Figure 10 – Before & After: Edits to ‘Israel-Palestinian peace process page on Wikipedia

The first striking difference between the two versions of the article on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process is the shift from clarity to increased ambiguity and potential bias. The January 2023 version opens with a clear, direct definition: “The Israeli–Palestinian peace process refers to the intermittent discussions held by various parties and proposals put forward in an attempt to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.” This sentence sets a neutral and informative tone, defining the topic in a straightforward manner.

In contrast, the March 2025 version—despite citing the exact same source—alters the structure and tone in a way that introduces ambiguity: “Intermittent discussions are held by various parties and proposals put forward in an attempt to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a peace process.” This revision not only reverses the sentence structure, making it more convoluted, but also subtly shifts the focus away from a clear definition of the peace process. The result is a disjointed opening sentence exemplifying a recurring trend in recent edits on the conflict that obscures rather than clarifies.

The act of concealment regarding the efforts and progress represented in the peace process is especially evident when comparing the continuation of the first paragraph .^[1] In the older version, the paragraph not only acknowledges the origins of peace efforts dating back to the 1970s, but it also explicitly highlights concrete achievements by naming key peace treaties Israel has signed: 

Since the 1970s, there has been a parallel effort made to find terms upon which peace can be agreed to in both the Arab–Israeli conflict and in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Some countries

have signed peace treaties, such as the Egypt–Israel (1979) and Jordan–Israel (1994) treaties, whereas some have not yet found a mutual basis to do so.

This framing offers a sense of hope and situates the talks within a broader historical context, acknowledging both the progress made and the challenges that remain.

In contrast, the 2025 version uses the same starting point but omits any mention of these landmark peace agreements. This absence erases important milestones from the narrative and shifts the tone from one of documenting progress to one that suggests perpetual failure or stalemate. By removing references to successful diplomacy, the revised article downplays the complexity of the peace process and diminishes Israel’s role in achieving regional agreements. This subtle editorial choice contributes to a broader pattern of omission that undermines a factual and balanced understanding of the conflict.

The revised version also includes two additional notable omissions: the pivotal role of the United States as a mediator and a clear articulation of Israel’s core requirements within the peace process. Notably absent is the quote by American scholar William B. Quandt, who underscored that the term “peace process” regarding treaties ranging from 1970 to 1994, stating it primarily refers to: “American-led efforts to bring about a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors.” The removal of this framing diminishes the reader’s understanding of the United States’ central and sustained involvement. 

Instead, the second paragraph of the current version closely mirrors pro-Palestinian advocacy narratives, effectively misappropriating Wikipedia and using it as a platform for partisan messaging. It adopts the language, framing, and assumptions characteristic of political advocacy, while presenting them as a neutral, consensual account despite the fact that the topic concerns a contested process between two parties: 

Despite the failure of the peace process to produce a final agreement, the international consensus has for decades supported a two-state solution to the conflict, based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338. This includes the establishment of an independent Palestinian state under the pre-1967 borders including East Jerusalem and a just resolution to the refugee question based on the Palestinian right of return (in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194).

The one-sided propaganda narrative persists with an explanation of the reasons the Oslo Accords are not beneficial for the Palestinians:

This is in contrast to the current situation under the interim agreement of the Oslo Accords in which the Palestinian territories are fragmented under Israeli military control and the Palestinian National Authority has only partial self-rule in Area A of the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. A final settlement as stipulated by the Oslo Accords has yet to be reached.

As can be seen, there is no explicit reference to Israel’s conditions for peace: its concerns, demands for security, and counterarguments over land and terms. Instead, the readers are presented with highly selective and ideologically driven framing.

It is only in the third paragraph that Israel’s demands are briefly mentioned. However, the description carries a cynical tone: Israel’s right to exist is placed in quotation marks, subtly casting doubt on its legitimacy, and the requirement to renounce violence is framed as a price for abandoning the goal of reclaiming all of “historic Palestine”  – a highly charged and political term in itself:

For the United States and Israel, the PLO’s participation in diplomatic negotiations was dependent on its complete disavowal of political violence and full recognition of Israel’s “right to exist.” This stipulation required the PLO to abandon its objective of reclaiming all of historic Palestine and instead focus on the 22 percent which came under Israeli military control in 1967.

The bias continues in the “Background” section of the March 2025 version. This time, a onesided viewpoint is bluntly promoted through heavy reliance on a single source, presenting a single scholarly interpretation as authoritative without indicating that it reflects only one analytical perspective. In this manner, the article excludes the alternative viewpoints of Israeli decisionmakers, security analysts, or historians who might interpret the same events through different lenses.

Assertions based on one critique are framed as a factual narrative rather than as contested political interpretations. As a result, the section portrays Israeli policy as deterministic and cynical, ignoring the broader strategic and political context, including ongoing acts of terrorism, the ambiguity of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declarations during the period, and internal debates within Israel about security and diplomacy. This fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards of balance, attribution, and verifiability.

---

[1] The first paragraph is the most important section of any Wikipedia article, as it is the one usually read and the one that frames the article’s content.