Jump to content

Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS

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

Reliable sources. The aim of this subpage is to identify reliable source, both used currently in the article, as well a new sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources: general usage

[edit]

Mainstream News

[edit]

UN

[edit]
  • [CoIOPT The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory]
  • [Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 27 May 2021] English version
    • Human Rights Council decided to “urgently establish an ongoing, independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law leading up and since 13 April 2021”. The resolution further requested the commission of inquiry to “investigate all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F68:AD20:AC69:5776:9E07:F89F (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a briefing by Amnesty International. AI proclaims to be politically neutral, but it was widely condemned for its anti-Israeli bias: JCPA ngo-monitor Aish CAMERA more CAMERA SPME [YNet ADL JVL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By sources of which at least some are considered partisan. What I mean with this is that if you allow a partisan souce to debunk things, you should allow those same sources also confirm things. It can not be selective, either they are accaptable, or they are not, but not when it suits. So, which of those are fullfiling WP:RS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am afraid it would be practically impossible to find neutral sources acceptable to both sides in the divisive and emotional Arab-Israeli conflict - and that is another reason not to exacerbate it with propagandistic defamatory namecalling. Earlier, I have added and then removed Front Page Magazine article. If some other links above are problematic, let's talk about it, but shouldn't the accused party be allowed to defend themselves? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, they should have that right, but I think it is not fair to allow that only for one side, and so if we would allow opponents to the term to use partisan sources to counter WP:RS, than we also have to allow proponets to use partisan sources to counter WP:RS. I am only asking for symmetry in the arguments. It is easy to eliminate a source that one does not like, and include the sources than one likes, but I think the rules for inclusion/exclusion of sources should be equal to everybody. I am not saying that we can or cannot include sources as you mentioned above (because WP:RS leaves some space for that, by using clear qualifyers), that is up to the editors, but I do not allow different sets of rules for different sides of the debate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Leaning

