Talk:Camp David Accords

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

Requested move[edit]

Proposal  : Camp David Accords → Camp David Accords
Rationale :   Disambiguation not required?
Proposer : David Kernow 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey and discussion[edit]

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

Moved, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do Israelis consider Egyptians friends??[edit]

of course not, every one knows that Israelis still hate Egyptians to the present day those who are against the accords do still exist besides, the Israeli government and society hopes to cut off the relationships of Egypt and the USA or at least weaken it. making on of the sides either Egyptian or Israeli press a source is completely unacceptable. so is the Israeli press says that Israelis support peace with Egypt, fine but no one can say they are no more hating egypt the Israeli school teaches it's child to hate Egypt just as the Egyptian school teaches it's child to hate Israel in a matter of fact, peace with Israel is more likely a cease fire position were Egypt gets the hole Sinai, good relationship with the USA, transition to the western world, and being the second major receptor of US aid; Israel in return gains peace. not a big deal. so adding that israelis still hate egyptians is in a no way wrong. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is outrageous! Jews don't hate anyone. Jews may have a problem with Arabs and Moslems that wish to kill them as some Koranic duty but Jews have no wish to harm anyone. The Jew has a duty to heal the world through peace, love and charity. As Golda Meir said: "We will never forgive them for turning our sons into killers".

If that were true, then there would be a reliable source available that you could cite to back that up. Otherwise, it is just your point of view. --GHcool (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that were not true, then there would be a reliable source available that you could cite to back that up.One last pharaoh (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 8;03 24 Feb 2008Reply[reply]
Perhaps One last pharaoh is not familiar with the logical fallacy of negative proof. --GHcool (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm sure that if he supports an Egyptian withdrawal from the Camp David Accords, he will also insist Egypt withdraws from the Sinai as well (as it only got the Sinai back by the Camp David Accords); he doesn't realize that his own words, that the Israelis got less tangible benefits from the accords than Egypt, mean that the Israelis wanted peace more than tangibles--counterboint

Perhaps u are not familiar with listening to the other opinion, GHcool. i for an example support the treaty but i am in a no way considering izzies friends, or neigh pores. i support it for it's benefits on Egypt an u bet it did bring more benefits on Egypt that for Israel. So the point here is not that the majority of israelis donot support the treaty, it's that they still hate egypt. And until u have a proof to support that they do not, i am going to make sure that phrase is not deleted from the article. historically, israelis considered egyptians arabs, and israelis hate arabs. they killed thousands of egyptian POWs in 1967 after torturing them for an example and now after the 1973 i really donot believe their emotions towards us have changed just like ours did not. ask those israeli students who have protests about 13 days ago saying "death for arabs" weather they like egyptians or not. by the way i know that egyptians are not arabs, but i also know that israelis do not think so. And counterboint, i have some things to say to u; first "point" is written with a P not a B, second do not u try to think that u maybe able to end that discussion by the his own wards strategy, and third we got back the hole sinai by the treaty, but we also got back the west bank of the suisse by the war. if israelis won on us, why did they retreat to the sinai and not to the day 22 lines?. At the end i raely do not know how old are u or how many discussion have u been part of about egypt, but i can tell u that from dozens of discussions, i have been wrong in only one when i and another were discussing which have a longer-range missiles israel or egypt; and i can also tell u that in the same discussion i made sure it ends with that israel would regret using it's missiles. in other words, if u are a young diplomat, i am a president ofcoure not a one who took the position by force. And GHcool, do not make that personal and say that i am not familiar with so and so, let's just keep it a friendly discussion. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1:23MD 25 Feb 2008Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, One last pharaoh, but Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view and with statements that cite where their sources came from . If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up with the people who write the Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:Community Portal.
Also, in Six Days of War, Michael Oren's definitive volume on the Six-Day War, Oren found no solid evidence for the allegations of Israeli mistreatment of Egyptian POWs. --GHcool (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankx for the gentel way of discussion, GHcool. for the 1967 i think that lately there have been an israeli movie about the killings of the egyptian POWs in that war which have sparked a revolt in the egyptian street openion, and even a call to revenge, but as many other things, it was forgotten by time. any way that's not our main discussion.

I donot think u got my point about how do the majority of israelis feel towards egyptians. i say that the current way the article is; viewing and israeli report about how do egyptians feel about israel while or directly after it's last operations in lebanon, and another that shows a major israeli puplic support for the treaty is some how deceiving that some one who donot know much about the israeli and egyptian communities would think that that means that Egyptians hate israel and donot support the treaty while israelis consider egyptians some kind of allies. and i am not saying that the egyptian and israeli communities should hate each other, but i think that the israeli community can support the treaty and still hate egypt just like that the egyptian community supports the treaty and still hates israel. Sadat had a public acceptance of the treaty, while israelis who were in the sinai for example resisted the israaeli police when it was evacuating them. that treaty is just like a cease fire that lasted for over 30 years and god knows how much is left for it; when i was a kid, they did not tell us any thing about a treaty with israel, they didnot tell us how did the october war end, and they did not tell us that that treaty was the gate for egypt to enter the western world and leave the poor communist soviet world. and i donot know much about the israeli primary education but i donot think they teach children to love egypt or to consider egyptians friends there, do they?. and as a sign or respect, i am not going to reedit that phrase until u respond. Perhaps insteed of editing that phrase , i or u may bring some further more evidences and studies that illustrate weather the majority of egyptians accept the treaty or not, and weather the israeli community has changed it's point of view towards egyptians. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 9:39PD 25 Feb 2008 Soon after editing my last edit in the discussion, i discovered that Cometstyles have just deleted the phrase without an atom of respect to our discussion. i still keep my word to GHcool that i am not going to reedit the phrase until he responds. And Cometstyles, i invite u to enter the discussion, and if u donot wish to do, at least have enough respect to our discussion to wait till it ends then delete it for god's sack!!!.One last pharaoh (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are entitled to your opinions on the current Israeli-Egyptian relationship, and they are not necessarily wrong, but they do not belong in Wikipedia articles. In order for a statement to be in a Wikipedia article, it must pass certain guidelines, most notably WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. You are welcome to look for a reliable source that verifies that your statement is both true and significant to the topic and then you are welcome to print that statement and cite the source. If, however, those steps are not taken, or the statement fails the reliability or verifiability criteria or is not written in a neutral point of view, then it will be deleted. --GHcool (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That statement is no longer the point of discussion, GHcool. the article needs an update so that it contains statements supporting the fact that egyptians supported the treaty from the day it was held. It's not necessary to include a report about how do the Egyptian community feel about israel, or how do the Israeli community feel about Egypt. so the article needs another illustrating to weather israelis are still feeling towards egypt the same way they did before the treaty or not, if it have to include a study by an israeli source that illustrates how do Egyptians feel about israel in the heat of the news about it's operations against lebanon. As i said the current status of the article is some how deceiving in that point , and needs to be changed. And if u donot mind, i am counting on u for that :D. Thanx in advance One last pharaoh (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you if you plan on counting on me to challenge the status quo. I accept the sources and information given in the article as verifiable already, and therefore disagree with you that the status quo must be challenged. If someone wishes to challenge the status quo while abiding by Wikipedia guidelines, I will not stand in their way, but I will not be enlisted to do something I don't feel is necessary. --GHcool (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's not what disappointed me here. giving me a lecture about editing wikipedian articles, refusal of getting to the point of the discussion, and spinning around it without actually discussing weather u agree with it or not, trying to deceive me about how u donot agree with it because it according to u is illegal while i illustrated twice that it's not about that exact phrase, and finally refusing to upgrad the article ur self, but the most important touch here is revealing ur actual reasons to refusing which are that u disagree with me and not that editing that phrase is illegal, and even if it was, editing an israeli study about the egyptian public opinion about israel and another about the israeli public opinion about the treaty is deceiving and should be changed as previously illustrated. donot feel like getting into a well-set trap GHcool, but i donot think i am going to let that discussion end without even starting. and donot take that as a threatening, but i tell u what, that article has 3 days to get upgraded to cover that point, if not, i cannot guarantee that u would like my edits in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talkcontribs) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, please assume good faith. I am not trying to trick you or trap you. I'm simply making sure the Wikipedia guidelines of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR are all followed with respect to this article.
Secondly, you are more than welcome to edit the article however you wish, provided that you follow all the above Wikipedia guidelines. There's no need to wait three days to do this. You can do this today if you wish. Whether I will like your edits or not is irrelevant as long as you abide by all the Wikipedia guidelines.
One more thing that might not have been made clear. Issues that are unrelated or tangental to a discussion of the Camp David Accords do not belong in this article. I'm sure you know this already. --GHcool (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry if i said some thing u donot like when i was in a moment of anger discovering that my discussion with u was a waste of time i mean no insult. that period was for u, and as i said it is not a threatening. just in case u wanted the discussion to continue, however u donot seem to be willing ot continue this discussion, and to be honst niether do as, as i believe that it wont solve any thing. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I'll consider the matter closed. Thank you for your cooperation. --GHcool (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any time.One last pharaoh (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

