Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

amiri bishara

quick comment on this guy.

Azmi Bishara, in JTA’s words, “abruptly ended a parliamentary career built on denouncing the Jewish state from enemy capitals and then dodging charges of sedition at home. ” He quit from outside the country in protest of allegations for spying for Hezbollah during this summer’s Second Lebanon War.

Oh no, an arab mp spy called israel apartheid! this should be noted, why he resigned, what he stood for, and whatnot.--Urthogie 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting allegations. This all has only come out in the last few weeks. -- Kendrick7talk 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Why he resigned and what he stood for should be noted in this article? Let readers follow wikilinks and do their original research. Now, if an article is published linking Bishara's "allegations" of apartheid to the allegations of spying, then of course we'd cite that, but let's not get into WP:SYN or well-poisoning. --G-Dett 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not considered OR to specify who an individual is. We don't assume the reader knows the person, and say "click the link" if they don't. Giving background is indeed a must for any good article.--Urthogie 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have a source making the connection between allegations of apartheid and allegations of treason, fine. If not, not. We don't say "Ariel Sharon, who was tried in absentia in an international war crimes court for his role in the Sabra-Shatila massacres," unless the Belgian case is relevant to what we're talking about, and a reliable source says so. Otherwise, we say, "Ariel Sharon." Don't we, Urthogie.--G-Dett 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, we can quote farm from a guy who supports Hezbollah :) It only makes the POV look as ridiculous as including dictators and the like.--Urthogie 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Current status

Is anything going on here? I'm inclined to go with 6SJ7's suggested compromise, though I haven't been following closely. I think a section on the history would probably be more appropriate, at least as a starting point. Mackan79 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not interested in trading the deletion of the timeline for deletion of the template. I couldn't care less about the template, whereas the timeline is exactly the tool needed to bring history front-and-center in this article. Andyvphil 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there are legitimate concerns with the timeline, though, which need to be resolved, and for which past edit warring doesn't seem to show much promise. We could put the timeline here on the talk page for further work, or could try writing a history section as a starting point to clarify what should go on it. I don't know; I admit I don't want to get deeply involved, but thought I'd throw out a suggestion.Mackan79 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Restored the timeline; there was no consensus for its removal. It needs some cleanup, though. Work on the "citation needed" sections, please. Most of the events tagged "citation needed" are major historical events, so that shouldn't be hard. The only controversial one is probably "Ehud Barak's offer to the PLO to establish a Palestinian state are rejected without a counterproposal, and further negotiations break down.", which represents an unsupported opinion on why negotiations broke down. See George Tenet's new book for his take on the subject; he was one of the US people trying to get the parties to agree. --John Nagle 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
On a somewhat relevant note, I've suggested that Zionology be merged into Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those two articles cover mostly the same material. If those articles were combined and better cited, we could refer to the Soviet Union/Israel issues in the timeline with a "See main article Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict". The timeline has an uncited reference to Israeli apartheid from a Soviet ambassador, and that ought to go into the Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proper citation. --John Nagle 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Yakov Malik quote appears both in the timeline and in the main text. It is reffed at the latter location. I don't understand the desire to consolodate Zionology. It has as its subject a particular, notable but not terribly important, Soviet pseudo-academic "discipline" which can be pointed to, "for further information", by multiple articles, e.g. Anti-Zionism#Soviet anti-Zionism as well as Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In that it is similar to this article. This mesh is the natural structure of Wikipedia, and the "encyclopedia" is not improved by fighting its natural tendency to look at the same facts from multiple viewpoints. Andyvphil 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The "timeline" makes this article even more ridiculous than it was already, which is a difficult feat. It should be eliminated. 6SJ7 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This "timeline" is one of the most jaw-droppingly OR, POV, pieces of nonsense I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I have seen much that is horrible here. I literally cannot fathom why people think this meets Wikipedia policies in any way. The nearest I can come up with is, "Well, yes, the timeline is a jumble of whatever random "facts" individual editors feel are important in the Wikipedia fight against Israel, but so is the article, so what's the big deal?" I guess a positive benefit is it unmasks people who pretend that this article was ever designed to be anything but a magnet for POV-pushing. IronDuke 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have substantive objections to specific items in the timeline, please make them. Thanks. --John Nagle 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The timeline puts events mentioned in the main text of the article in a historical framework. It is not pro-Israel or anti-Israel, and the the most "random" entries (e.g., "... Repeated incursions by Palestinians into ...") are the product of editors who see the existance of this article as anti-Israeli. Andyvphil 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The timeline selectively chooses specific items from real history, and then pretends they are items in the alternate history world of "Israeli apartheid". It is the very epitome of original research and 6SJ7 and IronDuke understate its flaws. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Overview; Refutation Lacking

The opening summary mentions those individuals who have accused Israel of Apartheid, but it fails to mention Israeli Arabs and South Africans whose statements contradict the accusation or who object to this accusation and find it offensive and/or inaccurate. I am going to start compiling a list of Arab Israelis and South Africans who object to this comparison. I hope others will help to contribute to this list.-- Michael Safyan 19:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Additionally, the article does not indicate which of Israel's accusers have ever set foot in Israel or the territories. I think this information should appear given that the accusations rely on an authority argument, and who has or has not visited the locations in question has significant impact on the authority of the accusers/defenders. -- Michael Safyan 19:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1) There's enough undue weight given to counter-critics as it is. Let's not bog down the article even more so with random semi-notable personalities.
2) This argument is itself an exercise in faulty logic. Visiting a country/location is not a prerequisite for criticism. Tarc 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right. Visiting a country/location is not a prerequisite for criticism; it is a prerequisite for judging it firsthand. -- Michael Safyan 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Linda Grant (journalist) isn't an Arab-Israeli, FYI. She's a Russian-Polish Brit, educated in Canada. -- Kendrick7talk 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted. I have moved the link. -- Michael Safyan 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The "opening summary" has two paragraphs. Did you miss the second paragraph? Now the "Overview" (except for a misplaced chunk of Adam-Moodly) is a slightly eccentric brief listing of the Allegations -- responses should naturally be where they are stated in greater detail. And they are. If any on your list should be included, do so. Andyvphil 08:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I meant the overview. -- Michael Safyan 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{quotefarm}}

This article is very badly written, and by looking at its history it seems that people are trying to make a point by moving consensus in un-encyclopedic directions.

Use of extensive quotes is frowned upon, and many of the quotes are redundant. We could certainly simplify and use citations rather than quotes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and while I do think that these allegations of Israeli apartheid, and the counter-allegations, are notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment, the article reads more like a debate between the two POVs rather than an encyclopedia entry on these allegations. We need to fix it.--Cerejota 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but you have no chance since both sides prefer it this way. --Coroebus 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean to tell us you think both sides of the POV are indeed disrupting wikipedia in order to make a point? That is serious stuff. This article needs to be re-written and those who engage in unproductive edits must cease to do so.--Cerejota 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Coroebus, I don't know which "sides" you think prefer the article the way it is, or who is supposedly on these "sides". Personally I think it is a terrible article, and it has recently gotten worse with the addition of a ridiculous, rule-violating "timeline." Even worse, I noticed earlier today that the word "controversial" had been removed from the first paragraph. That was in there to try to put some balance into the first sentence, to the extent that is possible. If it's still missing, I'm putting it back. 6SJ7 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, which sides in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article can I mean? Way, way, way back when this article was in its infancy I argued that it should only be a few paragraphs long, with a brief outline of history of usage, charges made against Israel, and objections to the charges. But instead everyone wanted to include massive long quotes from this semi-prominent person, or that minor academic, each one aiming to buff up their side of the argument a little more and so we had an arms race that now ends up with this rubbish piece (SV's taking of only one of the academic sources I found on the topic, the one opposed to it funnily enough, and basing a massive section on a big excerpt didn't help either. --Coroebus 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is a huge quotefarm, and it must be edited down. I agree with your view on the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: our goal is not to become a debate ground for two opposing POVs, but rather to give equal airing to both in order to inform our readers of its existence. I think the big problem the quotes represent is that both sides of the POV have lost focus as to what their goal here is and are just trying to "win" an argument rather than have a nice good encyclopedia article.--Cerejota 10:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How about one quote per speaker? We have two Benjamin Pogrund quotes and two Jimmy Carter quotes; one of each should go. StandWithUs probably shouldn't be quoted, unless they have some notable spokesperson. --John Nagle 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, because I think the idea goes in the right direction, I think this is the type of "compromise" that created the problem in the first place. If we start "negotiating" quote space, we just open the same door that led to the quotefarm.
Instead of neutrally presented and balanced article on "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" we have a quotefarm and an article that expouses two POVs in "balanced" terms that are frankly unencyclopedic.
Editors from all walks, with different levels of resignation or active support have understood the allegations as notable enough to warrant an article. Our task is to make it a quality article, as should be our task with any article. Those who disagree will obviously continue to disrupt wikipedia with unwarranted AfDs, but thats the nature of the beast.
Now as to the "quote" compromise. I would offer we can certainly word a couple of paragraphs worth of sourced summary, in encyclopedic language, of the allegations and counter-allegations regarding Israeli apartheid, without needing extensive quotes. We can source extensively as needed.
At most, I think one or two sentences from generally accepted canonical sources in the controversy, as epigraphs to the main sections, might serve well. These I have no problem with being POV, as long as they are sourced and short (1-2 sentences). For example, a Jimmy Carter quote and a Benjamin Pogrund quote.
That would be a good start to get this monster into shape, rather than the walking aberration it is, which just serves to equally mock both sides of the POV.--Cerejota 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove {{quotefarm}} without discussion.--Cerejota 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Apartheid

I added a new sub-section to the Overview section, "Definition of Apartheid" using the definition established by international law and then put the existing information under another sub-section "Application of the term to Israel". I encourage others to expand and tweak the new sub-section. Having lacked a definition of apartheid at the outset, I thought I would be bold and add one. Tiamut 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andyvphil. Would you mind expanding on your edit summary? (here: [1]) Is there another place you can forsee putting this information? Note that it is from an article discussing the application of term apartheid to Israel and cites the change in the definition of the crime of apartheid per the 2002 Rome statute as one reason to consider the validity of the application of the term. Would you rather expand the definition section? Do you feel a definition section of the term itself is not necessary to this article? Or that it should be included only in relation to how each critic that uses the term defines it? Tiamut 11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Andyvphil has a point, although it doesn't necesarily mean the material has to go. Ideal would be to incorporate Andyvphil's point that the analogy can be about the crime or a broader analogy, if we could find reliable sources who explained that. That could even go toward a broader discussion of what "apartheid" as applied to Israel means, which I think could help the article. Mackan79 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this edit[2] I am confused. If the UN does not get to define international law who does? Or, more to the point. Since the UN, by definition is an organisation of multiple "nations," does that not mandate that any treaty/law adopted by that organisation is "international law?" If not, on what grounds does it not constitute international law?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the drive-by edit, and this is going to be rushed too, but I felt strongly that there was being made an unwarranted claim to authority that needed to be contested before it metasticized... There are long-standing established treaties against the use of "chemical weapons". What this means is not obvious: high explosives, or napalm, use chemical reactions. So if it were alleged that Israel was violating international law by using "chemical weapons" (and it probably is so alleged -- but that would be a different article) then it would be appropriate to define what is meant in established international law by "chemical weapons" very near the top of the article. But the Crime of Apartheid is a very different thing. Quoting the eponymous Wikiarticle, "...all the major Western countries refused to ratify it. At the outset the US stated: 'We cannot accept that apartheid can be made a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are so grave in nature that they must be meticulously elaborated and strictly constructed under international law.'" There's been a lot of waffling on this (eg, Clinton signed the 1973 ICSPCA in 2000 while simultaneously saying he wouldn't push for its ratification unless it was changed; Bush has since "unsigned" it, sort of) but the fact remains that calling state-sponsored racial discrimination "apartheid" is a part of the process of allegation to be described in this article rather than a framework in which the allegations are to be seen. As such it should certainly be mentioned, so I moved/saved Tiamut's text rather than deleting it, although the material should be edited to show how it fits, and I don't have time to do that now.
Nescio, I don't question that the "crime of apartheid" has become part of the body of "international law", although it is the sort of thing that justifies the "scare quotes" I just put around "international law". The term, like "apartheid", claims, by association, undeserved respect. Andyvphil 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course the U.N. doesn't get to define international law. International law is a rather more tricky concept, but it becomes operative either when countries sign international treaties or conventions and agree to be bound by them, or when it becomes generally accepted in some fairly mystical way. The International Criminal Court, and the Rome Statue that brought it into existence, are particularly problematic, since 41 countries have not ratified it, and some major players representing more than half the world's population, land mass, and economic activity are actively opposed to it; that would include China, India, Russia, and the United States. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So, who does define international law??? And, what exactly do you call a law signed and ratified by the rest of the world, even though "China, India, Russia, and the United States" may have opted out? By definition any law between multiple nations is inter-national Clearly the ICC is currently part of international law, although not applicable to every single nation on the globe.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A convention signed and ratified by some set of countries is binding on those countries that have ratified it, but when 41 countries representing the majority of the world's population, land mass, and economy don't ratify it, it certainly doesn't become binding on every country in the world whether or not they have ratified it. As I said above, International law is defined by specific agreements that nations sign and agree to be bound by, or by conventions that have been signed by such an overwhelmingly large majority of countries in the world that they become considered to be part of Customary International law. The ICC obviously falls into neither category, so it can't create International law via its rulings. The only place it can create International law is between two countries, and only when they both agree to be bound by its ruling in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing me. On the one hand you agree that any treaty between countries is international law, yet then you argue the ICC is not part of international law. Further, you ignore the fact that 100+ countries have accepted and ratified. Despite the fact the majority of the world (in countries, not people) participates the ICC is not part of international law? Third, reading your comments I think you believe that only when it applies to every single individual in the world can a law be international. IMHO any law involving multiple countries is international law and does not require it to be applicable to the entire globe and its population.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The first International Laws are over 350 years old (Law of the Sea, deal with territorial waters and piracy) or 1648, state sovereignty. These were not signed up to by every nation in the world at first, and it took a long time for that to happen or for there to be enforcement. But it was enforced until now everyone accepts it (although piracy itself is alive and well). The same will most likely happen to the 2002 crime of apartheid, the institutionalising of differences between people by categorising them by race or religion (eg with separate identity cards per South Africa). We have a problem discussing this business because "apartheid" has a quite specific meaning, but many people confuse it with other forms of discrimination/oppression/racism. PalestineRemembered 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD use of word "controversial" and timeline

6SJ7 raises that the "controversial" is needed to describe the allegations in the intro.

I beg to differ.

  1. Insults the intelligence of our readers - The title is "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". "Allegations" by definition means there is a controversy.
  2. Violates WP:CONTROVERSY as per "weasel words". We are breaking the neutrality of the article by from the outset focusing on the controversy, rather than on the allegations themselves, which is what the article is about. The reason we have a neutrality policy is so that notable and encyclopedic information can reach our readers with a certain degree of authority. By seeking to minimize the Allegations... we break neutrality.
  3. Continued inclusion of the term means involved editors are sacrificing article quality in order to prove a point.

6SJ7 also mentions something about a "rules violating timeline", but doesn't name what rules the timeline violates. I'd be very interested on hearing this argument, as I am not a big fan of timelines in content articles, however, I am not a fan for reasons of personal taste, not because they violate any rules.