[edit]
  • The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html
    News story
    Author: Chris McGreal
    Title: ‘’Worlds Apart”
    Quotes:“Yet even within Israel itself, accusations persist that the web of controls affecting every aspect of Palestinian life bears a disturbing resemblance to apartheid.”; “The 'apartheid wall' There are few places in the world where governments construct a web of nationality and residency laws designed for use by one section of the population against another. Apartheid South Africa was one. So is Israel.”; “Opponents of the vast steel and concrete barrier under construction through the West Bank and Jerusalem dubbed it the "apartheid wall" because it forces communities apart and grabs land.”; “An Israeli human rights organisation has described segregation of West Bank roads by the military as apartheid.”
    Comment Attributed to barrier opponents and an Israeli human rights organization.Timothy Usher 04:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monde diplomatique http://mondediplo.com/2003/11/04apartheid
    Opinion piece
    Author: Leila Farsakh
    Title: “Israel: an apartheid state?”
    Quotes: "If the current situation continues, the two-states solution is in peril. The disappearance of that option would condemn Israel to being an apartheid and binational state, unless it were to embark on a massive programme of population transfer.”
    Comment Phrased as a question in title; mention in article is speculative.Timothy Usher 04:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=468456
    News report
    Title: "UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa"
    Quotes: "South African law professor Prof. John Dugard, the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, has written in a report to the UN General Assembly that there is 'an apartheid regime' in the territories 'worse than the one that existed in South Africa.'" "Dugard, a law professor from South Africa, was a member of a Truth Commission at the end of the apartheid regime, and was appointed by the UN in 2001 as special rapporteur for human rights in the West Bank and Gaza. He called for a general arms embargo against Israel in May, in response to the IDF operations in Rafah, similar to the arms embargo imposed on South Africa in 1977."
    Comment - It is only natural for a South African to use SA terms. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=577789&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
    Title: Apartheid misses the point
    Quotes: "The very use of this terminology has become a mark of leftist radicalism, and the angry denial of the validity of such a comparison now testifies to Zionist patriotism. It's unnecessary to add that an objective comparison or a discussion on the feasibility of comparing two such different phenomena is nearly impossible to find, and if anyone dares go into those issues, he is judged by his conclusions: If he finds points of similarity he will be pegged as an anti-Semite, and if he emphasizes the differences, he will be defined as a fascist."
    Comment - this is a great synopsis of the overall situation. I would recommend that we include it in the resulting article. If nothing else, the article can be about why the comparison is so problematic and the various people and discussions that have arose on it. --Ben Houston 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=578338&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
    Title: The Hong Kong of the Middle East
    Quotes: "The Israeli worldview ranges between two extreme schools of thought: an apartheid regime in the occupied territories, on the one hand, and the desire of some Israelis for an Israel as "a state of all its citizens," on the other. The policy of apartheid has also infiltrated sovereign Israel, and discriminates daily against Israeli Arabs and other minorities. The struggle against such a fascist viewpoint is the job of every humanist. However, in the long run, neither the policy of apartheid nor the "state of all its citizens" will be possible in a future Israeli society: The first eliminates the democratic component in the definition of the state, the second eliminates the Jewish component."
  • Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=346257
    Title: Refusal for the sake of democracy
    Quotes: "Some argue that refusal to obey military commands for political-ideological reasons undermines the democratic process. It is hard to quarrel with this argument, but I wonder if we would have accepted it in the case of a white South African refusenik during the apartheid era. I tend to think not. I wonder if, in spite of the differences between South African apartheid and our situation, there is not also some similarity. One country inhabited by two populations - one enjoying all rights and protections, while the other is denied basic rights and is controlled by the first. What could be more undemocratic than that? What democracy are we defending when we denounce those who act, according to their ability and understanding, against such injustice? If the duty of a soldier is to protect democracy, maybe it is these defiant pilots who are the ones protecting Israeli democracy."
  • Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=305544
    Title: Patriot games
    Quotes: " "The family prefers Jerusalem to Berlin, and Etkes himself says that the past few years have made him more of a patriot than ever before. "I agree with two slogans of the settlers: `fight for home' and `don't give them a state.' I am here to fight for our home and to save it from becoming an apartheid state." The first time Etkes was offered the job he now holds he was not enthusiastic. Not all of the positions espoused by Peace Now were his cup of tea. For example, he supports refusal to serve in the territories, contrary to the movement's official stance. But when the offer arrived a second time, 18 months ago, he did not hesitate: "I realized that all the theoretical debates among people on the left are irrelevant, that the only way to fight for our home is to go into the field and do battle against the apartheid situation that is being created there." "

Quraia-Powell-Olmert Exchange

[edit]
  • Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=381733&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
    Title: PMO rejects Palestinian assertion on right to declare state
    Quotes: "Asked if Qureia's one-state idea was viable, Powell said: 'No. We're committed to a two-state solution. I believe that's the only solution that will work: a state for the Palestinian people called Palestine and a Jewish state, state of Israel.' 'I don't believe that we can accept a situation that results in anything that one might characterize as apartheid or Bantuism,' he added."
    Comment - Powell debunks Qureia. Allright good WP folks, let's create an article Israeli apartheid. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I think that the Deputy PM statement, Qureia and Powell comments together tell a bit of relevant history. --Ben Houston 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your POV is duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't useful to make this oppositional. The interchance is three notable state leaders talking about the subject at hand. If you hate the references I found searching Ha'aretz and B'Tselem this evening go search another publication and make the article reflective of overall views. --Ben Houston 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A PLO propagandist Ahmed Qureia uses an offensive political epithet and Colin Powell debunks this usage. (BTW, who's the 3rd "notable state leader"?) Hardly an encyclopedic usage... but hey, it's the "shitty little country" (this is a redirect worth 22,100 google links, urgently need an article!) we are trying to besmirch here, so any dirt is good. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Olmert quote below would be the third -- it seems to be in response to Qureia's threats and others. Olmert puts Qureias threats into a context in that framing the battle as one against apartheid is implicitly directing the end goal towards a binational solution. To me, I find that informative since others, such as B-Tselem, use the term apartheid in reference to just policies within the occupied territories without actually pushing for a binational solution. --Ben Houston 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=383879&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
    Title: Is the two-state solution in danger?
    Quotes: "Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently told Haaretz that, 'More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.'"
Removed one by Timothy Usher because "one Haaretz article as skew to the point"
Actually, I believe this mention of apartheid from the Deputy PM of Israel as being notable, especially how he says that it is part of a shifting paradigm in how Palestinians are relating to Israel. I actually think it is very informative. --Ben Houston 05:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This usage belongs to propaganda and List of political epithets. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative leaning

