Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli apartheid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Neutrality (cont)

Ryan, thanks kindly for msg'ing me. I haven't reviewed the whole article but I remain concerned. It is better without the table. However, the first series of sections (esp 1.1 to 1.5 and 2.1 to 2.3) only present one POV. The countering POV is put at the end of the article (section 3). This continues to strike me as a crucial neutrality problem. Given the nature of these allegations/analogies, each thematic section should aim to present all significant viewpoints (or otherwise "problematize" the analogies, as we say) in a balanced manner. Considering that the analogy itself seems to be a minority viewpoint, the current imbalance deserves to be corrected. Thanks again for your consideration. Best wishes with your editing. HG | Talk 13:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks HG, it's good to have specific concerns in mind when editing towards greater neutrality. I'm inclined to agree with you about including criticisms of the specific apartheid analogies presented in each section, so that readers do not feel a sense of imbalanced presentation as they proceed through. Of course, criticisms of the specific analogies can only presented if they exist in reliable sources, if none can be found then not presenting them isn't imbalanced. I would note that almost all of the sections you mention do go some way to present a balanced view. The marriage law section describes the reason given for its introduction, the political rights section opens with a statement of the equal rights provided and presents the status of citizens and non-citizens in a neutral manner. The ID card section provides no balancing POV. The land section provides a view from CAMERA. The travel section gives a defense of the West Bank barrier as an effective anti-terrorism device. Would you agree therefore that your contention that these sections "only present one POV" is inaccurate? However, it would be fair to say that these sections do not sufficiently present POVs critical of these specific apartheid analogies, if such views do exist in reliable sources. I would prefer to see each section present more counter-arguments, like the lead does. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's how 95% of the fence really look - It's not a wall at all' but a border 212.143.158.148 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Is 100% of this wholly inside Israel? If not, then it's not a border. If border post (etc) of a particular nation, do not fall within the land of that nation then it's not a border. 203.196.81.85 (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So if a actual border (or fence or wall) is not within a (notional) national border of it's builders it's not really a border at all??? Is it 100% inside Israel? That depends on what your definition of what Israel Is. Israel knows it has borders, it just isn't certain of where they are exactly. While this ~~wall~~ ~~fence~~ ~~border~~ barrier might one day be a border, that isn't why Israel built it, ok? And if it alienates a few Palestinians from their land, their livelihoods and their families, it's unfortunate but it's their own stupid fault for living next to illegal settlements. 121.91.49.183 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, how equal treatment the POVs should get here, since in principle only in a completely objectively "split" situation should the space here be split 50/50 between those who endorse the apartheid analogy and those who dispute it. To give an example, in an article on the moon landings, conspiracy theorists shouldn't be given half of the space since the balance of opinion is so clearly on the side of the "argument" that the landings really happened. Is there anymore an outstanding dispute concerning neutrality, or should we remove the "dispute" tag? Reading the text above, the article appears to be fairly OK in terms of balance. --Dailycare (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi Shlaim

In Ha'aretz today: [1]

He [Avi Shalim] continues, he said, to believe in Israel's legitimacy to exist within its pre-1967 borders, but "rejects uncompromisingly the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line."

In his talk, entitled "Obsession with Territory Post-1967," Shlaim blasts the settlements, which he says have turned Israel into an apartheid state, as the primary source of failure for peace efforts with the Palestinians.

Shlaim believes Zionism was derailed from its course after the Six-Day war, when its universalist principles were replaced with "religious messianism and secular nationalism." Israel must give up land, he says, not just as a concession to the Palestinians, but because "a people that oppresses another cannot itself remain free."

Perhaps this would be good for the section on Israeli views? Or academics? He's both. Or perhaps it's better in the article on him, and here we could just list the names of Israeli academics who have made the analogy and people can read what they said about it in a section on their own pages. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 12:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A sentence or two in Israeli views, I think. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually like Tiamat's suggestion to a certain extent, but perhaps a better place in WikiQuote? Or perhaps a category joining the articles? Here is the crux: many people have spoken about the analogy, but I do not think we should give the same weight to all of them: for example Adam and Moodley are more important for this topic than even Jimmy Carter, as their work is directly on topic. Of course, Benny Morris is an important source, as are Zionist academics, but lets see what we can verify as important, rather than to be all inclusive. This article is well beyond the size it should really have to present our readers with an encyclopedic overview of the topic, I fear adding this type of content will move it even beyond the current nasty state. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ACRI report

New report from ACRI notes: "...the situation in the occupied West Bank, between Israeli settlers and the local Palestinian population, was "reminiscent, in many and increasing ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa." From [Ha'aretz]. Magabund (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead/intro

I changed "some" in the lead as an obvious weasel word.

Ryan Paddy reverted with:

The problem with "critics" is that it implies those using the analogy are anti-Israeli. Some who use the analogy are not critics of Israel in general, just of actions they consider apartheid-like

But there are also critics of Israel in general. You are making an exceptional valuation that degrades neutral presentation.

Alternative: "critics of Israeli policy"?

Weasel wording is not gud. Let the facts speak for themselves, a thorough reading of the topic would make obvious your assertion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. "Critics" is more of a weasel word in this context than "some". If you read WP:WEASEL you'll see that Critics/experts say that... is listed in the examples of weasel wording. Further, the "Exceptions" section says that "some" is appropriate usage When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats. That is exactly the case here. "Critics" is too loaded and specific a term to use to describe the wide variety of people using the analogy, so "some" is more accurate in this context. The article is packed with full attribution of the usage by a wide variety of people, so attribution of opinions to verifiable sources is clearly happening in this article, which is the point of the weasel guideline. You can't just go through articles deleting the word "some", you have to look at the whole article and consider the whole WP:WEASEL guideline. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I pulled it from the source, BTW. Thing is, this article, which I heavily edited in the past, and have been part of some of the AfDs, still has a neutrality tag. Need to change things to move forward, after all these years. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy with the rest of your changes towards increasing readability and reducing aggravating wording. Agree we should be working towards a version with broad recognition as being neutral coverage. Not sure what you mean about how you "pulled it from the source", don't know what you're referring to there. In terms of the term "critics": those who believe the analogy has merit, both in terms of editors here and sources quoted, often wouldn't characterise themselves as critics, so for the neutrality of the article to be recognised by the pro-analogy side the term should be avoided. I did some substantial work in the lead a few months ago, and it's been much more stable since - which I interpret to mean that it's now seen as more neutral. I think the neutrality concerns are now principally around presenting all POVs in each section of the body of the article (see comments above). For what it's worth, I also think the new title of "Isreal and the apartheid analogy" is seen as more neutral and has helped cool things down. The new title has grown on me even though I was pushing for "Israeli apartheid analogy" at the time of the change. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase should be "opponents of Israel", because that is who believes in this "analogy". And that sidebar does not belong in this article, because it "decides" the issue that the article is about. It is just more anti-Israel propaganda -- which is fitting in a sense, because the entire article is anti-Israel propaganda, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes! Its my nemesis 6SJ7! :P. I am sad to hear that you still have the same unreasonable, unproductive, politically motivated position as always.

I know it might be futile to ask you to reconsider your unproductive position (I am not saying *you* are unproductive, because you aren't - just your position on this), and concentrate on ensuring that this article give due weight to the side you take on the controversy. It is a sad loss, as I always valued your intelligence and capability.

This article is reliably sourced (argue?), verifiable (argue?), and can be presented in neutral fashion (argue?), and that until those rules don't change, it must stay. The argument exists, it is not a fringe argument, and it is a debate even within Israeli society[2] or addressed directly as a smear by major voices in support of Israel[3], which means it is recognized as so by well known defenders of Israel. Those are the facts. We do not talk down to our readers, we do not censor. We have a page for Holocaust denial.

Those strongly disagree with the analogy, like you, are actually doing a disservice to Israel by denying the opportunity to the countering voices to be heard in Wikipedia, which has very strong neutrality requirements. Why would you, and others, do that has always been beyond me, but then why should I care, as I am not for either side, and are vaguely for Wikipedia. T'his a hobby is all.

Your reading of neutrality continues to be flawed: Neutrality is about how you present content (what words, what weight, how to read sources, etc), not what content to present (which articles to include, etc). It is really that simple: what we include is based on two criteria, and those are notability of the subject, and verifiability of the sources. This is a WIN on both counts. To argue otherwise is essentially a dickish action: I have seen much less well sourced articles become FA (Exploding Whale!!!).

If this article ever gets deleted, Wikipedia will cease to exist as we know it, and this will not happen. So let it drop, and edit productively.

On the specific case of the "discrimination" sidebar, I agree with removing if this means it would make the article move towards normality: That sidebar doesn't contain a link to this article, and its necessity for the topic is tenuous at best. However, I cannot abide by the arguments that continue to beat on a dead horse, and insists the very existence of this article is non-neutral. That's trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either edit in good faith towards a better quality article, or continue to argue for its deletion, but trying to pick petty fights is not productive. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so many personal attacks in one message that I lost count. In any event, please note that I have not actually done anything to the article except for the one thing that you seem to sort of agree with, which concerns the Discrimination sidebar. In light of your seeming sort-of agreement, I am going to take it out again, secure in the certain knowledge that you might possibly take it out again after Tarc, Nagle, Ryan Paddy or one of the others puts it back in. As for me "doing a disservice to Israel by denying the opportunity to the countering voices to be heard in Wikipedia", I can only shake my head in wonder, but again I note that I cannot possibly have denied anything to anybody, because I haven't done anything (except as stated earlier). I'm just talking, here on the talk page. And then we have "If this article ever gets deleted, Wikipedia will cease to exist as we know it, and this will not happen." Wow, again. Maybe, just maybe, Wikipedia "as we know it" could use a little improvement. But again, I didn't say anything about deleting it, recently. I just said it has no place here. If I were rude, like someone else I could mention, I would tell you to read my words more carefully next time. But I'm not, so I won't. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And hey, what happened to the "neutrality" template? It's been replaced by this box about people being in dispute, but it doesn't really say anything. What's the next step, a template that says "Some people have issues with something about this article, but we're not telling you what"? See that, I stop editing for a couple of months and all kinds of funny things start happening. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your boldness, and not happy with its turn out. This is precisely why my support was conditional, because if removing it causes an edit war, something is seriously wrong that needs further discussion. We need to chill. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other things, I addressed some of the more personal issue in your talk page, not to bore other editors.

We agree wikipedia needs improvement, perhaps we see this improvement differently, but maybe not. It will not change one article at a time, we have other ways to make it change, and it has indeed changed through the years. But I see as a slippery slope: the same mechanism that have said many times that this article belongs here are the ones that made Exploding whale a FA, and I love Exploding whale and found it informative. If we go down this road, I am afraid we will end up not with a project that seeks to organize the totality of human knowledge, but a project that organizes only the knowledge a subset finds appropriate. That is great loss for all.

I do not see the argumentative nuance between arguing for deletion and arguing that something has not place here: both are ultimately about what the goal of editing is. I want to see this article become a Good Article, like I want every article in wikipedia to become. When you say that something has no place here, it follows that you want it deleted: it is the logical conclusion of a position. And believe, while sometimes I might misunderstand and miscommunicate, as we all do, I do read everything, in particular if I feel there is something to learn, as is the case now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the dispute tag has a link that clearly explains the nature of the dispute. This template is more informative (ie there is an ongoing dispute - not a general consensus around neutrality) and better than the old NPOV template. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination sidebar

Let's hear some reasons for and against including the discrimination sidebar that we seem to be edit warring over. The reason I continue to revert the removal is that I think the sidebar provides useful context to the subject, which is about whether Israeli policy is comparable to apartheid, a form of discrimination. Readers can research discrimination to help them to interpret the claims made by sources in the article. The opposing argument has been that the inclusion of the sidebar is anti-Israel propaganda. That's a very opaque argument, but I assume that logic behind it is that the presence of the discrimination sidebar prejudges the analogy as valid. The reason I find this argument weak is that whether the analogy is valid or not, it is clearly an analogy about discrimination. The subject of this article is whether a certain form of discrimination exists. The sidebar is used in other articles where the presence of discrimination is debatable, for example Speciesism. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather simple; apartheid is a form of discrimination. Having a navigation box so readers can more easily traverse other articles regarding discrimination is hardly an evil, POV-pushing thing. The counter-claim is the same, old, tired (non)logic of "having the navbox here legitimizes the accusation of Israeli apartheid!", a form similar to the the arguments that some have used to try to get the article deleted on the basis that its existence also gives legitimacy to the accusation. Rubbish then, as it is rubbish now.