--Cerejota 10:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline violates WP:NOR; it's an artificial synthesis, invented by Wikipedia editors, designed to advance the claim that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid and these specific items document it. It isn't like World War II, which had specific declarations, invasions, battles, etc. in it. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice this earlier, but since it mentions me, twice, I guess I ought to respond. As for the word "controversial", this is not a new issue. The word has probably been in the first paragraph for about half the time the article has existed. I think it belongs there, to provide some (incomplete) sense of balance for the first sentence. I don't think it insults anyone's intelligence (well, the entire article is an insult, but that's a different issue.) You (Cerejota) seem to be drawing conclusions about what readers may infer from the word "Allegations", but I don't think we can draw any conclusions one way or the other. As for your point 2, I think the article is about both the allegations and the controversy over the allegations, so there is nothing wrong with having "controversy" in there. (As an aside, one of the many problems with this article is that it is so unclear that it is about, it is impossible to really say what material or language is or is not relevant.) I also don't don't see anything in WP:CONTROVERSY or WP:POINT that would preclude the use of this word. (Again, other than the fact that the entire article was created as one big WP:POINT violation.)
As for the timeline, I thought I answered this somewhere already, and it is explained several times earlier on this page, and now Jay has answered it again. I would restate it this way: Most of the items in it are there because some editors think they relate to "apartheid", not because they actually have anything to do with "apartheid." That is an impermissible synthesis under WP:OR. 6SJ7 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the argument regarding the WP:OR of the timeline is correct, I find the WW2 analogy very good... this article about is an idea, and a debate about an idea, not an event. It is logical enough.
However, I would suggest that language like "invented by Wikipedia editors, designed to advance the claim that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid and these specific items document it" not be used. That clearly makes one suspect the neutrality of your opinions, and in facts mixes two separate issues: one is the (in)validity of the apartheid analogy (original research and soapboxing), the other being if the timeline is WP:OR or not. You also fail to assume good faith when you abscribe nefarious purposes to the timeline: people take a long term to learn what WP:OR is, and even veterans have a hard time explaining it.
To be clear: I agree the timeline is irrelevant and WP:OR, the only thing this article has to prove is that there are Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, and that there is a debate around it, which I think it does do, albeit in a very ugly unencyclopedic way. --Cerejota 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewording

I am not entirely happy with my effort, might need some stylistic rework. However, it goes hand-in-hand with the practice of summarizing quotes in encyclopedic language, specially in intros.

I also shows that the criticism of the allegations, as the allegations themselves, are not unidimensional, which helps the case of a better article.--Cerejota 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Incongruity?

I am no expert on this topic, however it jumped to me the following incongruity:

"Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel" section note (with sources):

"The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law,[78] passed by the Knesset on 31 July 2003, forbids married couples comprising an Israeli citizen and a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip from living together in Israel.[9] The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age the law requires them to emigrate.[79] The law was originally enacted for one year, extended for a six month period on 21 July 2004, and for an additional four month period on 31 January 2005. "On 27 July 2005, the Knesset voted to extend the law until 31 March 2006, with minor amendments."[80] The law was narrowly upheld in May 2006, by the Supreme Court of Israel on a six to five vote. Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, sided with the minority on the bench, declaring: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel."

And then followed by a "Critcism" section, the first line is an un-sourced assertion:

"Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc."

Which of the two is true? Both cannot be true.

Avoid wikilawyering and weasel wording: Yes, the law doesn't explicitly restrict rights of Israeli citizens based on their ethnicity. However, it implicitly restricts their marriage choice, which a sizable simple minority of the Israeli Sumpreme Court agreed was ethnic discrimination.

Being that Wikipedia generally accepts the rule of law, it appears to me the un-sourced assertion that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc." is wrong according to law. If we can find a reliable source that asserts the quote, in can go in as a matter of opinion. However it breaks NPOV to have it.

Comments?--Cerejota 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that the assertion "is wrong according to law". It seems that neither Israeli Arabs, Jews, Christians or Druze can give residency rights to a Palestinian by marrying one. A majority of the Supreme Court of Israel apparently rejected the idea that disparate impact amounted to impermissable ethnic discrimination, and even if they hadn't it would still be true that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity." Andyvphil 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So what is the law then if not discrimination according to ethnicity?--Cerejota 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The law restricts the ability of certain foreign nationals (who could not unreasonably be referred to as "enemy aliens") to gain residency by marriage. On its face, then, it is discrimination on the basis of nationality, not ethnicity, and it certainly does not discriminate on the basis of the ethnicity of the Israeli spouse, and thefor does not make false the claim that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity". I'm not saying the latter is true (the Teudat Zehut, the Law of Return, indeed the basic purpose of Israel, all point to looking at that assertion with skepticism) but merely pointing out that your proposed disproof doesn't work. Andyvphil 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't stop Israelis from marrying Palestinians from Israel itself, or from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Are you claiming that Palestinians in different countries are different ethnic groups? Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the law for the Teudat Zehut does "differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity" though since 2002 2005 only between Jews and non-Jews. -- Kendrick7talk 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That was removed in 2005. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you are correct. -- Kendrick7talk 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the birthdate for Jews is now listed in both the Western calendar and Jewish calendar dates which allows the authorities to determine who is a Jew and who is not. This practice has not been cancelled. Tiamut 08:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it. Its an interesting legal question, and I see why it confused me. Definitely it seems this is germaine to the controversy, and hence pretty much WP:OR to draw compatability between the two statements.

Now, then the question remains "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc." is an unsourced statement, that is WP:OR. Since surely ther emust be verifiable and reliable sources that state this

I think in this case, sources that might be verifiable and reliable sources by not be for this statement, for lack of neutrality. For example, a declaration by the Israeli parlamient or courts.

If we cannot find a neutral source like this, then we need to put an "According to", as it is obvious there is disagreement on this being a fact, but we would be able to source the statement so it would warrant inclusion. --Cerejota 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

User:Andyvphil reverted changes I made intended to increase article quality and focus. While of course this is subject to debate, in the interest of our common golas I suggest we discuss things befor doing blanket reverts.

I belive a timeline should be of relevant items to the subject matter of the article, not a general overview of the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor of opinions regarding the Allegations. Any other use will lead to a humougous timeline in which we have to include everything that gives context to this or the other overview.

It creates a vicious circle of response-counter-response:

For example, the obvious thread on the Soviet Union's opportunism omits the fact that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel. I think all would agree that that is irrelevant to the subject matter. However, it might be peripherially important to mention to use of the Apartheid analogy by the SU, however, putting this on the timeline led to other editors to include completely irrelevant facts about the Soviet Union's treatment of jews.

In order to avoid such vicious circles, I think we must limit the timeline to facts that affect the development of the allegations. Quote of figures do not allow that. The publishing of books, or events in the ground, or laws that are used in the debate are.

Lastly, as part of the same revert user Andyvphil comments on my rewording of an extensive quote on the WP:LEAD. Since I explicitly raised this in talk, and Andyvphildidn't comment, I ask he first share with us his rationale, particulary if he is going to use language such as "mis-guided".--Cerejota 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your substitution of unspecified "others" for "Baruma" was indeed misguided and I am glad to see that I'm not the only one to think so, hence the reappearance of the specific in the current version (due to...Kendrick?; not me, anyway). The fact that you mentioned objecting to the number of quotes in the article and I did not respond should not be interpreted as giving you leave to delete notable cited examples of actual allegations of apartheid from the timeline or to engage in any specific undiscussed (you will find that this entry is the first appearance of "Buruma" on this page) bad editorship. Still less to complain about reverts of your undiscussed reverts. Andyvphil 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There are no "facts" about Israeli apartheid in the timeline, since the entire thing is original research. According to whom are these specific "facts" relevant? And why would you selectively remove some quotes but not others? Don't bother to answer, based on which ones you removed and which ones you left, the reasons are clear. Finally, your inclusion of the fake Mandela letter is telling. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that was Andyvphil [3] a while ago; Cerejota just labeled the ref. I'm tempted to footnote somewhere as that bad ref does keep coming back. -- Kendrick7talk 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard that the Mandela quote is a fake. When I ran across it I first offered it to G-Dett, since I thought she would put it to better use than someone as unsympathetic to the analogy as I am, then stuck it in myself when she didn't respond after another prompt and a week or so. But no one said they knew it to be fake. Can you provide cites on this episode? If it's a fake I think it should be mentioned as such in maintext... Andyvphil 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Andyvphil, I should have mentioned I knew it was a spoof. I thought I knew you knew I knew and were playing with me. You're no dim bulb, after all, and the whole Tom-Friedman-impersonating-a-world-leader-speaking-in-aw-shucks- Tom-Friedmanisms parody was pretty obvious. Then again sometimes the world leader Tom imitates then imitates Tom imitating him, and the whole thing becomes a house of mirrors. It must have seemed like I rather rudely ignored your gift. Please know that secretly I loved it, and was honored that you thought of me.--G-Dett 00:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't recognize that Arjan El Fassed was having his "Mandela" imitate Friedman. My eyes were glazing over, but I expect that reading any politician, so I merely checked that the allegation was made and tried to pass it off on you. Anyway, I've yanked Mandela from the "Overview". My bad. Andyvphil 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I go further: I re-included the ref, originaly made by User:Liftarn so that I wouldn't go under WP:3RR when I reverted 6SJ7. Please Jayjg , be more careful with your assumptions, and read the history before lashing out. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the author's blog. But, even the link you had clearly lists the real author of the piece. -- Kendrick7talk 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is ridiculous and should be removed per Jayjg as well as other comments earlier on this page. The vast majority of the items do not even mention apartheid. I was thinking of removing all of those that don't, but that would include a few items that seem to be there to "balance" some of the ones that do mention apartheid, such as the one about "Zionology." So for the time being, I haven't done anything. The whole thing really ought to be deleted, but I know there are at least 10 fingers resting on the "revert" trigger in case I were to do so. Really, this whole article ought to be scrapped. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. 6SJ7 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with the removal of the timeline, see above.--Cerejota 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed "citation needed" from timeline header. It's appropriate to put that on an item if needed, but not on a heading. Which specific items is Jayjg (talk · contribs) unhappy about this time? --John Nagle 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg isn't complaining about specific items. He's objecting to the word "Relevant". Who are you, he sez, to say one thing is relevant and something else is not? ~"J'Accuse! Synthesis! Original Research!"~ Of course, deciding what's relevant or not is a basic editorial function without which one cannot write Wikiarticles. This has been pointed out to him before, but since he is a troll he will not take that in. Andyvphil 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPA. Jayjg is not a troll, he is a long-standing respectable and knowledgeable editor. Indeed, this "article" is an embarrassment to WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree that Jayjg is knowledgeable, probably more so than I on this tiny subject (see the "Mandela" quote). He's an admin. And a former arb, for crying out loud! But in the war over this article he's been a troll, impervious to any presentation of evidence or request for reasoned argument. The timeline, he says, was started as OR in support of a proposition. But I started the timetime and I have repeatedly denied the proposition. This is pointed out to him... and he repeats his talking point like an automaton! If you can't have an interactive discussion with someone then he's a troll, no matter what his credentials. Don't feed the troll. Andyvphil 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The only embarrassment is the never-ending attempts by those with an agenda to see this article deleted, by hook or by crook. If there's a problem in the article, contribute and fix it. Endless bellyaching over the existence itself is counter-productive. Tarc 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
When we try to "fix" it, the article only gets worse, like with this absurd "timeline". 6SJ7 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the objection to the timeline? People have mentioned original research; why not just remove original research?--G-Dett 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
See the last unindented comment above (mine.) There would be about three items left and they would be completely disjointed. There is no basis for a "timeline" here. There are also about four other sections on the timeline on this page, and the reasons for deleting it are spelled out there as well. 6SJ7 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that each item on the timeline has to be a sentence with "apartheid" in it? The point, as I understand it, is to arrange chronologically various events that figure centrally in the history of "Israeli apartheid" according to those RS's who make the allegation, and upon whom we've depended for the substance of this article. How is this OR?--G-Dett 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
We've been all through this. 6SJ7 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't! Both 6SJ7 and Jayjg are obviously not helpful and quite hostile, however, Jayjg's argument regarding the timeline is solid (6SJ7: I still wait for you to tell me how it break any WP rule!). That timeline is an aberration of WP:OR.--Cerejota 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Would a Arab Apartheid article help balance this?

This is a ridiculous article. How long would a jewish community last within Syria or Saudi Arabia? Moslem Arabs are permitted to be Israeli citizens and WP has an article claiming its apartheid? This seems an insult to South Africa to compare the treatment of Israeli Arabs to the treatment of black South Africans twenty years ago. 148.65.24.76 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the creation of an Arab Apartheid article. The real question though is who made the comparision. The closest thing we have to that would be the Allegations of Islamic apartheid article.--Sefringle 03:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I oppose the creation of either an Israeli Apartheid (nb: currently a redirect) or Islamic Apartheid article (nb: red-linked when I wrote this, since made into a redirect), since neither subject exists in realspace. Andyvphil 08:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of the question posed above. 148.65.24.76 may misunderstand this article. This article does not "claim" that anything is apartheid. The article exists to provide information about the notable allegations of Israeli apartheid by many notable sources. The creation of a second article is not necessary to balance this article. This article can be fully balanced on its own if the allegations are presented in a straightforward manner, identifying the allegations and noting criticism of the allegations, etc. Organ123 04:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article exists to provide a soapbox, anyway. I don't how it's ever supposed to be "balanced" when its entire premise is equivalent to the question; "When did you stop beating your wife?". <<-armon->> 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Armon, what's your take on Pallywood, Islam and antisemitism, Arabs and antisemitism, New antisemitism, and Islamofascism? Do you object to articles built around loaded questions in principle, or is it more of an a la carte buffet sort of thing?--G-Dett 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about these other articles, and given your comments on Pallywood and New antisemitism, I didn't realize that you were in favour of them. At least we agree that this article is "loaded". <<-armon->> 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm in favor of them, and have said so here and elsewhere. My position on this kind of article has always been consistent. Stop grappling with my sentences in the hopes of gaining advantage or squeezing some sort of concession. Just tell us your consistent position if you have one; and if you don't, accept that your opinions, objections, fulminations and castigations will be discounted accordingly.--G-Dett 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, then stop attempting to deflect my point about this article, with your own leading question making incomplete comparisons about other articles in order to establish an ad hominem argument regarding my supposed "hypocrisy". It's sophomoric rhetoric, it's transparent, and it's a waste of time. <<-armon->> 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's out of order, Armon. I didn't say "hypocrisy," so take down those quotation marks and lower your voice. I haven't deflected your question; I've answered all of your questions very clearly. Yes, articles like this (and Pallywood, and Islam and Antisemitism, New antisemitism etc.) cover controversial theories, analogies, memes, whatever, and in that sense can be called "loaded" if you wish (your word, not mine). Yes, I think they should exist, and have given my reasons why, and will do so again if you like. I do not pick and choose among them. You on the other hand refuse to articulate a principle or a position. Why?--G-Dett 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a good place for this. The Theocracy article could use more detail about the more theocratic Islamic states, the ones with police enforcement of Islam as the sole religious faith. --John Nagle 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, loaded question? Let's see, how's this one: when did you stop starving your bantustan when they elected a toy parliament you didn't like? Haven't huh? Oooh. -- Kendrick7talk 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There already is a Saudi Arabian apartheid article, and an Islamic apartheid article so it's unclear what another article specific to one ethnic group would add; especially as apartheid is generally a government policy, not, as you might be suggesting, caused by genetics AFAIK. -- Kendrick7talk 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Allegations of Palestinian apartheid is what is missing.--Sefringle 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-> Allegations of Islamic apartheid. --Ezeu 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a single notable mention of Allegations of Palestinian apartheid then the page is a go. Otherwise, that is just WP:POINT and WP:OR.--Cerejota 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know if there are anti-Jewish laws on the books in the WB&G. I don't know how much this would have to be stretched to be apartheid though. Maybe if one of the lost tribes is walled off in the back of a shop in Gaza or something, all very hush-hush? -- Kendrick7talk 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"There already is a Saudi Arabian apartheid article, and an Islamic apartheid article..."
No, there isn't. Those are both redirects. There is History of South Africa in the apartheid era and a flock of articles on unjustified analogies. In the main group, the Israeli-Arab conflict, the analogy is used mostly by one side. Thus the policies that led to the exodus of 900,000 Jews from Arab countries are not even mentioned at Allegations of Islamic apartheid. So, to again answer the query of this section, you can't balance Allegations of Israeli apartheid with an article about a trope the pro-Israeli side doesn't use. Andyvphil 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the same question to all here who oppose this article that I put to Armon. Do you have a consistent position on Israel-Palestine-related articles that cover tendentious arguments, theories, etc.? Zleitzen (who, alas, was here only briefly) argued consistently that the material in hot-button articles ought to be merged into low-key, general-issues type articles. That this article should be merged into something along the lines of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. Presumably, Pallywood would be subsumed by something like Media Manipulation in the Israel-Palestine conflict, etc. That is a position to be respected. My position is roughly the opposite (Do a ctrl-F for "I would have much greater respect for this position..." and you'll find it on this page). When I put the question to Armon, he couldn't or wouldn't answer it. When editors begin to answer that question in earnest and articulate a principled position, we'll have the grounds for a serious discussion. Those who refuse to answer it need to understand that objections amounting to special pleading will be regarded as worthless. Sorry to be so blunt, but waaaay too much collective editorial energy has been squandered responding to objections that don't appear to be built on a foundation of actual editorial principle or even good faith.--G-Dett 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just didn't answer because I lack "principles", or maybe because the only proper answer would be "Mu" and that's a bit cryptic. (But if you really need my position, see the last Afd on this article). In any case, personally, I think this article is a lost cause and a waste of time, but I reserve the right to drop by now and then, and point at the elephant. This is a perfect example of a supposed "NPOV" turning into argumentum ad temperantiam, and I hope the flat-earthers don't figure out how to do it. (may have violated WP:BEANS there, sorry) <<-armon->> 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Armon, I'm sure you have many principles, both personal and editorial (I've even had the pleasure of seeing some of them), and I'll always be happy to see you here. The point is only that you don't have a serious or principled position on I/P-related articles with "loaded" subjects, so your periodic objections to the existence of this article on grounds that the subject is "loaded" shouldn't be taken seriously.--G-Dett 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> play the ball, not the man. <<-armon->> 12:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid denial

James Wall of the Christian Century quotes Tony Karon [4] of Time on Jimmy Carter's book: "What Carter is doing is challenging a taboo." And because he is "a well-established voice of peace and reason," he adds, "it's hard to brand him some sort of anti-Semitic Israel basher—although that hasn't restrained hysterics such as Alan Dershowitz [Harvard professor and trial lawyer] and Marty Peretz [New Republic editor] from doing so."