[edit]

an important source describing the use of the apartheid accusation as part of the propeganda war against israel. Zeq 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1139395420513
    Title: "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week"
    Author: By Jonny Paul
    Abstract: "Oxford University is holding an "Israeli Apartheid week" hosted by the Palestinian Society"
    Quotes: "Abdel Razzaq Takriti, media spokesman for the Palestinian Society, said, "We are simply stating our belief and explaining that Israel is an apartheid state, to encourage people to take a stance and increase public pressure on Israel to change its apartheid policies." Karen Bagan, co-president of the Jewish Society, said, "If it had been a Palestinian awareness week, people would have been excited, but this simply is a direct attack on Israel and says they don't want dialogue." Last month Oxford University Jewish Society held an "Israel awareness week" that included events such as the "Israeli-Palestinian bereaved families for peace" forum."
  • Jerusalem Post source to abstract, full article available here.
    Title: "Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause"
    Author: Gerald M. Steinberg (Op-Ed, August 24, 2004)
    Quotes: "Although the comparison between Israel and the apartheid regime that ruled South Africa is entirely fictitious, the demonization efforts are propelled by repeating and reinforcing this analogy. The attempt to label Israel as an illegitimate "apartheid state" is the embodiment of the new anti-Semitism that seeks to deny the Jewish people the right of equality and self-determination among the nations.
    The South African strategy is not simply based on rhetoric, academic boycott calls, and waving placards at Israel-bashing demonstrations so common in Europe and elsewhere. There is a vast network of powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Christian Aid, and their Palestinian and Israel Arab allies, that are the main channels for spreading the big lies of "war crimes" and "apartheid." Similarly, the repetition of the rhetoric of demonization by Palestinian and Arab officials in the media helps to propel this strategy."

The Economist

[edit]
  • Feb 23, 2006
    Author:
    Title:
    Quotes:TO THE Israelis it is a security fence or separation barrier; to Palestinians “an apartheid wall”
    Comment Attributed to "Palestinians".Timothy Usher 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feb 19, 2004
    Author:
    TitleIsraelis and Palestinians Voices from the front line makes the following claim:
    Quotes: Others revile it as the new apartheid regime. This last accusation is inexact. Unlike blacks under apartheid, Israel's own Arabs enjoy full political rights...
    Comment Attributed to "others".Timothy Usher 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jan 8th 2004
    Author:
    Title:Israel: No through road
    Quotes:The left has long cited the Palestinians' surging birth rate as reason enough for the Palestinians to be given a state before Israel, in its expanded territory, is engulfed by them or hardens into an apartheid state.
    Comment Speculative.Timothy Usher 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 11, 2005
    Author:
    Title: Israel's settlers: Waiting for a miracle
    Quotes:Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority.
    Comment Speculative.Timothy Usher 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources: scholary articles

[edit]

