Talk:Abraham Accords

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bahrain Low‑importance

	Bahrain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BahrainWikipedia:WikiProject BahrainTemplate:WikiProject BahrainBahrain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

United Arab Emirates Low‑importance

	United Arab Emirates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

“Intended to evoke”? Who wrote this. The Accords were superior to anything any previous President achieved, until Biden destroyed them.

Refs

I added the Haaretz analysis as requested. It's not very complimentary, perhaps others will be able to find more supportive commentaries on the various documents.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third party tag

The claim is being made based on a primary source that Sudan has joined the Abraham Accords, the latter being a piece of paper signed by US, Israel, UAE and Bahrain. I see no evidence that Sudan has signed this paper or that it has even said that it will. The joint statement of US, Israel and Sudan makes no mention of it. Up to now I have not seen any third party sources claiming that, does anyone have some?Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are now (today) some sources saying that Sudan has signed the Abraham Accords. We should still wait a bit because the Trump admin has overegged the pudding on several occasions in this regard. Personally, I don't see how they can say they have signed the Abraham Accords when that is supposed to be a 4 way agreement (ie normally those 4 would all have to agree to them becoming 5). It won't hurt to wait a bit and let's see the actual piece of paper that was signed.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it is still not completely nailed down- https://www.axios.com/israel-sudan-normalization-biden-white-house-78f08a6c-1c64-445f-9db6-c04125da2e6b.html Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is clear they haven't, but we will see if they are on the path to doing so. EytanMelech (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are, coming up October, Haaretz says "The agreement with Sudan was never finalized." https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-a-year-after-normalization-deals-israel-and-new-arab-partners-in-joint-un-statement-1.10231759. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/sudan-israel-will-not-discuss-khartoum-embassy-sudan-fm Any normalization is still a good way off, going by this, if it ever happens at all.Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Luizpuodzius:

gostaria de traduzir isso? att 2804:14C:5BB3:8BED:F168:F8E8:A3C8:2E61 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Kenosha Forever (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

As can be seen in the article body, there is material to the effect that the US State Department will refer to agreements of this type as "normalization agreements" and not as "Abraham Accords".

Should a short sentence to this effect be in the lead? Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Political grandstanding by a new administration seeking to undo a previous administration's work is a bit of trivia. It is doubtful if it belongs in the article at all, and certainly not in the lead. And perhaps needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, contrary to the blustering made in a press conference, the US State dept. continues to use the name Abraham Accords: [1], [2], [3], etc... Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blustering if you cannot find usage dated after it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I provided the links, above, they are all still on the Dept of State web site. This is political grandstanding, nothing more. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Dated after". Show me any usage after Ned Price Q&A. Here on WP, we called them normalization agreements anyway, that being what they were and all.Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Wikipedia, our article is called Abraham Accords, because that's what these normalization agreements are called. Not just here, but on the State Dept. web site. That's what they continue to be called, even today, a week after Price's blustering. A politician's grandstanding at a press conference is not encyclopedia-worthy. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no, they are not, they are called Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement, the Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement etc because that's what they are. The Trump admin wanted to lump every normalization agreement into the "Abraham Accords" as a PR exercise. It was just one big joke, first it was only the UAE and then a rush to include Bahrain in there, Sudan eventually signed the Declaration, Morocco hasn't and won't, etc. All tosh.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the guff that used to be on the WH website is gone and remaining is this, The Abraham Accords Declaration ie the one page thing that was signed by UAE, Bahrain, Israel and US, the agreements are at the bottom (the Sudan "agreement" is just that Declaration and only that and the Morocco agreement doesn't include the Declaration at all).Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I provided the links, above, and anyone can click on them and see you are wrong. e,g: Bahrain: [4]. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Do you actually read what I write? I provided wikilinks to the UAE and Bahrain normalization agreements articles above already.Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was a response to the false claim that "All the guff that used to be on the WH website is gone and remaining is this, The Abraham Accords Declaration" That is false, as anyone can see by clicking on the links I provided. The US State department continues to use the term "Abraham Accords, prominently, on every web page related to them. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your link 1 and my link are the same link, that's what's left about the accords, your other two links may mention them but are not about them. There used to be pages and pages of stuff about them, I think they have been archived now with the Trump presidency material. The point remains, there will be no more usage of this expression according to State and I think that's a very sensible approach. You can prove me wrong by showing any official usage of the term post the Ned Price speech. Or, since we are still waiting on a Sudan normalization agreement, let's see what they call it when it finally shows up.Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just persist in these easily proven false claims. Click on the US Dept of State Bahrain page, you are taken to a page where prominently displayed , in the middle of the page , in bold letters is " The Abraham Accords ". Click on that, and you go to The Abraham Accords Declaration", where 'The Abraham Accords Declaration' is the big bold title. Go to the bottom of that page and click on "ISRAEL-BAHRAIN AGREEMENT" and you are taken to the full text of the agreement, which, big surprise, is titled "ABRAHAM ACCORDS: DECLARATION OF PEACE, COOPERATION, AND CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMATIC AND FRIENDLY RELATIONS ". If and when those are taken down or changed, they might be worthy of mention. Until then, what we have is some political blustering in a press conference by an administration apparatchik. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC) blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100[reply]