  • Wall, James M. (February 20, 2007), "Apartheid denial", Christian Century

This seems to be the first press mention of "apartheid denial". Should it go in the article? --John Nagle 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would we care what James M. Wall of Christian Century Magazine says about this? Aside from the propaganda value, of course - but then, that's the whole point of the article. More relevant might be the statements of Walter Mondale regarding Carter's use of the term "apartheid":

I think that was an inapt selection. Now the president says it doesn't apply, he's not talking about Israel itself, he's talking about the separation on the West Bank, but I do think the word is not one that I would have used. He points out that he doesn't mean it in a racial sense and he couldn't mean it in a racial sense. But I that think the word is sort of poisoned for historical reasons in South Africa, and even though he means it in a different sense, I think it has led to some confusion.[5]

--Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

((nb:fixed redlink of "Christian Century". Is this the same James Wall as the one on the MPAA Appeals Board?))Andyvphil 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)))

Yes, he is. [6] --John Nagle 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well that would definitely make him an expert on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Apartheid. As a respected academic in the field, no doubt we should quote his views extensively in the lead. Jayjg (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline (3)

The timeline is original research, and doesn't contribute to the article quality at all.

This is an article about ideas, not events. These ideas are formed by events, but chronology is irrelevant to these events.

If we can find a reliable and verifiable source or sources that provides and justifies a timeline (or even timelines) relevant to the debate around the topic of this article then we can use that as a basis for a timeline, then I would remove my objection, as it is entirely based upon opposition to original research.--Cerejota 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: Consider that since a "history of the allegations of Israeli apartheid" has not been written, if we attempt to historicize we are indeed engaging in original research.
There is ample evidence there are notable allegations of Israeli apartheid and a notable debate around this. That justifies the continued existence of this article, and is not original research.
I hope the difference is understood. People need to take a chill pill and realize that points are not going to be made. Both sides of the POV need to recognize that the other won't disappear, and that what we must do is create a quality article.--Cerejota 05:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, nuking that bit of egregious OR is an improvement. <<-armon->> 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Several people have made the exact same point, that the entire timeline is OR, but to little avail so far. Jayjg (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps asking nicely works better than lashing out at people and treating them like morons. :D--Cerejota 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, there were plenty of polite comments in #timeline_is_original_research. The real issue is that some editors are reverted out of hand, regardless of the validity of their statements. Jayjg (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody deleted the timeline again; I put it back. Please don't do that. Did some cleanup; it's a bit shorter now. Incidentally, chanting "original research" over and over again isn't helping. Specific criticism would be more useful. --John Nagle 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason why the timeline is original research has been explained at length, including at the start of this section, not "chanted". Cerejota, you now see what you're up against. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bah, Jayjg, I have been on the other end of your grumpy soapboxy golden tongue ;)... However I have watched this page since forever, and after months of edit warring I have come to the conclusion that there are a couple of things wrong that can be solved if someone not emotionally attached to the article intervenes, and the timeline is just the drop in the teacup. On to the meat:

"Specific criticism would be more useful. --John Nagle"

I will repeat myself:

"This is an article about ideas, not events. These ideas are formed by events, but chronology is irrelevant to these events.

If we can find a reliable and verifiable source or sources that provides and justifies a timeline (or even timelines) relevant to the debate around the topic of this article then we can use that as a basis for a timeline, then I would remove my objection, as it is entirely based upon opposition to original research."

That is indeed a very specific criticism, and one I believe is well reasoned and respectful, you might disagree, however, if your interest is having a quality article on the topic, I suggest you reconsider.

I will further elaborate:

As I told 6SJ7: a timeline doesn't violate any policy.

In fact, you could ignore all rules.

However, wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia that aims to be built by previously sourced materials. Thats a big difference with other encyclopedias, including Brittanica, that commission articles. I am sure you understand what that implies: we minimize our editing to consensus-drive synthesis of what others wrote, verifiably and in reliable sources.

All of the acceptable chronologies constructed in wikipedia are a result of sources that cite them. They might not cite all of the events in the chronology, but another source will and then we format them according to our WP:MOS and debate amongst us how to make the information user-friendly. This chronology doesn't meet that criteria.

FACT: To date, no sourceable chronology of any kind exists around the topics covered in "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". So we cannot independently construct a chronology. Find a few sources that do, and then we can cook. Otherwise, all you are calling for is more disruption, edit warring, and the contents of the timeline would violate the word and spirit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

John Nagle, with all due respect, I think you are making a mistake in assuming my problem is with the contents of the timeline. It is not. My problem is with original research and us going way overboard with synthesis.

That is also why I think this article is {{quotefarm}}, everybody and their grandmother wants to include all the quotes that "support" their POV, rather than the quotes that help us build an informative article so our readers can make up their minds all by themselves.--Cerejota 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are other timelines in Wikipedia that have far fewer sources. Which of these would you consider "original research"?
There are many other timelines in Wikipedia; those are examples of controversial ones. They don't get deleted.
Would you prefer moving the timeline to Timeline of Israeli Apartheid? --John Nagle 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
First, please avoid fallacious Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#All_or_nothing "All or nothing" type arguments. Second, how does moving original research to another article fix the problem? Third, regarding other timelines, they generally describe actual historical events, not a series of allegations and hurled epithets. As a result, each of them has other sources from which to draw. For example, AIDS timeline AIDS timeline AIDS timeline Scientology timeline Afghan timeline Afghan timeline Muslim timeline Islam timeline Islam timeline Jayjg (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Cejota wrote: no sourceable chronology of any kind exists around the topics. What about Carter's timeline in Palestine: Peace not Apartheid? -- Kendrick7talk 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What is it a timeline of? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or "Israeli apartheid"? I'm sure you can find sources for the former. Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the source handy right now. He may call it a timeline of the peace process, which Carter seems to view the apartheid problem as very intertwined with. I'll find out. -- Kendrick7talk 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of timelines of the peace process. Here's one. Here's another. That's not the same as a timeline of "Israeli apartheid". Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
All of the example time-lines above have two things in common: one can find dozens of examples of other publications building similar time-lines -even if the choices are different-, and they are either about events or things, not ideas - even the Scientology time-line is not about the ideas of Scientology but events relevant to the history of the religion.
To repeat myself: find a couple of notable, relevant and verifiable sources that build such a time-line about this topic and we a go. Lack of sources is the main sign of what is original research. (If it sounds impossible, then there must be a reason for that)
Knowing and having read the motivation behind the time-line, I think a better compromise would be to seek expressing, in our own words, that the topics in this article happen within the context of the founding of Israel, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Arab-Palestinian conflict, and mention, editorially, that the events behind this conflict are part and parcel to these allegations. There is no need to dwell on specifics unless the sources compel us: and even then we are under no obligation, and are in fact discourage from, quoting extensively form a single source. In the particular case of web-accessible sources, we shouldn't quote them at all, let our readers follow them! I think things like the position of the Afrikaners on Israel or on the Soviet about-face after the Six Day War are important, or on the dicotomy some make between the Occupied Territories and 1948 Israel, but not for chronological reasons. They are important because they show the complexity of the issue.
Lastly, if a source alleges X or Y event is a source or part of the "Israeli Apartheid", or if X or Y source argues there is no apartheid because of X or Y event, then we should consider searching WikiProjects Israel and Palestine for the appropriate articles for those events, and create consensus for their inclusion in those pages with see also here. The information is more relevant there anyways, this is after all a page neither of both projects considers of high importance.--Cerejota 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried to see it y'all's way, I really did. But in the end, it defies WP:COMMON to suggest I can write "A happened.[1] Later, B happened.[2]" and this isn't WP:OR but somehow if I list them in a table in that same order it all of a sudden is, just because no one has ever put the events in a table before.
Yes, there are all sorts of issues with deciding what should or shouldn't go in such a listing, but we're editors and we should be able to figure that out.
For the record, Carter calls his list merely a C which actually goes all the way back to Abraham so I'm not sure what to call it. -- Kendrick7talk 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Re-ponder the main point: there is no obvious chronology. If we connect the allegations of a South African Prime Minister with those of David Duke, with those of Golda Meir denying the existence of Palestinians with those of Soviet thinly-veiled anti-Semitism anti-Zionism, with those of Jimmy Carter warning against a dead-end policy... (as we must if we are to have a comprehensive time-line), we would be doing original research. - And Carter's chronology is about the events surrounding Palestine/Israel not the allegations of apartheid.
I must re-stress the difference between events and things, and ideas. I fail to see why this isn't self-evident! This are basic critical-thinking skills!
There quite a few chronologies dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict, we need not re-do them.--Cerejota 06:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is a chronology unless you are contenting the subject of this article actually exists outside of space-time. And any chronology is obvious, just as night follows day. All you are doing is hand-waving -- those events are all connected by the topic of this article. Listing them chronologically doesn't undo that connection, or, as you seem to be insisting, somehow created a new connection not already there. -- Kendrick7talk 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:SYNTH. The only "chronology" that exists for "Israeli apartheid" was invented by Wikipedia editors. Even Carter didn't create one. Find another chronology from a reliable source, and cease this hand-waving. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
But no third argument is being advanced here. The same argument above reapplies here, which saves me some typing: it defies WP:COMMON to suggest I can write "A happened.[3] Later, B happened.[4]" and this isn't WP:SYNTH but somehow if I list them in a table in that same order it all of a sudden is, just because no one has ever put the events in a table before. -- Kendrick7talk 05:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) I understand that you think that the "timeline" is not OR. Per WP:VERIFY#Burden of evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, the events you include in your "chronology" are devoid of any historical context; they attempt not to document allegations of apartheid but rather try to lend credibility to the allegations themselves. If you are going to include such events, you must also include the events that give them true context, or else drop the chronology altogether. --Leifern 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. Forget this word "timeline" and consider a list of relevant events. If an event has been called an "example of Israeli Apartheid" by a reliable source, then it belongs on a list of relevant events. Kendrick, trust me, take a few weeks, chill, google it to death and get some good articles backing your points. Jayjg, Humus, Leifern, while something as specific as a "chronology of Israeli apartheid" does not exist, calling a summary of relevant events, presented conveniently in list form, with the dates, hardly qualifies as original research. This unsolicited intervention brought to you by: --Uncle Bungle 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
UncleBungle, among other objections, in order to be NPOV, if you included anything that has been cited as an example of "Israeli apartheid" by a reliable source, then if there has been an objection to that example in a different reliable source, you would have to include that as well. (I am leaving aside here the question of how you can have a "reliable source" for an opinion, which I have asked on a few occasions regarding this article but have never received an adequate response.) In other words, if some "RS" says that Israeli Law X is an example of apartheid, but another "RS" says no, it isn't an example of apartheid and here's why, you'd have to include all that in the timeline. How do you do that? In a footnote for each entry? Very quickly it becomes not a timeline, or a chronology, but a different version of the article itself, in a box next to the article. That sounds pretty goofy. Why even go down that road? I cannot speak for sure about the motivations of those who have insisted on keeping the timeline, but I do know that the effect of the timeline, chronology or whatever you wish to call it is to have a box that bolsters the idea that Israel engages in apartheid, without the counter-arguments. That does not belong on Wikipedia. 6SJ7 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It need be little more than a table of contents with dates, an introduction in list form, not the unwieldy beast you suggest (though I concur that many articles, with and without such boxes, have this affliction). I think it is a good idea in concept, and could be successfully implemented. If a specific point is contentious, use the body of the article to present counter points. After all, the title is allegations of Israeli apartheid. --Uncle Bungle 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Kendrick is correct. A timeline is a synthesis only in the trivial sense that a Wikipedia article itself is a synthesis. Of course you can have a timeline of events mapping the evolution of an idea, pace Cerejota, and of course such a timeline needn't endorse the idea, pace Leifern. A look at Timeline of Christianity ought to dispel both specious objections.--G-Dett 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No, a Timeline of Israeli apartheid already assumes there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid, and the choice of items to include becomes original research, unless it includes every single item listed in the article. Other timelines have examples to draw on. What is the purpose of such a Timeline anyway? Is it not to highlight all the allegations as if they are fact, unencumbered by any of the protestations of those who reject the analogy? And you know we can't use Wikipedia articles as an example, for all we know that specific article could be violating policies in 10 different ways. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Where was the timeline of Israeli Apartheid? This seems to me no different from the history section in NAS. The point is that ideas develop over time, and one of the best ways to learn about something is to see that process. I'd think you could have this for a completely nutty idea as much as you could for one that's presumptively valid; the question would be getting fair material onto the timeline. Mackan79 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Mackan. Jay, I think you mean we can't cite other WP articles as precedent. That's debatable, but we can certainly use them as examples. The Timeline of Christianity is a good example of how a timeline showing the development of a belief/theory does not presuppose the truth of the theory, and can incorporate both first-order historical events and the dates of influential publications, etc. I don't see how a Timeline of Allegations of Israeli apartheid "already assumes there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid." All it assumes is the reader's interest in the chronology of the subject matter.--G-Dett 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Mackan's post raises a possibility. If the timeline continues to raise hackles, we could turn it into a "History" section on the model of NAS. --G-Dett 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett good idea with the history section. If these claims have been made for a long time, then a chronology of documented claims is relevant to the topic. --Uncle Bungle 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it a chronology of apartheid in Israel or a 'list' of important dates relevant to allegations of Israeli apartheid?I can understand the difficulties as per jay, humus et al if it was the former but if we are dealing with the latter, surely the argument for inclusion is stronger? Delad 00:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's the latter.--G-Dett 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's the former. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's really neither, but after looking at the most recent version, I think that a reader who is seeking to learn about the "subject" and had not read all of these debates would almost inevitably conclude that it's the former. 6SJ7 19:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Grouping allegations and quotefarm

I think there is a problem here with POV-pushing that affects this very necessary article and lead to unnecessary edit warring.

The fundamental issue is that a set of editors firmly believes, in one way or the other, that these allegations are true, and the other set, in one way or the other, believes the allegations are false.