I can probably get the full text of many of these, especially newer ones -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Falah, G. W. 2003. Dynamics and patterns of the shrinking of Arab lands in Palestine. Political Geography 22:179-209.
    Abstract: This paper seeks to sketch a number of geographical patterns pertaining to the ongoing process of confiscation of Palestinian-Arab land in Israel and the 1967 occupied territories. It points out a geographical pattern and process of "enclaving" and "exclaving", a form of spatial apartheid and exclusionary zoning which was adopted during the pre-state period of Jewish settlement and has continued down to the present day. The centrality of land possession and its transfer to Jewish national and state ownership is shared by almost all political classes in Israel. Even during key points in peace negotiations over the past several years, land confiscation never ceased nor was interrupted. The present paper employs the term "shrinking" to underscore that land confiscation is a continuous process in Palestine/Israel. This of course has both political and social ramifications for the type of state Israel seeks to be, declaring its desire to live in peace and harmony with its own Palestinian citizens and Palestinians elsewhere once a peace deal has been reached. Seen from the perspective of land, its control and use, this paper argues that there is no other alternative in achieving peaceful resolution between Jews in Israel and Palestinians except a return to square one: redefining a new geography for Palestinian villages and towns in Israel and for those many hundreds of villages which were demolished and have since been obliterated.
    Comment - Palestinian political propaganda. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farsakh, L. 2005. Independence, cantons, or bantustans: Whither the Palestinian state? Middle East Journal 59:230-245.
    Abstract: The Palestinian state remains an internationally endorsed project, yet an increasingly difficult one to implement. By analyzing the territorial, legal, and demographic developments that took place in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over the past ten years, this article assesses the extent to which the prospective Palestinian state has become unattainable. A comparison between the South African apartheid experience and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is made to shed light on the ways in which the Palestinian territories are becoming analogous to Bantustans. While historical comparisons are never exact or prescriptive, they raise interesting parallels whose implications need to be considered, if not altered, in any attempt to materialize the project of viable Palestinian independence.
    Comment - Palestinian political propaganda. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26:403-421.
    Abstract: This article subjects to normative-theoretical scrutiny the common claim that Israeli Zionism is 'like' South African apartheid. Drawing on a range of historical and sociological evidence, it shows that this claim (or accusation) is substantially justified in two senses. Firstly, Israeli Zionism is, in many areas, morally bad in the same way as apartheid; secondly, where it is different from apartheid in character, it is in some respects anyway as bad - that is, the difference is not invariably morally favourable to Israeli Zionism. 'Israel proper' (within its pre-1967 borders) is neither much like nor as bad as apartheid. The justification of the analogy only becomes clear when we view Israel and its occupied territories as a single political entity. The article argues that we are justified in so viewing them.
    Comment - Need more info or text. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIRAUT F., 2004, “Apartheid et Israël/Palestine, enseignements et contresens d’une analogie”, Cybergéo (Revue Européenne en ligne de Géographie) Points Chauds, 20 p, http://193.55.107.45/ptchaud/apartheid.pdf Résumé : L’analogie entre l’apartheid et la situation en Israël-Palestine envahit les commentaires et les analyses. Elle prend cependant différentes formes. L’usage radical et systématique de l’analogie vise à condamner l’Etat d’Israël et le sionisme dans leur nature même. Cette approche infondée est aisément réfutable par l’analyse comparée des deux systèmes politiques et sociaux, y compris la discrimination des Arabes israéliens par rapport à celle des non Blancs en Afrique du Sud de l’apartheid. L’usage conjoncturel à visée critique ou constructive de l’analogie s’applique quant à elle exclusivement au traitement des Territoires occupés par Israël et fait référence à la politique du « grand apartheid » et ses bantoustans. Bien que s’appuyant sur quelques éléments communs, cet usage de l’analogie ne résiste pas à une analyse technique et contextualisée des ingénieries territoriales et politiques. Là où le « grand apartheid » relevait d’un système politico-territorial profondément raciste mais de nature postcoloniale, la politique israélienne vis-à-vis des Territoires occupés et plus généralement le sionisme contemporain, apparaissent comme un nationalisme de pratique coloniale, au sens étroit du terme (primat de l’appropriation foncière et de l’annexion sur les autres formes de domination). Les perspectives de résolution du conflit font également l’objet d’approches comparatives qui s’intéressent à l’expérience sud-africaine. Là aussi l’analogie entre les deux situations offre peu de points communs sur lesquels s’appuyer pour concevoir les modalités d’un compromis géopolitique et d’une réconciliation. En revanche, le rapport renouvelé au territoire et à la souveraineté, esquissé à Genève, relève d’un post-sionisme territorial qui semble porteur de solutions. fredpays Fredpays 12:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC) fredpays[reply]

