Talk:Madrid Conference of 1991

untitled

I have added internal links and some formating to this page. I have also tried to make names, etc consistent with information on other pages. However, it currently has considerable background information, ranging seventy years before the Madrid Conference and which may not be NPOV, and not much about the workings of the Conference itself.

This would be improved by having further details therefore, specifically where and when the Conference was held, what its objectives were and who the participants were. Mtiedemann

Most of these irrelevant "facts" are untrue, even preposterous, or impossible if one puts in correct dates. (since when is a 504-54 (or something like that) - "under two thirds". "Renouncing terrorism would entail changing the charter" - implies the charter says we are a bunch of terrorists I guess, yeah, right, that's in there) If you know the correct dates, you would know the kooky account of Abdullah getting TransJordan is impossible. It would take too long now to fix this absurdly, pathetically POV article now, which hardly mentions its supposed subject. --John Z 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of editing or a complete rewriting. And it does not have the mention of "disputed" or "not ready" or sth like that, but it should have. Can you add this? Why couldn't "Arab-Israeli diplomacy" have its own article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.63.40 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 10 Jan 2007

I can see that some of the above criticisms have been taken on-board and the article now has dates and so on... maybe it is still a bit bias? Anyways, I have expanded the article by starting a section about the impact of the conference. Hope you all approve. --Sophielaursen 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Impact of the Madrid Peace Conference" section lacks all coherency and looks like it has been written by a 5 year old. It needs to be completly re-written.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.22.157 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 Apr 2007

Odd that the negotiating parties are shown (by flag, in the template) to be Israel and the PLO, leaving out Jordan, Syria, etc. Israel, of course, refused to negotiate with the PLO, but did negotiate with parties that claimed more or less accurately that they would represent PLO views, which is not the same thing. I guess this is a (tendentious) artifact of the template, but there ought to be some way to correct this.

Also, I understand Israel agreed to the Madrid process conditional on revocation of UNGA resolution 3379 (Zionism=Racism), and if Madrid played a role in the passage of UNGAR 4686, it ought to be mentioned. I'll try to find time to research fixing these things, but would welcome anyone else pitching in. Andyvphil 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is a problem for me: "... extended a letter of invitation ... to Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinians." How do you send a letter of invitation to, for example, Syria? Do you put it in an envelope, write "Syria" on the front, and then drop it in the mailbox? Most certainly the letters of invitation were addressed to representatives of those countries, not to inanimate countries. You need to do more research and find out to whom the letters were addressed. --Mrs rockefeller (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, by the way, with User andyvphil, who states: "Israel, of course, refused to negotiate with the PLO, but did negotiate with parties that claimed more or less accurately that they would represent PLO views, which is not the same thing." And, knowing that this strategy has failed in the past, the Bush government is now doing exactly the same in refusing to talk with the Hamas government, but holding talks instead with people claiming to represent them. You are so right that this is not the same thing. --Mrs rockefeller (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madrid Conference of 1991. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531214717/http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/Arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603181644/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1988-1992/260%20General%20Assembly%20Resolution%2046-86-%20Revocation to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1988-1992/260%20General%20Assembly%20Resolution%2046-86-%20Revocation

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)