However, all of you need to be reminded about a cardinal rule of wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. We are not seeking truth. We are seeking verifiable sources of information.

This POV-war creates two distinct issues:

  1. Mis-grouping of allegations and counter-allegations - Norman Finkelstein's as similar to Jimmy Carter's as similar to David Duke's, etc. We do a better job with sources like Adam and Moodley or Ian Buruma, but still there is a lot of confusion: Juan Cole and Benny Morris agree on not calling Israel an apartheid state, but on very different grounds, and with differing positions on Zionism and the Palestinian conflict. Yet we lump them together.
  2. Over reliance on direct quotes - Since POV must be supported, what better way than to quote ad nauseaum. This is probably the most egregious violation here. There is no need to quote Benny Morris or Jimmy Carter so extensively. There is no need to have so many quote boxes. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations. While some might allege WP:OR because we choose to include and not include x or y quote, those argumments are fallacious. Everybody can agree that a Desmon Tutu's quote is relevant, and so is a Benny Morris quote. I am not sure that the same goes to Juan Cole and the Canadian delegation to some UN conference, althought sourcing to them can be good.

Those are my two major gripes. I of course have opinions on the subject, but this is not where I will give them. I do however think we owe to our readers and to our fellow editors a quality article.

--Cerejota 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the intro

While I generally try to avoid this article, I couldn't help but make a few changes to the intro today. Saying that those who use the analogy do so merely because of "the separation" between Jews and Arabs is a manifestly inadequate explanation. If it was just separation, there would be little in the way of complaint. The analogy is used not merely because of the physical separation, but because of the disparate rights of Jews and Arabs in these areas and the way in which these rights are enforced. I've made some adjustments to the intro which attempt to address these concerns. Gatoclass 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good step, however it is limited, as allegations are various, and even include allegations solely on the West Bank and Gaza strip and not Israel proper. I also hate quotes in intros because they tend to unbalance intros. I think we can quickly get into a Lumpers and splitters debate if we are not careful, however we definitely need to broaden the scope and better the flow.--Cerejota 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're going to have to source each claim to people who make it. I hate to be so picky, but the intro part for those who take issue with the epithet used to present general arguments as well, but then people insisted on absurdly particularizing it, and we need to follow a consistent style in the lead. Jayjg (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is well established practice in wikipedia to source without quoting even in controversial articles. I think the fear of having the encyclopedic voice express POVs that are anethema to a set of editors is driving quality down.
I have no fear with the encyclopedic voice explaining that the allegations are a complex issue. That there is a debate at the diplomatic, political and academic level about it. That some of the people argue that this is an anti-semitic political epithet{{fact}}{{fact}}{{fact}}, others that it is a clear analogy{{fact}}{{fact}}{{fact}}, others make a point of difference between Israel and the Occupied Territories{{fact}}{{fact}}.Jimmy Carter belives the polices of Israel will lead to an Apartheid system{{fact}} , nor do I fear it saying that the anti-semite David Duke says Israel is an apartheid state{{fact}} , nor do I fear New Historian Benny Morris argues that Israel is a democratic, egalitarian State.{{fact}}

And so on!

I do fear people losing respect for wikipedia if it becomes a reflection of the conflicts it covers. And unfortunately in this talk page and editing of the article, I see people of both POVs doing just that.--Cerejota 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia becoming "a reflection of the conflicts it covers", in the case of the Middle East conflict I think that should be phrased in the past tense, not the future. I believe I have commented at least once on the talk page for this article (long since archived) that this article and other Israel-Arab conflict articles had become reflections of (or maybe even part of) the conflict itself. So there's no point in fearing that this is going to happen, because it has already happened. This horse is so far out of the barn that its entered in the Belmont next week.  :) As far as "respect for Wikipedia" -- did you happen to see Stephen Colbert's interview with Jimmy Wales? In some quarters there is little respect left to lose. 6SJ7 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jew Watch

The inclusion as a source for "Jew Watch"'s echoing the allegations, of excerpts of an article by Uzi Ornan, published by Ha'aretz May 17, 1991 as republished by "Jew Watch" are a violation of WP:RS, WP:SOURCE/WP:V, WP:QUOTE and WP:CITE: we should source the original article as the position and comments of Uzi Ornan, not of "Jew Watch". If a WP:RS inform us of "Jew Watch"'s position on this, then we can source that. No primary sources means no primary sources. The other two sources are OK, IMHO, one is an interview, the other is published in a secondary source that is generally viewed as partisan but WP:RS.--Cerejota 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Jew Watch twice on these grounds, but someone continues to restore it.--G-Dett 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

David Duke/Jew Watch/IHR et al as notable sources cont'd

_____Please note: this is a continuation of the discussion from Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#David_Duke_et_al_____ 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Underwear all in a bunch (or much ado about nothing)

1) David Duke is notable because he has a wikipedia page. The inverse is not necessarily true, but the only true measure about a notability in wikipedia, the one that is undebatable, is having a page that has survived AfD.

All the hundreds (or thousands?) of words arguing he is not notable should be spent over at David Duke's AfD.

What? No AfD? Do one, if you are so confident the guy is not notable...

In fact this "law" of wikipedia is behind the misguided WP:POINT AfDs of this very page. Stop being disingenuous, please.

Of course, as a leading anti-semite, a recognized voice of anti-Jewish hate and intolerance, and as an outspoken representative of the "third position" in the USA, he is also notable as a figure in debates around Israel, Zionism, etc, and hence not only notable, but relevant.

2) JayJG: do not be disingenuous, please. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim one day that David Duke is notable and relevant source for this issue and then claim that James M. Wall isn't. The guy doesn't have wikipedia page, but was speaking in representation of views held by a mainstream, influential, and quite read publication (it is THE voice of mainstream ecumenical Protestantism in the USA).

Yes, David Duke is more famous as a person, but James Wall's opinion is held by far many more people, and was done in a far more notable and reliable medium than Duke's. One cannot confuse the need for no original research, sourcing, verifiability, and reliability with notability.

Michael Jordan is more famous and notable than Benny Morris yet his opinion, if any, on this matter would be at most a footnote, while this article would be absolutely incomplete without Benny Morris being sourced and quoted.

3) As I have mentioned, properly sourced material stays. There is no way in hell anyone can convince me the material is not relevant or needed to be included, if properly sourced.

4) The attempts to lump together the allegations made by Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, et al, with those made and echoed by David Duke et al is not only illogical, but original research, and as such we need to fully re-phrase and rework the inclusion. These people are not echoing the same allegations as Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter, and their political intent is not the same.

Jimmy Carter or Desmond Tutu do not hate Jews, do not want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, nor do they think the Protocols of Zion are true and that Jews eat raw child-meat on the Sabbath or the other b.s. David Duke and his knights believe.

To attempt to take advantage of the calculated political move of Nazis -open or covert-, in a WP:POINT-driven attack on article integrity is one of the lowest forms of WP:SOAPBOX an editor can do.

To continue to attempt to word and lump together these disparate opinions is exactly what I meant with "treating people as morons". We aren't, and you can only stare at the abyss so long that the abyss stares back at ya...--Cerejota 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply under this header, because I'm grateful for the partial unbunching of my panties (Rome wasn't built in a day). But I would like to suggest moving the discussion down to the bottom of the page, starting with your statement Cerejota. There has been a good deal of obfuscation, obstructionism, and outright trolling in this section, and I fear that it's keeping good-faith editors from joining in.--G-Dett 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've boldly refactored; I hope that's OK with all. Cerejota, I can respond point-by-point to your post if you like, but first I think I need to have something clarified. You seem to be treating notability as a fixed quality of this or that figure, whereas the rest of us (including Jay, I think) are evaluating a figure's notability as a function of their relationship to the subject matter, their influence on RS-discussion of the subject, and so on. Is that right?--G-Dett 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, speaking of original research, can you please find a source for your claim that "Their arguments diverge significantly from that of mainstream allegations, and have an explicit anti-semitic streak." As far as I can tell, the first half of the sentence is completely false, and the second half arguably does not distinguish their views from many of the others listed here. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted that sentence for the reasons stated by Jay. It is clearly original research and it also introduces yet another POV argument to the article, which is that some of the claims of "Israeli apartheid" (but not those of David Duke or the other guy) are "mainstream." Mainstream what? Mainstream within the general framework of political discourse? If so, where, since mainstream "here" isn't necessarily mainstream "there". Or, mainstream within the body of Israeli apartheid allegations themselves? If so, now we're getting very, very "original". I also have a problem with putting the "Duke" reference at the very end of the article, but we can deal with that later. 6SJ7 00:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of what David Duke has to say about "Israeli apartheid:

If we don't talk about some of the realities of this conflict... You know, Israel is really an apartheid state in many ways. And Israel is a state... that we wouldn't tolerate actions of the American people. The New York Times is all against... It's all for intermarriage in the United States of America. But the New York Times supports Israel, where a marriage of Jewish person and a non-Jew is illegal, where a Jew who is a member of the Cohanim, which is the elite element of the Jewish tradition - they cannot even marry a Jewish person, a person who is a full-fledged Jew, of the Jewish faith, who has one drop of (non) Jewish blood. I mean, these people... Israel makes the Nazi state look very moderate in terms of its views.

You will notice it's mostly gibberish. He also talks about Jewish neo-cons as "insane people. They are Jewish fanatics, extremists, they are not normal people...The people who are pushing Jewish supremacism, Zionism - they are absolute evil and they are crazy." Tell me, Jay, how is it "completely false" to say that these arguments "diverge significantly" from that of Carter, Tutu, Benvenisti, et al? Are you talking out of your hat again? I would not normally recommend that people actually read lunatic antisemites and racists, but given the assiduity with which you flog them, trying to stuff them into every article you wish to destroy, wouldn't it make sense for you to do so?--G-Dett 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why someone who believes in "Israeli apartheid" for what they believe are "good" reasons would not want their views associated with Duke's rantings. Whether there is really a distinction, and what the distinction is, are, however, points of view on which there is no agreement. When I first saw the phrase "Israeli apartheid" one year and one day ago (the day this article was created), words like lunatic, gibberish, extremist and many other similar words, are what ran through my mind. There is no basis for segregating (as it were) Duke and the other "extremists" off in a corner of the article with a sign on the fence that says that "not in the mainstream." 6SJ7 02:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should distinguish based on which are WP:Reliable sources, or if we're including something because it's otherwise notable, then explain its notability. Mackan79 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As 6SJ7 points out, you may think there's a wide gulf, but to others they are two sides of the same coin. Paul Grubrach cites Uri Davis, so their reasoning can't be all that different. What is it exactly that differentiates Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir and Michael Neumann from David Duke? Can you articulate it? And what is it exactly that differentiates those three from Uri Davis or any of the other "Israeli apartheid" screamers. Can you articulate it? Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon is a talented saxophonist and goofball narcissist whose supposedly pro-Palestinian rants interest no one but Oliver Kamm; Israel Shamir is a shady antisemitic pseudo-journalist given a wide berth by mainstream pro-Palestinian activists; Michael Neumann is an academic philosopher. None of them are cited or included in this article. Why are you asking me to distinguish them from David Duke? I'll compare and contrast Hannah Arendt and the Cookie Monster if you like – anything to chew the cud with you, Jay – but I fail to see what these odd juxtapositions have to do with the topic at hand. I don't want Duke in the article, I don't want Atzmon in the article, I don't want Shamir in the article. I am open to the cookie monster. I haven't read Neumann. Is he worth including? – Forget it, I'll ask someone who wishes to improve the article rather than wreck it.

As for your reasoning that "Paul Grubrach cites Uri Davis, so their reasoning can't be all that different," let's see what else we can plug into that formula. Norman Finkelstein cites Benny Morris, so their reasoning can't be all that different. Ernst Zundel cites Norman Finkelstein, so their reasoning can't be all that different. Turn your staunch Zionist into a Holocaust denier in two easy steps!

As to the serious part of your question, can I articulate the difference between David Duke's position on "Israeli apartheid" and that of scholars/journalists/pundits/politicians who are considered respectable and who are cited by this article? Yes, sure. Duke has no particular interest in or position on human-rights issues; none whatsoever. He didn't actually oppose South African apartheid, and has never taken up the Palestinian cause or that of any other oppressed people. Rather, he resents and despises and is obsessed with what he describes as Jewish arrogance or "Jewish supremacism." Traditionally, what he and his constituency have meant by this is: 1960s civil-rights-movement ACLU-types, along with highly educated urban cosmopolitan liberals who led the way in everything from integrating American schools to splitting the atom to formulating and consolidating notions of social justice (and "political correctness") to turning American research institutions into the world's best. The children of poor immigrants from Eastern Europe who got into Harvard and in the space of a couple generations transformed the American cultural landscape. Duke has gained what little following he has by tapping into poor white Protestant America's twinned currents of antisemitic resentment: a) resentment that a relatively recent immigrant class has so thoroughly outplayed them in the competitive pursuit of the American dream, and b) an ethno-nationalist resentment that what they see as a traditional American G-d-fearing culture (pure, white, down-home and Christian) has been steadily replaced by what they see as the "Jewish values" of secularism, intellectualism, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism. Duke has since added the neo-cons to his shit-list of "Jewish supremacists," but it's a very recent and superficial addition; foreign policy is interesting to him only as a proxy for his politics of racial and ethnic resentment. As an ethnic nationalist, Duke has an ambivalent attitude toward Zionism; and as a racist and supremacist, he has an ambivalent attitude towards those Israeli policies he describes as apartheid-like. He is not "opposed" to these things in the usual sense of the word. He envies them. He'd like restrictions on intermarriage in America; he'd like restricted communities along the lines of Jewish settlements. What he hates is that as he sees it, Jews get to have their Jewish state of Israel but he can't have his white Christian United States of America (just like blacks get to have their National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but his National Association for the Advancement of White People is seen as toxic). All of this is clear in the Memri transcript of his appearance on Syrian state TV:

The New York Times is all against... It's all for intermarriage in the United States of America. But the New York Times supports Israel, where a marriage of Jewish person and a non-Jew is illegal, where a Jew who is a member of the Cohanim, which is the elite element of the Jewish tradition - they cannot even marry a Jewish person, a person who is a full-fledged Jew, of the Jewish faith, who has one drop of (non) Jewish blood.