I also have to wonder why the box has been fine since it was added 4 months ago, and all of the sudden now it is not? Tarc (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Tarc hits the nail on the head. "Rather simple; apartheid is a form of discrimination." This is precisely what is wrong with the sidebar... it ratifies Tarc's POV; WP has no business doing that. As for your last point, I can't speak for others, but I usually try to avoid this article as a cesspool playground of Israel bashers. It feels like the dumber and the more hateful it is, the less people will take it seriously. But then, I sometimes wonder if that's really the attitude to take, in terms of writing a quality encyclopedia. IronDuke 01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, do you mind toning down the rhetoric? It's getting pretty heated, and frankly pretty offensive.

This very issue has come up a couple of times on New antisemitism. Jay and others argued – successfully, and certainly without objection from IronDuke, who is a regular of that page – that "material is included in templates based on whether or not it is relevant, not whether or not it is disputed." The dilemma on that page was exactly what it is here: the relationship of what is controversially called "new antisemitism" to actual antisemitism is vigorously disputed, and yet the Antisemitism template remains on that page, due to Jay's quoted argument having prevailed.

I could go either way on this principle, and can certainly see the arguments for each side. But make no mistake, there is a very clear principle being decided here, and it will be applied on other pages.--G-Dett (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you, G-Dett, really just tell me to turn down the rhetoric? "Heated?" "Offensive?" If it weren't a violation of WP:POINT (and probably a few other policies as well), I'd go and slap that sentence on about 40% of all the talk page posts you've ever made. Sheesh. That out of the way, the "dispute" about NAS does not enter into this discussion, it's a separate matter. The whole point of even having this article (stretching AGF to the breaking point in allowing that there is one) was that it be about the term, not about the "reality." Why not create a "Propaganda" template and use that instead? IronDuke 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I, G-Dett, did ask you, IronDuke, to tone down the rhetoric. Your point about the irony of this is well taken :) Nevertheless, I think you do need to take care to avoid broad-brush insinuations that a whole group of editors you've clashed with are haters and bigots who inhabit cesspools. This seems to me fundamentally different from stop wasting my time with bad writing, bogus comparisons and other balderdash or any of my 500 or so rhetorical variations thereof.

If you think NAS is a separate matter, then I'm afraid I misunderstood your position. I thought you were saying that the sidebar is a problem because its use here "ratifies [a particular] POV; WP has no business doing that."[4] But now it appears you don't have any policy objections to sidebars ratifying one point of view in articles on heavily disputed terms and concepts; rather, you just think this article is horrifyingly horrifying and should go to bed without dinner, with the swamp-denizens who edit it sent directly to jail without passing GO or collecting $200, and so on. Very good of you to share your emotional temperature on all things Israeli with the rest of us, but if you don't have a policy-based position regarding the use of this sidebar, you shouldn't be commenting here.--G-Dett (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You do indeed misunderstand my position; I'm not taking any position about other articles on this one. I try (not always with success) to keep to that. Your argument boils down to, "Well, I have to suck up a sidebar I hate elsewhere, so you get to suck this one up." I don't think that's a good way to create content here. IronDuke 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate the NAS sidebar, not in the least, and I don't understand your summary of my position at all (!?). As I said above, on the matter of sidebars in controversial articles (articles moreover where the locus of the controversy is precisely the relationship between the article subject and the subject of the sidebar), I can see the arguments for and against. I could easily be persuaded either way. I couldn't however be persuaded by the intellectually bankrupt position that articles on controversial concepts one approves of should have sidebars, while articles on controversial concepts one finds horrifyingly horrifying should not. I am assuming your good faith; please don't abuse my assumption. What is your position on sidebars and NPOV, and what is its policy basis? Thanks, --G-Dett (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would hate to abuse anyone's assumption, least of all yours. Consider your assumption patted on the head and fed a warm saucer of milk. I have no position on sidebars and NPOV per se. I have a position about this particular sidebar, in this particular article. I think I've made it clear it's a negative one. IronDuke 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If your position has no policy basis, you probably shouldn't have posted it here.--G-Dett (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I stopped beating my wife on Thursday, why do you ask? IronDuke 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To respond to IronDuke's comment without breaking up the thread: There actually is a propaganda template. I am sure there is a way to link to it without putting it on this page, but it can be found by typing template:propaganda into the search box. (In so doing, I noticed there is also a template:propagandhi, I will have to check that out, it might be good for a laugh.) It seems to me that the propaganda template belongs on this page more than the discrimination sidebar does. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make one good, etc. I think we should remove the sidebar unless the sidebar includes this article (which would make it useful and relevant). However, I agree that "New antisemitism" is exactly like this article (and have said it before), and I would like to see some consistency across the board on how both get treated. That includes editors across the spectrum... to be for deleting "new Antisemitism" and for keeping this article is as inconsistent as vice-versa.

And before I hear it again, yes, they are the same. They are equally sourced, equally controversial, and a result of both the political rhetoric around the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict, and the academic approaches that attempt to explain and comment on this conflict. This doesn't force us to edit them consistently, but it would be more productive to do so, in particular because the cast of editors is pretty much the same. Its about common sense and good faith, not policies or procedures. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the antisemitism sidebar on the New antisemitism page does seem like a close parallel. In both cases, the sidebar provides relevant context to a controversial subject. If you're reading about New Antisemitism then you want to know know about Anti-semitism, for comparison. If you're reading about the apartheid analogy then you want to know more about discrimination, for comparison. No reasonable reader would jump to any conclusion based on the presence of these sidebars. They are both research tools for readers, not propaganda. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well at this point I'm not sure about linking directly from the navbox, as from what I can see it does not contain links to specific instances, but to general definitions and such. The exception is the link to apartheid itself, which is currently a redirect to South Africa under apartheid. Not sure I agree with that...seems like it'd make more sense to have apartheid be a disambig-style page itself to direct users to various places...but this is probably not the best venue for that discussion. But you can get to this article via the redirects at the top of South Africa under apartheid, and this is also in the same Category:discrimination (linked via the 'series' tag at the to of the box. So in multiple ways, this article is only an extra hop away from the nav box as it is. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think apartheid could only be directed to two articles in wikipedia: Crime of apartheid and South Africa under apartheid, so as per the usual practice the disambiguation page is not directly linked (but exists!!!). The way it is now is correct and fine. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable, sure. But given that, I find the "if the navbox doesn't like to this article, then it can't be in this article" argument to be unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" is not present in the discrimination sidebar is an irrelevant red herring. The purpose of the sidebar is not to link to specific instances of possible discrimination, such as "Discrimination in country X". It's a research tool that provides general information about discrimination.

The only credible argument for removing the sidebar is that it may give readers the impression that the article concludes that the State of Israel is discriminatory. The real question is: would a reasonable reader really get that impression? I don't think so, I think a reasonable reader could conclude even from reading only the lead section of the article that the subject under discussion is a discourse about possible discrimination in an apartheid-like form, with arguments for and against. Only an unreasonable reader could infer that the presence of the sidebar means that the article is about discrimination that is definitely present, when the article clearly reaches no conclusion about possible discrimination by the State of Israel. A reasonable reader would find the sidebar to be a useful research tool for similar subjects, some of which similarly reach no conclusion about the presence or absence of discrimination. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. The sidebar was put here for the sole reason of suggesting that Israel does in fact discriminate, and in hopes that readers will get exactly that impression. Will they? I don't know. Some may. It doesn't matter. The key is that the sidebar violates NPOV in this context. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The sidebar is simply to guide users to similar areas of interest, as it does in other articles where it can be found. Claims that one can read veiled intent into the edits of another user is a very intriguing talent, though. Where may I learn this? Tarc (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why anything is added to Wikipedia, only whether it is appropriate for it to be present. We can't read minds, so speculation about motivations is pointless. However, we can judge whether its presence is appropriate. You say that some readers may get the wrong impression. It is possible that a reader with poor language or comprehension skills could get the wrong impression. However, a reasonable reader could not get the wrong impression, because the article presents all sides as opinions and does not reach any conclusion about the presence or absence of discrimination. A few months ago I did considerable work on the lead section, to present both sides in the most clear and positive manner possible. Anyone reading the introduction would have to be short on reading or comprehension skills to not get the message that this is a debated topic. As a project, Wikipedia cannot hope to explain complicated topics to people without that basic level of comprehension. The sidebar is a research tool that a reasonable editor may find useful, it shouldn't be removed because it could give a reader with poor comprehension the wrong idea. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

While I believe that the discrimination sidebar is a useful research tool and its use here is not misleading, on consideration I am happy if others wish to remove it. It's causing editor conflict and it's only an ancillary navigation tool. It's not content, so it falls into a bit of a grey area in terms of policies and guidelines. If there was an "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" sidebar, I'd suggest it as another reasonable option, but there isn't. In any case, sidebars are just an adjunct to content, and while they may be desirable they are not required. Thanks to everyone who put forth reasons one way or the other. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To those who say that apartheid is a form of discrimination: Sure it is. But this article is not about apartheid. It is about the disputed use of an analogy. Saying that this article is about "discrimination" causes Wikipedia to take sides in the dispute, which violates NPOV. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Including it in a series of other topics on discrimination does not automagically certify that it is itself discriminatory. It just makes this article part of a larger, broad discussion about the subject matter. Stop playing the victim here. Tarc (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the connection and think that 6SJ7's point is very valid. "It is about the disputed use of an analogy" - I said pretty much the same thing years ago when this drama started, in any case the sidebar is one on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general. Its connection to discrimination is tenuous at best, although the sidebar does belong on other articles dealing with this conflict that speak of discriminatory actions, some of which are covered here as arguments for the analogy, but not as a study of discrimination per-se. If the editors of the sidebar, who concentrate on discrimination in general, feel this article belongs, then things change as there is navigation value. Otherwise, we are making a value judgment that is disputed, and therefore not-neutral and is POV biased. For all the accusations of POV pushing done towards 6SJ7, at least he admits them, instead of trying to push a sidebar for obvious POV reasons instead of having the debate were it belongs, which is the sidebar talk pages and project discrimination. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, wait a second. I mean, thanks for saying that my point is "very valid", and I agree with almost all you say, until you get to the sentence that appears to be about me (as opposed to my point.) Can I assume that the bit about me admitting to be a POV-pusher is supposed to be yet another attempt at "humor", as in the section below? The only alternative I can think of is that you're serious, and you can't be serious. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to read into me! I meant POV as in this you said: "The phrase should be "opponents of Israel", because that is who believes in this "analogy". And that sidebar does not belong in this article, because it "decides" the issue that the article is about. It is just more anti-Israel propaganda -- which is fitting in a sense, because the entire article is anti-Israel propaganda, but it has no place in an encyclopedia." Thats's a POV, stated clearly and in the open. I can live with that. Its actually better than someone saying he can't AGF... because one can be a good faith opponent of Israel, but AGF is a two-way street, when you cease to do it, others will also stop doing it towards you. Get it? Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What you quote me as saying is not an expression of a POV, it is an expression of the opposite: The hope that Wikipedia will become "neutral" on this subject, as the NPOV policy requires. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Describing people as "opponents of Israel" specially when they do not describe themselves as such (ie Jimmy Carter), is decidedly non-neutral. However, I used POV in its common usage of "point of view", not the bureaucratic wikispeak crap. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. You who post messages full of Wikipedia alphabet soup jargon suddenly ridiculing "bureaucratic wikispeak"? I see. Anyway, it seems to me that when you use a Wikipedia alphabet-soup expression on Wikipedia, you have to expect that people are going to think you mean what the expression means on Wikipedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I did ask for feedback from uninvolved editors at Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar, but there was little response so I brought the discussion back here. That lack of independent response is part of what makes me think this isn't a definite or important enough issue to be in conflict over, because if it was really clear that the template should be present then I would have expected more feedback saying so. The important things are 1) the continued existence of the article, because its subject is notable by a wide margin, and 2) the neutral presentation of all significant views on the subject in the article, per WP:NPOV. Those are the things that are clear necessities from Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The presence of the sidebar is inconsequentially minor by comparison. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would presume the opposite, really, that more feedback would come from those who have a problem with it. The absence of feedback would indicate that most do not see it as a controversial addition. Then again, a template talk page isn't exactly a high traffic area. Perhaps it needs to be brought to a wider audience? Tarc (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Because the edit-war over the Discrimination navigation doodad has continued again today, I have protected the page from editing until the issue is resolved. I have not set an expiry date. When a consensus has been reached ask at my talk page for the article to be unprotected. If I am not around and you are impatient, ask at request for unprotection instead. CIreland (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Freaking kids. People, grow up. This isn't a soapbox. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected on the wrong version, of course. Oh well, I suppose it is fitting that an article that is a complete pile of garbage anyway is protected in the worst state possible. Maybe it should just sit here permanently protected like this, an appropriate tribute to the worst Wikipedia has to offer. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a seasoned editor such as yourself should know that there is no "wrong version", no? And if the navigation box has been present in the article since August, leaving it in while the discussion proceeds forward shouldn't be an issue. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a "wrong version", and this is it. As for whether it's an issue, that argument could be made about every piece of disputed content in any article. As for the discussion, quite frankly there is little point when it comes to this article and many others. There will be no consensus, because you and others insist on using Wikipedia to vilify Israel. What is more likely is that those who try to make this article neutral, like me, will give up because there really is no point. I wasn't even editing at all for a couple of months, partly because of farces like this article and the failure of Wikipedia policies and procedures to correct it. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But do you agree we should neutrality present those who vilify Israel?

