I think the structure you've laid out here is a good one to apply to all the various peace plans. The only part that might be debated is the ==Understanding of the fundamental issues== section: on the one hand, it's good to know why each plan proposes what it proposes, but on the other hand, unless some sort of meaningful link can be demonstrated between the understanding and the proposed action, the section is pointless. In some cases it might be obvious:
. . .
The plan's understanding of the fundamental issues
edit- Zionist occupation of Arab land.
- Vide supra.
The plan's proposed solution
edit- Drive the Zionists into the sea.
- Celebrate.
. . .
But in other cases, it might not be so easy. What do you think? No-One Jones (talk) 01:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think that the statements of the contents of the plan should be draw as directly as possible from the plan without the opportunity for modification or mis-representation. OneVoice 18:41, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)