Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 35

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 30

←

Archive 33

→

Re: Claim that Israel has never been charged with apartheid in a court

An Argument perpetuated by a lone dissenter, now outed as a sock, can safely be closed up, IMO.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The statute of the International Court of Justice permits interested state parties and international organizations to participate in its cases. In the 2004 Wall case, the written submission of the State of Lebanon said

"The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment." See paragraph 38, page 8, Written Statement of Lebanon [1]

The Secretary-General's dossier included reports from Rapporteurs Dugard and Ziegler.[2] [3] Those reports and Chapter 10 of the written submission of the State of Palestine [4] outlined a deliberate "strategy of Bantustanization", including the "apartheid wall", and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined by the Court in the Namibia case and the Apartheid Convention. harlan (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So the state of Lebanon says. It isn't even a principal in the case and they treat their Palestinian refugees horribly. The 2004 advisory opinion was sought to answer "what are the legal consequences arising from the wall"? It did not charge Israel with apartheid. The opinion did not address apartheid in any way. The fact that Israel and the "State of Palestine" submitted written documents accusing Israel of apartheid, and that the court accepted their submissions, does not mean anything more than if Israel wrote a written statement saying whatever. The court would have accepted Israel's submission as well. The UN also accepts documents because they are written and offered, but that does not mean they accept the conclusions or opinions of said documents. The opinion did not address "apartheid" or accuse Israel of "apartheid." The court did not charge or indict Israel. It offered an advisory opinion on the wall which didn't involve the concept of "apartheid". To get to the court ruling to "apartheid" is WP:SYNTH.Stellarkid (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, you inserted an unsourced disclaimer. Do you have a source that says anything about Israel not having been charged with the crime of apartheid in a court and why that would affect the arguments of those who say it is guilty of apartheid? Yes or no, simple question, simple answer. If the answer is no, then it is SYNTH for you to put that disclaimer in the article. nableezy - 05:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

~~Israel has not been charged in any court. Perhaps you can find an RS that says differently? It is not up to us to prove a negative. Stellarkid (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)~~

Im not the one trying to add a disclaimer that no sources use, I dont need a source, you do. nableezy - 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, I usually just let published sources speak for themselves. The legal theory of the case set forth in the PLO Executive Summary, Annex II of the Secretary-General's dossier,[5] was that Israel was violating the ICCPR, the ICESCR, and the UNCRC. Those violations of Palestinian human rights, including facilitating the entry into and residency of Israeli civilians in the Closed Area while restricting Palestinian access to and residency in that Area, caused long-term, permanent harm, including the transfer of Palestinians, contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the human rights conventions. Because those Israeli measures were neither necessary nor proportionate, they give rise to criminal liability by the Government of Israel for violations of human rights and some prima facie grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Chapter 10 of Palestine's brief cites those conventions and says the parallels to the Namibia case are blatant. Palestine's brief cites the Ziegler report, CERD reports, etc.

Israel is not a contracting state to the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute, or Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention. That leaves the ICERD, ICCPR, ICESCR, and the customary international prohibition on apartheid. In 2004 a group of legal experts at the University of Oxford wrote an International Law Opinion for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). It stated that "The Barrier discriminates against Palestinians on prohibited grounds (ICCPR, Art 2(1) and ICESCR, Art 2(2)), and may amount to a violation of the international customary prohibition on apartheid, as an aggravated form of racial discrimination."[6] Their full report said

The Barrier and related measures are targeted at Palestinians as a racial group, not just at individual suspected terrorists. The Barrier: (a) is a measure calculated to prevent Palestinians from participating fully in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country; (b) creates conditions preventing the full development of Palestinians as a group, by denying rights to work, education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; and (c) divides the population along racial lines, by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for Palestinians and Israelis, and by the expropriation of property belonging to Palestinians but not Israelis.

The broken record version of all of that can be found in the Court's findings regarding the violations of the ICCPR, and ICESCR in paragraphs 132-134 of the advisory opinion. The similarity is hardly accidental, since the Court cited the same prima facie evidence (contained in the Ziegler and Dugard reports) that Israel neglected to rebut in their written submission.

Lebanon, and the other members of the Arab League, subsequently turned over a report to the International Criminal Court which cited the Wall case. It said that violations of the ICCPR and ICESCR may constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. See para 400 page 102 and paras 428-432 beginning on page 109. [7] FYI the Apartheid convention says that certain acts of genocide also qualify as the crime of apartheid. Lebanon cited one of those in the Wall case. harlan (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

~~All opinions. My fact stands. Stellarkid (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)~~

Why is this "fact" relevant to the article? If you can't find a reliable source which says specifically that Israel has never been charged with apartheid in a court, then it's original research, as being a novel synthesis. john k (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

When you are accusing someone or some entity of a crime, the fact that they have not been charged is very relevant. It is not a synthesis. It is a negative, and no one is expected to prove a negative. If indeed Israel had been formally charged in any court, it is up to you to provide proof of it. Stellarkid (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Stellarkid, it is not my opinion, WP:OR, or WP:Synth. In 1998 the International Law Commission (ILC) said that the range of human rights violated by population transfer and the implantation of settlers place this phenomenon in the category of systematic or mass violations of human rights. The Commission declared that these practices constitute criminal acts and crimes against humanity. The Commission said that "Collective expulsions or population transfers usually target national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and thus,prima facie, violate individual as well as collective rights contained in several important international human rights instruments, in particular the ICERD, ICCPR, ICESCR, and the UNCRC.. [8] Article 3 of the ICERD contains the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation.

A Special Rapporteur on population transfer and implantation of settlers noted the existence of Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories and stated that forcible population transfers and resultant dispersal of minorities or ethnic populations from their homeland within the State, and the implantation of settlers violate self-determination and carry criminal consequences unless they are based upon certain exceptions contained in the ICCPR. See paragraphs 34, and 131-134 [9]

In 1998 the CERD panel of experts said that the status of the Jewish settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries; and that there was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. [10] CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 Israel has never appealed that or any other CERD observation to an Ad Hoc Commission in accordance with the provisions of the ICERD.

In the Namibia case, the Security Council and ICJ ruled that apartheid was a violation of the right to self-determination of the whole South African people and of the obligations assumed by all member states under the UN Charter (see Chapter 10 of Palestine's written statement). Lebanon participated in the Wall case in accordance with the terms of the Statute of the Court. Lebanon submitted its statement directly to the Court and it is an exhibit. In any event, the Court ruled that the Wall and the associated regime violated international law, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, the UNCRC, and the Geneva Convention; that Israel had violated the Palestinian right of self-determination as it evolved from the Charter and from United Nations practice; that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall; and that all states, including Lebanon, had an erga omnes legal interest in that situation.

Every ICJ case is published and analyzed by human rights groups, other courts, and international law digests, & etc. See for example the Israeli High Court of Justice analysis in International Law Reports, Volume 129, By Elihu Lauterpacht, Christopher J. Greenwood Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 0521879191, starting on page 273. Israel's original theory of the case is contained in Annex 1 of the Secretary General's report. It claimed the Geneva Conventions, the ICCPR, and ICESCR are not applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.[11] The ICJ performed its own legal analysis of the status of the territory which rejected those arguments. The ICJ found that the Government of Israel had established settlements in violation of the Geneva Convention and that it was violating non-derogable human rights, i.e. intransgressible ones, which Israel was obliged to respect under the terms of the ICCPR, ICESCR, UNHCR, and Geneva Convention.

At first the Attorney General of Israel, Mazuz, recommended that Israel should adopt the Geneva Convention. [12] However, he made no similar recommendation regarding the conventions containing the international human rights regime. [13]. Mazuz subsequently said [14] that "The ruling last year by the International Court of Justice on the separation [hafrada] fence between Israel and the Palestinians was based on erroneous and outdated information..."

In Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court (HCJ) said that it did NOT have to address the applicability of the Geneva Convention or ICCPR. See paragraphs 24-27 of HCJ 7957/04 [15] The HCJ acknowledged that Ziegler reported that the barrier was an apartheid fence and claimed that the ICJ based its conclusions on the findings of fact contained in the Secretary-General's report, his written statement, the Dugard report, and the Ziegler report. See paragraphs 43, 44, 45, and 61 of HCJ 7957/04 [16] So, Israel certainly has been accused of utilizing apartheid policies, practices, and a strategy of Buntustanization in an international court (or two). Each of those sources did contain reports that supported Lebanon's claim regarding the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc.:

The Secretary-General reported that the Wall had created enclaves and that "Palestinian cultivated land lying on the Barrier’s route has been requisitioned and destroyed and tens of thousands of trees have been uprooted. Farmers separated from their land, and often also from their water sources, must cross the Barrier via the controlled gates. Recent harvests from many villages have perished due to the irregular opening times and the apparently arbitrary granting or denial of passage. According to a recent World Food Programme survey, this has increased food insecurity in the area, where there are 25,000 new recipients of food assistance as a direct consequence of the Barrier’s construction."

Dugard reported on targeted killings, curfews, and checkpoints. He said "a curfew is not simply a restriction on leaving one’s home. It is the imprisonment of the people within their own homes. Unable to go to work, to buy food, to go to school, to visit hospitals or to bury their dead, they are confined within the walls of their own homes while the IDF patrols their streets. Statistics of checkpoints and curfews cannot accurately portray the obscenity of the situation." ... "Checkpoints have also resulted in the failure to acquire nutritious food and sufficient clean water. The obstruction of ambulances at checkpoints remains a serious problem. In the past year, about 60 ambulances per month were held up at checkpoints of which a quarter were denied passage. In March 2003, 15 ambulances were fired upon. Children have suffered dramatically. Schools are closed by curfew and checkpoints make it difficult for both teachers and children to reach schools. Twenty-two per cent of children under the age of 5 suffer from acute or chronic malnutrition while the breakdown of family life has had a severe impact on children."

Ziegler reported on the strategy of "Bantustanization" and complained about segregated access roads, interference with international aid, and widespread malnutrition. He said "Restrictions on movement mean that many Palestinians cannot feed themselves: they cannot go to work, go to harvest their fields or go to buy food. For many Palestinians, the inability to feed their families is leading to a loss of human dignity, often heightened by bullying and humiliation at checkpoints." Those findings of fact are all prima facie evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

The ICJ stated that with the exception of Israeli citizens, Israel was systematically violating the basic human rights of the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories. The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination, land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to supplies of water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living. The Court also noted that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The CERD, the UN Fact Finding Mission, and several UN Rapporteurs have subsequently cited the findings of the ICJ Advisory Opinion and have noted that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. Dugard said there can be no doubt that all of those facts in combination are constituent acts of apartheid, and most are specifically enumerated in article 2 of the convention. harlan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RS policy states that citations are required for any material that is challenged. It seems that some editors do challenge this addition to the article, so RS says it requires a citation. This dispute does seem weird to me though, just on common sense. Surely there are reliable sources that describe any international court cases involving Israel and accusations of apartheid? If so, can't we just cite them and let the sources speak for themselves? Would that satisfy all parties? In other words, the best approach here seems to be to be a review of the relevant sources and creation of content on this issue based on them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone is challenging the analysis contained in published, third-party verifiable sources including Lauterpacht's International Law Reports, the UN documents, and exhibits from the World Court case then they need to point out how those violate WP:RS and WP:PSTS. There is no reason that this article can't cite Lebanon's written statement about the crime of apartheid, Jordan's statement about ethnic cleansing, and Palestine/Cuba/Guinea/Ziegler on Bantustanization. Those are prohibited forms of racial discrimination under the terms of the ICERD and the Apartheid Convention. The Israeli HCJ claimed that the World Court had based its conclusions on Ziegler's report, but several of the interested state parties also complained about the bantustanization in their written or oral arguments. The Republic of Guinea said

There should be no doubt that the sole purpose in constructing this separation barrier, whose route cuts seriously and deeply into Palestinian territories, is to pursue, by pernicious means, the settlement of the occupied territory and to deprive the Palestinian people of a territorial element that is essential to the full exercise of its sovereignty. It is the expression of a policy known as “bantustanization”, whose objective is to create enclaves that are not viable, thus denying any freedom of movement to the Palestinian people and robbing it of the most fertile and most productive lands, for the sole benefit of the Israeli occupier.

This is an enterprise doomed to failure, being counter to elementary standards of international law, human rights and humanitarian law and aimed at undermining the very basis of the peace process in the Middle East. It clearly runs counter to historical development and to the universally accepted vision of two States, Palestinian and Israeli, living side by side, within secure and internationally recognized borders. Worse, it is the most flagrant manifestation of the denial to the Palestinian people of the exercise of their right to full sovereignty within the framework of an independent, free and viable State.[17]

A UN Human Rights Commission, Working Group of Experts study concerning "The Question of Apartheid from the Point of View of International Penal Law", E/CN.4/1075, 15th February 1972, pp. 51 – 52, said the elements constituting the crime of apartheid included the “Bantustan policy” consisting of the creation of reserved areas for certain groups. -- cited in Luciana Coconi, and David Bondia, "Apartheid against the Palestinian people", page 9 [18] harlan (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It simply isn't clear in the lead. Accused of a crime is reasonably read as national leaders getting hauled up in an intl court preceding for the alleged crime. Why have it so vague? What purpose does that serve? Simply say "it has been called apartheid." Leading the reader to draw a conclusion is a big part of SYNTH. This is something that is fixed by a simple rewording.

And what is up with the related section header? "Crime of apartheid and Israel"? How many different ways could that be read. Sloppy section header. Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, no South African leader was ever hauled-up in international court, because there wasn't any Court with criminal jurisdiction, e.g. See Final Report on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court for the Implementation of the Apartheid Convention and Other Relevant International Instruments [19] The political organs of the United Nations simply declared that apartheid was an example of a crime against humanity. In much the same way the General Assembly determined that the Sabra and Shatila camp massacre was an act of genocide and that the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories was an act of aggression. harlan (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While SA was not hauled up in international court, if memory serves, the opinion actually cited South Africa as the example of what apartheid was. Am I wrong? The political body of the UN always charges Israel with crimes, the more heinous the better. That's nothing new. Stellarkid (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Harlan's entry timestamped 02:29, 9 July, I don't see why we can't include a (short) mention that Israel has been accused of apartheid policies in an international court. --Dailycare (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, the ICJ was asked to advise the General Assembly about the legal consequences of the construction of the Wall considering the rules and principles of international law. FYI, the Court found both the Wall and the associated regime were illegal and agreed that all states had a legal interest in putting an end to those violations of international law. The Court cited Article 25 of the International Law Commission's Articles on "Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts" and said that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall (paragraphs 142-143). The oral and written statements of the interested parties in the case were specifically cited in that connection, see the following paragraphs, 144-146.[20] The Court said the interested parties had argued that Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law flowing from the planning, construction and use of the wall. The Court said the interested parties had also argued that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation arising from the construction of the wall, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation, and to co-operate with a view to putting an end to the alleged violations. So, the Court did advise the General Assembly about the legal consequences arising from those allegations and said that "Israel, for its part, presented no arguments regarding the possible legal consequences of the construction of the wall."

Although India had first introduced the issue of apartheid to the UN agenda in 1946, South Africa contended that it was a matter falling solely within its domestic jurisdiction. The Namibia (Southwest Africa) case happened in 1970, before separate development, "apartheid", was considered a violation of customary international law. See the Separate Opinion of Vice-President Ammoun [21] As a matter of intertemporal law, the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid did not enter into force until 1976. South Africa did not consider the determinations contained in the resolutions of the political organs to be legally binding. The Court disagreed, and said South Africa's continued presence in Namibia was illegal because "A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal cannot remain without consequence." The ICJ also found that South Africa's policies violated the right of self-determination and the obligations of all UN members toward non-self-governing peoples under the terms of the Charter.

In the Wall case, the ICJ cited Security Council resolutions regarding violations of international law in connection with the Basic Law Jerusalem and the presence of settlements there and other parts of the OPT (paragraphs 75 and 99). Judge Higgins cited the Namibia opinion and said those determinations were legally binding. See page 19 [22] harlan (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan - sorry, I meant to direct my comments at Stellarkid not you, and my indent was probably incorrect. What I meant is that for the article to say "Israel has never been charged with apartheid" there would either need to be an RS saying that, or that statement would have to be unchallenged by other editors. You and others have challenged that statement (somewhat obliquely - I'm not sure that you've come out and said "Israel has been charged with apartheid in a court" - but still), so it would require an RS. Given that an RS would be required, the best option would be to review all available RSs on the subject of Israeli's entanglements with international law in relation to the crime of apartheid, and add something to the International Law section based on those RSs. Some of the sources you've cited might be appropriate (it's hard to tell from your descriptions), and there might be some more pro-Israeli sources that would be appropriate too. We'd need to see what a draft paragraph based of those sources might look like, and make sure that writeup reflects the sources appropriately, the sources are suitable, NPOV is followed, and there's no synthesis. In short, the solution to this "problem" is just normal editing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an article discussing Israel and not South Africa. The reader could reasonably read the line out of context or just be confused. If editors would stop bickering and actually adjusting wording it might work. It isn;t that complicated of a dispute even though it looks like it is from this long discussion that barely addresses the real issue (a vague line).Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, the lede is quoting a reliable published source regarding the crime of apartheid. Israeli leaders certainly may be prosecuted for complicity in the crime of apartheid, or other crimes, under the terms of the Rome Statute that entered into force in 2002. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court continues to consider whether or not to initiate an investigation of the situation in Palestine. Last year the Office of the Prosecutor was given jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed since 2002 when a declaration was filed by the Palestinian Authority in accordance with article 12(3) of the statute. The ICC has complimentary jurisdiction. There are now 150 state parties to the various criminal conventions. See page 4 of Crime of Apartheid. [23] Many of them do not recognize jurisdictional barriers, statutory limitations, amnesties, & etc.

According to recent Supreme Court rulings, like the one in Samantar v. Yousuf, [24] government officials, organizations, and companies may be sued in US Courts for complicity in crimes involving human rights violations. The Jewish Congress of America and Zionist Congress of America filed amicus briefs in that case. [25] BTW, that means there are no jurisdictional barriers to lawsuits involving Israel's alleged complicity in South African violations of the customary law crime of apartheid, e.g. See Israel's complicity in apartheid crimes undermines its attack on Goldstone and South Africa Drops Opposition to Pending Apartheid Lawsuits in New York harlan (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Individuals from other countries may be tried for crimes in the jurisdiction of the country having the trial. Some countries do not recognize jurisdictional barriers -- that is perhaps true but charging individuals not from your own country ("not recognizing jurisdictional barriers") is not established as a right under international law. An Amicus brief is "is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist the court..." A volunteer is not a party to a case. Therefore Lebanon mentioning the word "apartheid" in an amicus -style brief is nothing, merely offering their "information". The case was not about apartheid, and Israel was not charged with apartheid in that case. It has been accepted that there are plenty of individuals who make these allegations but it is simply a fact that Israel has never been charged with this crime in any court. Of course it is impossible to prove a negative, and we shouldn't have to. We should be able to make the claim and leave it to you to prove otherwise, which should be quite simple if you have any evidence. If you don't, it is only fair that we can say in the lede that neither Israel nor any Israeli official has been charged of this "crime" in a court of law. You did not include a reference to this assertion: "The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court continues to consider whether or not to initiate an investigation of the situation in Palestine." What does "complimentary jurisdiction" mean? Whether or not if is theoretically possible that Israeli leaders can be be prosecuted for apartheid in an international court, they have not been. For an country to make the charge in an amicus brief about something else is not the same thing as "legally charged" and if it is true that the prosecutor of the ICC "continues to consider whether or not to investigate" then the court has not even decided that they believe there is enough evidence to even begin an investigation. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

oh and the Guardian article is simply opinion and your interpretation of the SA case as having implications for Israel and apartheid is just that, your own personal interpretation. In fact, none of those charged as supporters in the SA case were Israel or Israeli. [26] WP:SYNTH Stellarkid (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see the hilarity in linking to SYNTH when you are attempting to insert your own original synthesis into the article? nableezy - 02:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were possible to find a reliable source that said "Israel has never been charged with the crime of apartheid in a court of law," it would only be valid at the time of publication, since the next day it conceivably could be. This is one reason we are not expected to "prove" a negative. Since some here believe it to be a true statement, we should be able to put it in and you have the burden to quote chapter and verse that says different. Stellarkid (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I follow what you're saying about the difficulty of proving a negative. However, on Wikipedia you (the editor) don't have to prove anything. You just have to find a reliable source that says it, and cite it. If the statement you're wanting to add was of sufficient relevance and importance to this situation, then a reliable source would have made the point and you could cite them. Whether something is stated in reliable sources is the way we know whether it's worth covering in articles, and it also gives us verifiability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, WP:SYNTH is pretty clear. Do you have a single source that says that Israel has never been charged with the crime of apartheid in the context of accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid? You attempted to insert a disclaimer about the accusations, you need a source that does that. You've been here long enough to know that. nableezy - 02:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"the lede is quoting a reliable published source regarding the crime of apartheid." OK. So is the source clear? The lead isn;t so why not fix it?Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, here is the letter from the ICC Prosecutor to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which discusses the declaration of the PNA; the receipt of the Arab League's report; and discussions with Prof. Dugard. [27] Here is an ICC FAQ which explains that "A conclusive determination on the applicability of the declaration would have to be made by the judges at an appropriate moment.

You don't decide who the parties are in World Court cases. The ICJ said that all states, had an erga omnes legal interest in the Wall case. It specifically cited the oral and written statements of the many participants in the proceedings before the Court who contended that Israel's action in illegally constructing the wall has legal consequences not only for Israel itself, but also for other States and for the United Nations. They contended that Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law flowing from the planning, construction and use of the wall. Your personal opinion about the principle of universal jurisdiction doesn't accord very well with reality. After all, Israel has conducted trials under the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law of 1950 against individuals, including John Demjanjuk, for crimes that were not committed in Israel.