counterboint Sorry to barge in at the end, but gotta comment on this: "nd i donot know much about the israeli primary education but i donot think they teach children to love egypt or to consider Egyptians friends there, do they?" The point is not whether Israeli schools and media encourage friendship with Egypt, but whether they incite for hatred against it, which they do not, try to find proof for that. And from most information I read about Egypt on credible news sources such as CNN, its media and schools do incite for hatred of Israel and Jews. If the Israelis 'do not consider Egyptians friends' and 'Egyptians consider Israel an Enemy', this is not the same thing. And If Israelis hated Egyptians so much they wouldn't visit it in hundreds of thousands and improve their economy by doing so. Israel is the one always trying to engage in better relations with Egypt in terms of tourism, economic and cultural ties and Egypt is the reluctant one (Even its national Airline EgyptAir has never flown to Israel under its main flag but invented Air Sinai for this purpose, while El AL sees no shame in flying to Cairo), so don't try to make it look as if Israelis and Egyptians feel the same way about each other, this is a distortion of the truth. Counterboint (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counterboint, did u try to read the wikipedia article about EgyptAir?? Read the subarticle Operations to understand what i mean. israelis visit egypt just like tourists from other countries visit egypt, here they can find security, and well treatment. Egyptians usually visit other countries for work not for tourism, and i really donot think that an egyptian has a good work opportunity in israel, do u?. Oh one more thing when i discuss some thing, i prefer to do so with some one who know what is he talking about. got the picture ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talkcontribs) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Here they can find security and well treatment" I presume you don't mean like in the Ras Burka or Sharm-A Sheik well treatments of Israeli tourists in Sinai resulting in dozens dead after terrorist attacks. And you continually compare apples and oranges. If Egyptians can't find work in Israel, that has to be compared to whether Israelis can find work in Egypt, not tourism. Would you like Israelis to be able to work in Egypt? (other than setting up Israeli textile factories in Egypt employing thousands of Egyptians, which of course Israel does only out of hatred, if only Egypt could 'hate' Israel like this) I think is better to compare work to work and tourism to tourism, else its meaningless. Am I totally not getting the picture? In Egypt, only inquiring students know about the peace deal with IsraelEgypt, Israel sign deal on free trade with US. Counterboint (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
for some reason i really did feel that u're going to mentions that, and if u donot mind, tell me; can americans find well treatment, and security in there own country??; according to ur perspective, they donot counting 11 september, neither do english, spanish, pakistanis, indians, russians, or egyptians, and that's a small portion of the list if u count terrorist attacks. and if u want a comparison, i think that u'll find out that egyptians hate almost every single country in mother earth as u would find out that a neglectable percentage of egyptians in comparison to foreigners who come to egypt annually travel abroad. the 2 likes u included are signs of the criticism of the accords in fact. looks like ur not getting the picture yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talkcontribs) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While It's true what you say about Egyptians travelling much less, its also true that there are 70 millions Egyptians and only 6 million Israelis, and I am sure that if you look at the percentages of the Egyptians that do travel abroad, Israel won't exactly be starring there (in relation to other countries Egyptians chose to visit). According to this article, approx 1.8 million Egyptians travel abroad every year;
while in 2006, 5 million Israelis travelled abroad; roughly that means that in the best year for Egypt-Israel tourism, only 1.3% of Egyptian tourists visited Israel, while 8% of Israeli tourists visited Egypt (8 times more!) Now tell me who likes the other more.Counterboint (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It takes time. Both Egyptians and Jews could use to let go of some of the cynicism they have toward the peace treaty. Give it more time. — Zerida 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. donot u understand that from the very first beginning, i said that neither israelis nor egyptians like each other?. donot take that as an insult, but....look where u are going, dude. by the way, the article about the number of egyptians who travel abroad did not mention any thing about some 1,3 of egyptian tourists going to isreal, in the other hand, the one about israeli tourists didnot mention any thing about the number visiting egypt annually or maybe i missed that?, if i did, be more specific, and mentions exactly where in the article ur claims are mentioned; besides, ignoring religious, and political interests, which country would u prefer to visit if u were a tourist??. i really hope u get the picture this time. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would prefer to visit both, as most Tourists who come to the Middle East do. If you are talking about safety, would you like me to compare the number of tourists killed in terrorist attacks in Egypt and Israel since 1948? I am not entirely sure it will be in your favor (in Israel the terrorists mainly target Jewish citizens; in Egypt they target foreign tourists). In Israel you can count the number with the fingers of two hands. You have different things in both countries; tourist attractions aren't to be compared only by their size but also in their historical and cultural significance. In Egypt you have the Pharaonite heritage, vast desert scenery of the Sahara, the Aswan dam and the Nile, and in Israel there a variety of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Muslim, Druze and Christian heritage thousands of years old, preserving the remains of many other smaller sects such as the Ancient nabbateans (honoring their creations even when they weren't kind to Jews at all such as the Romans), with Archeology and sacred sites to the three religions, as well as the possibility of driving four hours from a ski resort in the Hermon to the desert and corals of Eilat. A bit like Lebanon without the different sects constantly trying to eat each other (well not as bad anyway). I don't really understand where do you get your proof that Israelis don't like Egyptians. Show me the links. Most Israelis I know are interested in Egypt and its culture, many Israeli women learn belly dancing instead of aerobics as an evening course (despite the Egyptian professor that howled about this, calling it 'cultural theft' instead of being proud that Egyptian culture reaches abroad, excellent role model for his students) and most Israelis would like to have more cultural and friendly relations with Egypt. There is of course a minority that views Egypt with suspicion (mainly due to the Egyptian army becoming the strongest and largest Army in the Middle east despite not being threatened by any foreign Army, instead of investing all the billions in industry and Education (Egypt doesn't have any country saying it should be erased off the map as Israel has), and the risk of an Islamic takeover of the Government and it becoming a second Iran on Israel's southern border). Counterboint (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear CB should have been C.P., any way... ;
I am really pissed off by the fact that u donot know what the heck are u talking about, and the fact that i am supposed to respond to ur claims while u are doing nothing to improve ur way of discussion. i might seam like if i am not preferring a friendly discussion with u, but sorry if i am not able to be friendly with some one i donot respect not very much.
Are u saying that that tiny piece of land some where in the map, have a comparable history to Egypt?!......Whoa, u really need to read more dude.
Are u saying that israel has bigger problems than egypt? Well, as much as i know we are not the ones who have the United states in our backs, and if necessary, in our front lines. Any blink of weakness shown by Egypt in the present time is a sign of destruction; the americans woulnot need us any more, so they can cut off their support which is already not enough, many countries would love to have the suisse canal under it's control, and if u donot remember, Egypt have had 3 of 6 wars in it's whole recent history for that canal. The Egyptian army is just enough to secure the country, and that doesnot mean it's weak in any field, it aims to the huge responsibility it has.Do not u think that egyptians have to worry about their borders too?
The belly dancing is an arabian invention at least they invented some thing in their god damned history, it was brought into egypt ,and then improved by the ottomans as much as i think. Donot forget to do me a favour, and tell that so called professor who is supposed to be egyptian : "Go to hell..."
Since when did israel have more tourists than egypt? the majority of victims in terrorist attacks were actually egyptians; i remember that in the last attacks, from all of the people who died, only 5 or some thing were israelis.
Not only israel, if Egypt is supposed to gain a better economy, more lands, and a stronger military by allying with the devil him self, i am not going to have a problem with that.
And please, if u donot mind, try to use the show preview bottom ,so that i donot see some 5 edits each time u decide to bother me with ur claims, and thoughts, that reflects a low level of knowledge whenever i open the history article.
Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said Israel has more tourists than Egypt. Proportionally, though, it does have more tourists per capita than Egypt. Egypt has 70 million people and receives about 8 million Tourists per year; Israel has 6 Million people and receives about 1.5 million Tourists (2004 statistics). So proportionally, Israel has nearly twice the tourism per person than Egypt (1:8.75 compared to 1:4). You could also say that China has more Tourists than Monaco, but what kind of comparison is that? Secondly, regarding 'the devil himself' I suppose you are referring to the USA. Well Only thanks to this devil Egypt built the strongest Army in the Middle East, are you saying you want to go back to rotting T-72 tanks instead of A1M1 Abrams or leaky Hind gunships instead of Apache AH-64? Do you think Russia would let Egypt build a factory to produce T-80 tanks as the USA does? seriously suggest you reconsider calling your best ally (not only Israel's) 'A devil'. Look at Syria's situation, I don't think its in Egypt's interests to go back to that. Many people in Israel also don't like the dependency on the USA and their policy pressures on Israel but at least its better than being a puppet of Russia or Iran. I always enjoy talking to people who disagree with me. Sorry for the editing, I just open the discussion page and ignore the history, didn't know anyone else looks at it. Counterboint (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No thing of what u wrote above reflects understanding what did i mean and u do not need to be a genius to understand it. Give it another try, maybe u would understand one day.
By the way, the tank is called Abrams M1A1; later upgrades included U.S. Marines-standard protection improvements. And u donot need to assume an example that does not exist; here is one that does: while america refused to sell us F-15s, the russians agreed to sell us MiG-29SMTs.
The Devil was supposed to mean that I agree to ally with the devil to get those advantages, so i surely agree to have normal relations with israel; In other words, the devil was not referring to america or israel, it means that even if israel is some how evil, i agree to have normal relations with it, because i agree to have an alliance with the more evil the devil to get such benefits.
Try to read what did FrummerThanThou edit in your own discussion page, maybe u can improve.
And i donot think that the tourist attraction of a country depends on how many people living in it, not mentioning that neither the egyptian population is 70 millions about 80, nor the israeli is 6 millions about 7. One last pharaoh (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give it another try, maybe u would understand one day. Hi One last Pharaoh. While this has been an interesting discussion, your tone here is not very friendly. Please note that wikipedia has a policy to ensure that a level of civil discourse is maintained at all times. Let's stick to what we can do here to improve the article. All the best, — Zerida 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for that, and thanx for reminding me. I really prefer the friendly discussion, or at least discussions were people involved with it respect, and admire each other. u can consider that a mistake that shouldn't be repeated. Thanx again One last pharaoh (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hometimes I do wish Wikipedia accounts had more social networking features such as 'Friends' mapping functions and forums like MySpace. As it is it seems the capacity to connect with other Wiki members on matters of common interest is very limited to those who know the Wiki Mandarin like discussion format Counterboint (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure what the Wiki Mandarin discussion format is--I'm going to assume you're not referring to Mandarin Chinese. But there's at least one good reason for not having social networks on Wikipedia, namely that people would likely stop making articles and start making friends instead :-) That said, it's more appropriate to carry on such discussions on each other's user talk pages (to a degree) than on article talk pages. There are Wiki-related IRC channels, though don't have experience with them myself. You might also consider enabling email in your preferences. — Zerida 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Judea and Samaria)[edit]

