Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 13

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Proposed structure and terminology guidelines for all "apartheid" articles

Many people have suggested that we step back and look at all of the "apartheid" articles together. I've put a proposal at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid and would appreciate your comments. Why don't we head over there, hang out for a few days, and see what happens? Su-Laine Yeo 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are suggesting a neologism, "Government discrimination", as an article title. Homey 15:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Use of the word apartheid to describe discrimination alegations" - seems very NPOV. Zeq 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New straw poll

I invite all concerned editors to an informal poll on structure and terminology here: Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid Su-Laine Yeo 06:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I thought this article had been merged into Apartheid outside of South Africa (it should be "Apartheid outside South Africa," by the way). Does anyone know how that discussion is progressing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How it is progressing, or where it is, for that matter. I think I expressed support for it in about three different places, and then more discussions and polls and sandboxes and whatever kept opening up to talk about it, and I couldn't keep repeating myself. Then it seems to have been merged and unmerged. Am I the only one who thinks that the history of these "apartheid" articles proves that for extremely controversial subjects, the Wikipedia principle of anyone-can-edit/revert/re-revert/move/re-move simply doesn't work? 6SJ7 01:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'm completely confused about where it was discussed and what was decided, if anything. Perhaps we should start the process again. :-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa it looks like there was no consensus and a great deal of opposition to the proposal. 207.67.145.244 03:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll on renaming the article

Do you want this article to be renamed "Allegations of Israeli apartheid"? Please vote and comment here: Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid. Su-Laine Yeo 05:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PeaceNow converage of Israeli opinion

"According to a Geocartographia survey conducted for the Center for the Struggle Against Racism that was released last week, 68% of Israeli Jews would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Israeli Arab, while 26% would do so. 46% of Israeli Jews would refuse to allow an Arab to visit their home, while 50% would welcome an Arab visitor. 41% of Israeli Jews support the segregation of Jews and Arabs in places of recreation, compared with 52% who would oppose such a move. Support for segregation was higher with lower income and religiously observant Israeli Jews, as well as with Jews of Middle Eastern origin. 40% of Israeli Jews believe “the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens,” while 52% do not. 34% of Israeli Jews agree that “Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture,” but 57% do not agree with the statement." [1]

It was removed by Isarig as irrelevant. Although it does seem to show that there is public support for segregation. Although one needs to determine if the Geocartographia group (whose homepage is here [2]) is reputable or not. --Ben Houston 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

whether or not there is public support for segregation is irrelevant to the section's subject, which is accusations that the Israeli state practices Apartheid. Similar polls have been run in many European countries, with very simialr results. Will we now set up articles tilte "French Apartheid" or "Dutch Apartheid" becuase a significant percentage of their populations have expressed anti-immigration sentiments accurately described as racist? Isarig 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out if it is true or biased presentation. I found a reference in the Guardian here 41% of Israel's Jews favour segregation, Chris McGreal, The Guardian, March 24 2006: "The poll was conducted by a respected Israeli organisation, Geocartographia, for the Centre for the Struggle Against Racism, founded by Arab-Israeli academics." --Ben Houston 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: is there an article in Wikipedia that covers the perceptions of Israel Arabs and Israeli Jews (and possibly Palestinian Arabs and Jewish Settlers) have of each other? It would be useful since it would show how much ill will there is on all sides and it would put it into context. --Ben Houston 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is, sort of - Israeli Arabs, and this poll is relevant there, and is discussed there. It is not relevant here. Isarig 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The survey seems relevant to me, given the context, I'm not inclined to fight over it, but I think it is an insight into the mentality. Then again, as someone pointed out, this sort of racism is pretty widespread in other parts of the Med and Europe too. --Coroebus 22:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're ok with me creating an article called "German Apartheid" based on [this|http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/9gilad.htm] - "The 1994 public opinion poll of Emnid Institute reflected a similar trend: 68% percent of the Germans agreed they would not like to have Romanies as their neighbors. " -we can mention this poll here. IMHO, it is irrelevant. Isarig 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The survey in question does not belong in this article, nor should there be an article "German apartheid" (at least not based solely on the evidence cited above) because segregation and racism do not necessarily equate with "apartheid." I am sure Hebrew and German both have their own words for segregation and racism without needing a word from Afrikaans. I have said this several times before. At one point Homey said, what would we call it if black people in the U.S. were not permitted to drive on a certain road? My answer was, we would call it what "we" did call it, when it was happening here. (I put "we" in quotes because I myself was kind of young when the last vestiges of this were being swept away in the early 1960s, so I didn't actually call it anything.) It was called segregation, racism, discrimination, and "Jim Crow." It was not called apartheid. We did not need to import a word from another language on another continent, and the same is true for Israelis and Germans. It is not "apartheid." That word is being used just to demonize Israel. 6SJ7 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please watch the original research

This article is rapidly filling up with original research, as proponents for each side attempt to build cases for the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the analogy. I've cleaned up some of it, but there's much more to go (for example, most of the section about land use policies). Please remember, the sources used must be about "Israeli apartheid", or at least refer to "apartheid" and associate it with Israel. This article is not a soapbox for proving/disproving the analogy, but rather an article which describes what proponents/opponents of the analogy have to say about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Segregation Discussion

In deleting the source citations referencing segregation issues with Israel against their Arab population, the comment cited as "because they don't reference apartheid." If this is so, then mention needs to be deleted on both sides. In other words, you can't leave in the assertion that Israel doesn't segregate their populations if you aren't going to allow it to be refuted. The sources that were deleted were several and very credible sources and even included a poll from a prominent Israeli group. Ditto with regard to the Apartheid Wall. The controversy and claims are all steeped in the fact that it is located on Palestinian soil. It is misleading to include this reference without allowing a reference from the International Court in the Hague about the illegality issue (i.e., that the barrier is on Palestinian not Israeli soil).. especially since the original assertion is not even credited.

"Bad writing"

CJC, reverted the intro reasoning "HS: your version is leading, and it is also bad writing". There is no dispute that the expression IA is [mis]used to isolate and condemn Israel. Its proponents welcome this outcome and its opponents oppose it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You used the word "delegitimize", which is subtly different from "condemn". In any event, I do not believe that all proponents of the term use it for this purpose (although you're free to believe otherwise). The example of Zehava Gal-On comes to mind again ... CJCurrie 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

- Fine, replace the word "delegitimize" with "condemn" then. AFAIK, we use blindly reverts for vandalism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

- - The "delegitimize"/"condemn" issue isn't the only problem. May I ask if anyone else supports HS's version? CJCurrie 01:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus, saying "The parallel is then misused" is clearly POV. You know better than that. Homey 01:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research Concerns about the "Accusation that Israel practices apartheid" section

I believe the entire text from "As part of its land development efforts" to "the bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote" is original research. Original research is not merely unsourced work, but it is an argument that is unsourced. The argument being put together in those paragraphs is meant to allege that Israeli land ownership policies resemble apartheid. However, it is not made clear who is making those assertions. The specific claims within the argument are sourced, regarding the specifics of Israeli land ownership, but stringing the chain of reasoning together is not. For this not to be original research, it would have to include a source as to who is making that particular argument. Right now, it is just a well sourced argument being made by Wikipedia editors themselves, and that, is original research. Bibigon 05:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything is sourced and the "arguments" are contained within the sources ie both the Guardian and BBC News use the term apartheid and draw allusions with South Africa. Homey 06:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

EG: "Israelis have always been horrified at the idea of parallels between their country, a democracy risen from the ashes of genocide, and the racist system that ruled the old South Africa. Yet even within Israel itself, accusations persist that the web of controls affecting every aspect of Palestinian life bears a disturbing resemblance to apartheid."