Proof of pudding is in eating, right? So we'll see.Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the material in the article with a source that you should approve of, I agree the federalist is an untrustworthy right wing rag even if they were telling the truth on this occasion.Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan joins the Abraham Accords

Israeli Official: Sudan Expected to Join Abraham Accords

What? The US, Israel and every media under the sun has been telling us that Sudan joined AA already. Guess not.Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"We agree, with great fanfare and sealed in a phone call with Trump, that we will sign the agreement at another time." Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC over at Donald Trump

There's currently an ongoing RFC at Talk:Donald Trump over whether or not to include mention of the Abraham Accords in that article. Any page watchers here, feel free to participate in the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has been reopened. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Activity on this page has certainly picked up, since the aforementioned RFC was re-opened. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters source January 28, 2020

The source for the first sentence of the Background section shows an url error that I can't fix because the source is the source of the error. The original url now leads to another Reuters article that also has another url. I couldn't find the original article, "Trump leaps into Middle East fray with peace plan that Palestinians denounce", under another url online. I added the archived version but I don't know how to fix the red error msg. ~~Any suggestions on how to do that?~~ Never mind - I typed a copy of the cite, and the typed copy doesn't have the red error msg. The url still links to the Reuters "Factbox" article but, as I said before, the error is in the source. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who plagiarized whom?

The article bears a startling resemblance to the page of Samuel Shay, the chairman of the Israel-UAR business forum. So who copied whom?

The exact same wording in WP and on LinkedIn page: On October 23, 2020 Israel and Sudan agreed to normalize ties, making Sudan the third Arab country to set aside hostilities in two months. The agreement was negotiated on the U.S. side by Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner, Middle East envoy Avi Berkowitz, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security official Miguel Correa.

Another oddity: The second sentence crediting Kushner et al was also cited verbatim by several news outlets: Reuters, NBC, Asharq Al-Awsat, Globe and Mail, Telegraph, and others. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible grammatical error in the lede?

"As part of the agreement, the U.S. removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and giving it a US$1.2 billion loan."

Shouldn't the sentence read:

"As part of the agreement, the U.S. removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and gave it a US$1.2 billion loan." JohnR1Roberts (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary in Background section

"...committed peace broker Bill Clinton" Sennis1 (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary addition in "Background" section

If I I'm not mistaken source 26 at the end of the background section has just been added in 2024?

I disagree with this addition because this section only described which areas were given to Palestinian and Israel and the prominent country leaders involved. I feel it was unnecessary to add an unrelated quote about the American and Israel presidents' legal situations from some random and pretty obviously biased opinion piece.

If you read the article the quote is from, it's very anti-Trump (claiming that Trump is not nearly as much for Palestine as he should) and that particular quote was just to further delegitimize Trump in this decision, even though this is widely known as a giant step forward in Middle East negotiations (at least at the time). Furthermore, Trump's legal issues specifically are unrelated to this topic.

Are the authors trying to imply that there is unprecedented corruption that has affected the accords? If so, why not state that explicitly in the paragraph? In my opinion, that take is very sketchy. 2601:408:680:3AC0:1502:8664:97C6:9D65 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to non-Arab Muslim-majority states

Mauritania (regardless of whether it is listed as such in the cited source article) is not a "non-Arab" state. The word "Arab" in the North African/Sahara/Sahel context is more a linguistic description than an ethnic one. Arabic is the official language of Mauritania and Hassaniya Arabic is the preferred language of c. 75% of the people. Pascalulu88 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]