  • Johnson, P., and E. Kuttab. 2001. Where have all the women (and men) gone? Reflections on gender and the second Palestinian intifada. Feminist Review 21-43.
    Abstract: The authors ground their reflections on gender and the complex realities of the second Palestinian intifada against Israeli occupation in the political processes unleashed by the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian rule, noting that the profound inequalities between Israel and Palestine during the interim period produced inequalities among Palestinians. The apartheid logic of the Oslo period - made explicit in Israel's policies of separation, seige and confinement of the Palestinian population during the intifada and before it - is shown to shape the forms, sites and levels of resistance which are highly restricted by gender and age. In addition, the authors argue that the Palestinian Authority and leadership have solved the contradictions and crisis of Palestinian nationalism in this period through a form of rule that the authors term 'authoritarian populism', that tends to disallow democractic politics and participation. The seeming absence of women and civil society from the highly unequal and violent confrontations is contrasted with the first Palestinian intifada (1987-91), that occurred in a context of more than a decade of democratic activism and the growth of mass-based organizations, including the Palestinian women's movement. The authors explore three linked crises in gender roles emerging from the conditions of the second intifada: a crisis in masculinity, a crisis in paternity and a crisis in maternity.
    Comment - I'd like to get ahold of the text. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nassar, J.R. Apartheid in the Jewish State: the refugees who never left home (Palestinians). Scandinavian Journal of Development Alternatives Volume 6, Issue 1, 1987, Pages 116-123
    Abstract: Investigates the conditions under which the Palestinian-Arab minority lives in the Jewish State. It concludes that discrimination against this minority is political, legal, social, and economic. In the process and over the years, the Palestinians of Israel have become not only stateless but in most cases landless refugees in their own homes. Similarities between Israel's discriminatory practices against its Arab minority and of South Africa against its Black population are many and have been recognized by many countries as well as by the United Nations.
    Comment - Palestinian political propaganda. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just asked my neighboor, who is a professor in history if she was willing to judge the articles from ascholary perspective, aka, is a reliable journal, and that kind of things. If that is a good, idea, I will ask her for comments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds great. A lot of journals have articles in Wikipedia too -- or should have, see ACM Transactions on Graphics which includes information on its "impact" as compared to other journals. It would be good to capture reputation for future discussions. --Ben Houston 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yiftachel, O. 2001. From “peace” to creeping apartheid: The emerging political geography of Israel/Palestine. Arena 16(3):13–24.

Books

[edit]
  • GREENBERG, STANLEY 1980 Race and State in Capitalist Development: South Africa in Comparative Perspective, Johannesburg: Ravan Press
  • AKENSON, DONALD HARMAN 1992 God’s Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press
  • Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State (1987) ISBN 0862323177
Book reviews:
  • Peleg, I. 1989. Israel - an Apartheid State - Davis,U. Middle East Journal 43:113-115.
That may be but as it stands (with no citation) it is only your OR. --Ben Houston 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benjamin M. Joseph, Besieged Bedfellows - Israel and the Land of Apartheid (1988) ISBN 0313254613
Book reviews:
  • Love, J. 1989. Besieged Bedfellows - Israel and the Land of Apartheid - Joseph,Bm. American Political Science Review 83:1445-1446.
  • Pipes, D. 1988. Besieged Bedfellows - Israel and the Land of Apartheid - Joseph,Bm. Orbis-a Journal of World Affairs 32:633-633.
  • Slonim, S. 1990. Besieged Bedfellows - Israel and Land of Apartheid - Joseph,Bm. Political Science Quarterly 104:729-730.
  • Roane Carey, The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid [collection of essays] (2001) ISBN 1859843778
  • Uri Davis Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within (2004) ISBN 1842773399

Reliable sources: qualified usage

[edit]

Pro-Palestinian

[edit]

The International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School and Addameer Prisoner Support Joint Submission to the CoIOPT - United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry

on the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F68:AD20:AC69:5776:9E07:F89F (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling WRMEA "Pro-peace" is a far streach. It is a pro-palestinian think tank. Zeq 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes: (1) "I would like to warn against an unthinking use of this misleading analogy between Israeli policy and that of the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa. It is theoretically false and politically harmful. To be sure, the two have many features in common. Both are perniciously racist; both impose a degree of separation between ethnic groups. [...] But the point is that they belong to two distinct species of the genus. [...]The decisive difference between the two species was what was to become of the dispossessed natives." (2) "And make no mistake: this is not going to be like a Bantustan, more like a series of Indian Reservations. Conflating this with apartheid in fact misses the most essential point. Incidentally, it can also backfire: defenders of Zionism can easily show that the Palestinian citizens of Israel, while not enjoying equal rights, are nevertheless considerably better off than Black Africans used to be under apartheid." (3) "But, much more importantly: talk of Israeli 'apartheid' serves to divert attention from much greater dangers. For, as far as most Palestinians are concerned, the Zionist policy is far worse than apartheid. Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term."