"Israeli governments reserved 93% of the land - often expropriated from Arabs without compensation - for Jews through state ownership, the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority. In colonial and then apartheid South Africa, 87% of the land was reserved for whites. The Population Registration Act categorised South Africans according to an array of racial definitions, which, among other things, determined who would be permitted to live on the reserved land."[3]

"The State of Israel allocated land to the Jewish Agency in order to establish Katzir.[2] This so called "community settlement" was founded in 1982 in the Wadi Ara (Nahal Eirun) region. In 1995, the Qaadans, a Palestinian-Israeli family, attempted to acquire land in Katzir but failed to do so. Until the Supreme Court Qaadan v. Katzir decision, Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel. A sophisticated discriminatory procedure, involving the State, the Jewish National Fund (JNF), the Israel Land Administration (ILA), the Jewish Agency, and Community Cooperatives guaranteed the ethno-national purity of these settlements. In October 1995, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) which represented the Qaadans, petitioned the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Aharon Barak confessed this to be one of the most difficult cases he ever encountered"[4]

"As head nurse at a nearby hospital Mr Kaadan is well aware of the health risks in his hometown. But it is not just the rubbish, the asbestos and the sewage - the whole place reeks of neglect.

In one neighbourhood the streets end abruptly with a wall of concrete and barbed wire - Baqa is sliced in half by Israel's new security fence.

"There's nothing to do here - no cinemas, no swimming pool, hardly any sports facilities. So most young people either turn to Islamic fundamentalism or start taking drugs," says Mr Kaadan.

It is not the kind of place he wants to raise his four daughters, aged four to 15, so for almost a decade he has been fighting for the right to move to a Jewish community a few miles away on heavily subsidised, state-owned land.

His long battle is a protest against what he calls "Israel's apartheid".

Cosmopolitan suburb

Katzir is a gated suburban paradise, perched on a hilltop. It was set up in 1982 by the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency as a bulwark against the surrounding Israeli Arab villages in the valley below." (...) Israeli Arabs lag behind Jews in everything from land allocation to education and employment prospects.

But in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the Israeli Land Authority, which leased land to the Jewish Agency to establish Katzir as a Jewish-only community, had acted illegally.

The authority did nothing hoping Mr Kaadan would just go away but after he filed for contempt of court, it finally caved in. This May it granted him his plot of land at 1995 prices - about $15,000 rather than $100,000. Dana Alexander calls this "a landmark ruling which proves that all citizens should enjoy equal rights in a democratic Jewish state".

Foot dragging

But the battle is not over. Earlier this month some members of the Knesset tried to introduce a new bill which would circumvent the Supreme Court verdict and once again allow for exclusively Jewish communities on state land.

The bill was narrowly defeated and the former Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said he opposed it because "it smelled of apartheid". [5]

Homey 06:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the case, then the article needs to make that clear. As I said, right now it looks like a very well sourced argument put together by Wikipedia editors. Bibigon 06:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It would only look like that if you haven't read the sources. Much of why we use footnotes is so we can make the article more readable by not having to keep saying "The Guardian says", "the BBC says" etc - we could pull a few more quotes from the sources so as to make it clear that they do refer to apartheid or discrimination based on ethnicity/religion.Homey 06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I certainly don't grant the premise that the section is not original research, and it's just poorly written. But if you believe it is, then the article needs to make clear where the chain of reasoning is coming from. The reason we use footnotes is not to make articles more readable, but so that users can find more details about the claims that Wikipedia editors are making. It's to ensure factual accuracy, not to save on space. And yes, we keep saying "The Gaurdian says", "the BBC says" otherwise, it's original research. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR, as you seem to think citing sources excludes content from being problematic in that sense. Bibigon 07:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this whole ILA JNF issue shouldn't appear in the article, since it deals with history rather than present-day reality. The fact is this discrimination of this kind doesn't exist In Israel anymore, the Supreme court ruling changed the reality and the counter-bill was defeated, it doesn't matter by what majority, it only matters that its attempt to keep discrimination was unsuccessful. Also, in the current article there are facts proving that the ILA never discriminated against Arabs (or at least not through a coherent steady and unbreakable policy as in apartheid). Thus, it seems that putting these historical facts (or alleged facts) to try and prove an alleged situation in current day Israel, is just cheap demagogy. If one makes such a serious accusition one at least has to stick with the facts and not mix past and present. I can write an article about "Apartheid in Southern U.S" talking about segregation in schools, then mention Brown vs. Board of education, and then say the State tryed to bypass the ruling unsuccessfully,do you think that will be a valid argument to prove anything about the contemporary U.S?Tal :) 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an article about Racial segregation in the United States that deals with history and present day. I see no issue with having the same type of treatment in this article. I think it would be an improvement to give historical context. --Ben Houston 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But that article is not called "Apartheid in the United States", nor should it be. 6SJ7 19:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"I get the feeling that this whole ILA JNF issue shouldn't appear in the article, since it deals with history rather than present-day reality."

McGreal, Uri Davis and others all cite the ILA/JNF issue as evidence the Israel practices (or practiced) apartheid so we have to mention it.Homey 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the original research tags until these concerns have been dealt with this. This passage remains original research, in spite of it being sourced. Please read up on WP:NOR. I've requested that some other editors come take a look at this issue, so hopefully we can build consensus. We'll remove the tags then. (Or if they tell me that it's not OR, then I'll drop the issue.) Bibigon 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the OR policy that supports your contention. The passages are properly sourced and the arguments in the passages originate with the sources. Stop misusing OR tags just because you don't like what a sentence says - misuse of tags has been considered vandalism in the past.Homey 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what the sentence says. The article doesn't make clear what the origins of the argument being made are, and it looks like they argument is being made by Wikipedia editors themselves. The citations don't support an argument of apartheid either. Please stop removing tags without consensus, that has been considered vandalism in the past as well. Bibigon 18:28, 2 July 2006

The arguments come from the sources which, as I said, use the term apartheid. Have you read McGreal's article, for instance?Homey 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is a different section however, and as such, McGreal needs to be sourced there as the source of the argument being presented if that is the case. Bibigon 18:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Which sentence in the passage is OR in your view. Be specific. Homey 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll add McGreal as a source - that was intended, it got lost in various edits. Homey 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, McGreal's article is already given as the principle source, his is the very first citation given in the section. I'll just fix the citation so it lists him as the author.Homey 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. The entire argument must be sourced. Not just the first paragraph. No worries, I'm going to wait for other users to comment before dealing with this issue more, since I don't think this is going anywhere right now. Bibigon 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, what we have is a collection of sourced facts. I ask again, cite a specific sentence that is Original Research in your view and explain why. Don't just say "it's all OR", give me a specific example. I can't think of any precedent for your unique OR argument - can you give me one? Homey 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bibigon here. Whilst certainly sourced, I did read through all the sources footnoted in those paragraph (26 through 31 or so, at the time I read it a couple of days ago). For example, McGreal's article doesn't seem to refer to "In March 2000, Israel's High Court ruled in Qaadan v. Katzir that the government's use of the JNF to develop public land was discriminatory due to the agency's prohibition against leasing to non-Jews." at all (it does mention Sharon's actions, but those were cited as 2001 and later). However, the source from which the court ruling description comes doesn't mention the rest of the argument.