I think it is confusing to include reference to Judea and Samaria in this article. In political parlance the term West Bank is more widely used and more clear, especially in contexts like this. I am going to clean up that part of the article, therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • OK, but who the heck are you? IZAK 04:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*lol*...Sorry for the spam, but your remark is simply hilarious, IZAK. Vargher 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judea and Samaria are the correct names, West Bank is a ridiculous politically motivated construct. Judea was a Kingdom, the heartland of the Jewish people. Judea is where the name Jew comes from! The use of the name West Bank is clearly policide. A crime against humanity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobel price[edit]

Just a small detail: The articel completley forgets the fact that both Sadat and Begin were awarded the Nobel Peace Price for their efforts, negotiations and the final Egyptian-Israeli peace accord... Egyptian school books for example always point out with a certain pride that "Sadat was awarded the price" and not "Sadat AND Begin", so it would be good to point that out as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saddam Hussein[edit]

The brief, two sentence biography of Saddam Hussein doesn't seem appropriate for this article. It seems to imply that Hussein's power struggles were "consequences" of the Camp David Accords; as if the Camp David Accords started a snowball effect ending in "the toppling of [Saddam's] regime in 2003." This is a dubious assertation, even if it is indirectly implied. I propose we delete the second sentence and keep the first one. --GHcool 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No response. OK, I'm deleting it. --GHcool 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newest section[edit]

The newest section (originally titled "Normalization: The Aftermath," but which I have retitled "Criticism of the Accords") has the feel of original research, but the facts presented seem generally sound. I would like to see some citations, particularly in the two places I marked that they were needed. The one claim that "An additional view is that the Peace agreement was between the Israeli people and Egypt's president Anwar Sadat, rather than with the Egyptian people, who did not necessarily support it in majority." is something I find unlikely. According to Sadat and His Legacy, a collection of essays about the Camp David Accords compiled by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the exact opposite seems to be true: that the Accords remain popular with the majority of Egyptians because of the foreign aid it provided and the economic relationship it gained with the Israelis. --GHcool 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sincerely hope you are correct, but I think reality proves otherwise... I have even left out some of the more gruesome elements such as student demonstrations in Cairo and letters from Egyptian professors, both calling for Egypt to renounce the Peace agreements and wage war on Israel (seldom reported in the English media for fear of waking up the western public from its hallucigenic slumber); all this of course while Israeli professors and students protest that the Israeli government isn't making enough concessions to the Palestinians. It seems that the Arab world is the only place on earth (if you count out 1930's Pre-Hitler Germany of course..) where the students and academia are more nationalist and right wing than the Government..!

Firstly, the unpolled opinion of a US Policy institute, as honorable as it may be, is not enough to disrove the facts I mentioned, especially in light of those which I have just found, strengthening my opinion): according to a 2006 poll of 1000 Egyptians taken by the Egyptian government, 92% of Egyptians view Israel as an Enemy nation. The poll was conducted, it must be noted, during the 2006 War between Israel and Hezbullah; but I don't think the Egyptian public is of such weak spine as to turn a 92% majority to a minority over a day, a month or even 10 years... By the way, the poll I mentioned of Israelis supporting the Camp David Accords was in hebrew, so I didn't put in the link... I'll try to find a translated version. Certainly it can be easily found that while there have been many public calls in Egypt for withdrawing from the peace agreements (of course while keeping the Sinai!!) in contrast, I have never heard of any such sentiments in Israel, even from those extreme right wing circles who originally opposed the agreement in the Parliament vote; nor was there any suggestion of withdrawing from the Agreements mentioned in any Israeli election manifesto of any Israeli party; from this, one can assume that the Peace agreement with Egypt has become a national concensus, despite the aforementioned doubts regarding the cost Israel paid.

P.S. Regarding your phrase "that the Accords remain popular with the majority of Egyptians because of the foreign aid it provided and the economic relationship it gained with the Israelis" what is particularly astonishing is that, if my assertion is correct, despite all the economic benefits, development plans and quality of life improvement that the Peace with Israel has brought: suspicion, hatred and rejection of Israel still seems to be the majority sentiment- at least within those Egyptian groups which are "visible" to the polls- i.e. people with easy access to phones, students and city dwellers, which is much more serious, as those are the cultural leaders of Egyptian society. Perhaps the polls don't reflect opinions among villagers (I suspect they didn't take the trouble of finding them) but they tend to be easily swayed by the higher classes, as Nasser always knew how to exploit.

Interesting analysis, and I agree with some of it, but not all of it. The book by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy I mentioned was not an unpolled opinion, but a collection of essays from serious scholars in the field. I'll see if I can find my copy somewhere and find out exactly what these experts say on this topic.
As the article stands now, it still needs the citations. Furthermore, even if your assertion that "92% of Egyptians view Israel as an Enemy nation" were true (and I am not saying its not true), this fact is not necessarily a direct counterpoint to the 84% of Israelis who support the Accords. There is still clearly some hostility between the two cultures, even though both countries are economically better off because of the treaties.
Thirdly, I would prefer that you did not compare present day Egypt with Nazi Germany. I'm no fan of Egypt, but the comparison just isn't fair. --GHcool 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comparison was not directed against just Egypt, but the whole Arab world, which, I think you will be hard presst to disprove, contains several elements and socio-political trends begging to be compared to that Germany (And I wasn't mentioning or referring to **Nazi** Germany, but to the several years before Hitler became Chancellor (after that time, of course, the Government was always more nationalistic than the Academia)- the period when the majority supporting Fascist ideals was forming in German society and the Pro-Western Weimar Government was powerless in supressing and/or dealing with this. I see that period as reflecting nearly 1:1 what is, sadly, happening in most Arab countries, except those of course which are already led by self confessed fascist leaders. In any case, of course more work is needed here on the citations. There remains the problem of Hebrew sources, many of them just don't exist in English but have interesting data and even news items. I of course try to be as objective as possible in translating them (or at least as objective as I hope someone translating Iranian sources ought to be). In any case, I would be thrilled if you can post reliable data that proves me wrong. It is not just an academic question for me, but an existential one.. to balance these morbid facts somewhat I may add more on the relatively moderate stance of the Egyptian Government (in conflict mediation and at least attempting to combat Islamic extremism), in spite of contradicting the apparent wishes of the Egyptian people.

Why is this marked OR?

"A fact to be mentioned is that approximately 1.8 million Egyptians travel abroad every year,[1] while in 2006 five million Israelis travelled abroad,[2] meaning that over 15% of Egyptians who travelled abroad went to Israel, while only about 5% of Israeli travellers, in the peak year, went to Egypt.[original research?]"

It seems the only thing done here is math. That's like saying a math page can't have an example with an answer, because someone working the problem is "original research." I think the conclusion is evident from the resources, since it's just putting some numbers together. Dkived (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vast Majority Of Egyptians Supported the Agreement?[edit]