The reality is, that for different reasons, there is a huge swatch of world opinion that is critical of Israel and its policies. There is also a huge swatch who, for different reasons, defends Israel and its policies. I think we should cover that as an encyclopedia. Doing so is not providing a platform for criticism, but presenting the facts of our world so that our readers can reach their own conclusions. While you might be informed by a passion, we should leave those at the door. Perhaps you are doing the right thing by not editing actively, because your passions might get in the way. I have done the same thing before. However, I offer to you that the same policies and procedures you criticize for allowing this article, have allowed a great collection of information to emerge like, to mention one you are passionate about, [[WP:Israel]. Isn't balance better served by allowing criticism? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia already covers the criticism and defense of Israel's policies in copious amounts, even without this article. It is probably one of the best-covered topics on Wikipedia. ("Best" there meaning quantity-wise, not quality-wise.) As for "balance", I think Wikipedia as a whole is already slanted against Israel, and people are constantly trying to add more criticism of Israel, so the "balance" isn't getting any better. This article is just a part of a larger problem. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Have yourself a read through meta:The Wrong Version, it was written precisely for the likes of you. You do not try to make the article neutral, though, not in the slightest. Characterizing others are wishing to "vilify Israel" only cements your non-neutrality. You have expressed a desire to delete it, and barring that, seek to undermine the content by any means possible. Honestly, whatever you have to say on the matter of this article cannot ever be accepted in good faith. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I refuse to fail to assume good faith. In fact, 6SJ7 has a lot of good faith: is telling us precisely what he sees wrong, and why he sees it as wrong. The same cannot be said about many of the editors here. You shouldn't stop assuming good faith because someone strongly disagrees with you, but precisely because they disagree with you. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not oppose this or any other user merely over disagreement, let's get that out of the way right now. Good faith is assumed unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. As far as I am concerned, a user who has for years actively tried to delete an article, ridicule its content, who insults other users and their intent and motivation for wishing to retain the article, cannot faithfully participate in trying to improve said article. It is a blatant contradiction. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So he may not object to any material added to this article, no matter how offensive, because he doesn't want the article to exist? Does that make sense? IronDuke 00:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense to me, but as I said it is trying to have your cake and eat it to. It is an unproductive position, after so many AfDs editors should realize the community feels that this topic should be covered. There is plenty of opinion (although no policies) around this very topic of keepin' on keepin' on: WP:DEADHORSE, WP:WORD, and of course the ever offensive WP:WHINE. Which is different from it being an opinion in good faith... one can both be unproductive and acting in good faith.

It is also a matter of common sense: when you soapbox, as 6SJ7 does, you needlessly turn things that might be reasonable into "us v them" flame wars that have no place in the project. A good example is the present "sidebar" fiasco: I agree it should be removed (unless it points to this article, as sidebars should be navigation aids, not information sources - for that we have the "See Also"), but not with the arguments presented, because those arguments are essentially moralizing and hence explicitly break neutrality policies. However, I will not edit it out, and might even replace it, because we should be seeking consensus, not edit warring. When your position is that no consensus can be reached, except deletion, you should, for the good fo the project, reconsider your participation - something 6SJ7 has said he did!

Now, I do not suggest we do not express our opinions, but appealing to motive and beating dead horses are not productive ways to go about editing. First, when you appeal to motive you are failing to assume good faith, which we are required to. Period. Then, beating dead horses sometimes creates an uncivil environment, which is unproductive. If people feel there is a need to do systemic changes, then they need to go to other places in Wikipedia that exist for that purpose, such as the village pump and the different policy and guideline pages, not article talk pages. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironduke, if someone is standing outside my house with an empty gasoline can and a lit match, I don't invite them in to give advice on how to shore up the sagging foundation. Those who continuously ridicule the article's existence and demean the editors who have favored keeping it are not here in good faith. Drop the rhetoric, the insults, and accept that this article exists. If you do not wish to improve it, the go find something better to do with your time. It is a waste of my time and yours to rehash this every few months. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have insulted any patricular person, unlike you, who constantly insults people in this topic area. Indeed, give that, I wonder why you'd bother to ask people to stop such behavior. That you attack the editor and not the edit suggestion shows a lack of rigor in your argument. IronDuke 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When an editor shows bad faith, I will tell them that they have shown bad faith. The truth is not a personal attack, so your little weeks-after-the-fact diatribe here is wholly without merit. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You make my point more eloquently than I did. IronDuke 23:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, if you feel you are wasting your time by responding to me, then you might want to consider not responding. It is rude, however, to suggest what I should do with my time. I can bring up what I want, when I want, where I want, regardless of whether it is going to accomplish anything. It's my choice. (Things like WP:DEADHORSE are just suggestions; I know all about them.) And, by the way, if you really think that words on a talk page are analogous to me standing outside your house with an empty gasoline can and a lit match, then I would suggest there may be a problem here that has nothing to do with me, or the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to some of the comments in this section that I haven't specifically responded to: I find it humorous that the little offhand remarks that I make, on a talk page, prompt all of this debate. I write 2 or 3 sentences, Cerejota writes 5 or 6 paragraphs, and it happens more than once. Tarc thinks I'm burning down his house. Both of you think I need to be pointed in the direction of essays (at least one of which is tagged as humorous) that I have seen ten times, and which contain advice, nothing more. For those concerned about how I spend my time, I can assure you, I am spending exactly as much time doing this as I want to. I seem to be expending much less time and energy than others are choosing to expend in response. But as they say, whatever floats your boat. Just don't think that waving essays in my face, or subtly suggesting that I might want to extend my recent hiatus, are going to change anything. I will say what I choose, within Wikipedia guidelines, and I will stay or go as the wind carries me. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't care what you do, honestly, just pointing out that WP:AGF is no longer applicable for a person who wants to delete the article and routinely demeans those that want to keep it. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And I don't care what you assume. I do note that you are the one personally attacking me, however. It's ok though, nothing will happen to you, because you are on the "correct" side. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What, I can't be humorous? And of course they are suggestions, I am a big fan of common sense over rules... Also, I am not suggesting you keep your hiatus, I am suggesting that if you break it, you do so to better the article, no doubt something you are very capable of doing, instead of insisting it doesn't belong. And this doesn't go to you only, it goes to everyone that is unable to play with others, like Tarc (I agree, his failure to AGF is uncivil). I just say, this are serious topics, but it doesn't mean we have to be all serious and dicks about it, which is pretty much what is happening. I obviously have failed, but will continue to try... its that stubbornness, you know? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is encouraged to be humorous at all times. I am pleased to be able agre with Cerejota on something. Tarc, I agree that your rhetoric is a bit over the top. Anyone can comment here, even if they have previously expressed distaste for this article. The discrimination sidebar is excessive, even for an article that's meant as an attack coatrack like this one. IronDuke 01:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanna talk coatracks? New Antisemitism OUCH! That said, I don't edit there much because it is pretty near where it needs to be. There is the sidebar issue, which is identical to the one here (no navigation value, neutrality) and most of the sources are primary or partisan, with little verification (this here has that issue too, but less). And of course it needs a "final" cleanup for grammar, organization, dup sources etc. But a coatrack, it is. A notable, reliably sources, mostly verifiable, somewhat neutrally presented coatrack. If you agree with me on humor (although, who is against humor?), maybe you can find it in yourself to see the point, that one man's coatrack is another's indispensable article, and in the interest of encyclopedic quality, perhaps we should consider stopping beating on this dead horse and move on. I don't want to have to come from my wikibreaks only to find the same disaster. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF does contain an exception; that "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." bit isn't just there for decoration, y'know. I invoked that exception, and I stand by it. I think this tangent is just about petered out. Tarc (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence to the contrary is, well, weak. You can stand by all you want, but the reality is that if you want to be productive, you will have to handle 6SJ7 and others who share his viewpoints. If they get back to the WP:POINT shenanigans, then we take it to 11, erm, ArbCom. So far, the arguments could be better phrased, less hyperbolic, and less soapboxy, but I see no reason to assume that they are made in anything but good faith. The exception is meant for destructive editors that engage in 3RR, POINT, and vandalism. Not for editors who insist on their own POV, for which they are entitled. If we used your definition of AGF, it would apply to you, too. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you guys are talking about at this point, but I think it is time for you to stop using me as an example, especially in a thread where I am not even really participating anymore. It is not appropriate for you to continue to refer to me like this. If you think I have done something wrong, go follow the procedures for that, and I will respond in the appropriate place, and all the behaviors of everyone involved can be reviewed. On this page, you are supposed to be discussing the article, not me. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is inevitable I speak about you, because we are speaking about Tarc thinking you have no good faith. Please re-read the thread, it will all come to you. That said, I am discussing your position - which you have stated repeatedly through the years, and which others share - not you as a person. That we must refer to your handle rather than to your position, its inevitable shorthand... we all do it in common conversation, nothing sinister, nothing to get hung about (strawberry fields forever!) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, based on Tarc's last post in this thread, and the fact that it was almost two days ago, this is really just you talking to yourself. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it protected through the remainder of the holiday season. Then we can all do other more fun stuff for a while. It will still be there in January. --John Nagle (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone asking it to be unprotected at the moment. Maybe it would be a fitting tribute to this article to leave it protected forever, in its current abysmal state. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the Categorization of the article problematic as well?