Pro-Peace Process?

[edit]

Pro-Israel

[edit]

Human Rights

[edit]
  • B'Tselem http://www.btselem.org/english/Freedom_of_Movement/Checkpoints_and_Forbidden_Roads.asp
    Title: "Forbidden Roads: The Discriminatory West Bank Road Regime"
    Quotes: "The roads regime, which is based on separation through discrimination, bears clear similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994. An individual's national origin determines their right to use various roads. This policy is based on a racist premise: that all Palestinians are security risks, and it is therefore justifiable to restrict their movement. Thus the policy indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population, in violation of their human rights and of international law."
Comment: Btselem completly ignore the fact that palestinians who are either citizens or resdients of Israel and drive a car with Israeli license plate can drive all roads in the west bank. So it is not national origin or race but based on residency/citizenship.
PS I will be the last one to argue that in the occupied Palestinian territories the population enjoy full rights - they don't. This is a place which is under military occupation (which hopefully would end) but we already have many articles about the occupation and the territories, no need for a new one. Israel never annexed any parts of the territories (excpet Jerusalem where Palestinians are either residents or citizens and can drive where they want on every road) so don't confuse between an area under military occupation to an apartheid which is something that inherntly decribe what is inside a specific country. Zeq 05:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be but it is your OR as it currently stands. --Ben Houston 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • B'Tselem http://www.btselem.org/english/Freedom_of_Movement/Checkpoints_and_Forbidden_Roads.asp
    Title: "Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank"
    Quotes: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."

Anti-Racism: Desmond Tutu

[edit]

Desmond Tutu is a consistent and recognized activist against racism and other biases, see Desmond_Tutu#Political_views.

  • Tutu, D., and I. Urbina. 2002a. Against Israeli apartheid. Nation 275:4-5. source (scholarly ref via Web of Science)
    • Response: Liebling, R. M. 2002. There's no apartheid in Israel. source Nation 275:2-2.
      • Reply: Tutu, D., and I. Urbina. 2002b. There's no apartheid in Israel - Tutu & Urbina reply.source Nation 275:2-+.
    I asked my neighbour (Professor in African history) about the position of Nation in her field, and she says it is an established respected journal. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Respected is a relative thing, but it is established, and is a valid source for the opinions of the American left.Timothy Usher 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Usher said "activist against racism and other biases" means partisan. we don't cite politicians and activists as sources except for their own views."
IMO Desmond Tutu is as partisan as the Jewish Virtual Library and Amnesty International. --Ben Houston 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if we look at Tutu's own words we see that he continually use the phrase "The apartheid government" which point out that even in the eyeys of Tutu, the apartheid government that ruled South Africa is unique other wise he would call the Israeli government by the title apartheid (which he clearly reserve for use in this article only to South Africa).
  • It seems that it is the guardian editor (and not Tutu himself) who gave the article by Tutu the catchy headline "Israeli apartheid" – Tutu himself indeed compare the suffering of Palestinians in west bank checkpoints to the suffering of blacks in south Africa and I can understand his sympathy to their situation, however in the west bank there is military rule and no one deny the need for that area to be free of occupation. Being an occupier force in the Palestinian territories (which Israel is and hopefully stop being such an occupier) does not make it "an apartheid state"
  • Even Tutu did not argue that. (btw, He was quoted elsewhere as saying "Israel is like Hitler and Apartheid" but that is not from a reliable source. If indeed Tutu compared Israel to Hitler – this makes him an even less reliable source….) Zeq 07:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq, if it's not from a reliable source why are you repeating it here?Homey 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter. Tutu is about as relevant here as Bono or the Dalai Lama.Timothy Usher 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan sources: usage acceptable

[edit]

Partisan sources: usage not accaptable

[edit]

Partisan sources: usage not accaptable?

[edit]

Left-wing

[edit]

Pro-Palestinian

[edit]

Pro-Arab

[edit]

Pro-Peace Process?

