Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Restructuring the article

I'm planning to make some changes to the organization of this article, changing some headings and rearranging some content. I'm not planning to add or delete anything. My intention is to make the article more clear about who makes what allegations or comparisons.

A few people, including myself, have put questions and comments recently at Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid. From the low traffic on the page, I have a feeling people aren't watching it. Anyone care to trundle over there and take a look? If not, I'll copy the discussion over to this page, as this article is definitely the hotspot. Cheers, Su-Laine Kla'quot 06:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done the restructuring. It now has a lot more headings to break up what used to be very long sections, and the headings are more descriptive. I've also made the organization more theme-based. It was previously somewhat chronological and somewhat ad-hoc. I believe I haven't removed any of the content other than headings. However, the Rufin quote was previously there twice, and I've consolidated the two. The article generally needs some smoothing over to ensure sections have adequate introduction and context. I'll try to get to that soon. Kla'quot 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with what you have done I'm afraid. I think using the "apartheid analogies" wording in the headings near the top of the article is slightly misleading. Proponents of the term aren't using an analogy to apartheid - they are saying Israeli is actually practicising apartheid. Big difference, I think. I am going to change those headings. --SandyDancer 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. I have reverted headings using the new, and I believe inappropriate, "analogies" wording to language more like what was there before - i.e. talking about the "term" and the "allegations". This fits better with the article heading and is, in my view, more neutral. --SandyDancer 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Analogies and allegations

SandyDancer just brought up a good point that allegation and analogy are different concepts. I do prefer the word "analogy," and I think there is a discrepancy between the title of the article and what the quotations in the article actually say. Let's discuss the apartheid allegation versus apartheid analogy thing a bit further.

I'd really like to get consensus on what the subject of this article is; I think its subject has almost always been unclear, and the article currently suffers from it. As I see it, there are at least three different possible subjects for this article:

  1. The term "Israeli apartheid" itself
  2. The debate over allegations that Israel practices apartheid
  3. The debate over comparisons between Israeli practices and apartheid

The article may have began as being about the term "Israeli apartheid," but if the term is the main subject of the article, approximately 90% of the article is off-topic. Of all of the "proponents of the term," only NGOs are actually quoted as using the term in the body of the article. In the footnotes, an additional two individuals (Tutu and Davis) have quotations including the term.

If we were only to cover allegations that Israel practices apartheid, we'd have several problems.

  • In the real world, there is a spectrum between people who think Israel can do no wrong and people who think Israel is as bad as (or worse than) apartheid-era South Africa. In-between, there are many people who do not say Israel practices apartheid, but who do say that there are meaningful parallels to be made, and/or warn that it is heading in the direction of apartheid. (I consider myself as belonging to this middle ground.)
We should discuss the spectrum of opinions, not just the extremes. If we only covered allegations, not analogies, many of the people on the list of "proponents of the term" would have to be dropped. I'm not in favour of dropping them.
  • For Tutu in particular, the analogy is far more holistic than simply pointing out bad things Israel has done. He includes in his analogy comparisons between the struggle against Israeli practices and the struggle against apartheid. For him the spiritual significance of the two conflicts is also alike. I'd like to have the article mention these other aspects of his analogy, which in his writings actually have more prominence than his specific allegations do.
  • The meaning of the term "apartheid" in common political discourse is fuzzy. The "crime of apartheid" definition exists, but very few people have even heard of it, and it does not have well-defined operational criteria. I think it's far more common to simply use the term "apartheid" colloquially to mean "discrimination that reminds me of South Africa."

I voted Delete in the last VfD for this article because I don't think the question of whether Israel practices apartheid is encyclopedic. However, I do think we can develop this into a good article covering the debate itself, discussing the people involved in the debate and what they say. Kla'quot 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just the facts

I've made some rough clean up edits. Many failed WP:AWW, in the form of "Some people say x. Mr. Z says x." which I changed to just "Mr. Z says x." Another popular one was "some people claim fact A, though fact B, results in C", which I replaces with "Fact a. Fact b." Even though fact B is stated elsewhere anyway, and there's rearrangment TODO. Also removed a few uncited crystal ball statements (Though I'm sure we will all one day live in Big Rock Candy Mountain, it's not encyclopedic). -- Kendrick7 06:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Identity card section

I've read the Identity Card section over and over and I'm still not understanding how it relates to apartheid allegations. The section says basically that all adults have to carry an identity card that will indicate a) whether they are residents of Israel and b) whether they are Jewish. I've thought of rewriting the section to bring it to just those facts, but it still leaves the question of, "So what?" Is there a reason to not just delete the section? Kla'quot 07:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I know that apartheid allegations sometimes say that Arabs are harassed by being asked for their identity cards. But the point made is the harassment, not the nature of the identity card itself. Kla'quot 07:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I know it isn't exactly the Yellow badge, but the fact is that the Government does track who is and who is not Jewish, and citizens are legally required to carry government papers which indicate this, which presumably are required for any number of transactions. This falls under the more epithetical meaning of apartheid as "government sactioned rascism." The government enables people in positions of power to act in a rasist manner, if those people so choose. -- Kendrick7 19:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is presumably with the pass laws. Alai 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a bunch of comparisons with pass laws made. For example this from the Guardian:
"In Jerusalem and other parts of the occupied territories, Palestinians face a myriad of discriminatory laws and practices, from land confiscations to house demolitions, de facto pass laws and restrictions on movement. 'The similarities between the situation of East Jerusalemites and black South Africans is very great in respect of their residency rights,' says John Dugard, the international law professor widely regarded as the father of human rights law in South Africa and now the UN's chief human rights monitor in the occupied territories. 'We had the old Group Areas Act in South Africa. East Jerusalem has territorial classification that has the same sort of consequences as race classification had in South Africa in respect of who you can marry, where you can live, where you can go to school or hospital.'" (emphasis added) [1]
And this article from a PLO spokesman (from a PLO website) entitled Israel's Pass Laws Will Wreck Peace Hopes. --Deodar 23:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The mention of "Israeli pass laws" is made in this New York Review of Books article [2], and this summary of a UN African Meeting on the Occupied Territories [3]. --Deodar 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, of the four articles mentioned, only the Chris McGreal one mentions ID cards at all. The overwhelming emphasis in comparisons with pass laws is about restrictions on movement. The reason I questioned having this section is that a Google search on Israel + apartheid +"identity card" brings up very little - this Wikipedia article, several stories that covered harassment and the difficulty of getting cards, this article [4] using card laws as an example of why Israel is not an apartheid state, and tiny NGOs or individuals like this one [5]. Even the way Chris McGreal describes ID cards is not a major item in his article; he speculates that Arabs might be treated differently based on their ID card (no actual examples given), and it's only mentioned as a part of his general criticism of the Population Registry Act.
The fact that ID cards indicate whether one is Jewish seems to be a very minor part of the debate. Apartheid analogies generally focus on the in-your-face things, like having your house demolished, being cut off from your relatives, not being able to get to the hospital because of checkpoints, and severe poverty. The ID card thing may sound spooky to some of us, but per WP:NOR we can only describe the existing debate, not add our own arguments to it or put disproportionate emphasis on minor aspects of it.
I think it's justified to leave this section out of the article entirely. The abovementioned omparisons with pass card laws are closer to the core of the debate so they should be included. I'll remove the ID card section, and add something about pass law analogies. Kla'quot 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my search for sources above was specific to supporting the pass law comparison, which currently is underdeveloped in the article. I did no searchers for primary searches with regards to identity cards. If you do remove the section, please place it here on the talk page so that people can see what you have removed. --Deodar 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a logical restructuring, since it's both a broader point, and one more clearly relevant to the analogy/these/allegation, though the point from the Guardian piece about id cards might be mentioned in that broader context. Alai 04:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the proposal to remove entire mention of the special Jewish-only markings on Israeli ID cards, though I agree it is a separate issue from the pass cards. This is a clear factual example of "different" treatment by the government. I suspect if the US Congress passed a law requiring drivers licenses in the U.S. to have special "white-only" markings, there would be rioting in the streets, but even if such a thing was calmly accepted, I would find such a law notable for its implications. -- Kendrick7 04:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The identity cards are not used so much to discriminate based on religion, but rather to differentiate those with "rights" from those who do not have rights. Here is an extensive collection of articles that describe how the denial or revocation of identity cards is used to control people, because without one of those cards you can not travel, sometimes even within the territories: [6]. Thus I would argue that the identity cards are involved in discrimination but in a slightly different way than they were used in SA. --Deodar 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Kendrick7: I personally agree with you that Israeli ID cards may facilitate discrimination, however for whatever reason, the main players in the apartheid debate rarely bring it up. Just to speculate about the reasons it's rarely mentioned: It's probably not very difficult to tell who are the Jews and who are the Arabs even with no ID card at all, and an ID card with just a name on it would be a pretty reliable indication of ethnicity. Western police officers do plenty of racial profiling without ID cards. Ben: Those articles are about the difficulties of getting/keeping an ID card or of not having an ID card. They aren't about something on the card itself causing problems for a person who has a card. I have no problem with the article mentioning the real difficulties experienced by Palestinians in the OT, that involve identity cards. The section for this is probably the "Military Occupation" section as it is just one aspect of various day-to-day difficulties. Kla'quot 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding what I was saying -- I was making the point that the ID cards, once individual have them, are not used that much for discrimination, but there are significant problems with getting the cards or having them revoked. --Deodar 18:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Great, we're on the same page. 05:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The article says "Carrying an identity card is required of all residents over 16 within Israel proper." Is this correct? If so, we should be making a clearer distiction between ID card in Israel and in the West Bank. -- Kendrick7 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question; I thought we were talking about two different types of IDs. But as for the Israeli IDs, however minor it is in the public discourse, I still find this a notable symptom of the diagnosis this article contains allegations of. That is to say: If we were working on an article called "Allegations of Fire" I wouldn't be too quick to remove any factual indication of smoke. -- Kendrick7 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If the people making allegations of fire don't mention smoke, we are forbidden from mentioning smoke ;) For example, you could take the example here: WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position and substitute "plagiarism" with "apartheid." Or "fire." The other possibly original synthesis I see in this article is the prominence given to the Crime of Apartheid. I see little evidence that the allegations refer to the Crime of Apartheid; the most likely interpretation of most of the allegations is that they refer to the South African implementation of apartheid. Kla'quot 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You yourself just said the subject is "brought up." I take your word for it since you seem to be more familiar with the discourse. Apartheid is certainly a word whose meaning has grown over time, and I'm thankful to live in a world where there is only one such undisputed case of it. I don't know how we are supposed to know whether someone is limiting their scope when they say "Israel is apartheid state" except from our own prejudices. -- Kendrick7 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There are many mentions of the specific "crime of apartheid" in regards to Israel's practices from all sides. For example, UN documents: [7] [8], Israel newspaper coverage of protests [9], left-wing media watchdog groups [10], Arabic news sources [11], pro-Israel NGO Monitor correspondence [12], pro-Israel Campus Watch criticism of divestment efforts [13], pro-Palestinian Israeli NGO [14], Yale University Divestment Effort [15]. There is tons of citations that make the explicit comparison or criticize explicit that comparison. --Deodar 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added to quality citations into the lead that mention explicitly the crime of apartheid. The two sources I choice where pro-Israel and critical of the comparisons. I choose those because they clearly establish that the comparisons are being made. --Deodar 17:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Here's the section I just deleted:

Main article: Identity card (Israel)

Israeli identity cards made prior to the year 2005 indicate the holders nationality. Jewish Israelis were listed as Jewish rather than merely Israeli. The nationality has not been listed after this year; the field, while not removed, is now filled with a line of eight asterisks instead. Newer ID cards still idicate whether the holder is Jewish or not according to the government, by adding the person's Hebrew date of birth. Carrying an identity card is required of all residents over 16 within Israel proper. The West Bank and Gaza use different documents.

Thanks for the citations about the crime of apartheid. Kla'quot 05:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Put it back, with refs. Your first assessment may have underappreciated just how often this does come up in discussions of apartheid and Israel. Googling apartheid Israeli ID cards gets a half million hits; and I was too lazy to go past the first five returns (the first two link to this article and here, BTW). -- Kendrick7 05:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I thought we had consensus before, but it looks like I was mistaken. Let's discuss this. My objections to this section are:
  • There are relatively few reliable sources who mention that identity cards differentiate between Jews and non-Jews, and link that fact to an allegation of apartheid. It's part of the set of allegations, but a small one. Giving it its own section is way out of proportion.
  • Neither Chris McGreal nor Lawrence Davidson gives a single example of an Arab actually experiencing discrimination because of their identity card.
  • Neither source specifically compares Israeli ID card contents to South African ones. Both sources mention identity cards as one aspect of Jew/non-Jew identification and segregation within Israel. It would make more sense to discuss the wider issues of educational segregation, military service laws, marriage laws, etc.
  • What bothers me the most about this section is that it brings up lots of innuendo but does not state its own conclusion. It implies that there is something bad happening, but doesn't say what. The article should explain how facts fit into the debate.

Perhaps it would make the most sense to rewrite this section to cover the broader issue of ethnic/religious identification and segregation within Israel. Kla'quot 06:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cited an article from a WP:RS about Israeli apartheid specifically mentioning all the details about the Israeli ID card. It's a little late now to move the goal posts. -- Kendrick7 06:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Kendrick, if anything I have suggested expanding the distance between the goal posts so that the identity card information has a coherent context. I also question whether the information should be included at all, because points of view held by very few people do not have to be included. I assume you are conducting your side of the argument in an entirely honest and sincere way, and I ask that you do the same for me. The McGreal quote, more fully, is "Israel's Population Registry Act serves a similar purpose by distinguishing between nationality and citizenship. Arabs and Jews alike can be citizens, but each is assigned a separate "nationality" marked on identity cards (either spelled out or, more recently, in a numeric code), in effect determining where they are permitted to live, access to some government welfare programmes, and how they are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen." This says to me that nationality determines where they are permitted to live, etc. It does not necessarily say that ID cards determine these things. For example, someone could look up a person's nationality in a database. Reading the section now, the reader would get the impression that when an Israeli tries to get an apartment or access a welfare program, they have to pull out their ID card and a civil servant will check their nationality on it.
Also, government tracking of ethnicity and religion is not always considered to be racist or dangerous. This counter-argument should be represented. Kla'quot 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to see what facts we can agree on, and what we can't, and what facts are yet to be verified. Also, what we think is in the section that is a POV, and more specifically what we think is a minority POV. I will go first:

  • Fact: having such information on any government ID card is a concern of human rights activists, specifically due to the practices of Apartheid-era South Africa.
  • Fact: Israel has such information on their ID cards.
  • Fact: Israel's 1950 Population Regristry Act is the law which explicitly put nationality onto the ID cards, and was ammended in 2005 to stop the practice ([http://www.iib.org/gs2004.pdf per page 69 of this pdf), because of arguments among Jews as to who among them was really Jewish.
  • Fact: One of the pillars of South African Apartheid was the Population Registration Act, repealed in 1991, which registered people into different groups by their skin color and facial features.
  • Fact: Presentation of this information on identification card abets discrimation in Israel, if any such descrimation exists, in any transaction which would require legal identification, including housing, and treatment by civil servants.
  • Disputed: Whether there are any anti-non-Semitic landlord, cops, or beaurocrats in all of Israel.
  • Undetermined: whether the Population Registry Act is still the controlling legal authority which places the Hebrew birthdates on Jewish IDs. I strongly suspect this is a fact, but I can't determine this online.