No single sentence is OR, because each sentence pretty fairly represents the source it's derived from. The OR appears in the synthesis in the article. In particular:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Finally, possible lack of precedent (I haven't looked) isn't a particularly strong argument. Nysin 22:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris McGreal not a WP:RS

This is not new: Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Chris_McGreal_as_a_source

Chris McGreal is a highly biased sourced and frequntly his writing inculde misrepresnetations and outright false reporting. We should not be useing such biased sources for an article as loaded as this one.

I want to remindeveryone ArbCom decision:

"Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

who ever re-inserted Chris lies into this article is request to remove them. Zeq 16:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Example of Chris's lies

Chris argues (and this is in this article) that the ID card "in effect determining where they are permitted to live" - this is simply false.

Is there discrimination in Israel ? yes there is. Is it harder for an Arab to get a job or rent an apartment - Yes. Are arabs prevented from living in Tel-Aviv ? No. In Haifa - No. In Jerusalem ? No. In Holon - No. In the Negev - No. In the Galil - No ? In Netanya - No. In almost every place in Israel arabs do live and do work so what the fuck is Mcgreal trying to say ? that they can not ? If so he is leying. I can point out other such lies that can not be verified using good sources. Zeq 14:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

another example. Mcgreal writes:

"Ask Israelis why it is necessary to identify a citizen as a Jew or Arab on the card and the question is generally met with incomprehension: how can it be a Jewish state if we don't know who the Jews are?

. Anyone who have been to israel can tell you it is a lie. Why ? because most Israelis (jews or Arabs) don't need an ID card to identify one another. The names, look, language, accent - all are different and easily identifiable so this is a clear lie and I just don't belive anyone tiold this nonsense "how can it be a Jewish state if we don't know who the Jews are? ". If some frick would tell him that for Israel to be a jewsih state the arabs have to be kicked out I would at least believe him (there are people who think this way - I am not one of them) but to use an ID card to know who is "jewish" - this is pure BS. Zeq 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, and to follow Jayjg's lead, your accusations are original research. --Ben Houston 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He is not a good source. I am not suggseting that you use my views in the article but I am suggesting we carefully examine his words. Do you want a good encyclopedia ? if so check the validy of such source. Can you show me a single case where an Arab was denided the right to live in Tel-Aviv ? Jerusalem ? jaffa ? Haifa based on his ID card ? Zeq 15:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling McGreal "a pro-Palestinian journalist" is POV. Readers can rule on his biases themselves. Also, McGreal is the Guardian's Middle East correspondent. Homey 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So is calling CAMERA an pro-Israel organization. You seemed to have no problem inserting that into the article. Bibigon 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can provide neutral citations for that - just look at the article on CAMERA. If the article had been refuted by, say, a study commissioned by the Columbia University journalism school that would be one thing but all the attacks you cite are from explicitly pro-Israel lobby groups and "media monitors". If you can find an NPOV source that describes McGreal as "pro-Palestinian", fine, but he is the Guardian's Middle East Correspondent and your views on whether he's pro-Palestinian or not is beside the point. Anyway, I'm leaving the article now because of 3RR and you're at risk of violating 3RR yourself so let's work this out out on the talk page. Homey 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you properly understand the 3RR, as I don't believe either of us is in danger of violating it, but I strongly support working this out in talk.

Being the Gaurdian's Middle East Correspondent is very a good reason to believe he is pro-Palestinian, or rather more accurately, anti-Israel. I would suggest we not include either label personally, as both are subject to NPOV concerns, and both are likely to lead to controversy. However, if you insist on labeling CAMERA pro-Israel, then in interest of balancing the article, we should label a spade a spade and call McGreal pro-Palestinian, or as I mentioned above, anti-Israel. I don't see on what basis you're making the claim that CAMERA is objectively pro-Israel while Mcgreal is not similarly pro-Palestinian. Every piece he's ever written on the issue has reached the same conclusions, just as (I suspect), everything that CAMERA has ever done has been pro-Israel. But please, lets see these netural citations for CAMERA being pro-Israel. Bibigon 19:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, your original wording misleadingly implied that the Guardian report was widely refuted when, in fact, it was only challenged by pro-Israel sources (as I said, it's not like a study by the Columbia University journalism school refuted it). You can't seriously deny CAMERA is not pro-Israel - can you find any instances of CAMERA criticising the media over being biased in favour of Israel? You imply that the fact the McGreal works for the Guardian means he's pro-Palestinian but we do not describe the paper as "pro-Palestinian" and would not since to do so would be POV. Homey 19:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA has taken full page ads in the NY Times attacking NPR and urging people not to fund it. They are clearly a partisan lobby group and not an objective source.

Incidentally, the Columbia Journalism Review has described CAMERA as "a pro-Israel group"[6]. Homey 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "your original wording"? I didn't write this wording, nor have edited that section other than to put back the word "controversial."

Second, no, I cannot deny that CAMERA is pro-Israel. Nor can I deny that McGreal is anti-Israel however. Both are clearly true and equally obvious to me. However, both labels are POV, since they are in fact, points of view. That is why I'm advocating that both be taken out. It's no more objective to say that CAMERA is objectively pro-Israel than it is to say that McGreal is pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel.

Finally, the Columbia Journalism Review is not a NPOV source either. They have their biases the same as any other news organization. That's why we avoid labels such as "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" unless the groups self identify themselves as such. You get NPOV concerns otherwise. Bibigon 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not the CJR describing CAMERA as a pro-Israel group in that link. It's an interview with Daniel Okrent, the NYTimes ombudsman. Bibigon 19:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a parenthetical comment so it looks like it was added by the CJR but, even if you prefer to attribute it to the NY Times' ombud it's still RS. In any case, you admit that CAMERA is pro-Israel (will you concede that with the other sources you use for claiming that the Guardian piece has been challenged?). It is misleading to suggest that something has been roundly criticised when, in fact, it has only been criticised by one POV and not by neutral sources. It's more accurate to say the piece has been criticised by pro-Israel sources than not to say that and yes CJR or, if you insist, the NY Times, is an RS on that where the sources criticising the article are not RS.

Do you have any RS that say the Guardian's Middle East correspondent is "pro-Palestinian"? Homey 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a reliable source, and a NPOV source. The reason we leave off labels such as "pro-Israel" is because they are inherently POV based. I admit that CAMERA is pro-Israel the same as I admit that McGreal is anti-Israel. I don't think either one should be in the article however. Why? Because those labels represent my POV, and do not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The fact that NYTimes ombudsman or CJR(we don't know which), described CAMERA as pro-Israel is irrelevant. They are merely voicing their POVs, not facts. Do you not see the difference?

And what exactly in your mind is the difference between labeling McGreal pro-Palestinian, and labeling CAMERA pro-Israel? It's still not clear to me the distinction you draw between them in that respect. Bibigon 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibigon - is CAMERA anti-Palestinian? Why do you call McGreal anti-Israel but CAMERA pro-ISrael? Can you admit taht CAMERA is anti-Palestinian? Or is there something strange going on here where one has to define themselves relative to Israel and no other party or perspective matters? --Ben Houston 02:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you have a point? I'm arguing for neither one to be labeled as such in the article.