[edit]

Pro-Israel

[edit]

Right-wing

[edit]

Anti-Semitic

[edit]

Unknown

[edit]


Unsure

[edit]
The sunday herald translated "Hafrada" as "apartheid in Hebrew". This is utter nonsense.
There is a word in Hebrew that is used for "racial segregation" it is "Hafrda Bein Gizi'it" all the other uses of "Hafrada" are "speration", "demarkation" "spliting and distancing from one another (one at each side") etc...

The athorative Hebrew dictionery (Eben Shoshan) sais:

Hafrada : distancing one thing from another such as seprating between church and state, speration between husband and wife who end their marrige. Zeq 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there is an article Hafrada in wikipedia now to centralize discussion of what that term means. --Ben Houston 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

[edit]

Please add new sources here.

The following are some sources I have found with a quick google search. I was not aware of the existence of this page so I have moved it and added a link from Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid accordingly.

  • Paula Zahn now Transcript of discussion with New York Times Middle East correspondent Thomas Friedman - CNN

Discussion

[edit]

Please, provide link as subheader so that we can keep the discussion organized.

Not reputable

[edit]
That's exactly it, Humus sapiens. What we have here are reliable sources reporting mentions of the phrase. It's a misconstrual of the source policies to suppose that this establishes the phrase as accurately referring to something real.Timothy Usher 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Eliminating skew references

[edit]

I'm going to eliminate references which don't say or quote anyone saying that there is such a thing as Israeli Apartheid. We've put in a lot of hard work, but let's not flood the page.Timothy Usher 04:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, I think you need to create a heading for "sources using the word Israeli apartheid without offering any scholarly proof" Zeq 05:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, I haven't gone through them all - and won't be able to tonight - but it's starting to look like that would make an excellent title for this entire page. What is really needed here is for a reliable source to treat Israeli apartheid as fact, not quoting an unreliable source as using the phrase. It is a common point of invective, so there are apprearances in reliable sources reporting on such invective, but that's not enough. The reliable sources are careful to keep their distance from these charges.Timothy Usher 05:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to sticking to reliable sources, we must be careful to watch out for the usage of the exact term "Israeli apartheid" rather than a mere usage of the words "Israel" and "apartheid" in the same piece of writing. Pecher Talk 08:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the natural result of an unquoted Google search.Timothy Usher 11:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not necessarily agree that only mentions of the phrase "Israeli aparthied" is allowable. I currently favor transforming the existing article into one that tries to classify and discuss and put into context the various types of allegations of apartheid in Israel. I made this comment below. It really does seem that many motives are unnecessarily conflated together and that is why it is, as a single monolithic subject, so difficult to find any consensus. --Ben Houston 15:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, you're being pedantic. The exact phrase "Israeli apartheid" isn't a prerequisite, what is necessary is the idea that either there is an "apartheid" in Israel or that Israel may develop a form of apartheid. As long as the word "apartheid" is used, or there is a direct reference to South Africa prior to 1991, it doesn't matter if the source says "Israeli apartheid". "apartheid Israel". "apartheid state" (in relation to Israel) or some other variation. Of course, if you insist on pedantism we can just rename the article Apartheid (Israel).Homey 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...what is necessary is the idea that either there is an "apartheid" in Israel or that Israel may develop a form of apartheid."

So maybe the article should be titled, "Israeli apartheid (idea)"? Perhaps with a daughter article "Potential Israeli apartheid"? Such titles aptly sum up the problems inherent to this article.Timothy Usher 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having an "(idea}" sufix seems odd. as well as a n article in encyclopedai that ends with a "?".
  • The only thing we can say for sure is that there are people who use the expression. so the artyicle tiotle should be about "use of the term....." Zeq 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zionism

[edit]

I have read many of the sources and concluded that it boils down to the question:

  • Does one agree that the jewish people desrve to have a state ?