On that last point: If I have to take the bus over to the Harvard Law Library to attempt to determine that I will. But before I go through the effort, which with my luck would involve having to learn Hebrew, I want to know where you stand on this, and where exactly you believe the ID section presents a minority point of view. -- Kendrick7 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Where I stand is that this alleged connection of Israel's system of identity cards with "apartheid" sounds a lot like "original research." That is especially true when you have to go through such an elaborate sequence of logical steps to get from Point A to Point B. Now, this does not mean that I necessarily justify all of the Israeli government's information-gathering and "homeland security" because I do not know all of the details. I do know some of the details of my own government's such operations, and I disagree with some of those. My issue, as it is with this whole article, is with the use of the word "apartheid." Israel doing something wrong or questionable does not equal "apartheid." It's just a slur. 6SJ7 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What "elaborate sequence of logical steps" are you referring to? -- Kendrick7 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, all those bullets with Fact, Fact, Fact, Fact, Fact, Disputed, Minority, Majority, Undetermined, I think that is what I was referring to. 6SJ7 00:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Those facts stand alone by themselves; there's no implied "sequence" here, and this isn't an attempt to prove anything. Clayquot claims there's a NPOV dispute hiding among these facts, and I'm trying to determine what it is, so we can come to common ground. -- Kendrick7 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, although this pertains to the entire article and not just to the identity card issue, I think this whole misbegotten, ridiculous article has become even more ridiculous over the past few days. Among other things, there seems to be a competition going on right now over how many times the first paragraph can say the word "apartheid", although it's not always spelled correctly. I'm not even going to fix it. 6SJ7 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Kendrick, even if all of your bullet points are 100% true, the part that's missing is a strong connection to existing allegations of apartheid. The reason this article exists is that notable people have made allegations/analogies of Israeli apartheid, so there is a debate to describe. The only thing we can do as writers of an encyclopedia is describe the debate as it has evolved and as it currently exists. I have a feeling that maybe you think the purpose of the article is to help the reader decide whether Israel practices apartheid. That would be a noble aim for an essay, but it is not a topic that an encyclopedia can cover. Let's put it this way: If Israel were to start segregating public transit in Tel Aviv tomorrow, we would not be allowed to mention that in this article until notable people started comparing it to apartheid. Conversely, if enough notable people started to compare Israeli tulip-growing practices to apartheid, we'd have to have a section on tulip-growing in this article. (By the way, there are probably good, pro-Palestinian reasons that most pro-Palestinian advocates have chosen to not make apartheid allegations over the Hebrew birthdate on ID cards. I can speculate on what these might be if you want.)
To be clear, I don't want to discourage you from citing opinions that are critical of ID cards. They would probably fit well in a topic such as Human rights in Israel or Religion in Israel or Identity card (Israel). I just don't think they're very relevant in this article.
As I explained, I do think the article currently misquotes McGreal. Do you disagree with me on that? Kla'quot 06:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that facts from reliable sources discussing Israel and apartheid do not belong in this article. Is this a mischaracterization of you position? That would explain why everything had been wrapped in weasel words like "Some say X" when just saying X is perfectly verifiable. The title of the article is not Allegations of Israeli Apartheid by Notable People nor do I believe we need a separate article entitled Allegations of Israel Apartheid from Reliable Sources. As for McGrael: it's like the old saying about gun violence: guns don't kill people, people kill people, but then again, the bullets make the tiny holes. In a similar way, what I believe McGrael is pointing out, is that the ID cards serve as the conveyer of the information on Jewishness collected by the goverment, and that people would not need to look this up in a "database", as you suggest, when they can merely ask for ID. So I do read the sentence:

"Arabs and Jews alike can be citizens, but each is assigned a separate "nationality" marked on identity cards (either spelled out or, more recently, in a numeric code), in effect determining where they are permitted to live, access to some government welfare programmes, and how they are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen."

as saying, in full, that the "nationality" marked on the ID cards is what is resulting in the effect. I don't think my slight paraphrase is off base. -- Kendrick7 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's focus discussion on the article, not the editors. Pointing fingers at those you think are responsible for an article's problems is usually counterproductive, and this time you aren't even targetting the right person. Your insinuation that I am responsible for weasel words that you removed is absurd.
  • Putting facts in the "Issues cited" section of this article implies that the facts are key points in an apartheid allegation. Apartheid allegations are opinions, and they have to be attributed to an earlier published source. As Jimbo says, If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents and Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history.. None of the three sources you cite say directly that putting an indicator of religion or ethnicity on an ID card is a practice of apartheid, and none compare it to an ID card policy from South Africa.
  • If Chris McGreal is still considered a reliable source after the discussion happening below, the most accurate way I can characterize his position is, "Chris McGreal, a journalist, has pointed out that Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel are assigned a separate "nationality" that is marked on ID cards, and has said that nationality in effect determines "where they are permitted to live, access to some government welfare programmes, and how they are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen." Kla'quot 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to mention this, but after reading this discussion, I feel I have to bring this up. This discussion about ID cards seems to relate only to citizens of Israel. I just spent the last year and a half living in Palestine, and I can tell you that, to everyone living in the Occupied Territories, the ID card issue is always important. First of all, people have been assigned ID cards based on where they live, and, therefore, where they are allowed to travel. The cards are then kept in colored sleeves to make their holders easily identifiable to soldiers. "Blue" ID holders are from East Jerusalem, and they have the best chance of mobility, although lately soldiers are stopping them from crossing checkpoints in to the territories, which means they may no longer be allowed to visit family members there. "Green" ID holders are from the West Bank, and are not allowed to travel anywhere outside of the West Bank, and are frequently stopped at internal checkpoints. "Orange" ID holders are from Gaza, and are now allowed outside of Gaza. In addition, "Blue" and "Green" ID holders are not allowed in to Gaza. The "Blue" ID is the most desirable for a Palestinian, which is why Israel is revoking these cards at a rate of up to several thousand per year, even though Israel continues to appropriate more of the land around Jerusalem. It's part of Israel's policy of acquiring the maximum amount of land, with the minimum amount of Palestinians.

ID cards are also frequently confiscated by soldiers who stop Palestinians in the Occupied Territories for "questioning"...the soldiers will then hang on to the ID card for as long as they desire, in order to detain the Palestinian...since Palestinians are required to carry their IDs at all times, they are forced to wait, sometimes for hours, until the soldier decides to give back the ID so the person can leave. It's not uncommon to see Palestinians seated by the side of the roads near checkpoints in the West Bank, waiting to have their confiscated IDs returned so they can continue traveling to wherever they were trying to go.--Sosume 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Caiaweb.org

I just removed the following because it is not clear that Caiaweb.org is a notable organization. It would be best if there was evidence of media coverage of the organization or it had its own Wikipedia page describing it and asserting clearly that it is notable. It may be that the organization is new and thus it may just require time for it to prove itself. --Deodar 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some coalitions, such as the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid in Canada, are explicitly based on the analysis that Israel is an apartheid state and should face international sanctions."

Jimmy Carter

his new book: http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285026

Does he make a relevant allegation there? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It hasn't been released yet, but the advance review manuscripts are pretty clear: http://www.forward.com/articles/carter-book-slaps-israel-with-%E2%80%98apartheid%E2%80%99-tag/ Kla'quot 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Rosner in Haaretz burns him.[16] I'm sure he'd would've agreed with Dayan "Better to have Sharm El Sheikh without Peace than Peace without Sharm El-Sheikh." Just like now those that prefer to have the Golan Heights rather than Peace. Carter is absolutely right that Israel backtracked on the Promises of Camp David just as it did on those of Oslso. Best Wishes.Will314159 23:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

COMPARISON to South Africa in MondoWeiss in-hebron-a-south-african-compares-israeli-occupationCheers. Will314159 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a minor issue compared to other controversies over this article, but why is Carter at the top of the list, before Tutu and Dugard? His book hasn't even been released yet. Kla'quot 06:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It is also difficult to have this book mentioned so prominently in the article, when it is not available for critique. Elizmr 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't bother me to move him down in the list of notable individuals. There will be press coverage of the book after the election and the article can be amended at that time. --Deodar 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, my issue isn't completely with the order. I wasn't really clear above, I apoligize. I just think that an as-yet unavailable book's Amazon promo page is rather squirrely and unacceptable as a cite on Wikipedia. I'm not disputing the nature of Carter's view or his book. Consistent with his track record, I'm sure it is not misrepresented here. He must have published elesewhere on these views. Could we cite something else instead?Elizmr 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The book has received reliable press coverage of a critical nature in the Forward. But either way, in less than 3 weeks it will be settled. --Deodar 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In this MSNBC / newsweek interview, especially this page [17], he seems to fall in the category of viewing Israeli apartheid as a specter or possible future that we must at all costs, and his book seems to be about advocating a course so that this possible future does not happen. It doesn't seem like he is saying that there is apartheid at this point. --Deodar 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I saw that too. President Carter says:

Interviewer: Yet the title of your new book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” suggests that things could be running in an extremely ugly direction.

Carter: "I use the word “not” to discourage that happening. What I want to see in the future is not apartheid, but I want to see peace."

Regarding the order, perhaps Desmond Tutu should be first, since he is South African and knows the most about Apartheid. But Jimmy Carter is probably more well-known across the globe, and has much credibility since he was invovled in the peace between Egypt and Israel.

I thought the interview with Jimmy Carter, in his own words, is a better source than the Forward which is a Jewish newspaper. This article seems heavy on Israeli-sources vs. those represented by the Palestine side. But anyway, it makes sense to link to Carter himself rather than a critique. Kiyosaki 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above, I'm not sure that Carter should be in there at all since he is not saying the situation NOW is apartheid, but that this is something to avoid. Elizmr 21:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No that's not what he's saying. He wants peace now, not apartheid now.Kiyosaki 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of Jimmy Carter's use of the term fits best in the Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#The_debate_on_the_future_of_Israel section. --Deodar 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more associated with the future of the Palestinian people, than the Israelis, but obviously both.Kiyosaki 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela?

The lead has been changed to include Nelson Mandela. I am not sure if it is appropriate to fill the lead of the article with so many names. Second, there is no mention of Mandela in the rest of the article nor any reliable source to back up this claim. I would recommend that we don't go overboard with the intro and to remove Mandela from the article unless you find a source -- and if you find a source then we should document specifically his mention/claim as we do for the others. --Deodar 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence is unnecessary. The lead should just lay out both positions, but should not involve point counterpoint type discussions. Elizmr 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Kiyosaki, it is important to realize that [this letter from "Mandela" is not really from him but rather by an columnist impersonating Thomas Friedman's style of writing his column as if it was a hypothetical letter -- I have been reading Friedman since 2001 thus I recognize this, but I understand how it can be confusing to others. As far as I can tell Mandela has not make this comparison himself. --Deodar 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm taking the last sentence out per above comments. Elizmr 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu states: Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the antiapartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience. This seems to be an allegation that is notable. It comes from Tutu himself and he talks about Mandela. This is pretty straight forward. Kiyosaki 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

K--you are correct that the sentence appears in the nation article and it mentions mandela. There is no cite, however. It is a short opinion piece. I think we need corroboration of some sort here. Elizmr 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone can find the original sources where Mathabane and Mandela make the comparisons it would immediately clear up any issues. This reference is too secondary and also really vage to really focus on in the article at the moment. --Deodar 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a quote from Mandela

I still think it is important that we find a source where Mandela actually makes the comparison before we include it. The current secondary source only points to "the relevance of the South African experience" but this could be extremely vague. I actually know that Mandela has supported armed resistance as well as Arafat many times and made parallels between their struggle and the SA one but that does not necessarily mean that he viewed it as an apartheid system. Mandela is already mentioned in Wikipedia in support of Arafat and so on, thus mentioning him in the context of this article requires from him an explicit comparison with apartheid. --Deodar 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. But I highly doubt Tutu is lying about these men who struggled alongside him. I think we could reference something.Kiyosaki 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

‘The histories of our two peoples, Palestinian and South African, correspond in such painful and poignant ways that I intensely feel myself being at home amongst my compatriots,’ Mandela told the Palestinian Legislative Council in Gaza on October 20, 1999. ‘Arafat and I were allies during the days of struggle. Our struggle was the same. Our hopes and aspirations and dreams were identical, and that is why I am here today,’ he said later on that day in the Shati refugee camp in Gaza.(Quotes from Amr, Wafa: Palestinians Tell Mandela He Is Their Dream, Reuters, October 20, 1999) It' still not explicit but it could hardly be more obvious, I think. Lowstedt 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Audio mentions Mandela

http://electronicintifada.net/download/audio/20060906faridesack.mp3 This speech by South African Farid_Esack was given at Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 7:00pm Veterans Room, Oak Park Public Library, 834 Lake Street, Oak Park, IL, I'd say about 55% of the way through (slide the thing), you can hear him reference Mandela also. He's quite clear about his view of the connection between Zionism and apartheid. Please listen.Kiyosaki 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Its still a second hard reference. I don't think that linking Mandela to saying there is apartheid is that important that we should let it in this way. It's a slippery slope using second hand references. Let's hold off until we find a more conclusive statement. Mandela or not it doesn't have that much of an effect on the overall article. There is going to be a lot of talk on this subject in the coming two months in the mainstream media, there will be plenty more people to add. I've edited wikipedia for a while and while I agree with your point of view more than Humus sapiens does this just doesn't pass the bar at this point. Your other research is great through and after some consolidation (the article is getting overly long) it should result in a real improvement in the overall robustness of the article. --Deodar 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lead Paragraph is not Balanced

It includes what the opponents say only. Isn't this article about the "allegations" and who says what? Then to be followed by the critics? I think the order is a little backward. Thanks. Kiyosaki 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

K--the lead starts with the proponents pov and then states the opponents. what you added was a response to the opponents. I think that the current order is correct ebcause the proponents should go first because they are the ones to have first raised the issue. The opponents then respond. Elizmr 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tutu

I read both Tutu cites (9 and 10) and the remarks about apartheid are very general. The main comparison drawn seems to be checkpoints. The second cite basically says that if the SAs could overcome apartheid, then the palestinian issue could also be solved and calls for the tool of economic boycott, successful in the former, to be applied in the later. It is mentioned that SAs have recognized similarities, but nowhere are these similarities enumerated. I feel the current text overstates the nature of what Tutu actually said. Also, can we clarify the nature of his experience? Was it one trip to the area? Did he meet with anyone from Israel or just anti-Israel folks? Elizmr 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tutu said what he said. That's an allegation of Israeli Apartheid, the subject of this article. He's extremely relevant to the topic. Thanks.Kiyosaki 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Early proponents of the term

The cite to Verwoerd is in the Mcgreal article, not in its original context. The exact quote is, "As far back as 1961, Hendrik Verwoerd, the South African prime minister and architect of the "grand apartheid" vision of the bantustans, saw a parallel. "The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state," he said. Does anyone have the original article? It is unclear why the comparison is being made by Verwowrd. Does he aim to justify what the white SA government was doing because much of the world had justified the establishment of Israel? Did he actually know anything about Israel? Elizmr 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be best to find the original article. But the keep claiming that we have to prove to you or others that he knew something about Israel (in this comment and a previous one) or who people visited during a stay in Israel is engaging in OR and is not within the scope of Wikipedia's mandate see Wikipedia:Attribution. --Deodar 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
A web source cites this a coming from the "Rand Daily Mail, 23 November 1961", if that helps. He also seems to have qualified this slightly in older versions original statement, my italics: The 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." -- Kendrick7

(edit conflict--wrote before I read Kendrick)

Unfortunately, the McGreal article does not give refs so the orig quote would be really hard to find. What I am saying is that we have to be clear that the source is cited in McGreal and not from the original context and it is better to have the whole quote and not just the convenient snippet.
Also, BEN, please note that I'm just curious about the rest and asked in case anyone might be able to enlighten me about the expertise of those quoted in the article I am not familiar with. It is my personal opinion: if someone is going to accuse a state of a crime, they should know quite a bit about the situation or the remark is frivilous or libelous or worse, but of course I woudn't remove something from Wikipedia on that basis. Elizmr 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, while the name conjures to my mind a supermarket circular, the defunct Rand Daily Mail more-or-less went on to become the Mail & Guardian. -- Kendrick7 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Humiliation, Collective Punishment, Home Demolitions, and Checkpoints

I could use some help in this section. Can people also please provide some more sources and references? These items are routinely in the media and tied to allegations of apartheid. I think we need to include more info here, and additinal help from others in compiling the sources would be appreciated.Kiyosaki 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the conflict or Tutu's views on the Jewish history. Until there is a proof that he talked about Israeli apartheid, this quote should be considered an original research. For now, I am removing it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tutu's words are not mine, not original research. Will you help build this section with relevant references and sources or not?Kiyosaki 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that the same Tutu quote already appears elsewhere in the article (and the second sentence isn't directly relevant to this piece). CJCurrie 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That was just one quote, and a direct one from one of anti-apartheid's greatest men, why can't it be referenced in 2 totally different sections? Why was the header totally deleted? I think it needs some beefing up and sourcing, that is something we could all work on?Kiyosaki 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest that each of Kiyosaki's edits should be scrutinized because of that editor's glaring bias. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Humus, I resent that attack!! This article is about allegations of israeli apartheid, that's what I am contributing here. What are you contributing? It appears nothing.Kiyosaki 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Collective persecution is an element of apartheid, by definition, as this article notes. As such, a section on this seems entirely appropriate to me. -- Kendrick7 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
We have gone over this many times, but first of all, even if you assume that referring to the situation as Collective punishment is appropriate, you really can't automatically say it is the same as apartheid since that word specifically applies to something in a entirely different culture and situation, the only reason people use the word is to appeal to emotions by reminding people of South Africa.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Consolidation of "People who have used" with later "Israeli practices"?

Initially, there was concern that the allegations where never made by credible individuals and thus there was a section created focusing on notable people who have made the comparison in one way or another to justify the existence of the article. At this point, the section on notable people who have made the comparison is unnecessary since that fact is established -- notable people do make the claim.