Out of curiosity, what is the general sentiment towards Category:Discrimination, of which this article is also a part of, as is the template itself? Is that going to be as problematic as the template? Tarc (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it does not belong here, for the same reasons. I didn't even realize it was there, as I rarely look at categories, because I regard them as relatively unimportant. I'm more concerned about a huge box sitting near the top of the article than one little word sitting on the bottom. But, since you're asking, as a matter of logic the same POV concerns apply. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (I deleted the portion of my comment about "taking a poll" because it was somewhat flippant and I didn't want anyone to take it seriously. A poll would not have any validity in this situation for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the "category" issue has not been the subject of any real dispute to date (to my knowledge), and of course the "results" of any discussion here would not prevent anyone from raising the issue in the future, nor would they prevent anyone from joining in the discussion at that time, even if they are commenting now.) 6SJ7 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think that it does not belong here, as well a sidebar, because it takes sides in the debate. In South Africa apartheid article, for example, there are clear laws and practices that segregate people by color of their skin, and it clearly belongs to Discrimination sub-group. In this article on the other hand, there is no single law or practice cited, that states any right that Jews have,and non-Jews don`t have. There are some laws and practices, like Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, that some view as discriminatory, while others don`t,and all views are very debatable. If this sidebar is added then the article takes the view of the first group. As Israeli, I am however, can be biased on the subject, and think that somebody neutral, who has nothing to do with the article, and have no prior opinion on the debate.Igorb2008 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I'm seeing a "no consensus" here for inclusion of the navbar. IronDuke 22:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, you'd be seeing "no consensus" for its removal. Nice try, tho. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there, then, consensus that it should stay? IronDuke 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for it staying either Igorb2008 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law

~~The article on the law states that the law was set to expire in 2008. Does anyone know if it indeed expired or whether it was renewed?~~ I think i found the answer- -Hq3473 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

General considerations about citizenship in Israel and elsewhere

Just wanted to point out that as far as citizenship is concerned laws based on the same principles as Israel's (ie. privileged legal recognition of a given group) are commonplace throuoght Europe, where linguistically and culturally-defined nations are considered normal and acceptable. Though this may seem strange to an American, if someone was born -say- in Argentina of an Italian grandparent, those persons would be entitled upon simple request to immediate italian citizenship even if they were unable to utter one single word of italian and had no knowledge of contemporary Italy whatsoever. To the contrary, any (non Italian) Argentinian who may have been living in Italy for years, has no right to stay, and will have to renew work and stay permits year by year. Those who are not of Italian origin under the law, are required to stay for ten years before they can submit a request, and even then citizenship is not to be taken for granted. Similar laws exist to the best of my knowledge in Ireland, Germany, Spain and the majority of Eastern European countries. Israel laws on citizenship are clearly made after this pattern, as they regard Judaism mainly as culture. 93.149.185.245 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. I am sorry. I realize that the issue is not about citizenship in itself. The link under the section "Analogy" points to an article on restrictions to citizenship acquisition through marriage. 93.149.185.245 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article locked? No efforts here to do anything about it?

So this article has been protected since December 17th. No one has even edited the talk page in 4 days, and it doesn't seem like there has ever been much discussion trying to reach a compromise or work to get the article unlocked. So what are the issues here? And why can't you work them out?

So you can't decide whether to have the discrimination sidebar and the discrimination category in the article or not. Why not? Is there consensus to include these items? Are there any editors who don't have the self impulse control to NOT edit this article against consensus if they are removed? Perhaps I could suggest a compromise: remove the sidebar, keep the category. Here is my brief thoughts. This article is not mentioned anywhere in the sidebar (and a quick browse through its history suggest it was never mentioned in the sidebar). On the other hand, the topic of discrimination is discussed multiple times in this article, so the category seems more appropriate (like the Antisemitism category being part of the anti-zionism article, even though they are not always associated). Really, can't we just all play nice and get this article unlocked?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was editing to keep the sidebar, but since locking I've come to the conclusion that I'm okay with it being removed. See discussion above for reasons. If the article is unlocked, I won't add the sidebar. However, reading above it seems that others may. In contrast to 6SJ7's comment above, I'm satisfied about the informative and relatively NPOV current state of the article. There's work to be done to improve the article but it can wait, so I'm feeling zen about how long it takes to get unlocked. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Andrew C's sensible compromise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I still find the "if the article is not linked from the navbox, the navbox cannot be in the article" to be a ridiculous assertion that so far seems to be unsupported by any Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or suggestion. Is such a stringent ideal enforced universally? Tarc (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article is unlocked, and the navbox removed, would you (and everyone else) agree to not edit war over putting it back it, but pursue discussing it further here instead?-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the navbox has been a part of the article since August 23, 2008, I feel that the starting point for discussion would be for the likes of Ironduke and 6SJ7 to agree not to remove it while discussion continues. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"The likes of?" 'You'll want to mind your tone a bit. IronDuke 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel strongly that articles shouldn't be indefinately locked, especially when no one is trying to work together to fix things. I am going to be bold and unlock the article (after contacting the original admin who locked it). I have no intentions of editing or trying to solve your dispute. If anyone continues the edit war, I will be more inclined to BLOCK you guys instead of re-lock the article. So please play nice.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note at my talk page Andrew. I will unlock the article. Should the edit-warring resume over the sidebar, the offenders should be reported to WP:AN3 even if they have not gone over the three revert rule. Editors on this list should take especial care. CIreland (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New sources

With the current situation between Israel and Gaza, some sources regarding the discourse of "Israeli apartheid" are emerging. I'm logging them here so that their relevance and reliability can be discussed.

As a reason to boycott Israel:

As a reason for protest:

Opinion pieces:

Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi on Palestine (from Gandhi wiki article)

Gandhi also expressed his dislike for partition during the late 1930s in response to the topic of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. He stated in Harijan on 26 October 1938:

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity [...] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.[77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no mention of apartheid there. This article is about comparisons of Isreal/Palestine to apartheid, not human rights violations or colonisation in general. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Analogy" paragraph entry.

I changed "Analogy" paragraph entry from:

Those who propose the analogy point to a marriage law that limits citizenship rights of the Arab citizens, differences in the political rights, voting and representation of the Arab and Palestinian population, the existences of differentiated national identification cards, difference in the land tenure and access to infrastructure, transport, travel, and movement.

First of all, Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, doesn't even mentions Arab citizens of Israel. Second, I don't think that somebody ever claimed that there are differences in the political rights, voting and representation, as well as access to infrastructure, transport, travel, and movement of the Arab citizens of Israel. There is however, differentiated national identification cards, but from what I understand person can choose whether to add Hebrew date of birth( I may be wrong about this). On the issue of JNF land, there are definitely was Supreme Court ruling, that defined JNF policies as discriminatory and unlawful, and by now Arab citizens can buy any land in Israel. I think also that this article as a whole ,should be more clear that when it says "Israeli" and "Palestinian", that it means citizens of Israel and of Palestinian Authority , and not ethnicity. A lot of information in this article , such as "Travel and movement" sup-paragraph can be misunderstood as differentiating between Jews and Palestinians, as opposed to Israelis (about 20 % of whom are Palestinian Arabs) and Palestinians(citizens of PA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorb2008 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Concentration camp analogy

There ought to be special attention on the labeling of Gaza as a concentration camp by various anti-zionists around the world, who like to quote a statements made by Palestinian activists and a noted Cardinal. ADM (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about apartheid analogies, not concentration camp analogies. Such sources would only be relevant if they mention the comparison to apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Partisan headers"

I think each header of the Criticism section should accurately summarize the argument being described within that section, without commenting on the factuality of that criticism. Shii (tock) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; which is why the headers you have introduced are partisan, and should be replaced with NPOV headers. RolandR (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a Zen thing, Shii. RolandR is making the argument of no argument. IronDuke 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RolandR, please come back when you are ready to discuss specific issues about the accuracy of each header. Shii (tock) 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. Read, and understand, what is spelled out at WP:NPOV, and you will see why this sort of tihng is wholly without merit and will be reverted. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! RolandR has acquired a disciple. IronDuke 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

FEAR TEH WP:CABAL! Duke, Duke Duke, you're such a card. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cabal? Nay. I only meant that you, like RolandR, state your point with simple elegance. What could be more persuasive than X = X? The sound you hear is one hand clapping. IronDuke 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

When there are more reverts to the article than talk page edits on the subject of the disagreement, it's time for page protection. 3 days or until an agreement is reached, whichever comes sooner. CIreland (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll just wait here for RolandR to explain what exactly is wrong with the changes I made. Shii (tock) 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to justify why the long-standing, neutral section headers should be replaced by POV statements which prejudge the issues. RolandR (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, so now they're not just NPOV, they're "long-standing"! See, I read this article and I was confused by the header that said "Petty apartheid". I thought it was about how apartheid itself was petty and not a big deal. Then I realized it was a Criticism that argued for Lack of Petty Apartheid. So, I edited the heading so that it would be clear that this was what the article was talking about. It was then claimed that this was "POV". Shii (tock) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Shii, you've made an understandable error. This article's purpose (from its very creation, I think) was to exist as a sort of playground wherein excrement could be piled on Israel. However, your well-intentioned efforts to clarify confusing section headers (which you suceeded in) is against the rules here, as it could be seen as helping readers to understand what people who criticise this analogy mean, which is quite beside the point of this article. Hope that helps. IronDuke 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Shii, it is POV. Charts always get the point across better, just ask Ross Perot;

Neutral	Non-neutral
Motivation	Lack of racial motivation
The West Bank and Gaza	Applies only to West Bank and Gaza, not Israel
Petty apartheid	Lack of petty apartheid

The section headers in the Neutral column (i.e. what was already there) are simple descriptors of the subject matter, nothing more. The non-neutral headers (i.e. yours) are diving into promoting a particular point of view. Let's #3 in particular, since you used that for an example as well. All it says is "Petty apartheid", that is not a conclusion drawn that it is, it is just telling the reader what it is about. One titled "Lack of petty apartheid" tried to draw the conclusion before a reader even sees that section material itself. Do we see the problem now? Tarc (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One could just as easily argue that using the header "Lack of petty apartheid" is telling the reader what the section is about, not what "is." The only difference would be that your preferred version gives less information. Do we (meaning you) see the problem now? IronDuke 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One could also declare the sky to be be pink with purple polka-dots, but it wouldn't make it real, I'm afraid. There is no logically coherent way to claim that a title of "Lack of..." is merely descriptive, and not subjective. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean to say, then, that the header does not describe the view of the person(s) quoted under it? IronDuke 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization would be incorrect. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean to say then, that the Shii's header does describe the view of the persons quoted under it? IronDuke 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

equivalent pov phrasing for the analogy section headers would read:

1.1 Discrimination in Marriage law
1.2 Lack of political rights, voting and unequal representation
1.3 Apartheid-like requiring of National identification cards
1.4 Unfair allocation of land and infrastructure
1.5 Discriminatory policies on travel and movement

pov section headers should be left out to maintain npov. untwirl(talk) 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that these are claims which are then addressed within the section. But if you consider the current form unambiguous then I guess I won't argue any more. Shii (tock) 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ow, just as I was chargin mah lazers. I guess you come out with an understanding that description and POV are not mutually exclusive: a header can be both descriptive and POV, as Untwirl showed. As a general rule, the less qualifiers in a heading, the more neutral it is. Also as a bonus it looks better.--Cerejota (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

undue weight and plans to fix it

I think there's a major problem of undue weight and POV in this article. Section 2 is much longer than section 3 and parts of it seem to be going out of their way to legitimize the idea of "Israeli apartheid" by

(a) separating out the criticism according to the origin of the criticizers so as to assert that the criticism is broadly based across a wide spectrum of views;

(b) trying to whitewash the credentials of those in favor of "Israeli apartheid" by describing them as "Nobel Prize winner", "winner of the Israeli Prize", etc., while no similar whitewashing happens to those on the other side, and important info is missing from the description of some people (e.g. Mearsheimer; Uri Davis in sec. 2.1, cf. his mention again in sec. 2.6), giving a false impression of neutrality;

(c) another very problematic issue is that criticism of "Israeli apartheid" is actually mixed throughout section 2, but often cloaked by very pro-"Israeli apartheid" views around them, whereas the separate section 3 claiming to address criticism presents mostly Israeli viewpoints. A casual reader is likely to get the impression that "Israeli apartheid" is a widely held view opposed mostly by those who are clearly biased themselves.