"However, the treaty was supported by the vast majority of Egyptians from the day it was signed." This was recently added by Zerida, with a single reference to support this-an unquoted reference mentioning only a page number in a book. Is this sort of thing allowed in Wiki? I mean can I include things I have read in books which aren't available on the web without even quoting from them? I think such a considerable alteration of the article, from 'There is no proof that a majority of Egyptians ever supported the agreement' to 'supported by a vast majority' merits more proof than to send the reader to some page of an offline book... what do you think. Counterboint (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History books are rarly for free; that's the internet. u can buy the book and check it out ur self if u donot believe wikipedia. egyptians did not resist the treaty accords like the israelis in sinai oh, i mean who were in sinai did, and that's not used to say that israelis donot support the agreement. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not write that Egyptians resisted the agreement. I wrote they did not have the opportunity to decide upon it, because Sadat basically didn't need their approval. Isn't that true? please correct me if i'm wrong. In Israel, the elected government had to vote on the agreement and if it didn't win a majority, the agreements would not be approved even though the Prime Minister wanted them. I still argue that there is no statistical proof that a majority of the Egyptians wanted the agreement, and there is proof that most Israelis wanted it, thats all. And I'm always looking forward to learn about the thoughts of the other side. Please explain your position further. Counterboint (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Counterboint, the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline tells us that books are definitely allowed on Wikipedia even if they aren't available on the web. I cite books all the time in my Wikipedia editing, and occasionally, if I distrust an editor's interpretation of a book, I reserve that book at the public library and read the relevant passage for myself. If you live in a big city, you'll be able to find most reliable history sources readily available to the public and for free in the public library catalog.
In this specific case, Zerida should have included the entire bibliographic information and not just the author and page number, but it appears somebody expanded it, so its a moot point now. --GHcool (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was always shouted down whenever I was trying to do the same thing and mention facts from Hebrew sources (usually countering anti-Israeli claims) not available on the Internet. They continually told me that unless the source is credible and verifiable on the internet then I can't use it. What are you telling me, I can now unleash hell on earth on dozens of rabid anti-Israeli entries and tell them you told me? I mean my local library may not have the book. So who has the responsibility of proving that page number says what is claimed? seems the onus is on the side using the referenceCounterboint (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I actually did not add the citation myself. I merely supplied the full details when I saw that the citation was incomplete. The reference is also cited on the main Egypt article. And to answer the other question, yes "this sort of thing" is allowed for easily verifiable sources such as this one.
Finklestone's Anwar Sadat (1996) also mentions the enthusiasm with which ordinary Egyptians greeted Israeli delegates in Egypt following Sadat's return from Jerusalem. The author himself witnessed the locals chanting Begin's name outside the main synagogue in downtown Cairo while clapping and waving peace signs. Some taxi drivers were offering free rides to the Israeli visitors as a gesture of friendship. These and other details will need to be added to the article at some point. — Zerida 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well then, though I think in light of this the phrasing should be changed to "However, initially, the treaty was supported by the vast majority of Egyptians". Its current phrasing 'from the first day it was signed' is vague and lets one believe this is still the case wherease current evidence points against it. Counterboint (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Counterboint, only English language sources are allowed on English Wikipedia. If you want to use Hebrew source, you'll have to find an English translation and cite that. Otherwise its too difficult for other English speakers to check your work.
The onus for any citation on Wikipedia is on the person who is adding a new statement that requires a source. If a second person suspects that the statement or the citation is incorrect in any way, the onus is on that second person to prove that his suspicions have merit. --GHcool (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
only English language sources are allowed on English Wikipedia No, this is not entirely correct--English sources are preferred, but non-English sources can be and are frequently used. See WP:RSUE. — Zerida 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info, Zerida. Counterboint, feel free to use Hebrew sources if an English translation is not found. --GHcool (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, i am planning to visit the cairo annual book exhibit, and i think i am going to find some thing usefull there.One last pharaoh (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and I would hope also that there will be just as many Israeli books there as there are Egyptian books in Israeli book fairs. Counterboint (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does Egyptians' opinions of Israel during an Israeli invasion of Lebanon have anything to do with the Camp David Accords? ( (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Do you believe majority sentiments such as "92% consider Israeli an enemy nation" change overnight, overyear or over 10 years? I don't. Its an important indicator. Give the Egyptian public a bit more credit than that for not being so easily swayed back and forth every year. Counterboint (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New reminiscence from Carter[edit]

