Talk:Dennis Ross

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

Early comment[edit]

This reads as a bio from a speaker's catalogue. Not much objectivity here.

I've removed some POV bits. It should be better now.--Gloriamarie 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations for the back and forth between Dennis Ross and Shmuel Rosner? Did this exchange even happen?

I agree. i tried to edit but nothing holds! Aimeeplltr (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TheMissingPeace.jpg[edit]

Image:TheMissingPeace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update; Excessive Bibliography[edit]

Obviously this article needs updating to is newest position and commentary on that. And the listing of practically every article he ever wrote is obviously excessive. Best way to trim it down? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say keep the books and major policy papers, and get rid of all the op-eds/random newspaper articles. Does that sound reasonable? Joshdboz (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with keep a few of the more important looking ones, but getting rid of 2/3 makes sense. Also some of external links are redundant to or better as references. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of more (excessive!) external links that had piled up since that portion of the article was pruned in 2009. This might be worth including, as it is very current: Donald Trump Should Isolate Iran Immediately, by Dennis Ross and Jeb Bush (19 January 2017). It is from that Washington Institute website where he works, so I don't know if it is appropriate to add here. It probably is, as it was published in Time magazine too. I'll leave it to someone else to decide, as I already edited this BLP enough for one day.--FeralOink (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bibliographical references[edit]

Listing these since some may be of use to improving the article.


The Boston Globe
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Policy
The Jerusalem Post
The New Republic
The New York Times
USA Today
  • "Arafat's death can breathe life into peace process", Yasser Arafat has dominated the Palestinian national movement for the past 40 years. He has been a fixture on the landscape of the Middle East. He came to embody the Palestinian cause and was determined that no other Palestinian figure could emerge as a possible alternative to him. November 10, 2004
  • "The danger of a Sharon exit", Life after Sharon will not be so simple, particularly as Palestinians prepare to hold elections Wednesday and Hamas, the Islamist terrorist organization, is poised to do well. January 23, 2006
  • "A moment of truth for Syria", During the nearly 30-year rule of Hafez Assad, Syria came to control Lebanon and used terrorist groups Hezbollah, Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to exert pressure (and at times reduce it) on others in the region. His son, Bashar, who has been the Syrian president for the past five years, seems to lack his father's guile and understanding of limits that need to be respected. November 8, 2005
  • "An opening in the Mideast", President Bush declared in Europe that the world cannot rest until there is peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Certainly he knew that Europeans would welcome such words. But I suspect this was less a tactical gesture to the Europeans and more a statement of intent, reflecting his commitment to act on what he sees as an opportunity for promoting peace. March 2, 2005
  • "U.S. should help construct an 'Arab umbrella'", In order to prevent the current crisis in the Middel East from growing, the United States must work with the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and others who seem to recognize that Iran is manipulating Hezbollah and Hamas for its purposes. Such an "Arab umbrella" could justify in deploying the Lebanese army to Israel's border. July 18, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post

END LIST CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it right on divided Jerusalem[edit]

I can see why this is a controversy because he does engage in diplomatic double talk to make both sides happy, those who don't want it "divided" (like Jerusalem Journal which interpreted his comments to support NO division) - and those who hope that Palestinians will again regain control of the portion they claim. (Of course the third unspoken alternative is some sort of international control, which is unlikely.) Anyway, the point is the current version only summarizes the first of the two paragraphs below and doesn't make clear the emphasis on no division of the second, be it his personal or the alleged US govt position. The quote needs to better reflect both paragraphs. I'll think about how to do it later today, but FYI. From Jerusalem Post, Ross on what Obama said at AIPAC speech:

You raised the issue of Jerusalem. That was at the AIPAC speech. And what he said, he said the following: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital." He said the city should never be divided again. And it's true that in that speech he didn't make the third point, which is, the final status of the city will be resolved by negotiations. Before the speech he said that, after the speech he said that. The American position has been those three points.
The fact of the matter is, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the city should not be divided again. That's also a fact. The position of the United States since Camp David, the position, by the way, adopted in the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, signed by [prime minister] Menachem Begin, was that the final status of Jerusalem would be resolved by negotiations. Those are the three points. That's what his position is.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the plain meaning of his statements is clear.
(a)He personally believes that Jerusalem belongs to Israel.
(b)He believes that, to do his job, he must be willing to accept Arab takeover of Jerusalem if necessary as part of an overall negotiation.
That sort of impression seems clear to me from reading The Missing Peace and his interviews. Of course, Ross is a wordsmith who is brilliantly talented in making different people interpret things different ways :-) The Squicks (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what is reflected in the current version: Ross, quoted by The Jerusalem Post in November 2008, explained Barack Obama's position on Jerusalem by saying that the city's final status of will be resolved by end negotiations and that that had been the U.S. position since Camp David, clarifying the statement made during Obama's June 2008 AIPAC speech in which Obama said Jerusalem should not be divided again.[25]
I think this more accurately reflects those two paragraphs: The Jerusalem Post reported that in November 2008 Ross explained that while it was true during Barack Obama's 2008 AIPAC speech he did say that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" and that it should not be divided again and that, according to Ross, these were "facts." However, he stated that the "third point" which is the position of the United States since the Camp David Accords is that the final status of the city will be resolved by negotiations.
Other opinions? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That revision is fine with me. The Squicks (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross book ref needs page numbers[edit]

Amazon lets you search the book but I couldn't figure out from their description which Aaron Miller reference contained the Ross description you included on Miller's alleged views. You can change ref to <ref>Ross, Dennis, ''Missing Peace'', 135.</ref> for each reference after the first one which still contain any relevant page number. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Miller about 100% verses <100% is from P. 726 The Squicks (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ross states in his book The Missing Peace that he and other American negotiators pushed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack to accept a divided Jerusalem during the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David is something that is mentioned many, many times in the book, and finding exact page numbers for each time would be pointless. The Squicks (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Swisher[edit]

The Truth about Camp David is intended by its author to be a blistering attack against Ross both personally and in terms of what Ross believes. It seems to me to be a highly biased source, and I would not support citing it. The Squicks (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have quotes from the book that prove that assertion? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Have you even looked at the book? It's not an assertion. It's fact. Even the blasted title is meant to be a counter to Ross' public statements about Camp David.
If you'd like an exact quote, than you can find one blasting the Americans at Camp David on almost every page. The diplomats arousing the greatest suspicion, not unsurprisingly, were Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk on Page 148 is a great example. The Squicks (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There is nobody in the book who comes out as bad as Dennis Ross" The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jude Wanniski piece is his opinion/interpretation of what is in the book, not Swisher's statements. Here are the most relevant things he writes:
  • The story of what really happened in the summer of 2000 has now been told by a young American in a book that should be read by all the participants in the coming peace talks. Clayton Swisher, not yet 30-years old, was in graduate school in 2000.
  • I had heard about the book several weeks ago from a mutual friend and was most sceptical that an unknown young man could produce a credible work to match the title. After reading it, though, I realised his youth and status as a graduate student, not a journalist, made it work. The several dozen key people involved in the Camp David talks and others in the Middle East who were important to its outcome would probably not have talked so openly to reporters working on deadline.
  • His book, 455 pages long, is not only thoroughly documented and persuasive, but as well written and gripping as a detective whodunit. And if Arafat is not the villain, who is? The simple answer is, there is none. The talks broke down because they were not carefully prepared in the way president Carter's Camp David summit with Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachim Began were.
  • In Swisher's account, Arafat's big mistake was to fly back to Ram Allah without holding a press conference to challenge Clinton's assessment of why the talks failed: "For these reasons, Barak's government and its supporters in the United States unleashed one of the greatest PR frauds in history, still dominating the US and Israeli media to this day." Next paragraph: There is nobody in the book who comes out as bad as Dennis Ross, however. After the talks failed and Arafat flew home, there still seemed time to work something out in the last three months of 2000, with Clinton still eager to make a deal. Several paragraphs later: Arafat even phoned the White House on the eve of Sharon's visit to beg Clinton to weigh in on Barak. Amid the internal finger-pointing in Washington that would later arise, the CIA officer told me that he took the unusual step of confirming this himself: Arafat's message was not taken by Clinton; rather it was handled by Ross." CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of those quotes may be revelant for the article on Camp David or similar article. But what's at issue here is whether or not an anti-Ross book can be used on Ross' own page, protected by WP:BLP for biographic details about him unrelated to Camp David. The Squicks (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One person (Wanninski) says: "There is nobody in the book who comes out as bad as Dennis Ross". He does not say "Swisher makes Ross look bad" or "Swisher intends to make Ross look bad." He probably means that when one read's Swisher's account and puts all the FACTS together about Ross's activity (including Wanninski's allegation that the book says Ross never gave Clinton Arafat's message) the FACTS make Ross look bad. It's not wikipedia's job to protect people from the facts if they come from reliable sources. You are making a far too POV interpretation of Wanninski's vague comment. Do we need to take this to reliable sources noticeboard?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Your assertion that "It's not wikipedia's job to protect people from the facts if they come from reliable sources" is a logical non sequiter. This book is not an undisputed reliable source; it is a highly biased source that can only be used to describe the author's own opinion (e.g. "Swisher has stated that _"). The facts of what Swisher claims in his book are already disputed, as you just mentioned (Wanninski's allegation that the book says Ross never gave Clinton Arafat's message - is an allegation, not objective fact). The Squicks (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<backdent>
These are only two refs from Swisher and you haven't said why you think either has to be identified as being from him:

  • In the mid-1980s Ross co-founded with Martin Indyk the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy ("WINEP").[5]
  • His first WINEP paper called for appointment of a "non-Arabist Special Middle East envoy" who would "not feel guilty about our relationship with Israel."[6]

Frankly, I've been procrastinating about researching and upgrading this article, and I think Swisher's various allegations should be looked into. Swisher has some interesting info from page 184 on. I assume most can be verified from other sources. This is important given criticism of Ross in his currently position. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth telling is a necessity"[edit]

Wise words from Dennis Ross:

"The one overriding lesson from the story of the peace process is that truth-telling is a necessity."

(The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace)


Colombo Man (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron David Miller[edit]

I've removed the following from the article:

According to Aaron David Miller, a member of the Ross-led US negotiating team in 1999-2000, under Ross they frequently acted as "Israel's lawyer", and their policy of "no surprises" (meaning all US proposals were first reviewed by Israel), led to a lack of negotiating flexibility and independence.[1] Ross writes in The Missing Peace that "Aaron was always arguing for a just and fair proposal... that the Palestinians were entitled to 100 percent of the territory. Swaps should thus be equal... on the basis that every other Arab negotiating partner had gotten 100 percent. Why should the Palestinians be different? I disagreed."[2]

My concern here is that this discussion doesn't really address Ross. Miller states some concerns about American policy, but he doesn't connect those concerns to Ross. Ross is not mentioned in the Washington Post editorial that is sourced. Further, the quote from The Missing Peace addresses Miller's viewpoint, but it doesn't say anything about what Ross believes other than that it doesn't correspond to Miller. We're not really saying anything at all here - does Ross think that Miller is mostly right but there are a few minor caveats or does Ross think that Miller is completely wrong? We don't say. The implication here is that Ross doesn't support a "just and fair" proposal, but without hearing Ross' own words we don't know if that's true - maybe Ross has a different justification of "just and fair" than Miller, maybe he believes that "just and fair" is unworkable. We don't know. GabrielF (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is focused on aaron david miller, after all, this paragraph describes aspects that Ross was notorious for in his work on israel-palestine.
I agree we could elaborate. In particular, I propose restoring this deleted section (from 13 years ago :) ) and adding to the end:
Ross goes on to explain that he personally believed in focusing the negotiations on the needs of each side, rather than the rights. He emphasizes that one side's "'right' is usually the other side's impossiblity."
DMH43 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Israel’s Lawyer Washington Post, 23 May 2005
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference miss was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dennis Ross. 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) 21:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dennis Ross. 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) 22:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dennis Ross. 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) 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dennis_Ross&oldid=1210125730"