That said, no, I think CAMERA is pro-Israel, which is not the same as anti-Palestinian. I believe that McGreal is anti-Israel, which is not the same as pro-Palestinian. There's no reason everyone has to define themselves relative to Israel, but both CAMERA and McGreal are primarily identifiable as relative to Israel, not to Palestinians. I don't know why you think I believe otherwise. Again, none of this is relevant to the article, as neither label should be there. Bibigon 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring of Criticism Section Needed

The current criticism section, a list of bullet points, is not really appropriate. It would be better to have the bulleted section broken out into sections acknowledging the source and their argument in their words. One good example is how it was handled on the New_Anti-Semitism#Other_critics article -- broken down by who said what and letting each response to the criticism make its case congently. A global summary of the responses should still be provided though for reader ease. Also, we rely on fairly horrible sources for a lot of the rebuttal -- the over-reliance on the NGO Monitor Op-Ed piece is not great, it would be better to find academic sources, and some of the citations such as BICOM are very partisan -- have a look at how they frame the overall conflict in the FAQ [7] - this site is promoting an exclusive and one-sided narrative in its explanation of just about everything, its frankly scary. --Ben Houston 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the list of bullet points isn't ideal, I must disagree about the sources. The fact that a source is partisan doesn't make it a bad source. It just means it's partisan, and thus it's presenting it's own POV. That's the whole point of the criticism section, to present alternate(but notable) points of view. Just about every source in the entire article, both the critics and the supporters of the term, however are very partisan. If we removed partisan sources, we'd delete just about the entire article. Bibigon 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed passages

User:Bill Levinson has added two passages that don't belong:

It is in fact the Hamas-controlled Palestinian government that is contemplating apartheid-like treatment of all non-Muslims under its rule: "The general plan of Hamas also includes the imposition of a special tax, called al-jeziya, upon all of the non-Muslim residents in the Palestinian territories. This tax revives the one applied through all of Islamic history to the dhimmi, the second-class Jewish and Christian citizens." [8]

The above doesn't actually have anything to do with the topic of "Israeli apartheid".

The above is 100 percent relevant to "According to Fred Taub, the President of Boycott Watch, "The assertion ... that Israel is practicing apartheid is not only false, but may be considered libelous. ... The fact is that it is the Arabs who are discriminating against non-Muslims, especially Jews." The cited reference simply supports Fred Taub's statement that Arabs are in fact discriminating against non-Muslims. If a term like "Israeli Apartheid" meets Wikipedia standards for NPOV, then "Arab Apartheid" with respect to treatment of non-Muslims as second-class citizens-- should qualify just as well. Bill Levinson 22:20 UTC

Unless you can find a source that draws an analogy between Hamas' practice in the West Bank and either apartheid or the charge of Israeli apartheid your addition is "original research" and unacceptable. Homey 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is especially to be noted that the use of an emotionally-charged phrase like "Israeli Apartheid" is an application of the principle, "He who controls the language controls the debate"-- an adage attributed to individuals like Joseph Stalin, Nikita Krushchev, and Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. [9].

The source given does not refer at all to Israel or the Mideast conflict.Homey 19:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not meant to refer to Israel or the Mideast but rather the deliberate use of emotionally-charged language like "apartheid" to set the tone for the Israel-Palestine debate. It in fact makes a conclusion up front-- that Israel practices South African-style apartheid-- that is not supported by any facts and is therefore contrary to Wikipedia's mission statement. Bill Levinson 22:20 UTC

Unless you can find a source that makes that argument specifically against the term apartheid it's Original research and not acceptable. Homey 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from a source making an argument against the use of the term apartheid??? Kuratowski's Ghost 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's from a Catholic commentator bemoaning the terms "Choice" and "gender". He mentions neither apartheid nor Israel. Homey 22:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Responses to McGreal

Currently reads:

Numerous point-by-point responses to McGreal's allegations were offered by several organizations. These organzations included the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America^[1]^[2]^[3], the British Israel Communications and Research Centre^[4]; and Honest Reporting^[5]. Several Israelis also wrote letters of complaint to the Guardian.^[6]

The problem with this is there is no description of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) or "Honest Reporting". These are not neutral organizations but pro-Israel watchdogs - The Jerusalem Centre for Policy Affairs in an interview with CAMERA's director describes it as "a leader in the field of pro-Israeli media watching"[10] while "Honest Reporting"'s own website describes its origins thusly: ""So there were 4 or 5 of us British university students, kicking ideas around, frustrated and wondering what we could do to help Israel."[11]

Usually, in the media when a thinktank like the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institute is cited they are described as right wing or left wing. Given that CAMERA and "Honest Reporting" both have names that do not indicate their biases is it not misleading for us to not add a description of these groups, particularlhy when these groups are quite open about their orientation and it is not a subject of dispute. Not even the editor who reverted the description denies CAMERA is "pro-Israel", he just doesn't want it described as such in the article. I think this is just misleading. Homey 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think "numerous point by point responses" is something of an embellishement as is describing three organizations as "several". Homey 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole section on this McGreal guy should come out, his opinions are not notable. 6SJ7 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

a) He's the Middle East Correspondent for a leading newspaper that's read throughout the world b) the fact that his story is "notable" is evidenced by the vociferous response against it by pro-Israel groups.

Nevertheless, my issue is with the attempt to make the response to him seem to reflect a broader and more diverse spectrum of opinion than it actually did. If you can find some neutral groups that criticised McGreal fine but if it's only pro-Israel lobby groups then we are remiss not to suggest otherwise.Homey 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is accurate to call CAMERA and HonestReporting "media watchdogs," "pro-Israeli" is a matter of opinion. Their honestly held conviction is that there is media bias against Israel, and they honestly also believe that it is doing everyone in the conflict a disservice. In any event, there are links to both organizations, and anyone who is interested can read about them. It is also implicit in the sentence that they are objecting to a negative characterization of Israel. And since the comparison (and this article) is bogus and absurd to begin with, it doesn't take any bias to thoroughly debunk it. Any reasonable person would know that the similarities are superficial and misleading - only someone who sincerely wishes Israel to fall into disrepute (and is out of other arguments) would resort to it. --Leifern 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

""pro-Israeli" is a matter of opinion." Yeah, the opinion they and their supporters have of themselves. Look, if neutral sources have criticised McGreal then find them and post them however it's misleading to pass off self-described pro-Israel media watchdogs as neutral arbiters. Homey 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Heritage Foundation nor the Brookings Institute seem to be described as right wing or left wing when they are cited on Wikipedia, because that would be a violation of wp:NPOV. I've checked the first five or so articles on the list, feel free to check the rest here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Brookings_Institution

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Heritage_Foundation

Heptor _talk 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, have you even read the NPOV policy? You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the nuances of both this and WO:NOR. Of course it's not POV to simply describe these organizations. However, it is POV to only give the descriptions from one source. That's why we traditionally don't go into such depths in articles such as this, and instead, we simply name the orgnanizations in question. If you insist that your edits stand, then we will have to add additional descriptions of these organizations to balance the POV, thus dragging this article into long discussions of CAMERA, HonestReporting, and BICOM.

Additionally, the other side of the coin, adding, long series of descriptions about the Gaurdian and McGreal, is equally unpalatable. We could give various people attacking both McGreal and the Gaurdian, but then we'd be obligated to give the defenses in interest of NPOV, and thus the Chris McGreal section becomes far more about him, and the various organizations in the debate, than about the substantive nature of his claims.

That's what the NPOV policy requires, that we present notable points of view about these subjects if we're going to discuss them at all. The reason we don't do that, and the reason it's called "poisoning the well" is because it would involve Wikipedia devolving into long chains of attacks and counterattacks on people's sources. You keep referring to these mythical "neutral sources" and you fail to realize, they don't exist. There are reliable sources, not neutral sources. We never pass off the opinions of media watchdogs as being neutral, we pass them off as their opinions. We never call them neutral, we never imply anything of the sort. The same as we never call McGreal or the Gaurdian neutral. Sources are sources, that's all they are. There's no assumption of neutrality.