Thus, from a readability standpoint and with a goal of reducing duplication, it would be best from my perspective to combine the "people who have used the term" section with the later "Israeli practices" section. The fact that notable people make the claim should be understood as a given or else where would be no article. The descriptions of who is making the claims should remain but they should be described at the same time their claims are listed in the appropriate subsections of the "Israeli practices" section. --Deodar 03:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This change, since it reduces duplication, will also allow for shortening of the article, which is right now overly long. --Deodar 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this makes sense. I also wonder if the alleged cited practices, and counter allegation shouldn't be listed first, rather that quotes from various luminaries who've mentioned such practices. I'd move sections 2 and 3 much further down myself -- Kendrick7 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Kendrick's idea makes a lot of sense. I'd like to expand more on what some of the individuals have said, and having the "practices" sections earlier would provide context. BTW Kendrick, I am much too tired from real life right now to reply on the ID card issue but I'll try to get to it this week. I think you might have misunderstood some of my earlier statements. I am not trying to be difficult. Peace, Kla'quot 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation (Israeli politics)

There's an article about the forced removal (an act of apartheid by the U.N. definition) of Jews from their land in the Occupied territories. It's not RS's, but I proposed it be merged in here. -- Kendrick7 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It should stay as its own article. That allegation is only part of that article. Although we can include a mention of it here since it is related, but to merge it into this article would be a disservice to that article's topic since it would be obscured almost completely in this one. --Deodar 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So, now Israel is being accused of "apartheid" not only for what it does to Arabs, but also what it does to Jews? Perhaps more to the point, Israel is being accused of "apartheid" because it is trying to clear land to give to the Palestinians? Am I the only one who detects a certain "Alice in Wonderland" quality about this? Or perhaps "Catch-22" is the better literary analogy: No matter what Israel does, it is condemned. My proposal for the "Evacuation" article is that all references to apartheid be removed, and it remain its own article. 6SJ7 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Writing

Every time I look at this article, the writing has deteriorated even further. There's a huge amount of repetition; editors who like the term seem to want to repeat ad nauseam who has used it. I removed the discussion about when the "crime of apartheid" was created, because people can look that up if they want to, and it's OR to have it here, unless a source can be found who discusses it within the context of a discussion about "Israeli apartheid." Please review WP:NOR. I also tried to tidy the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the headers to be proper section headers. I would recommend trying to follow the example of the new anti-Semitism article -- notice that its use of headers now differs from the use of headers in this article? --Deodar 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to tidy it a bit more by removing the repetition; moving the general criticism higher because it looked as though it had been deliberately buried at the end; and restructuring it so there aren't so many headers. Ideally, the criticism should be woven throughout the text and not separated off into its own sections but fixing that would involve a complete rewrite, which I can't face doing. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, could whoever is using the citation templates please write references out the normal way? The templates make the text very hard to edit and almost impossible to check for flow. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason why the criticism section should be before the body of the article. That change is not appropriate. "Front loading" in order to discredit the allegation before it has even been discussed is wrong. Isn't that obvious or do we need to have a big argument about it?? --SandyDancer 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Applause to SlimVirgin for her work and particularly for the rewrite of the intro paragraph. As I had said in earlier post, the intro had become a terrible mess. 6SJ7 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Much improved! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree the intro is much simplified -- good job. I did add a bit about how some talk about current policies and others talk about future prospects -- I think that is an important distinction. --Deodar 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Slim! (And I'm not just saying that cause Ben told me to! Work before play, you know) Part of the problem with repetition is just due to how many edits are going on. Chris McGrael, for example, apparently began life, sometime before July, as an author of a reference to the ID cards section. Then someone decided to break out the controvery into its own mention. Then someone moved Chris McGrael to his own section, which went on to become the Media section, though it was still right after the ID card section. By the time I went hunting for refs to support the ID card section (which no longer had refs, natch), I hadn't even realized (though maybe I should have) he was already mentioned in some far away subparagraph, though by now stripped of all mention of ID cards, Of course, life cycle began again. -- Kendrick7 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SandyDancer above. The description and use of the term/allegation should come before the criticism.Kiyosaki 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticism should be woven throughout. Some previous editors made the sections before the criticism deliberately long in order to bury the criticism. That is unacceptable. It needs to be moved higher, either woven or as a stand-alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead section before and after

Before SV changes:

"Allegations of Israeli apartheid state that Israeli policies toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens, violate international law against apartheid, [1] [2][3] or compare the policies to the practices of the apartheid-era South African Government. Opponents state that the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories lacks true parallels to South Africa-style apartheid, and point out the legal status of Israeli Arab citizens. They cite security motives and allege that the use of the term is calculated to achieve political ends."

After SV changes:

"Allegations of Israeli apartheid are based on a controversial analogy between Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel and the treatment of blacks in South Africa during Apartheid. Critics of the allegation argue that it is a factually inaccurate political epithet that is used to isolate Israel, and cite Israeli security needs for the practises that have prompted the analogy. [4]"

After Ben and Kendrick changes:

"Allegations of Israeli apartheid exist and are highly disputed. Some are based on a controversial analogy between Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the military occupied West Bank, and Gaza Strip and to a lesser extent Israeli Arabs and the treatment of blacks in South Africa during Apartheid. Others contend Israel has policies that violate international law against apartheid.[5] [6][7] Some allegations focus on the current situation while others describe a possible future for the conflict. Critics of the allegation argue that it is a factually inaccurate political epithet that is used to isolate Israel, and cite Israeli security needs for the practises that have prompted them. [4]"

They are all fairly equivalent. It might be useful to pull out the various points in that lead paragraph and discuss their comparative value seperately if we want to nail down a lead section. It is important that the lead be a weighted summary of the article. For more information we should refer to WP:LEAD. I can see obvious areas where the precision of the current lead can be improved. --Deodar 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've simplified the lead further from the last version:

"Allegations of Israeli apartheid are based on a controversial analogy between Israel's treatment of Palestinians living in the West Bank, and Gaza Strip and to a lesser extent Israeli Arabs and the treatment of blacks in South Africa during Apartheid. Some contend that Israel's currently policies violate international law against apartheid[8] [9][10] while others bring up apartheid as a warning against a possible future for the conflict.[11] Critics of the allegation argue that it is a factually inaccurate political epithet, possibly anti-Semitic, that is used to isolate Israel, and cite Israeli security needs for the practices that have prompted them. [4]"

--Deodar 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This phrase in the current Lead Paragraph seems awkward to me: "while others bring up apartheid as a warning against a possible future for the nation" Huh? Perhaps this could be made more clear? I'm not going to try, because I'm not sure what it means. Kiyosaki 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I kinda liked my version. At least the first sentence was nearly bulletproof. -- Kendrick7 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is highly disputed" tells the reader nothing at all. Also, what's all this mania about the "militarily occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip"? Is that to distinguish it from the un-militarily occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip? The militarily unoccupied West Bank and Gaza Strip? Is there some reason West Bank and Gaza Strip isn't good enough, or is "militarily occupied" now part of the name of the place? Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What's your opinion on the final version above given above? It does not contain "highly disputed" as well as the mention of "miliarily occupied". --Deodar 22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty inaccurate. Almost none of the people making the allegation of Israeli apartheid assert that Israel is actually violating the "crime of apartheid"; they just use "apartheid" as a broad epithet. The group worried about a possible "future apartheid" condition is equally small. The key elements here is an accusation that Israel is discriminatory or racist in some way, and the epithet "apartheid" is used to allege that, because it's a cliché, and the strongest phrase many people know, aside from "Nazi", which they also use. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, people are not using the term "apartheid" as an epithet. Epithet is pejorative: "3. a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc." I don't Desmond Tutu or any of the other South African anti-apartheid activists (some of their quotes and text have been removed) are using it to express hostility. They are experts in this issue and they are saying that Israeli Apartheid exits. How can you accuse South African anti-apartheid activists of "being racist"? I cannot see how someone would delete the words of South African anti-apartheid leaders. Kiyosaki 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority are using it as an epithet - the ICJ's "Crime of Apartheid" is a little known footnote to all this. As for "South African anti-apartheid leaders", you have no idea how they feel about Israel, nor what expertise they have about Israel and its policies; I suspect little or none. Who accused them of being racist? Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Future possibility section needs to be revived

The future trends section should be revived. It is a key component of the article and should be retained. --Deodar 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have revived most of the deleted sections. We should discuss each of those on this talk page rather than just remove them wholesale without discussion. --Deodar 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why were quotes and comments by Desmond Tutu deleted?

Why did someone remove these? They are perhaps the most important and relevant allegation of Israeli Apartheid that exist, and isn't that what this subject is about? Kiyosaki 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Restore them then, and we can discuss them with the people that believe they should be removed. --Deodar 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They were deleted by SlimVirgin.Kiyosaki 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes can be found in this version here [18]. I think that a history section (similar to the history section used in the New anti-Semitism article: New_anti-semitism#History) would be a good addition to the article -- it would replace the previous less robust "Introduction to the term" section that was removed. Such a history section could also consolidate much of value in the "use of the analogy" section -- I think that section is not that valuable and overly long as I have described earlier and would eventually like to see its complete removal. --Deodar 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't simply undo my copy edit. This article is very badly written (POV issues aside) and it needs that edit. Regarding the marriage section that has been restored, is there a source linking it to the allegation of apartheid? I looked through the sources offered but couldn't find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The only names I deleted were those that were repeated. There is no need to keep on mentioning the same names. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed relevant information and an allegation of israeli apartheid, which is the subject that people want to read about. Kiyosaki 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Which Tutu material are you talking about? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't think anyone has "undone" your copyedit. But when you restore it (or revert back to it), it destroys all the work that has been done since. Right?Kiyosaki 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You can build on my copy edit without undoing it. Please do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain or show me where I "undid" you copyeditting? I don't think I did. Than you.Kiyosaki 20:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, he didn't undo your copy edit. Rather I made a series of changes to it as I outlined above in my comments on the talk page. I have tried to build upon it. I think there is some confusion on the issue here. Best. Besides restoring a few of the deleted sections and the modifications to the lead, most of your changes have remained. You should go through the edit history. --Deodar 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

YEAH, thanks. I tried to leave a note on SlimVirgin's user page but there's no tab. Plus I think it's laughable that people are telling me to use Talk first, when it was SlimVirgin who swooped in an made massive changes and reverts without doing anything to give people a heads up. And then I get accused of reverting, when it was SlimVirgin that deleted the info and sourced info from the South Africans like Desmond Tutu. In my opinion, the problems on this page started with the mass changes and lack of collorabtion of SlimVirgin. That's not an attack, but my views of the events of this page.Kiyosaki 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Help!! This article is under attack

What is going on here? Why are there mass reverts and changes being made that destroy the work of others? Kiyosaki 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. This article has been under massive WP:POV attack for a couple of days. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It really has to stop. The article was in a terrible state. Kiyosaki, can you say whether you edit from other accounts, or have done recently? You seem to have arrived here as a single-issue editor bent on criticizing Israel. That's not what Wikipedia is about. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I resent that attack!!! I have done nothing else but try to add to this article titled "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" by adding some sources and relevant information. Why are you accusing me of criticizing irael? By adding to the article what Desmond Tutu and other people say, that should and needs to be included? Your problem must be with what Tutu and former President Carter say.Kiyosaki 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think removing allegations of apartheid (subject topic) from sources like Desmond Tutu is POV, don't you?Kiyosaki 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Which material from Tutu are you talking about exactly? I've asked you three times but can't get an answer. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Compare the version you just replaced it with, and see that it's gone! Why are mass changes to content being made? That's not "copyediting". Are you aware you have removed all of this?

  • Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Catholic Archbishop supported this analogy first in 1989 when he said in a Haaretz article dated 12-25-89, "I am a black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe [past] events in South Africa." Later, in 2002, Tutu said that he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa" and that he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about". [12] Tutu also added that "Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through", and stated that a letter signed by "several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans" had drawn "an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies."[13][14]
  • William Mothipa Madisha, Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) president , said "the 'apartheid Israel state' is worse than the apartheid that was conducted in South Africa. Madisha also said that Israel "should be seen as an apartheid state and the same sanctions must be applied that were established against South Africa".[15]
  • Arun Gandhi, peace activist born in South Africa, and grandson of former Indian leader Mahatma Ghandi, criticised Israel's controverisial security barrier, saying, "This reminds me of something you might see in apartheid South Africa. The walls surround cities and towns, choking the people - it's not right.",[16]

Kiyosaki 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation to you Kiyosaki is that we integrate the above quotes directly into the main content of the article. Having them in their own standalone section isn't that useful anyways. --Deodar 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you that Tutu is relevant, but there is no need for him, or anyone else, to be in the article twice. -- Avi 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that duplication is an issue with the article as per a few of my comments above. We only need each persons position in there once. --Deodar 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No Desmond Tutu text

Because of reverts, someone else needs to restore the Desmond Tutu stuff. As of right now, there is no Desmond Tutu info in the article.Kiyosaki 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's slow down editing of the article for a bit. Things are getting heated and there are a few persistent misunderstandings floating around. Remember that the article was here yesterday, last week and last month, it will be here tomorrow, next week and next month. Let's encourage a calming of the situation and the various accusations. Just put the Tutu quote on your to do list for now. I strongly recommend letting the article cool down. --Deodar 21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
my fault. I got tired of typing all those equal signs to resectionalize the article so I stomped Kiyosaki's changes. I would hope things slow down. I'm probably well on my way to my first WP:3RR violation as we speak. -- Kendrick7 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I asked Kiyosaki FOUR TIMES which Tutu material he was talking about and he wouldn't tell me, but kept reverting wholesale, supposedly to restore it. I removed it only because Tutu was already mentioned: but now it is back and he is mentioned twice again. Do not revert a copy edit wholesale in order to restore one paragraph. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he reverted you wholesale 3 times, warning you about 3RR. Then he started inserting just that paragraph, so apparently he knew how, but he suddenly couldn't understand what 3RR was or how it worked, no matter how many times it was explained. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've put it back, and I'm happy to put back (or anyone else can) anything else that looks like an inappropriate removal, but this wholesale reverting of a much-needed copy edit is out of order. This page isn't supposed to be a list of bad things Israel allegedly does. It is about who has compared Israel to South Africa and why, and it can be written succinctly and clearly without creating an article that consists of little but a list of alleged wrongdoing. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article needs to be more succinct, deleting the actual "allegations" made, the topic of the subject article, is not the place to make the cuts. The allegations themselves are the subject, not the interpretations of the allegations ad nauseum etc. I find it odd that the former President of Columbia University is quoted (who cares?), and more South African anti-apartheid activists (very relevant) are not....stuff like that is what needs to be looked at. That's my opinion.Kiyosaki 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is the next step

It's time for page protection and mediation. This will allow us to avoid front on confrontations between what can seem sometimes like partisan blocks. SlimVirgin, do you want to put together the request for mediation or should I? --Deodar 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No need. This has been caused by an aggressive single-issue editor who is probably a sockpuppet out to cause trouble. All we have to do is stick very, very closely to the three content policies, and try to write as clearly and neutrally as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Things got weird today. I'm going to take a break. Happy editing. --Deodar 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Very sensible. Same here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Marriage section

Could someone say which sources link these marriage issues to the allegation of apartheid? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There was the book cited. I appreciate you taking your concerns to the talk page -- it helps reduce the tension created by revert warring. What do you think about mediation though in the long term now that interest in the subject has been renewed? --Deodar 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you quote from the book regarding what it said about the marriage/apartheid issue? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the transportation issue can go in one of the other sections. We have to avoid the appearance of a pile-on here, and write in a succinct encyclopedic way. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, keep in mind this is from a longer section beginning on page 22, a part of which I added to the critical section (where the authors consider the label makes the Israel out to be a pariah) which somehow got blown away as well. I'll do my best, pardon the typos.

An obvious difference between Israel proper and apartheid South Africa lies in the universal suffreage. It includes the 20 percent Palestinian Israeil citizens in Israel who have the right to vote for the Knesset. Hoever, if the Palestinian territories under more or less permanent Israeli occupation and settler presence are considered part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the three and a half million stateless Palestinians under Israeli domination gaims more validity. Most Israeli social scientiest treat the two territories as separate issues and thereby avoid draweing some uncomfortable conclusions.

Moreover, the Israeli Palestinas resemble in many ways the "Colored" and Indian South Africans. As targets of cooptation, they have been allowed to vote since 1983, albeit for separate parliaments, which held joint sittings with the exclusively white chamber as well. The toy parliaments of the minorities could never outvote their white creators and aquired little legitimacy and voter interest. While the more legitimate Arab parties sometimes hold the balance of power in a split Knesset, they also struggle with widespread apathy of their alienated constituents. Above all, both Israeli Palestians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another enthic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorites as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their acces to land or allocated civil service position or per capita expenditure on education differently between dominant and minority citizens. Another example: A 2003 Israeli law forbids Israeli Palestinians newly married to non-Israeli Palestinians to live together in Israel.