This is what he means by "Jewish supremacism": what Jews get to do but he can't and it's not fair. None of this has anything to do with the Palestinians, a bunch of grubby third-world Muslims he could give a rat's ass about. Nor does it have anything to do with human-rights-based critiques of Israeli policies by Farsakh, Tutu, Adam & Moodley, Carter, et al. It's just garden-variety ethno-nationalist politics of resentment. The human-rights-based critique of Israel may seem to you and others nothing but garden-variety knee-jerk leftist anti-colonialism and third-worldism – but even so, that's a completely different thing.--G-Dett 17:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference seems abundantly self evident to me. Grubach, Duke et al are widely recognized to be racists and antisemites who therefore have no credibility, especially in regards to the discussion of such issues.
I can't speak for Atzmon or Shamir because I don't know enough about them, but Neumann and Davis are qualified academics. They thereby qualify as reliable sources, and the fact that they both happen to be Jewish ought to invalidate charges of antisemitism. An even greater gap exists between the likes of Duke and Nobel laureates like Carter and Tutu. I mean, the gap couldn't be wider. They are at opposite ends of the scale in terms of credibility. The fact that antisemites try to take advantage of the credibility of such commentators by parroting their arguments is neither here nor there. Gatoclass 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, regardless of whether I agree with your specific opinions or not (and I do agree with some of them), the logical implication of your statement is that in determining what belongs and doesn't belong in an article, we are supposed to get into the motivations of each source and figure out why they are saying what they are saying. That opens up many more avenues of dispute in this article (and other articles), and I really think we have enough already. For example, are we going to look into all the writings of all the sources and see what they have to say about Zionism itself? Maybe some of them don't even believe a Jewish state should exist where it exists, or maybe they don't care, and this allows them to freely throw around accusations of "apartheid". Or maybe some of them are using these allegations as a part of a campaign against Israel's existence. Sure there are a lot of "maybes" in there, but that's what you are opening the door to when you speculate about motivations. Personally I think that this disagreement is the inevitable result of having an article that is entirely about an opinion, rather than being an article about facts. But as it stands, the Duke and related references should stay, and they should not be singled out for "warning labels." 6SJ7 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 6SJ7, I can see that in-depth original-research talk-page essays for every prospective source won't do as a modus operandi. :) This was a response to the claim that Duke and Tutu et al were "two sides of the same coin." But you're right that settling that question does not settle the question of their inclusion. For the record, the problem I see with their inclusion is one of WP:UNDUE (and to a lesser degree, WP:RS). The "Israeli apartheid" material collated from bigots and Holocaust deniers consists of 1) a rambling, semi-coherent statement by David Duke on a talk show on Syrian state television, in which he mentions Israel as "an apartheid state" in order to support his claims about "Jewish extremism" and "Jewish supremacism"; 2) an exchange of letters between an obscure "researcher" from a discredited "institute" and Abraham Foxman of the ADL, in which the researcher cites Uri Davis approvingly; and 3) a Jew Watch web-page redirect to a Haaretz article about "Israeli apartheid." That's it. I do not think this material meets the threshold of notability. It has been given undue weight.--G-Dett 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Much ado about something

I won't reply under the above header, although I appreciate that someone else has weighed in on this. In terms of this article, David Duke et. al. are notable primarily as anti-Semites. In terms of their notability here, it is exclusively in terms of how they are used by critics, and the text should be labeled as such, and the prominence of Duke/Jew Watch/et.al. in the article should reflect that. I do not think that Duke has otherwise played a notable role in the allegations of Israeli apartheid, and I have not seen any convincing arguments or references showing his notability in this context. This puts him only slightly above Michael Jordan. The notability discussion here should be taken in the context of this article, as Cerejota alludes to in item 2). Organ123 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that I've just seen Cerejota's last edit, which I think is an improvement. Organ123 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

Does anyone know what happened to the table of contents for this page? I looked at the coding on top and I do not see anything obvious that would suppress the TOC. And I am not the person to go messing with the coding anyway, since I'd probably make the talk page appear in a different language or something, and communication on this subject is difficult enough as it is.  :) 6SJ7 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A note about sources and content

I came here late, maybe this has been adressed before. I just wanted to say (especailly to supporters), that the article is about allegations. Incidents and practices should be included only if they have been specifically referred to as an example of Apartheid by a reliable source. For example:

  • The Israeli identity card, or Teudat Zehut, is required of all residents over the age of 16, indicate whether holders are Jewish or not by adding the person's Hebrew date of birth.

Does not qualify on it's own. However:

  • According to reliable source, the Israeli identity card, or Teudat Zehut, is an apartheid practice by requiring all residents over the age of 16, indicate whether holders are Jewish or not by adding the person's Hebrew date of birth. citation

Once such an allegation has been documented, counter arguments to the allegation, if available, can then also be documented.

Quotes from prominent figures regarding apartheid in Israel, which DO NOT cite an example, don't belong here. That applies to both sides.

I say this because I see massive amounts of discussion on the inclusion of a timeline, and little discussion on actual content. I didn't say this to start a long thread about the intentions of various parties, it's just a suggestion from someone who has fought these battles before. Please feel free to delete this if you don't find it relevant. Best regards, --Uncle Bungle 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this wouldn't need to be done on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but ought to be more evident if we ever move this toward more of a paragraph form. This could mostly be done with the sources we have, though, particularly for instance McGreal's article in the Guardian.[7] That article would also be good toward starting a history section. A potential first sentence: "The first prominent comparison of the situation in Israel to South African apartheid has been traced to South African Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd's statement in 1961, that 'Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.'" This could be followed by statements of the early controversy, also discussed in McGreal's piece, or however else. Mackan79 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree in spirit.
do we know if a source states the "first prominent comparison" as true? There might be mentions before, I have no idea, but I am afraid to state anything authoritatively without a source in a controversial article such as this. I am not opposed, but fear the precedent.
The best way forward to paragraph form is to start fixing the quotefarm. The over-reliance on extended quotes not only makes the article much larger than it should be (judging by the importance given to it by both WikiProjects that watch it), but makes it impossible to read.--Cerejota 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Purely as style cleanup, I'd be inclined to have only one quote per source, unless they're on different subjects in different sections. I also have some misgivings about quoting StandWithUs, which is an anonymous public relations campaign, not a person, so there's a "reliable source" issue. --John Nagle 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The executive director of StandWithUs is Rosalin Rothstein[8], who's referred to as their spokesperson in Jewish Journal[9]. If that quote can be attributed to her, that would help. --John Nagle 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think people are misreading WP:RS and WP:OR: we do not have to quote sources verbatim.
We must back up any claims in an article with sources, information must be verifiable and notable, not engage in a novel narrative or historical interpretation, and we must present facts and opinions in a neutral fashion.
To give just one example of creeping quote agriculture (ha-ha) consider this excerpt:

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, Camp David Accords negotiator, and Nobel Peace Prize winner and author of the 2006 book entitled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid has stated:

[Israeli options include]...A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed. I would say that in many ways the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces is as onerous - and in some cases more onerous - as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the apartheid government"

— Jimmy Carter, [5] [6]

and:

The six rabbis...and I...discussed the word "apartheid," which I defined as the forced segregation of two peoples living in the same land, with one of them dominating and persecuting the other. I made clear in the book's text and in my response to the rabbis that the system of apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence...my use of "apartheid" does not apply to circumstances within Israel.

— Jimmy Carter, [7][8]
I think we can reduce it to:

Former President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter, noted for his part in the Camp David Accords negotiations, argues in his 2006 book entitled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid that the separation of Israelis and Palestinians, and the dominance of Israel sustained by violence constitutes a policy of Apartheid, and that in many ways the treatment on the part of Israel of the Palestinian population "is as onerous - and in some cases more onerous - as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the apartheid government".[5] [9]

He has further elaborated in interviews that his allegations are limited to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, and around the Jewish settlements, and not in Israel proper, and do not imply racism on the part of the majority of Jewish Israelis.[10][8]

This is shorter, more encyclopedic, and aside from a single phrase quote, doesn't quote him. It simply relies on him, as a reliable source to provide us with Allegations of Israeli apartheid. If we can do rewrites such as this one across the entire article, and re-factor as per my proposal (or something similar), I think we would make great strides in achieving a quality article.--Cerejota 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Desmond Tutu and David Duke being sides of the same coin is an example of Reductio ad Hitlerum. Please do not confuse matters: extreme right-wing Zionist kooks of the type that murdered Yitzhak Rabin might argue they are the sides of the same coin, but I triple dare you to find an scholarly or news source that joins them together.

That said, please keep in mind that there is a clear difference between WP:OR and the need to make an encyclopedia. WP:OR refers only to the fact that any bit of information in Wikipedia must be notable and come for a reliable and verifiable source. It does not refer to us making false conflagrations.

That is a problem I have pointed out before in this article (to repeat myself): the allegations and counter-allegations are multiple, complex, and include both political polemic and academic research.

This article, thanks to WP:POINT POV pushing, pushes all of them together, regardless of the sourced context they provide. Not only is comparing Desmond Tutu and David Duke Reductio ad Hitlerum, it is in fact WP:OR because it ignores the substantive, sourced differences between the two notable's motivations and even actual positions (ie David Duke's is a polemic geared towards increasing anti-semitic hate, whereas Desmond Tutu's occur in the background of seeking a South African solution to the Palestinian question - and the sources sustain this). This also happens in the counter-allegations: ultra-Zionism is mixed with Post-Zionism and then mixed with non-Zionist critique.

WP:OR nowhere states that we are forbidden from providing context, as long as this context is also sourced. This is also a wiki, and not all sources have to be in the same page: Desmond Tutu and David Duke, to give just two examples, provide ample sourced context to differentiate between their two positions.

Attempts to provide narrow definitions are as bad as those that try to provide wide definitions. A time line is WP:OR because it is impossible to build a sourced timeline of something that is not an event or series of events, and constitutes "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Making a difference between disparate allegations and counter-allegations is not WP:OR because this doesn't constitute a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". It constitutes clear logic that makes a quality article.--Cerejota 16:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, you are the one that invoked a Hitler analogy here, not anyone else. And you are the one who inserted OR into the article in the form of a sentence that distinguished Duke etc. from the others. There was no sentence conflating them (where's the fire?) so there's nothing to object to there. The article does not say that anybody is on the same coin as anybody else. Your sentence says that they are not, and that is OR. The article is supposed to give the facts, and it is up to the reader to decide what meaning to assign to the facts. And that again goes back to the problem with this article. If the article was something like "Israeli treatment of Palestinians" and it gave the facts (an i.d. card here, a checkpoint there, a fence/barrier over there, a land policy, etc. -- and I believe that there is/are already article(s) that have this information) and then at the end basically said "As a result of this, some people call Israeli's policies "apartheid" and some do not, and here is what each side says and what arguments they use", that might be the basis of a good article. However, when the article is about the conclusion and whether it is correct or not, then the whole thing ends up being about not facts, but opinions, and inevitably there will be disputes over whose opinions people want associated with each "side". If you think that such a situation can result in a quality article, good luck. I think the reason the article is lousy is that the premise is lousy. Or as I have said before, the reason I have done very little editing of this article other than the intro, is that a pile of garbage will always be a pile of garbage, however nice a paint job you try to do on it. 6SJ7 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for your reply, because I think you took time to substantially answer. Please forgive me if my answer is long, but I must both be substantial and clarify what I think are misunderstandings.
  1. I believe that me not refactoring the re-write means I accepted my construction was OR (I also thank editors for understanding that the Jew Watch sources was a bad source). There is not need to get our underwear all bunched up: we do OR all the time and it then gets fixed and we move forward. Thats what this game is about. Don't dwell on it, accept it. :D
  2. I haven't introduced the "hitler analogy" anywhere. I did indicate that when we refuse to allow context by misusing the words of WP:OR, rather than providing context by obeying the spirit of WP:OR (as WP:OR itself requests we do!!!), we are in fact allowing Reductio ad Hitlerum flourish, perhaps without meaning to. That is unacceptable, as you might understand. There is a difference between pointing out the use of Reductio ad Hitlerum and "bringing the hitler analogy.
  3. Please do not be disingenuous: If you de-contextualize (in a bureaucratic, narrow definition of OR) quotes and place them as being together, then you you are making editorial comment. This is something you get warned about in introduction to academic writing classes in college: context is important. Wikipedia cannot engage in OR, but it can engage (and does!) engage in contextualization, if this contextualization comes from the sources. (I already mention above two jump-points for the context in this particular case.)
  4. I truly hear your argument, and it is in fact an interesting one, because I have said the pretty much the same thing in arguing that the "timeline" should not be put in. What this means to me is that we probably are both correct in our thinking that this is not about events, but rather, about ideas. And that any attempts to make this article about events would actually be redundant: there are dozens, and maybe hundreds of pages related to the events in the Israel-Palestinian conflicts, ancillary events, etc. I agree fully with this line of reasoning, and find it logical and well argued.
  5. That said, our conclusions are not the same. I think this article can actually become a quality article, and I think that this article is a valuable contribution to WikiProjects Israel and Palestine, and to Wikipedia in general. I will attempt to outline why my conclusions are different from yours, and I would certainly appreciate, if you so wish, if you could critique my views but also further elaborate yours. Simply calling something "garbage" doesn't make a very convincing argument, as you surely understand.
  6. To begin with, wikipedia is full, and I mean full, of articles that deal with ideas and debates, and not with events. Some of the most admired and highest quality articles here, in fact. From sports, to physics, to love, to whatever. I do understand, of course, that you refer not to articles about ideas in general, but more specifically to those about an analysis of a situation, and a conclusion reached. And furthermore (correct me if I am wrong!) it seems it is also about the conclusion being naming something that is construed by one side of the POV as controversial. In that case, we still find dozens of pages that fall into that category, but perhaps one close to this one (and that I have mentioned here a long time ago) is New antisemitism. Like this article, that article is controversial, has been subjected to AfDs, its being WP:POINT, attacked, vilified and all other kinds of things. Like this article, it is about a debate of ideas, not events. And like this article, it is about conclusions and the agreements or disagreements with those conclusions. Both articles deserve to exist in wikipedia, and while both need a lot of work to bring them to quality standards, I believe that they can indeed be brought to quality. However, if we follow your conclusion, that article would have to be deleted.
  7. Please consider this: the very fact that a relatively large and important amount of notable people, cited in verifiable and reliable sources, have made these allegations, and an equally large and important amount of notable people, cited in verifiable and reliable sources have answered them, I ask you to please realize this is quixotic endeavor: when Desmond Tutu makes allegations like this, and Benny Morris answers them, the genie is out of the bottle. If it were only them, but there is a whole range of literature and sources around these allegations. Hell, even two-bit, discredited, crypto-nazis like David Duke have jumped into the fray. When there is smoke, there is fire, and fire, my friend, is notability. I think you are being quixotic in trying to sustain this article in unnecessary even after many unsuccessful AfDs. It won't happen. Don't dwell on it.
  8. Please remember this: Wikipedia searches for verifiability, not truth. If you hate these allegations, and believe them untrue, and this is a view you share with a notable number of people, then the best tool you have in Wikipedia is to bring in the best sourced, reliable, verifiable counter-arguments, and trust our readers to make up their mind after seeing the evidence. To try to hope beyond all hope that the WP:POINT-motivated AfD's will someday succeed is not trying hard enough to get along with your fellow wikipedians.
  9. I am saddened by and do ask you reconsider your position on not editing and trying to make the article better. Your contributions have been and no doubt will be vital to the project, if only you made the choice to make them. :)--Cerejota 07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on re-factoring the article body...

Based on the comments to my raising several things, I think that maybe a lot of the issues might be resolved by refactoring. I suggest we use the Adam and Moodley model, it is both sourced, and while providing some arguments that are POV, I think they construct the best framework from which to view the allegations.

I propose, each with its own "criticism" and "other views" section:

  1. The propagandist/polemical views.
  2. The absolutist anti-zionist views.
  3. The "seeking-a-south-african" solution views.

Adam and Moodley are a reliable and verifiable source, so I think using their model is better than the currently rather haphazard way it is organized.

Furthermore, sources indicates that there is a difference made between the situation in the pre-1967 borders and in the Occupied Territories, yet the bulk of literature either talks of Israel as including de facto the Occupied Territories or make no explicit difference between the two, in particular when referring to Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Hence a further section on "Apartheid in West Bank and Gaza" might also work.

Thoughts?