Complimentary jurisdiction means that any contracting state to the international conventions can give their own national courts jurisdiction to try the listed offenses. The Rome Statute explains that the idea is to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes. So yes, allegations were made by the participants in the Wall case that the construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, and that the responsible persons should be brought before the courts. harlan (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that some participants in the Wall case used the word "apartheid" in describing what they considered Israeli actions, that does not mean that Israel was charged in any court. Stellarkid (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't dissimulate. To sum up, some of the participants used the term "crime of apartheid", but some of them didn't use any Afrikaner terminology at all. Syria called it a "wall of separation" and said that according to the applicable human rights conventions, Israel's policies of ethnic isolation and discrimination were crystal clear crimes against humanity (page 4). Syria also substituted the synonym "racial discrimination" when discussing the applicable conventions including the ICERD, 1st Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention, Rome Statute, and the constituent acts from the ICSPCA (page 9-10). [28] The participants were supported by open sources (e.g. a report from Akiva Eldar on Bantustanization), a listing of enclaves provided by the Secretary-General, and UN mandated fact-finding reports which contained detailed prima facie evidence regarding the elements of the crime of apartheid. The ICJ said Israel did not discuss the legal consequences, so there was no rebuttal evidence. Other published sources, including the Israeli HCJ, say the ICJ based its conclusions on facts from the reports which described the barrier as an apartheid fence & etc. I have been giving you links to published sources which say all of those things. Where, exactly, does your analysis come from? harlan (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Harlan but the dissimulation is coming from YOU. You are trying to claim that Israel was in fact charged in a court with apartheid and that is simply not true. The ICJ never charged Israel with apartheid. That is the fact. If it is not, then provide the docket # and charges. I am not talking about people claiming something in a courtroom in a hearing on something else. You are trying to accuse Israel of the crime of apartheid by claiming that this or that group or individual said so in a "legal" document or in a courtroom. That would mean that if someone yelled something out at someone in a courtroom: "You murderer!" for example, that is equivalent to being charged with a crime. That is nonsense and the worst form of pov synth. By the way I made a question here: [29] Please do not overwhelm the page with your arguments but allow other people the opportunity to think about the question and answer it. Stellarkid (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does not say Israel has been "charged" with the crime of apartheid, it says it has been accused of the crime of apartheid. You can keep stepping around the issue here, but that is a demonstrably true fact covered by a number of reliable sources. You are attempting to add your own personal synthesis as a disclaimer to that fact, both without a source even backing your synthesis and, more importantly, without a source relating your view to the fact they have been accused of the crime of apartheid. nableezy - 15:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The current guidance says "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. If you need advice about original research policy, take the matter to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. I highly recommend that you drop the wikilawyering approach and the long unsourced talk page arguments over there. Several other editors here have specifically asked you to cite reliable published sources to support your previous edit and legal theories. Instead of simply doing that, you appear to be trying to generate drama (both here, and over at the Mediation Cabal case discussion page). You are welcome to include opposing views from reliable published sources, but you can't prevent other editors from including pertinent sourced material that represents views of the many state-party and UN participants in the ICJ Wall case. harlan (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you are in no position to talk about others' dissimulation. I never said that you need to get permission from me or anyone to put whatever you want up, as long as it is relevant, sourced, and unchallenged. If challenged, then consensus applies. I merely wish to note prominently that since you are talking legal matters that legally Israel has not been charged with the crime of apartheid in any court. It is in fact you and Nableezy that are that are providing long (if sourced and irrelevant) talk page arguments and legal theories. My argument is simple, and it is you whose long and tendentious interpretive arguments are generating the drama. This article is about "apartheid" not about the barrier. We already have a dozen or so articles on that, don't we? I would be interested in what others who are thinking about the issue of WP:SYNTH think about this issue. That is not wikilawyering. That is just uninvolved people offering their opinion of the synth idea. Stellarkid (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no, the longest thing I have written here has been a few sentences. Can you or can you not provide a single source that says Israel has not been charged with apartheid in the context of the accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid? I asked this simple question before and have yet to receive an answer. nableezy - 17:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias?

I don't like commenting on current affairs, but there is no reference to anyone being biased, which I think is relevant because everyone cited in the article has been publicly accused of bias on the Israel/Palestine issue. To note the most obvious the UN has been accused of bias by Ken Roth, and every Israeli and Arab has been accused of being biased in favor of Israel/Palestine.

If the real editors of the page consider it irrelevant I won't impose my view on the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article describes prominent statements from sources of all perspectives in keeping with WP:NPOV. Some think the "Israeli apartheid" thing has legs, some don't. It's made clear that these statements are opinions (some are professional opinions, but still opinions). All opinions can have bias, it's axiomatic and doesn't need to be spelled out against every source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent trial

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7901025/Palestinian-jailed-for-rape-after-claiming-to-be-Jewish.html does this belong here or somewhere else?

"In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official. "The question is whether the state should punish somebody in that situation. It puts the law in the position of what could loosely be described as discrimination. I would feel intuitively uncomfortable about prosecuting someone for something like that."

Unomi (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a friend commented: "Only if every cad who's ever said that they're interested in a committed relationship - and then never returns calls also gets the same treatment!" RolandR (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz - Gideon Levy - He impersonated a human. Apparently, the woman Sabbar Kashur has been found guilty of raping just assumed he was Jewish based on the name he gave her, Dudu. He has said, though, that it is a name that many people, including his wife, know him by (I should think that she's not very happy). ← ZScarpia 22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (ps: It would surprise me if any sources discussing the case made any apartheid comparisons)

Pardon me for continuing a conversation that's not really relevant to the article, but I thought that others would be interested in this link, which reports information that I hadn't seen reported elsewhere, that the defendant pleaded guilty and that the charge, which originally stated that force had been used, had to be changed during the course of the trial. ← ZScarpia 00:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention apartheid. It would require original research to shoehorn it into this article. Even an article like this that does actually discuss apartheid probably isn't useful as a source. Apartheid is only mentioned in passing in that article, despite being included in the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are other articles where the information would be very relevant. The Racism article cites the founding of Israel as an historical example of settler colonial racism. It also mentions the difficulty of integrating immigrants from Ethiopia and the vigilante-style patrol to stop interracial dating between Arab men and local Jewish girls in Pisgat Ze'ev. The statements in the 2006 Arbcom case said that articles on the topic of apartheid were redirected to "Racial segregation (an article with no material at all on Israel)". That article still doesn't have a section devoted to Israel, despite the fact that there are segregated towns, housing, and roads. In addition, the material in this article was spun-out of Human rights in Israel using the shop-worn "this article is not about..." argument. harlan (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Racism in Israel

A user has started a new article called Racism in Israel. This article is essentially one of a series of articles on "Racism in xxx". However, the content of the article (very thin at the moment, and no one seems to be expanding on it) is essentially the same as this already comprehensive article. So I suggest that we redirect "Racism in Israel" to point to this article, adding, if necessary, anything we can think of that might have to do with racism in Israel that isn't already here. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Apartheid is a form of racial segregation that constitutes a crime against humanity. WP:NOR limits the ability of editors to add material about racism to this article. In most instances, the original sources mention discrimination or racism, but not apartheid. harlan (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate to merge that article into this one, the subject scopes are too different. If that article discusses an independently notable subject, there's also no justification to merge it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger. Racism is a much broader topic and doesn't only encompass treatment of Palestinians but also treatment of various Jewish communities such as Blacks and Ethiopians, Shephardic Jews etc as well as foreign workers. Round the Horne (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I too disagree with the proposed merger. Racism in Israel is a far broader isue than the structural issues raised here. There are probably many editors who, while opposing the very existence of this article, nevertheless recognise that there is racism in Israel (as in every state), and who might even contribute to such an article. Much of the undoubted racism in Israel is not linked to the structural issue of apartheid; and, as noted above, the targets of such racism are not necessarily Palestinians, nor even non-Jews. A merger between the two articles would be to the detriment of both. RolandR (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor suggesting this merge has changed their mind, see Talk:Racism_in_Israel. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation on the title continues

Please note that the informal mediation on the title of this article is continuing at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. Sign up as an involved party and join the discussion if you have an opinion on the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the informal mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy regarding the title of this article is still proceeding, and we're now discussing a shortlist of preferred titles following a straw poll. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the informal mediation on the title of this article is now calling for opinions on whether the apparent consensus of changing the title of this article to "Israel and apartheid" should be accepted and the mediation closed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Verwoerd and Fouche

Now... I don't doubt that the major architects of South African apartheid linked Israel to apartheid, but seriously: should they included here? Think -- It seems circular: I walk into a store and steal something, they catch me, I say "well XYZ stole something, too, therefore it's OK!" -- and in turn you go to XYZ and use my claim as a justification to accuse XYZ of theft. Huh? In the same fashion, I am certain that Verwoerd used the analogy to justify SA apartheid, not to accuse Israel. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't limited to accusations, it's about any significant discussions of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in relation to the concept of apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think Verwoerd in a bullet-pointed list is out-of-context and doesn't belong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Verwoerd is discussed in the article also elsewhere and not only the list. I'll also have to agree with Ryan in that Verwoerd's comments do appear to be relevant to this article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the list in general, per the MoS we should be expressing content of this sort in proper paragraphs, not bullet lists. It's okay as a stopgap, but I hope it will be converted into appropriately formatted text in time. As for the source, it appears just as appropriate in the list as any of the other items. Note that it's also mentioned in the text before the list with appropriate context. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The format was my point. It forces one to give no context. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The South Africans justified their policies of apartheid on divine providence and their religious views before "they walked into the store" as Seb_az86556 puts it, e.g. "The history of Israel proves that the people who keep themselves strictly apart from others and thus protect their purity of blood, morals and religion, can be used by the Lord to fulfil a lofty calling." See J. A. Loubser, The apartheid Bible: a critical review of racial theology in South Africa, Maskew Miller Longman, 1987, page 68.

The New York Times reported that

The Afrikaner sees Israel as another small nation, surrounded by enemies, where the Bible and a revived language are vital factors. As Jannie Kruger, former editor of Die Transvaler wrote: 'The Afrikaners are par excellence the nation of the Book.' The fundamentalist Boers trekked northward with gun in one hand and Bible in the other. Like Israel, South Africa feels the role of language and religion are important to national survival. Prime Minister Vorster even goes so far as to say Israel is now faced with an apartheid problem - how to handle its Arab inhabitants. Neither nation wants to place its future entirely in the hands of a surrounding majority and would prefer to fight. C. L. Sulzberger, ‘Strange Nonalliance', New York Times. 28 April 1971 cited in Apartheid Israel: possibilities for the struggle within, By Uri Davis [30]

Prime Minister Verwoerd said that Jews “took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In that I agree with them, Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”[31] harlan (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation on title closed with consensus to move to "Israel and apartheid"

The mediation on the title of the article has closed with a consensus to move the article to Israel and apartheid with a disambiguation line to clarify any ambiguity. An ARBCOM remedy states that mediation is how article names in this area should be resolved, if other negotiation is unsuccessful. I'll leave it to someone with a better idea of how to go about it to do the move of the article, talk page, and talk page archives, but I'm happy to help with the redirects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please see if everything is in order. u n☯mi 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was done but has been reverted by Brewcrewer with an edit note saying "no such consensus. please use wp:rm," Can someone familiar with wp:rm get this moving. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow Brewercrewer. Really? Really? Talk about childishly flying in the face of consensus. The debate's over Brewcrewer. This one has been milked for everything it's worth. Move on. NickCT (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. you guys kept harping on it and harping on it, until you found a two day window where you formed a 5 man consensus for this. this had been discussed for years with literally hundreds of editors. I'm sorry, but this little "consensus" will not do.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was 13 for and 2 against, it was the people opposed who kept harping on about miscarriage of justice or whatnot. You guys could have chosen to participate rather than derail. u n☯mi 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The mediation was a dead-end. Mediator recommended taking the dispute to a higher authority. So no, there is no consensus to justify a name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:00

You guys are going to kick and struggle till the bitter end huh? I've notified Ludwigs2. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I feel the mediation resulted in a consensus, the choice by a significant number of editors to boycott the mediation weakens the result. If you want to rename the article, I think the matter should be brought to formal mediation or arbitration for a binding decision. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To quote Ludwig2's full closing comment: 'This mediation progressed to a strong but incomplete consensus (14 participants supporting, 2 against, 6 offering no comment) to change the name of the article to Israel and Apartheid, with the inclusion of a disambiguation line to clear up any misconceptions that might arise from that title. At least two editors did not agree with this consensus, and further attempts at discussion seem unlikely to reach a more complete consensus on the matter. Given the strong opinions evidenced in this mediation, I recommend that the participants consider taking the issue to formal mediation or arbitration for a more authoritative solution than is possible in informal mediation.' (italics mine) Consensus to change the name was very much present. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the remainder of the comment you highlighted? "Given the strong opinions evidenced in this mediation, I recommend that the participants consider taking the issue to formal mediation or arbitration for a more authoritative solution than is possible in informal mediation." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I did. Note that I didn't say anything about whether or not that recommendation was made, merely that there was consensus for the move. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik - I'm a little disappointed you'd take this position. Would you really ever expect to get 100% consensus on any I/P issue? Now, I'm not sure I like the new title either, but the conversation has been had. Let's move on. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect 100% consensus (and I don't expect the move request below to result in a consensus to move). Instead, I recommend that those in favor of moving the article ask for a binding decision from formal mediation or arbitration. Then the holdouts—whoever they may be—can complain as much as they'd like, but we will have a final decision. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Malik. I find that a little hard to swallow. I don't really see why we're waste more time mulling over this topic. Seems like a delay tactic. NickCT (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

just to comment (because NickCT dropped me a note): I think the 'requested move' section below is the correct approach. The mediation gave the issue focus but did not create a perfect consensus. now that you have that focus, however, the more conventional request to move process can proceed. A requested move is not a consensus-building process but rather a consensus-determining process; it does not require unanimity, and if the same kind of 7:1 split occurs here that will almost certainly indicate that a page move is in order. It would be useful if one of the mediation participants copied over a short list of the arguments in favor of the move to the section below, for easier reference.

also, I suggest that the disambiguation line suggested by the mediation be added now, while the discussion is ongoing. I can't see how that would be problematic, and I suspect it would be a useful clarification regardless of the ultimate page title. can someone do that? there were three or so possibilities listed on the mediation page - I can copy them here if you like. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Malik. A lot of the editors involved in mediation have not touched the article. Personally, I question whether or not they read it. Most of the article is about people who say Israel is an apartheid. That isn't the same as "Israel and apartheid." Apartheid South Africa is backed by a thorough, scholarly history. To justify "Israel and apartheid" the article should closely resemble Apartheid South Africa. But unfortunately, there isn't a lot of history to compare as arguments for apartheid are rather recent. If the title is going to be changed the article needs a series rewrite comparing Israel's government to an apartheid regime. As I mentioned in another section, it is only the result of individuals who have drawn parallels between south africa and Israel. The concept of apartheid is not unique to South Africa, it is/was evident in Kenya, Australia, and other nations well before South Africa. Since this article is exclusively about South Africa, perhaps the title could be something like "Israel and the South Africa apartheid analogy." Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Semantics Olympics here, no. I think it is fair to say that the actual term "apartheid" is far more commonly associated with South Africa, despite similar state-sponsored segregations in other nations. Tarc (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Australia and Kenya were both apartheid states and British exports. In fact, Australia was the original apartheid - SA's government was modeled after it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You either dodged or missed the point that the common usage of the term "apartheid" is only in reference to South Africa. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Article scope wording

Per the mediation outcomes I have added an initial phrasing for the disambiguation line. It was lifted directly from the suggestion of an editor and should not be taken to be a consensus wording just yet. Please feel free to propose alternative wordings below or edit the passage directly. u n☯mi 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting it in a {{dablink}} template, for consistency with other articles. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about claims that Israel is practicing a form of apartheid

Can someone please justify this edit? I have yet to see an article with such an obnoxious and POV note. Israel's foreign policy is a totally different issue and the inference that Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa is somehow part or inspired by Israeli racism is original research on the part of editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Because once you and your wiki-comrades stop stonewalling and obstructing the article title move, a dablink would be useful to the reader to locate similarly-worded topic titles. It's not rocket science. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, can you please justify the edit? A dablink with such loaded languages is simply unwarranted. Just because the mediation failed and the title change dispute is still on-going does not mean we start the article with false and dishonest subheadings. Israel's foreign policy with apartheid south africa has nothing to do with the apartheid analogy. It is original research, plain and simple. We cannot make inferences. The note itself is dishonest because it implies Israel supported South Africa's "apartheid" in the sense that it supported and expressed solidarity with its racist government. Again, an inference made by editors and also not predicated on what reliable sources tell us. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan - rather than turning it into an issue of deletion, what you you like the dablink to say? a disambiguation would be useful to clarify the article's scope, regardless of what the eventual title turns out to be. or do you disagree? --Ludwigs2 03:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than assuming a dablink is required, why not prove its necessity? The dablink is clearly a substitute for the title that many editors want (Israel and apartheid). That failed, so hey, let's paint the article with a loaded and biased heading in the intro! Can you please direct me to another wikipedia article with a similar heading? In any case, the last line is complete and total OR. Editors have taken it upon themselves to connect Israel's relationship with apartheid south africa as inspired by racism, and this somehow lends credence to the article's overall theme. Sorry, foreign policy itself has nothing to do with domestic policy. USA supports and arms Saudi Arabia - is the United States a racist, Islamic dictatorship? No. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the intention was to link them per se, merely to offer the casual reader a link to the article they might have been looking for, that is the use case for dablink, the wording was not final and if you took objection to it you could simply have engaged in normal editing behavior and changed it. u n☯mi 04:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? This is an encyclopedia, editors cannot take it upon themselves to offer a "casual reader" a link. I'm still hoping one of you here can explain and justify the necessity of such an obnoxious tag that sits on top of the article and has zero to do with the apartheid analogy. Referencing Israel's historic foreign policy is nothing short of bogus, really people. It goes beyond original research. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, disambiguation lines are a normal and conventional way to clarify article topics and redirect people to related issues. Editors can (and do, and should) take it upon themselves to do anything that will help a reader understand the topic better or find information they are looking for more quickly.

I understand your tactic, of course: you really want to see the article deleted and salted, and so you are strongly resisting anything which might be seen as an article improvement, because that reduces the likelihood that you will succeed in getting it destroyed. That is the wrong way to approach this issue, and I cannot respect you for it. Stop trying to get in the way of everything, and start trying to make the article better, and this problem will resolve itself quickly. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, you really need to stop with the name-calling. Instead of reverting to the classic "zionist conspiracy" canard, focus on my argument instead: The huge heading at the top was written buy fellow editors without regard to policy because they are upset that the article's title has not been changed. You and others have yet to cite any sort of policy that supports such statements. The heading is dishonest: This article is not about claims that Israel is practicing a form of apartheid, the article is about allegations Israel practices a form of a apartheid while others disagree. I could just as easily write my own sub-heading that said "This article is about claims that Israel is not practicing a form of apartheid" because a quarter of the article is about notable people who cannot draw analogies between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. The second sentence about Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa is just bogus. It has nothing to do with the theme of the article, it was inserted by an editor. In the least that must be removed. I'm really sorry many editors have been afraid to touch the article for fear of being accused of destroying it, or hunted by its protectors - but I'm not here to destroy your precious. I want to see an article that is consistent with wikipedia standards and hope editors, regardless of their POV, would be willing to embrace the flaws of the article and try to correct them instead of attacking any editor that points them out and wants to see some changes, hopefully with a consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by the classic "zionist conspiracy" canard, and I don't think I care to know. There are plenty of grounds under policy for using a disambiguation link, and plenty of examples of them being used effectively on other pages. Whether or not the article title gets changed, a disambiguation line would be useful, since the entire dispute is about ambiguities in the meaning of the title. My objection to your behavior is not name-calling - you are being purely and maliciously obstructionist. If you had any interest whatsoever in the development of the page, you'd stop trying to edit war the dablink away and start trying to edit it to make a clear statement about what the article does and does not cover. The fact that you are only interested in deleting it, and only interested in arguing against it, tells me that you are not interested in the development of the article but are using the page to wage some personal war (be it over an ideological position or mere egocentric nonsense - don't know which; don't care). again, I ask you to stop it. wikipedia has no room for people who are not interested in working cooperatively with others. understood? --Ludwigs2 01:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"You are being purely and maliciously obstructionist." Do we need to take this discussion to wikipedia civil board? I've been more than explicit about what I see wrong with the article and how we can improve it, for years content remained in the article that had nothing to do with the article and yet no one here made an attempt to fix it, including you. Here I am, proposing a fair and balanced solution and I'm not one not interesting in working cooperatively with others? It seems you are incapable of accepting edits that are not consistent with the years of mob-rule in this article. Now I have some time to promote policy rather than personal agenda (as much of this article is predicated on user-bias, inventing their own rules and designing bloated and large paragraphs). Please pay attention to what I am saying Ludwig rather than demonizing my status as an editor. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be amusing. please feel free to take it wherever you like, and in the meantime I will gather a list of diffs supporting the statement. That is not a battle you will win.

Now, since I seemed to have missed it, what precisely are you referring to when you say: "Here I am, proposing a fair and balanced solution..." I'm all for that, and if you can convince me that your solution is actually fair and balanced I'll be entirely behind you. Keep in mind I made my first edit to this article yesterday, and never heard of it prior to the mediation, and don't have any interest in the subject except that it gets a balanced encyclopedic treatment. what are you proposing, and why is it better than what's here? --Ludwigs2 03:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been explicit, you have yet to provide a rationale supporting the editor-designed "note". [Numerous editors including an administrator with me. Do I need to spell it out? The note was designed by editors who are upset the move hasn't passed. There is no precedent and policy to support its conclusion. Just because it was mentioned in mediation doesn't change the facts. We can debate the first sentence, but the mention of Israel's relationship with apartheid south africa is 100% irrelevant and has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the article. An editor decided to insert this factoid to promote a philosophy independent of the article and guidelines. I'd appreciate it you stopped attacking my character, you've inferred my presence here is to "destroy" the article and swore at me numerous times during the mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

First: I agree with you - I don't think an explicit link to South African Apartheid is needed. I actually rewrote the dablink and removed it, though no one seems to have noticed.

Second: You're just plain wrong about precedent and policy - dablinks are used all over wikipedia to clarify things. I'm not attached to any particular wording, but from what I've seen here this issue definitely needs clarifying. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are rejecting it out of hand this way, with zero discussion. This has nothing to do with the mediation, it's just a good idea (or at least an idea worth considering).

Third (and most important): I did not ask you about why the dablink should be removed. I asked you to tell me what your proposed "fair and balanced" solution is. If you actually have one, please tell me specifically what it is so that we can discuss it. I'm willing to work with any good idea. however, if you refuse to tell me what this 'fair and balanced' proposal is, I'll be forced to presume that you don't really have one, but are just talking through your hat. So if you have a proposal, spell it out please. --Ludwigs2 04:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

P.s.: I don't care about your character any more than I care about my own. I am (put simply) brutally honest about what I see, both in myself and in others; If you don't want to experience the 'brutal' part of that, please don't put me in a position where I have to explain to you why what you're doing is wrong. because I will. --Ludwigs2 04:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If editors on wikipedia had a right to be "brutally honest" I'm sure the majority of users in the Israel/Palestine area would be topic banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

being 'brutally honest' is quite a bit different than being brutal for other reasons
getting a number of editors here topic banned would probably be of great service to the encyclopedia
you once again failed to answer my question

So, I'll ask the question one last time: What is this 'fair and balanced proposal' that you have made? please explain it so that we can discuss it. Nota Bene: If you refuse to explain it this third time, I will take that as proof that you are lying in order to confuse and obstruct the discussion, and the next time you use the tactic I will point out this thread to an administrator and ask to have you sanctioned for tendentious editing. do we understand each other? If you have an idea for progressing beyond this dispute I want to hear it; If you don't, quit lying just to screw things up. --Ludwigs2 16:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Read my comment again. I asked for you to justify the note that you or someone else as an editor wrote up without regard to policy. My proposal was a strong delete, which is more than fair, but in the least the reference to Israel's political with apartheid south africa must be removed because it is irrelevant to the article. The note itself wasn't balanced, removing it creates balance. Or perhaps editors should write up their own note that says: "This article is about claims that Israel did not practice apartheid..." because that would be just as accurate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So, your 'fair and balanced proposal' for resolving this dispute was a strong (read that as not subject to discussion or compromise) request to delete the material that offends you? Is that what you're saying? --Ludwigs2 01:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. Read my post again. This has nothing to do with me, either you edit based on policy or you go write on a blog/political forum. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So if that is not what you're saying, then you're saying you do not have a fair and balanced proposal to help improve the article?