Israel's immigration practices clearly parallel differential immigration entitlements under apartheid. South Africa encouraged and subsidized white immigration from any country. Nonwhite immigraiton was simply not allowed. Hoever, unlike the situation in Israel, security justifications were never used -- it was simple and pure racism. The ruling minority had to be strengthened and not "swamped" by more blakcs coming in, The closest parallel concerns the one million second- and third-generation Indian minority who customarily imported brides from India. Various linguistic, religious, and caste subgroups practiced traditional endogamy, which required the pool of potential partners to be larger than that available in South Africa. Apartheid outlawed this practice and cut the Indian community off from any contact with India becuase Indians were supposed to "go back" rather than come in. No exceptions were allowed. Adam, Heriber, Kogila Moodley (June 2005). Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians. UCL Press, 23. ISBN 1844721302.

Ah... heck... turns out there a whole PDF here. Page 23 of this book is on page 15 of the PDF -- Kendrick7 06:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The only sentence I can see from the above about marriage is: "A 2003 Israeli law forbids Israeli Palestinians newly married to non-Israeli Palestinians to live together [sic] in Israel." That can't justify a whole section. Do you have other sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the section because it's original research. You have to find sources who discuss it in terms of the analogy that this article is about. There are many countries that have restrictive immigration and marriage policies that are perceived as unjust or racist; what we're discussing here is whether Israel's policies rise to the level of an analogy with Apartheid, according to reliable sources. I'm not saying you can't base a section on a sole source, but that source must have devoted more than one sentence to the topic. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph, in the course of a larger presentation of Israeli Apartheid analogies, gives three examples of ways "the Israeli Palestinas resemble in many ways the 'Colored' and Indian South Africans'. The final sentence is "Another example: a 2003 Israeli law forbids Israeli Palestinians newly married to non-Israeli Palestinians to live together in Israel." I'm confident I'll have no problem finding secondary sources also making the analogy, since the law, challenged as racist, did go all the way to the Israeli supreme court. However, these two authors, having moved from Apartheid South Africa, to Israel, because their marriage was illegal under Apartheid laws, seem uniquely qualified to make the assessment. Why do you believe more than one sentence would be required to convey this thought? -- Kendrick7talk 23:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, really. This google search alone returns 227,000 hits. I'm sure there are a few WP:RS's in there somewhere. Please let me know, at your leisure, how many sentences you would like. I expect I could even accomodate exact numbers of prepositional phrases, as needed. -- Kendrick7talk 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It can be frustrating, I understand, but we should be careful not to make this about SlimVirgin -- thus this challenge to her isn't going to help matters. Let's just find a few good sources and rewrite the section. As long as the sources are good SlimVirgin won't complain since it is an objective criteria that has been meet. We shouldn't assume that SlimVirgin is being unreasonable since it will just encourage more strife. One source is admittedly a little weak for a section and I am sure we can do better. --Deodar 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Does anyone object to this as the last sentence in the lead? I think it covers all the issues of the "opponents of the term" better than what is there now:


Opponents state that the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories lacks true parallels to South Africa-style apartheid, and point out the legal status of Israeli Arab citizens. They cite security motives and allege that the use of the term is calculated to achieve political ends.Elizmr 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, although I'd like to see two things remain: first, that it's used to "isolate" Israel, which is an expression many critics use, and secondly I like the expression that critics cite Israeli security needs "for the practises that have prompted the analogy," because it's important to acknowledge that the analogy doesn't come out of thin air. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent points. How's this?

Opponents state that the situation in Israel and the PT lacks true parallels to SA-style apartheid. The cite two main arguments. First, Israeli security needs have led to the practices prompting the analogy. Second, Arab Israelis have equal legal status to Jewish Israelis. They allege that the use of the term is calculate to isolate Israel and to achieve political ends. Elizmr 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, the current lead is really succinct; do the proposed changes really add anything? The "pro" side doesn't really make a lot of arguments in the lead, so perhaps the "anti" side shouldn't either. We can't unbalance the lead in favor of the critics of the analogy, any more than we can in favor of the supporters. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I first wrote the additional stuff when there was a tiny criticism section at the end of the article so the balance seemed more necessary. I don't feel strongly about it. Elizmr 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I think if we can keep the lead short and very simple, it will help diffuse the inevitable POV-pushing. Of course, people will still try to push their own POV into the lead (as they are doing above: #Lead section before and after), but the justifications get pretty weak when the lead is as clear and simple as this. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure

I've tweaked the headers to give us a very simple structure:

  • 1 The term
  • 1.1 Use of the term
  • 1.2 Criticism of the term
  • 2 The issues
  • 2.1 Issues cited by proponents of the term
  • 2.2 Issues cited by critics of the term

This isn't as good as having criticism woven throughout but it's close. The structure some other editors were reverting to, with a criticism section stuck at the very end and POV headers (occupied this and occupied that) is completely unacceptable. The current structure is very straightforward: a discussion of the term, with proponents and critics; and then a discussion of the issues that have prompted the use of the term, with proponents and critics.

Also, please don't create a new header for every issue. We even had a special header earlier for Chris McGreal, who is just a journalist, and the section was a sentence or two long. The toc becomes too long, the structure gets lost, and the page becomes hard to read. Please try to work within the structure I've set up and we'll see whether it produces a more manageable page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlimV that this type of structure is preferable and more balanced. I would say that if we add a header in one area it should be a general header, and a corresponding section should be set up in the section for the opposite view to keep the article balanced. Elizmr 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The problem before was that editors were continually adding more and more sections with examples of various practises and policies, with the result that the criticism section was pushed further and further down the page, and I think it was done deliberately. I'm talking now about months ago when the page was first created. It's time to correct it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, better still is to incorporate criticism throughout the text, but you need collaborative editing to achieve that, which I'm not holding my breath for on this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Nothing of substance to be deleted from either side, but a structure that promotes balance. Elizmr 23:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Start with this, and hope that criticism could one day be properly incorporated throughout the text, but, like you say, don't hold your breath. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This would be a perfectly good proposal if the section "use of the term" simply explained how the term is used. Instead, it pushed down the actual cited practices way down the page, because in reality this section is laundry list of "users of the term" which is an entirely different thing. A quotes section as such belongs as the bottom of the page. Anyway, I've lost my good typing hand for now. That'll teach me to edit war. -- Kendrick7 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, though this pains me to write, there are very different issues in play with respect to Israeli Arabs and Palestian Arabs. I believe to keep these matters sorted, the pro/con sections should at least have sub-sections making these very separate issues apart -- Kendrick7 06:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Kendrick, the reason the "issues" section is lower is because we had to bring one of the criticism sections higher for balance. No allegations (whether of apartheid or of anti-Semitism for making the claim) should be allowed to stand for long before the reader spots a rebuttal. I agree with you that the quotes section is inappropriate at the top, and I would get rid of it entirely, but some other editors wanted a long list of everyone who had ever used the term, and they wanted it to be prominent.
Good idea about separating Israeli Arabs/Palestinian Arabs in the Issues section. Why does it pain you to write that? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. My typing abilities have now recovered from their fatigue. -- Kendrick7 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu take two to the two (that's four BTW)

Tutu unquestionably belongs in the article. But no more than once like anyone else. Do you want him at the top or in the larger list. Personally, I think that there should be no names at the top, just groups. Names are in the list. Think I'll go and do that now and wait for the fallout -- Avi 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I placed Tutu first in the notable individuals list per his obvious relationship with apartheid. -- Avi 00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

His entry in the list below has much more information and is not a duplication of the first mention so I restored it. Oh and please don't go round saying what other editors can and cannot have. Thankyou Arniep 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

{image deleted}Check carefully. Look at the version I edited and tell me what the FIRST entry on the notable peoples list is. Even better, I'll post a screenshot. Now tell me if any information is missing. Secondly, duplication in the same article is to be avoided where possible. This is wikipedia, not a blog. -- Avi 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact is you removed Tutu from the introductory examples. It is not a duplication so I will put him back. Arniep 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see you have had the article protected. How convenient. Arniep 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides having nothing to do with reality, I am afraid your comment is both indicative of a lack of good faith as well as a personal attack. Please remember that civility is just as important as any other policy here in wikipedia. Also, I see you have not answered my point. It is fine to say that you thought I took it out from the large list when all I did was move it. Everyone makes mistakes, Lord knows I've done plenty of that here on wikipedia myself. But for you to maintain something that I have shown is completely factually inaccurate (through the diffs and screenshot) is a bit confusing to me. Ah well. Azoi gayt dos. -- Avi 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, your bad faith and incivility is astonishing. Your implication that Nishkid64 protected the article at the behest of Avi is one that I think you should apologize for immediately, to both Nishkid64 and Avi. Regarding article content, there doesn't seem to be any reason to have Tutu's identical views listed twice in the article. Please try to work towards improving the article, rather than simply warring with people you oppose. Jayjg (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the introductory paragraph of that section, with names, ought not to have names. The names/quotes/allegations are better illustrated and more clear underneath. Tutu should be quoted in this article, not just a link to the man's name. Same with Carter. He was instrumental at Camp David Accords and he's also a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former American President who knows the issues. The intro paragraph could read, "anti-apartheid activists, Nobel Peace Prize recipients, etc. have compared Israel to SA". then list who says what, and what their credentials are, in the follwing paragraphs.Kiyosaki 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand that Tutu thinks everything is "apartheid"; whether it's Tibet and China [19] [20], the British detention of terrorists [21], or Guantanmo [22], it's all "apartheid" according to Tutu. Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Individuals section: Many similar quotes

The Individuals section has fourteen bullet points, many of them saying similar things. This creates the impression of a pile-on and also makes the article seem repetitious. I propose summarizing similar viewpoints in the form of "<list of names and roles> have made similar statements." I did this with the Examples section in Islamofascism a couple of months ago and it was not controversial at all. One thing that needs to come across better than it does now, however, is the spectrum of apartheid analogies. Some of the individuals use the analogy in a very limited way and it is a huge stretch to call them "proponents of the term." Some (including Tutu and Dugard, as far as I can tell) use the term for what is happening in the Occupied Territories, but not to describe the situation in Israel proper. Non-extreme positions are getting drowned out in this article. Kla'quot 06:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is important to be clear there are three groups of accusations: Israel proper and current (the most extreme), the occupied territories now (less extreme) and a specter for Israel/Palestine in the future (less extreme.) Most credible mentions are in relation to the later two cases. --Deodar 06:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kla'quot, that makes sense. I feel however that the views of South African anti-apartheid activists should not be diminished or dismissed too much in the process. Plus the article needs some Palestinian and/or Arab views, as of now, there aren't any.Kiyosaki 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at summarizing what was there. I agree that Palestinian/Arab views are conspicuously lacking. Kla'quot 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

I don't think the see also to New anti-Semitism (under criticism of the term) is appropriate. The New anti-Semitism article doesn't really address the criticisms, certainly not in the intro where you'll be redirected, and explicit mentions of the term in the article are not appropriate (i.e. Finkelstein, France). So it looks a bit too much like we're making a point (i.e. critics say israeli apartheid is new anti-semitism) without actually coming out and saying it. So I'd shift it to the see also section at the end (and will if the article gets unprotected). --Coroebus 10:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think linking to "crime of apartheid" is not appropriate, because it begs the question, but we do that and you didn't object. Many critics use the allegation of apartheid as an example of new anti-Semitism: Rufin is just one example. There are many others, but there's no point in just listing them, otherwise the criticism section will come to resemble the list in the first section, and we should be aiming to construct a narrative, not create more lists. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they're comparable, crime of apartheid is directly relevant to the article, it doesn't beg the question because it refers to a definition of what is being alleged in allegations of israeli apartheid (or at least in some), new anti-semitism is not relevant because it is an article about a phenomenon named new anti-semitism - not about criticism of the allegation of israeli apartheid (it doesn't even mention it as far as I can see). It may be tangentially related, but that suggests inclusion in the see also section. Currently including a link to new anti-semitism right at the top of the criticism section gives at the very least undue weight, but really is just inappropriate - what will the reader learn when they follow the link? --Coroebus 11:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Crime of apartheid is directly relevant in your opinion; it's not at all relevant in the opinion of editors who think the allegation of apartheid is nothing but an insult. New anti-Semitism is directly relevant in the opinion of editors who think the allegation is an example of new anti-Semitism (and that's not OR, because we have sources saying the same thing), but irrelevant in your opinion because you think it isn't. Therefore, leave both links in. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
But crime of apartheid is relevant because that is what the accusation is - like having a reference to war crimes under an article about allegations of war crimes against [insert favourite political leader here]. The allegation of apartheid may be considered by some to be an example of new anti-semitism but that is not as directly relevant because the main substance of the objection will be that the allegation is false, new anti-semitism is an additional charge about motivation, and thus putting it at the hed of the section gives it undue weight, but more importantly, the new anti-semitism article doesn't address the question of whether allegations of israeli apartheid are examples of new anti-semitism - so it doesn't make any sense when someone follows the link. You seem to think that I'm approaching this as some kind of battle where my side seeks to give prominence to 'our' article of crimes of apartheid, while your side balances that with 'your' article on new anti-semitism, but that is not the case, rather I think the critics of the allegation are ill-served by that big link to an article only tangentially related to what the section is about. I don't have anything invested in having the crime link so prominent (although it should obviously be linked from somewhere in the allegations section). --Coroebus 11:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Coroebus, you're speaking from your own POV without being able to see the other POV. Look:
  • (1) People who believe Israel is guilty of apartheid practises: They believe Israel's policies resemble the crime of apartheid. Therefore, we link to Crime of Apartheid at the top of the appropriate section so that readers can see what the definition is and how close to it Israel's policies might be.
  • (2) People who believe Israel is not guilty of apartheid practises: They believe the allegations are examples of new anti-Semitism, where left-wing activists demonize Israel by comparing its policies to something the world agrees is unconscionable. Therefore, we link to New anti-Semitism at the top of the appropriate section, so that readers can see what the definition is and how close to it the behavior of Israel's critics might be. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Of the sources we use in the section that links to new anti-Semitism, the two major sources, David Matas and Jean-Christophe Rufin, explicitly cite the allegation as an example of new anti-Semitism (Matas doesn't use the term in the quote we selected, but that's what his book is saying, and he quotes Rufin saying it). SlimVirgin (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well obviously I think I'm being completely neutral! Your comparison highlights the difference:
  • (1) the allegation of israeli apartheid says israel is committing the crime of apartheid, so we link to crime of apartheid. The connection is self explanatory to the reader (since the intro has introduced what the allegation entails).
  • (2) people who reject the allegation say it isn't true, and some of them say the accusation is an example of anti-semitism, but linking to new anti-semitism before we've heard the criticisms, criticisms which do not contain reference to new anti-semitism, which has an article which doesn't talk about allegations of israeli apartheid, the reader asks what this link they've followed tells them about the criticisms - the answer is nothing. They're left to ask what the link is there to tell them. Whether Matas or Rufin explicitly say it is an example of new anti-semitism is irrelevant, this article doesn't mention that, the new anti-semitism article doesn't mention that, it needs to be introduced before you link new anti-semitism. This is because the anti-semitism accusation is necessarily secondary to the rejection of the comparison. This isn't point scoring, the damn thing doesn't make any sense without context! --Coroebus 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your analysis is that, as I've said before, almost none of the people making the allegation of Israeli apartheid assert that Israel is actually violating the ICJ-invented "crime of apartheid", of which, in all likelihood, they are completely unaware; they just use "apartheid" as a broad epithet. The key elements here is an accusation that Israel is discriminatory or racist in some way, and the epithet "apartheid" is used to allege that, because it's a cliché, and the strongest phrase many people know, aside from "Nazi", which they also use. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you are gravely underestimating the power of "fascist". --Coroebus 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Putting it at the front of the section implied that use of the term = new anti-semitism, and that is settled fact. Come on, play fair. You aren't going to succeed if you want this article to say that accusing Israel of apartheid = anti-semitism, because that is simply untrue. --SandyDancer 12:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Crime of apartheid is first in its section, it makes sense to have NAS first in the crit section. Slim isn't "saying" IA = NAS, she's quoting others who do. "True" and "untrue", sadly, have nothing to do with it. IronDuke 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, you can't say that it's not anti-Semitic to accuse Israel of apartheid. You can only say that X thinks it is and Y thinks it isn't. And in the section with the NAS link, people think it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, by that logic you should also be saying that we can't link that "Crime of apartheid", because then we would be implying that Israel is definitely guilty of that "crime", and that is "settled fact". Play fair yourself. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. How is that not obvious? Gzuckier 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If the allegations of Israeli Apartheid are not "legal" in nature, then why link to a legal term like ICJ crimes of apartheid? Also, linking to new-antisemitism in the intro paragraph elevates that concept (unproven etc.) to a level it shouldn't be. That sub-issue can be covered later on in the article. From what that article states, the majority of people making the allegation (South African anti-apartheid activists, Jimmy Carter, Israelis themselves) are not "anti-semites", so it's a sub-issue not a main point.Kiyosaki 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would mention new anti-Semitism in preference to anti-Semitism in the lead, and kill two bird with one stone. This would make a lot more sense. Anti-Semitism is somewhat too broad; a minority POV might be accusing the diaspora in Brooklyn, New York of some form of apartheid, but labeling anyone who says anything bad about Israel as hating all Jews is very knee-jerk reactionary. -- Kendrick7 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, given that the allegations of "Apartheid" are not legal in nature, why link to a legal term like ICC "crime of apartheid"? The link probably should be removed. Also your claim that linking to New anti-Semitism "elevates that concept (unproven etc.) to a level it shouldn't be" is rather ironic for two reasons:
  • 1. the whole ICC "Crime of Apartheid" is itself a theoretical concept
  • 2. this entire article (Allegations of Israeli apartheid) "elevates a concept (unproven etc.) to a level it shouldn't be." Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
How can they not be legal in nature when apartheid is an international crime? It's no different from when someone is accused of jaywalking. If there's no law, then they are merely crossing the street. If there's nothing wrong with apartheid, the article becomes a big "so what?" -- Kendrick7 20:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing "illegal" with "something that is wrong". The two are not the same, even by a longshot. Apartheid may be morally wrong even if there is no law against it, just as slavery was wrong when it was legal. Conversely, just becuase something is illegal doesn't make it wrong from a moral POV. Isarig 20:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to make a point, there's nothing immoral about jaywalking. But, there is a law against apartheid, and there's a 30-year old international definition of what the word apartheid means. So I don't see why that isn't relevant here. The "Jaywalking" thus is not a "theoretical concept." -- Kendrick7 20:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The ICC has proposed a "Crime of Apartheid"; that certainly doesn't make it part of international law. And those who routinely hurl the epithet "apartheid" against Israel aren't lawyers making legal arguments; indeed, they are likely completely unaware of the ICC's claim. Rather, they, like all the others listed on Apartheid outside South Africa, just use it as an analogy and epithet. Indeed, many of the sources used the term before the ICC even invented the "Crime of Apartheid", so how could they possibly have been referring to its definition? Also, I'm not sure what "30 year old international definition" you are referring to, the ICC created its own definition in 2002. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The International Criminal Court has juridition of people who commit crimes against humanity. Apartheid is a crime against humanity, according to international law. You seem not to have read the article on crime of apartheid, which contains the 30 year old definition verbatim in full. Before it got removed from the lead, Ben had added several references that he said made it clear that sources referred to "Israeli apartheid" through the prism of internation law. I took his word for it, but it's kinda annoying for someone to delete references and then say the statement has no support, and say links don't belong in an article when they haven't read what they link to. People don't know there's a ICC with juridiction over a law against genocide either; but its the exact same treaty and law. That doesn't mean everyone who talks about alleged genocide in Darfur is making a subtle analogy to Armenia. People who aren't lawyers use the term genocide, and everyone knows what they mean. -- Kendrick7
Indeed I have read the article, but you are making claims for it that simply don't hold water. You can assert that the Crime of Apartheid is a crime according to International law all you like, but that doesn't make it so. The fact is that half the countries in the world haven't signed up to the ICC, and more than half the population of the world is not bound by it. 30 years ago a ICSPCA definition was proposed, but no makor Western countries signed up to it. When you propose a definition, and no countries that actually care about Crimes against humanity sign up to it, it's a clear sign that there is no accepted definition. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
So this template:

is incorrect? Am I really out on a limb here? I don't mean that the ICSPCA definition is binding. My point is that little-"a" apartheid isn't some brand new idea. -- Kendrick7 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though User:Oden added "Crime of Apartheid" to a Wikipedia "International law" template, it doesn't actually make it a fact that it is part of International law. Or are you asserting that User:Oden qualifies as a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the crime of apartheid is part of the ICC's remit, but the ICC has not been recognised by a number of countries. So that makes the crime part of international law, but with rather controversial questions of jurisdiction. It is entirely OR on JayJG's part as to whether people intend to refer to the ICC (formerly the ICSPCA) definition, but assuming he is right the solution appears to me to make the crime of apartheid and new anti-semitism links less prominent (certainly not the first thing in each section), rather than to keep them both prominent. --Coroebus 16:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
fair enough. Gzuckier 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
International law consists of those laws which have been accepted by states according to treaty or by custom; the "Crime of Apartheid" doesn't qualify under either. More importantly, it is the claim that the "Crime of Apartheid" is part of International law that is "original research", unless you can find a reliable source which makes that assertion. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
If the crime of apartheid is defined under the ICC, which it is, then states which accept the ICC (like mine for instance) accept the crime, so it is part of international law (cf. the international court of justice). But I take it that your quixotic position is driven by fear of what accepting the crime of apartheid as being part of international law sounds like, or its symbolic ramifications, rather than what the words actually mean. --Coroebus 16:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, no, my commonsense position is driven by logic and fact; please avoid personalizing this discussion. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm personalising it because I regard your position as bizarre and idiosyncratic. There is an argument to be had about the ICC's jurisdiction, the argument being made by the US and Israel, but that is not the argument you are making. International law simply means supranational law, law regulating the relations between nations, which, as you correctly point out, is governed by treaty and custom, and which the "crime of apartheid", as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is necessarily a part of (it is a supranational law established by treaty, how can it not be part of international law?!). What you seem to be taking 'international law' to mean is some kind of universal binding jus gentium that applies to all nations - or at least that is the only interpretation I can put on your words that makes any sense. --Coroebus 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Semantics aside, the Israeli apartheid wall or security barrier (or whatever POV term one uses for it) is against international law. Leaving aside the Palestinian or Israeli interpretation, most international governments agree that Israel should have the right to self-defence, but oppose the construction of the security barrier/apartheid wall outside the 1949 armistice lines as a violation of Palestinian rights.Kiyosaki 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do people continue to make these POV assertions as if they were fact? The ICJ asserted in a non-binding ruling, at a hearing at which Israel was not present, that the fence violated international law. That doesn't actually mean it does violate international law, particularly as the ruling was non-binding. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, the International Criminal Court isn't an international court, international criminal law isn't part of international law? Would you prefer the apellation "the crime of apartheid, defined by UN treaty" then? -- Kendrick7 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid strawman questions. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of the Crime of Apartheid in international law, I concur with Jayjg that most people who use the term "apartheid" are probably using it metaphorically. Most people are unaware the law exists, and people who certainly know it exists - I'm thinking of Dugard in particular - don't directly accuse Israel of violating that particular law. Many words in English have both a formal legal meaning and a more colloquial meaning. Mischief and mayhem are some examples. I'd reckon that more people are aware of the crime of mischief than the crime of apartheid. Kla'quot 07:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you want to open the scope of this article to what anybody thinks apartheid might mean. Then we are just determining what's in and what's out based entirely on a person's vocabulary. -- Kendrick7 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If people are seriously using the term with the meaning of an international crime, then there appears to be a singular lack of activity regarding prosecution among the vast majority of those who are using the term. People call Bush a murderer all the time, but that hardly means that they are seriously considering that he has broken a specific law regarding homicide and is likely to be convicted if only the attorney general would get off his ass and charge him. Crime of Apartheid here represents an extremist minority view with regard to the topic, and frankly New Antisemitism probably is more relevant to the topic and less extremist minority in most people's opinions. However, as you say, it is wrong to speculate over such matters, therefore I don't believe that Crime of Apartheid should receive some sort of higher recognition on the page than New Antisemitism. My preference would be to deprecate both links into the bodies of the respective texts. Gzuckier 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what the article is about now, "what anybody thinks apartheid might mean"; are you suggesting it be deleted? Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be honest I'm somewhat baffled by the existence of the article at all (I haven't looked, but I bet there isn't any Allegations of US Apartheid article, despite some folks thinking it a valid concept), but I figure, OK, don't let my POV interfere... then it escalates to all of a sudden we're arguing about the actual 'crime of apartheid'; I imagine the next step will find us arguing about Israel as "convicted of the crime of apartheid", when in fact this all started out with some folks' figure of speech to draw attention to what they see as the plight of the oppressed Palestinians etc. etc. and gets snowballed by creeping context change.Gzuckier 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a Allegations of US Apartheid article but there is a Racial segregation in the United States article. In the US it clearly passed beyond allegations and its history was pre-apartheid for the most part thus in that sense that is why the names are different. --Deodar 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I didn't get my point across, which is why country X gets an article about being racially segregated, while country Y gets an article about being accused of an international crime with a prominent link to a definition of said crime for similar behavior. Gzuckier 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. Gzuckier, what would you suggest as a more accurate name for the article? --Deodar 19:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is I think its better to have an agreed upon definition of the word, rather than insist on sources actually using the word without regard to its underlying meaning. I just get the impression that an RS saying The situation between Israeli Jews and Arabs is like the way things were between blacks and whites in South Africa for reason X would be impermissible here because there's no explicit mention of the ten-cent word apartheid. Likewise, if an RS said Israel's policy of X is yet another example of the Jewish ethnic group attempting to use state power to maintain their dominance over Arabs which would meet some people's definition of apartheid, but again doesn't use the word. But, if an RS said Keeping meat and milk separate is yet another example of Israeli dietary apartheid which is merely a flippant usage, someone might seriously think it belongs here. My thought was that by using the UN definitions we could at least have something sane to point to. -- Kendrick7 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
For most articles, it is a good and standard practice to introduce the article by defining the term. For us contributors, the definition also serves as a set of boundaries for defining the scope of the article. A problem with applying that practice here is that most of the the people who make Israeli apartheid allegations/analogies are (in my opinion) not systematically applying a standard definition; they are usually saying, "this is creepy in a way that reminds me of South Africa." Instead of trying to standardize a definition of apartheid it would be more pragmatic and in the spirit of WP:NPOV to standardize on a definition of apartheid allegation/analogy. We can easily recognize those: they either use the word apartheid or make a comparison to some aspect of South African apartheid. It is also in the spirit of NPOV to filter out flippant usages, and to give more weight to more popular points of view. Kla'quot 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
With respect to the examples you gave, The situation between Israeli Jews and Arabs is like the way things were between blacks and whites in South Africa for reason X is to me clearly an apartheid allegation. Your second example, Israel's policy of X is yet another example of the Jewish ethnic group attempting to use state power to maintain their dominance over Arabs is not an apartheid allegation. People are not alleging apartheid every time they accuse a state of blatantly racist or discriminatory practices. Kla'quot 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose if the issue were notable enough, someone would use the word "apartheid" for it sooner or later. Still I can't imagine having the same discussion about the word genocide, but of course its definition is a whole lot clearer. -- Kendrick7 06:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems

The problem with this article is that it was created and initially edited as an attack page against Israel, not as an encyclopedia article, and so every single person who has ever mentioned the words "apartheid" and "Israel" within the same few sentences is trotted out and quoted with no discrimination, and without reflecting the nuances of their points. We include people who are warning Israel not to do X or it will look like "apartheid," and others who are clearly using the term loosely (e.g. where someone says "this smells like apartheid").

If there's any will to get this article in good shape, what we need is for editors of good faith on both sides to work together to drown out the bad faith editors, and to try to produce an encyclopedic article that:

  • (a) doesn't include lists of people who might have used a certain word at some point in their lives;
  • (b) doesn't contain lots of unnecessary headers in an effort to push the criticism section to the end of the article
  • (c) doesn't use headers designed only to attack Israel (e.g. using the word "occupied" as often as possible);
  • (d) weaves criticism throughout the text, either in the same sections, or in different sections that are close to the points being criticized, so that when the reader sees one side, they don't have far to look before they see the other;
  • (e) recognizes that many sources who use the term "apartheid" of Israel are using it loosely and carelessly, and therefore focuses on the sources who are making the point seriously;
  • (f) doesn't keep on repeating the same points and same names (Desmond Tutu, militarily occupied, evil Israel, wonderful Tutu, occupied, occupied);
  • (g) a recognition that there are indeed practises and policies within Israel that have prompted the analogy, and that some serious sources are making serious points about them;

And above all:

  • (h) we need to find out whether there is any serious academic work on the subject (from either perspective) so that we can stop using journalists, politicians, and political activists as our main sources;
  • (i) all editors should be committed to working fully within the content policies (V, NPOV, and NOR), which includes being careful to choose only the best and most appropriate sources. For example, we currently use Winnie Mandela on a Gigablast website, whatever that is, and the link isn't even working; and there are many other examples of poorly sourced material that amount to clear policy violations. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall proposing, way back when, a substantially cut-down version with a concise summary of what the term means, and a handful of arguments for and against, but no one seemed that interested and carried on their edit warring. I have no reason to think anything has changed. This article will continue to see proponents of both sides slipping in this quote here, or that figure there, anything to skew the article one way or the other. --Coroebus 11:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
(cross post)I'm not convinced we want only academic references since this is a political phenomenon and political science doesn't represent all of politics (I think I've had that argument with you or JayJG before) but having a quick look at google scholar suggests "Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison" could be a good source, and "Rethinking the Palestine Question: The Apartheid Paradigm", and Peace-making in Divided Societies: The Israel-South Africa analogy. Didn't someone make a big list of sources before? --Coroebus 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. There aren't many good sources on this, so we should focus on the strongest arguments on both sides, and leave the lists of quotes for Wikiquote. If we can get all good-faith editors on both sides to agree on this, it might be possible to produce something decent. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The strongest (or most representative) arguments approach was one I favoured, but the problem is that people have their own favourite argument, and then the list spirals out of control --Coroebus 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the sources don't have to be academic, but if no or few scholarly papers exist, it means it's not a serious issue, and if they do and we don't cite them, it means we don't know what we're talking about. The Daryl Glaser paper you cited above looks interesting. He writes that the analogy holds only if Israel and the occupied territories are regarded as a single political entity, which he argues they ought to be. That's the sort of interesting point we should be focusing on. I see he seems to specialize in South Africa. It might be worth e-mailing him to ask if he can recommend reading material. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry but a removal of the examples of people who have used the term (or hide it away on some other page) is an obvious attempt to delegitimise it. This is a tactic I have seen used on many other pages and it is unacceptable. Arniep 14:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It is fine to highlight a few of the highest profile individuals, but that list is ridiculously long (it hardly delegitimising something if you don't list every single person you can find who has used the phrase) and it forces any discussion of why people use the term (i.e. the rationale) right down the article. The whole thing is currently a complete mess, and that undermines the article (and thus the phrase) because no one will read, let alone trust, and article this badly written. The structure should be intro, history/usage, rationale, criticism - each one of those sections short and to the point with plenty of footnotes if you want to get a reference in from your favourite activist. Looking back I think this is an example of how articles can actually get worse over time --Coroebus 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Coroebus. Arniep, do you see how your attempts to POV the article actually make the point you are trying to advance harder to understand and read? If you insert the opinion of every person in the street who has ever uttered the words "Israel" and "Apartheid" in the same breath, then you're going to end up with a dog's breakfast of an article that no one will read. If you really want to get across your point that Israel is an evil racist apartheid Nazi state, then you should listen to people who are trying to write the article so that that point is actually comprehensible. Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg accusing me of attempting to POV the article is nonsense and a personal attack. I had nothing to do with adding anything to do with Tutu. It was other users who kept removing it. Arniep 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, your first edit to the article yesterday was to add Tutu stuff. So was this edit. The rest of your statement displays a similar level of veracity. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The statement of certain people, like Tutu and Mandela, should be mentioned I believe, as there is a strong connection to South African issues. But quoting some obscure Israeli professor or some other people whose relationship to apartheid is tangential at best may be too much. Further, I still think that people should not be listed twice in this article; that's pure redundancy and unencyclopædic. -- Avi 14:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to Slim, Coroebus, and Avi. IronDuke 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Slim's analysis, particularly sociological study on the term's definition and usage is missing, it can't be replaced by a list of it's proponents. A synthesized rundown of those voices both relevant and presenting arguments is needed, arguably those mentioned now can be added as footnotes supporting a particular view. --tickle me 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to Avi above. I fear there might be an attempt to push allegations off to Wikiquote that should be in the article. Important people and credible people should have their words covered, as they said them, not some expert's "analysis" of them. Plus what is the wikipedia policy of balancing article? If the credible/important sources outnumber the dissent or criticism (or vice versa), then are they given equal weight each and every time on Wikipedia? What I am getting at, is that I believe the allegations from South Africa should be covered in detail, however the opinion of a former president of Columbia Univeristy are irrelevant because he's not an expert. But if we are to follow this, it would result in the article becoming less "balanced". Do we balance every article out, even though it might lead to inferior info on one side? for the sake of balancing it? Also, this article needs some Arab/Palestinian views and sources, but there are none. Again, putting in credible sources from that side will "unbalance" the article further, but if that's reality, why artificially alter it? Thanks.Kiyosaki 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While Jimmy Carter was involved in the Camp David talks that doesn't make him an expert on Israel or Apartheid. What makes Desmond Tutu, or the government of South Africa, more of an expert on Israel and its policies than the President of Columbia University? I mean, aside from the fact that you agree with the former, and disagree with the latter. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the problems we face sometime with critics and with articles about criticism of anything. It is easy to find a few notable people that criticise Israel along the lines of apartheid, and cite/quote them, but there may be 1,000s of notable people that may have the opinion that the allegations of apartheid are improper. Unfortunately we cannot cite them, unless specifically they state that the allegations are frivolous. This is what undue weight warns us: don't present a minority viewpoint as if it was amajority viewpoint, and I would add: the views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Jay, whether you, I, Kiyosaki, or anyone agrees with Tutu or not, and while he may not be an expert on Israeli-Arab relations, he is considered a very notable figure in the context of apartheid. In my opinion, there seems to be two types of people that can be cited:
  1. Notable people in reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
  2. Notable people in reference to apartheid.
In my opinion, the chair of Columbia chair may be the former, Tutu is the latter, some random peace activist is neither. -- Avi 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, unless the Pope has commented on the matter, the word of a Catholic Archbishop certainly has high moral authority. -- Kendrick7 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, if you're referring to Tutu, he's Anglican, not Catholic. So, is the article now about morality? Only the most "moral" people get to comment on it? Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh... um... nevermind. -- Kendrick7 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The best sources are those who have intimate knowledge of both the SAfrican and Israeli situations and sympathy for both sides of the Israeli Palestinian divide like Benjamin Pogrund. Along the lines of the comparsion between the two situations, U professors are excellent sources because they've had to examine the issue to guide the actions of the universities in divestment decisions. People like Tutu and Carter are sources because of their high level notablity and experience in some aspect of the overall puzzle, but it would be really helpful to have the article address what their actual relevant experience is (for Tutu) and to outline their position more exactly (for both of them) than the article does at present. Elizmr 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elizmr. Carter and Tutu are third-party sources, neither Palestinian nor Israeli and they can provide a fair view without the POV that will be inherent in some Israeli and Arab sources, that we have to watch out for. South African anti-apartheid activists that have visited Palestine seem to me to be the most credible and knowledgeable sources as to "Israeli apartheid", after all they lived through "Apartheid" and have knowledge about what it is, moreso than an academic in Israel or Arab countries that never lived through Apartheid. Also, Nobel Peace Prize winners cannot be dismissed, Jayjg. They have expertise and knowledge that you, I, and others do not have.Kiyosaki 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize winners aren't gods, and they certainly aren't all-knowing. Someone who wins the Nobel Prize for Chemistry or Literature doesn't suddenly become an expert on Apartheid or Israel. And a South African who has gone on a 2 day guided tour given by Palestinians is not an expert on Israel or the situation there either. Finally, as I said above, you have to understand that Tutu thinks everything is "apartheid"; whether it's Tibet and China [23] [24], the British detention of terrorists [25], or Guantanamo [26], it's all "apartheid" according to Tutu. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, I think that both Tutu and Carter are highly biased, but of course they are notable sources to be quoted in Wikipedia. Elizmr 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, wait a minute -- if people outside of Israel are biased because they don't live there, and people inside of Israel are biased because they do live there (i.e. they are either the victims or the perpetraitors, or Uncle Toms, or self-haters), then we shouldn't cite anybody who says anything about this. -- Kendrick7 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Who on earth has made those arguments? Please avoid strawmen. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I can see where Tutu comes up with his points above. It's not like he calls "everything" apartheid, but those specific circumstances you highlighted that are appropriately unique. His comments are relevant on those pages too, if such pages exist. I really don't think you are in a position to second guess Desmond Tutu, unless you have some qualifications on the subject. Do you?Kiyosaki 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is not to evaluate his arguments, but whether he is an expert on the topic. Clearly he is not an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, I agree they should be referenced and quoted in Wikipedia. Curiously, how can you call 2 Nobel Peace Prize winners "highly biased"? esp. when one is black the other white, and on top of that neither is Arab or Israeli nor directly involved in the conflict? If Tutu and Carter are "biased" than I agree with Kendrick, then everyone else must also be especially Arabs and Israelis involved in the conflict, and that makes no sense either. Carter also has a track record of success with Middle East peace: Camp David Accords. Kiyosaki 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Kissinger have a Nobel peace prize? --Coroebus 16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments aren't making sense. One is black, one is white, therefore they can't be biased? What does that mean? Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Jayjg, your arguements don't make any sense at all. South Africans anti-apartheid activists know apartheid, they are experts. Kiyosaki 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Current events as material for encyclopedias, and avoiding the trap of anti-Semitic slogans

  • (1) Something that is often missing from debates such as the one above is that articles, subjects, and biographies rooted primarily in current events or current affairs will never have high level literature to back it up until many years have passed by because it takes many years to gain perspective, research topics, and write on them with all due detachment, credibility, and objectivity as becomes true scholarship unlike quickie treatises and a "best seller" mentality aimed at scoring points and not caring about the values of calm objective writing. More conservative writers and researchers produce at a slower rate and then have to battle the inherent prejudices of POV left-wing academics with unhidden agendas of their own. It is not easy for the facts and truth to make themselves known let alone to triumph.
  • (2) That in turn opens up the door to journalists, self-appointed pontificators and pundits, the media or blogs and the like, in all their forms and incarnations, to become "sources" for the topic at hand.
  • (3) As we all know, the international media is mostly left-wing and highly biased against and critical of Israel and too often is quite happy to join in and serve as the soap-box for anti-Zionist politicians and talking heads so that if:
    • (i) a journalist with an over-active flair for writing, or
    • (ii) an academic with an axe to grind in search of a new "academic" label or slogan to make a point, or
    • (iii) a creative preacher cooks up a new term in the course of a well-received polemical sermon,
  • (4) The end result is some dumb phrase like: "ban the bomb" or "burn the bra" or "make love not war" or "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" or "I have a dream" or "better red than dead" or "what, me worry?"
  • (5) Now from the same folks comes "Israeli apartheid" - and guess what? it has about the same academic significance or verifiability as "Yankees go home" or "yellow peril" and similar trashy slogans for the masses - all being plain and simple propaganda & political slogans, (see also slogans) - or worse, like hatemongering or incitement with potentially fatal consequences for Jews and Israelis and ultimately for the world because when Jews are named as "villains" in questions relating to international politics, then those same hatemongers and inciters will not rest until all their "enemies" are similarly "tarred and feathered" and gone to war with. When was the last time someone who targeted Jews ultimately turned out to be a benefit to mankind? Hitler started with Jews and in the end took on the world. Islamists started with hate against Jews and now they fight the world. It just never ends with the Jews...all with deadly consequences for mankind.
  • (6) Mandela and Tutu have no love for Israel and they are not regarded by anyone as scholars about Israel, its policies, or about the Middle East.
  • (7) Pogrund is a known rabid left-wing journalist, he is not NPOV about Israel.
  • (8) No-one knows what Tutu said about Communism and about Mandela's life-long love and alliance with it, and the fact that until this day the South African ANC is amalgamated with the South African Communist Party, and lets face it, the communists of the world commited more crimes against humanity than anything that happened under apartheid.
  • (9) So it could well be that the wish to foist the notion of "Israeli apratheid" is just another "communist plot" like so many others, "Workers of the world unite," "Imperialist pigs," "Capitalist dogs," and "Religion is the oppiate of the masses" etc...
  • (10) So now are Mandela and Tutu and their ilk going to be the "gold standard" judging Israel's acts? Hmmm, that is like asking the foxes and wolves of the world (i.e. the anti-Semites) to tell us what the sheep (the Jews and Israelis) are or should or could be doing to themselves or others.

Therefore, the notion of "Israeli apartheid" in its present incarnation is totally false and artificially fabricated (in a low credibility environment, to say the least) because it was coined by the enemies of Israel (= anti-Semites) and it should be given as much credibility as any similar anti-Semitic slogan or name-calling that came from Der Stürmer in the 1930s when Fascism was in vogue among the gentiles of the world. Shame on those who attribute any credibility on the reprehensible anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic slur that "Israeli apartheid" has proven itself to be. IZAK 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While taking exception to right-wing agendas like the one above, I have to agree with IZAK that anti-semitism is inappropriate as an encyclopaedic editing principle. Best regards from a someone “left-wing” (by US standards, anyway) who realises that totalitarianism-based racism rages in various parts of the political landscape and wishes that more people would care about the real problems this world is going through instead of raging against this or that little group of people or tiny patch of land... -- Olve 16:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Olve, your points are well-put and appreciated, but since when is standing up for Israel and the basic peacefull policies Zionism has followed over the last century equal to "totalitarianism-based racism" ? Israel is by definition a "tiny country" - a sliver - you cannot be flippant here, it's serious, they want to wipe it off the map (or doesn't that register?) , and now it must also suffer humiliation merely because it dares to exist as a Jewish state. In any case, the Arabs have had many chances to accept Israel's right to exist and live in peace. They almost always have chosen war. Egypy and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and the borders with them are quiet now for a long time, Israel does not hurt them, on the contrary, it helps. The Palestinians on the other hand have chosen to become "heroes" by blowing themselves up to achieve their goals. If they like it (suicide bombing) so much why don't they buy suicide belts for all their citizens and kill themselves (like in monopoly, they can skip the steps of owning all of Palestine and go straight to paradise instead) - it's what they believe in, right? These are sick people not worth anyone's (even academic) sympathy, so why does anyone think they are "normal people" worth justifying? What don't I (or you?) get? And it is in order to defend itself that Israel is now accused of practicing "Israeli apartheid", is that retarded or what - if I want to keep killers off my property and build a fence or arm myself against literal Islamic Kamikazes am I in the wrong? IZAK 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah — I see I not express myself clearly enough: My point is that either deep end can be too deep. I agree with you that some left-wing people are falling off the deep end in this particular area. My point is that that is not a problem of being “left-wing” or “right-wing”, but one of being "totalitarianism-based racist" or not. My point is that a lot of people on the left believe that they have a licence to bash Jews because they aren’t right-wing and therefore by definition cannot be racist, anti-semitic or the like. Many right-wing people are equally anti-semitic. Some right-wing Jews are quite racist. (Jews are remarkably like other people there...) In all these cases, political extremism leads to a lack of perspective. Politics cannot be expressed in left/right only — the degree of totalitarianism and racism is/are an independent axis/axes. -- Olve 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, for the record — since you seem to have misunderstood me there — I believe that the current medinat Yisrael is a country with good and bad sides; a country which has nothing like the institutionalised racism seen a bit too recently in South Africa or USA. Israel does of course have plenty of racism, like most other countries inthe world. This racism can be found amongst Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. There is nothing unique — or even noteworthy — about that, as far as I am concerned. -- Olve 18:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed yes. The antiArabism of Israeli Jews reminds me of parts of the US (not all in the South) vis a vis black and white relations; legally unsanctioned but socially acceptable prejudice, based on "profiling" of common experiences with "bad apples". A complicated situation, fed by the unfortunate conjunction of citizenship, race, and religion in the wars. Gzuckier 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"The end result is some dumb phrase like: "ban the bomb" or "burn the bra" or "make love not war" or "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" or "I have a dream" or "better red than dead" or "what, me worry?""

"I have a dream" is a dumb phrase?

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

If IZAK is seriously calling "I have a dream" dumb then I feel sorry for him. Truly.

Back to the matter at hand. IZAK seems to think that the only people who have any right to an opinion on Israel are Israel's supporters and that all other opinions should be dismissed no matter who makes them, what degrees they have, what experience they have, or where they publish them. This principle is an excellent one as far as Israel's government is concerned but it's not a very good one for an encyclopedia to follow. 67.71.179.227 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, why doesn't the article mention that Meron Benvitizki is also the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem or what his comparison to South Africa was, that government policy would create "Bantustans" (his word) for Palestinians? 67.71.179.227 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, there is a big "separation problem" right now with Israel and the Palestinians. It has been called apartheid and compared to apartheid. Have you read the article?Kiyosaki 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki: No matter how many times one reads this articles, and this ongoing talk surrounding it, it is inescapable that some editors created this topic as a spingboard to smear Israel, and its Jewish citizens, and to convey the general idea that Israel's policies = South African apartheid. This hate campaign against Israel goes hand in hand with other hate-filled initiatives against Israel such as Iranian Holocaust denial and the glorification of Palestinian suicide bombers by the world media as "victims" and the real flesh and blood Israeli victims as new "Nazis" for taking measures to protect themselves. For example, am I practicing "apartheid" if I install an alarm and build a fence to keep out people who want to kill me? At any rate, the phrase has taken on traction for now, but it is doubtful that truly objective students of what is going on in the Middle East really expect Israel to submit to its deranged critics regardless of this wild name-calling because as they say it takes two to tango: If Israel can be accused of "apartheid" then the Palestinians can be classed as totally deranged for wanting to get their way via suicide bombings. People who want to commit suicide need mental institutions and should not be given any country to run. IZAK 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, this is not a political battleground- please assume good faith. Arniep 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, try telling that to the anti-Israel crowd. IZAK 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What evidence is there that there is an "anti-Israel crowd"? Are you part of a "pro-Israel crowd"? Which is less NPOV? Kiyosaki 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations

Much of the confusion surrounding this article comes from the title. The title was chosen because Israeli apartheid was an regarded as allegation, not so that the article could become strictly a listing of "notable people" who made "allegations of Israeli apartheid". In retrospect, it's now clear the title is confusing. A better title would be Alleged Israeli apartheid. -- Kendrick7 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making; that seems to be a distinction without a difference. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... yeah, I guess that's true. -- Kendrick7 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Edit War

Why don't we all go back to the version before SlimVirgin's mass changes (9:54 24 October 2006) and reverts that caused this thing to get into chaos. People were working along effectively and then there was the mass changes made without any Talk on the Discussionpage prior. Then there was the revert war that WAS STARTED by SlimVirgin and nobody else.

SlimVirgin's 4 Reverts and Rule Violation started the problems: [27], [28], [29], [30]

On the first revert he says in the edit summary: "removed some problematic writing; tidied lead section" but this is false and misleading , it involved reverting and deleting information about anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu. The next three reverts are the same, they take out Tutu, and they threw the page into chaos.

Let's backtrack and start anew?Kiyosaki 14:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that pointing fingers and singling out individuals is the best way to relieve the tension around here? I know this is a charged topic, but please assume good faith and keep your eye on the article, not the editors. Nobody "started" this; it is a dynamic process with no beginning and no end. Focusing on one person or one set of edits isn't going to help improve things. Dasondas 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Dasondas. -- Olve 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well said? yeah I guess. Please go visit my Talk page and see the thrashing, singling out, finger pointing, and lecture that I received. All I am saying is that I didn't start the edit war in any way, but my Talk page reflects total accusations and singling out.

OK, should we go back to the page before the edit of (9:54 24 October 2006) [31] and start anew? Thanks.Kiyosaki 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Singling out: Even if one extreme should start behaving badly, it is better for the cause and for everyone, including us in the middle, if others, including the other extreme, tries to behave better and stick more to the issues at hand rather than “calling names back”. (“He/She started!” is not constructive.) Hence, I stand with my “Well said”.
Re: 9:54: 9:54 by what time zone? (I see that that has been fixed during the edit conflict.) (Have to go soon, BTW -- cannot help out much more right now...) -- Olve 15:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to communicate with SlimVirgin about his 4 reverts but there is no tab on his Discussion page to do so, so I bore the brunt of the accusations on my Dicussion page. OK, I'm done talking about it.Kiyosaki 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Olve. It is best to stop with the accusations. SlimVirgin was mistaken in the reasons when she reverted and pushed you into 4RR but you were never actually reported officially. The best thing to do is to be calm and talk about the changes one would like to make on this page. We have already discussed earlier about readding a few of the removed sections and it is likely to happen. What happens is that when people get angry they tend to start retaliating and it gets harder to find middle ground -- everyone ends up losing. Let's just try for some patience. It is for this reason that I asked for the full page protection -- to stop the edit war and let people calm down. --Deodar 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin was not mistaken, and Kiyosaki was not "pushed into 4RR" (actually 5RR). It's rather hypocritical to tell someone to stop with the accusations, while simultaneously making all sorts of false accusations. Please stop trying to blame everything on certain parties you like to harass, and focus instead on improving the current article, which looks better than it has in a long time, but still needs much more work to clean out the garbage. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
First, I didn't revert four times, and secondly, no one "pushes" anyone into 4RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no false accusations. SlimVirgin, you did too revert 4 times and in violation prior to me. The evidence is right here, within 11 hours time: [32], [33], [34], [35] Why is your user page locked for comments? I tried to warn you that you were violating the 3RR rule.