I plan to try to fix some of this but I want to discuss it here first both to prevent trigger-happy reverts and to figure out the best way this whole article should be arranged, viz:

Should the article contain one section on pro views, one on neutral views, and one on anti views?
Should we instead merge sec. 2 and 3 and organize both of them first by the origin of the people with the views (South Africans, Israelis, UN, etc.), with the pro and anti views relevant to those people contained in each such section? This seems like quite a bad idea to me but I don't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to know how articles on controversial views are usually organized.

Benwing (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some issues with these points:

(a) The second section is essentially a "history of the use of the analogy". Histories are often geographic in nature, and there is a special interest in use in relation to the United Nations (because of their role in international law) and in South Africa (because it where apartheid happened). I don't see that this structure is promoting the analogy, it's just one natural approach to trying to structure a lot of info. An alternative natural approach would perhaps be a chronological one, although some of the info would not fit that a chronology easily.

(c) I don't see "cloaking" happening, you'd need to provide an example.

I agree that it's curious how the second and third sections are structured. The second section is structured by who says things or in what context, and the third is structured by the reasons given. According to WP:NPOV it's preferably not to separate out criticism from the subject, however it's somewhat common practice in contraversial articles perhaps primarily because it provides warring editors with separate "sandpits" to play in, and it prevents an endless argument-counterargument structure from emerging in the article, with each "side" wanting the last word. I'm not seeing the benefits of your sugguestions to reach greater stuctural neutrality. A section on "neutral views" would be very short and quite pointless. Merging the second and third sections into one big section on the "history of the argument and criticism of it" would be to the detriment of the criticism, I think. It's much more readable and logical in its current reason-based structure. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Benwing, ~~I have to say that I agree with all of your points.~~ I am in favor of ~~all your proposed~~ (some) changes (to the the article.)Wacko Jack O 23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How odd that you can be in favour of the changes Benwing suggested, when Benwing has suggested multiple non-compatible options. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How odd? Actually, I don't find it odd at all, as I don't see the changes as being "non-compatible".Wacko Jack O 00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree with everything other than the "neutral views" section. As I am not sure what the neutral view section would include. Also Benwing, when you say in favor of "Israeli apartheid", you are referring to the people who are in favor of using the term "Israeli Apartheid", correct?' I think the article in its current form is slanted slightly in favor of the term. Wacko Jack O 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And I think the article on Christianity is slightly slanted in favor of "Christianity". It is impossible to create a relevant encyclopedic article that might not seem slightly slanted to one or the other position, because precision is impossible. The goal of this or any article in Wikipedia is not to advocate or detract from any topic, but to present what WP:RS say on the topic using WP:NPOV as a guiding principle... and for the most part this article achives that. I would like to use Adam and Moodley's framework, but I can live without it.

Could you provide specific instances of how this is slanted? In other words, just saying it is slanted is not helpful, provide us with specifics.--Cerejota (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, note that Benwing gives two suggested options for change in bullet points at the end: "Should the article contain one section on pro views, one on neutral views, and one on anti views?" or "Should we instead merge sec. 2 and 3 etc.". You can't do both. Sounds like you support the latter option, which Benwing describes as "quite a bad idea". Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

HOMEWORK: WackoJacko and Benwing, please read WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy of wikipedia, in particular WP:STRUCTURE. Also, it seems both of you are confused with due-weight considerations: it doesn't require exact lenghts for both "sides" of a debate (in this topic there are actually many shades instead of sides, with Adam and Moodley providing a great overview), it requires due prominence, and I am sure it is clear to our readers that the existence of an Israeli apartheid is disputed and debated and that there are solid arguments against it. Mis-citing WP:UNDUE in order to push POV sounds quaint at best, disruptive at worse. Also, please see WP:ARBPIA.--Cerejota (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota: Well, I am not sure where I cited WP:UNDUE (or anything for that matter). After looking at Benwings proposed idea, I am not sure I agree anymore. However, I do still feel that the article is slightly skewed in favor of the pro "Israeli apartheid analogy". Additionally, I have already read WP:NPOV, and that is again why I said I feel the article is not quite neutral. However, I thank you anyway for your input.Wacko Jack O 06:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota: Also, after reading through WP:ARBPIA, and seeing what it entails, I do not see how I did anything that could possibly be construed as not following "wikipedia decorum", or that I was in any way uncivil(or disruptive). Furthermore, I was not going against the consensus of Israel/Palestinian articles in anyway, as I was responding politely to comments on the talk page. Based on your comments to me I am a bit confused. HOMEWORK: Please re-read assuming good faithWacko Jack O 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets take a road trip down Logic Road. Benwing says "there's a major problem of undue weight". You say "I have to say that I agree with all of your points." I would guess, call me crazy, that if you agree "with all the points", that includes "major problem of undue weight" (Of course, you have edited it, but at the time of my response, you hadn't.) Call me even crazier, but I intepreted Benwing's mention of "undue weight" to mean the policy clause WP:UNDUE. Logic will tell you that if you agree with someone who says "there's a major problem of undue weight" then saying that you agree with the statement is a tautology. This is the danger of unqualified agreement, and I see you have retracted the absolute, but perhaps this is a lesson on why one should read what is being said.

EXTRA CREDIT HOMEWORK: WP:AAGF and WP:AGF's clause on calling AGF being a bad thing. I mean, if you are going to give homework, have the common decency of having done the homework yourself. Am just sayin'.

On the topic, some of the things here are false to the history and the experience editing: the reason these people are identified as being "Nobel Prize winner" or "winner of the Israel Prize" is because some have opposed their inclusion on grounds of notability to speak on this subject, not for reasons of POV pushing. Any percieved bias should be resolved by identifying why "anti-analogy" talking heads being given similar treatment, but this has been resisted on the grounds.

To spell it out, the experience has been to attack quotes of proponents of the analogy by 1) claiming they are not notable 2) when notability is explicitly noted, then attacked for "puffing" the subject 3) Start again in #1. Such Nomic games are trite and keep us form the goal of a good encyclopedia article and even if raised by new editors, I offer than under WP:ARBPIA, specially with the history of tendentious editing in this particular article, arguments that have been revisited even by new editors can be construed as disruptive. I know that is not the intention, but I am not talking intent here, I am talking actual editing. Why detractors of the analogy don't suffer this treatment is beyond me, but this doesn't change any facts.

This is one of the articles at the core of what led to WP:ARBPIA, so it is important to read it. Disruption starts by bringing up arguments that are circular in nature, specially WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. New editors have a responsibility to acquaint themselves with how an article ended up in the place it is.

Of course, I am on record strongly opposing the extensive inclusion of direct quotes in this article altogether, but the truth is this is taken by some as deleting the quotes they dislike and leaving those they like - so I would rather have a balanced article with quotes than an unbalanced article without them. --Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I find your tone condescending. Secondly, I am not a new editor. You are a bit combative, and you have turned what was a polite discussion on the talk page into a bit of an argument. What did I do to cause you to be so condescending and combative? Again, there is no policy and Wikipedia against politely agreeing(or disagreeing with someone), isn't that what a talk page is for?Wacko Jack O 13:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statements like, "Ok, lets take a road trip down Logic Road", "Mis-citing WP:UNDUE in order to push POV sounds quaint at best, disruptive at worse", "......have the common decency...", telling someone to do "HOMEWORK", and throwing around Wikipedia policy pages unnecessarily, is a little bit inflammatory.Wacko Jack O 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Call me when you are ready to comment on the content. --Cerejota (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli anti-discrimination laws

I think that Israeli anti-discrimination laws should be mentioned in the article,as it is relevant to the discussion of allegations of apartheid. The two laws are: "Employment (Equal Opportunities) Law" of 1988,that prohibit employment discrimination because of race, religion and nationality among other reasons. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/gems/eeo/law/israel/el.htm And "Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law" (2000) that forbid those who operate public places or provide services or products to discriminate because of race, religion and nationality,among other reasons, that is mentioned here: http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/041ab84d2f05080c85257302004a9963!OpenDocument The question is where in the article is best to put it.Igorb2008 (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If those laws were invoked by critics of the apartheid analogy, they should go in the "Criticism of the apartheid analogy" section. Otherwise they are more relevant to Human rights in Israel and related articles. Note that the subject of this article is not Israeli policy, but a fringe opinion regarding Israeli policy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move -- Aervanath (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Israel and the apartheid analogy" is a bad title. The article is about "allegations of Israeli apartheid" so it should be titled that. "the apartheid analogy" is a confusing phrase, especially to newbies.

If editors want to deny that the allegations are true, that is a very strong position and they are welcome to do that, and I see that they are. However, a strange article title like this seem to deny that there's even allegations, which is patently untrue. If allegations of Israeli apartheid didn't exist, then the article would not have survived the many articles for deletion cases it survived.

If you would like think of it this way, these ridiculous (but notable) allegations of Israeli apartheid don't hurt Israel at all, all they do is discredit Israel's opponents.

I'd also like to note, that the redirection page was edited in a minor way, seemingly to make it difficult to move the page back. I initially assumed that the person who did that had good faith, but it turns out they're an indefinitely blocked suspected sock, so I don't think that's the case. --ScWizard (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can support renaming this article. For the record, I don't believe in "Israeli apartheid," but it would be foolish to deny that the allegation has been made. ----DanTD (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what it was before...the result of a past compromise, actually...and there never really was a legitimate consensus to move it to its current form. A bit of debate hammered it down to either this or "Israeli apartheid analogy", and then there was some bait and switch decision that both titles were the same thing, and it was moved to its current form. I am all for a return to "allegations of..." if others favor it. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

i can see both sides here, but one thing that comes to mind is that the current title leaves room for both the criticism and defense of the analogy, while "allegations of" seems to only describe the, well, allegations, and not the denials. untwirl(talk) 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Israeli apartheid. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a wordy WP:OR title which contains the WP:WEASEL word "Allegations". Why is it so difficult to describe this subject without needless appendages that create euphemisms entirely unique Wikipedia? 77.125.32.88 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But this article does not describe or discusses policies. It simply lists allegations of apartheid by some groups or individuals and responses to those allegations. If you look to South Africa Apartheid article, you see no allegations, you see specific laws and practices that undeniably segregate people by race. This article cant cite even single law or policy that somehow segregate people by ethnicity , religion or race. It cant cite even a single right that only Jews or other group have. The most it can do, it to cite one law, Marriage law, that does not even mentions ethnicity, that disproportionally affect Arab Israelis. As for discussion of actual policies, you can see Human rights in Israel article, where the allegations also mentioned. Also there are few separate articles devoted to allegations as you can see here 1, most of them titled as "controversy", some as "allegations",but non as "analogy".But most, like Allegations of French apartheid ,Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid or Allegations of Cuban apartheid do not have separate articles. Igorb2008 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused here. I would consider "allegations of Israeli apartheid" to be relatively straightforward, and "Israel and the apartheid analogy" to be a confusing euphemism for "allegations of Israeli apartheid." If the article isn't about allegations people have made about the subject, what would you say the article is about? I'm not partial to any specific title, but I find the current one awkward and confusing. --ScWizard (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --John (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Allegations of Israeli apartheid" works for me.--John (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: What John said. JJB 13:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ScWizard, its Allegations of Israeli apartheid that is the confusing eupheumism for something known as Israeli apartheid, by those who believe that it does in fact exist. There is an article here entitled Social apartheid. It describes what Social apartheid means and where it is alleged to be an issue. Notice the title is not Allegations of social apartheid. For those who argue that Israeli apartheid doesn't exist, neither does the Easter Bunny, but that article is not titled, Allegations that there is an Easter Bunny. "Allegations" is a weasel word, which predisposes the reader to rejecting the topic. After all, they are only "allegations", rather than a reality that many people believe exists in Israel-Palestine. 87.68.46.224 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

this is a very lucid point. consider Allegations of anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement which redirects to Anti-globalization and antisemitism. It seems that Israel and Apartheid would follow as a logical title, with the "allegations of" as a redirect. This would leave room for both accusations and rebuttals. untwirl(talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel and Apartheid - hm. Now that might work. Everything else we've tried begs the question one way or another. That might be a neutral approach. Please discuss. --John Nagle (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose all name-change proposals discussed above. They have almost all been considered before, over and over and over again. Some of them have even been names of the article. Please go back and read all 30 archived talk pages, plus the central discussion pages, plus the two arbitration cases, and other pages where it has been discussed, and tell me whether you really think it is a good idea to rehash this yet again. It was a bitterly disputed issue for about 2 years, and then CJCurrie (with whom I disagree about almost everything having to do with this article) changed the name to the current one. I agreed with this move because it seems to be the "least bad" alternative. "Israeli apartheid" is no good because it implies that there is such a thing. "Allegations of..." seems to be disliked by almost everybody. "Israel and apartheid", which John Nagle just suggested, does not sound like something that has been discussed extensively before, but I oppose that one also. It implies that Israel has some relationship to apartheid. Obviously, that is disputed. The current title connects Israel to an analogy to apartheid that is made by some people. Despite the many problems with this article, that is probably about the best title we are going to find that gets anywhere close to getting consensus. It is good enough. Sure, it is a "strange" title, but that's inevitable, because this is a strange article, with a strange history. Reopening this issue just isn't worth it. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your defeatist stance is noted, as is your pro-Israel POV. Those of us with no strong POV on the subject must continue to work to improve this article. Part of that will involve finding a better name. "Israel and the apartheid analogy" won't work because it is original research to claim that most people who use the term intend it as an analogy. It is clear from reading the article and some of the sources that they do not. Like it or not, the allegations of Israeli apartheid are not analogies but real. --John (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