Wikifan, Understand your position here. I am going to keep pushing you on this point until one of two things happens:

You start making positive, constructive suggestions that help this dispute move forward.
It becomes obvious to everyone else involved in this discussion that you have absolutely no intention of doing anything constructive or positive here

I don't care which you choose. It would be more pleasant for me (and for everyone) if you decided to start making proposals so that we could work together to make this a better article. If not, I will keep trying to convince you to do so until I can make a sufficient case out of it to get you topic banned. It's time for you to learn how to be a responsible editor, and I'm going to do my best to see it happens. understood? so, how are we going to move this forward, or are you not interested in doing so? --Ludwigs2 06:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been more than explicit and cordial. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support the note. I'm not going to repeat myself again: Israel's relationship with apartheid south africa is irrelevant to the article. Whoever inserted that sentence simply is not following the rules, plain and simple. The article is not about "claims that Israel is practicing a form of apartheid" any less than it is an article about "claims that Israel is NOT practicing a form of apartheid." Both sentences are technically accurate. Editors are mad the move hasn't succeeded yet, so they're pushing for this POV and loaded to compensate. This is quite obvious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why you are upset about the disambiguation note, I don't think anyone was trying to do any more than help the reader understand the context of the article and help them find what they might otherwise have been looking for. We would likely still need that disambig note, consider that when a user searches for "Israel apartheid", which is a reasonable search phrase for someone who does not know of the contents of this article, but is looking for information on Israels stance on South Africas Apartheid, they are brought here. u n☯mi 17:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he's upset about the disambig because he's got it stuck in his head that the idea comes from 'opponents' and he's gotten himself sucked into a battleground mentality that refuses to allow 'opponents' any ground whatsoever. Bad military tactics if this were a war, and a horrible mindset entirely since it's not a war. I swear, I think this page suffers from internet PTSD. --Ludwigs2 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Any more ad-hom attacks Ludwig? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

lol - wikifan, you're cute. As I said, when your behavior is respectable, I will respect it. till then, expect me to point out your mistakes. it's the only way you're going to learn. --Ludwigs2 04:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

thing at the top of the article

at the top of the article, someone put "This article covers assertions that Israel may have violated the UN-defined crime of apartheid, and authors who have compared Israeli treatment of Palestinians with the Apartheid system in South Africa." Well duh, can't people read the article? my problem is that before this "caveat," another one tried to claim Israel supported South Africa's internal racial policy. So the thing at the top is in bad faith first, only changed because I pointed it out. I think the current thing at the top is redundant, as people can read the article to see what its about.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's obnoxious and no policy supports its conclusion. Some editors are butt-hurt over the fact that the move hasn't happened yet, so a tag was placed to emphasize the argument that Israel is an apartheid state, even referencing Israel's relationship with apartheid south africa as if it somehow relates to the analogy (PS: it doesn't). I really don't have a problem with a tag, but it should be supported by policy and not user bias. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in the addition. Gatoclass (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dudes - you all have been complaining that the title is ambiguous and unclear. now you are complaining when we try to add a disambiguation line to make the title clearer - is there anything under the face of the sun that you would actually agree to, or are you simply going to continue to blindly revert any and all changes?

I've requested a page lock over this edit-warring. a couple of weeks to talk things out here should suffice. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The intro is there to introduce the topic. Adding a hatnote which attempts to do the same thing is obviously redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why is there so much dispute about the article title? can't have it both ways... --Ludwigs2 03:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the definition of the crime of apartheid was deleted from the lede by an editor who claims this article is about the analogy, not the crime of apartheid.[32] There never has been a published or agreed-upon definition of "the apartheid analogy" in the lede either. If editors and readers swear those are separate subjects, then surely some form of disambiguation or definition is required. harlan (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of the crime of apartheid belongs in crime of apartheid. The section had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Has Israel been accused of committing the crime of apartheid with respect to the Palestinians? --Ludwigs2 05:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut through the hasbara. Yes Israel has been repeatedly and officially charged with the crime of apartheid in both the Israeli courts and in the ICJ Wall case. If that material is going to be in this article, the lede needs to define the "apartheid analogy" and "the crime of apartheid". The two are clearly not synonymous. harlan (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, please allow Wikifan to answer the question for himself. you may see this as hasbara (whatever the hell that is), but until wikifan explains for himself what he thinks we will not be able to resolve this issue. it will just keep going around and around. look at the debate - it's just one deflection after another; every time I ask wikifan about X he responds with something about Y; when I ask about Y he responds with something about Z. We can chase him around that circle endlessly and never get anywhere. It's time to get him to say what he thinks, and assuming he has any thought in his head beyond contradicting everyone else, we stand a chance of pinning him down to actual discussion points. wouldn't that be cool? so please: let him answer for himself. --Ludwigs2 06:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comprehension Harlan. The section of "Crime of Apartheid" had nothing to do with Israel or South Africa. The IJC case and Israel Supreme court issues (both of which you misrepresented) were not mentioned in the section either. The fact that Israel is "charged" with racism doesn't matter. Israel has been charged with committing or being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, baking the blood of Arabs into matzo, and forcing Muslims to detonate their children because its existence is so offensive. But I digress - the section had nothing, nothing, nothing, and oh yeah, nothing to do with Israel and the apartheid analogy. The article is bloated enough, readers don't need a background check on crime of apartheid, that can be found at the pertinent article. I love being accused of "promoting hasbara" as if this Harlan has been victimized by muscular Zionists. Have some self-respect harlan, there is no conspiracy. If this really irks you I suggest you make a new section because this one is about the dblink. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I didn't say I had been victimized by hasbara, I said lets dispense with it. The fellowship's talking points don't cover the crime of apartheid, just the analogy.

I was waiting for the results of the MEDCAB before putting all of the information about the court cases into an article. "The apartheid analogy" is irrelevant to formal court proceedings involving charges of the crime of apartheid, so that material won't be coming to an article by that name any time soon. There are a number of people on the talk page who are trying to generate drama in order to demand that other editors agree to publicly trivialize official reports of crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid. Realistically, that just isn't going to happen on Wikipedia. harlan (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there needs to be a definition of the crime of apartheid in the intro. The intro has prominent links to both "apartheid" and the crime of apartheid, so anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with these topics need only click on the links. "Crime of apartheid" is also only one facet of the debate, so adding it to the intro in this way lays undue emphasis on this aspect. I noticed that another user added the disputed text to the body of the article, and that seems sufficient to me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the editor in the diff said this article isn't even about the crime of apartheid. You didn't mention the total absence of a cite in the lede to a published definition of the so-called topic of this article - "the apartheid analogy". This talk page is perpetually filled with posts from editors who claim that Israel is not an apartheid state, and that "the apartheid analogy" is only a publicity campaign designed to delegitimize Israel. Therefore, the "crime of apartheid" and "the apartheid analogy" are entirely different topics to like minded readers and editors. If that is the case, they should not even be in the same article, e.g. Holocaust and Holocaust Denial. harlan (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I suggest you make a section to promote your complaints rather than hijack this dispute. I agree with Gatoclass that the section was unnecessary. Even if the title were to be changed to "Israel and apartheid" the "crime of apartheid" background just adds more drama to an already biased article. Unless that "crime of apartheid" somehow has references to israel in a meaningful way, there is no support for its presence in the article. Also, can you please link me the source where the Israeli supreme court declared israel's security barrier as an example of apartheid, inspired by racism and ant-arab hatred? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no place for discussion of the crime of apartheid in relation to Israel in this article, I simply said we don't need a definition of the crime of apartheid in the intro. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass I assume there needs to be a definition of the topic of the article in the lede. According to many of the editors here on the talk page, and a multitude of Zionist websites, "the apartheid analogy" is an organized publicity campaign to delegitimize Israel. You cannot ask other editors to trivialize formal criminal charges and official reports of crimes authored by treaty bodies by accepting an article title that labels everything a publicity stunt without offering the readers some explanation. harlan (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, if we don't know what this article is about, that's a serious problem. If this article discusses viewpoints that link the 'crime of apartheid' with Israel, then obviously we do need a definition of 'crime of apartheid' in the lead. If the article does not discuss such viewpoints, then we may or may not need a definition (depending on whether we need to disambiguate the issue from other issues). so which is it? --Ludwigs2 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is, and should be, both about the suggestions that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid and comparisons to the historical Apartheid regime in South Africa. The reason that both of these notable subjects should be discussed in the same place is that similar reasoning is used by sources in regard to both subjects. Any given source may both compare specific actions of Israel to specific actions of South Africa during Apartheid, and also suggest that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, and two different sources may cover the two different points but use the same examples of Israeli actions to do so. If we were to make a separate article called Israel and the crime of apartheid that would be a valid content fork, however there would be a lot of redundancy between that article and one solely about comparisons to Apartheid in South Africa. This was discussed in the mediation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I can read between the lines there, what you mean by the phrase "similar reasoning is used by sources in regard to both subjects" is that a number of sources want to condemn Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and they use a couple of different references to apartheid to do so. is that a correct assessment? --Ludwigs2 01:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was that regardless of whether a source is comparing Israeli practice to Apartheid in South Africa, or suggesting that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid, or (perhaps, in some sources) both, they will often highlight the same Israeli practices such as marriage law, immigration policies, treatment of Palestinians in occupied/disputed territories as examples to make their points about how Israeli practice either resembles Apartheid, or is apartheid. Therefore there would be a lot of redundancy between the two content-split articles because a lot of the reasoning is the same. I can't say for certain why some sources compare Israeli practice to Apartheid while others suggest it is committing the crime of apartheid. I suspect that for professional commentators it depends on whether their profession leads them to take a perspective of comparative history/sociology or a legal/political perspective. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So... you agree with me? because it you are then maybe we need to make this a content fork of some more general article about Israeli Palestinian relations, and rename it "Condemnations of Israel's treatment of Palestinians" or some such. part of the problem here that the article may be focused too narrowly, and if we expand the scope a little the dual topic problem will disappear. --Ludwigs2 06:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree. Your point appears to be that this article is about a specific type of condemnation of the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. That is obviously true. However, you seem to infer that it therefore can be rolled up into a general article about such condemnation. That I don't agree with, because apartheid is a somewhat different beast than, say, the alleged use of Palestinians as human shields, and a single article on both would be weird and wouldn't do either topic justice. The discourse about whether Israel practice is/resembles apartheid has a large amount of coverage in significant reliable sources, whole books written about it. As such it is a highly notable subject in its own right, not one that can be rolled up or generalised into "criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians" in general, a wider topic with numerous notable sub-topics. To the extent that such an article exists, it is Human rights in Israel, which is a broad topic that contains (among other things) numerous content forks regarding various condemnations of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. But this whole, highly independently notable topic cannot be rolled up into that. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RP: you've misunderstood my intent. what I see here is a lot of cross-talk about different meanings of the word 'apartheid'. when you see people engage in that kind of hedging (in the literal sense of the term - trying to move word-boundaries around to maximize the territory they control, the way old-school herders would move hedges around to maximize their grazing areas), you can be damned sure that one of two things is happening:

the debate has gotten overly-specific (devolved to tendentious nitpicking) and needs to be moved to something more general (in this case a somewhat broader concept that includes both these points)
the debate has gotten overly general and needs to be broken down in to separate debates on specific points (in this case creating two separate articles)

I don't think either idea on its own is notable enough for a separate article, so I'm thinking we need to find some overarching discussion to enclose this in. you are never going to get past this stupid dispute until you do. the only question in my mind is what the proper scope for the article should be. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think your heuristic works in this case. "Apartheid" happens to be a word that connotes both a general practice and a historical instance, and that causes some editors confusion, but I don't think that relatively minor linguistic pitfall is a good reason for rescoping. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Use of the apartheid" section and other issues

Use of the apartheid analogy. I don't think it is necessary to enumerate every person that has drawn parallels between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. It clutters up the article. We have a "use of apartheid" section that contains a comprehensive list of characters, but then the following sections - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc...

It doesn't make sense to categorize every single person by their political affiliation after already listing them already, and making unique sections for specific individuals (Jimmy Carter) but not others.

I can't find another article with a similar praise/support section. It was clearly designed by a series of editors without regard to policy. I suggest we simplify the content into 2 sections - one with the list, and two with comments from that list. Then for those who are against Israel/apartheid advocates, 2 sections - one with a list, the other with comments.

This section is extremely undue. Devoting so much space for two academics, even including a thumb of their book, is not consistent with neutrality and balance. IMO the sections makes it very hard to navigate through, with some criticism of apartheid advocates within "use of apartheid" while other peoples' statements go unchallenged (Melanie Phillips). More than half of the article is about people comparing Israel to apartheid. Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

edit: I also think we could expand on Israel as a government's POV. Issues such as the separation barrier and check points, are said to be inspired by security-related issues, rather than racism. I don't think it would be wrong to emphasize this POV rather than saying something is racist without including challenges. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite noticeable that the sections relating the sharp criticisms of Israel as guilty of apartheid go on at enormous length, but that reserved for defenses of Israel and criticisms of the apartheid analogy are quite brief. The first section consists of 9,722 words, according to my computer word count, and the last section is just 2,435. This is highly disproportionate and suggests systemic bias. It needs correction.Tempered (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, to suggest that "pro" and "con" sides should have similar wordcounts is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We should reproduce the respective views in rough proportion to their occurrence in reliable sources, not try to give each viewpoint equal space in the article. There are fewer WP:RS sources for the "no it isn't apartheid because of X" since for most people it's pretty obvious that Israel does practice apartheid against the Palestinians (not to mention that Israeli cabinet ministers have admitted it). On a practical note, I agree that the Adam&Moodley section is probably too long and may be a good candidate for making shorter, which would also serve to make the article as a whole a bit shorter. --Dailycare (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tempered brings up a valid point, the "sharp" criticism of Israel is very pronounced while the opposition is given a very small and barely noticeable space in the article. I'm sorry Dailycare but the Israel/apartheid movement is a minority POV. This article shouldn't simply be a collection of what important people think about Israel. The criticisms should be cut down significantly, no need to quite entire passages of a book. Keep things short and concise. There is plenty, if not more sources that provide a comprehensive POV but they are currently not in the article. For now it's best we start with removing the unnecessary and minimizing redundancy. Honestly, I prefer the article focus more on Israel's relationship with the West Bank and if it resembles apartheid South Africa, rather than an almost exclusive focus on non-expert opinions (politicians, activists, foreigners, etc...). I don't want to start working on the article just yet without some understanding that it won't be subject to vicious edit-warring. How about I create a sub-page and start from there? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is plenty, if not more sources that provide a comprehensive POV but they are currently not in the article." Could you offer them please? u n☯mi 13:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare claims that the proportions of the present article, with its overwhelming stress on the applicability of the apartheid analogy, reflects the "rough proportion to their occurence in reliable sources," and that "for most people it's pretty obvious that Israel does practice apartheid ..." This indicates the sort of sources Dailycare prefers to read, and his own POV. Ironically, the extended section in the pro-apartheid portion of the article devoted to Adam and Moodley referred to just above by Wikifan, which uses them as advocates for the apartheid label, actually begins:

"Heribert Adam of Simon Fraser University and Kogila Moodley of the University of British Columbia, in their 2005 book-length study Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, apply lessons learned in South Africa to resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They divide academic and journalistic commentators on the analogy into three groups:[150] (1) "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." (2) "'Israel is Apartheid' advocates include most Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state." (3) A third group which sees both similarities and differences, and which looks to South African history for guidance in bringing resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.[11]"

So it is evident that to other observers than Dailycare, the majority of views on this issue is critical of the use of the apartheid analogy and repudiates it, even according to a source Dailycare wants to stress against Israel. I am afraid that Dailycare is grasping at straws. Contrary to him, there are plenty of defenders of Israel against the apartheid claim, and they cite facts to support themselves, not just giving their disapproval but substantiating it in detail and at length, and all of this is entirely absent from the article. Those views are effectively silenced. They are referred to, often misleadingly as in the cases of Steinberg and Cotler already mentioned, but not explained or justified, entirely unlike the treatment given to pro-apartheid advocates. The tendentious POV of the article is manifest.Tempered (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to present more sources to consider for the article. u n☯mi 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to believe that you are right, Unomi, but somehow it is a bit difficult, seeing that I am being reverted when I attempt just that. See the comments just above. What is more, I observe that many other editors have tried over the years to make significant contributions to redress the blatant anti-Israeli POV of this article, and they too are steadily reverted, that is, silenced. The best they can hope for is a highly truncated reduction of their contribution to a mere helpless expression of opinion, with anything substantive from their sources that actually refutes the anti-Israeli views carefully cut out. Moreover, I do wonder how all those pro-apartheid polemicists got all their contributions into the article, creating the extreme and unbalanced article that we all see before us? This has gone on for a long time. In my case, the alleged justification for cutting out some of the most significant of the material I wanted to add was that the website sources, such as bitterlemons.com, were "unreliable" as sources of opinion. This, apparently, was because those websites were pro-Israel or at least not sufficiently anti-Israel (bitterlemons is an open forum for all viewpoints, and well respected as such, with major international figures contributing articles and opinion pieces to it), because looking over the footnotes to the main article, it becomes clear that very many references to pro-apartheid polemicists are to blogs or web magazines with a strong anti-Israel agenda -- and they were left in. So a double standard is operating here. This makes the slip by Wikifan quite accurate: he refers to me just below as "Tampered": right he is.Tempered (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree Tampered, but I think it's best to focus more on the material and article rather than attacking a specific editor. Editors are entitled to their own opinions and we all have them. There are major problems in the article and this has been exemplified in the half a dozen AFDs and latest mediation. I really think we should get started on rewriting the "use of apartheid analogy." IMO it is a euphamism for criticism. In fact, the whole section is mostly criticism - redundant criticism. Better we follow guidelines and use other controversial israel/palestine articles as a template. There is no precedent on wikipedia that remotely resembles israel and the apartheid analogy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What this looks like is an end-around of the soon-to-be-finalized work accomplished by others at the recent mediation. As Ludwig went to great pains to explain, obviously you as a non-participant are not bound by the findings there. But if this matter again has to go to a binding mediation or even ArbCom, admins are likely to take a more favorable view of a group of editors who tried dispute resolution (them) vs. one who refused (you). These suggestions by you and this WP:SPA seem aimed at gutting the article of criticism rather than improving it in any meaningful way. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, can you please focus on the content of my post rather than attacking me as an editor? The only relevant message in your above quote is an inference that my presence here is predicated on "gutting" the article of criticism rather than improving it. You're right - the article should be gutted, redundant material needs to be deleted and irrelevant, non-expert opinion shouldn't be given disproportionate representation. The section title should be replaced with "criticism" and specific critics do not need to be enumerated in their own special section. There is nothing controversial about my proposal. Feel free to link a single wikipedia article that remotely resembles this one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I created a revised draft of the "use" of apartheid section. I eliminated virtually all of the commentary. Opinions and POVs belong in another section. Including paragraphs of statements from non-notable "experts" or partisan activists is totally undue and I don't know how it remained in the article for so long. Specifics arguments FOR apartheid should be mentioned in a separate, unique section. Right now the article is mostly about People who say Israel is an apartheid. In fact, that should be the title. I also removed individuals who were caught or allegedly caught "referencing" apartheid. People like Ehud barack and others do not believe Israel is an apartheid. Cherry-picking a token comment and saying this represents the individual could be seen as a BLP violation. The section title itself is ambiguous. "Use of apartheid analogy" is a bogus header. Referencing apartheid or saying "Israel might become an apartheid" is not the same as explicitly supporting an apartheid. Drawing parallels is not an analogy. I also removed excessive paragraphs and excerpts from books that merely represent the POV of individuals rather than actual content supporting Israel is an apartheid. The list of people who say Israel is an apartheid is endless. It's best we keep the list to a notable individuals and scholars, not irrelevant talking heads who don't explain why Israel is an apartheid. I also removed criticisms of the apartheid analogy because it doesn't belong in this section. It is totally dishonest to make a huge list about Israel being an apartheid, including entire pages from books saying Israel is an apartheid, categorizing those who say Israel is an apartheid by their occupation and ethnicity, while couching small statements from opponents. Those who do not support apartheid deserve their own section. The rest of the article should explain the arguments for apartheid, not about x group of activists wrote a letter condemning Israeli racism. Really guys, this isn't rocket science. There is a reason why this article has been a start class for years. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think the MoS says that the current list-style is not favoured and should be replaced by elegant, flowing text describing the issue. Yes, I'm being a bit ironic and cognizant of the difficulties that's bound to entail. Again, editors who feel the balance in the article is wrong are welcome to bring in WP:RS backed content to rectify the issue. Naturally, the title of the article is worded in a way that invites more content describing how Israeli policy is apartheid than the opposite, and it's still also my wiki-editorial view that the balance in the article is roughly correct. Writing ultra vires (yes I'm drunk too), the question really isn't complex. Are there Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Are there Jews-only roads? Yes there are, and that's apartheid. This isn't rocket science. Good night, --Dailycare (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Daily, there is not a single article on wikipedia that utilizes the same MoS as editors have designed on their own accord here. The "current-list style" would be okay maybe in a List article, but here it is not only unnecessary but might qualify as original research. My original argument is sound: We cannot enumerate every single person who says Israel is an evil country, nor can we make dedicated sanctions for individuals that editors like (Jimmy Carter, Adams and Mooley) while not others. I'll start on the section later today, but the crux of the issue is really about content. It will be best for the article to cut out the junk and redundancy, remove fringe characters or regulate them to minimal status, and don't quote entire pages of a book. IMO it would be a lot better to list Israel's relationship with the Palestinians in a bullet-styled format, and the follow it with a bullet-styled format response. (I.e, Critics: Arab citizens of Israel are marginalized because they don't have the same rights as Jews: Opponents: While inequalities exist, Arabs have the same rights as Jews, blah blah blah.) Then provide 3rd party characters to support (Jimmy Carter). The main issue is the fact that the criticism section is about 70% of the article, and the responses are left at the bottom of the page. This is totally unacceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare thinks that the bias of the article is right because, he says, Jewish settlements on the West Bank and "Jews-only" roads there (actually roads giving safe passage and access to Israelis and those resident in or visiting Israel, of literally all ethnic and religious backgrounds, Arab Muslim, Druze and Christian citizens, Ethiopian, Arab Yemeni, Indian, Chinese and Indo-European Jewish citizens, and Vietnamese Buddhist citizens, among others, and even Sudanese Muslim and Christian refugee residents who at risk of being shot by Egyptian border guards have sought sanctuary in non-discriminatory Israel from genocidal persecution elsewhere in the Arab world), are all solid evidences of Israeli "apartheid." It is not "rocket science," he says. Alas, Dailycare, what seems so clear and persuasive to you is anything but to others: your POV is not the bottom line for acceptability in this article. Others do differ on these matters: they should be allowed a voice and permitted to explain their views decently and courteously.Tempered (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I'm a bit confused as you're criticising bulleted lists as OR and then inserting them to the article. We'll have to work on them once the protection is lifted. I agree with you that there is no need to enumerate every person who says something about the issue, but I also agree with you in that people who matter, such as archbishops, presidents, governments and cabinet ministers (for example) should be mentioned and their views presented. I don't follow what you mean by "dedicated sanctions" or how one might present Israel's relations with the Palestinianns in a "bullet-styled" format. Encyclopedic text can be much richer than bullet points. Tempered, again, the relative weight given to viewpoints comes from the weight the viewpoints have in WP:RS, not from a gallup poll. You're welcome to add content to this article (once the protection is removed). Content, however, has to be verifiable and relevant. It's incorrect to think that if the charge of apartheid is fleshed out in 2.000 words, then the charge should also be denied using 2.000 words. The opposite in fact applies, since all relevant viewpoints must be presented and in rough proportion to their "market share" in WP:RS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC

Bulleted lists are not OR. Most of the article is about "notable" people cherry-picked by editors that say Israel is/isn't an apartheid. The article's title might as well be moved to "People who debate whether Israel is an apartheid." Only the intro and few body paragraphs actually provide info on Israel/apartheid analogies, but even then it's merely inferences and interpretation of marriage, land and travel laws rather than explicit comparisons between South Africa and Israel. Criticism needs to be cut down significantly, and dedicating entire paragraphs to individuals is suspect. No need to divide criticism by ethnicity, nationality, or individuals (Jimmy Carter for example). Everything below this section is simply awful and confusing. It is the result of unchallenged editing habits and disregard for basic neutrality laws. Arguments should be emphasized, rather than random people attacking/praising Israel. I say most of the commentary should be deleted (at leas temporarily) and replaced with a section comparing and contrasting Israel and South Africa's government. I.e, in South Africa, blacks couldn't do this, in Israel, Arabs can't do that (or whatever). Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The response by Dailycare avoids admitting that again his argument has been refuted, this time by his own favored source! We are not talking about a Gallup Poll, neither you in your original attempt to silence me, nor I in my rebuttal drawing on your own academic source. That source refers solely to academic, political, intellectual and other leading figures dealing with these issues.Tempered (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I agree with you in that the article should be made more textual and about the issues instead of a collection of names. I note that you've recently removed from the article text about the issues and inserted lists of names. I don't agree with you in that sections of the article should be deleted. I suppose one reason the article hasn't yet been edited to a more textual effect is that editing this article tends to be difficult. This article is not only about analogies between Israel and SA, it's also about charges that Israel is violating the convention on apartheid. Tempered, if you mean by argument the issue of whether Israel "is" practicing apartheid, as I wrote above that comment is ultra vires as this page is reserved for discussion on article content. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Important new source

Ran Greenstein, an Israeli-born sociologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, has an important and relevant new article in Monthly Review's online site MRZine, Israel/Palestine and the Apartheid Analogy: Critics, Apologists and Strategic lessons. In addition to being the first academic source I have seen that actually refers to "the aparthheid analogy" in this context, this essay addresses many of the issues raised here, in subsections titled "What is Apartheid?", "What is Israel?", and "Is Israel an Apartheid State?". The essay also includes an extremely useful list of sources. I think that all editors on this page, from whatever perspective (involved or uninvolved, for or against the use of this analogy, pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian) would benefit from reading this essay, and would find some of our ideas challenged, and others reinforced. We would also all be better informed! RolandR (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree this is an interesting piece that deals with e.g. the 1948 events from an angle that probably belongs in this article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent social journalist? The last thing this article needs is more Marxist propaganda. However, if the scholars offer any relevant POVs that aren't already represented in the article, then they can be placed somehow. But it is a fringe magazine and far from reliable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Monthly Review is not a "fringe magazine" but a respected journal that has published Albert Einstein, Jean-Paul Sartre and W. E. B. Du Bois among others. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I mean respected journal this half century. And yeah, it's fringe. Most openly-partisan magazines are. "Critics, apologist and strategic lessons" doesn't exactly scream reliable or scholarly. The marxist POV is already fully represented in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So you mustn't consider Commentary"" to be a respectable source either, then? Dramedy Tonight (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Depends on the article. RolandR's link is basically a fringe, non-notable scholar pushing a POV that is already overly-represented in the article. Buzzwords like "apologist" are never a good indicator for quality research. edit: Oh yeah Roland, being "Israeli-born" is irrelevant to the research. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Ran Greenstein is very far from being a "fringe, non-notable scholar", particularly on this topic. He is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Witwatersrand. He has a BA from Haifa University, and a PhD from the University of Wisconsin. His PhD thesis was on “Settlement, resistance and conflict: Class, nation, state and political discourse in South Africa and Palestine/Israel to 1948”. One of his books is Genealogies of conflict: Class, identity and state in Palestine/Israel and South Africa.[33] As an academic sociologist, with direct experience of bot Israeli and South African soocieties, specialising in questions of ethnicity, identity and political violence, he is exactly the sort of high-class source we should be basing our article on. RolandR (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The qualifications of the author and the detailed and specific arguments on Israel and apartheid make this an ideal reliable source for this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ram Goldstein is a fringe, radical professor and not half as notable as Neve Gordon. His "research" belongs in the very small minority, vocal, but far from mainstream. The quality of the research is what really matters. If editors really want to we could all find our own favorite academic and plug it into the article. The last thing we need is more commentary. I do think the research of this guy should be enumerated specifically, and then balanced with academics or "experts" that provide a less supportive or critical POV. Right now the article is almost entirely made up of criticisms, which wouldn't be bad if the criticisms actually drew analogies between israel and apartheid south africa rather than blanket denunciations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hate to throw a spanner into the works but

... I'm not really all that keen on "Israel and apartheid" as a title either. Can someone explain why this article cannot simply be named "Israeli apartheid debate" - a format that is used for dozens of other articles on contentious topics? Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I woujld like that, if the article was a collection of pros and cons, support and oppose, etc. Instead, more than half the article consists of individuals accusing Israel of being an apartheid - and the evidence is redundant. I would like to see most of the blatant OR and reliance on non-notable figures to be cut down or eliminated entirely, while Israel's specific policies towards the Palestinians needs to be fleshed out, supported by individual and scholarly research. Editors have taken it upon themselves to enumerate every human in history that says Israel is an apartheid, even categorizing them by their ethnicity, identity, job-title, etc. Meanwhile, the opposing side is given little representation at all and is couched at the bottom of the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay, but they are content issues and don't relate to the question of the best name for the article. In my experience though, getting the article title right helps to give the content an appropriate focus, and I don't see why that shouldn't also be the case for this article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As an admin do you not see the connection between the title of an article and its content? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I said I do see a connection - in that a correctly named article helps focus content. You were complaining that the article was too much a list of names using the word "apartheid" in relation to Israel, rather than a discussion of the evidence, and you may well have a point there. My point was that giving the article a more appropriate name, like "Israeli apartheid debate", should help the article become more focussed in just the way you have suggested. Gatoclass (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This attack has been tried and tried again over the years, most notably by Zeq coincidentally enough. You ready "Israel and apartheid" in the title as it is making a conclusion that Israeli apartheid is a proven fact. It doesn't do that. Remember verifiability, not truth; all this or any other Wikipedia article is here for is to reflect what reliable sources say, not to make conclusions or to "prove" something. Tarc (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't go off on a tangent. Gato is proposing a title that simply isn't consistent with the source material. More than half the article consists of various individuals groups stating Israel is not/is an apartheid state akin to South Africa's apartheid. Very little information is actually devoted to enumerating specific south african apartheid policies and comparing them to israel (though many scholars have made explicit comparisons but they are not referenced in the article). I've sarcastically proposed changing the title to "People who think Israel is an apartheid state" but in reality it would still be more accurate than "Israel and apartheid." Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a tangent, it is pointing out that what we are discussing here is "Israel and apartheid"; no conclusions should be made or drawn from the title. That is all. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a tangent - don't dodge the main issue here. I am discussing the fact that the content in the article does not support the proposed title, "Israel and apartheid" or "Israel apartheid." That is all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with that assessment completely. As I have said before, I do not believe someone who has actively sought to delete the article can be a good-faith contributor to it, so I rally do not put much stock in your assessment. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Way to make the issue personal. My reasoning is sound and concrete - all you can do is attack me, and assume bad faith of course. My concern is policy, the fact that I sent this article to AFD years ago does not somehow negate the validity of my statements. Feel free to respond to my original, unchallenged arguments. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion would also be better than either the current title or Israel and apartheid, which may imply an article about Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa. Nonetheless, my current feeling is "anything is better than the current title." john k (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can move the article to "Israel and apartheid" as per the mediation outcome, and then anyone who wishes can start the process again to discuss other name options. I can see an immediate issue with "Israeli apartheid debate" in that it implies a disagreement between opposed advocates, whereas many of the sources can't be described this way (e.g. John Dugard and the ICSPA are not involved in a "debate"). Another considered discussion would be needed to consider other options like this one, and that can happen, but first we need to complete the appropriate process we've followed regarding the options discussed to date. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The present title is a compromise. The original title was "Israeli Apartheid". After years of debate, several arbitrations, a desysop, and some topic bans, we ended up with the present title. I'm inclined to not change it, simply because of the headaches. --John Nagle (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a terrible reason. ;-) Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but an understandable one.

I should add a bit more context to Nagle's remarks, for the benefit of readers who weren't involved in this discussion two years ago. When the article was created (in 2006, if memory serves), it was indeed called "Israeli Apartheid." That title didn't stand for long. After a period of intense discussion (and more than a few afds), the truly horrible title, "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," was chosen in its place. There was general dissatisfaction with this title, but an impasse in dialogue prevented change from taking place. The low point in this sad episode of Wiki-history probably came in 2007, when some editors created a series of dubious "Allegations of [possessive case for country x] Apartheid" articles in an apparent attempt to undermine this article.

In 2008, I initiated the process that led to the present name being accepted. I recognize that "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is an imperfect title, but it was a clear improvement on the previous ordo rerum and was probably the best name that could have attained anything like consensus at the time. I don't regret my decision.

As things stand now, I'm not against changing the title to "Israel and apartheid" or to "Israeli apartheid debate." I suspect there won't be a clear consensus for either move, and I'm not inclined to invest too much energy in the matter. Whatever the flaws of the current title, it basically conveys its subject matter in a clear and straightforward manner; I don't think there's the same urgent need for change as there was the last time around.

I can't rule out the possibility that someone involved this discussion will come up with a title that all (or basically all) participants can accept, but the track record on this front isn't inspiring. It's also possible that a transformative change in the actual Israel-Palestine dispute could help resolve our discussion, but there's no guarantee of that either. And so, most likely, we wait. CJCurrie (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations of Israel apartheid" is a far better title than this monstrosity. I'll ask again: what on earth is "the apartheid analogy"? Why is it being referred to with a definite article, as though it's a distinct and well defined concept? john k (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many reasons why "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is still unsuitable, the most relevant of which is that it violates WP:WEASEL. As I recall, retention of the name was supported primarily by editors who wanted to delete the article. Beyond which, I don't think the think the current name implies what you suggest it does.CJCurrie (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is less weasely? At least I know what "allegations of Israeli apartheid" means. It means the article will discuss allegations that Israel is pursuing policies that are equivalent to South African apartheid. I have no idea what an article called "Israel and the apartheid analogy" means. I guess it means that the article will deal with the relationship between Israel and "the apartheid analogy," but, as I said before, I have no clue what "the apartheid analogy" is. It is a neologism, and wikipedia article titles are supposed to strive to avoid neologism. It is no less weasely than the title you objected to, but it's also much more opaque. Are there any other articles in wikipedia that are titled in the form "X and the y analogy"? It's just terrible form, all around. john k (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We should be striving for the best possible content, and the best possible titles for that content. Complaining that attempts to improve the title cause "too much fuss" leave me cold. John Nagle and CJCurrie, man or women up and add your opinions on whether the proposed title is better than the current one, and your reasons, to the move discussion. That won't take any more energy than commenting here. Fear of rocking the boat panders to POV warriors who throw their toys out of the cot when they don't get their way, and will leave us with the current inaccurate compromise of a title. It may have been the best option in its time, but a better option is available right now. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to support a move to "Israel and Apartheid," but (i) I don't think there's going to be consensus for the move, and (ii) I don't think the current name is inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for registering your opinion. Could you briefly state here how you think sources that suggest Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid can be described as making an "analogy"? That's the part I can't get my head around, and the reason I say that analogy title is inaccurate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid debate is a much better option than the existing title of Israel and the apartheid analogy, because it does not try to shoehorn suggestions that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid (which is clearly not an analogy) into an article supposedly about an analogy. It would take a careful weighing up to determine whether it's better or worse than Israel and apartheid. By using the term "Israeli apartheid" the debate title avoids the ambiguity with Israeli relations to Apartheid-era South Africa, so it wouldn't need a disambiguation line like "Israel and apartheid" does, which is an advantage. However, adding "debate" may over-qualify the title, requiring us as editors to determine whether the discourse is a debate (unless we find some reliable sources that describe the discourse that way). In one sense it's a debate, in that there is sufficient disagreement among reliable sources that we cannot outright state in the article that "Israeli apartheid" exists. On the other hand, some of the sources probably would not describe themselves as engaging in a debate. It's a shame this title wasn't suggested in the informal mediation, where it would have received plenty of reasoned discussion. If the inaccuracy of the existing title isn't resolved in the move proposal, then "Israeli apartheid debate" should certainly be another option discussed in the formal mediation that will presumably follow. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I can support Israeli apartheid debate as it is inclusive and not overtly suggestive. u n☯mi 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Debate? If that were the title we would have to remove the long, bloated sections on marriage and land laws and turn into a "reaction" article with talking heads screaming at each other. Is that what you guys want? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez.. This encyclopedia writing stuff is hard. What is the basic issue for you Wikifan? Is the the suggestiveness of the various proffered titles or the content? All of those content related issues you just mentioned are exactly parts of the arguments that have been raised in the debate, if you will. u n☯mi 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If you look at articles like Nuclear weapons debate, Social Security debate (United States), or Software patent debate they cover the subject of the discourse, the various positions, who holds the positions, the reasons for those positions, counterpoints, etc. That's exactly what this article covers. So the "debate" title wouldn't particularly affect the existing scope of content of this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

False comparison. There is no mainstream "Israeli apartheid debate." Editors here are simply inventing their own titles that might justify the content in the article. Debate satisfies many because it means the obscene level of commentary gets to stay in the article since it is about "debate." Before any move, the article needs a series over-haul. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The discourse and "commentary" described in this article is sourced from a number of reliable sources, so there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the content of this article. It takes a form similar to the various debate articles, so the comparison to those debate articles is clearly an accurate one. "Mainstream" is of no relevance to whether something is a debate or not. Even an obscure political debate is still a debate, and this isn't particularly obscure, rather it's the topic of books, mainstream news articles, journal articles, legal opinions, government declarations, etc. Unfortunately, your endless supply of criticisms of the article hasn't gotten any more accurate with time. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are irrelevant if the characters are not notable, non-experts, or otherwise meant to stack commentary against/for Israeli apartheid. The article is about Israeli apartheid analogy, not people who think Israel is an apartheid. There is no historic israeli apartheid "debate." Editors have written and designed this article without regard to policy. Trying to mask the blatant violations with a new title to keep the content is dubious at best and sinister at worst. We need to improve the article and make it more balanced. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources that state Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid are reliable, and include international legal experts working on behalf of the UN and a South African government investigation. I think you know this, it's been explained to you a lot, so I gather you're just stirring again here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you're just repeating yourself. The article is almost 70% commentary, token "investigations" by South African officials does not represent the government, and "international legal experts" working for the UN include Jimmy Carter and some guy from a unranked university? Again, you are pushing the idea that Israeli is committing the crime of apartheid because reliable sources say so. Well guess what Ryan, just as many reliable sources say the exact opposite. Changing the article to "Israel and apartheid debate" or something stupid would mean we would gut the intro and replace it with commentary from talking heads. But then the article wouldn't even be encyclopedic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that there are reliable sources supporting both perspectives. That's the nature of a debate. Therefore, your argument actually supports this "debate" title. If there were only reliable sources pushing one side, so the other side was a WP:FRINGE perspective, then this article would present the perspective from reliable sources as fact and the fringe alternative would be given short coverage, much as say Evolution is treated. But what we have here is a number of reliable sources in disagreement over both the facts and how they should be interpreted. Sources from both perspectives often make reference to each other's arguments, either to agree or disagree with them, which is the hallmark of a debate. So the article, as currently written, already describes a debate over political and humanitarian issues. My only concern over the "debate" title is that it's not how some of the sources would refer to the discourse. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the published sources treat it as a debate. To legal scholars, the topic is a crime against humanity. The terms of the relevant conventions do not admit any mitigating circumstances, i.e. states of emergency, security considerations, & etc. are irrelevant. As a result, there is a paucity of published "debate" in the legal community. There simply is no need to engage in the art of forensic debate and argue, with equal skill and passion, both sides of the question of collective punishment. harlan (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, now you're trying to justify the retainment of material that was blatantly written by editors driven by a POV inconsistent with policy. How else explains the horrible and obscene amount of space devoted to irrelevant criticism from non-notable individuals? Giving entire paragraphs to mainstream actors like Jimmy Carter, which makes no sense whatsoever. The whole commentary should be cut in half, or removed all together and rewritten from scratch. I prefer the article focus more on actual comparisons between Israel and South Africa, rather than partisans expressing their hatred/gushing support for Israel. I don't know why any editor here would be opposed to actually turning the article into an Israeli/South Africa comparison. What are you afraid of? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

merge with "Racism in Israel"

I say that this article should be merged into a "racism in Israel" article, because much of the stuff on that page is the same as here, and after all, this page's material is part of the debate, which it is. There is no full page for a "Palestinians and the Nazi Analogy" despite the huge amount of anti-Semitic stuff in their media and society and the history of Al-Husseini, there is no "Putin and the Communist analogy," or for that matter, a "Bush and the Fascist Analogy" despite that those three comparisons have been made just as widely in media. Also, most of the stuff in this page is people saying the same thing, or opinion and it is overly long. The comparison is only accepted as valid on one side, and in political circles elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs)

This was just suggested a few weeks ago. Racism is a much broader topic, while the apartheid issue is specific to charges that Jews and Palestinians are treated differently by the state. Don't get hung up on the "analogy" part of the article title, as that will likely be going away once the requested move discussion is completed. But if for some reason it remains, making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments will not get you very far. Recall that a few years ago, a bunch of partisan warriors tried to water this article down by creating a dozen "Country X and the apartheid analogy". IIRC, all the articles were deleted, redirected, or renamed, and the offending editors sanctioned heavily. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Racism in israel is about racism in Israel, this article is about the parallels with South-Africa under Apartheid and what lessons can be learned from that. South-Africa managed to transform to a democratic country so it serves as a model for changes in Israel. Personally I think looking at UK and IRA could serve as an inspiration as well, but that don't seem to be notable enough. // Liftarn (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This article degrades what apartheid really was

Here in South Africa, apartheid was a disgusting racist crime against humanity. To use claim that Israel is practicing apartheid is to disregard what apartheid really was and water it down. The Palestinians are not treated anywhere near to how black people were discriminated by white people for decades. This article is an example why some people don't take Wikipedia seriously. It merely seems like an anti-Israel piece better put in some blog. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Now go and tell Desmond Tutu that he is "degrading what apartheid really was". RolandR (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing. No one cares if the article "degrades" what apartheid really was. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

With all those walls and barriers, evictions, and occupation, settler violence, Palestinians are treated even worth. All proofs are in the article. The article is not-biased, since the opposite views (Israel is not apartheid) are also stated.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I know he says this, it's embarrassing to us and misleading. Wikifan, if you witnessed apartheid segregation first hand, you would not talk like that. I don't think this is soapboxing, it's a concern I have with this article and the encyclopedia. --Luckymelon (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Luckymelon. Thats why I argue this page's points should merged with the "racism in Israel" article, because much of the stuff on that page is the same as here, and after all, this page's material is part of the debate, which it is. There is no full page for a "Palestinians and the Nazi Analogy" despite the huge amount of anti-Semitic stuff in their media and society and the history of Al-Husseini, there is no "Putin and the Communist analogy," or for that matter, a "Bush and the Fascist Analogy" despite that those three comparisons have been made just as widely in media. Also, most of the stuff in this page is people saying the same thing, or opinion and it is overly long. The comparison is only accepted as valid on one side, and in political circles elsewhereTallicfan20 (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources have compared "Palestinians" to Nazis? There simply aren't any. Your attempted analogy is unpersuasive to say the least. Gatoclass (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't going anywhere so better we try and improve it rather than forcing a deletionist agenda. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Luckymelon, it states at the top of this page that This is not a forum for general discussion of Israel and the apartheid analogy. You are entitled to your own personal opinion about whether or not the analogy is valid, but article content is determined not by the personal opinions of editors but by what reliable sources have to say on the topic, and whether you agree with them or not, it's clear there are many reliable sources who have made the analogy or discussed its relevance to the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. Gatoclass (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Luckymelon, you have identified the main problem with the current title of the article. I doubt that you or the others can supply a published source which says the crime of apartheid is only applicable to South Africa.

The United Nations decided that apartheid was a crime against humanity, and that the "crime of apartheid" is a general denomination crime[34] that does not have a specific geographical limitation to South Africa. The original convention used the term "Southern Africa", and included practices similar to those of the other racist regimes in the region. For example, the ICERD contained the first prohibition of apartheid in international law. The CERD panel of experts observed that the Portuguese government had adopted policies and practices that were not in compliance with the convention, including a publicly announced national objective of keeping Angola and Mozambique under white domination.[35] The United Nations also refused to recognize the establishment of the racist regime in Rhodesia, e.g. [36]

During the MEDCAB, it was established that the current title violates NPOV policy. Much of the content is derived from sources that are discussing the crime of apartheid, including several authors who explain that they are NOT making comparisons to South Africa. e.g. [37] Here are some of the relevant facts that were discussed:

Published sources included in the article say that the various international conventions constitute the only applicable legal standards used in determining if state practices constitute the crime of apartheid, not casual comparisons to South Africa. e.g. [38] [39]
The "crime of apartheid" is a legal formulation, not an analogy to South Africa. Several sources used in this article point out that it is generally agreed that the criminal offense includes constituent acts that were not practiced by the government of South Africa. See for example page 17 of the HSRC study [40]
UN Special Rapporteurs, with legal mandates, have conducted fact finding missions that reported on serious violations of international law, including the crime of apartheid, and reliable public reports that Israel is pursuing a policy of Bantustanization that creates isolated enclaves.
The government of Israel has been charged with the crime of apartheid in national and international court cases.
Constituent acts of the crime of apartheid are listed in Article 2 of the apartheid convention. Article 3 of the convention provides that international criminal responsibility applies irrespective of the motive involved. It is irrelevant if the motives involved are analogous to those of South Africa.

If the current title isn't changed, then all of that material is going to end up in a non-intersection article about Israel and the crime of apartheid. harlan (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, has the state of Israel been placed on trial for practicing apartheid? Is there a binding-UN resolution that claims Israel of being an apartheid and provides methods of enforcing a change? UN-appointed "special" administrators are not authoritative sources. "Charges" of apartheid are akin to allegations or criticism. No serious government has claimed Israel is an apartheid, in fact th EU has made it clear any claims Israel is racist is antisemitic under the working definition of antisemitism. Nod50 and Balid are not reliable sources nor do they represent international consensus - reliance on fringe references seem to be quite common in your edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, it could be argued with equal force that South Africa was never placed on trial for the crime of apartheid. The credentials and qualifications of the authors of those articles at Badil and Nod50 are the only thing that matters, not the organization that hosts the content. If you want to try your hand at discrediting those published sources at the fringe theory noticeboard, be my guest. There were about a dozen states that submitted written statements in the Wall case which said the construction of the wall and the resulting situation either amounted to Bantustanization or corresponded to constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The Supreme Court of Israel said that the ICJ based its findings of fact on the reports of two UN Rapporteurs who had specifically described the barrier as an apartheid fence; outlined public reports of a deliberate policy of Bantustanization; and described the use of curfews to imprison Palestinians in their own homes as an obscenity and collective punishment.