Those who are against it, are calling it racism and even apartheid to show their deep hate to the idea of the jewish people state Right to exist. Thu sit may be appropriate to merge the article to a section in Zionism in which it would be argued that Zionism is racism ? Zeq 08:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my recent readings it seems there are multiple uses of the allegations of apartheid. In some cases there is overlap with Zinoism is racism and some of it also falls into advocating for a binational solution. Other cases apply it to the humanitarian situation just within the occupied Territories. The claim has also been made by at least one professor who specialize in international law. I am unfortunately going to be busy for the rest of the week. I've backed up the current contents of this article so feel free to go nuts on whatever direction you want to go. I should say that I actually think some middle ground is possible. I am leaning towards an article entitled "Allegations of Apartheid in Israeli" which classifies and discusses the various ways the allegation is used, by whom and for what purposes and it would include criticism of each use by the appropriate parties. I think it would be very informative since it would help clears up what are currently many conflated motives, etc. --Ben Houston 15:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see the forest for the trees

[edit]

Are all the sources here relevant and going to be used for the article ?

Please remove sources from this list cause it is impossible to see what is going on.

We should frist focus on sources already in the article. (so many of them are trashy sources that idenitfiying the few that can be used (according to WP:RS) will shrink the article. Zeq 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The nation", camera etc...

[edit]

Kim, with all respect to your professor: "The nation" is not a scholarly source. (and nither is camera) btw, this link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/letter is not even available.

In any case we should focus on sources now in the article and keep in mind that in such article ArbCom decided only scholrly sources can be used . Tutu is not a scholar iin the area of israel-Palestine history. Zeq 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation is a perfectly reputable source. Homey 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation is a respected serious magazine that has a left wing perspective. It isn't a peer-reviewed journal though. These are different things. Anyways, I think that my suggested solution of an "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel" is a good way to cover the whole area for those are wondering what is up with the various claims and counter claims and general incomprehensibility of the issue -- that doesn't have to scholarly only but rather notable since it would be a survey article. --Ben Houston 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a scholarly source. Zeq 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Than why is it in web-of-science social database, which deals with scolary sources only. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, it is not a scholarly source. this is a fact. It is a news paper and not a scholraly source. ArbCom was very clear about using scholarly source only and I will tell you why:
  • scholarly magazines are peer reviwed
  • Books by faculty staff memers refelct on universities they work in so there is great care on book s by universities not to be caught with lies.

All other sources can not be used as the main source for this article.

Question: Are you the mediator or are you activly looking for and justifying sources for one of the sides in this debate (which is fine, just we need to find an impartial mediator. Zeq 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, there is no rule restricting wikipedia to peer-reviewed journals. The Nation is a venerable, respected periodical which *is* used as a source by academics. It is a notable and reliable source does fall within the WP:RS guidelines.Homey 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this already to you before at your talkpage. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain it here, as more and more I see you operate in one direction only. Zeq 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The nation" as non WP:RS - a moot point

[edit]

We do not have to argue if the nation is or is not a WP:RS because the nation represent a tiny minority. we can not base a wikipedia articles on the views of "the nation" for the simple fact that


  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. Zeq 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not "basing Wikipedia on the views of The Nation" we are simply recognizing that the periodical falls within the guidelines of WP:RS and using it as one of many sources. You can't reject a source just because you don't like what it says. Zeq, you seem to have fallen back into the habit of "making stuff up". I suggest you actually read our article on The Nation before dismissing it so readily. Homey 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just the opposite, Homey. I noticed that Zeq behaves responsibly for quite some time now but I never had a chance to commend him. In this case, he refers to WP:NPOV policy and you chose to respond with ad hom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Nation is a source of opinion, not fact. It is as a reliable source as any for the opinions of the American left.Timothy Usher 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are done here
[edit]

I cut and paste Jimbo Wales words from WP:NPOV and the reply from Homey was to attack and claim that "You make stuff up". I have nothing to say about his behaviour. KIm. I think we need to quickly weed out all the material that does not conform to wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia not a collection of links and quotes. Zeq 03:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus

[edit]

Kim seems to have confused an encyclopedia with a dictionary. The issue is not whether the term "Israeli apartheid" or some variation is in use. And the issue isn't whether the comparison is notable. The issue is whether the title "Israeli apartheid" is apt, or whether it begs the question. --Leifern 21:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is well advised to re-read WP:not, this include admins and mediators. Zeq 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid/RS&oldid=1077887575"