The standard protocol is thus to simply to let the sources stand for themselves, and not ascribe biases to them, or whatnot. We do this unless the article itself is about the sources of course. We don't call the NYTimes a bastion of the left everytime we cite it(even though it'd be trivial to find notable sources who describe it as such), nor do we call say Fox News a bastion of the right everytime we cite it. We don't go into the biases of the sources within articles that aren't about the sources, because going into the biases involves counterpoints, and maybe even more, which distracts for the main point of the article far too greatly. Bibigon 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, it is POV to only give the descriptions from one source"

Again, the source for 2 of the 3 is the organizations themselves and the description is one thing that both sides of the issue seem to agree upon! I've also never before heard citing a self-description as "poisoning the well"

Not particularly relevant. You still cherry-picked the passages from their self-descriptions which best matched the POV you wanted to convey. We still don't normally give descriptions of sources, even self-descriptions, when citing them. Bibigon 22:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see how you can excuse the embellishment of these sources both in number ("several" instead of "three") and by referring to these as "point-by-point responses" when simply "responses" will do. Homey 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Poisoning the well," Homey, would mean that you'd prejudice the reader about the veracity of the content of the source by unnecessarily and inaccurately characterizing the source. In this case, both CAMERA and Honestreporting are dedicated to promoting fairness and accuracy in the coverage of the conflict, and that is the standard they should be held to. What motivated them to start the organizations is presumably the observation that Israel got unfairly unfavorable treatment, but they apparently decided that facts were the best weapon against this kind of treatment. Perhaps you think that's a farce, but I gotta tell you, The Guardian's pretense at being an honest news reporting organization is an even greater farce to me. "Point by point" characterizes the format of the response - that is helpful information. --Leifern 22:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't excused the embellishment. Although I do think "point-by-point" is better than simply responses, if it is factually accurate. If the number of organizations replying to McGreal is limited to 3 however, then I see no reason not to say as much. I don't think saying "several" is proper when it's only three. Bibigon 22:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Then undo the embellishment - my last version, which someone reverted, did not include any comments on the sources but removed the embellishments. Homey 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am looking at your last version compared to the current version [12]. I just don't see any embellishments, care to specify what text you are talking about? Perhaps you are speaking about phrase "point-to-point responses" vs "critical responses"? Also, someone changed it from "three organizations" to "several organizations". It seams like a reasonable thing to do - unless we are somehow sure that there were no other organizations, we should not claim so. -- Heptor _talk 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many campuses"? Or two campuses?

There is a sentence in this article as follows:

The term "apartheid" has been used by groups protesting the Israeli government, particularly student groups in Britain, the United States and Canada, where "Israeli apartheid week" is held on many campuses.^[7]

I read the article that supposedly supports this sentence, and I followed the link from that article to another article about student protests, and unless I am missing something, these articles do not support the contention that "many campuses" have "Israeli apartheid week." In fact I see a reference in the linked article to exactly one such "week," at Oxford. The secondary link has a reference to a protest at Georgetown (in the U.S.), but no reference to it being called "Israeli apartheid week." So unless someone can show me quotes from the outside articles that prove me wrong, I think "many campuses" needs to be changed to "Oxford," the reference to Canada should be deleted, and the reference to the U.S. needs to be fixed so it talks about one campus, with an un-named protest. I'll give this a few hours. Of course, a better question might be, does every protest on a college campus deserve a mention in an article? I (vaguely) remember quite a few from my college days that clearly don't, and I'd say these fall into that category as well. 6SJ7 00:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an annual "Israel Apartheid Week" at the University of Toronto[13][14]Homey d01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, those are new references, but obviously they support keeping "Canada" in the sentence, which I am sure fills you with great glee. Now I guess "many" should be changed to "three" rather than "two." Not even "several," of course, since I guess we have now established that "three" is not "several." However, based on the second new article, we also need to add the protests of the Jewish students at the use of the word "apartheid." These Jewish students sure seem to be worried about the implied threats from these anti-Israel protests. I would be too. The word "pogrom" crosses my mind. 6SJ7 01:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an added note. At the beginning of the discussion over this ridiculous article, there was a question about whether there were actually 30,000 or 40,000 or some other number of Google hits for "Israeli apartheid", and a debate over their significance. I suspect we will find out the true number sooner or later, because every single one of those Google hits seems destined to be quoted in this article eventually. We are well on our way already. 6SJ7 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am all for quoting every reputable mention -- that is what the article should aim to be in the end. --Ben Houston 02:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See [15] there are at least 3 Canadian schools so with the US school and oxford that is "several" or, if you prefer 'at least five'Homey 01:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

When I was in school the campus Hillel used to have "Israel week" complete with huge maps showing the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel and students staffing the tables saying things like Arabs are uncivilized, Arabs are terrorist etc. How do you think Palestinian students felt about that?Homey 01:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that WP is a wrong place to ~~heal~~ overcompensate for childhood traumas, Homey. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Palestinian, or Arab. Sorry for not meeting your preconception. Homey 02:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who you are. It is what you do, not who you are. Sorry for not meeting your preconception. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

University advocacy groups are not balanced representatives of what is going on -- University students tend to have lots of passion and poor understanding of issues and perspective -- and I am referring to both sides. --Ben Houston 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the hatred is fought (as opposed to being whitewashed/justified/inflamed as certain WP editors try to do on these pages), these students tend to grow into adults who "have lots of passion and poor understanding of issues and perspective". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what "childhood trauma" are you referring to, Humus? I'm afraid my suburban Canadian childhood was not at all traumatic by any standards though I have to admit to still being bitter at missing kindergarten the day my classmates got to do fingerpainting. Homey 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this NPOV ? _ if so where is the other view point ?

Origins The origins of claims linking Israel and Zionism with apartheid policies go back at least to the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War. Following the Israeli victory in the war, there was an intense debate in Israel and elsewhere about the future of the large Palestinian Arab population of the territory captured by Israel from Jordan and Egypt.

Some invoked the example of South Africa, where a white-dominated government controlled by force a large and politically hostile black African population. Moshe Dayan, the Israeli Defence Minister, publicly called for the creation of "a sort of Arab 'Bantustan'" in the West Bank structured along similar lines to the nominally independent "homelands" established in South Africa.[16]

Others saw the South African example as one to be avoided, rather than emulated. The senior British Conservative politician Ian Gilmour was an early proponent of this school of thought. In June 1969 he wrote a lengthy article in The Times of London arguing that an apartheid-style system was the "logical culmination" of "Zionist exclusiveness." [17]

Ahhah

Some say there is apartheid and some say it shoud be avoided. Indeed thuis is wikipedia NPOV on the question: is there or is there not an Israeli apaartheid.... Zeq 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is in fairly decent shape. Wikipedia isn't in the position to resolve absolutely a contentious issue but rather to put in both sides. --Ben Houston 14:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Right:One side sais that there should be apartheid and the other sais it is no such a great idea. That is your view of NPOV ? This article is a joke as it does not really deal with the issues. What Moshe dayan said in 1967 has no bearing at all 40 years later. Apaartheid is an instituntalized recism and the article has no good scholarly relaible WP:RS source about such phenomena in israel today. Zeq 14:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We are in no position to determine whether or not there is an "Israeli apartheid". Our job is to report the way in which this concept has been used in the literature and in debate. Homey 16:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree. However NPOV means that we raise the arguments of both sides. To just say that soem thought it is a good idea and others that it is bad one is not the real issue - the whole origin section is not NPOV. Zeq 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-process move