Palestine said that Israel's violations of the applicable international conventions gives rise to criminal responsibility and devoted an entire chapter in its written statement to the crime of apartheid. The ICJ found that the wall and the associated regime were illegal and that Israel could not cite its own security to preclude the wrongfulness of its actions. The Court also noted that in their written and oral statements many participants in the proceedings before the Court contended Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law flowing from the planning, construction and use of the wall (paragraphs 144-45). The Arab League's Independent Fact Finding Commission incorporated the Wall case in a report on the the situation in Palestine that it referred to the ICC Prosecutor. harlan (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tl;dr, The SCI did not rule the security barrier was inspired by racism. No international body or mainstream consensus has concluded Israel is an apartheid. Token UN observers that are appointed by the UNGA are not authoritative, and non-binding IJC resolutions are meaningless. South Africa's apartheid was recognized by the international community, the US congress passed sanctions crippling the economy. With Israel, the US and European Union have yet to subscribe to the apartheid analogy, and have even passed laws condemning accusations of racism as antisemitism (whether that's true or not isn't part of the dispute). And yeah, balid and nodo50 (spanish-based) are not reliable sources at all. The rest of your comment is OR. You are inventing your own methodology, I must say your mentioning of the Arab League "fact finding commission" is laughable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Now about that racism point you had which is maybe the truth but maybe a lie but it doesn't matter to you. Thanks for bringing it up however. Yes, Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries in Europe such as Germany. Apartheid denial is apparently legal where you live. Which is in itself a form of ghastly racism (imo) since you deligitimize the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people. As well as fight to disappear them as human beings. That is no better then the laws of the Juntas.

You mention balid and nodo50 and I'm out of the loop. I'm new but one thing about that doesn't escape me. That you for some reason have to declare they are "Spanish based". But I won't look for deeper insight into that. I will just skip to your the Arab comment. It really says something about your character when you say the "Arab League 'fact finding commission' is laughable". Such a comment is extremely hateful since it suggests that Arabs aren't to be trusted. That they are deceivers and barbarians. Perhaps you share this concept about the Palestinian people and that's why you support Israeli Apartheid. Perhaps not. I just want for these folks to be able to create their article and your insensitivity, intentional or not, is something you should try to control. General Choomin (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A- reorganization suggested, B- edit request

- A: So I read the whole article (masochism?) and the whole thing is too long.... and very messy! should not exist at any rate even more so when in such a sore state

it can be condensed in 1 sentence: too many people enjoy throwing around foolishly the word apartheid and that earns them their 2 -or more- lines of celebrity in this article whose editors collect infinitely all of them

I suggest an entirely different article for after reading that one nobody is wiser thanks to it, since are presented only series of declarations -no fact-. (1) are needed maps showing the different areas and checkpoints, to understand how the lives of the Palestinians (work, health, education) are affected (2) precise examples of these (3) actually no one is going to read it thoroughly, alternately if you want to keep it in that format of declarations only it must be first of all shortened then subdivided and reorganized so that the bored reader will get both sides of every argument at once and won't have to look for the other opinion in another section remember most of them are not academics. Really their main problem is digesting the length of it.

And no improvement in the conditions in the West Bank will come out of that article, for the reader have no clear understanding of the issues and will simply reinforce his/her prior opinion since s/he will remember only these arguments supporting it -you know, too long-, and nowhere is stated which concrete changes are necessary (I mean not even the obvious cessation of hostilities which would radically change the picture).

All in all what's the aim of the article? Not the enlightment of the ordinary reader indeed, not the good of the Palestinians for sure, I guess it's only meant to hurt, like calling the Israelis Nazis... I wonder which other state has to deal with an hostile foreign population and doesn't want separation... (still Israel treats them in its hospitals, often graciously, the best way possible although sometimes some of them try to blow them up).

- B: please here below some of the editing requested, thanks:

- ...Muslim women, according to Sayyed, are in fact are more liberated in Israel than in any Muslim country,...: redundancy

- ...are not Israeli citizens. However, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem.[58] They carry Palestinian...: to be rewriten. this/these sentence(s) are incomplete or badly divided or?

- ...but are subject to movement restrictions of the Israeli government. should be by

- A 2005 study by Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B'Tselem, on school budget allocations required all school principals in Israel to divulge their school budgets (excluding teachers' salaries). The findings revealed that for each Jewish student, schools had an average of 4,935 NIS per year, while for each Palestinian Arab student, schools had only 862 NIS per year.[99] : which Palestinian Arab student? the P.A. is responsible for them not Israel Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This study is about discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The PA is not responsible for them. Read the reference. RolandR (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

- On November 24, 2009, the South African government responded to Israeli plans to expand the settlement of Gilo in East Jerusalem by condemning it harshly, stating that "We condemn the fact that Israeli settlement expansion in East Jerusalem is coupled with Israel's campaign to evict and displace the original Palestinian residents from the City." refnec The South African government drew a parallel between Israel's actions in Jerusalem and forced removals of persons effected as part of the South African apartheid regime.[188] : that source doesn't address that...... Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference explicitly states: "We call upon the Israeli government to cease their activities that are reminiscent of apartheid forced removals" RolandR (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(NB: Gilo is plain south west of Jerusalem, civilians only mixed large -45,000 inhabitants- neighbourhood , directly in front of Beit Jala -a Christian village- from which the Tanzim shot the Israelis, the windows of their flats had to be fitted with bulletproof glass and a protective wall was erected which is currently being taken down, the IDF responded to the shootings with mortars to eliminate the shooters damaging the houses of the unfortunate inhabitants whose houses had been highjacked by the Moslems. They chose only the Christian owned houses..... discriminating?)

IMO this article should be dumped without any hesitation: is not worth a penny, will never be. Sorry for all the work done so far to such a waste, Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Hope&Act3. Are you referring to the internationally recognized illegal settlement named Gilo? The very same one that has the famous Jewish only road known as road 60 or "Gilo road"? Is it that one? Where they then the "protective wall" was taken down so that the Apartheid wall could be built further into the West Bank? Are you talking about the Jewish Israeli apartheid settlement of Gilo? Oh wow that's just such a coincidence.

Are you also talking about Beit Jala as well? The town that Israel ran tanks through (not mortars even if that is a bit excessive in itself) and then constructed the Apartheid wall and road over the tank tracks? Thus cutting the town in half? That Beit Jala? The very town that is isolated from the rest of the West Bank so that Jewish Israelis can cruise down the Apartheid road and get to Jerusalem or any other nearby settlement in 15 minutes? What another freakish coincidence.

Also South Africans knowing anything about Apartheid and labeling what Israel is doing as such in this and other situations. How uncanny! It's as if they actually know what Apartheid it! Oh wait they do. What another amazing coincidence! So have hope Hope. I feel that, without hesitation, if you dumped this article and got a "Moslems" friend. Perhaps a good article would come during that time you weren't giving advice on creating an article that you don't want any part of. As an added bonus you just got my 2 cents! Things are looking up for you Hope so I hope for the best for you Hope. General Choomin (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The "study" is far from comprehensive and does not represent the mainstream. Article cannot be subverted by more biased, emotionally-charged marxist hyperbole. The article has more than enough commentary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorta new here but wikifan I have a question. Why do you keep on slandering people and entities that don't fit into your fragile worldview? I'm sure you're an "intelligent" person, but the way you slander others is very unbecoming. Also, you seem to not know anything at all about Marxism. Why are you using it as a pejorative? Do you feel that controlling the means of production is emotionally charged biased hyperbole? If you do you should go to edit the Marxism page. Since that's not the topic of this debate. The debate is about a wiki name change for the factual societal phenomenon of Israeli Apartheid. A fact so obvious that even Israelis refer to the condition of the Palestinians as such.

You have no basis nor substance in your disagreements except hostility. It is extremely sad to see it over such a small yet factual aspect of Israel. When in Israel there exists apartheid roads, apartheid neighborhoods and settlements, apartheid walls, and apartheid brutality. That is simply fact. Your obstructionism serves no purpose other then to censor readers of wikipedia from the truth. Creating your own apartheid of reality for all users.

Please stop. You already have shown that you do not wish to compromise when you requested the article deletion. Haven't you done enough already? General Choomin (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin should probably fix section levels

The current locked version of the article has the sections hosed up:

8 Support for Israeli apartheid analogy

9 Critics of the Israeli apartheid analogy

9.1 In relation to the Israeli disengagement plan

9.2 ....

I think the 9.x sections are supposed to be under section 8 "Support for Israeli apartheid analogy". It looks like the "Critics of the Israeli apartheid analogy" section was inserted without properly re-arranging the following subsections. As it stands, it is going to confuse a lot of readers. --Noleander (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in general is confusing. I don't know how editors got away with the navigation scheme. The criticism sections are horribly formatted and bloated, with entire paragraphs dedicated to specific groups of people - totally non-neutral and unbalanced. I highlighted these issues in several posts above but they were ignored. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's "confusing" because that's the goal right? As you said "Start class is being generous, but consensus will end with C. I think it's a no-brainer for editors not involved in the article itself."[41] Why did you enter into this dialog in attempts to shut it down is my question? Also, why do you project so much? I mean specific groups of people? Totally non-neutral and unbalanced? schemes?!? Give it a rest please. General Choomin (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't hijack the discussion Choom. Feel free to vent your frustrations at electronic intifada. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it relevant to the discussion if you where causing your own confusion. PS no need for racist terms such as "Hi-Jack" to be associated with Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians/ect. It is very insulting to me to accuse me of being a terrorist as well as paint a broad brush over all the activists of EI. They are things that don't belong in civil discourse. So please refrain from such ugly language. Next time try to have more consideration and sensitivity towards others. General Choomin (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Hi-jack. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ran Greenstein

Should be added to the supporters.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/greenstein220810.html Perhaps uniquely in modern history, the Israeli regime was founded historically -- and continues to be essentially based -- on the forcible exclusion of a large part of its potential citizens.

Hcobb (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes

1) All criticism of the term be put in the criticism section. I have noticed that there are quite a few paragraphs that are out of place such as those criticizing Desmond Tutu's comments even before they are mentioned. All such criticism and controversy should be placed at the bottom which is standard for most wiki articles.

2) Removal of the Galil school picture. It is a nice heartwarming story which doesn't happen to be mentioned once in the article at all. It is just stuck there seemly with no rhyme nor reason except to support the notion of . It is neither an argument nor a proof against Apartheid. At the very best it represents what Malcom-X expressed as "tokenism". I also propose to delete "See also: Education in Israel" since the only room given to Israeli oppression of the Palestinians in education is three paragraphs. In which the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza are not mentioned. I also recommend expansion as well as debeautification of the article with the various citations of badly translated "laws". Citing Israeli "law" is worthless if those laws aren't enforced. A good example of this is when the ISC deliberated that the IDF could not use Palestinians as human shields. Needless to say they continue to use Palestinians as human shields.

3) Remove "See also: Israeli disengagement plan" from the disengagement plan section since it is irrelevant to the core of the article and is already linked in the article making it redundant. I would also suggest expanding it to include how the disengagement program was referred to as formaldehyde in an attempt stop the peace process and to shift focus over to Gaza as the Israelis built their Apartheid wall. It should also be note that the "disengagement" has constricted Gaza further and further. 17% of the strip's land mass (which is 35% of the total agricultural land) is now a free fire kill zone for any Palestinian that enters it. Only the IDF may enter those zones in heavily armored vehicles and bulldozers. Which they use to

4) Put the list of names of those that advocate either side on the very bottom or just don't include it at all. Since you are quoting them then their names should be connected to their biography pages anyways. If that is not a good choice I would suggest separate branching off pages that list those names. This is primarly to streamline the article. Something I suggest we do since there is much deeper and complex article then most realize. One can write a whole article on how water use in the occupied territories is merely a subsystem of Israeli Apartheid.

5) Create, recycle, or Merge specfic sections such as academics, activists, NGO's + UN, and policy makers.

In regards to NGOs/UN institutions such as HRW, Amesnty International, NSFC, UNRWA, ext should be used to describe the issues surrounding Israeli Apartheid/Apartheid. These issues are regularly documented by them. Try to keep each current issue concise and link as a reference to any report (within a reasonable amount of time to say it's current) as a reference. Do not copy or write down whole sections or it will bloat the issue. The section on the issues regarding Palestinian Apartheid should either be up front or behind the time line.

In regards to people that create policy as well as activists, I would view them as less a priority unless they have intimate knowledge with apartheid in the forms of witness, oppressor, or oppressed. A time line of important events involving them would be appropriate to describe what they saw or did to best explain the history leading up to now. This is to give context to the core of the articles which are the Issues that constitute Israeli Apartheid.

In regards to academics I would suggest to provide a synopsis of their work and (perhaps expandable option?) a spin off or "see also" page that fleshes their positions out. This section should be in all likelihood after the history (time line) and the issues that constitute Israeli Apartheid. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use their knowledge on Issues or History that helps create greater insight. We will probably be referencing them a bit for the historical portion and issues portion. If they are cited in the time line I propose we keep it to a minimum unless necessary as well as to create a "See also" page that can expand on such academics with a synopsis of their work and a mini biography. (yes I know some of these might seem like bad suggestions but at current form we have an article that jumps back and forth through history and it looks like a huge word salad with a lot of redundant information or irrelevant back history that should be on another page. The article needs to be easily accessible and readable at the very least in my opinion.)

6) Move the wikiquote collection to the top of the page instead of the dead bottom.

7) Some sources should not be used and their part in the article should be taken out. These include Dead sources, sources that aren't in English, irrelevant sources (such as Melanie Philips who's only purpose in this article is to preempt Tutu it seems with a passage in a book she wrote about "new antisemitism" which is a far more controversial and less established concept then Israeli Apartheid and ethnic cleansing.), Sources that are academic frauds (Alan Dershowitz is a good example), sources that are outdated (such as freedomhouse [42] which now ranks Israel as "Partly free" and doesn't address the occupied territories that the settlers and less fortunate Palestinians live in (imo reporters without boarders is a much better at judging then freedom house)), and known propaganda outlets such as Standwithus/CAMERA/MEMRI. A good indicator that works 90% for me is if a NGO has something to do with the middle east and has "watch" at the end of its name but isn't named "Human Rights Watch".

8) That's all i could think of. My apologies in advance for the spelling errors, missing words, ext. Please do share how you feel with my various proposals. General Choomin (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested changes are predicated on your own personal opinion. Hopefully you don't need me to enumerate the parts of your proposal that clearly revolve around editorial POV. Dismissing legitimate academics like Alan Dershowitz as "frauds" is laughable. I've provided an explicit problems with the article highlighted in sections above that approach the article from a policy perspective. The only reason we are here is because editors decided to write the article without regard to policy, turning it into a "People who say is an apartheid" rather than including sharp comparisons between apartheid SA and Israel which are widely available. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My suggested changed are more in line with your suggest changes. Such as creating a easier to read page. The other parts are simply standards for most wiki articles in all of wikipedia. Alan Dershowitz can be a legitamate source on many topics. On Israel he is not. In regards to Israel he has been outed as a plagerist as well as a fraud and no appeal to authority can ever take that label away from him. What is laughable is that you choose to ignore this [43] in which he is exposed to be a fraud. As for what the article is, it is most likely due to wikilawyering done by POV warriors who wish to shut down any and all forms of citation of perceived negative policies of the state of Israel and it's institutions. General Choomin (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GeneralChoomin is in factual error in asserting that Freedom House currently assesses Israel as "Partly Free." The 2009 report, which for the very first time rated Israel as "Partly Free," drew solely on one researcher because of highly unusual editorial constraints; this researcher, Adam Werner, was himself new to Freedom House reports, and many of his conclusions were factually incorrect. The 2010 report, accepting the justice of criticisms of the 2009 report, restores Israel's rating as fully "Free": http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2010&country=7845 I recommend it as salutary and corrective reading for all those editors on this site who insist that Israel is not a democracy but an "apartheid" state. (This comment solely on the Freedom House issue does not mean that I endorse all or even any of the other assertions of GeneralChoomin, whose extreme POV is obvious just from this item 7. My eye just lit on this assertion; I have not bothered to read the whole screed.)Tempered (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much about freedom house but I was just pointing to what was currently available in the labrinthy that is the site known as freedom house. In which the I searched it using their own search engine to find out "Israel's status" in regards to "freedom". I rather take the word of other organizations then freedomhouse though. Since their criteria on freedom contains ideas totally irrelevant to the concept of freedom such as economic policy. Freedom house also contains unsourced and information that borderlines on Israeli propaganda. Since they make the claim of a "free press" when Israeli press is subject to military censors. It also does not include the Israeli administrated occupied territories. The accusation of "extreme POV" is nothing but slander. Please stop. General Choomin (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear, dear, the General is happy to dish out insulting comments, as can be seen above, but is hurt, downright hurt, if even the statement that he has an extreme POV is made, plain as that is. Freedom House is merely a vehicle bordering on Israeli propaganda, I see. It does not even know what freedom and democracy is, according to Mr. Choomin. That is, this is so when it states Israel is "Free," but not on the only occasion it stated Israel is "Partly Free." And this does not show extreme POV by G Choomin? The same evaluation that Israel is a genuine liberal parliamentary democracy is made in every edition by the Encyclopaedia Britannica in its article on Israel, so it too must be a Zionist tool and not a reliable source either, not to be cited I suppose. The same evaluation is made of Israel by the State Department annual report on countries around the world, and in the annual review of human rights and democracy in all states made by the CIA, and indeed this is also the official political evaluation of Israel, that it is a fully Western and liberal parliamentary democracy, that is made by all the Western democracies themselves. All Zionist propaganda sources? Please. Extreme views like this ought not to govern Wikipedia articles or to control what appears in them.Tempered (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Peace process to fail and lead to apartheid

Carlo Strenger has argued that a failure of Israel to agree to the 1967 borders will lead its becoming an apartheid state.^[1] Hcobb (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This admits that Israel is not presently such a state, so Strenger is just posing a possible outcome and giving a loaded evaluation of it to boot. But it provides a good example of the almost meaningless use of the "apartheid analogy" by ideologues of all sorts, in which "apartheid" is reduced merely to being a kind of curse-word terminology and used just as loosely, for each and every possible situation in fact aside from Palestinian domination. If there is a two-state solution of any kind, at or outside the 67 borders and without allowing massive ingress of Palestinians into Israel itself, this would merely create a bantustan apartheid situation, as apologists for Arafat's rejection of the Camp David peace offers of 2000 argue (also see Benny Morris, One State, Two States [2010]). If there is no two-state solution but as at present just Israel and an autonomously ruled Palestinian Authority sustained by interim agreements but without full statehood, this too is an apartheid situation according to the persons cited to this effect in the present article.

Even a "One-State Solution" could in the same way be damned as an apartheid situation. This is precisely because "apartheid" has been emptied of any actual specificity or application to the apartheid of South Africa and has become merely a vague portmanteau propaganda slander. Let's take the "one-state solution," then. In such a case of a Greater Palestine, whoever would be left of the Jews (after the inevitable preliminary slaughters) would constitute a vulnerable exploited minority cowering in whatever little territories remained to them (their settlements in the West Bank of course would already have been ethnically cleansed), so, whether in a "binational" Palestine or not, the Jews would then be bantustanized and this would manifestly constitute a Palestinian apartheid situation, such as already exists in Lebanon and in the Palestinian Authority itself with regard to their respective "dhimmi" Christian populations, and in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt and elsewhere in Arab countries with regard not just to the dhimmi non-Muslims but also to the Palestinians themselves (like South Africa blacks Palestinians are denied citizenship or equal rights in all Arab states). Or, if the millions of obviously more educated and technologically advanced, innovative and prosperous Jews survived they would dominate the economic and business structures of the proposed bi-national state, and this too would easily be seen as exploitation of the Palestinians and the cause of violent reprisals, because it too could readily be demonized as "apartheid." Handy term.Tempered (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

when the UN said that Israel have an apartheid analogy?

it has been written, that the UN said it, but it seems to be not reasonable,due to the fact that Israel threats the retried the UN if it'll compare to the regime in South Africa. I want to see evidence. I want to see also, the list of the Human rights organization, and see if they are pro-Palestinians, and whether they condemned the terror attacks of the Palestinian people. 84.228.43.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

broken headings?

Section 9 is "Critics of the Israeli apartheid analogy" and underneath are people who've used the term (such as the RSA government and Jimmy Carter). Looks more like users of the analogy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.247.140 (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted contribution to "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy"

I notice that the significant contribution I made to the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" has been severely truncated and weakened by some editor. I would like to submit this to discussion on the "Talk" page of the article, to clarify why the entire contribution enhances this section (indeed, that may be the only reason it was reverted - if this is so, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy on POV: the issue should not be whether the contribution agrees with the POV of all editors, merely that it be properly verified and fairly and dispassionately represents the views of the group being reported on). I believe that it is obvious that the points made in this proposed addition to the text are of major significance, and all the references are legitimate ones and verify the statements made in the text. The contribution in question is as follows (I replace the footnote character with a bracket, so as to include the footnote references in this text; they can be checked by editors to verify their relevance):

Many other critics of the apartheid analogy have considered "delegitimization" to be the key intention behind the "apartheid" accusations. [E.g., see Robbie Sabel, "The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False charge of Apartheid," at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2009. Global Law Forum, at: http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=110; David Matas, Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism (Toronto: The Dunburn Group, 2005), pp. 53-55; Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace (New York: John Wiley, 2009), pp. 20-25, 28-29, 36, 44-48; etc.] Leon Hadar has presented a documentation of the development of the explicit decision on the part of the Fatah leadership and other leading Palestinian spokespeople to use the "apartheid" analogy to delegitimize Israel and create what Hadar calls a "Greater Palestine."[Leon Hadar, "Two Peoples, Two States," January 19, 2010 issue of The American Conservative, at: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jan/19/00012/ and "The One-State Non-Solution," May 6, 2010 issue of The Huffington Post, at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-t-hadar/the-one-state-non-solutio_b_566494.html] He points out that in an article published in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly early in 2001, after the failure of the Camp David peace talks, Edward Said, a leading Palestinian advocate, said the "two-state" solution was dead, and "The Only Alternative" - the title of the article - was a single state.[Edward Said, "The Only Alternative," reproduced March 03, 2001 on MediaMonitors.net - http://www.mediamonitors.net/edward9.html] While the Israel-Arab relationship was not the same as apartheid, Said admitted, the analogies should be stressed in a "mass campaign" to delegitimize the Jewish state, removing from it its moral justification and working towards its dissolution into a larger Palestinian state embracing the entire region west of the Jordan River. This should be done in the name of democracy and equality, one person, one vote, in the same way the South African political system had already been successfully delegitimized. "Separation can't work in so tiny a land, any more than Apartheid did."

Hadar points out that these comments soon bore fruit at the highest levels of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Diane Buttu, the then legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party in the Palestinian Authority under Arafat, stated in an interview in October 2002, during the Second Intifada, that her office had "basically concluded that if the colonization continues at this pace, we are going to have to start questioning whether a two-state solution is even plausible." So her office had advised Palestinian leadership that they should reassess "whether it really should be pushing for a two-state solution or whether we should start pushing for equal citizenship and an anti-apartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa."[Interview with Diana Buttu conducted by BitterLemons.org, entitled "Security for freedom," http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl281002ed39.html]

Omar Barghouti, Palestinian founder and coordinator of the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign, which constantly refers to Israeli "apartheid" as a chief rationale, remarked, "I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution," at a BDS symposium recorded on video and accessible on YouTube.[44] In an article published in 2010 on The Guardian website, Barghouti connects the BDS movement he leads with the "Right of Return" demand of the P.A. leadership (according to which all Palestinians have a right to "return" and set up residence inside the State of Israel, overthrowing its Jewish majority); it has been pointed out that just as the apartheid BDS polemic delegitimizes the Jewish state, fulfilling these further demands would necessarily spell the end of Israel as a distinct state.[See Chris Dyszyski, "True Colours of the BDS Movement," 12 August 2010, at: http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-true-colours-of-the-bds-movement, citing Barghouti's article "Beseiging Israel's Seige" on The Guardian website, 12 August 2010.]