An interesting reminiscence from Carter about how he convinced Sadat not to pack his bags and leave (in the last paragraphs of the article): Badagnani 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nobody denies that the specific cartoons reported by the ADL are anti-Semitic. Unless a source can be found for this statement, I will delete the uncited statement in the next few days. --GHcool (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources, however, which are over 10 years old, could really use to be updated. — Zerida 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ADL source isn't the point. The point is that nobody disputes the fact that the specific cartoons reported by the ADL are anti-Semitic. --GHcool (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, GHcool, the point is that this is an article about the peace initiative between Egypt and Israel, so it would be nice if the article stayed focused on that, and used more updated and wide-ranging sources. Too many details about antisemitism in Egyptian media, which are covered elsewhere, are not as relevant here as they are to the main articles. As I said before, this section give too much undue weight to that topic, but does not go into enough details about more positive developments since the peace treaty, not only those I mentioned before, but also the Egyptian-Israeli Friendship Association (not officially recognized, but in operation), Naguib Mahfouz's public support of the peace accords and his well-known anti-Nasserist stance, Ali Salem and Sana Hasan and others. And how about this recent film by arguably Egypt's most popular actor who has been critical of Arab nationalism, and also the comment by the Israeli press attaché in Cairo in that article--why is that not mentioned? Certainly nothing to gloat over, but it's progress. Come to think of it, maybe this section should be moved to the discussion page until more work on it is completed to help minimize the edit wars. It's not very well-written anyway. — Zerida 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you saying that Mahfouz's stance wasn't mentioned? I mentioned it in my original article, but it was deleted by someone, someone who either doesn't like the mention of and Egyptian winning a western nobel prize or he doesn't like people to know that there were ever only few notable Egyptian cultural leaders that publicly supported the peace agreement. Needless to say, I don't believe this someone was Israeli. And regarding the "Egyptian-Israeli Friendship Association" do be serious. Just because there is an office with a beurocrat and a letterhead, doesn't mean a thing. What means something is how many fortifications and bodyguards does this association's office need in Egypt, while in Israel probably they need about as much security as a flower store. Just compare the Israeli embassy in Cairo and the Egyptian Embassy in Tel Aviv. And regarding 'Too many details about antisemitism in Egyptian media' its not the details that are too many, but the Antisemitism in the media that occurs too many... Counterboint (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, too bad your opinions here are about as relevant as the current price of milk in a Tel Aviv market. Not only am I not really interested in them, neither is Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself our policies regarding neutrality and original research and why that terribly written section doesn't comply with either. It would also be nice if you could finally stop using this discussion page as your personal soapbox, as this too is discouraged. — Zerida 09:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That section mentions only facts. Try to dispute them. I don't understand what's so terribly written. Sometimes its just reality that is terrible. I worked hard to find all these facts and you have mainly accusations without counter facts. Show me the reality is rosier than I imagine, I will happily embrace it - but not illusions and insinuations. Something can be both terrible and neutral. Humanity does do things that are senseless, and often. If I'd write more praise for the peace accords (pray provide me with facts to support it) then you'd consider it well written?Counterboint (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Show me the reality is rosier than I imagine, I will happily embrace it What you still don't seem to understand is that what you embrace or believe is of no consequence to me--I don't care. What matters to me is how balanced, factual and relevant the material in the article is. As I said, when I get I chance I will be including all the facts that I have brought up, though I doubt this will get you and GHcool to stop edit warring on the article. Otherwise, I am not inclined to have a forum discussion. — Zerida 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to provide a reliable source that says that the ADL's phrasing is in dispute. Otherwise, the claim will have to be removed from Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My sentiment exactly. I always use 10 words when one will do... I presume you mean that it is not disputable (until proven otherwise) that the cartoons are antisemitic. Counterboint (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So.. GH do you agree to a rewrite which unquestionably states that there is antisemitic material appearing in the Egyptian media?Counterboint (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. --GHcool (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Thanks for all participants for their interest. And what do I do about the mathematics defying Pharaoh?(see below) Counterboint (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know much about Israeli/Egyptian travel statistics, and honestly, I think this point is a unimportant to an understanding of the Camp David Accords. The important thing is that tourism is now possible. Who travels more to where is probably best dealt with in another article (perhaps Tourism in Israel or a yet uncreated topic called Tourism in the Middle East). I guess what I'm saying is that I prefer not to get involved in this dispute and you seem to be doing an excellent job on your own. --GHcool (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While i often try to make discussions as friendly as possible, i am a real pain in the ass when it gets to that the one i am arguing with would simply forget the rules, and what have been said. ADL said some thing, but it does not need to be the truth. it's added with the name of the organization or what so ever, and it's mentioned that anti-zionism is not necessary anti-Semitism there is a jewish anti-zionism for god's sack !!!. the article does not need to change that point. i really donot understand why izzy members try to avoid mentioning sources. if the 2 of u are ready to continue this discussion the same way, i am ready to go on with u until hell freezes out.
Counter Boint, continue vandalizing this article, and i am going to hunt down ur mistakes, and breakings of rules, until i get u blocked from editing. there is a source that says that the egyptians supported the agreement, to deny the reliability of it now, u need another that does, not me who need another that state that they still support it. and about the math(s), first math driven from mathematics so u cannot put it in a plural form, it would look like mathematics(s), second go up in this page to find out that i asked u about where those numbers are mentioned, and u ignored that, well u can ignore the question, and say bye bye to them. and GHcool, u have shown me a highly civilized, and friendly manner when u ignored that bar telling u that u've got a message from me. but just try to educate ur friend, and make him a little more familiar with wikipedia, instead of encouraging him in violating the rules, but actually i cannot be so sure he would be so well after, since u ur self use such irrelevant wikipedia policies to justify ur edits, try to pass that point. Thanx for reading, donot forget to visit egypt one day :) One last pharaoh (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear One last pharaoh,
Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear One Last Pharaoh, Actually I have visited Egypt and so have many of the people I know. Have you visited Israel or do you know a single person that did? if you insist on the ridiculous figure of 15% of Egyptian tourists visiting Israel instead of 1.5% (as 28,000/1,800,000 calculates) you should know at least a few. I really don't understand your points. Whatver their initial majority sentiment was (with the lack of a 1977 vote or at least a survey as solid facts), Egyptians certainly don't seem to be supporting the peace accords now (most of them, at least in public). And anti-Zionist criticism is not always antisemitism. But showing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Egyptian TV, is antisemitic incitement (according to the NY Times, not the ADL this time), as these 'Protocols' are universally termed antisemitic propoganda. And if these Arab caricatures were not expressing Jewish hatred they wouldn't be so similar to Nazi propoganda. Counterboint (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must have missed that zero ^^. however i cannot find a source claiming the number of tourists of each country visiting the other. seams i would have to delete the numbers until finding a source. and about the elders of zion, i am sure that u did not miss Zion. the NY, and BBC reports contain official claims by egypt that the cartoons are not against the jews, it's against he zionests, and even that as muslims, egyptian consider Jews their cousins. what more proof do any one want? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One last pharoah is taking the "cousins" quote from the BBC article out of context. This is intellectually dishonest. The BBC and NY Times article specifically call the displays in the media "anti-Semitic" and the Egyptians do not even dispute that the displays in the media are anti-Semitic. The displays in the media reported by the BBC article in which the "cousin" quote appears includes Holocaust denial, accusations that Jews committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, imagery of Jews as Satanic figures, equating Jews with Nazis, imagery of Jews with hooked noses, and resurfacing the blood libel against Jews. All of the above are universally regarded as anti-Semitic, that is, they are historically and currently used to exert maximum damage on Jews world-wide. The BBC and NY Times recognize this fact and state it neutrally in the press. --GHcool (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what i wrote, was from the sources. both sources included official claims by egypt that the media is not against jews, it's against the state of israel. u can explain more, and include ur points in the article, but donot revert cited ionformations, and in either cases donot delete the link to the anti-Semitism, or anti-Zionism debate. One last pharaoh (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say this, in Israel people of course have many criticisms and prejudices against Arabs, but the mainstream Israeli media NEVER publishes racist material that offends Muslims worldwide in the way the Arab media does which offends Jews worldwide (even if it were, as you claim, just intended "against Israelis"). And to offend Muslims is just as easy as to offend Jews if one wishes to do so. The same way the Arabs use the images and symbols they know to be offensive to Jews worldwide (The crooked nose, the swastika, the money) the Israelis could have used the symbols offensive to Muslims worldwide. But they dont, just try to find one measly proof of this. That's the difference. A responsible and reliable media has to separate the filth from the criticism. If indeed there is any genuine criticism and not just filth and blind hatred. Counterboint (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tourism Comparison[edit]

I would be greatful if the someone who continually reverses my statistics would cease doing it. Learn some maths. If 415,000 Israelis visited Egypt in the peak year, and Israel has 5 million Israelis travelling abroad annually, then 415,000/5,000,000 = 8.3%. If 28,000 Egyptians visited Israel on the peak year, and 1.8 Egyptians travel aborad annually, then 28,000/1,800,000=1.5%. So on average, five times more Israelis visit Egypt than Egyptians visit Israel in percentages from tourists, and fourteen times more Israelis visit Egypt in absolute numbers. These are facts. Counterboint (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If these numbers are accurate from a credible source and can be referenced as such then, I’m on board with leaving these facts unchanged.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We now have the Israeli travel (departure) volume for 2006, but the peak travel year to Egypt is given as 1999. Without knowing the total Israeli travel for 1999, an exact percentage cannot be specified. The figures do not mean what the text claims they mean. I am accordingly removing the spurious conclusion. It is clear that in absolute numbers more Israelis visited Egypt in the peak year for such travel than Egyptians visited Israel in their peak year. In proportion to total foreign travel, I believe all we can say is that the figures indicate or suggest that Israelis going abroad have been much more likely to visit Egypt than Egyptian travelers are to visit Israel. This still illustrates the original assertion, without resorting to questionable and controversial use (or misuse) of statistics. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's make some things clear here; i have claimed in this talk page that the egyptian's main reason to travel is for work. although the egyptian population is more than 10 times the israeli one, the number of israeli travellers is higher than that of the egyptians, however even that does ot reveal the full fact. the figures are talking about all travellers, not only tourists. people who travel to a place for work, religious aim, or even visiting their relatives donot necessary have to admire the place they are going to. another fact is that a huge number of egyptian travellers go to mecca, and medina as a part of islam of which in known as hajj each single year, that's not the destination of any israeli traveller, besides that that does not mean that those egyptians who travel there for religious reasons have any sense of admiring the saudi government, or people. there is also agreements with much many arab states for the egyptian labor specially in education. a result of that can be seen as the increasing numbers of egyptians in arab states more than non-arab ones. currently, i am really busy, and should not be free enough to continue discussion as before before the 3rd of June. till then, i am asking u people to find sources that mention the number of tourists of each country, how many of them visit the other. i really believe that u shall find out that almost an ignorable percentage of egyptian travellers are tourists in comparison with that of the israelis. by the way GHcool, i liked ur suicide reporting...did not think any one would do that. Yours faithfully, One last pharaoh LOL (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five million Israelis???[edit]