I've reverted User:Humus sapiens's premature move of this article to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Considering that discussions have not been concluded and there is no consensus yet, this was clearly an improper and out-of-process move. The matter has been raised by User:Nagle at WP:AN/I#Move of Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid while Request for Move poll in progress. Please discuss questions related to Humus' actions there rather than here (it's best to keep the discussion in one place). -- ChrisO 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that heading should be "Allegedly out-of-process move." That is intended with a bit of humor, but this isn't: The whole "process" regarding this article was broken almost from the beginning. With Wikipedia having hundreds of contributors, apparently millions of readers and potentially many more, the idea that one person can create and name an article, and 12 to 15 others can block a renaming, is absurd. Is Wikipedia going to have any credibility or not? 6SJ7 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 6SJ7, claiming that the move was out of process is either intentionally humorous, or just really strange. The previous title only existed because another administrator innappropriately used his admin powers to move the page against the objections of a majority of editors. A "consensus" is never going to be reached because a number of editors here want to see the accusation of Israeli apartheid seem more official because of their personal politics, not because of what is appropriate. If we waited for "consensus" as Chris suggests we should, the result would be that an obvious minority are allowed to get their way despite the objections of the majority of editors here, and indeed despite common sense as well. Chris's suggestions would lead to an exercise in absurdity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing has been a farce since Homey created it, what with all the polls on various pages that no one could keep up with. There was no process here at all, that's the problem. An injection of common sense was needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I started this poll thinking that it would be a quick way to de-escalate the conflict while we sorted through deeper issues. Lord, what was I thinking? In any case, most "oppose" comments invoke the fact that other political terms used as article titles do not have qualifiers. They either don't hear, or disagree with, the point that the title in question is in danger of being taken literally. I think if we create general guidelines on political terms in article titles, consensus on specific issues such as this one will come more easily. If people realize they are faced with potential titles such as "Murder of the unborn" (to be placed, of course, on Murder (disambiguation)), it might be the fastest way to resolution.Su-Laine Yeo 03:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a good idea, Su-laine. The problem was that there had been so many polls already, and people were losing track. Several people who wanted to vote didn't, because they got fed up with it, or didn't know where to go. Your point about "murder of the unborn" is a very good one. We had a similar problem a few months ago over Islamofascism. We badly need some kind of guideline, but it's going to be a hard one to get the wording right with. It'll be a guideline (term). :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I set up the move poll as a binding Request for Move poll; so we could get the name issue nailed down, and go on from there. We are making progress. A previous issue was whether the article should exist at all. There's been an AfD, which did not result in a delete, and that issue is now closed. Next we get the name issue resolved. Then we work through the content issues. On the content front, we now have much more sourced information than we used to, and verifiability is improving. Patience, everyone. Try not to get too wound up; with an arbitration pending, it won't help your position. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Before working through the content issues, and perhaps even before resolving the name issues, I believe we need to figure out the purpose issues. This article was supposed to be about the term "Israeli apartheid" and it's turned into a discussion on the alleged phenomenon of Israeli apartheid. Is it appropriate to have an article on the term, an article on the alleged phenomenon, neither article, both articles, or both subjects in one article? How do we get an answer to those questions?Su-Laine Yeo 04:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Referred to arbitration

This matter has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The out-of-~~consensus~~ process move appears to have broken all of the archive links at the top of the page, btw. -- ChrisO 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling it an out-of-consensus move. There is no clear consensus, and therefore no out-of-consensus, but there is a majority, and more importantly, there is common sense and accuracy, and that's what we ought to act on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That should have been "process", not "consensus". Apologies. The move was indisputably and admittedly undertaken without a consensus or the poll being closed - i.e. in violation of established process - which is at the root of this particular dispute. As for motives, I'm afraid that the disputed actions were clearly motivated by overtly POV reasons; Humus has made this explicitly clear. I've now documented it with diffs on WP:RfAr. -- ChrisO 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that the move was out of process is absurd. The previous title only existed because another administrator innappropriately used his admin powers to move the page against the objections of a majority of editors. A "consensus" is never going to be reached because a number of editors here want to see the accusation of Israeli apartheid seem more official because of their personal politics, not because of what is appropriate. If we waited for "consensus" as Chris suggests we should, the result would be that an obvious minority are allowed to get their way despite the objections of the majority of editors here, and indeed despite common sense as well. Chris's suggestions would lead to an exercise in absurdity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you can hardly accuse anyone else of POV as though you are above it. You were involved in editing the article. You had voted not to move it to Allegations. You then moved it back three times and protected it! You did more than anyone else did today. You might want to think about that before accusing anyone else. That is why I e-mailed you in the hope we could quickly sort out a compromise and present it, as reasonable people, to other reasonable people. But you didn't want it. And so here we are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

this edit is aclear violation: [16] Zeq 07:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Bollinger comment

For some reason User:Xed keeps trying to add well-poisoning information to the statement by Lee Bollinger. Specifically, he keeps adding

He supported a counter-petition, which was also supported by some of Columbia's richest donors. Socialist Worker report The university hired Howard J. Rubinstein & Associates to handle the case – the same firm that was hired by the Israeli foreign ministry to improve Ariel Sharon's image.Censoring Thought report

While Bollinger himself made statements directly about the analogy of apartheid to Israel, I cannot, for the life of me, see what these two statements have to do with the allegation that Israel practices apartheid. One is about a petition, allegedly supported by "some of Columbia's richest donors". The other claims that Columbia hired the same lawyers that the Israeli foreign ministry had previously hired to do some unrelated thing. Neither website is a reliable source, and though Xed has described the pages themselves as "reports", both items are essentially "letters to the editor" or opinion pieces by completely non-notable individuals. I can see a half-dozen policy reasons why this stuff doesn't belong in this (or indeed any) article, but I'm having a hard time seeing any reason why it belongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: "Islamic Apartheid"

Since those who oppose renaming this article "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" think the title "Israeli Apartheid" meets Wikipedia's NPOV standards, I am confident that they will not object to the creation of an "Islamic Apartheid" article that discusses apartheid-like practices in Islamic nations. These include but are not limited to: (1) "Back of the bus" policies for non-Muslims, who are referred to as dhimmis ("protected persons"), kafirs, and infidels. Dhimmis are often required to pay special taxes and are denied many civil rights. In return, "protected persons" are not to be harmed by Muslims as long as they know their place-- sort of like African-Americans in regions dominated by the Ku Klux Klan during the bad old days. In fact, just as Blacks were once defined as 3/5 human for census purposes, Saudi Arabian law defines Christians as half-human for "blood money" compensation purposes. (2) Second-class citizenship for women, who have far fewer civil rights than African-Americans did before enactment of the Civil Rights Act. This includes the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip. (3) State-sanctioned violence toward gay people. (4) Actual slavery of Christians and other non-Muslims, e.g. in the Sudan and so on. (5) Socially- and legally-sanctioned violence against women, misogyny, and femicide ("honor killings"). The bottom line is that if a term like "Israeli Apartheid" meets Wikipiedia's NPOV standards, then so does "Islamic Apartheid" and such an article can be backed up with a myriad of references that meet Wikipedia's impartial-reference standards. At this point, I think the tone of the discussion is as to whether both titles should be allowed, or neither. Bill Levinson 5 July 2006, 18:00 UTC