That is the full contribution. Every paragraph is an important, substantial and independent contribution to the text. I believe it is manifest that the severely truncated version left in the main article drastically weakens the points made, and obscures some of the essential points made in the original contribution. It also eliminates most of the documentation of sources in the footnotes that support those points, which just by itself weakens the argument. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the truncated version removes all evidence emanating from Palestinian spokespeople that support the defense of Israel and criticism of the apartheid analogy described in the contribution. However, this evidence is crucial to the understanding of the criticism of the apartheid analogy. Without this, we have at present merely the opinions of critics of the apartheid analogy, contrasting with the elaborate and lengthly presentation of detailed specific assertions of fact by advocates of the apartheid analogy earlier in the article. This constitutes an unbalanced structure and POV to the entire article. Mere opinions on the one side with thin documentation, elaborate and lengthly "factual" assertions on the other which draw upon all sorts of statements from apartheid advocates.Tempered (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when one looks over the other paragraphs in this section dealing with criticisms of the apartheid analogy, one notices exactly the same truncation of views and sources, reducing all those critics cited to non-factual assertions of mere opinion. E.g., the specialist in international law and NGO affairs, Gerald Steinberg is quoted, but not about the actuality of equal rights under the law in Israel, with any details of this, but merely as disagreeing with the apartheid analogy. This adds little or nothing to the discussion. Irwin Cotler, who has written extensively on Israeli law (he is a world-recognized specialist in international law), is also quoted as giving a dissenting opinion regarding the applicability of the apartheid analogy, but all his substantive observations on Israeli law are elided. This goes right through the section. There is actually no defense given to the assertion that Israel is a democracy and gives equal rights to all its citizens. No details at all, even though critics of the apartheid analogy make this a chief issue in their criticisms. This section needs an extensive revision to make it less POV. And let us clarify: POV is shown far more by refusing advocates of one side any substantive presentation of their views and the reasons for them, than it is in presenting those views fairly and dispassionately, in terms that those advocates would accept as fair. WP:NPOV dictates that each side be presented fairly and proportionately. So far, this is not being done, it seems.Tempered (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back into the history of the reversion of these paragraphs, I see that the reverter, Dailycare, has objected that various cited sources are not in the category of "reliable sources." This supposedly justifies removal of the comments of Chris Dyszyski, quoted above, and of Diane Buttu, legal advisor to the PLO, which appeared on the bitterlemons website. However, I believe that there is some confusion about the use of such sources. As sources for opinion, e.g., Chris Dyszyski, his citation is justified. He obviously had the opinion stated, and made some significant points, which he then went on to buttress with citations to other published opinion elsewhere. As expression of his view of those opinion pieces, this is a fair reference. Similarly, Ms. Buttu actually said the things stated, and indeed bitterlemons is an internationally known source of current opinion and its material is not reputed at all to be invented or false. No one has ever shown that it is, so far as I am aware. As a source of opinion, it should be allowed. Similarly with Omar Barghouti: he wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian blog, and that justifies its citation as evidence of his opinion. The citation of a video of Omar Barghouti making specific statements is justified by the video itself on YouTube. There Omar Barghouti is shown actually making those statements. It is hard to get more reliable than that. I notice further that, in regard to an just earlier contribution to this section of the article, the paragraph commencing with a reference to the views of Gideon Shimoni, Dailycare reverted even an article by a former israeli Ambassador and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry allegedly because it appeared in the bitterlemons forum. The article is not unreliable: is it seriously being suggested that someone else wrote it? It is even cited from there by other Israeli sources. The authors of the articles there are the people claimed: no one has ever cast doubt on that. The reference should be restored there, it is a significant testimony from a leading Israeli spokesperson: it runs: "The centrality of the strict "separation" of populations, to produce the opposite effect than that sought in apartheid South Africa, is also argued by Alon Liel, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry.[Alon Liel, "An Israeli View: Apartheid = Separation?!" in a symposium on bitterlemons.org entitled "Democracy and the Conflict": see the August 12, 2002 edition at http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl120802ed30.html]Tempered (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. Please see the policy WP:RS and other policies relating to identifying reliable sources. This is not a question of whether the information in the source is right or wrong, but whether the source is a reliable source in the sense of WP:RS or not. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, the bitterlemons site does not fit into the Wikipedia category of "unreliable" sources. It is a highly reputable website of opinion, to which leading world figures on various sides of debated issues contribute. The reference to Alon Liel's article is to a high-level symposium on "Democracy and the Conflict" on bitterlemons. Contributors included, besides former Ambassador Leil, who was former Director General of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and thus in any view a very high and authoritative source from within the Israeli government, Yossi Alpher, former Director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, and the Palestinians Ghassan Khatib, minister of labor in the Palestinian Authority cabinet, and Mudar Kassis, a professor at Bir Zeit University. The specific occasion of the contributions cited here from Diana Buttu relate to another high-level symposium discussion of "The Quartet's Roadmap," relating to current developments in the Palestinian-Israel conflict, to which leading advocates of both sides again contributed assessments. Ghassan Khatib contributed the article "A Palestinian View: Roadblocks." Yossi Alpher contributed "An Israeli View: Futile - but important." This was followed by "An Interview with Diana Buttu," who was after all the legal advisor to the Palestinian Authority and thus a very significant source, entitled "A Palestinian View: Security for Freedom." And it concluded with a contribution from Yossi Beilin, the well-known left-leaning participant in the Oslo Peace Accords, "An Israeli View: A road map to the house next door." All of these figures are major authorities on their topic, and there can be no legitimate objection to citing their contributions or doubting their authorship, much less reproaching bitterlemons, a site for serious, balanced and responsible current affairs comment, for being a mere insignificant blog. However, I will accept that reference to Chris Dyszyski's comments are to a mere personal blog, and thus are not authoritative. However, the article by Omar Barghouti is from a reliable source, and it can be cited as it stands, even if it is the blog portion of The Guardian newspaper. So I will amend that portion of the contribution to reflect this, and add specific quotes from his article. As for the reference to Edward Said's article, this cannot be challenged as an unreliable source. It therefore should not have been elided with that excuse. I further note that footnotes 34, 35, 36, 98, 116, 117, 148, 180, 191, 201 and others of the main article appear to fall under the category of personal or other blogs or "unreliable sources" according to Wikipedia guidelines as interpreted by Dailycare (including evidently the blog portion of The Guardian!). In addition, many of the cited comments by various figures alleging some metaphorical application of apartheid to Israel refers to comments made in passing by political or other persons trying to polemicize against this or that policy and speaking quite loosely. These too should be reverted as mere casual and unserious personal opinions not even meant literally. Most of these people would not state any real similarity between Israel and apartheid South Africa. E.g., this relates to Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar, among many others. I would suggest that Dailycare first amend all these references and the text in the main article that they try to substantiate, before worrying about this present issue.Tempered (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what an "unreliable sources" category is. I do know what WP:RS is, and Bitterlemons isn't it - it appears to be a vehicle for opinion pieces, lacking peer review and editorial oversight. Now I suppose that an opinion piece on Bitterlemons might be an indicator of what the opinion of the author is, but in terms of deciding whether to include it in wikipedia (per e.g. WP:UNDUE) a piece on bitterlemons can't be an indicator of weight in WP:RS. Now if the case is, as you say, that the balance in the article is wrong then it should be easy to find real WP:RS sources to correct the balance. That you're citing something from bitterlemons indicates quite the opposite, namely that you're scraping the barrel. Concerning the Said citation, I didn't say the source was unreliable. I said the citation was not supported by the source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that Dailycare appears quite ignorant of what Wikipedia policy is on reliable sources, and also of what sort of source bitterlemons.org is. The Wikipedia guidelines at WP:IRS (Identifying Reliable Sources) and WP:RS do not support his statements. Perhaps he can specify just what proofs he has that bitterlemons.org is "unreliable"? Turning to specifics, bitterlemons.org has been widely cited by all sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and justifiably so, since it is run by a team of leading Israeli and Palestinian academics/politicians, and scrupulously aims to air the views of top authorities and spokespeople in both areas. There is strict editorial review, limiting contributions to only the highest level of responsible commentary. The "About Us" link at the "Home" webpage informs us that "Bitterlemons.org is a website that presents Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints on prominent issues of concern. It focuses on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and peace process. It is produced, edited and partially written by Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian, and Yossi Alpher, an Israeli. Its goal is to contribute to mutual understanding through the open exchange of ideas. Bitterlemons.org aspires to impact the way Palestinians, Israelis and others worldwide think about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Bitterlemons.org is directed toward the interested public and policymakers in the region and elsewhere. Each weekly edition of bitterlemons.org is posted on our website. Each edition addresses a specific issue of controversy. Articles by Alpher and Khatib are accompanied by additional articles by, or interviews with, a prominent Israeli and a prominent Palestinian--selected by the appropriate editor. No intelligent and articulate views are considered taboo. Bitterlemons.org maintains complete organizational and institutional symmetry between its Palestinian and Israeli components. It draws financial support from the European Union and additional philanthropic sources based outside the region. Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons.org family of internet publications. He is vice-president for community outreach at Birzeit University and a former Palestinian Authority minister of planning and labor. He holds a PhD in Middle East politics from the University of Durham. He is also the founder of the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, which specializes in research, opinion polling and media affairs, and was a member of the Palestinian delegation for the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference in 1991 and the subsequent bilateral negotiations in Washington from 1991-93. Yossi Alpher is a writer and consultant on regional strategic issues, and director of the Political Security Domain (PSD), an independent NGO. He has served as director and acting head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University; as director of the American Jewish Committee's Israel/Middle East Office in Jerusalem; and as a senior official in the Mossad. While at the Jaffee Center, he coordinated and coedited the JCSS research project on options for a Palestinian settlement, and produced "The Alpher Plan" for an Israeli-Palestinian final settlement. Since 1992, he has coordinated several Track II dialogues between Israelis and Arabs. In July 2000 he served as special adviser to the prime minister of Israel, concentrating on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In late 2001 he published (in Hebrew) And the Wolf Shall Dwell with the Wolf: the Settlers and the Palestinians." It seems hard to get more reliable and responsible spokespeople and editors of current opinion in the Israeli and Palestinian arenas than this. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Dailycare's contentions. I also note with interest that YouTube is cited in various articles in Wikipedia as reliable sources, depending entirely on the content and specific use of the video. See Silktorc. 21.08.10 in section "Source for Prahlad Jani" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Here, in my contribution, the use is to verify that Omar Barghouti said the things claimed to have been said, and about that there can be no doubt at all. So the citation fits and is reliable. I would suggest, that if Dailycare still disagrees with these assessments, we refer the question to appropriate adjudication and advice on the Reliability Noticeboard already cited above. As for the citation of the Said article, the account given was certainly supported by the article, and direct quotations from that article validate that. Said stated, for example, that efforts toward the Two-State Solution were failures, and the avenue of violence has also been futile; up to now "we [Palestinians] did not focus enough on ending the military occupation as a moral imperative or on providing a form for [Jewish] security and self-determinism that did not abrogate ours. This, and not the preposterous hope that a volatile American president would give us a state, ought to have been the basis of a mass campaign everywhere. Two people in one land. Or, equality for all. Or, one person one vote. Or, a common humanity asserted in a binational state." "We never concentrated as a people on cultural struggle in the West (which the ANC early on had realized was the key to undermining Apartheid)." So a "mass campaign" is called for, a "cultural struggle in the West," aiming to dissolve Israel into a One-State Solution, using the Apartheid analogy. "Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are locked in Sartre's vision of hell, that of "other people." There is escape. Separation can't work in so tiny a land, any more than Apartheid did. ... Is the current Palestinian leadership listening? Can it suggest anything better than this, given its abysmal record in a "peace process" that has led to the present horrors?" So it is correct and fair to say that Said rejected the peace process and the Two-State Solution, and called for a Palestinian-led campaign to delegitimize Israel and its moral foundations on the explicit basis of the apartheid analogy, despite admitting that "The conflict between Zionism and the Palestinian people is admittedly more complex than the battle against Apartheid." Tempered (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, although a shorter one would have done as well. I'll post the bitterlemons issue on the noticeboard in a bit. Concerning the Said citation: your text had "Said admitted" ... that the Israeli-Arab relationship isn't the same as SA apartheid. However, looking at the text that's not the gist of his view at all, to the contrary he stresses the similarities and proposes that similar methods be employed in resistance. He says that Israeli policies are "a virtual Apartheid". I'd say that Said should be in the section of the article where the analogy to apartheid is made, not criticised. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the direct quotes were necessary to demonstrate objectively the emptiness of your counterclaims. Bitterlemons.org is reliable, has scrupulous editorial review, represents authoritative academic and political leadership opinion on both sides of these issues and is not a blog. As for Said, the point of citing him here under the presentation of pro-Israel material is that his statements, like those of Buttu, provide essential documentation of the delegitimization motivation and background history of the pro-Palestinian use of the apartheid claim, and have been cited as such by pro-Israel sources. Even the term "admitted" reflects the pro-Israel perspective and thus reports fairly their outlook, which is of course the context here. However, the term can be changed to "Said said," without much difference. Attempting to forbid use of these sources here as evidence for pro-Israel interpretations of the apartheid analogy certainly amount to partisan censorship and removal of what could be called incriminating evidence unfavorable to the apartheid polemicists, and thus transgresses Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV.Tempered (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm not sure I agree with you in that the Said and Buttu sources provide any documentation on "delegitimization motivation". Said says that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is "more complex" than SA apartheid, that Israeli policies amount to "a virtual apartheid" and he also says that "Apartheid was never as vicious and as inhumane as Zionism: ethnic cleansing, daily humiliations, collective punishment on a vast scale, land appropriation, etc., etc." So he's not saying anything about "delegitimization", he says that Zionism is similar to but more complex, and worse, than South African apartheid. Buttu on the other hand says that if the settlements become too large/widespread, they'll foreclose the two-state solution (Ariel Sharon is on record saying this is the reason the settlements are being built, was he too "delegitimizing" Israel?) and the Palestinians will have to pursue an anti-apartheid struggle to obtain the one-state solution. So as you see, they're both in fact sincerely making the apartheid analogy and neither is discussing "delegitimization". I only disagreed with you on the bitterlemons source. I'm planning to use the Said source in the article to introduce material reflecting what he actually wrote, and if we decide to include Buttu I intend to use her stuff, too. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare is not the sole custodian of this article, it is not here to support his/her POV alone, and here as in all previous comments he/she is in factual as well as POV error. Said quite obviously is advising on methods to delegitimize the Jewish state of Israel and advances the "apartheid" claim explicitly on behalf of replacing Israel with a single Palestine state, one with a non-Jewish majority, "binational" (as in the hellish situation that is the Christian existence in Lebanon) or not. That is explicit in his article. Buttu is similarly explicit in using the "apartheid" claim to replace the present Jewish state of Israel with something else more agreeable to the Palestinians, namely a single majority Palestinian state. But in a way all this talk about what their comments "really" mean is beside the point: the only relevant point is that this delegitimization motivation of instigators of the present anti-Zionist "Apartheid" propaganda campaign is the interpretation that has been placed on their comments by pro-Israel spokespersons (the Hadar citation demonstrates this, bearing out Benny Morris's more general observations on the Apartheid claim), who must be allowed to give their interpretation and speak their views unimpeded by hostile editors with an anti-Israel POV. This section is devoted precisely to the presentation of the pro-Israel, pro-Zionist view of the matter. This must be allowed in a genuinely neutral and objective encyclopedia article, and not edited and cut so as to agree with anti-Israel POV editors. In this section, it is not the "real" Palestinian spokespeople's views that are at issue (although as indicated above the Hadar reading of their comments is justifiable), and certainly not Dailycare's, it is the pro-Israel spokespeople's views and interpretations that must be fully and fairly reported.Tempered (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, so if I understand correctly you're sort of in agreement with the current text? You can't use these two sources for discussing "delegitimization" because those two sources don't discuss or even mention "delegitimization". You can use the Hadar source for that (I haven't checked though), and the current text does that. --Dailycare (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, you seem to have gotten it wrong again. No, I am not in agreement with the current text - I duly remind you that is what all this is about. See my post just before yours above (which itself repeats the points made over the past three weeks). It sufficiently clarifies the matter and the reason for using the cited articles. Hadar refers to Said and Buttu, and quotes them. Therefore they are germane to the topic and can be used as Hadar uses them. And they do indeed indicate strategies for delegitimizing the Jewish state, as Hadar argues. They are proposing something else to replace it as being more legitimate and more "moral." The Apartheid tactic is specifically mentioned in this connection, and even the need for a "mass campaign" in Western countries to force the dissolution of the Jewish state. This makes it all very relevant to the topic. I do understand your desperate attempts to avoid all this, but that is what Hadar argues and that is the use he makes of Said and Buttu's own statements, so they must be allowed. Quotations from their cited articles are entirely appropriate in this connection. A properly phrased and justified pro-Israel argument must be allowed in this section to preserve NPOV in the article in general, just as anti-Israel arguments have already had their very full and detailed exposure elsewhere in the article. I am willing to make one modification to the proposed paragraph relating to Buttu, namely to rephrase the first two sentences as follows: "Hadar states that shortly afterward, a similar view was argued at the highest levels of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party in the Palestinian Authority by Diana Buttu, then legal advisor to that body. Ms. Buttu, in an interview published in October 2002, during the Second Intifada, stated that her office had "basically concluded that if the colonization continues at this pace, we are going to have to start questioning whether a two-state solution is even plausible." [The third sentence, which ends the paragraph, remains as before.)Tempered (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we're making some progress. It's correct to say what Hadar says, instead of claiming that he's right (he appears to be wrong in fact). For reference, I'll copy here the current text:

Some critics of the apartheid analogy have considered "delegitimization" to be the key intention behind the apartheid accusations against Israel.[252] Journalist Leon Hadar has sought to document the development of a decision on the part of the Fatah leadership and other leading Palestinian spokespeople to use the apartheid analogy to delegitimize Israel and create the One-state solution [253]

this contains the substance of what you're discussing. We could then add something to the effect that according to Hadar, Buttu and Said have said something like this. Another question is, when we get into undue weight to Hadar (who is a journalist). You're proposing to give him more weight than e.g. Desmond Tutu or Clare Short are getting here. Frankly my opinion is that citing the articles written by these people undermines Hadar's argument so if you want a "pro-Israel" viewpoint I wouldn't cite them. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Buttu is a lawyer who actually advised her clients "based upon the facts on the ground" that they should consider an anti-apartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa. She did not mention Edward Said or "the analogy". harlan (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, a major problem with the POV of the entire article is the very disproportionate treatment given to the two sides: the advocates of the "apartheid analogy" are given very full and detailed exposure in this article, with extended quotations and supportive inclusion of all sorts of alleged facts (according to the source, or added by the editors), given as if they were incontrovertibly true, and even several paragraphs amounting to book reviews of anti-Israel sources, but the critics have their views truncated, their sources reduced or eliminated, and very little if any detail or factual substantiation is allowed to be given in justification of their views. All that is left, usually, is a single sentence reducing their argument to a mere banality. So I do not want a single sentence dismissal of the original three paragraphs, but a fair treatment of them that matches the attention and exposure that has been given to the other side. This means, by the way, that their statements have to be allowed expression without modifications that suggest that they are false according to the POV of some editor. Actually, Hadar is not wrong, but in fact the issue of factual truth is not relevant anyway: Wikipedia is not a blog, and we are obliged to report fairly what each side thinks - only that ensures Wikipedia neutrality. Harlan seems to have missed this point, for example. Buttu's "facts on the ground" are merely those appearing factual to her. They might not persuade those not sharing her general outlook, or even be accepted as facts. On this issue of how to report the views of those in arguments, see WP:NPOV, where editors are even invited to present the positions of those they disagree with in terms that would be acceptable to their opponents, for the purposes of NPOV in the article in general.

So, anyway, even if only on the grounds of proportionality itself, but also because of its importance to the main article, I believe the entire first paragraph of my proposed contribution should be retained without modification, along with its citations. The second paragraph also should be retained, but with modification as I have already said of its first two sentences. The third paragraph may need more work, since I accept that it is a reasonable question whether the opinion by Chris Dyszyski is acceptable in itself for the purposes of Wikipedia citation in this context. And a clear opinion on the acceptability of the YouTube reference also needs clarification, perhaps by the same RS Noticeboard still discussing the acceptability of references to articles in bitterlemons.org. As for Buttu and Said actually being evidence for the anti-Israel argument, in the opinion of Dailycare, I suggest not in this context: they present evidence for the intentional Palestinian use of the apartheid analogy to attack the moral and legal legitimacy of the State of Israel, and to mount a "mass campaign" against it. Thus Hadar has every right to cite their statements in confirmation of his views, and we can and must therefore use them the same way when reporting Hadar's argument.

One further point, and it is really not all that minor: the attempt to add "Journalist" to Hadar's name is rather obviously done to downgrade and discount his authority and learning, so as to suggest his opinion is possibly ill-informed and not worth exposure, and indeed Dailycare uses that excuse just above to abbreviate reference to his views generally. I would suggest to Dailycare that we could as easily characterize him as "Dr." since he has a Ph.D. in international and public affairs, or "Professor" since he has taught at the university level on Middle Eastern affairs, or "widely respected author of two books on American foreign policy and Middle Eastern affairs," or "global affairs analyst," as can be verified by checking the article on him in Wikipedia itself. I would suggest that no demeaning adjectival descriptor is appropriate. "Journalist" should certainly not be added to his name.Tempered (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't miss a thing. Buttu is a lawyer who specifically cited "facts on the ground" and did not mention any analogy or Edward Said. She advised her clients that they should consider an anti-apartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa. That campaign was based upon an ICJ case which had advised that continued occupation and South African policies were a violation of the right of self-determination and South Africa's obligations under the UN Charter. Buttu's PLO Negotiation Unit subsequently participated in the Wall case and filed a written complaint that pursued that legal strategy. The complaint contained a chapter about violations of the right of self-determination which included a list of specific constituent acts of the crime of apartheid. The ICJ found both the Wall and the associated Israeli regime were illegal because, among other things, they violated the Palestinian's right of self-determination and Israel's obligations under the UN Charter.