--Cerejota 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rename

What about renaming the article "Allegations and denials of Israeli apartheid"? The current title begs the question of whether it's a legitimate term. The proposed name reflects a more neutral point of view. Comments? --John Nagle 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Too long, and too POV. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the "too long" part. We started with Israeli apartheid, of course, but I assume that going back there would be unacceptable. --John Nagle 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And the current title is NPOV in your opinion? Lixy 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No, "Human rights in Israel" would be NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Israeli apartheid" is too short. "Allegations and denials of Israeli apartheid" is too long. "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is just right. Goldilocks would approve. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest "Human rights in Israel" -- which already exists, and has a section on human rights in the West Bank and Gaza, and has a pointer to this article. Just merge the material in there, there is really no need for both. 6SJ7 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
See also the suggestions at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/Archive 22, sections 2 and 6. At one point I thought we were getting somewhere with that discussion, I am not sure exactly why and how it fizzled out. 6SJ7 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps because there is enough verifiable material and notability to warrant its own article? I hear your point, but the quality of Human rights in Israel would go down significantly: this articles is about ideas and debates about how to characterize human rights in Israel, and not about the factual information, and legal criticism, of said rights. Apples in the apple crate, and oranges in the orange sack. BTW, care for a reply to the points I raised?--Cerejota 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well Cerejota, and speaking only for myself of course, your point would be satisfied by calling the article something like "Controversies regarding human rights in Israel", "Controversies regarding human rights in the West Bank and Gaza", "Characterizations of Israeli human rights policies", "Criticisms of Israeli human rights policies" or perhaps even "Allegations of Israeli human rights abuses." (That last one is probably as far as I would be willing to go.) Included in the article could be discussions of the use of the term "apartheid" in this connection, and the pros and cons. But it would allow the "debate" (between and among the sources) to take place without giving the conclusion of the debate in the title of the article.
As for a detailed response to the multiple points that you raised earlier, it has not been possible for the past few days, especially since I have been dealing with the creation of a POV fork of this article, currently known as Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid, which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid. As you have said, the timeline is OR, and now it is not just in a box in this article, it is its own article. I think that is a more urgent problem that needs to be resolved, and this article will still be here in all its glory. 6SJ7 04:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually not: this is a very specific and complex criticism, based on analogies with Apartheid. I will let out a bit of where I come from, because so have you: I am very interested in the pragmatic aspect of the analogy, in other words, the attempts to use lessons learned from South Africa as way to move towards a resolution of the war in Israel and Palestine. And the reason is because this discussion is currently dominating pretty much any academic and diplomatic space outside of the extremes: even Zionists accept elements of the analogy -if only in Gaza and the West-Bank-, or explore South Africa's experience and resolution without accepting the analogy -such as recognizing the two-state solution as a way out-. On the other hand, many Zionists spend much more time countering the allegations than they do other forms of criticism of human rights in Israel/Palestine, for example Zionism on The Web's The Apartheid State page. In fact, a large part of the ideological framework that built the ideas behind the allegations of New antisemitism, were in response to allegations of apartheid. If we have an article for New antisemitism (instead of it being part of Antisemitism) I see no reason why we cannot have an article on the debate that midwifed the concept, allegations of Israeli apartheid.
That said, I had no idea this timeline POV fork has happened, it is an egregious POV fork. I have voted delete, or merge with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is were most of the contents of this timeline belong. I think we are in agreement in this respect.--Cerejota 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My .1 euro

"Israeli apartheid" is not neutral to deal with the matter of human rights of Palestinians in occupied territories and Arab Israeli in Israel. The only way to deal with that would be Human Rights in Israel and Human Rights in the occupied territories.
 The article Israeli apartheid should exist BUT only to point out that this is an expression used by people who claim or think (whether they are right or not) that Israel doesn't respect human rights and the article should immediately refer to the article Human right etc to deal the matter...
This will not make consensus but no matter, this is NPoV. Good luck :-) Alithien 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the point, but must disagree. While both Human Rights in Israel and Human Rights in the occupied territories, sound like good articles to have, this particular article is about a particular debate, about a particular way to both characterize the relationship between the Israeli State and its non-Jewish citizens and the Palestinians. Furthermore, in a very concrete sense, it lies squarely in the intersection of Civil rights and Human rights, rather than being about human rights per-se. This is not an "NPOV" issue (which I think the title meets with flying colors), but an editorial one of encyclopedic quality.
When you allege that the only way to deal with this topic is under another article, you are in fact ignoring a whole range of reliable, verifiable sources that would argue against that. You are ignoring a whole range of academic discourse. And you are confusing gymnasium with magnesium. You are in fact subtracting rather than adding verifiable and notable information, which lowers the encyclopedic quality!
As I have mentioned, sources are clear in providing a difference between the allegations of apartheid and an overview of criticism of human rights in Israel. In fact, most of the sources who use the analogy -even if to discredit it's use- do so from a perspective that has little to do with "Human rights in in Israel". I suggest you read the sources available in the article to notice that (of course, some do touch upon human rights, but these are exceptions that prove the rule).
It is my contention, and a whole range of sources support it, that an in-depth, encyclopedic treatment of these allegations is needed, and that furthermore, the debate around these allegations is in itself a singly notable feature
To date, no one has provided a compelling argument against my contentions, which I am more than open to hear.--Cerejota 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cerejota,
You wrote too much so that I could answer to everything and we can get a discussion are they are many "affirmations" that you do not argue and I don't agree with ;-).
I admit they are many people who talks about the Israeli apartheid and this is not difficult to source.
Do you admit they are many other who considers this is an offense and an injury (insulte) and who consider before all Israel is a exemplar democracy ?
I don't mind who is right or wrong.
I just ask if it is true that in the world, there are 2 such points of views ?
Alithien 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the extension, however, I mean this as a sign of respect to my fellow editors: instead of shorthand I intend to engage in intelligent discourse, which often times means extensive responses and assertions. I would expect the same from you.
To answer your question: yes, I do understand how the title might seem offensive to a lot of people. In fact, "Israeli Apartheid" seems to me like a rather emotional concept, similar to "New Antisemitism", which uses discredited political forms to make a "reductio ad hitlerium". I am opposed to the use of both terms in rational discourse. However, both terms are indeed sufficiently notable, verifiably and reliably sourced, and quite simply too interesting to be included as subsets of other pages.
There are two main reasons I have asserted this:
  1. If included in other pages, they have so much content
  2. It would be a POV fork in the inverse: we are merging information because we dislike the title, not because the information warrants a different article.
I believe that a title being offensive to a group of people, even to a large number of people, this is in no way related to "neutrality".
For example, every single sympathetic reliable and verifiable source on the Romani people indicates that they dislike, to the point of being utterly insulted, the term "Gypsy" and its variations. Yet we use the term as a title disambiguation redirect. If we can have "Gypsies", we can have "Israeli apartheid" or "New antisemitism". A title is not what makes neutrality: it is the contents.
Chaging the title to exclude the terms "israeli apartheid" significantly changes the focus of the article, while it doesn't affect the lack or presence of neutrality. A major title change would simply be a form of deletion of this article --Cerejota 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Comments

We should look at all slurs the same way. The only difference is a different slur used at different audiance: [10]
I agree that creating two seprate articles: Human Rights in Israel and Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories is the best way to proceed. THe title of this article (allgations off...) is ridiculus. Zeq 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, I generally refrain from commenting on other editors, but you are particularly notorious for getting banned from editing articles for being disruptive, uncivil, and unhelpful. I suggest you avoid bringing yet another ban to yourself, and behave.--Cerejota 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Clear example of the fact that you comment on the editor for no good reason instead of looking at the edit conntent. Don't make threats. Zeq 12:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not making a threat, I am alerting my fellow editors that they cannot expect any good faith from you. WP:AGF specifically states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." You have provided ample eveidence to the contrary in multiple occasions. --Cerejota 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

source

[11] - translated in: [12]

other articles in the series:

[13]

[14]

[15]

all are WP:RS to ma'ariv, Israel 2nd largest news paper.

Zeq 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Style problems

After all the contentious editing, we have a few minor stylistic problems to deal with.

  • "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy from" isn't correct English; the subject and verb are inconsistent. "Are an analogy" or "represent an analogy" might be better.
  • Capitalization in the third paragraph ("Right to vote, Freedom of Speech") is inconsistent.
  • The link [16] really ought to be a full reference, especially since the link target is in Hebrew.
  • "... that Arab parties have won overturned disqualifications." is confusing and should be rephrased.
  • There's a mention of the "separation plan", but no links or context.
  • The references with anonymous links (#19, #74, #75) should be cleaned up.
  • The link to Timeline of Israeli Apartheid can now be deleted, per AfD. --John Nagle 05:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Be bold!, just don't try to pull another POV fork under our noses... :D--Cerejota 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

An un explained revert

why this: [17] ? Zeq 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We are still waiting for an explnation to this revert Zeq 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No explanation is needed. A one-off IP user made the intro worse, and Gatoclass restored a better one. Tarc 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  • What is the difference of point of view between people who think Israel is a state that practice apartheid and people who think Israel does'nt respect civil and human rights ? Are there 2 distinguished groups ?
  • Do you see, as I do, a title that could be summarised by these symbols :
? ( - ) (a question about a "bad" thing).
Is this neutral ? I think not.
why not this : ? ( + )
or even better ( + ) or ( - )
or if possible ( O )
  • how could we caracterise a neutral way, in English, the situation in between "Israeli apartheid" (terrorism) and "Israel right of auto-defense" (resistance) ?
Palestinian civil population under Israeli rule
...

Alithien 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline, RIP

The timeline as a separate article has been removed, per AfD here. There were several irregularities with the AfD:

  1. "Merge" votes in AfD's are usually counted as "delete" votes, but in this case the "merge" votes were ambiguous. Those who wanted the timeline merged with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally opposed the timeline in principle (reasoning that you cannot have a timeline of an idea or political position). Those who wanted the timeline merged with this article, however, generally approved of the timeline, and their wishes in turn were not distinguishable from those who voted "Keep" (most of whom wanted the timeline restored to this article once the disruption/point-making died down). Finally, not all editors made it clear what they meant by "merge." Yet it appears that all merge votes were counted as deletes.
  2. One editor voted twice, once for "merge" and once for "strong delete."
  3. Most opposition came from editors citing "original research." One of the editors most vocal about deleting the timeline on OR grounds, however, had in fact added 25+ items of apparently intentional OR to the timeline. Only two or three of the two dozen items had any citations at all, and the editor offered no sources at all linking any of the items to Israeli apartheid, and refused repeatedly to discuss his edits while edit-warring vigorously to keep them in place. The violation of WP:POINT was one thing; a more serious problem is that it is impossible to know how many of the delete/merge votes had been led astray by the ruse. Roughly 2/3 of the timeline at the time of its deletion, after all, consisted of items added in seeming bad faith by someone calling prominently for the article's deletion.

This raises questions about what to do now in this article regarding a history/chronology of the concept. This article would clearly benefit from a section tracing the historical evolution of the concept. While the AfD discussion was far too tainted and ambiguous to be conclusive regarding the propriety of a timeline on this topic, it stands to reason that if the format of a timeline itself attracts serious good-faith opposition (as well as being a vandal-magnet), then a "History" section following the model of New Antisemitism would be the proper way forward.--G-Dett 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I voted for deleting the timeline as a separate article for a number of reasons, partly because it had very little in the way of substantive content even before it started accumulating irrelevancies. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to the concept here. It's just something that I don't think is worth squabbling over, but if others want to reinstate it, that's their business and I don't see myself raising any objections - either over that or a history section. However I note this article is already very long and it might be hard to justify adding yet more content when arguably users should be looking to prune it back a bit. Gatoclass 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that pruning is a greater priority. But I don't think it's either/or; in fact, solid architecture in an article often facilitates concision. It's the structureless quote-farm articles that seem to metastasize without limit.
I do think a historical dimension to this article would improve it enormously. Handled correctly, it shouldn't introduce POV problems. After all, it's the ahistorical view of the situation in the territories that is most unfairly damning of Israel.--G-Dett 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that if you look at it in historical sequence, up until the First Intifada it's mostly allegations. But when the separation program (Israel) was started and the walls went up, it became a fact on the ground. Certain editors would prefer that the article not make that too clear. --John Nagle 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, first of all, I do not see the "vote counting" that you are talking about. The closing admin did not announce a numerical result. In fact under the current "philosophy" of AfD's on Wikipedia, it is not supposed to be regarded as a "vote." The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments and see if there is a "consensus" (as that term is defined on Wikipedia, not in the real world.) (This philosophy is expressed by Cerejota in one of his comments on the AfD page, in which he also makes clear what he has made clear on this talk page, which is that the "timeline" is OR regardless of where it is, so he definitely "counts" as a "delete.") Now, whether you or I believe this system is a good idea or whether it really works this way, is another issue. Personally I think a lot of the admins quietly continue to apply the old 70-75 percent threshhold for deletion unless something about the situation jumps out at them and requires some adjustment. Which brings us to the "votes" here, I don't see how it "appears" that the "merges" were counted as "delete." Even if they were counted as "keep", there were still 75 percent for "delete." (And even if you disregard Gatoclass's vote, due to his comments above, it is still 73.6 percent for delete.) Anyway you look at it, there is a large majority who believe that the timeline itself has to go, regardless of whether it is in this article or a separate article. I also think it is clear that those who believe the timeline is "OR" were basing this on the timeline itself, and not on particular items that some may have added it.

As for the need for a history section in this article, I see some history already, though not in its own section. I suppose more dates could be added for some things that lack them now. I don't know that there needs to be a separate "history" section, but even if there is, it should not be allowed to become what the "timeline" was, which basically was a POV fork of the article in a box next to the main article -- and then a POV fork in a separate article. It is probably best if any additional historical references are integrated into the structure of the article, such as it is. However, the history needs to be balanced. Since many of the disputed measures and policies are part of Israel's struggle against Palestinian terrorism, the history of that terrorism is relevant as well. 6SJ7 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Briefly: 1) Yes, I know that it's stressed that AfD's are not straight-up "votes." But the rules also warn against "votestacking." Taken together, I understand the point to be that AfD's stress arguments over strict numerical tallies, that pile-ons are discouraged, but that counting will indeed take place. 2) You're quite right that even if all "merges" were counted as "keeps," there'd still be roughly 3/4 voting for "delete." Merge-related ambiguities do not themselves cast doubt on the result. And I'm certainly not saying that the timeline as an independent article should be restored. My point is that the multiple irregularities, most serious of which was the massive and intentional defacement of the timeline by someone calling for its deletion, are enough to disqualify any general conclusion about the appropriateness of a timeline for this article. 3) I don't understand why you "think it is clear that those who believe the timeline is "OR" were basing this on the timeline itself, and not on particular items that some may have added it." The comments and arguments in the deletion discussion absolutely do not make this clear, as far as I can see. Fully 2/3 of the timeline's content consisted of items added in open and knowing violation of WP:NOR and WP:POINT. I tried to encourage the editor to remove or at least discuss the WP:POINT-violations but was met with querulous and nitpicking deflections about other well-sourced edits, evasiveness leading ultimately to a firm refusal to discuss the 25 unsupported items, and finally an edit war. I then went to the deletion discussion and provided a link to an unvandalized version of the article, so that editors could at least have some idea of what they were weighing in on, but this was in the closing hours of the AfD. Perhaps you mean that knowing the editors who voted "delete," you can tell they'd want the timeline gone, OR or not. Perhaps, but if so, that merely points us to a different problem.--G-Dett 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, I respect most of your editing, and like the fact that you always try to use logic and argument. I also agree that some editors lost their cool, and instead of letting the AfD happen, started doing disruptive editing. I commented on this in the AfD discussion, and are on record for this view.
However, please remember how the article started: for a while I watched an edit war related to the timeline, mostly drawn around POV lines (as unfortunately most of the editing here is). I came in an presented a much better structured and explained opposition to the OR timeline, that broke the POV impasse: while I have taken my long breaks from editing articles related Israel and Palestine, it should be clear to the editors that know me that I am not a Zionist or a fan of parliamentarian theocracy (although a great admirer of the Jewish Bund and of the Jewish National Struggle in general - I have wept in remembrance of the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising).
John Nagale's apparent response was to mostly ignore the points I raised, and others seconded and elaborated, and boldy started a POV fork. (I must slightly correct 6SJ7: I think a lot of the items belonged in the various timelines on the Arab-Israeli conflict in wikipedia, and are only OR in the context of this article, hence my comments for merge or delete.)
POV fork specifically warns most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content. In this case, John Nagale did just that: rather than continue to seek consensus in this article, he created a POV fork.
I think POV forks are bad for two reasons:
  1. They almost always bring the worse in all of the editors. WP:AGF works not because we actually do it, but because it invites people to reflect on their behavior, usually because a diff can be used against you. However, POV forks usually become a cesspool of WP:POINT and WP:OR, because the originator, having ignored all rules, only invites his opposition to do the same.
  2. They almost always end in a successful AfD, but one that further poisons the already charged environment in the original article. They are a distraction from improving the original article (for example, 6SJ7 cites this as a reason he didn't reply to me at one point), they lead to further irrelevant POV comments and bring nothing but almost week of mis-spent editing, over which you can't even extract a diff for some sick amusement!
I certainly hope that those supporting the inclusion of the OR timeline take time to reflect on the alienating approach they are taking, and try to satisfy the need to seek consensus. I re-state that I will actively support the inclusion of the timeline if two or three verifiable, notable, and reliable sources build timelines, and we build one out of their material. Otherwise, its OR, because this is an article about an idea, not about a series of events. And it is OR for the sole fact of existing, not because of X or Y content is OR.
Lastly, I cannot take the allegations of irregularity seriously for a simple fact: most of the people didn't cite OR alone or at all. The bulk also or solely cited POV forking. The article was obviously a POV fork, and should have been deleted, as it was. --Cerejota 01:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful post Cerejota. It is most compelling on the issue of POV-forks, in light of which I'll have to concede that the timeline as a separate article was one. To be fair, I think John Nagle's goal (and mine as well – after all, I gave him my full support) was a temporary POV-fork, that is, to cultivate an NPOV timeline in a less heated environment, in the hopes of reintroducing it here. I think we both made this clear. I suppose you'd respond that a POV-fork is a POV-fork, and unacceptable whatever the ultimate intentions. To this I have no response; you're probably right.
I will however resist your claim that OR was a minor issue at best in the deletion debate. No it wasn't. There were fifteen delete votes. Seven cited POV-forking, and seven cited OR. A few cited both. And there were a few hyperventilators ("shameless prejudice drivel," "Wikipedia's disgrace") purply swooning this way and that without citing any policy at all. The dubious and distorted claim of original research was indeed a major part of what was after all a small debate.
Having acknowledged the most compelling part of your post, I feel obliged to point out the least compelling. This would be your argument that because this is "an article about an idea, not about a series of events," any timeline is OR for the sole fact of existing, not because of X or Y content is OR." Or as you more crisply phrased it in the deletion debate, "you cannot possibly make a timeline of a debate or idea. Its illogical." With respect, Cerejota, this is balderdash. Of course ideas have histories. I don't understand how you've concluded otherwise. See History of philosophy, Intellectual history, and History of ideas. You cannot possibly understand Calvinism, Romanticism, or Marxism outside of their histories.--G-Dett 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I thank you kindly for your comments. I think we are both certainly committed to a quality article.
That said, perhaps I have not made myself clear, although I think I have: of course a history of the allegations of apartheid can be made.
The problem is that such a history has not been made, or even attempted by reliable sources, and the whole point of verifiability is that even if something makes sense, or is a known fact, it must be verified by sources before inclusion.
This is why the timeline is OR, in fact, a classic example of OR: something that might make sense but is not supported by sources.
I admit that a lot of articles in wikipedia engage in this type of OR, and that this one draws attention only because of its controversial nature, however the fact remains that those articles are in fact OR, and that the timeline is OR.--Cerejota 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pruning