John, for the time being at least, I will leave aside your personal attack and other aspects of your post to which I might otherwise respond, and ask you two questions: First, have you read all 30 talk page archives and the centralized discussions, as I suggested? I don't think anybody has any business proposing anything on this subject until they have done so. Second, in your last sentence, what are you referring to as "real"? Is it "Israeli apartheid" that is "real", in your opinion? Or is it the allegations that are "real"? Or both, or neither, and if neither, what? 6SJ7 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongest possible opposition to the original recommendation. "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was a horrible and unencyclopedic title, and its replacement was the result of a rare compromise following several years of bitter disagreement. It's unusual that I would agree with 6SJ7 on matters pertaining to this article, but his summary is more-or-less accurate. Regarding the other proposals, I would simply note that "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is a fair, descriptive and appropriate title, and that there is no need to revisit the issue at this time. CJCurrie (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CJ, I'm very worried. This may be the first sign of the End of the World. I'm almost tempted to go into the article and add something to the caption of the "wall" photo about keeping out Palestinian terrorists, so you can revert it. Maybe that way, the equilibrium of the space-time continuum will be restored. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussion, ScWizard was premature to claim there is a "consensus to move" since there is no such thing. 64.229.169.50 (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. The current title was chosen after several years of acrimonious discussions, and there is no consensus to change it again now. CJCurrie (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV tag

It is obvious that half the respondents to the request for a page move were offended by this article's title. Condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin is uncivil behavior that makes for an unpleasant editing environment.

The title and editorial style of this article are biased, since many of the sources are not being allowed to speak for themselves. Allegations of the crime of Apartheid, like the recent 300 page multinational study sponsored by South Africa's research council, aren't mere "analogies". Those authors are lawyers and jurists. They cited numerous examples of violations, as defined by the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, and have recommended that an ICJ opinion be obtained on the issue of Israel's state responsibility. A copy of their report has also been forwarded to the ICC Prosecutor.

From the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:

Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

harlan (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've been here before. We've tried:

Israeli apartheid - loud complaints from Israel supporters.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid - Big ArbCom case over that move.
Israel and the apartheid analogy - where we are now.

Any new ideas? --John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't normally touch content disputes, so I doubt that there was a decision regarding the page move (in and of itself). The Mediation Committee can address content disputes, has anyone tried that approach yet? harlan (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has gone through a series of mediation disputes, AFDs, and vicious edit warring battles. No doubt the article is simply a POV vehicle and has little to no encylopedic value. It would be best to merge whatever factual reasoning is available into the pertinent article and axe the non-speculation/"allegation" spin. I'm sure some of you might know but most of the original editors who created the article have since been banned.

I would file another AFD but the love for this article is rather zealous so the likelihood of a decision beyond "no consensus" is less than slim. Wikipedia isn't perfect so just deal with it Wilkerson. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the very fact that there have been so many AFDs and the article has survived them all is already substantial evidence that it's important. Changing the name is contentious, however if, as now seems, the apartheid-term becomes more and more broadly used then eventually a change to "Israeli apartheid" or "Apartheid in Israeli-occupied areas" may be in order. This is especially true of Israel becomes a target of economic sanctions due to the policies. But for now, this title may be OK? --Dailycare (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not change the title Israel and the False Aparthied Anlogy, as most responsible commentators don't agree with it.Tannim1 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the article, as with any other article in the Wikipedia, is here to present the subject matter, not to render judgment. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Education

I have created a section on education, which was lacking. I based it on http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/06/southafrica.israel adding some info from http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090727/FOREIGN/707269849. Please expand/edit it!93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of "CAMERA" as source

I've noticed that on this page CAMERA is used as a source. WP:V#Questionable_sources states that sources that are "promotional in nature" should be avoided. Reading the entry on CAMERA we can see the organization is described as "noted for its pro-Israel media monitoring and advocacy" and we can also see that they have even been involved in a plot to undermine Wikipedia in order to promote "pro-Israel" editing. Opinions: should we use CAMERA on this page? --Dailycare (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think CAMERA is "promotional in nature". It is partisan, to be sure, but partisan sources are allowed, so long as they are used with care and properly attributed. So, as a source for its opinions, no problem. As a source for facts - use with care. Some of the sources used in this article are every bit as partisan as CAMERA, but with the opposing view (e.g: Media Monitors Network). If we decide to limit ourselves to mainstream media and/or scholarly sources - they all need to go, not just those advocating one side. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Given what happened in 2008 - "In what was probably not a very smart idea, Gilead Ini, a senior research analyst for CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, put out an e-mail call for 10 volunteers "to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors." (Basically, anyone with a Web browser can edit articles on Wikipedia, which wreaks havoc with the site's treatment of controversial topics such as evolution, Bill Clinton, or the Middle East.) More than 50 sympathizers answered the call, and Ini put his campaign into motion". "That got Wikipedia's attention. A panel of three administrators sanctioned or indefinitely blocked and banned five members of Ini's group. "Wikipedia is based on open, transparent editing in an atmosphere of mutual respect between editors," these administrators opined. "This goal is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing on Wikipedia by ideologically like-minded individuals." A formal arbitration process is ongoing." http://www.webcitation.org/5eI81uvfP

It might be a good idea to remove these references, and examine the input made by those who cite CAMERA sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times on RSN, most recently here. Some quotes: "use with great care", "use minimally", "highly partisan, not at all objective, should be cited sparingly for relatively non-controversial entries, and their history of trying to undermine the Wikipedia cannot be discounted", "their reliability for actual facts is highly questionable, to say the least". Those who support it tend to simply say "CAMERA is an RS" without providing reasons, or mention that they are quoted in RSs. I think that should only be used as an example of pro-Israeli partisan opinion, in a sentence like "the pro-Israeli advocy group CAMERA states..." They are only a reliable source for their own opinion. Ideally, find a RS like a major newspaper quoting CAMERA, and then cite the newspaper, that way you're citing an RS on their coverage of an opinion source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of the Benny Morris quote to CAMERA is not uncontroversial, educational, or objective. Morris is famous for publicly lamenting the fact that Israel's founders didn't do a thorough enough job of purging the Jewish state of its Arab population. Morris told Haaretz "If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country -- the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River... he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations... If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948." see A War to Start All Wars, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2008. Deportation of the civilian population of occupied territory for any reason was defined as a war crime in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

In any event, the civilian population of the occupied territories are ‘protected persons’ under the terms of Common Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It requires that in all circumstances they be treated humanely, "without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria." There is no blanket exception for "security" as Mr. Morris claims. Violations of Common Article 3 are defined as war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute and the 1996 US War Crimes Act.

The United States explained the existing legal requirements to Israel while Security Council resolution 242 was being drafted. "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" means that "neither side can claim the right to infringe upon the rights of the other in the name of a state of belligerency" See FRUS, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, document 273. The obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law does not depend on reciprocity. see rule 140, the ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law.

That is why the International Court of Justice said that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness or illegality of any actions taken to achieve its security objectives. The primary UN organs including the appropriate treaty monitoring bodies and Special Rapporteurs have repeatedly affirmed that Israel is violating international humanitarian law, and the fundamental rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. A number of official petitions or reports provided to treaty bodies, state agencies, and officials from BADIL, HSRC, and the Arab League have cited violations of the Apartheid Convention or Common Article 3 in the occupied territories based upon race or ethnicity. They called for official investigations and rulings from the ICJ and ICC. Violations of Common Article 3 are defined as War Crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute and the 1996 US War Crimes Act. Violations of the Apartheid Convention are defined as violations of customary law according to Article 7 of the Rome Statute and the US Alien Tort Claims Act.

The guidance from ARBCOM on this issue said that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. [5] The inappropriate use of the phrase "Apartheid analogy" to trivialize detailed reports of a crime to the appropriate treaty monitoring bodies, and the comments that Benny Morris provided for CAMERA with regard to security in the occupied territory are not relevant or educational. harlan (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If Electronic Intifada and other pro-Arab and anti-Israel sites can be used, than pro-Israel sites can also be used. Not to mention, an op-ed is just an opinion yet this article gives tons of weight to them.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up of article needed

The term 'apartheid' simply means separation or segregation. It can be employed in non-legal situations and comparisons. Nonetheless, the use of the term 'Apartheid analogy' is completely inappropriate in cases where the the WP:RS source is actually discussing 'the crime of apartheid', or in instances where official reports and petitions are made to the treaty monitoring bodies, like UN organs and the Office of the ICC Prosecutor.

The use of the term 'analogy' to trivialize official reports of a crime submitted to the responsible legal authorities violates basic WP:NPOV policy. Refactoring the "world-view" of a published source into the words of its detractors is a propaganda technique. harlan (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sources are regarding the use of an analogy to apartheid, and some are regarding the accusation of the international crime of apartheid. The article should be clear which type of reference to apartheid each source is making, especially in those cases that are not just making an analogy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, the "apartheid analogy" is the topic of this article. It is difficult to accept the suggestion that a summary or explanation of the subject of the article, and the published views represented by the article's contents doesn't belong in the lede. That is a deviation from standard Wikipedia policy for an article that already has too many POV issues.

The 'apartheid analogy' is not self-explanatory, and it isn't a legal term of art (i.e. its use does not preclude wrongfulness or illegality of the actions that it describes). According to published sources it can be used to obscure the legal issues involved. ARBCOM ruled that Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform for either side of the debate regarding this article. I added references to law review articles regarding Israel's compliance with the treaties governing the crime of apartheid, the legal definitions of the crime of apartheid, added links to official reports and petitions submitted to the treaty monitoring bodies, removed several broken links, added several external links, and Wikified links to other Wikipedia articles. Those edits were not reverts.