You are comparing the proverbial apples to oranges; "Israel" is a nation, while "Islam" is a religion. I am quite sure that Jordinians, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, and other relatively open and moderate Middle Eastern nations would likely object to being swept under so broad a generalization as you propose. If you truly wish to delve into such topics, then I would wholeheratedly support a "Saudi Arabian Apatheid" page, or a "Sudanese Apartheid" page, and so on where appropriate. Tarc 22:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Israelis object to being swept under so broad a generalize as "Israeli Apartheid", but that hasn't stopped the existence of such an article. If objections from the natives of a country were sufficient to keep a page from being created, then Wikipedia would be quite a different place. Bibigon 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not comparing apples to oranges, as Islamic law is used as the express justification for the apartheid-like abuses that are described above. Bill Levinson 6 July 2006, 0:01 UTC

Bill and bibigon see gender apartheid.Homey 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

More fundamentally, "Islamic apartheid" simply doesn't appear to be a widely used expression. Google returns only 759 results for it, the vast majority from non-reputable sources (bondage.com??). It plainly fails to achieve the standards of notability set out in Wikipedia:Notability. Compare this to "Israeli apartheid", which returns over 270,000 results from Google.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary The mere prevalence of an expression does not make it a notable title for an article. --Leifern 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There might however be some mileage in having an article on Alleged discrimination in Islam, though it would obviously need to be handled carefully to avoid it turning into a compilation of anti-Islamic rants. -- ChrisO 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it is time for "Islamic Apartheid" to become a widely-used expression because systematic and legally-sanctioned discrimination against people because of their race, religion, or gender is in fact apartheid. The only reason that "Israeli apartheid" appears more frequently is that politically-motivated individuals have, as a propaganda ploy, circulated an emotionally-charged phrase to incite hatred of Israel. A Wikipedia article should certainly not include any POV anti-Islamic rants but only documented NPOV references of apartheid-like practices in Islamic nations. Bill Levinson 6 July 2006, 0:04 UTC

Pardon? Bibigon 23:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill, we do not create articles in order to popularize terms. We create them to define and explore existing terms and ideas. If and when "Islamic apartheid" becomes a widely used expression we can create an article on it. I don't rule this out as an eventuality, see gender apartheid and you'll see the term has already been used to describe the treatment of women by Islamic societies. It's not a stretch to think the phrase "Islamic apartheid" may come into use - but it's not in wide use at present. Homey 23:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Allegations of Islamofascism's existed but only found Islamofascism!!!! Cry baby, cry! -- Szvest 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Homey, we don't. An encyclopedia exists to document knowledge. It doesn't exist to "explore" anything at all, and the prevalence of a term doesn't mean it incorporates any knowledge at all; or else expressions like heaven help us or talk to the hand would deserve their own articles.

This is a separate matter. My suggestion is that if there is significant reputable material for an article create it and deal with the resulting issues on that page. I think the matter at hand is already complex enough that it does not need to be conflated with this separate and distinct issue. --Ben Houston 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not being conflated BH. I am not sure if you already read the article or read some of the talk page's history. It is just like "Israeli Apartheid"; something being said by some while being criticised by others who believe it is an epiteth. -- Szvest 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

If there is reputable material for such an article then it should exist. If there is no credible material then it shouldn't exist. I suggest that one judge it on its merits - and its merits are irrelevant to this article in terms of specific subject matter. --Ben Houston 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that both articles share the same characteristics. Both provide reputable refs (pro/contra). I'm neither for an (epiteth) nor for (allegations). The article should judge that basing the arguments on reputable sources. -- Szvest 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have little faith that a wiki entry borne of spite for the Israeli apartheid entry will ever see the NPOV light of day. Valid cases can certainly be made for state-sponsored apartheid, but referencing and sourcing one rooted in religion itselfsuch as this claim? It will be interesting to see it come about, to say the least. Tarc 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RfM

{{RFMF}} SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and NOR

This repeats a comment I made on the title vote: I am highly critical of Israeli policy. I wish that the article on Israel, or an Israel-linked article, drew more on real research, e.g. by Ian Lustick, rather than the original research and editorializing we see here. This article is not about an Israeli policy or set of policies (they exist and have been the object of research by historians and political scientists and that reasearch belongs in an encyclopedia, but those scholars reveal how Zionist and then Israeli policies developed in historically specific ways quite dissimilar to Apartheid, which is a similarly historically specific set of policies), it is an article about popular allegations. Thus, the title. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, although I do not think it can currently be classified as OR though, it is all properly sourced to noted individuals and organizations. --Ben Houston 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merely sourcing an article doesn't ensure NOR. Every statement could be sourced, but if those statements formed a novel argument synthesized from but not present in any individual source, that'd still violate NOR. Nysin 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research claims

Ok, let's deal with these one at a time. First up:

After the court ruling, the government of Ariel Sharon introduced a bill into the Knesset that would have permitted Jewish-only towns to continue. The bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote.[17]^{[original research?]}

I don't think the OR tag at the end of this paragrah is warranted as everything stated in the paragraph is verified in the source. The paragraph does not interpret the source in a unique or unwarranted way or make any original argument, it simply repeats documented facts.

This is what the source says:

But in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the Israeli Land Authority, which leased land to the Jewish Agency to establish Katzir as a Jewish-only community, had acted illegally.

The authority did nothing hoping Mr Kaadan would just go away but after he filed for contempt of court, it finally caved in. This May it granted him his plot of land at 1995 prices - about $15,000 rather than $100,000.

Dana Alexander calls this "a landmark ruling which proves that all citizens should enjoy equal rights in a democratic Jewish state".

But the battle is not over. Earlier this month some members of the Knesset tried to introduce a new bill which would circumvent the Supreme Court verdict and once again allow for exclusively Jewish communities on state land.

The bill was narrowly defeated and the former Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said he opposed it because "it smelled of apartheid".

Rereading the two the only thing that isn't supported is the assertion that the defeated bill was introduced by the government of Ariel Sharon. However, there is an article in Ha'aretz that says:

In a decision that set off a storm of debate, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet Sunday voted to endorse a bill that would allow areas within Israel which have been designated as state land to be devoted to residential use by Jews alone. The bill still faces considerable legislative hurdles before it can be passed into law.

and later says

The bill was prompted by a landmark Supreme Court ruling over the efforts of the northern Israel Jewish village of Katzir to bar an Israel Arab from buying a house there. Although defined as a "community settlement", without the complex communal interrelationships of kibbutzim and moshavim, Katzir residents voted to keep Israeli Arab Adel Ka'adan from

buying a plot and building a house there

Incidentally, the article also carries this quotation:

"If we are not already totally an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it," said former cabinet minister and leftist Meretz party founder Shulamit Aloni.

(There is a cached version of the article here though the date given for it is incorrect - the actual date of publication is July 8, 2002 as can be seen in this reprint.)

I think if we add the Ha'aretz article as a second source and change "introduce" to "endorse" we can have a fully sourced paragraph. We can also include the Aloni and Lapid references to apartheid:

After the court ruling, the government of Ariel Sharon endorsed a bill into the Knesset that would have permitted Jewish-only towns to continue. The bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote. Tommy Lapid, leader of the liberal Shinui party opposed the bill claiming that it "it smelled of apartheid" while former Meretz leader said of it's introduction "If we are not already totally an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it,"

So, if we rewrite the paragraph as above and including both the BBC and Ha'aretz articles as sources can I remove the OR tag?Homey 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a good rewrite to me, and much better than the current version. One quibble: if it were me, I wouldn't call Shinui "liberal" - it just complicates the issue, and I personally would call them "centrist" or "moderate." TheronJ 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly deals with my concerns. It establishes that Wiki is not the source of the apartheid analogy with respect to this bill. While I don't know enough about internal Israeli politics to say whether Shinui is liberal or not, the Wiki page on Shinui calls them a liberal party, which makes it reasonable in my mind to call them that here. I like this version a great much more. Bibigon 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

The first paragraph of this article has turned into a worse mess than ever, and that is saying a lot. Omitting the reference at the end, it reads:

Allegations that Israeli policies approximate those of apartheid-era South Africa are highly disputed: its proponents use it to compare Israel's policy with respect to the Palestinians on the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens to apartheid-era South Africa; according to its opponents, it is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel.