I have already suggest a manner in which to prune the article, which is to fix the quote farm. No one has commented on this suggestion, and I am very tempted to being bold. However, I throw one last call for thoughts on this method.--Cerejota 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I support bold. I think ultimately it would involve combining like comments together, and then pruning out some of the less interesting or important ones, paraphrasing others. The block quotes should also probably be scrapped, except maybe one or two shorter ones. Additional narrative would certainly help as well. Mackan79 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I support it as well. More bones and less flab would be ideal.--G-Dett 14:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've previously suggested having only one quote per person, to deal with the "quote farm" claim, and dropping the quote from "StandWithUs" because they're not a reliable source.
One could also consider dividing the history into three sections - up to the Six day war (the early period), the period from the 1967 war to the First Intifada (when the USSR had its anti-Israel campaign), and the intifada era (terrorism, the separation program, fences, walls, etc.) Those are the big, obvious divisions in the history of this. --John Nagle 17:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
StandWithUs is not reliable on the subject, but Yakov Malik is? Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why the views of Melanie Phillips have been excised, but not, say, the views of Chris McGreal. It seems the article is slowly being stripped of any voices which take issue with the epithet. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian is an RS. The Melanie Phillips piece by contrast was taken from her blog. Regarding your question about StandWithUs and Yakov Malik, a PDF of a flyer from an activist group isn't an RS. The New York Times, however, is.--G-Dett 23:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not a well-thought out argument. Yes, indeed, newspaper reportage of an event is a RS compared to a blog, But newspaper reportage of a quote by John Doe not a more RS than John Doe's personal blog. Quoting Melanie Phillips from her newspaper column is no more RS than quoting her blog. Any suggestion to the contrary is fanciful. Quoting from her blog (upfront) is a perfectly RS.--Redaktor 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

JayJG: Stand assured I am fully commited to correctly sourcing and balancing the article. Voices that critique the analogy are very important and central to a quality article, and this article would fail in quality if those voices are not given their due.

However, I do ask you that you please refrain from such specific, narrow, point/counterpoint critiques, at least for a few days. Remember to |assume good faith, remain cool, and try to refrain from all the reckless editing you engaged during the timeline's AfD: I know you were a bit out of your element then because of the obvious POV fork, but hope we can get you back to normal :D. I think your contributions have been valuable, and indeed you do have plenty to contribute in terms of sourcing, preventing OR, etc. I would like that we concentrate on principles of structure, rather than the specifics of content. I think our readers are suficiently warned that there are indeed neutrality, original research and factual discrepancies being raised by editors, and will take with a grain of salt the contents of this article, until such day as we are able to realize a quality article.

Now, I am indeed very much interest in your suggestions regarding pruning the article and solving the quotefarm issue, if any. And of course, if you disagree that taking the steps I am proposing as a framework, lets discuss them. But specific point/counterpoints on sources -while there are more important discussions going on- do not help achieve article quality, and only server to throw more fuel into the fire.

G-Dett: please also try to stay on point. This shouldn't be a competition between you and JayJG, and other people are also trying to achieve a quality article. However, I suggest we have a bit more attention span and do more than just have dry, snarky wit for each other.--Cerejota 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, Cerejota, fair point. I respect what you're trying to do here and do not wish to obstruct it.--G-Dett 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions on quotefarm

I think people need to re-read what I have written around the quotefarm issue. The problem I see is not one of balance, or neutrality, or anything like that. The problem is one of style. The article reads more like a collection of quotes than an encyclopedic entry, and furthermore, it seems editors of both POVs are happy with this.

Suggestions such as extensive quotes (arguing it gains NPOV or sustain NOR) or one-quote-per-person (to limit size), miss the point entirely.

Thousands upon thousands of articles in wikipedia are correctly sourced, contain no original research, are verifiably notable, and contain little or no quotes. There seems to be a confusion between sourcing and quoting.

I have suggested, twice what our own rules and conventions say we do: that we adopt an encyclopedic voice for our sourced material. Once I did with a generic example, the second one with an actual one. No one commented on them.

However, they remain the only way to move forward.

The rest is trying to argue that somehow this article is different from others in wikipedia and deserves some sort of special treatment, which it doesn't.--Cerejota 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, if you don't use the exact words of the original source, a well-known editor will tag it as "original research", or just delete it. That's how we ended up with a quote farm in the first place. Look back in the edit history for the last year and you'll see the problem. --John Nagle 03:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Since I have followed the history of the last year, I am well aware of the events here. However, instead of responding with the assumption of good faith, or explaining to said editor(s) why his actions where wrong, other editors responded with edit warring, original research, and of late, POV forks. If the response of an evil is another evil, we get nowhere. A fitting metaphor for the entire situation in real life, perhaps.
However, I think it might be time to cool down, and achieve article quality. I am confident this can be achieved. If not, perhaps we need to remain civil and pursue other paths of dispute resolution, which is what other editors should have done in the first place.--Cerejota 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you both are right.
About the content, I wonder if they are secondary sources about "Israeli apartheid". I mean : not people who use the words but people who comment the use of these words.
I am still quite sure an article treating "Israeli apartheid" should not talk about "alledged Israeli apartheid facts" but only about "Israeli apartheid" words use. The "alledged Israeli apartheid facts" should be discussed in "Palestinian civils under Israeli rule" (or in an article with equivalent title)...
Alithien 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

{{quotefarm}}'s suggestion

The template suggests that extensive quotes be moved to a page with the same name over at wikiquote. I think that is a great idea! So I have started q:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and put the first quotes in each of the POVs as a start. Please go there, and add quotes, and don't forget to share the sources with this article. I think we can move things forward. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

fully agree. Alithien 09:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reformated suggestion

I will start a subpage here at talk, which initially will contain a copy of the page as it stands now, so I can re-factor it according to my suggestion. The page is Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/ProposedChange While anyone can feel free to edit, I ask editors please refrain from doing so initially until I have implemented all my suggestions. Then we can discuss them and edit that page until it reaches a level of consensus. The idea is to generate a radically re-factored article that addresses mostly style, but also addresses any lingering NPOV and OR issues, as per the {{TotallyDisputed}}. That way we can keep discussion structured, and not get into edit wars. I feel the page as it stands is to garbled to warrant any sustantive editing without violating WP:3RR, so in this fashion we can develop consensus and implement without worries. We can then delete it once implemented

Thanks!--Cerejota 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Title (1)

Hi Cerejota,
Thank you for taking care of this very difficult matter !
I agree with all the comments you wrote here above (about title, the right to use the expression and good reasons to have an article titled Israeli apartheid in wp, etc).
But I am still not convinced.
Thinking about it yesterday, I identified 3 main reasons to my reluctance (and I think, reading you, you may share them too) :
1. You say it is an expression perfectly sourced but the article doesn't focus only on that expression and the social/political repercussion of this; instead of talking about the words : "Israeli apartheid" (who say that, who doens't, why, how, when, ...), doesn't it talk too much about the "facts" (or what some consider examples) of (alledged) Israeli apartheid.
2. With your reasonning, don't you think we could create : "Israel, the only democracy of Middle-East and starting quoting all scholars and notorious people who use the words democracy and Israel in the same sentence ?
3. I think we should only accept information coming from secondary sources who talk about these words and refuse primary sources of "israeli apartheid". The same facts are named "Israeli apartheid" and "Israeli right to autodefense" by different people. But of course, they use theses words for other reasons... The facts should be analyse in another article (eg Palestinian civilians under Israeli rule) Alithien 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and it does seems that the title is an issue of contention still. I will come right out: I am willing to change the title, as long as the redirect is kept. For me that is trivial issue compared to quality of content.
That said, I will try to reply to your points one by one to keep it organized:
  1. This is a very valid content issue. I will say that like many articles about ideas and debates (Such as New Antisemitism), most of the sources would be opinions of people that allude to the debates, and cite facts on the ground as part of their opinions (ie "there is apartheid because of the separation wall" or "there is no apartheid because there are Arab parties in Knesset"). I do agree with in general being vigilant to have enough sources to factually establish that there are allegations, but strongly oppose the exclusion of opinion sources because they are allowed across wikipedia in this context. Lastly, this content issue should not affect the title: there are enough news sources that talk about the analogy, using specific facts in the ground to warrant the title. There is enough controversy in Wikipedia to allow for the "allegations" part in order to cool some heads, but not to eliminate the "Israeli Apartheid".
  2. I am sorry, but if we are to have rational discourse, we must stop using slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum arguments. They are too polarizing for consensus seeking, not to mention mostly illogical. If editors at Israel feel that discussing its democracy, or lack thereof, warrants a separate page, they should go ahead and do it (your proposed title is too long, and not NPOV, but it might make a good article if it isn't a POV fork from Israel). However, this page is not about simply people mentioning "israel" and "apartheid" in the same sentence, and arguing it is about that is an exercise of reductio ad absurdum. It is about a whole range of specific allegations and counter-allegations that use "apartheid" as shorthand. In fact, many people who use the analogy sustain that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, except for the apartheid: their use of the allegations doesn't constitute, necessarily, a blanket attack on Israeli policy or even existence, but to specific policies under the term "apartheid". This is why I have advocated the use of the encyclopedic voice to avoid the reductio ad hitlerum that plagues the article: the issue is too complex to create casual links between what really constitute substantive allegations and counter-allegations, and what constitutes rants and political epithet.
  3. Again, this is a content, not title issue, and we should approach it as such. Policy and custom in wikipedia in general allow primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are allowed in support of verifiable information, or when the article itself is about what these sources have to say. That said, now and in the past, this article has indeed had enough news sources that talk about the allegations, both as using the analogy to describe things like the separation wall, or to counter allege with arguments about democracy.
On the title issue, WP:TITLE says: Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. We can do it, but I think than unless one engages in unproductive reductio ad absurdum, the title is a good compromise: It keeps the subject matter clear and sharp, and the "Allegations" satisfy the NPOV needs of a rather large number of editors, including myself. However, there are other articles about allegations that do not have "allegations" in the title, such as New antisemitism - which is, by the way, another article that mostly cites primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.--Cerejota 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cerejota,
You know, I wrote 3 featured articles on wp:fr (95% alone) and 2 of them have a "problem" in their title... I am quite concerned with the matter of title vs content.
I disagree deeply with some of your last comments... but never mind : what new title would you suggest with a redirect from this one ? Alithien 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe for second the differences are that deep :D. I think we could be much more productive if we truly examined the differences without so much need for hyperbole. We have a privilege those in the ground don't: words might sting but they do not kill. Lets take advantage of that privilege and not be so extreme in delemiting our differences - especially when we do not explain what those differences are as you just have done. The way I see it, we come from a similar perspective: building a quality free online encyclopedia. And we probably share also another concern: a deep sensitivity to not allowing the Jewish viewpoints -there are many and complex- be short changed in the name of declaring criticism as true. That is enough to show that the differences are not that deep.
I must clarify: I am not advocating we change the title, I am just saying that for me it is a much less important issue than the actual contents. Lets put it this way: as long as quality content of the allegations exist in wikipedia - for reasons I have written - then it can be redirected to a page titled Whathever other editors want. :D--Cerejota 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Let's forget hyperbole ;-) Alithien 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Title (2)

I am not fully satisfied with this suggestion but I throw this to start brainstorming.
We could have 2 articles :

Article 1 would not be a redirect. Rather it would states :

Israeli apartheid is an expression used by some opponents to the Israeli policy with palestinian civils in the occupied territories and Arabs in Israel.
Those people draws a link between etc (2-3 lines)
The use of these words is rejected by ... who consider that (...) (2-3 lines)
The factual description is developed in Palestinian civilians under Israeli rules and Israeli Arabs

What do you think about that ?
Could we get a consensus around that among all those who quarrelled here ?Alithien 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