One of the sourced neutrally worded statements and references that you deleted explained that critics believe that the 'apartheid label' should be confined to comparisons with South Africa and have adopted the approach of describing the differences between the two regimes as an 'analogy'. see for example Not an Analogy: Israel and the Crime of Apartheid. This article used to simply assume that the reader understood the term 'apartheid analogy' and employed terms like "opponents of the analogy" to officials reporting the crime to the appropriate treaty bodies without any explanation at all. Rather than apply ^{[dubious – discuss]} tags to those terms throughout the article, I attempted to provide a published definition for the term "apartheid analogy". harlan (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Harlan. Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not specifically opposed to the content you added. I just think that the combination of the wording used and the placement in the lead of the article isn't following Wikipedia's guideline for WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the content of the article. It should be concise, should start with a sentence that defines the topic (based on how the topic is defined in the body of the article), and shouldn't include info that's not in the body. The existing lead does a fairly good job of those things, but I don't think your recent edits do. It sounds like you want to add some content to the article. I suggest you add it to an appropriate section of the body of the article, we allow editors to figure out whether it's appropriate and hash out some agreeable wording and placement for it, and then if appropriate the lead be updated. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the specific content argument you are making, I'm still getting a grip on it. You seem to be saying that "apartheid analogy" is not merely a conversational term meaning to compare something to apartheid. You seem to be saying that it is a technical term with a very specific meaning. Is that right? By comparison, I believe that "apartheid analogy" is intentionally used in an informal manner in this article, to encompass both both arguments that Israeli policy or action resembles some of the policies or actions of South Africa during the apartheid era, and arguments that Israel may be committing the international crime of apartheid as defined by the United Nations. The majority of the article as currently written is about comparisons (i.e. analogies), rather than whether the international crime of apartheid is being committed. So it seems to me the definition in the opening sentence of the lead fits the majority of the present usage in the article, which is based on the sources presently cited. However, I'd be interested to try to understand your arguments otherwise. Bear in mind that the purpose of the article is to describe the Israel/apartheid dialogue, both historical and present, as a whole. Any one or two sources are not authoritative in their definitions of "apartheid analogy". Especially not if they are pressure groups like BDS or CAMERA, but not even if they are from sources that might be considered unarguably reliable and neutral (if such exist). The definition in the lead should come from the consensus of editors here on the best way of characterising the sources as a whole. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You tell me. Editors who tried to have a separate article about Israel and the crime of apartheid got involved in a page renaming dispute with some other editors here who support the so-called 'apartheid analogy'. If the editors here are supposed to invent an ad hoc definition for that term as you suggest, that would violate very basic WP:OR and WP:Synth policies.

I'm writing about specific violations of the provisions of the international conventions detailed in published law review articles, official UN reports, legal studies conducted by agencies of contracting state parties to the conventions, and formal petitions submitted to the responsible authorities of the treaty monitoring bodies. The international convention and the international criminal statute define "the crime of apartheid" and supply the elements of the offense. Neither of those sources mentions the term "apartheid analogy", and neither treats any subject that constitutes lawful behavior. Links to articles about the convention and the statute were deleted from this article today by another editor who said this article discusses the "apartheid analogy" - whatever that means. If someone can't supply a published definition for that term, it obviously doesn't have any application to the specific subjects that I've mentioned. harlan (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article as it currently stands, the best place to add further info of the sort you're describing seems to be the "By the UN" section. However, am I right in thinking that you see the "crime of apartheid" subject being buried in this article? If so, I'm inclined to agree. The discourse comparing and contrasting Israeli treatment of Palestinians and Apartheid-era South Africa is quite separate from discourse directly discussing whether Israel is in violation of international law. Do you think there should be a separate "Israel and the international crime of apartheid" article to cover the latter? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The headings say the content consists of "uses" of the undefined term "apartheid analogy", but the UN subsections cite reports and petitions dealing specifically with "the crime of apartheid". I think the following material belongs in another article.

General Assembly resolution 9(1) drew attention to the fact that the treaty obligations under Chapter XI of the Charter had been accepted by all members and were in no way contingent on the conclusion of trusteeship agreements. The resolution pointed out that the provisions regarding non-self governing territories were already in full force. Israel has never submitted the periodic reports mentioned in Article 73.e. to the Secretary-General with regard to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories it administers under armistice or belligerent occupation regimes. General Assembly resolution 181(II) C. Declaration, Chapters 1, 2, and 4 had placed minority, religious, and womens' rights in Palestine under the guarantee of the United Nations; stipulated that no modifications could be made in respect to them without the assent of the General Assembly; and provided for the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the event of disputes.

That Minority Protection Plan was adopted by a decision of 2/3rds of the member states under the terms of article 18 of the Charter. It was cataloged during a review of Minority Rights Treaties conducted in 1950 in UN Document E/CN.4/367, 7 April 1950. UN GAR 181(II) is also listed in the Table of Treaties, on Page xxxviii, of Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986. The representative of Israel acknowledged that international undertaking and the principle of international law that a state cannot invoke its municipal jurisdiction as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its international obligations (minutes of the 51st meeting of the committee hearings regarding Israel's membership in the United Nations. UN Document A/AC.24/SR.51, 01/01/1949). Mr. Eban's declarations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949.

The state of Israel has refused to permit the bulk of its Palestinian Arab population to return to their homes and has confiscated their property. The remaining Israeli-Arab population has been subjected to systematic discrimination. The members of the Constitution and Law committee publicly state that there cannot be a constitution unless it defends the principle of inequality. See MKs debate protection of 'equality' in future constitution. Israel has declared resolution 181(II) to be "null and void".[6], declared the armistice agreements to be null and void, and has unilaterally claimed sovereign jurisdiction over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

The legal consequences of the subsequent breaches of Israel's obligations in the occupied territories were addressed by the ICJ in an advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly. It found that Israel had severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments by destruction and requisition of property, restrictions on freedom of movement, and the impediment to the exercise by those concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living. The court found that those breaches could not be legally justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order. It also found that Israel had failed to submit the required reports regarding the territories in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The United Nations Charter distributes the appropriate powers and functions among the principal organs of the United Nations. The treaty monitoring bodies and Special Rapporteurs do not make "allegations", they report findings within their assigned area of legal competence and recommend corrective actions. The Rapporteur's subsequent findings regarding an apartheid regime in the occupied territories, and the HSRC study are based upon investigations undertaken as a direct result of the ICJ's findings and the erga omnes nature of the UN and member states' responsibilities. If Israel does not agree with those findings it is free to call upon the International Court of Justice to consider whether a particular organ of the United Nations or other state party to the conventions have acted beyond their authority or in a manner not authorized by law. harlan (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I agree that accusations of committing the crime of apartheid as defined by the UN is not the same thing as an "analogy". For that reason I've moved the existing crime of apartheid content to a new section on this article. I suggest you make the changes you think are appropriate to that section. If it looks suitable for a new article, then a split can be proposed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

not enough criticism, also could be more in depth

we see 8 sections of its use, counting the 2 sub-sections, but only 4 sections of criticism. There are certain categories like "By notable authors," "By notable academic and media figures," and by "By South Africans" that could ALSO fit the criticism section. The analogy is not universally recognized, and the way it comes off here, it is treated like it is. For example, notable authors or academics could include Alan Dershowitz, who should get a spot here. Not to mention there are many others who agree with Dershowitz. There are probably many South Africans who would criticize this analogy, just as there are many who use it. Its amazing I went a found a prominent preacher who did, and it was the first, and I'm sure as hell not the last. The analogy has also been criticized by media members, just as it has been promoted.

Also, I bet there could be more legal talk about why self-defense could be done legally, and how it clashes with interpretations of the ICSPCA version of apartheid, which is what the page claims is how proponents of the analogy use the term, or criticism that they use it. Not to mention, there should be criticism on the part of the page that mentions this definition. While yes the UN does say things, there are international lawyers who also do not believe Israel is engaging in apartheid. They can be found. Also, criticism of the proponents or their hypocrisy should be exposed. This page should not continue to be so lopsided.

Also, I think the massive difference between the threat Afrikaners claimed to face, and the threats that Israel has actually faced have been used to justify measures that are legal via the right of self defense. Plus, more should be elaborated on how Israel has consistently sought peace in exchange for land. Plus, more could easily be found on the differences between the ANC and Hamas/Hezbollah/PLO, their objectives, and their acts. Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the criticism should be represented in proportion to the frequency it exists in real life, the goal shouldn't be that both sides get equal space unless the "argument" is evenly split in real life. Finkelstein claims in the quote on the page that the reality of Israeli apartheid in the WB is barely questioned outside US mass media, which would imply that criticism of the analogy shouldn't be given much space in the article. Concerning Dershowitz, he's suggested that each time there's a suicide bombing, Israel should randomly destroy one Palestinian town or village or that the terrorist's hometown be destroyed. According to that logic, the US should destroy Oklahoma City since McVeigh was from there... --Dailycare (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No thats not what he said, he said less land should be offered to a Palestinian state each major terrorist attack occurs, he did not say raze a Palestinian village. You can see videos of him on youtube. Yes there is tons of criticism in real life of this pathetic analogy. if Finkelstein gets times here so should Deshowitz, he's a lot more respected than Finkelstein and hasn't been fired from numerous universities like Finkelstein has been. There are many critics of this analogy and they should be represented. This site cannot be NPOV without the amount of criticism in proportion to the use of the analogy.

If you have reliable sources criticising the use of the analogy that are not currently represented, then please add them. Citations from scholars or lawyers in reputable publications would be especially appreciated and preferred (that's true for both for and against). Presenting a neutral point of view does not depend on giving equal space to all sides, only on reporting what reliable sources have said. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a quote from his article: "the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings." (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/110385358.html?dids=110385358:110385358&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+11%2C+2002&author=ALAN+M.+DERSHOWITZ&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=06&desc=New+response+to+Palestinian+terrorism) Curiously, Dershowitz doesn't appear to advocate destroying Israeli cities as responses to Israeli outrages which is telling of how biased this individual is. It also doesn't appear to bother him that collective punishment is illegal. In my opinion, presenting Dershowitz as a model critic of the analogy in this article would make the analogy appear more credible, not less --Dailycare (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Explaining my recent edits

... and hopefully pre-empting the usual complaints:

I do not believe that "z-word" and "Engage" are credible sources for this article. I think some of the points raised via these sites may be relevant in their own right (for instance, I find it entirely plausible that Henrik Verwoerd only used the apartheid analogy as a deflection strategy), but, if so, it stands to reason that better sources can probably be found.
It isn't immediately clear how (i) a Pew Research poll on South African views toward the I-P struggle, or (ii) the fact that Nelson Mandela may have been influenced by Menachim Begin's autobiography, are in any way relevant to this article.
I'm not averse to the idea of including a quote by John Strawson, but (i) I object to the inclusion of a long, two-paragraph block-quote, and (ii) I would again suggest that a better source could be found.

I might also suggest that if others believe the "Franchising Apartheid" article and Strawson's piece for Engage are worthy of inclusion, that we should identify their source publications and provide a single paragraph-length summary for each. CJCurrie (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC) modified 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC) and 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've done a Factiva search for "Z word". While there were several "hits", only three had anything to do with z-word.com. Of these, one was a critical overview of the "Franchising Apartheid" article, the second was an outraged response by Rhoda Kadalie, and the third was a passing reference in the Palestine Chronicle. All told, this doesn't exactly speak volumes of the publication's relevance (notwithstanding its links to the AJCommittee). From what I can tell, it's almost entirely a new media phenomenon. CJCurrie (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

About engage, the professor himself on his own webpage links to it. This is a professor at a reputable university in London, just like what Finkelstein writes and publishes on sites is also in this article. It doesn't matter about Factiva, because this page features ARGUMENTS which in themselves are opinions because as arguments that something is something which is being debated, being debated around the facts, different arguments are allowed to go up. Z-Word, which if you actually visit the site, very "noteworthy" people's writings, interviews, just look at the site. In other words, if sites like Norman Finkelstein, Electronic Intifada, Cjpip, Americans For Understanding in the Middle East, End the Occupation South Africa, COUNTERPUNCH can be on this, so can the sites I put on, as long as they're not blogs. Also, on the Freedom House issue, the whole point of putting that there is that an apartheid state by its nature would not be recognized as Free, judging by the fact South Africa wasn't ranked free. If you read the article I link to, you'll see what the argument is. Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

I've restored Strawson's quote from Engage, for now, in the hope that we can avoid an edit war and find some wording acceptable to all parties. I'm not questioning Strawson's credentials; I am skeptical about using Engage as a source.