I never noticed it until now, but the notion that "in 2006 five million Israelis traveled abroad" is absurd. There are only about seven million people in all of Israel and 2006 was the year of the Second Lebanon War! It is an impossible statistic and I suggest it be deleted immediately. Also, might sound like a reliable source, but that doesn't mean it is one. --GHcool (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I certainly wouldn't want to publish wrong facts. Shame on me for not checking it better, you are right. Israeli statistics bureau:"In 2006, there were approximately 3.7 million departures of Israelis abroad - a 1% increase compared to 2005, and an all-time high. " the 5 mil certainly didn't seem a crazy figure to me. The war doesn't really affect it much. Israelis are crazy travellers and they also spend abroad more than Europeans, even though their (The Israelis') income is lower. Thanks for your note. [3]Counterboint (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed the figure to 2 million (see page 12: "The number of Israelis departing abroad in 2006 was approximately 2 million"). "3.7 million departures" means that many of the 2 million Israelis that departed abroad did so more than once. Thanks for finding this source. --GHcool (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but I assumed the Egyptian statistics are counting visits and not visitors, as well, without evidence to the contrary; so be it Counterboint (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Al-Ahram Weekly source quotes the guy from the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism as saying "1.8 million Egyptians travel abroad every year." That's good enough for me, but I added a "citation needed" tag for "The highest number of Egyptians visiting Israel was 28,000 in 1995." --GHcool (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accusations of Egyptian human rights violations against Israeli citizens[edit]

User:GHcool Removed it claiming it does not belong to this article. Where do you think it should be then? I think it has an important bearing on bilateral relations after the accords.Counterboint (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC): [4]Reply[reply]

It might be more appropriate in the Foreign relations of Egypt article. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

about Camp David peace treaty[edit]

there was a post in arabic translation like this : (اتفاقية كامب ديفيد عبارة عن اتفاقية تم التوقيع عليها في 17 سبتمبر 1978م بين الرئيس المصري الخائن محمد أنور السادات ورئيس وزراءإسرائيل الراحل مناحيم بيغن) that refer Pres. Anwar as the traitor !!!! ,since when Wikipedia post a singular opinion !! isn't it an insult too ...!!! -Amr Farouq-Power passion 0101 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested Reorganization and forks[edit]


Note to anyone visiting for third opinion: there are two issues here (1) Should article contain a section on current state of Israel-Egyptian relations, and (2) if so, is 2006 poll which asked Egyptians about attitudes towards Israel, among other countries be included.--Sjsilverman (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sections at the end of this article duplicate topics covered in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty part of which, in my opinion (and as I state on the talk page there) should really be in the Egypt-Israel relations article. My suggestion would be short summaries of each of these topics, with links to Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty and Egypt-Israel relations article as the "Main Articles", leaving this article to focus on the the Camp David Accords themselves.--Sjsilverman (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken a stab at starting this, but problems go beyond organization: Lots of unsourced assertions and a certain amount of original research and POV being expressed. --Sjsilverman (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, these "duplicates" you mention miss a lot of information such as the recent survey conducted by the Egyptian Government that showed more than 90% of Egyptians considered Israel "An Enemy nation" while 85% of Israelis were polled to support the Peace accords; and the considerable difference in Egyptian tourism to Israel and vice versa. These are facts, they are not opinions and not original research (they appeared in public internet sites before- see the references). I am going to revert these two items, and I think that suppressing them (unmenioned nowhere else in Wikipedia) is causing a slant of the article in favor of the Egyptians, disguising the inherent hostility of the population to Israel despite no similar or reciprocated animosity coming from the Israelis - even more revealing considering that the latter were those who sacrificed the most in the peace treaty; disabusing the perhaps romantic notion that the majority of simple people want peace and goodwill and the leaders are the callous ones. Its sometimes the reverse. From the Egyptian perspective, the peace accords clearly held together for thirty years because of the present Egyptian leadership and despite the majority sentiment of its citizens. Counterboint (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your response proves my point. My edits were not intended to "portray" one side or the other in any way, but to make a better article. In fact, although I think the section on "Cold Peace" has a lot of problems, including original research and POV, not only did I not try to "suppress" it, I moved it in its entirety to Egypt-Israel foreign relations, where, in my opinion, it belongs. This article, again in my opinion, should be limited to discussion of the Camp David Accords. Public opinion immediately after the accords is relevant to the article. Public opinion about Israel 30 years after the accords is relevant to the Egypt-Israeli relations article (where I put it) but not to this one. Otherwise, we'd have to repeat the same discussion in every article about every event that influences the relationship between the two countries. I don't see why we need identical "cold peace" section here, and in the Egypt-Israel Peace treaty article, and in the Egypt Israeli relations article. By the way, I agree with you about the difference in Egyptian and Israeli attitudes towards peace, but I try to leave my POV out of my wikipedia edits. --Sjsilverman (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah but therein lies the rub. It's not my POV nor anyone's POV, but statistics from news sources, not research either. (If you'll read above in the voluminous discussions on the topics, you'll see several Egypt supporters tried in vain to prove otherwise). I'm afraid that cutting away with the "cold peace" section, leaves the reader unable to conclude anything else but an unbalanced POV, since its what would be left does not do anything to balance the totally normal assumption of a a reasonable but ignorant mind (of the region) that this peace is a wondrous reconciliation between the two peoples - not doing justice to the Israelis, nor to the Egyptians. And I do not necessarily agree that this would necessitate all accords and agreements include a "then and now" perspective (indeed a problematic requirement) - it all depends on the availability of facts, and on how leaving them out might create prejudiced opinion. For example, if this was a somewhat less dramatic and emotional accord such as the SALT I nuclear disarmament agreement, on which there may be no clear statistics and disparity in popularity (just supposing) - you'd be right.Counterboint (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you are proposing is described (and discouraged as original research) in WP:SYN. You've taken reported facts (a poll) to make an argument that is not made in a reliable secondary source about the facts (the article that reports the poll). You do so by juxtaposing it with another single poll taken five years earlier. Even if original research were permitted, this would be bad original research. I don't think that a Daniel Pipes opinion piece is a reliable secondary source that represents any sort of consensus view, but even if it were, it's about the entirety of the Egyptian-Israeli relationship (in 2006 -- a lot had changed by 2010, particularly with respect to Gaza, and of course even more has changed over the past week). In short, you are pushing your point of view, doing it with original research, doing it poorly, and doing it in the wrong place.--Sjsilverman (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry you feel this way. I still think that in some constellation or different phrasing these facts belong in the article. How about put it to vote. Counterboint (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to me this is a good candidate for a third opinion. I believe there are two issues (1) whether this article should have section on current state of Egyptian US Relations and (2) if so, whether 2006 poll should be included. --Sjsilverman (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about two issues: (1) Should article contain a section on current state of Israel-Egyptian relations, and (2) if so, should a 2006 poll which asked Egyptians about attitudes towards Israel, among other countries be included? ):
In my humble opinion this article should be specifically about the international agreement specifically, and other content should be removed from this article and placed in relevant articles. Due to the controversial nature of the nation's involved, this can lead to violations of WP:NPOV. Links to those relevant articles can be included in the see also section, with no summary needed here. If this opinion is not sufficient, additional comments can be received through a request for comment request.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per discussion above, I have deleted the entire section and added reference to article on Egypt-Israel relations in See also section. Most of this material is already in Egypt-Israel relations. Exception is the material on tourism which someone can add there if they see fit. --Sjsilverman (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Firstly, I object to removing that entire section to "Israel Egypt Relations" because that would be burying it. There are only a few hundred readers in that article per month, and nearly a hundred thousand on "Camp David Accords". Is that to say that you would also support removing all such facts in, say, the Treaty of Versailles article to "Relations between the UK and Germany?" If so perhaps it should be put to them to see how they would take it. That material can be copied there, perhaps, in the hope of improving it. Secondly, why did the same people above object and remove the poll showing that over 90% of Egyptians reject the peace treaty- but didn't object nor remove the poll showing how 85% of Israelis approve of it? its hardly a neutral or balanced approach, it seems. I propose, for the sake of balance, to restore this paragraph and perhaps even that one detailing the balance of trade and tourism between Israel and Egypt. Very relevant to the peace accords which are not just a peace of paper. Counterboint (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"not a sacred thing"[edit]