This reads poorly. The first part of the paragraph has been changed to reflect the article's new title; the second part has not. Also, apartheid-era South Africa is now mentioned twice in what is more-or-less the same sentence, although with one colon and one semicolon it is difficult to tell whether this paragraph actually consists of one, two or three sentences. I think there are two reasonable alternatives and I would like to try to get some discussion (not necessarily a consensus or even a majority) as to better ways to do it, or perhaps even some agreement that one of my alternatives is tolerable. Please note, even if one of these changes is made, I reserve the right to change it again or to agree to anyone else's changes, if I think they are better than mine; I am just aiming for some immediate improvement. My goal here is both accuracy and readability, and for that reason I have tried to shorten what will, inevitably, be a long sentence. As for the revised second sentence (the same in each alternative), I am not very happy with it, but I think it is better than the current version. I am not sure what connotations people see in "According to," which I have deleted and replaced with the equally neutral "state." Let's see what happens.

Alternative One:

"Israeli apartheid" is a highly controversial allegation that seeks to compare the policies of Israel toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens, to those of apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of this allegation state that the term is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel.

Alternative Two:

Allegations that Israeli policies toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, Arab citizens of Israel approximate those of apartheid-era South Africa, are highly disputed. Opponents of this allegation state that the term is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel.

Now that I am done with this, I have to go with Alternative One because the first sentence of Alternative Two is too run-on. But I will give some time for comment before making the change; not too much time though, the current version is hurting my eyes. 6SJ7 23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative One seems fine. That's reasonably balanced. I'd drop the "highly", purely on the grounds that Wikipedia prose should be understated. I'd also change "both without merit, and misused" to "without merit, and is misused", as a style issue. But those are minor points. This is a big step forward over what we have at the top of the article now, which, let's face it, reads badly. --John Nagle 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think Alternative Two is better, after implementing the same changes John Nagle suggests for the first. Either alternative is an improvement. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, either one is better. If pressed to choose, I'd prefer #1 - maybe because I read it first. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I put option 1 at the top of the article, followed by a section header "Introduction to the Controversy", after which follows all the stuff that was there before. It's appropriate to have a one-line neutral header before plunging into the argument. To prevent edit wars, we're going to need a really bland first line, and we're getting close. The TOC may need to be moved, though; now there's too much whitespace at the top. --John Nagle 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

3rd suggestion

Israeli apartheid is a term used by those who oppose israel's right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people. The proponents of using this term claim that there is a analogy between Israel's policy toward Palestinians (inside Israel and in the Palestinian territories) and the apartheid regimen policy toward blacks while opponents of using the term point out that it is not accurate historically and that even critics of Israel's policies should not be using a term that is offensive and used as justification for attacks on Israel's right to exist with a goal of turnning Israel to a country rulled by Palestinians.

The accusation is often found on webs sites of all ranges of new anti-Semites – from neo-Nazis to extreme left.

See :

http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm

http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/Apartheid.html

http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000117.html

see example in homosexual agenda :

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is considered offensive by many,[1], particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3] Zeq 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Nagle made the change to my first alternative, minus "highly." I am considering adding that word back in; while Wikipedia may seek an "understated" style, I think language can also properly be used to identify extremes of disagreement, and I hope all would agree that the intensity of this disagreement is pretty extreme compared to others. But that can wait for another day, or at least another hour. At least the first paragraph is in English now. 6SJ7 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going for "understated", even "bland" in the first line. Any strong language will attract opposing strong language, and we'll get a mess again. --John Nagle 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that there was a change to the first line, and someone reverted it back. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I think we have to stay with a rather bland intro, or we'll never get anywhere. --John Nagle 05:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

reliable sources

Somebody (I believe it was Kim?) stared a sub-page where you could list reliable sources for this article. After the latest move I´m not able to find it. Could somebody who knows where it is, please post a link to it here? Thanks.

The last time I did see it, Norman Finkelsteins book: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict was not on it. It should be. Chapter 7 in the 2. ed. of the book (2003) is called "Oslo: The Apartheid Option".

Under Israeli_apartheid#Origins we should perhaps quote some from the book, see p. xi: "the Zionist movement sought [..] to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. [...] the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigneous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine´s indigneous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession. [...p.xii:] Basically the Zionist movement could choose between only two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled ´the way of South Africa´-´the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording over a large, exploited native majority´- or the ´way of the transfer´-´you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out.´ In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sight on `the way of transfer´. [..p. xvi:] The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, for the first time ´unequivocally prohibited deportation´of civilians under occupation (Articles 49, 147). Accordingly, after the June war Israel moved to impose the second of its two options mentioned above -apartheid." --Regards, Huldra 05:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you confuse this with the Zionism article, that you confuse the truely defensive reason for the June war and the fact that since 1977 israel has been systematicly returing terrotory it occupied, recently giving Palestinians back gaza. Zeq 06:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"truely defensive reason for the June war" is a statement Finkelstein would definitely not agree with. Regards, Huldra 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I happned to be in Israel at the time so I know the reason for the war were defnsive. after the war israel made a mistake and stayed in the areas instead of ending the war and going back home. Zeq 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is here Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Huldra 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this source, it might do well in a new article dealing with the scholary opinion of Israeli Apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

what does this have to do with allegations of Apartheid? It seems what you quote (even if taken at face value) clearly shows the Zionist movement did not choose the Aprtheid option. Isarig 05:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is true, up until 1967. In the period 1949-1967 Israel did not conquer any land (permanently). Finkelsteins point is that in order to achieve its aim (="to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine") Israel, after its new conquest of land and people in 1967, could not do as in 1948 (that is: "transfer" 80% of the people). This because of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949 which prohibited such "transfers". Regards, Huldra 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

^ Lee Green, Gilead Ini, Steven Stotsky, "CAMERA ALERT: Guardian portrays Israel as an Apartheid State"Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]] website, February 8, 2006
^ Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges - Further distortions exposed in March 8th update, CAMERA, February 20, 2006
^ Guardian's False Apartheid Charges—Part II, CAMERA, February 23, 2006
^ Response to the Guardian's G2 supplement - Part II, British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), 8 February 2006
^ Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur, and Honest Reporting, February 12, 2006
^ 'Most Israelis do not believe it is right to control the Palestinians', Letters Column, The Guardian, February 8, 2006
^ "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week" at Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul

[1] Lee Green, Gilead Ini, Steven Stotsky, "CAMERA ALERT: Guardian portrays Israel as an Apartheid State"Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]] website, February 8, 2006

[2] Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges - Further distortions exposed in March 8th update, CAMERA, February 20, 2006

[3] Guardian's False Apartheid Charges—Part II, CAMERA, February 23, 2006

[4] Response to the Guardian's G2 supplement - Part II, British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), 8 February 2006

[5] Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur, and Honest Reporting, February 12, 2006

[6] 'Most Israelis do not believe it is right to control the Palestinians', Letters Column, The Guardian, February 8, 2006

[7] "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week" at Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]