I take your point about the range of sites being used on this page, but I maintain that non-notable sites should not be included. At the moment, z-word.com's claim to notability seems rather dubious. To be fair, I've done some research on Rhoda Kadalie and discovered that she's a public figure in South Africa. I'll admit that I'm vacillating a bit on this point; I would not be entirely averse to restoring a reference to "Franchising Apartheid" if others believe it appropriate. If so, however, we should take note of the following: (i) Kadalie is a vocal supporter of the Democratic Alliance party (as well as an extremely vocal opponent of the ANC), and (ii) her co-author is also her daughter. CJCurrie (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Add: I didn't remove the reference to Freedom House, so I'm not entirely certain why you've mentioned it. I don't think their system provides any sort of proof positive against the analogy, if that's what you mean. CJCurrie (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CJCurrie, what is a "notable site?" That is an extremely subjective term. If you look at Z-Word, you will find MANY reputable articles from many reputable people on that site. Why is counterpunch any better? because more people know it? This article is about arguments based on facts from angles and perspectives, and if people can link to Norman Finkelstein, Electronic Intifada, Cjpip, Americans For Understanding in the Middle East, End the Occupation South Africa, Counterpunch, what is wrong with the sites I use? Also, if someone from the ANC can be referenced, why cannot someone from the Democratic Alliance? (which if you look at the wikipedia page, was ALSO an anti-apartheid party). Remember, the "criticism" part of the analogy, like the opinion that certain things constitute apartheid, is again opinion as is the pro-analogy side. Also, I did just edit it and quote a very public guy, named Ishmael Khaldi who you can look up on google, and the article I put you should have no objections to.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"which if you look at the wikipedia page, was ALSO an anti-apartheid party" Actually, the Democratic Alliance didn't exist during the apartheid era. They were formed out of an alliance with the New National Party which, as the National Party, was the ruling party for the entire apartheid era. Imagine a party which was formed in Germany around 1949 and allied itself with the successor of the Nazis and then claim that that party "was also an anti-Nazi party". 64.229.200.23 (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at the page where it says "It has its roots in the liberal anti-Apartheid movement' of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, during which time a series of its predecessor parties were led by anti-Apartheid activists like Helen Suzman, Colin Eglin, Harry Schwarz and Frederik van Zyl Slabbert." "The modern day Democratic Alliance is in large part a product of the progressive anti-Apartheid movement of the 1970s and 1980s, during which time it was known variously as the Progressive Party, the Progressive Reform Party, and the Progressive Federal Party. During that time, the party was led by some of the most celebrated anti-apartheid activists, including Helen Suzman, Harry Schwarz, Colin Eglin, Frederik van Zyl Slabbert and Zach de Beer. For most of the 1990s, the party was known as the Democratic Party (DP), during which time it ascended to the status of official opposition under the leadership of Tony Leon." and look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Alliance_(South_Africa)#History history. The black person about which we were talking is clearly part of THAT party, not the Democratic Alliance before. Also, then I guess you must call the ANC into your analogy as they allowed the NNP into the Unity government after apartheid ended. But the NNP was nothing like the old one, given that former members now still sit in the government and have had government posts. This is what we are talking about. Rhoda Kadalie was a 'prominent anti-apartheid activist' and can be quoted on thisTallicfan20 (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Arabs do not have equal rights or treatment

Let's stop the propaganda war in the intro about Arabs enjoying equal rights. The facts are that there is no constitution in Israel, and the Basic Laws: Human Dignity and Liberty; and Freedom of Occupation do not contain any guarantees of equality. Many members of the Knesset Law and Constitution Committee have openly dismissed the idea that the Constitution will ever guarantee equality: see MKs debate protection of 'equality' in future constitution Please don't try to cite JVL to say the Declaration of the State of Israel guarantees equality, it doesn't. The JVL has an article on the Declaration which says it isn't legally binding. It also says equality under the law is not fully prevalent and that there are pockets of blatant inequality. [7]

The Head of Ben Gurion University's Department of Politics and Government says "The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state." [8] The Or Commission summary said "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory. The establishment did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action in order to allocate state resources in an equal manner. The state did not do enough or try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust phenomenon." ... ..."As a result of this and other processes, serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of the distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system and substantially defective infrastructure." [9] harlan (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity. Can you cite here even one right that Jews have in Israel, but Arabs don't? Poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, etc, is not the same as lack of equal rights before the law or Equal opportunity. The Or Commission never said that Arabs are not enjoying equal rights. The Israeli anti-discrimination laws include not only Human Dignity and Liberty; and Freedom of Occupation, but also Employment (Equal Opportunities) Law, as well as Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law. So indeed lets stop the propaganda war in the intro.Igorb2008 (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of laws and regulations that discriminate against Arabs. For example, Bedouin villages that pre-date the creation of the state of Israel were targeted by the 'Removal of Intruders Law', and over half of the Bedouin of the Negev Desert have been under the threat of removal. Their land claims were retroactively 'unrecognized' and declared illegal by the Israeli government. The published sources note that "They lack connection with the powerlines strung over their heads or the waterworks tunneling under their feet, living like refugees and third-world squatters surrounded by a first-world Jewish reality. Despite their status as citizens of Israel, regardless of army service, Bedouin households are often treated like those under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza in terms of vulnerability to land confiscation and demolitions." [10]

For decades Israel has legally chartered parastatal organizations, such as the Jewish Agency, the World Zionist Organization, and the Jewish National Fund, to carry out or participate in providing essential state functions and planning. In response to a 2004 lawsuit brought by Arabs, the JNF supplied a written response which stated that it did not act as a trustee of the general public, and that its loyalty lies with the Jewish people in the Diaspora and in the state of Israel. Those organizations constitutionally discriminated on the basis of ethnicity and religion, and deprived non-Jewish citizens equal rights of representation in state institutions. Non-Jewish communities never had democratic representation on the Israeli Land Commission, because half the seats on the Board of Directors were reserved by law for the Jewish National Fund, and were not subject to the outcome of the general elections.

A March 2000 jafi.org.il article on the Ka'adan case highlighted the fact that separate but equal had not worked. The head of a local Jewish Council admitted that since its creation, Israel had not established even one communal settlement for Arabs on state land, while hundreds of such settlements had been established for Jews. He also acknowledged that funding of Arab municipalities was less than the allocations to Jewish municipalities. [11]

The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel confirms the conclusions of the Or Commission regarding the governments failure to create equality for its Arab citizens. It says "To date, no Basic Law exists guaranteeing equality for all citizens without discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity. The absence of constitutional equality for the Arab minority and the fundamental definition of the State as Jewish have permitted a system of structural and institutional discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel. At least twenty Israeli laws discriminate against the Arab minority, either by excluding the Arab minority while providing specific rights to the Jewish population, according different rights to different sectors of the population, or by abridging the rights of the Arab minority."[12] harlan (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right about JNF, but since enactment of Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, JNF was ordered by court to sell land for all Israelis, without discrimination. How exacly Jewish Agency, the World Zionist Organization, or the Jewish National Fund can deprive non-Jewish citizens equal rights of representation in state institutions?

As for Israel Land Commission, none of its members are elected. The Council has 22 members; 12 represent government ministries and 10 represent the Jewish National Fund. The Director General of the ILA is appointed by the government. As for Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel claims that twenty Israeli laws discriminate against the Arab minority, non of the laws they mention deal with citizens rights.

They claim that Law of Return is discriminatory, that Flag and Emblem Law (1949) is discriminatory, because it displays Jewish symbols, or the Chief Rabbinate of Israel Law (1980),or The State Education Law (1953) and its 2000 amendment because it "gives recognition to Jewish educational, religious, and cultural practices and institutions, and define their aims and objectives strictly in Jewish terms". Non of this laws excluding the Arab minority while providing specific rights to the Jewish population, or even deal with citizens rights. The statements about established even one communal settlement for Arabs on state land is simply not true. What about Rahat for example?

Also An International Court of Justice judgment has nothing to do with the subject of the article, it didn`t accuse or even discussed allegations of racism or apartheid,it discussed only West Bank Barrier. So what is your rationale for putting it not only in the article, but to the lead section? The barrier was not mentioned elsewhere in the lead, and even the sentence itself doesn't make it clear that the judgment is about West Bank Barrier. If somebody read this section at it is written now ("Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid. An International Court of Justice judgment declared that Israel is violating the basic human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territory and that it cannot use its own security to excuse violations of the non-derogatory provisions of international laws and conventions"), it can be misunderstood as if ICJ discussed crime of apartheid, which is false.Igorb2008 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The ICJ Judgment addressed both the Wall and the associated regime. Judge Higgins concurring opinion noted that the findings of the Court regarding violations of human rights conventions are monitored, in much greater detail, by treaty bodies established for the purpose. The Special Rapporteur tasked with monitoring human rights in the occupied territories under the applicable treaties subsequently recommended that another Advisory Opinion be obtained respecting the crime of apartheid.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by its State parties, including Israel. The CERD noted that Israel had chosen to disregard the ICJ Judgment, and said that both the wall and Israel's associated regime raise serious concerns under the Convention, since they gravely infringe a number of human rights of the Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel. Both the CERD and ICJ said the infringements cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order. The experts also noted that no general provision for equality and prohibition of racial discrimination has been included in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), which serves as Israel’s Bill of Rights. The citations in the lede are misleading and give undue emphasis to non-binding declarations. According to the CERD, there is no legally binding guarantee of equality and non-discrimination contained in either the Basic Law, or Declaration of the State of Israel. [13] The Goldstone report cited the ICJ Judgment (para 185, 198, 201, and etc.); and said that the Mission believed that in the movement and access policy there had been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin (para 1581).

The Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law (2000) obviously did not end discrimination or the JNF's practices. For example, the ILA ignored the High Court's 2000 ruling in the Ka'adan's case, and a second lawsuit had to be filed in 2003. [14] In December of 2004, the JNF and ILA still had policies and regulations in place which prevented Arab citizens of Israel from bidding in tenders for the allocation of JNF-owned lands. [15] In 2005, the Attorney General ruled that the government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in marketing and allocation of lands it manages, including those of the JNF. The Ka'adan's case was finally decided in April of 2006. Nonetheless, the ILA still had policies in place at the end of 2007 that allowed marketing of lands owned by the JNF to Jews only. [16] [17]

The CERD requested that Israel ensure that the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, and the Jewish National Fund are bound by the principle of non-discrimination in the exercise of their functions. Nonetheless, the new Israel Land Administration Law (2009) reserves 6 of 13 seats on the Israel Land Authority Council for the JNF and further stipulates that this ratio must be maintained in the Council’s committees, and that the Chairmen of the subcommittee and budget committee will be selected from among the JNF representatives. It clarified that the JNF partnership is not restricted to managing its own land, but applies to management of all State land. The law permits land exchanges between the State and the Jewish National Fund; allows lands to be allocated in accordance with decisions made by "admissions committee" mechanisms restricted to candidates approved by Zionist-dominated institutions working solely on behalf of the Jewish people. The admissions committees have until now been screening out Arab candidates and preventing them from living in many areas. [18]

In 1947 the British mandatory administration reported the results of a RAF survey of the Beersheba District to the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine. It said that the Beersheba Bedouins had more land under cultivation than the combined landholdings of the entire Jewish population of the country. see Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947. After the 1948 war, the State of Israel simply declared the Negev state land, and attempted to expropriate all of the Bedouin land there. Rahat was already an area which had been densely settled by numerous groups of Bedouin. Each descent group had built clusters of semi-permanent dwellings on a hilltop overlooking its tract of land. For over a decade they had successfully resisted attempts by the Lands Authority to move or dislodge them. In 1972, the authorities simply sought to regularize the situation, in order to prevent further expansion of the Bedouin. They decided to incorporate the various hamlets in the framework of a town. see Emanuel Marx, "Land and Work: Negev Bedouin Struggle with Israeli Bureaucracies," Nomadic Peoples 4.2 (2000) harlan (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that Israeli Supreme Court judgements are simply ignored, even in very blatant cases. "Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch said ... "The court ruled to remove the wall. This is no way to treat the court, the state issued an order on the matter. Why was it not followed?"[19] 86.158.184.158 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)