nothing in the article about this ?

Essam Sharaf the Egyptian presidentime minister told Turkish TV that the Camp David Accords were not a sacred thing and open to discussion. 'we could make a change if needed' "Egypt's prime minister triggered angry consternation in Israel on Thursday after declaring that the historic Camp David accords underpinning peace between the two countries were "not a sacred thing"". 15 September 2011.

EdwardLane (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism of the accords[edit]

Most of this section was written by Johnhagen who has also used some of this same text before in other edits. It is not sourced at all except for one book of historical fiction. If anyone can back any of this up, provide better sources, etc., then good, otherwise I am going to delete all of it in the next few days. Thanks. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Obligations Under the Accords[edit]

Refer to the paragraph beginning:

"The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day, and are given as a mixture of grants and aid packages committed to purchasing U.S. materiel."

This implies that this US aid was somehow required by or some condition of the accords. After looking at the text of the accords, I can find no such obligation on the part of the US. I have seen this Wikipedia article, specifically this paragraph, quoted as part of a claim that the US was obligated to provide subsidies to Israel and Egypt, and that the obligation under the accords continues to the present day.

If there was no such obligation under the accords, I suggest this be re-written to clarify that this aid was given voluntarily by the US. Perhaps the author meant to claim that passage of the accord allowed the aid to be given in without fear that it would be misused, or perhaps that it was given in order to entice the parties to sign. Whatever the reason, an explanation behind the reasons for the aid would serve the article better than the remainder of the paragraph as written, which is simply a listing of the aid given since 1979.

On the other hand, if there was some sort of obligation that the US provide support as terms of the accords, that needs to be explained as well, with reference to the source, which may be some treaty or other document that is strictly speaking, not part of the accords but related to them in some way.Eljefe3126 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source doesn't back up the claim[edit]

For this link here: There's nothing in the page about the $1.3 billion. It's just general statements and links to other pages that (might) have proof here. I have a source that supports the claim if I should include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Camp David Accords. 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}}).

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) 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Camp David Accords. 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) 20:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External Links Fix[edit]

A dead link under external links needs to be fixed with the correct url, web archived url, or new citation. Dead link: "Camp David 25th Anniversary Forum".
Jay2net (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Camp David Accords. 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) 03:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2019[edit]

In the Begin Initiative section, it refers to a telephone call from a US citizen that was key in the arrangement between Begin and Saddat. Who was this citizen? It must have been someone of influence to be able to reach the Israeli prime ministers office and whose idea was taken seriously by Begin and Sadat. No source is referenced, yet quotes are used suggesting a source. What is the source? Herkynz (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Note: Text has been deleted as unsourced MrClog (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020[edit]

This article should include the following categories:

  • Anwar Sadat
  • Presidency of Jimmy Carter

And the templates:

WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed! Thank you. ImTheIP (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt[edit]

I have removed the paragraph about annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt. Neither of the cited sources say this aid was a result of the peace treaty. And Carter says that's not true, on page 426 of his autobiography. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I don't want to interfere in your very welcome cleanup of this very crufty page, but could you please make some notes on major deletions on this talk page? I may have time to go through it and check it later. Sometimes there are "kernels of truths" worth preserving in the bad prose that needs to be weeded out. ImTheIP (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to take more notes in the future. The previous deletions I made have been not well sourced. I noted this one because it had a couple of reliable sources, but whoever wrote the paragraph drew a conclusion that wasn't true.
I may be just about done. I finished the chapter in Carter's book. This article does still need more work. It looks like someone came through and just made up a bunch of stuff, possibly with some agenda in mind. You've done some good work here, I hope you find time to continue. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phone call.[edit]

The key to the arrangement between Begin and Sadat took place on Sunday, August 6, 1978, as a result of a telephone call made that morning to the Israeli Prime Minister's office by a United States citizen who had an "Idea For Peace." The Prime Minister had not yet arrived at his office and the caller spoke to Mr. Yechiel Kadishai, a Begin staff head. Kadishai said that "no one was speaking with anyone and we expect a war in October." He also told the caller that if any high level talks were to occur the caller could be assured that they would be using his approach. Begin arrived, was informed of the plan, and contacted Sadat who agreed to the plan on that day. On the next day, U.S. Secretary of State Vance traveled to the Middle East to obtain firsthand confirmation of the agreement between Israel and Egypt. The following day, Tuesday, August 8, the Camp David meeting was scheduled to take place in exactly four weeks time; on September 5, 1978. The plan was that Israel agreed on August 6 to return the land to Egypt. Sadat’s then waning popularity would be greatly enhanced as a result of such an achievement. Israel's security was insured by the specific activities to take place during the “transition period.” Those activities also were included in the "Idea for Peace" communicated to Begin's office on August 6. (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I noted that some references do not include the book/journal/article. This makes the source not reliable. Also some claims are missing referencing, for example (I quote from the article): ""While Begin, who took office in May 1977, officially favored the reconvening of the conference, perhaps even more vocally than Rabin, and even accepted the Palestinian presence,"

--Lindejarings (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]