Allowing a political scientist to reframe Buttu's legal view of the facts into "the analogy" or a simple publicity stunt gives Hadar's opinion WP:UNDUE weight. If you are going to mention Buttus interview, then her actual published viewpoint has to be fairly represented in the typical Wikipedia "he said" "she said" fashion. harlan (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw a source refer to Hadar simply as "journalist", however now that you referred me to his article here, we see he works for the right-wing Cato institute. Anyway, I agree with Harlan in that Hadar shouldn't be given undue weight. Further, I now checked the texts that you're citing from Hadar. Neither discussed, or even mentioned, "delegitimization". Here is the problem Hadar sees in the apartheid analogy in the first source: "why the attempt to apply the analogy of Apartheid South Africa is so misplaced. After all, unlike the Jews of Israel, the members of the Afrikaner tribe lacked the powerful base of support that American Jews will continue to provide Israel. And in contrast to the Afrikaners, Israeli Jews will continue to benefit from the sense of guilt among Western elites that the Holocaust has produced.". Here is what he writes about the issue in the second source: "Indeed, this is where the South Africa analogy breaks down, a point that should be appreciated by any expert in the study of power politics. The Afrikaners had lost the war over the control of South Africa and accepted their defeat. In the case of the conflict between Israelis and the Palestinians neither side is going to either win the war or raise the white flag anytime soon. ". So the current text appears to fail WP:V. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare's missing apology for misidentifying Hadar is accepted. Of course the point that Hadar has conservative views is irrelevant to his citation here, as Dailycare will be aware; all that is needed is that he is a respected scholar and academic, is the author of books on the Middle East situation, and can be accepted as a reputable source for the purposes of this article. That Chomsky is far-leftist, for example, and his political views are strongly rejected by the mainstream throughout the Western world, has not prevented his work being cited in the article against Israel, like that of many other similar ideologues cited in the article; the same access cannot therefore be denied to more mainstream liberal conservatives. My remarks regarding Harlan's comments being being more appropriate for a blog and largely beside the point still stand. His comments on the ICJ (though easily refuted) are a red herring, quite irrelevant. His view of the "facts" are irrelevant; we are obliged to air Hadar's views dispassionately in the article regardless of our own POV. Furthermore, the claim that Buttu or for that matter Hadar himself has to use the word "delegitimization" before she or he can be cited to this effect is merely silly. Hadar at least has no illusions on this score, and that precisely is the chief argument he makes and the point of his contribution, so it must stand. As he states about one-third the way through his article about the "bi-national" one-state solution, "Since most demographers expect that Jews in historic Palestine/Israel will fall to 50 percent by the end of the decade and to less than 40 percent by 2020, those who propose the granting of Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the occupied territories assume that a majority of the citizens of the new Israel would choose to change the exclusive Jewish character of the state." His whole contribution turns on this, and is about the use of the apartheid argument to undermine the moral and legal justification for the separate existence of a Jewish state, one in which Jews are able to govern and defend themselves and determine their own destiny.

My previously given justification for giving Hadar's comments due weight proportionate to the sort of lengthly and heavy weighting already granted anti-Israel critics of any and every sort in the article has not been refuted.

Finally, the characterization of Hadar's argument given above by Dailycare is selective and misleading. Quoting the actual article more fully shows this. I have already presented evidence for this with my last quote. Hadar goes on to make clear that the motive to replace the distinct existence of the Jewish state of Israel, and overthrow Zionism, lies behind the present apartheid campaign. He states that the failure of the Camp David talks in 2000, which in his view ended the Oslo peace process, encouraged more radical rejectionist anti-Zionist groups, and:

"So some Palestinian intellectuals started to change the narrative, to apply another historical analogy: South Africa. In an article published in Egypt’s Al Ahram after the collapse of the Oslo peace process, Edward Said recalled his first visit to South Africa in May 1991, “[A] dark, wet, wintry period, when Apartheid still ruled,” although the African National Congress (ANC) and Nelson Mandela had been freed. “Ten years later I returned, this time to summer, in a democratic country in which Apartheid has been defeated, the ANC is in power, and a vigorous, contentious civil society is engaged in trying to complete the task of bringing equality and social justice to this still divided and economically troubled country,” Said wrote. A long-time opponent of Oslo, he urged the Palestinians to “counteract Zionist exclusivity” by proposing “a solution to the conflict that, in Mandela’s phrase, would assert our common humanity as Jews and Arabs.” Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are locked in Sartre’s vision of hell, that of “other people.” But there is escape. The solution, according to Said, was “Two people in one land. Or, equality for all. Or, one person one vote. Or, a common humanity asserted in a bi-national state.” Following the publication of the article, several Palestinian intellectuals called on their compatriots to adopt the one-state solution as a policy.

“One cannot unscramble an egg,” Diana Buttu, a legal adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said in an October 2002 interview, referring to the way the Israeli and the Palestinian populations are intermingled. The Palestinian leaders, she said, should give up their quest for an independent state and push instead for equal citizenship in Israel and “an antiapartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa.”

But, says Hadar in the cited article, this is predicated on the illusion that the Jews of Israel and the Palestinians of the Middle East will accept giving up their respective nationalisms and live together happily ever after. This is not going to happen:

"There is certainly no chance that the present Israeli generation, or its successor, will accept this solution, which conflicts absolutely with the ethos of Israel as it exists today. Nor are there any signs that Arab-Palestinians are ready for such an experiment, especially if one takes into consideration that the only example of bi-nationalism in the Arab world, Lebanon, proved to be a total and bloody disaster.

"In fact, a bi-national state would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, a bi-national state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track."

This is a significant point that I did not include in my original summary of Hadar's argument, but which should be included: he asserts that it is precisely a bi-national state that would really produce the ethnic exploitation and "occupation" that apartheid polemicists allegedly deplore, one moreover that would be very unstable, violent, and intrinsically unsustainable. He then goes on to add that, in terms of realistic politics, Israel and Jews generally would in fact strongly resist any collapse of the Jewish state, and its inherent moral justifications and political support amongst non-Jews too would be quite different from the situation with the Whites of South Africa. That is just a pragmatic political observation, given to counter the view of Buttu and other apartheid polemicists that realism demands a one-state solution. Hadar does not agree with that at all. Dailycare only quotes the pragmatic observations and omits all of Hadar's remarks about the contrary nationalisms, the violent history of the Arab Middle East in regard to its present dhimmis, or the ideological issue of apartheid per se, giving an inadequate account of Hadar's argument.Tempered (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you insist on using the term "delegitimizsation", then we'll have to spell out what it means in this context ("proposing (...) equality for all"). I'm at this point unsure how you intend to propose to fit all of what you're discussing into a space that's less than what Shulamit Aloni or Clare Short (her text is here) get in the article. I realize you're a very new editor and I advise that you familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE and WP:V. --Dailycare (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The three paragraphs in question deal each with a specific and separate topic, and are quite sufficient and brief in themselves; they cover the chief points already. ("Delegitimatisation" is specified as the issue in the first of the three paragraphs, the rest of which substantiate this. No further elaborate definition is necessary. It is not a new word in the English language. If the apartheid analogy partisans named in the paragraphs claim that the present state of Israel is as such an immoral, criminal or racist one, which, they say, should be replaced by some other entirely different kind of state and ideology, then obviously there is a delegitimization involved. To quote an earlier post, this is not rocket science.) The paragraphs are concise and do not give undue weight to anything, in fact are shorter than paragraphs generally in the anti-Israel section, and certainly do not turn the pro-Israel section into the disproportionate size of the entire anti-israel contributions in this article, which grossly overwhelm the whole. As for reliable sources and verifiability, it turns out that Dailycare is the tyro who does not understand Wikipedia policy, not me: the bitterlemons.org website has been accepted at the RS:Notification Board as a reliable source for named authors and specific articles written there, and when one visitor brought up the verifiability issue, this was rejected as a problem by the editors giving expert advice. The editors at bitterlemons.org are well-known leading academics and recognized authorities; if it is assumed that they have put their entire reputations and careers at risk by ghost-writing the articles by named leading politicians and academics in Israel or the Palestinian Authority, then no other website on the Middle East can be considered a "reliable source." And isn't it obvious that those leading persons would make a fuss about important articles written in their name on crucial topics in their own work which are not from them? It would be splashed all over the media. That would be the end of bitterlemons.org, and also of the editors' own reputations. This "verifiability" challenge, too, is an invented problem. But Dailycare is free to write to the editors of bitterlemons.org (email addresses are provided on the website) and inquire there of their veracity himself. Meanwhile, I suggest we take the advice of the RS:Notification Board, drop the subject, and get on to real issues. On this topic, real issues, it is very noticeable that Dailycare has thrown up one criticism of the paragraphs after another on very diverse grounds, which one after another have been patiently shown to be invalid but this does not deter him from new objections -- one might almost think that there is actually only one real objection, simply to the fair provision of space to any pro-Israel argument at all, and the specific named objections are not sincere concerns, merely excuses. But that cannot be the case, can it? After all, that is blatantly one-sided POV, and it is "non-negotiable" that Wikipedia articles must show NPOV (cf. WP:NPOV).Tempered (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What was discussed in the RS board was that while bitterlemons isn't WP:RS, the pieces there are indications of the opinions of their authors. Which, you'll notice, is what I wrote in my comment timestamped 14:46, above. Now if Buttu is considered notable enough in her own right, then she can be quoted and the quote attributed to her. However not in connection with any "delegitimization" but in connection to what she actually said. You write that "then obviously there is a delegitimization involved", but I'm afraid this won't fly. What your point appears to be is that people have accused Israel of apartheid, which you see as "delegitimizing" Israel. I believe that you genuinely do see it that way. However if people have criticized Israel of apartheid, then that's what we write in the article, not what we think of the criticism. If you want to discuss "delegitimization" in this article, you need a source that ties together the charges of apartheid with a charge of "delegitimization", such as this one. --Dailycare (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Dailycare misrepresents things. The RS board did not assert that bitterlemons.org was not a reliable source, but on the contrary, that it was. It can be relied upon as a proper source for citation of articles posted there. Dailycare started this entire revert process by reverting citations of articles posted there, on the spurious grounds of bitterlemons.org being "unreliable." Anyone can check that by reading the first entries at this Talk topic, above, or checking the excuse given for the original reverts in the "History" of reverts for the main article. This objection has now been shown to be incorrect: bitterlemons.org is an RS and articles from bitterlemons.org can be cited. So Dailycare was wrong. Interested editors can see this for themselves at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bitterlemons.org_issue_unresolved. As for the delegitimization issue, in terms of Wikipedia and the paragraphs in question it is not a question of what I think, but of what the cited pro-Israel authorities state, and their statements are indeed borne out in this case by Said and Buttu's own comments. (Said's claim that "apartheid" in the Israel-Palestinian situation is even worse than in South Africa only confirms that his view is that Israel as a Zionist and Jewish state is illegitimate even more than the White regime in South Africa was.) Quite a few pro-Israel commentators say that the motive for the apartheid analogy is to remove the moral and legal justification for Israel as a Jewish state, and for Zionism, in favor of a Greater Palestine. The citations (in the first two paragraphs of my proposed contribution to the article) bear that out. They are sufficient to make the point. Hadar specificly uses Said's and Buttu's statements as supporting evidence, and as such these statements have to be cited. As I said above, the delegitimizing logic is obvious enough to any reader. However, since this is dragging out I might as well use the limited time I have constructively by adding more such citations, and there are plenty. So thank you Dailycare for your citation: it is appropriate and will be added to others I have in mind for inclusion.Tempered (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course interested readers can look at what went on in the noticeboard, including the original thread. If you want to establish the Buttu reference as solid, you'll have to establish that her work has "been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:V). That may even be so, but it makes no difference to the point, which I've repeatedly explained to you, namely that she doesn't discuss any delegitimization. South Africa wasn't "delegitimized" by the antiapartheid struggle there, at most you could say that the apartheid regime was delegitimized (to say so in the relevant article, you'd need sources). Now you write that "Quite a few pro-Israel commentators say that the motive for the apartheid analogy is to remove the moral and legal justification for Israel as a Jewish state, and for Zionism, in favor of a Greater Palestine.". Now if you have sources for that, and replace "quite a few" with "some", then that looks like something ready for addition to the article. --Dailycare (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare may be the only observer who thinks that the entire government, political system and underlying ideology behind the White regime of South Africa was not being intentionally delegitimized by the anti-apartheid campaign. Naturally the land itself, called "South Africa" in atlases, was not being delegitimized, just the political structure of the state on it (although in the case of Israel, it really is the geographical existence of the state as such, really with any specific boundaries, that is being questioned, since a "One-State Solution" would require the elimination of a Jewish state of Israel as such and redrawing new boundaries too). To such a level of pettifoggery, pedantry and seeming idiocy he is driven by his desperate rationalizations. No further response is necessary. As for sources, the proposed contribution already cites sources that assert that delegitimization, explicitly named as such, is behind the campaign against Israel -- see the citations in the first paragraph of the proposed contribution, given at the start of this thread and whole discussion. However, I will make one concession: why not rephrase the sentence in the first paragraph to read: "While the Israel-Arab relationship was not the same as apartheid, Said admitted, the analogies should be stressed in a "mass campaign" to remove from it its moral justification and work towards its dissolution into a larger Palestinian state embracing the entire region west of the Jordan River." The sense remains clear enough, and "delegitimization" is no longer used explicitly for his statement. As for Buttu's statement, it is not said in the proposed paragraph that she actually used the word "delegitimization" so Dailycare has no grounds for complaint. The issue, anyway, is not what Ms. Buttu "really means," despite what Dailycare seems to think, but what Hadar as cited understands her to mean, based on her actual statements. The formulation used in my proposed contribution, as revised above at 08:09 3 September, makes it clear that it is Hadar's view that the statements of Buttu are relevant here: "Hadar states that shortly afterward, a similar view was argued at the highest levels of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party in the Palestinian Authority by Diana Buttu, then legal advisor to that body. Ms. Buttu, in an interview published in October 2002, during the Second Intifada, stated that her office had 'basically concluded that if the colonization continues at this pace, we are going to have to start questioning whether a two-state solution is even plausible.' [The third sentence, which ends the paragraph, remains as before.)"

Although I anticipate I will be unable to continue daily posts for almost a week, due to other commitments, I will try to rephrase the entire contribution when I return to clarify issues raised by Dailycare, rewording the sentences and adding to the citations, but retaining the sense of the whole and certainly also citing articles and authors who appeared on bitterlemons.org, since it has been cleared as a RS for authors and opinion pieces.Tempered (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was in fact just about to suggest that we retire this thread and return to the issue when the protection on the page is lifted. Then you can enter your edit, we'll see how it looks and proceed from there. I think we've made some progress here. Have a nice week, --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A new thread has been created below, under the heading: "Reverted contribution continued."Tempered (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (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: After an unusual month-long discussion period, not moved for lack of consensus. I would suggest starting a second mediation to explore a "third way", this time drawing in some of the new editors who now object. Another alternative, if no "third way" is possible, is to begin arbitration. In either case, the issue of the alleged improper off-Wiki canvassing should be addressed. COGDEN 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid — Based on extensive discussion and subsequent 13 to 2 consensus through mediation. u n☯mi 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note, the mediation referenced above was informal MEDCAB and not formal MEDCOM, for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, please do read through the discussion indicated to understand the concerns and motivations. u n☯mi 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are also archives dating back to 2006 which discuss this article's name at length; they should all be read as well