If anyone reviews the issue in detail they will see that I was adding sourced information regarding Desmond Tutu to the article, and it was removed by SlimVirgin 4 times. Plus, I looked it up here re Wikipedia copyediting [36]: This page refers to copy-editing an existing Wikipedia page. Copy-editing involves the improvement of grammar and punctuation, and the correction of misspellings. Is that "copyediting", SlimVirgin? Removing whole paragraphs and referring to it as a copyedit?? Kiyosaki 00:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to get things back on track

OK, should we go back to the page before the edit of (9:54 24 October 2006) [37] and start anew? Thanks.Kiyosaki 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to undo the copy edit. We're going to edit from that version and turn this page into something Wikipedia doesn't have to be ashamed of, using the strongest arguments and best sources on each side, and sticking very, very closely to the three content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. The current version is the best it's ever been, though that's not saying much. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin and Jayjg that we should start from where we currently are. Revert wars are to be avoided. Let's move slowly and in a controlled fashion. Let's talk about major changes on the talk page first. Just because we start at this point, doesn't mean we have to stay at this point. Wikipedia is a dynamic place. --Deodar 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Gee, I didn't think it was all that bad. But the sooner we start, the sooner we finish. -- Kendrick7 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a page unprotect request. -- Kendrick7 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest we try a sandbox first. Since there are still a lot of accusations being thrown around. A sandbox let's us make progress without the stakes being as high (we are not editing the main public page), thus it reduces the emotions involved. --Deodar 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
With Carter's book coming out in 19 days, I'd rather see this public, because there's a good potential of new editors arriving. All heck is going to break loose anyway, might as well use this a flypaper to improve wikipedia overall. -- Kendrick7 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll go with the consensus. What do others here on this page think? (Also, if Carter's book does cause a lot of discussion, it should have its own article.) --Deodar 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should work in the sandbox until after Shabbat is over to unlock. Of course the time is different in different locations, but observant Jews don't use technology on Shabbat so won't be editing around now. There are probably a few active editors on this page who are affected by this. Elizmr 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, I would suggest sticking with the sandbox even further because some people might get back from Shabbat and be unhappy with the sandbox article state and it would be the wrong time to unlock the main article just in time to have a big fight. Also going forward, it is best to discuss changes to the sandbox as if they were the main page. --Deodar 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Elizmr 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In general I'd prefer unprotect to sandbox; presumably we're all adults here. But my main point in responding is to warn about the perceptions engendered by making allowances for Shabbat -- it's understandable of course, but some editors on the "other side" might see it as favoritism and it might open up a can of worms that will effect future contentious edit situations. What do you think would happen if you unlocked it now and respectfully asked editors on the other side to refrain from radical changes for a couple of days? This doesn't have to be for Shabbat, or any other reason other than the fact that, to use a medical analogy, it's not a good idea to get out of bed and start running around as soon as you wake up from a coma. If everybody shows more good faith, there will be more good faith. Right? Dasondas 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course, but there has been a rather bad run of bad faith here, hasn't there? About the issue of favoritism, I don't agree with you. This is just a group of people deciding what to do about a project we are cooperatively involved in. I think it is nice to be sensitive to the cultural issues of all the various stakeholders as they occur in any situation. In this case I happen to have brought up the Jewish editors because it is now Shabbat, but I'm sure the Jewish editors would more than welcome the opportunity to show reciprocity and be sensitive to the cultural needs of the Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc editors on another occassion. Just my opinion which i threw out for consideration. Elizmr 01:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, there has been a rather bad run of bad faith here. What better way to stop the run than by a magnanimous act of good faith? However, the risks are large (I know), and you are probably right that one or two bad apples will come along and get everybody upset again. But on the other hand if this thing is really going to just become a bloody edit battlefield again as soon as the lock is off, does it really matter if it starts two days earlier rather than two days later? Consensus here will never be unanimous; it's just not in the nature of the thing. What we should be trying to do, IMO, is create whatever kind of middle we can, however fragile it may be. Thus my suggestion above. But it was only a suggestion; I don't have strong feelings about process at this point. My feelings about content are more defined, and one or two days either way doesn't make much difference to me on that score. Dasondas 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

I started a sandbox here that people can start to edit. If it goes well we can unlock the main article and replace it with the sandbox and continue refining it:

Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid/Sandbox

Best. --Deodar 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your, Kendrick7, edits to the sandbox article are good. --Deodar 05:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh... I know I've messed the first section up. But, when I noticed, as in the current real-article revision, that the first individual mentioned was the infamous David Duke, I wasn't sure exactly where to stop cutting and pasting. Since it is just a sandbox, I hope I won't be accused of WP:POINT. But I'm just doing janitorial stuff now. Hopefully we all can think of some way of stringing two sentences together without it being WP:OR and give the reader some summation idea of the concept at hand. -- Kendrick7 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm done. The "use of the term" section worked out OK after all. -- Kendrick7 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Kendrick7, I think that many of the organizational changes and some of the contextual edits in the Sandbox are good improvements over the existing article and are at least one potential way out of the morass. I hope that the previously-involved editors at least take a look at your conception and perhaps offer commentary. One area that might prove contentious, however, is this section quoted from Adam: Jewish nationalism (Zionism) "falsely assumes that anti-Semitism is an irreducible part of Gentile society"[5] and thus "only an exclusive Jewish state could guarantee Jewish rights."[5] Among the Jewish diaspora is an "uncritical ethnic solidarity that falsely equates critiquing the government [of Israel] with denying Israel's right to exist" or with anti-semitism.[2] The source, as far as I can tell from a distance, seems fine, but those assertions are open to strong rebuttal and I have no doubt that they would be vigorously counter-argued in the article. Since the article is contentious enough without opening up new editing battlegrounds over the philosophies of Zionism and the organic nature of diaspora Jewry, I (softly and respectfully) ask that you consider whether those quotes are the best ones to use from the source you have chosen. Dasondas 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you've noticed, but the Sandbox version is being written almost exclusively by people with one POV. This doesn't bode well for it being accepted by the many people who hold different POVs. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The more the merrier. I've tried to encourage participation from as many people as possible. Feel free to join in Jayjg. I also realized that this was a risk and I mentioned it to Kendrick7 a couple days ago -- you can read that warning of mine here [38]. --Deodar 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to jump in. -- Kendrick7talk 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead: What about Gaza?

Would it make more sense for unfamiliar readers to say say "Israel's treatment of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza" or something like that? Gaza is currently mentioned eight times in the article. -- Kendrick7 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaza is no longer under Israeli control. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two aspects. The first is that the article isn't about current accusations but rather the parallel in general and thus in that sense, since much of the material was written prior to the disengagement it is still applicable to inclusion in the article if it meets RS and V. The second, is the mention of bantustans as pointed out by the Palestinian PM that who was quoted to that effect in the referenced Haaretz article in the context of the disengagement -- something that meets clearly with the WP:Attribution proposed guidelines. As SlimVirgin is found of saying, we are trying to document reputable opinions to create an encyclopedia worthy article, not argue here whether it is/was/could be a parallel to apartheid or not -- our own personal opinions as to the arguments made by the RS and V and notable people should not be that relevant. --Deodar 04:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand what the awkward phrase "Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza" could possibly add to the article. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The wording could be improved, but if Gaza is a significant aspect of apartheid allegations, it should be mentioned in the introduction. If the allegations don't make sense to us, that's not a reason to downplay them. Kla'quot 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Source: Uri Davis' Book

One of the first works making these types of allegations was Uri Davis' book "Israel: An Apartheid State." I found this book at my university library and photocopied most it. I have scanned and posted to the web a few of the key pages (in my opinion.) I can scan and post whatever other pages people request, but I would prefer not to post the whole book since that will likely get me into a clear copyright violation. Here are some of the key pages:

This at least allows us to understand his position, whether or not we agree with it. --Deodar 23:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Davis certainly counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia. However, we should be a bit careful, because his opinions are minority ones. He calls himself a Palestinian Jew and was a member of the PLO, which makes him tiny minority. I'm not trying to poison the well against him (I'm truly not), but we should bear in mind the "undue weight" provision of NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, his views are extreme minority ones. He's worked closely with Israel Shahak in the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, which, despite its benign sounding name, is itself a rather extreme organization. Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
For more on JayJG's views of Shahak, consider this. Shahak condemned the misappropriation of his works by far-right and racist groups, but that didn't stop Jay from throwing in casual and prejudicial references to Ernst Zundel and David Duke. CJCurrie 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Give me a break, those two people were extremely notable and I would venture to say that most people have probably only heard of Shahak in the context of that group of holocaust deniers. Just because your bitter that you didn't get you way on that article doesn't mean you can throw accusations and insinuations around all over wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Your reference to "my bitter" is off-base and absurd; I'm a wine connaisseur. In any event, I think the current wording on the Shahak page is fair. CJCurrie 05:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What an amazing, and yet unsurprising, distortion. Not only did you ignore the wealth of information I added regarding Shahak's difficult early life in the Holocaust,[39] and the fact that I included praise from Alexander Cockburn, but you also ignored the fact that I added all sorts of other praise from people like Gore Vidal, Morton Mezvinsky, Edward Said, Christopher Hitchens, Allen Brownfield. [40] I put highly complimentary stuff in there about Shahak, whereas what negative stuff have you ever added about him? When have you written for the enemy, CJCurrie? In the future, please try to stick to discussing this article, rather than continued attacks on various editors here. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you mentioned Cockburn *in the same sentence as Zundel* when referencing Shahak's supporters. The other names were only added after complaints, if memory serves. CJCurrie 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And I see that you re-inserted the "anti-Semitic people" category at the same time that you referenced his experiences in the Holocaust. CJCurrie 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Uri Davis' views may be an "extreme minority" view amongst Israeli Jews but they are not an "extreme minority" when it comes to views on Israel as a whole. He lectures widely, is interviewed in the media and has published several widely read books. 74.98.232.108 06:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

He was of course, born a Palestinian Jew. I'm not sure how that is supposed to count against him. -- Kendrick7 06:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We'll let's not shoot or revere the messenger before we actually quote from him or attempt to integrate him into the article. I am fine with trying to stabilize the sandbox article structure prior to integrating in Uri Davis for now -- the matter is already complicated enough. Davis wrote this stuff in the 1970s, it won't hurt to wait a few more weeks before trying to get any of it into the article proper. --Deodar 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he wrote Israel: An Apartheid State in the late 1980s. His latest book "Apartheid Israel" came out two or three years ago. Might be worth getting a hold of a copy for the article. Gehockteh leber 07:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We have to "shoot or revere him" before we add him to the article to decide whether to add him and if so to what extent. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Alas, many of history's most revered figures became that way after being shot. Dasondas 07:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Except Davis is not one of history's most revered figures, so we can't assume he is automatically an acceptable source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, we could use him as a source because he's an academic, although not one writing in his field. However, he does seem to be tiny minority without question, so if he's used, it would have to be sparsely. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Davis spoke at a July 2006 anti-Zionism conference in London organized by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organization which opposes the banning of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an anti-Semitic party — even the Guardian, not known for its pro-Israel views, sacked a trainee reporter for being involved with Hizb-ut-Tahrir — and which, according to its WP article, supports the introduction of sharia law. We need to find mainstream academic sources for this article, not tiny-minority extremist opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is guilt by assocation, Slim. There's no indication that Davis supports Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or their unbanning.
The ACLU recently defended Fred Phelps on a free-speech issue. Would you automatically assume that anyone speaking at an ACLU event is in sympathy with Phelps' views? CJCurrie 02:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I did some searching and I found this article on FrontPageMag.com that corroborates what SlimVirgin is saying. Uri Davis and the other speakers mentioned in the same breath, such as Michel Warschawski and John Rose, are anti-Zionists who advocate for a binational-style solution to the conflict. --Deodar 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are saying has been corroborated as no one doubts Davis is anti-Zionist. The question is whether Davis supports Hizb-ut-Tahrir and there's no evidence to support that in the link.
Here is the Ynet (a less partisan source than FrontPageMag.com) article on the conference: UK Muslims present: Jews against Zionism --Deodar 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be a much less partisan source:) Nevertheless, the list of sponsors of the conference listed in the article is revealing. Hizb-ut-Tahrir isn't among them. I think we can safely dismiss the Hizb-ut-Tahrir issue as a red herring. Gehockteh leber 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Except Davis is not one of history's most revered figures, so we can't assume he is automatically an acceptable source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has already conceded that Davis "certainly counts as a reliable source". Gehockteh leber 07:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we could use him as a source because he's an academic, although not one writing in his field. However, he does seem to be tiny minority without question, so if he's used, it would have to be sparsely. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A "tiny minority" amongst Israeli Jews. Not a "tiny minority" amongst academics. As for not writing in his field Davis is an anthropologist by training so an analysis of Israeli and Palestinian society is within his purview. Davis' PhD thesis was entitled 'Israel: utopia incorporated - a study in class, state and corporate kin control', in his career he was at Bradford's School of Peace Studies, Durham's Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies and Exeter's Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies and Department of Politics[41] . Accordingly, there is a lot of evidence that, in fact, Davis is writing in his field. Gehockteh leber 08:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I live close to two major universities -- I'll check their libraries for a copy of his latest book in the coming weeks. While I do agree with you that he is writing in his field of study, I also feel that we should use him only as much as it is warranted. --Deodar 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
He may not be a "tiny minority" amongst academics, but even there his views are still in the minority.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The article certainly shouldn't rely on sources like that. We can add him to the article once it's written as an additional source if his material would add anything new or distinctive. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering: do you suppose Davis's views represent a "tiny minority" among Middle Eastern academics generally? CJCurrie 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand the above discussion. It is not for us to dismiss people as minority views if what we're after is the view from those proposing the apartheid analogy (or opposing it). Is Uri Davis in a minority of those proposing the analogy vis a vis the analogy? If yes then limit his use as a source, if not then rely on him as much as is necessary (with regard to the subjective quality of his work). What we shouldn't be doing, and something I've seen a fair bit with these israel/palestine related articles, is attacking any representative of whatever side of a debate to undermine their use as sources, and to exclude them from the article, particularly when they're academics or respected and highly visible public figures --Coroebus 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We should first of all find mainstream academic sources for this article. That stands to reason and is an important part of NPOV: that we represent majority- and significant-minority views. The article must be grounded on the views of mainstream sources who have written about the subject; then other sources can be mentioned as we see fit. This discussion about the use of Davis is therefore premature. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Look at the sponsors of the conference: Crescent International, Friends of al-Aqsa, Innovative Minds, Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, Islam Channel, Justice for Palestine Committee, Muslim Association of Britain, Muslim Directory, Muslim Weekly, Neturei Karta, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and The 1990 Trust."
Come on. We are not going to base an article about Israel on the views of someone willing to become involved with Neturei Karta and Friends of al-Aqsa. Their views can be included, but they cannot form the backbone.
Question: Are there any mainstream academic sources we can use for this article? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Well I'm not sure what 'mainstream' academic sources means in this context. There don't appear to be any academic studies of the phenomenon of the allegation of Israeli apartheid, but there are a few academic papers making the comparison (e.g. "Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison" and "Rethinking the Palestine Question: The Apartheid Paradigm") or rejecting it (e.g. Peace-making in Divided Societies: The Israel-South Africa analogy). That was just a short search so I'm sure someone else can dredge up a few more (e.g. some I don't have access to like PALESTINE, APARTHEID, AND THE RIGHTS DISCOURSE or Palestine/Israel: Peace or Apartheid. or Visions of the Future During Political Transitions: Comparing Afrikaner and Israeli Attitudes). But I'm not convinced we necessarily want to rely too heavily on the work of academics, they may well not represent the bulk of those making/refuting the allegation (although they're probably a better source for the arguments spelt out as explicitly as possible). --Coroebus 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain what Slim's list of Muslim and pro-Palestinian organizations is intended to prove. More to the point, I think she's reaching for excuses to exclude Davis from the article.
Davis speaks at a conference --> Neturei Karta were among the sponsors of the conference --> Therefore Davis is associated with Neturei Karta --> Therefore Davis is not a mainstream source?
As you say, come on.
Incidentally, "Friends of al-Aqsa" was formed before the second intifada. Their name refers to the mosque. CJCurrie 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream sources don't speak at conferences where Neturei Karta speaks. Davis is a radical, an extreme minority opinion, and one should just accept that obvious fact rather than futilely pretending he is anything else. The real question here is what, if any of his opinion, is worth including here? Perhaps we could start by trying to find out which of his views have been published in mainstream sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
CJC, a few editors on this page are trying to get away from the toxicity that has plagued this article since its creation and want to try to produce a page that WP needn't be ashamed of. Your attitude of accusing people of base motives is part of the old mindset. People don't have to agree with one another, but comments such as "she's reaching for excuses to exclude Davis from the article" are offensive, false, your personal opinion, completely unverifiable, and unconnected to the contents of the article. One thing I've said to you before is that I never see you writing for the enemy. This would be a good place to start.
We need to stick to the suggestion of locating the strongest arguments from the strongest sources on both sides and basing the articles on those. That means no extremists. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1) Whether or not Davis is an extermist is a POV. 2) While he is outside the spectrum of domestic Jewish Israeli politics he is definitely not an extremist within the PLO or within the MidEast discourse as a whole. Gehockteh leber 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see the logic of excluding a widely-published author because of an ultra-tenuous connection to Neturei Karta, a radical anti-Zionist Jewish group who are not defined by *any* government or international body as a terrorist organization. The fact that you only brought forward this, um, "connection" once your first argument for exclusion was rejected makes me a bit suspicious as to motive. If I've misjudged your intent, I apologize.
And Jay: don't you think it counts for something that Jewish *and* Muslim critics of Israel were able to meet in the same forum? One might hope that meetings like this will reduce the level of actual anti-Semitism within the anti-Zionist movement. CJCurrie 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Neturei Karta are so extreme in their religious and political views that even fairly extreme non-Zionist Jewish Hassidic groups like Satmar have repudiated them. They are to normative Judaism as Christian Identity is to Christianity. When David Duke went to Syria and said on national television that Israel was far more extreme than the Nazis, do you think that was a good way of reducing anti-Americanism amongst Syrians? Let's be sensible here. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy? Gehockteh leber 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're making far too much of NK's decision to "co-sponsor" the event. Did they even have any involvement in the proceedings? CJCurrie 03:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No one is exactly saying he is guilty of everything that NK is, but the fact that he would accept an invitation to an event that is co-sponsored by such a group implies that he at least tacitly if not explicitly approves of NK's beliefs and perhaps their actions as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I still think you're overreaching. Beyond which, (i) Neturei Karta have not been designated as a terrorist organization by any country or international agency, (ii) their leader was a cabinet minister in Yasser Arafat's government, which was officially recognized by several countries, (iii) repudiation by Satmar is not sufficient evidence of extremism. CJCurrie 06:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, no one ever accused them of being terrorists themselves, just that they are on a tiny fringe of a larger group that is already a fringe, so I hardly see how it is relevant that no country lists them as a terrorist organization. Second of all, how can you say that we are overreaching? People don't agree to become featured speakers at events that have been organized by groups that they object to, since speaking there alone gives one's tacit approval to anything they engage in. There is nothing tenous about the link at all, it is very real.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if I accept the argument that the connection is "very real" (which I don't), this would still not be sufficient grounds to exclude Davis from the article. Anyway, I suspect we're at an impasse in this discussion. CJCurrie 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Further question:

Does Davis's argument represent an "extreme minority view" within Palestinian society? CJCurrie 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The arguments being made would be worthy of consideration if the article in question were Israel, Zionism or a similar topic but this piece is on "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Davis did not coin the phrase "Israeli apartheid" but he popularized it and the allegations among the left with his late 1980s book "Isreal: An Apartheid State" and through his role in founding the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine. He is a central figure in the development of the "Israeli apartheid" analysis and so his views are not at all marginal to the article. The argument regarding who sponsored a conference Davis spoke at and whether or not that disqualifies him from consideration is clearly guilt by association and thus should be dismissed, particularly as Davis has already been conceded to be a "credible source". Gehockteh leber 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that its best to drop the argument for the time being because its generally not productive. Gehockteck leber, do you want to improve Uri Davis' article in regards to his role as you describe immediately above? It would be best to first improve his article before arguing that it is so notable it needs to go into other articles. Fleshing out Uri Davis' article also ensures that we don't have to argue about who he is again -- it is clearly established in his article for easy future reference. --Deodar 00:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As you are in possession of his book you are better placed to add information to Uri Davis. Gehockteh leber 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kibbutz membership

Is membership in Israeli kibbutzim still only open to Jews? I've got a source which calls them "the most apartheid institution in Israel", but its from 1975. -- Kendrick7 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if kibbutz were ever only opened only to Jews, but they certainly are open to everyone now. I would have to question the credibility of your source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Old open letter to the War Resisters' League (whatever that was) from Israel Shahak and Uri Davis, reprinted in the Journal of Palestine Studies, Jan. 1975, Volume: 4, Issue: 2 Page: 153. The claim was that all kibbutz land was granted by the JNF, and at least at the time, Israeli Arabs were forbidden from even living on that land. They point out that Palestinians were permitted to work at kibbutzim, but of course, the picture which the WRL had apparently painted of them as a "socialist" utopia was hardly apt. I was just curious; this is rather dated anyway; my impression from the kibbutz article was that they have long since gone capitalistic and nowadays hire Thai immigrants instead. Although that struck me as odd too -- Palestinian unemployment is at 23-39 percent, and most of the kibbutz labor comes from Thailand? But anyway, I'll discard this data point; if it's still an issue I can find something more current. -- 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I know there was a huge fight in the Kibbutz Artzi federation (Hashomer Hatzair) several decades ago over its policy of not allowing Arabs to be members despite having Arab day labourers in the employ of the kibbutzim. As Kibbutz Artzi represented the extreme left of the kibbutz movement it's hard to imagine that any of the more mainstream kiubbtz movements were more liberal at the time. This was several decades ago so the polices may well have changed. Moshe, what is the source for your assertion that Arbas are able to join Kibbutzim as full members? There have been Arab workers on kibbutzim for decades but are you sure that today Arabs are allowed to be full members? A source would be useful. The one's I have been able to find speak of Arabs being excluded from membership:
Hanna Braun, a member of the kibbutz movement in the 1930s and 1940s wrote in 2005:
One of the tenets of the left-wing kibbutz movement at the time was that it should only hold as much land as its members could work without hired labour. This ideal is long gone and so are most kibbutzim, in spite - or because? - of the prosperity they gained in the years after WW2, partly by generous reparation money from Germany and partly from the open theft of large chunks of land, not in the least arid, from its original Arab inhabitants. '[42]
Later in the same article she continues:
It was on a kibbutz, though that I experienced the first puzzling event: two Czech soldiers from the Czechoslovak Free Army had been sent to recuperate in a kibbutz comprised exclusively of Czechoslovak immigrants, all of them completely secular. The two had been bakers in their respective villages and soon volunteered to work in the kibbutz bakery, with the result that the standard of bread, rolls and pastry rocketed to unknown heights. They took a great liking to kibbutz life and applied to become members. To this day I remember listening to two of the female members discussing the matter while we were working in the orchard; the stumbling block appeared to be that the two were not Jewish. I couldn't understand this at all, why was this a problem in a place were there was no religion whatsoever? Their application was rejected, as was one I came across years later, when an English colleague told me that he too had applied for membership of a kibbutz he had worked on as a volunteer and had been rejected. By that time it had become clear that the Land of Israel that we had sung about and idealised endlessly was meant exclusively for Jews.
According to this excerpt from 1999's Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky "It is a fact, widely known and discussed in Israel, that only Jews can be kibbutz members. Non-Jews who wish to become kibbutz members must not only acquire the approval of the kibbutz members; they must, as a condition of joining, convert to Judaism. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate has established conversion schools for non-Jews who wish to join kibbutzim."[43] Gehockteh leber 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, let's list this under both Israeli apartheid (Shahak said so!) and under Jewish exploiter bloodsuckers for employing those Thai labourers. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That was kinda my point -- those complaints from 1975 seem quaint now. It just seems odd for Israelis to be hiring Thais when there's so much labor available a bus ride away. And what caused the change? Did the Palestinians unionize or something? I hope this isn't yet another example of collective punishment. -- Kendrick7 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In general Thais seem to have considerably less animosity towards Israeli Jews than, say, Arabs do. Has there ever been a Thai suicide bomber? Perhaps that figures into the calculation of who to hire. Or perhaps not. What difference does it make? Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The inability to for Palestinians to sustain a livelihood is a part of the apartheid regime, at least according to Haarezt:

Everyone in the Sharon government talked about the "demographic problem" to convince people of the justness of the pullout. Now the Palestinians have been forgotten and demographics have been forgotten - all because the data can't be used for political ends. But the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation, and in the future they will turn the Jews into a minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

-- Kendrick7 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hard to understand exactly what it's talking about, but I guess that anonymous Ha'aretz editorial writer thinks that Palestinians should have their own state, and the right to work in a different state (Israel) as well. Kind of like eating your cake and having it too, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The "demographic problem", also know as the "demographic threat" is basically the perceived threat of losing a Jewish majority in the country of Israel. It is tied in with the need to disown the Gaza Strip and the West Bank because if one where to make the Arab inhabitants part of Israel there would be near parity in population figures between Jewish citizens and non-Jewish citizens. Complicating the matter though is the settlement program in the Gaza Strip (now evacuated) and the West Bank (still going strong) -- these types of activities encourage some to say that these territories as a whole (both Israeli Jewish settlers and current non-Israelis) should just be integrated into Israel proper since there is already significant Israeli population there which in some areas is really situated immediately between indigenous non-Jewish communities (thus mixed in in a heterogeneous way.) More recently there have been people joining the ruling coalition in Israel that advocate trading out Arab communities in what is Israel proper for Jewish settlement communities in the territories -- although these recent coalition partners are fairly controversial even in Israel for their views. I've been following Haaretz for better part of a decade, thus I'm up to speed on many of the domestic issues in Israel. --Deodar 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So, a source for the claim that Arabs can become full members of kibbutzim? Gehockteh leber 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

HOTR is making trouble again

User:Gehockteh leber is obviously HOTR, up to his old tricks again, disrupting any possibility of reasonable discussion. I thought he wasn't allowed to use sockpuppets?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is not the appropriate forum for this dispute with this editor. Please take it elsewhere. --Deodar 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually so far as it affecting this article this is an acceptable place to bring up such a matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The situation is summarized on the AN/I noticeboard. Kla'quot 03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
How can it be effecting a locked article he's never edited? Even User:Gehockteh leber's edits in the sandbox are fairly innocous, IMHO. -- Kendrick7 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but his deliberate attempts to stir up conflict on the talk page are far from benign, in fact like HOTR's previous edits, they reak of malice.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you are casting aspersions or who User:HOTR is. -- Kendrick7talk 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge history behind this. The bottom line is that HOTR caused disruption and damage. There was an arbcom case which he eluded by "leaving" Wikipedia. If he is back editing, which he promised not to do, it will chase away reasonable editors, and you can expect this article to degrade into a time waster for everyone who remains involved with it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict; I do not disagree with anything MPerel said, I am just providing a different take on it) Kendrick, I do not want to inflame the controversy any more than it already is, so I will just say this: HOTR (aka Homey) is the person who started this article. Read any of the 14 archived talk pages linked above and you will see the scope and nature of his involvement with this article. (It is not a complete coincidence that there are about 13.5 archived pages for this talk page from May 29 (when the article was created) to July 17 (when Homey made his last edit to the talk page, at least under that name), and about 1.5 pages since then. Or looked at another way, this page was archived 13 times in the less than two months that he was involved, and only once in the more than three months since. I know some people are into statistics here, so I just thought I'd provide some.) Another point of note is that the current "protection" of this article is nothing new, in fact I believe this article was protected for the majority of the first month of its existence. In any event, Homey's actions have, and I think I can say this without causing too much controversy, been very controversial -- meaning that he has both his supporters and those who feel that he acted inappropriately (which would include me.) The circumstances under which he stopped editing under that name remain somewhat mysterious, but there are numerous pages around discussing his activities under other names. I seem to recall an edit war between one of his alter-egos and other editors regarding his user page(s) after he left. His future status on Wikipedia currently is the subject of "negotiations," or so I have read elsewhere. That probably does not completely answer your question, but I am not sure how to do that without starting a pointless debate. 6SJ7 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I don't suffer trolls gladly. Having been around since before Eternal September, I am wise to the tricks of the trade, not that I haven't gotten trolled even here. But they are experts at causing endless debate, which when I enjoyed that past time, I did on an internet debate forum. I prefer the focus here to be on editing, so, let's just not cause a flame war. -- Kendrick7talk 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine, what specifically do you object to? Please identify for us to see clearly which edit is malicious. I reread them, and don't see that.Kiyosaki 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go over every single one of his edits, and I really can't think of a single appropriate reason of why you would even ask such question.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be taking that comment to mean 'which one of Homey's edits don't you like?', whereas it would seem more likely to mean 'which one of Gehockteh leber's edits don't you like?', which would seem a reasonable question given you just accused them of being an obvious sockpuppet disrupting discussion, and with edits that reek of malice. --Coroebus 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. Ever heard the phrase 'put up or shut up'? Kiyosaki 08:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of the phrase "that if you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about there is probably no reason for anyone to give a sh*t about convincing you?"- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unimpressive. Now stop it.Kiyosaki 08:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Unprotected

While there was a lot of fighting on this talk page, the editing of the sandbox had gone well for the past 4 days with 8 separate contributors. The key to unprotection of a page is not the creation of the final perfect article or polite talk page discussion but rather a return to harmonious editing of the article. That has been clearly achieved. I have copied the current sandbox to the main article and hopefully we can all get along going forward. --Deodar 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Deodar, just out of curiosity, could you reference the basis in either policy or precedent that suggested a complete blanking of the previous article in favor of an entirely newly-drafted version for which there hasn't yet emerged a consensus? Fwiw, I have tried to be conciliatory by reaching out on a few occasions to folks here with other POVs, offering praise and some constructive suggestions for improvement but I have for the most part been met with stony silence which my best efforts at AGF have led me to conclude are complete indifference to my own thoughts on the article. You did invite me to participate in the sandbox, and I gave valid reasons for which I didn't thing it appropriate at the time. This should not have been taken as my endorsement that the results of that experiment be imposed by fiat on the article proper. Borderline incivil, IMO, and not at all conducive to fostering the "harmonious editing" to which you refer above. Dasondas 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I fine with either way Dasondas. Wikipedia is great in that we can all edit articles and articles themselves are dynamic. I was also very aware that some individuals were not participating and the longer it went on the more time could be wasted by those that were [44] -- that's why I decided it was time to unlock the article. I also agreed with your suggestions we talked about earlier Dasondas and still do!  :-) --Deodar 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You asked for a precedent. A page that many of us (me, SlimVirgin, HOTR, and Elizmr) were contributors to was Juan Cole. The page was protected because of an edit war. During that period of protection, a bunch of us then started a series of sandboxes here: Juan_Cole/sandbox and Juan_Cole/sandbox/1. After the page was unprotected I replaced the main contentious page with the latest sandbox (see this edit [45] where my edit summary ironically was "replaced stub with Juan_Cole/sandbox/1, please don't shoot me.") and we continued from there. But what has worked in the past won't necessarily work on this article and there was little buy-in on the sandbox idea on this page, which is likely the key difference between previous successful sandbox attempts and this one. --Deodar 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've returned the article to the version when it was protected. Not everyone wanted to take part in editing the fork, so it's not representative, and there is some odd writing in it, beginning with the first sentence. Please build up this version so that people can object to the sandbox edits as they are made, rather than having to evaluate them all at once. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree with SV here. There's been some good work in the sandbox, but new problems added as well. There are way too many quotes in here that are asserted instead of being presented as part of a debate. Kla'quot 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I'd rather have other editors feedback, and the sandbox was disorganized. I'll slowly attempt bring in the sourced material added to the sandbox over the next few weeks. -- Kendrick7talk 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Desmond Tutu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm Tutu condemns Israeli apartheid
  2. ^ Jonny Paul, Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 15, 2006, accessed October 21, 2006
  3. ^ Jon Kerkon, Opinion: Levin must speak out against divestment, Yale Herald, November 21, 2002, accessed October 21, 2006
  4. ^ a b c Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55.
  5. ^ Desmond Tutu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm Tutu condemns Israeli apartheid
  6. ^ Jonny Paul, Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 15, 2006, accessed October 21, 2006
  7. ^ Jon Kerkon, Opinion: Levin must speak out against divestment, Yale Herald, November 21, 2002, accessed October 21, 2006
  8. ^ Desmond Tutu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm Tutu condemns Israeli apartheid
  9. ^ Jonny Paul, Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 15, 2006, accessed October 21, 2006
  10. ^ Jon Kerkon, Opinion: Levin must speak out against divestment, Yale Herald, November 21, 2002, accessed October 21, 2006
  11. ^ Newsweek Interview with Jimmy Carter: "He Was Like a Brother to Me", Newsweek, accessed October 24 2006.
  12. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference tutu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference tutuNation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=276860&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/ 'Apartheid Israel' worse than apartheid South Africa
  16. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3562434.stm Arun Gandhi, grandson of former Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, is visiting Palestinian territories and Israel to spread the message of non-violence.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_15&oldid=1238717277"