 (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_normalization_agreement&oldid=978683597"