-- Avi (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move - With no further delay or discussion. This is clearly an attempt by a POV pushing group to take a second bite of the apple. Consensus in the mediation was quite clear.NickCT (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The term "apartheid" is neither accurate nor totally applicable. There is a vested political interest in having Israel compared to apartheid South Africa. As such, the key issue is discussion of the analogy and whether it is applicable, not a de facto statement that said conditions exist. Therefore, the current title is both more neutral, more accurate, more appropriate, and should be maintained as opposed to the suggested title. -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say that the key issue is "discussion of the analogy and whether it is applicable", you ignore the chief problem with including "analogy" in the name. A number of significant sources in the article, including a United Nations representative, a body of the South African government and others are not making an analogy, they are discussing whether Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. That's why the mediation started, that's what was agreed in it, and that's why the "analogy" title is too flawed to stay. By continuing to ignore this fundamental point, those opposed to the move are refusing to engage in rational discussion of the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The comparison to the South African apartheid is at best controversial. This omission in the lead does not reflect NPOV nor the consensus of multitudes of editors that have discussed this over the last 5 years.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a comparison between Israel and South African apartheid (which the "analogy" title describes) is controversial. The suggestion that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid (which the "analogy" title fails to include in its scope) is also controversial. Almost every editor here agrees this is a controversial topic. Just like Race and intelligence is a controversial subject. Is there a relationship between race and intelligence? Is Israel committing the crime of apartheid? Both are controversial, the significant sources on these topics are in disagreement. That is part of what makes Israel and apartheid and Race and intelligence such appropriate titles, because those titles do not imply the existence of any specific connection between their subjects. They describe a discourse about whether a connection exists and if so what the connection is, without prejudging the subject in any way. And unlike the current "analogy" title, Israel and apartheid describes the entire content of the article, rather than only describing one aspect of the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The analogy to "Race and intelligence" doesn't work because (1) no specific race is named to be judged and (2) 'intelligence' is not a pejorative; it is neutral in this context. A fairer analogy to "Israel and apartheid" would be the hypothetical title "Negroids and stupidity", which would ostensibly discuss the disagreements between significant sources on the connection that the title implies. Both the proposed title for this article and the hypothetical title from my example are obviously not neutral. Quigley (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The content of Race and intelligence doesn't solely address whites and blacks, it also discusses hispanics, east asians, etc. Therefore the use of a general term like "race" or "ethnicity" is required in the title to describe the content. By comparison, the content of this article is solely about Israel and whether its treatment of the Palestinians resembles/is apartheid, because there are numerous significant sources specifically about Israel and apartheid. Therefore "Israel" must be in the title of the article in order to describe its content, it cannot be "Nations and apartheid". Apartheid does indeed have negative connotations, because racial segregation is widely despised in the modern world. Similarly, intelligence has positive connotations, to be "smart" is usually considered a good thing. However, Wikipedia cannot shy away from describing a subject accurately in article titles just because many terms in common use are value-laden, that would be self-censorship. For another appropriate comparison, see United States and state terrorism. There is no doubt that terrorism has negative connotations. But there is a notable public discourse that suggests the US may have committed state terrorism, and therefore there should be an article on the topic, and the title must dispassionately describe the subject matter discussed. Israel and apartheid, like "United States and state terrorism" and "Race and intelligence" does not prejudge the nature of the relation between the subjects, and rightly so because any suggested relation is highly controversial. But it does include the full scope of the article's content, which any title including "analogy" does not. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ I understand the motivations; however, the suggested title would have to result in a completely different article, e.g. Israel's role in dealing with and relationship to South Africa between 1961 and 1994. Whether one likes it or not, Apartheid was and remains the Afrikaans term for the policies instituted by the South African government; any comparison must be labeled as such ("analogy"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The (imperfect) consensus at the end of Mediation was that Israel and apartheid be adopted as the title and disambiguation text used to indicate that a different article deals with Israel's relations with apartheid South Africa. Apartheid is now used as the name of a crime in international law and is no longer confined to the regime that existed in South Africa. ← ZScarpia 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... that could be a point; however, why is apartheid a redirect to South Africa's apartheid, then? But I admit, that's probably a different discussion. (see this diff and others) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is your sole reason, I urge you to reconsider. The word "apartheid" has two meanings. It means both the general concept of racial segregation (as used by scholars and by the United Nations to define the international crime of apartheid), and the specific historical instance of racial segregation in South Africa from which the name originated. The subject of this article is the discourse about both comparisons of the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid (in both senses), and whether the State of Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid. This article isn't about Israel's relationship with apartheid-era South Africa. However, that potential ambiguity was discussed at length in the mediation with the resulting decision to include a disambiguation line to clarify the scope of the article. The editors in the mediation agreed that this issue is much less concerning that the use of "analogy" in the title, which inaccurately describes significant content in the article. This isn't about finding a perfect title, but the least flawed one. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I s'pose... I don't have any strong feelings either way. I didn't know this point had come up during mediation. Thus, neutral on the title... as long as people take care of the content. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The current title was the result of a discussion that was broader than the informal mediation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This Seems to have been the discussion forming the basis to the move to this title, if so, it involved 15 editors and a significantly smaller consensus for the move than the one we just had. u n☯mi 07:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Move There was an extended discussion aided by mediation, see here. It ended up with a 13-2 consensus for the move, based on the arguments presented. The current article name has been used to argue for exclusion of relevant sources. The current article name has also been found to be of limited value to the reader. Israel and Apartheid is short and adequate, the consensus also included the writing of a header which would properly explain the scope of the article. It is deeply unfortunate that many of the involved editors choose not to engage in the detailed discussions, resorting to filibustering and derailment at the last moment. u n☯mi 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment The discussion years ago had significantly more participation than 15 people, if I remember correctly. -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you had chosen to participate we would have had more than 15, actually we did have more, but they turned out to be sockpuppets. u n☯mi 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is not the best dispute resolution venue for articles where the disputes are both very widespread and based on strongly held political beliefs. It is more appropriate for smaller discussions. For example, the main Ahmadinijead argument about the "wipe Israel off of the map" quote in the lede went to formal mediation; issues about Rashid Khalidi, IIRC, we were able to handle informally. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem like a compelling reason to not participate at all, or if you found it to be the wrong venue then to recommend another in the first place, am I to expect that if this RM ends with a consensus to move that you will argue that RM is inferior to formal mediation? The mediation was announced on all the relevant wikiprojects as I remember. It is hardly fair to complain of low participation when people choose not to participate. u n☯mi 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus to move arises out of this discussion, then so be it; it is within policy. However, a poorly advertised informal mediation remains inferior to a widely advertised formal setting in my opinion. I also noticed that I had to inform the relative wikiprojects of this request, as the originator did not remember to do so. Ensuring the widest possible participation is key to gaining consensus. For example, there was a consensus reached to move the three pages corresponding on the articles regarding the Jewish temples, but it was overturned with the argument that the consensus may not have reflected the wider English wikipedia audience as it the discussion was not broadcast in the proper places. We would not want this discussion to suffer from the same issue. -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) By the way, it seems that the discussion that formed the basis for the previous move to the current name is the one here which, by my count, had 15 editors involved and significantly less consensus for the move. If I am mistaken then please do let me know. u n☯mi 04:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Move concur with comment made above by Unomi. Mo ainm~Talk 21:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move How many times to we have to do this? Bjmullan (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move As I've written previously, the debate was thorough and the consensus reliable. I second unomi's comment as well. Shoplifter (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Totally Oppose. After reviewing the article in its entirety the current proposal is simply bogus. More than 50% of the article is about individuals and groups who say Israel is an apartheid. Actual, real content explicitly describing and contrasting apartheid South Africa and Israeli relationship with Arabs is remote in comparison. A better title would be "People who say Israel is an apartheid" but "Israel apartheid" does not in any way connect with the source material. A democratic consensus is irrelevant. I ask any editor here to point to a single guideline that supports half the information in the article. Most of it was designed by specific editors without regard to policy, which is why the article has stayed in start class for years. Better we improve the article before changing the title to give it false credence. I do believe Israel apartheid could be a proper title in the future, but now the article is simply important people who believe Israel is an apartheid. Specific parallels between Apartheid South Africa and Israel is barely noticeable. Apartheid analogy is the fairest and most honest title at the moment, because most of the content is about people who compare Israel to South Africa. This isn't the same as "Israel apartheid." And in any case, South Africa does not have a monopoly on apartheid. Kenya and Australia were original apartheids (Australia was the template for apartheid), so if the article is going to about South African apartheid then perhaps the title should reflect that. No mainstream consensus has determined Israeli government is an apartheid, nor as the United Nations, US government, European Union, or major bodies say Israel is an apartheid state. It has not been subject to international sanctions in the way South Africa was. In an unrelated note, I'd say the origins of apartheid analogies could be expanded on. "Israel is racist" school of thought was designed by the Soviet Union, Soviet Anti-Zionism and Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public. While Israel has been occupying and controlling most of the Palestinian territories for the last 40 years, the concept of Israel apartheid is a relatively recent phenomenal that is really a decedent of Soviet foreign policy. I might expand this in another talk section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, the proposal is to move the article to "Israel and apartheid", not to "Israel apartheid". There is a world of difference between the two. If you want to comment on the proposal, fine, but please don't misrepresent it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Semantics. "Israel and apartheid" is the same thing as "Israel apartheid." Maybe not to scholars and historians, but to everyone else it will be interpreted as a definitive reality akin to South Africa's apartheid. Even if we assume "Israel and apartheid" it still doesn't remotely fit the content of the article, and my rationale is strong and concrete. Feel free to debate it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "semantics" at all, there is a very clear difference. See the responses from Ryan Paddy and Carwill below. Gatoclass (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I would like to assume good faith in you. In the past, you have worn your heart on your sleeve, made your strong ideology plain, and argued it straightforwardly. There is a place on Wikipedia for people to ensure their well-sourced perspectives are adequately represented in articles. But everything about your more recent comments suggests that these days you are attempting a new tactic of confusing editors with a dazzling array of irrelevant statements intended to avoid engagement in the principle arguments made by other editors. This is especially disturbing in that some opponents of the move merely cite your gibberish arguments without giving any of their own. You refused to participate in the mediation by stating that your opinions on the matter were too strong to participate in good faith (a respectable position), then once the mediation reached a conclusion that you disliked you complained that the mediation was "rigged" because not enough people with your opinion participated (i.e. you complained about a situation you had the power to change, while denying you had that power). Your unstated refusal to discuss the main reason for the move makes it impossible for me to continue to assume good faith in your editing at this time. I defy you to address the principle reason for the proposed move. Please, explain how the sources that suggest that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid, a crime against humanity under international law, can be adequately described as making an "analogy". They clearly can't, and that's clearly why you're avoiding the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, accusations of crime of apartheid, crime against humanity, whatever mean absolutely nothing. People are drawing parallels, or analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa. No international body such as the European Union, United Nations, international courts, etc...have declared Israel is an apartheid akin to South Africa. Claims and allegations of apartheid are just that, claims and allegations. If and when Israel is subject to international sanctions sponsored by the USA, EU, and UN - then yeah, maybe a title change. But right most Western states not only reject the Israel/apartheid analogy but have actually passed laws that prohibit claims that Israel is inspired by racism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Prominent reliable sources have stated that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid. These statements are described in the article to maintain a neutral point of view by describing all prominent perspectives. Your suggestion that these perspectives "mean absolutely nothing" ignores the NPOV policy. These sources state that Israel's actions may meet the definition of the crime of apartheid. That is not a comparison, therefore the "analogy" title cannot be used for an article that describes such perspectives. These sources do not state that Israel has been found guilty of the crime of apartheid or sanctioned, and neither does the article, so your other comments about trials and sanctions are irrelevant original research. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is Apartheid capitalized? Apartheid is universally understood to an era in South Africa. What appears to be insinuated in the Crime of apartheid, as such lowercase, not uppercase on apartheid. If the article were to concern Israeli-Apartheid South African relations, then the suggested title might work. The mediation process established the naming format and, as far as I can tell, it was done openly and fairly. So, I won't speak of other options. Support Israel and apartheid, Oppose Israel and Apartheid.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I blame my fat fingers u n☯mi 23:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move per the findings at the informal mediation. Users who purposefully boycotted the mediation and now jump in to oppose at the 11th hour are stuffing themselves with sour grapes, IMO. Doubly so those who have sought by hook or by crook to delete the article outright over the years. Tarc (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move per mediation consensus, but to the lowercase Israel and apartheid, as Labattblueboy suggested. ← George^talk 22:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. And by that I meant, I have changed the proposed title to reflect the capitalization issue. u n☯mi 23:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move. I don't love Israel and apartheid as a title, but the current title is an abomination. "The apartheid analogy"? Seriously? What does that even mean? john k (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Move As a participant in the Mediation case, I came to agree with the reasons given there why the current title is inadequate. ← ZScarpia 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per Malik, Wikifan. Controversial, POV push move. Current title long-standing from debate among much larger pool of editors. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This Seems to have been the discussion forming the basis to the move to this title, if so, it involved 15 editors and a significantly smaller consensus for the move than the one we just had. u n☯mi 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per Malik Shabazz.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Move - I opposed the original move to "Israel and the apartheid analogy" and always thought it a little weaselish. "Israel and apartheid" may not be perfect either but it's more straightforward and just as NPOV in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Move The existing title violates NPOV policy by implying that official reports regarding Bantustanization;,deprivation of human rights; and allegations of crimes against humanity are trivial analogies. harlan (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything "trivial" about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Move/Support - the proposed title is better than the status quo, NPOV and clear. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OFF-WIKI CANVASSING: There has been off-wiki canvassing to this rename discussion to push a pro-Israeli pov:[45] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice spot again Supreme Deliciousness. This kind of activity is very disturbing. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Move - The word "analogy" is very inaccurate and misleading, since many of the sources cited in the article do not describe the relationship between Israel and apartheid as an analogy (e.g. those sources that assert apartheid is a fact). Some editors opposing the move cite the fact that prior Talk page discussions, involving a larger number of editors, decided on the "analogy" title, but that ignores the fact that (1) consensus can change; and (2) the material added into this article in the past year about the international crime of apartheid (which has nothing to do with an analogy). Finally, in the "oppose" !votes above, I don't see any rational, sensible discussion of the pros/cons of the 2 or 3 candidate titles (such discussion did occur in the Mediation) instead the oppose !votes appear to be based on emotion or sentiment. --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment What significant changes have been made since the previous calls for a move? the sources (partisan groups, specific individuals, etc..) "assert" Israel is an apartheid akin to south african apartheid, but this is not demonstrated in the article. The intro switches off from "crime of apartheid" which is apparently independent of South Africa's history, while section 8-end revolve around Israel/South Africa analogies. If we assume for arguments sake the reaction section is removed, there is very little content that supports an "Israel and apartheid" title. "Accusations of apartheid in Israel" or "Collection of people who think Israel is an apartheid and why" are more accurate and suitable titles with the information we have now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments here are WP:Tenditious and WP:Disruptive - you are pointing out that the current title is inaccurate, and you are listing 2 other titles that are more accurate. That is precisely the logic that - 2 months ago - led to the mediation and to the detailed pro/con evaluation of about a dozen candidate titles. You did not participate in that evaluation, and - worse- you are not acknowledging that the evaluation happened. Instead you choose to disrupt the WP dispute resolution process by repeatedly going back to the beginning and starting over. It is contrary to the spirit of consensus-building to re-hash irrational arguments over and over. --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem from the comments in this section that there are quite a few others whom you might consider "Tendentious" and "Disruptive," Noleander, because they clearly do not agree with the proposed name change. Are you leading up to a call for a block on them all, expelling them from the discussion? That would of course greatly simplify the discussion.Tempered (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Avi and Malik Shabazz. There is indeed vested political interest in having Israel compared to apartheid South Africa. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Support per the mediation consensus - going through the debate again to prove consensus is pointless. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Move There is an ARBCOM remedy stating that "Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter." (my emphasis). In this instance, discussion of the name stalled here on the talk page, so a mediation was opened in keeping with the ARBCOM remedy. The mediation went on for many weeks and saw a great deal of rational discussion on the name. Editors were required to enter into good faith mediation on the name, however a few chose instead to ignore or boycott the mediation until its discussions had reached a consensus that they did not like, and then protest. These editors have failed to respect the required process. Following the ARBCOM remedy, is clear that the article should now be moved to Israel and apartheid, per the unusually strong consensus of the mediation. If editors continue to have an issue with the name, then they can follow the correct procedure to attempt to form a new consensus to move it again. The existing name cannot stand for the reason made clear and widely agreed in the mediation: it fails to include in its scope the significant content of the article that cannot be described as an analogy, especially the content regarding reliable sources that suggest that Israel may be committting the international crime of apartheid. The new agreed title Israel and apartheid does not have this issue, and it is a neutral title that does not suggest any specific relationship between Israel and apartheid. This is appropriate to this article, the subject of which is a varied public discourse relating Israel to apartheid. Unlike "Israeli apartheid", the agreed title does not imply the existence of apartheid in Israel, which would be inappropriate as there is not a strong enough agreement between reliable sources to imply the existence of apartheid in Israel. Rather, like Race and intelligence, the agreed title describes the subjects of the notable public discourse without inappropriately implying the fact or nature of their relationship. These were the reasons for the move that were discussed at length in the mediation, reasons that those who boycotted the mediation have never engaged with, preferring endless delaying tactics to consensus-building discussion of the pros and cons of title options. That's just not good enough. I urge editors to take account of the process that has been followed, especially the mediation and the reasons discussed in it. Prior to the mediation, I myself took some convincing that there was a problem with the "analogy" title, and it was the laying out of the reasons that convinced me. You have to look at the reasons carefully, this isn't an appropriate topic for a "gut feel" response. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Move per mediation discussion. "Analogy" is a poor cover for legal allegations, but the and avoids violating NPOV. --Carwil (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Move per the mediated consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. "Apartheid" with no qualifier refers to the practice in South Africa. The proposed title sounds like an article about Israel's approach to South Africa's pre-1990s policies, not an alleged form of these policies occurring in Israel today. The current title isn't exactly great, either, but the new one suggests an article that ain't here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the mediation on the title and reconsider. Apartheid has two meanings. It refers to racial segregation in general, and is used this way by the United Nations to define the the international crime of apartheid, a crime against humanity. It also refers as you say to the specific historical instance of racial segregation in South Africa, where the name arose. The content of this article doesn't just compare Israel to South African apartheid (an analogy), significant sources suggest that Israel may be commiting the crime of apartheid. This is exactly the reason why the "analogy" title is unsuitable, there is nothing "analogous" about suggestions of a crime against humanity and therefore the "analogy" title unduly deemphasises one aspect of the article, and is therefore not a neutral title like Israel and apartheid is. Please also note that the participants in the mediation considered the ambiguity you mention, and decided that including a disambiguation line at the top of the article to clarify the scope of the article, as is common in many articles, would be sufficient. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, reconsidered. Still opposed. If the the problem were an ambiguous title, fine. This title is not ambiguous; it's misleading. The primary meaning of "apartheid" is the system in South Africa. This article is about ways in which Israel's policies have been compared to apartheid. A hatnote is not sufficient to compensate for a misleading title. And no, I'm not really a fan of the current title, either. I'd prefer something like "How Israel's policies are compared to apartheid" made more concise. As an aside, it really does seem to me informal mediation has been used here in a way inconsistent with how it's supposed to be used in that it is never binding, but some participants here seem to want to treat it as such. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say "This article is about ways in which Israel's policies have been compared to apartheid", you seem to ignore the important point that portions of this article are not about that. They are about ways in which Israel's policies have been suggested to violate the crime of apartheid. That is not an analogy. Further, the word "apartheid" is the word commonly used in the English language and in the sources of this article to denote the general concept of apartheid (as opposed to the South African Apartheid regime). This is a peculiarity of the English langauge, that the word for this specific historical regime and the general concept are the same. For example, the Holocaust can be described as genocide, which is the general term for such crimes against humanity. However, the general term for crimes against humanity such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa is apartheid, which is widely used in this manner by the United Nations, national bodies including South Africa government research body the Human Sciences Research Council, academics, political commentators, journalists, historians, activists, and others. The key point here is that significant sources in this article are not comparing Israel's policy and practice to Apartheid in South Africa. Rather, they are saying that what's happening may be "apartheid", the general term that means racial segregation with various specific characteristics, which is a crime against humanity under international law (without specific reference to the Apartheid regime in South Africa) much as genocide is a crime against humanity (without specific reference to the Holocaust). That is why the "analogy" title is inaccurate, and the best alternative proposed to date is "Israel and apartheid". It's not perfect, but it's better than the current title and alternatives that have been suggested to date. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Avi, Shabazz, Heimstern, nsaum and others have made a variety of legitimate objections. In my view, too, the present title, while not perfect, is far less tendentious and POV than the alternative suggested. The alternative presumes that there is a valid connection between "Israel and apartheid," similar to other "and" links such as "bacon and eggs" (which does not say the two are identical, but grants the propriety of linking them), but precisely this is the debated issue. So the proposed new title prejudges the outcome and weighs in on one side. It was also arrived at after booting out strongly negatively disposed editors. It seems (although I may have missed someone) that only one possible editor remained who disputed the connection alleged in the title; the others accepted it, some with waffling caveats. So the "consensus" arrived at seems to have been already from a selected group tending toward one side only of the topic.Tempered (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~. The participants in the Mediation discussion rejected the more sensible title, "Israel and the crime of apartheid", on the grounds that editors would (as they now) use the title to exclude information relating to direct comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa, and Israeli policy to specific parts of apartheid. In fact, the current title is accommodating of both of these topics, and this should be politely explained to those editors who remove valid information because they think it doesn't fall under the article's scope. And yes, the current title is a messy Wikipedian construction, but so is "Israel and apartheid". Quigley (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the mediation rejected a move to "Israel and the crime of apartheid", for the very good reason that many of the sources in this article make no reference whatsoever to the crime of apartheid. Conversely, the current title is absolutely not accomodating of discussion of the crime of apartheid - in what way is it an analogy to say that a country may be committing a crime defined by the United Nations? Per WP:NAME, article titles must describe their content. Neither of the titles you've outlined describe all of the content of this article, but Israel and apartheid does. It's also a somewhat more concise and less awkward fomulation that the existing title, even if it's not perfect (nothing is). The importance of the title covering the full scope of the content isn't solely about disagreements about what content can be included, even if Harlan did place a great emphasis on that in the mediation. It's also, more importantly, about neutrality. The title "Israel and the apartheid analogy", by failing to describe the significant sources in the content that suggest that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid, acts to lesson the emphasis placed upon them by the overall article including the title. This is not a neutral treatment. Israel and apartheid, on the other hand, does not act to emphasise or deemphasise any aspect of the article's content, and thus is clearly a more neutral formulation. I urge you to reconsider the reasons given for the proposed changed, it appears from your post that your reading of the mediation may have emphasised the poorer reasons rather than the better ones. Think of it more in terms of whether the titles fully describes the content, which it must, rather than how it affects editor behaviour, which is a side-effect. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My points were addressed, so I am withdrawing my opposition. But I am not positively supporting the move because the persistent concern that 'Israel and apartheid' inherently suggests that Israel is practicing apartheid, and therefore violates NPOV, has not been addressed to my satisfaction. Quigley (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it there are a few options here. We can continue to have this incredibly silly title and have an article that focuses on an "analogy" between Israel and Apartheid South Africa (and in that case "apartheid" should be "Apartheid"). If that is the choice then it would be logical to start an article Israel and the crime of apartheid. Sources discussing the crime of apartheid are not making an analogy to Apartheid South Africa, they are accusing, alleging, asserting, whatever word you want to use, that Israel is committing a violation of international law. Such material does not belong in an article on an "analogy". And honestly, an article just on the "analogy" is pretty dumb thing to have.The other option is to use the title Israel and apartheid which will allow for content that makes "analogies" to Apartheid South Africa, and for content the applicability of the conventions on the crime of apartheid and to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, in Israel proper or the occupied territories. I think the latter option is the wiser as it allows for a full range of views on the overall topic. So, support move. To those saying that Israel and apartheid "presumes a valid connection" between the topics, that is a mistaken view. That title presumes that sources discuss apartheid, with multiple meanings, and Israel. nableezy - 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Move per Ryan's well argued point timestamped 20:03, above. Israel and apartheid is a broader title that encompasses the various aspects we now have here and (contrary to what some claim) doesn't imply anything one way or another. And, to top everything, it was what was agreed in mediation. Consensus doesn't require unanimity (see WP:CONSENSUS). --Dailycare (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Move I originally had reservations about the new title, but the discussion above about a disambig note at the top has satisfied me. The current title was always unsatisfactory; the proposed new title, while not my first choice, is much better. RolandR (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Oppose. I have not been convinced that any attempt has been made to resolve the differences of opinions, and instaed the mediation was treated as a vote, and this is not how consensus is achieved in Wikipedia. This is evidenced by the statement by the opener of this discussion claiming "13 to 2 consensus". As I stated in the mediation, despite the majority of the mediation participants support the new name, no consensus exists for the new name, and more neutral names such as "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" were rejected without discussion. And it is totally clear from the poll above that there is no consensus despite claims that the mediation was successful. Marokwitz (talk)

If you look through the discussion you will see that the 2 Oppose votes choose to largely not participate. There was voluminous and largely constructive debate prior to the polls. 13 vs 2 consensus is overwhelming by wikipedia standards, I am sure that everyone wished that more people had participated from the get-go rather than jumping in now when it truly is just a vote. u n☯mi 13:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Apartheid was a crime against humanity here in South Africa. No matter what Israel is doing, it does not come close to what happened. Either the pro-Palestinians don't know what apartheid was, or don't care. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Apartheid (with a lower-case 'a') is also a crime under international law, and I find it rather hard to believe that Desmond Tutu, fr'ex, would either not know or not care what South African Apartheid was. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
this guy actually helped topple the apartheid and has rejected the israel-is-an-apartheid movement. Regardless, we need to avoid fallacies when justifying content. Stick with policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per reconsidered Heimstern. I was not notified of the mediation, and don't consider it relevant either. --Shuki (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per arguments mentioned above which were much more convincing than any supposed "mediation" that I saw in the link provided. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Move While I do not oppose the current article title, "Israel and apartheid" is clearer. Per the comments of others, I do not believe "Israel and apartheid" implies that apartheid conditions actually exist in Israel or the occupied territories; it rather sets forth the framework of the discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it clearer? I agree with you that this title does not imply that Israeli government is committing the crime of apartheid, but it would create confusion between apartheid as in crime, and Apartheid as in the SA regime. Even Un☯mi got confused, and he made the move proposal! -- Heptor _talk 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have to back out a little bit. "Israel and apartheid" is a suggestive title, as explained by Ocaasi. At least if apartheid is referring to the crime, and not to the SA regime. Which is not at all clear from the title. -- Heptor _talk 11:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Current title allows article space about the people making the allegation/analogy. To change the title would remove this NPOV material and only allow the allegations without the motives of the people behind them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, how would changing the title remove any NPOV material? It is precisely the removal of pertinent information that we are trying to avoid, we can see even now that information relating to crime of apartheid is sought to be removed or cast in a light which is not supported by RS. u n☯mi 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "Israel and Apartheid" would be an article about relationships between Israel and the previous South African regime, and this one is not. It is either that

Israeli policies constitute an Apartheid, in which case the article should be called "Israeli Apartheid", as in "Kingdom of Thailand", or
Some people and organisations are drawing analogies between Israeli policies and those of the Apartheid regime of South Africa. In this case the article should be called as it is now, "Israel and Apartheid Analogy", similar to "Allegations that Sweden is Communist".

I believe the second option to be appropriate for the situation. -- Heptor _talk 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the mediation on the article name, as it addresses your points. Neither of the options you outline is correct, rather the article contains both comparisons to South African Apartheid and suggestions that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid, a crime against humanity under international law. The latter suggestions cannot in any way be described as an analogy, which is why the title needs to be broader. The editors in mediation considered the ambiguity of "Israel and apartheid" with Israel's historical relations with Apartheid-era South Africa, and decided that a disambiguation note would clarify the scope of the article satisfactorily. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I see problems with the current title as well. But still, I think disambiguations should be used when two different topics happen to be appropriately described by same combination of English words (for example, decision tree could be a computer term or something you draw to help you make decisions). In this case, the proposed title (Israel and apartheid) does not accurately describe contents of the article, and the disambiguation notice is needed to tell what the article is actually about. As I understand it, the article encompasses:

Allegations that Israel commits the crime of apartheid
Discussions whether Israel is committing the crime of apartheid
Allegations that Israeli policy is similar to those of the Apartheid regime, without actually alleging the crime.

I believe that most appropriate title would be "Criticism of Israel based on alleged similarities to the Apartheid regime". It is not very good either because it is too long, but at least it accurately describes the topic at hand. "Israel and Apartheid" would be a step in the wrong direction because it is much too broad. -- Heptor _talk 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(for a short version, see Robofish's comment below. His point is virtually identical to mine) -- Heptor _talk 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the concern that Israel and apartheid is over-general for the subject matter is reasonable, as I stated during the mediation. However, I also think this concern is of lesser importance than the existing problem with the "analogy" title, which misrepresents some of the content of the article by ignoring significant reliable sources that are not making a comparison or an analogy. Your suggested title has exactly the same problem. Slight over-generalisation that can be moderated by a disambiguation link is less of an issue than this misrepresentation of content. No-one has suggested a perfect title for this article, but "Israel and apartheid" is considerably less flawed than what we have. There is an Israeli apartheid analogy, but only some of this article is about that, so it's misleading to label the whole article in that manner. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how a title that is both suggestive, confusing and over-general is better than the present one. I thing "Criticism of Israel based on alleged similarities to the Apartheid regime" is the most applicable title, the one we have being the second best and the new proposal by far worst. -- Heptor _talk 12:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I opposed this name on the mediation, as I feel it is potentially misleading and should probably be a disambiguation page instead. (Between this page and Israel - South Africa relations.) I think the current title, while not perfect, is probably the best compromise candidate. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - The ANC's AIDS denialism claimed several hundred thousands lives, on top of other hundred thousands, mostly Matabele, killed or starved to death by Mugabe's Shona power base--Mugabe being ANC South Africa's protegé, that finances Zimbabwes' economy almost on its own and backs him at the UN and OAU whenever it can. So the comparison to the Apartheid state, who killed about 2.000 in the course of the 40 years of its existence is unwarranted, even for those who have an axe to grind (ironically, for those in particular!); a comparison to the ANC would be far more egregious. Call me loony, but the Apartheid comparison is a political tool and should be presented as that, not as encyclopedic fact. The present title does it, the proposed change would blur the lines. (Sorry Luckymelon, though we both oppose, we won't agree) --tickle me
Oppose Despite the simplicity, the proposed title leaves too much implied. "Your Mom and Prostitution", for example, obviously involves some suggestion. Alternatives would be 'Comparison' or 'Accusation' instead of 'Analogy'. Or, somewhat differently, 'Israel and Segregation', at least doesn't use the historically and politically loaded term of apartheid, though it loses the focus on the accusation/comparison then. Ocaasi (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How is "Israel and apartheid" any more suggestive than "Israel and Segregation"? Dramedy Tonight (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dramedy: that's true; so Ocaasi: let's forget about it, ok? --tickle me 08:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My main point was that Israel and Apartheid is not a good title, for the general reason that it is suggestive. If another idea was equally suggestive, drop it by the same logic. The suggestiveness is the issue. Ocaasi (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "apartheid" is more loaded than "segregation", thus "Israel and apartheid" is more suggestive than "Israel and segregation".

I addition, "apartheid" is a label often used by critics of israeli policies. To illustrate, "Your mom and prostitution" is ~~suggestive~~ loaded, while "You mom and genocide" is less so. -- Heptor _talk 12:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Move I think "Israeli Apartheid" would be fine. Anyways, I find it disturbing that [46] actually happens. Where the talk page for the wikiproject_Israel is used to set up such petty raids. It's a real shame to see such sabotage against other editors and users. A real shame. General Choomin (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, I posted it to WikiProject Palestine[47] and Wikiproject Discrimination[48] pretty much immediately as well. It is preferable to tell the entire story, Choomin. -- Avi (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Move More general is less POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing to do with any POV, just that "Israel and apartheid" wouldn't accurately inform the reader what the article is about. I'm sure there are dozens of better titles than the present one, but if we are going to have this as a separate article, then we at least need to make clear that it's about comparisons of Israel's policies with apartheid, not about Israel's attitude to apartheid in SA or some such topic.--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Move - Per google search results, plenty of support for crime usage of "apartheid" in the context of Israel. Including the term "analogy" here seems weaselish. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Comment. To address Kotniski's issue with the proposed name, I prefer the name Israeli apartheid to the suggested name of Israel and apartheid. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I seriously doubt that this is even encyclopedic. A better title might help. But the proposed title is worse. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2010 (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.

^ Strenger than Fiction / Peace talks are sure to fail, but what will be the consequences?

[1] Strenger than Fiction / Peace talks are sure to fail, but what will be the consequences?

[1]