(As a side note, I might be mistaken but it seems your first language is not English (it is not mine either!), I say this because "civils" is not used in that sense. The correct term would be "civilians".)
LOL. Thanks ! It did'nt sound right to my ears but I didn't realize why :-) Alithien 06:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting proposition, and if you can find sources that specifically deal with the treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel, an article on that might be a great addition to wikipedia. I certainly would like to learn more about that!
I do, however, disagree with the reduction of "Israeli Apartheid" to the level of a simple epithet. It is certainly used like that, and verifiable sources who mention this must be found and this commented. However, as used by the likes of Desmond Tutu. Even critics like Adam and Moodley make this difference clear (which is one of the reasons why I like them so much as a source - they spent time explaining the very real pain of Holocaust survivors being told they are Nazis, while also the very real hopes for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian situation).
Consider that maybe this proposal creates a kind of POV fork: It gives prominence to the use of the epithet, and buries its under uses along with other material.
Lastly, if uneven, and even if I have opposed it in the past,diff, "Allegations" has come to gain me over, mostly because it is less dry than "debate", and because I have come to better understand the difference between "allegations" in English and Spanish. If we remove "Allegations" the title becomes POV immediately, like the POV title of New antisemitism.--Cerejota 02:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
(thank you for the civil(ian)s :-)
You see. It is not just a matter of hyperbole; there are some disagreements. :-(
As I told you here above, there are some key points on which we do not agree.
To try to move forward anyway : I have 2 main points :
1. Could you make a concrete one for the title and how you see the structures of these articles.
2. I think you misunderstand pov fork or I don't understand what you mean here above. pov fork is to treat in 2 articles 2 different points of view of the same matter. And, from my point of view, this is exactly what is done with "allegation of Israeli apartheid". Note that the fact "victims of Holocausts are unhappy to be compared to Nazis" has nothing to do with this article that should deal whit Israeli apartheid and not Holocaust or Nazis. (I hope these words do not hurt jewish contributors - that is of course - not my purpose). Alithien 06:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I never said we do not have differences, we obviously do, it is just that I wouldn't call them deep. Our goal should be to discuss these differences and gain insights into each other's thoughts on the subject to develop consensus.
However, the nature of the disagreement is not so obvious to me at this point.
So far, I gather that you believe "allegation of Israeli apartheid" to be an epithet and deserves a page on only this aspect, and that its use in other senses should go into a more general article. Correct?
If so, we do have a difference, however, I do find your proposal for a page dealing with the treatment of Palestians and other minorities intriguing and needed, if we can source it. I would title it Treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel. I think this encapsulates better the intersection of human and civil rights raised by many here, and is not limited to Palestinians.
That said, please consider that then putting the debate around "allegation of Israeli apartheid" into that page will either make that page essentially the same as this with a different title - which I would find a POV-motivated rename/move - or it will detract from the quality of the article by needless using up space, which would necessitate the creation of a subpage.
As you can see, it becomes a highly complicated form of POV fork. I am sure this is not your intention, but I do offer you ponder what you are proposing some more. What you propose is hiding the "allegations of Israeli apartheid" from easy access to our readers. You are entitled to that view: Plase do consider this: is it really fitting for a free encyclopedia to censor notable and verifiable ideas and debates its editors find unsavory? Furthermore, if you truly believe that the moral high ground lies with Israel, this article is an opportunity to present that argument. Missing that opportunity is losing that opportunity.--Cerejota 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A POV fork, or more generally a content forking doesn't have to be in the fashion you describe. It can simply be a sub-set of the information, or simply a matter of different presentation of the same information, because of disagreements among editors. For example, we just had a successful AfD on a timeline from this article: the timeline was a POV fork not because it represented one side of the POV (in fact, it fast became a collection of attacks by Palestinians on Israelis), but because it was started by editors not happy that their POV on the timeline was not reaching consensus; Perhaps we lose something in the translation, POV in this case refers not to the actual contents of a controversy, but to the position on a wikipedia issue - although these POVs sometimes intersect when editors start warring.
Note that the fact "victims of Holocausts are unhappy to be compared to Nazis" has nothing to do with this article that should deal with Israeli apartheid and not Holocaust or Nazis. - Perhaps you didn't understand that I was paraphrasing one of the main sources used in this article, Adam and Moodley, because they spend a lot of time explaining why the term "Israeli Apartheid" is offensive to many Jews. In the article this is directly mentioned in their own words. --Cerejota 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
ok for POV fork. I see what you mean.
To explain my view another way :
1.
From my point of view, there are FACTS.
The content matter is to deal with these FACTS in introducing them with all points of views.
The title matter is to name these facts with a title that doesn't take party.
Any reference to "Israli apartheid" in such a title would mean the treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel could be more so... Even with the "alledged" solution.
2.
There is an epithet "Israeli apartheid".
This deserves an article, given it exists.
But not about the facts ! Only about the epithet that has to be explained.
Eg.
On wp:fr (you noticed my English is not that good) I wrote fr:terrorisme sioniste (zionist terrorism).
It doesn't talk about the facts that some people name "zionism terrorism"; it only explains there is an expression used by some people in reference to fr:violence politique sioniste and fr:violence politique israélienne. I gave some exemples. Give the other expressions, wrote who uses this and what and who uses other words etc.
And the article only deals with the use of the epithet...
Is my view more clear ?
Best Regards, Alithien 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point clearly now, however it is fallacious. "Zionist terrorism" is a non-neutral way to describe "Israeli political violence", but used by enough sources to warrant a redirect or even a small article on the use of the epithet. However, an article on "Allegations of Zionist terrorism" might be a good one, and the fact that it doesn't exists doesn't change that.
In english wikipedia, however, we do have this article, to which "Israeli apartheid" redirects. The article does need better content, but the topic it covers needs to be covered on its own. For example, Zeq below provides a sourced POV that says the allegations are rooted on the "one-state" solution, and that is worthy POV of inclusion in this article, but would ruin a more general one on the Treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel. Do you acknowledge and understand this point, even if you disagree? In a nutshell: this article has enough material to stand on its own, and would ruin any other article that is more general in scope.--Cerejota 12:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
C. : "Zionist terrorism" is a non-neutral way to describe "Israeli political violence"
A. : I fully agree ! This is the first thing written in the article fr:terrorisme sioniste and this has to be clear ! :-)
C. : "Allegations of Zionist terrorism" might be a good one.
A. : I don't think so. From the way I see pov-forking, "allegations of Zionist terrorism" would be a pov-forking of Israeli political violence (but Zionisme terrorism, if it is based of what you just write above, would -from my point of view- be perfect.
A. : or example, Zeq below provides a sourced POV that says the allegations are rooted on the "one-state" solution, and that is worthy POV of inclusion in this article, but would ruin a more general one on the Treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel. Do you acknowledge and understand this point, even if you disagree? In a nutshell"
C. : I think I understand and I fully agree but in the way of I describe the matter. Being written that "Israeli apartheid" is a non neutral way to describe the Treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel, it is needed to say why. And the link given here below is an essnetial and interesting secondary source on the matter.
Alithien 08:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest we discuss the matter of the word "allegation" later and, if you prefer, we modify tne content of the article. But this, starting by the introduction... Alithien 09:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Background on discussions in this page

For background, it's helpful to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid, which explains how we got into this mess last year. --John Nagle 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi John. If followed this - I already reacted a few days after the article creation ;-) Alithien 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That was quite a useless moderation, except for Zeq's ban (who should pretty much be banned completely from wikipedia: to hide behind a fake dyslexia like that is an insult to real dyslexics everywhere!!!). It basically re-stated what people should be doing anyways: not using admin powers to bend articles to their POV and following policies and guidelines. D'oh! --Cerejota 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The main arbitration page only describes a very small fraction of what occurred at the beginning of this article. (There is more on the workshop and evidence pages of that arbitration, but even that does not give a very complete picture.) The arbitration request was filed by John Nagle (I guess he forgot to mention that) and it was mostly for the purpose of trying to get three administrators sanctioned -- and by a remarkable coincidence, these three administrators were all on the same "side" of the dispute regarding this article, which was not the same side as John Nagle. He also threw me in there as a party, and one of his cronies wrote an "evidence" section against me that was so ridiculous that nobody could even bring themselves to propose a remedy against me. If anyone wants to try to get the full picture of who and what started the "mess", they would have to read the archived talk pages for this article, but it's a lot of reading. I think they would also have to read some of the noticeboard pages and other random Wikipedia-space pages about "Homey", whose actual user name at the time we apparently aren't allowed to use anymore. Homey is the one who started this article and edit-warred to keep it as an anti-Israel attack page, which was the whole point of creating the article in the first place. He also pulled such shenanigans as creating a sock puppet who nominated the article for deletion only a few days after it was started, knowing that there would be enough votes against deletion based solely on the newness of the article, that it would be kept despite the fact that there was a clear majority for deletion. One has to wonder what the outcome would have been if people had known that it was the creator of the article secretly nominating it for deletion. So if people really want to know how this article became such a "mess", it would help to look at the bigger picture. 6SJ7 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi 6SJ7,
I think you were right to report us this "big mess" history and the mutual consideration of responsabilities over it. This must be taken into account to make this article evolve because any solution must find a wide consensus in this "difficult" climate.
Nevertheless, I think we should not go back to the past any more. Just having in mind there has been a big mess past and try to avoid it coming back. Alithien 08:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with Alithien on this.--Cerejota 19:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind the apartheid analogy

is the drive for a one state solution:[18] Zeq 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Decoding Zeq by mining the link he provides: "...perception of Israel as an apartheid state...the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved in the form of a single-state solutions, and granting the Palestinian refugees the right of return..." Andyvphil 06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Adam and Moodley, who dislike the analogy, that is indeed one of the reasons. There are also those who want the two-state solution. And there are those who want no solution at all. Then there is the use as epithet. As you see, it is a complex series of allegations and counter-allegations, that cannot be reduced by your POV-driven sopaboxing your argument. Other editors: please see above on Zeq. --Cerejota 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There's something to be said for that. The "epithet" period mostly seems to be from when the USSR had its big anti-Israel propaganda effort, after backing the losing side in the Six Day War. We have good cites for that. That wound down with the USSR. Since the Second Intifada and the Separation program (Israel), it's been more about attempts to keep the various parties far enough apart to keep them from killing each other too much. (There are more than two sides. This week, Fatah and Hamas are having a civil war in Gaza.) --John Nagle 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
So you argue that we include the contents of this article as part of Hafrada (Separation)? I am concerned that we basically face two completely WP:OR and POV-driven groups:
  1. Sees apartheid as a reality on the ground and obvious conclusion of Zionism.
  2. Sees apartheid as an antisemite epithet.
Both are obviously false: I cannot find single academic source that proves that an apartheid policy exists. Building a frontier war between two states might seem medieval and paranoid, but that is not apartheid. Likewise, reducing the uses of the apartheid analogy to an epithet is a disingenuous attempt to push POV: the analogy is multi-layered, complex, and has had enough notable and verifiable sources that are not even anti-zionist to hold up to the categorization of epithet.
I understand the emotional response of many, but encyclopedias are not meant to convey emotion. Hell, we are not even supposed to convey truth, just verifiability!
I am more and more attracted to the idea of a Treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel, and a History of the treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel page, which would allow factual information along with debates to both figure in this page and organically emerge from it as sub-pages, including a historical perspective. Some existing pages in fact should become sub-pages of this. On page that comes to mind is this one. However, this page is notable enough to stand on its own.--Cerejota 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
We're back at Verdun here, with decaying remains from years-ago battles sticking out of the trenchwall. But... hang your canteen on that clawed hand over there and we'll chew this over again: "...that is not apartheid..."(Cerejota) concedes at the beginning what is false, namely that it is ever appropriate to talk of apartheid out of its historical context in ZA. The point is that every use of the term outside the ZA context is an attempt to leverage the semantic load, the near universal approval of the anti-Apartheid struggle, for a different battle. The fact that the likes of Assaf Uni (author of Zeq's cite) feel free, within their fringe poitical circle, to treat the word as a common noun does not obligate the rest of us to do so. It'll become normative over my dead and twitching corpse. Andyvphil 06:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but see crime of apartheid... —Ashley Y 06:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, can we agree that if a nation has not been convicted of the crime of apartheid by the International Criminal Court, then there should not be an article about "apartheid" allegations against that nation? 6SJ7 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
A rather inane suggestion really as Israel, along with other luminaries such as Yemen and China, regrettably refuses to comply with the ICC. Tarc 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, nobody could expect a court to render a judgement when the accused refuses to cooperate, eh? Gzuckier 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Folks continue to confuse the situation within Israel with the situation within the occupied territories. Arguments re "apartheid" can by definition only be limited to the question of Arab citizens of Israel. Arguments regarding the treatment of residents within territories occupied militarily by a country are certainly subject to debate, but the concept of "apartheid" doesn't apply. Gzuckier 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil: Unfortunately for you, use of the analogy (or criticism of it) is normative in academic circles concerned with Israel and Palestine, and quite normative outside of academia. I suggest you get out of your soapbox in Wikipedia, and since you oppose the use so vehemently, perhaps engage in procuring reliably sourced material that supports your view. Hey, I hate anti-semitism, but debate around it is normative too.--Cerejota 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You are conflating two different things. It's not the "analogy" that I have a problem with. I simply deny, as a matter of fact, that the word is ever used without summoning its ZA context to the mind of the reader, and further assert that that is invariably the intent of the user. The normative struggle will be over if the word loses that effect. "Anti-semitism" does not do anything similar. And crime of apartheid is an example of the phenomenon, not a refutation of it. Defining what is normative is not within the power of the UN. Andyvphil 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you know the meaning of the word "analogy"? It is of course the intent of any analogy to summon in the mind of the reader a comparison between the object of the analogy and the subject of the analogy. However, from the perspective of wikipedia, we are not to judge if the analogy is correct or not, but if it is notable, or wikipedia-normative. According to all of the content policies, the allegations are indeed notable, but they must remain allegations, because there is no consensus regarding them.
As to the crime of apartheid, since Israel is not a member state of the International Criminal Court, it doesn't apply in the context of this article, so I do not understand why you mention it.
(As a side note, the International Criminal Court is not in any way affiliated with the United Nations, other than the Secretary General of the UN is the depositary of the ratifications and signatures of the Rome Statute. The International Court of Justice (World Court) is the UN's judiciary organ - I have seen many editors, from all POVs, confuse the two).--Cerejota 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Cerejota: Well, I mentioned the "crime of apartheid" because I was replying to Ashley Y, et al, not just you.
(nb: While the ICC isn't technically an organ of the UN, it is a creation of the UN General Assembly, which convened the Rome Conference. And, speaking of technicalities, Israel could be convicted, despite not being a signatory, although the necessary UNSC referral is damned unlikely. Anyway, the ICC didn't create the "crime of apartheid". That was the UNGA too.)
And, yes, I know the meaning of the word "analogy". Do you know the meaning of "common noun"? My point is precisely that "Apartheid" is an analogy and not a well-defined common noun, a distinction that your second contribution to this section did not make, but which I think is crucial.
If you want a reliable source for that you might try finding the US statement explaining its refusal to sign the Rome Treaty. It's been a few months, but I'm pretty sure that's where I read the US position that naming "apartheid" a "crime against humanity" was a mistake precisely because the term was so ill-defined. Andyvphil 06:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
(Er, I didn't fully read my own cite. This is what I vaguely remembered: "At the outset the US stated: 'We cannot accept that apartheid can be made a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are so grave in nature that they must be meticulously elaborated and strictly constructed under international law.'")
Ok, I get it. So you are opposed to the "nounification" of the word apartheid, not only its use with regards of Israel. Thats fine, however, hundreds upon thousands of sources already make this use normative, at least from the point of view of wikipedia. We cannot be selective about it. This is why I defend the inclusion of other "Allegations of Apartheid" articles, because they are verifiable allegations. One doesn't get to pick and choose what the sources force upon you. I suggest you take this fight with them, although it seems from my point of view a quixotic fight: as I have said before, the use is normative everywhere, including the UN and the ICC.
As to the "crime of apartheid", you are wrong. The ICC cannot prosecute crimes committed outside of a State Party. The only way a non-State Party that can be prosecuted is if they commit the crimes in a State Party, and even then difficulty in prosecution might make the Chief Prosecutor not file charges. The "crime of apartheid" is by definition an "internal" crime, impossible to commit outside of one's own country. So regardless of guilt, State representatives from Israel - the ICC doesn't prosecute countries, but individuals - cannot be prosecuted by the ICC, which is the only body under international law that is capable of prosecuting the crime of apartheid, because Israel is not a member state.
And yes, the Rome Statute and crime of apartheid both have their origin with the UNGA, but there is no UN jurisprudence body capable of prosecuting the crime of apartheid, and the ICC is not a UN body. To date, the relationship between the UN and the "crime of apartheid" is a historic one.
The only body capable of prosecuting the "crime of apartheid" (ICC) severed all direct relationship with the UN in 2003, after a year of mandated guardianship of the Secretariat, and some years of the UNSG acting as depository of signatures and ratifications.
I think anyone who argues the inclusion of the "crime of apartheid" in this article (and any on allegations of non-member countries) is just soapboxing.--Cerejota 12:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the deinitions at Crime of apartheid exclude, on their face, cross-border CoA. Some of the subsections don't apply, and the ICC doesn't have original jurisdiction to prosecute (at least in the interregum between the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan renaming itself Jornan and the recognition and signature of the PA), but the definitions don't exclude the commission of the "Crime", as far as I can see. And, are you sure the ICC is compelled to refuse a referral from the UNSC on that ground, or is the question of jurisdiction overridden? Note further that at Nuremberg "crimes against humanity" were alleged to have taken place in the absence of any convention or mechanisms to prosecute. Andyvphil 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

ANC Communism

Andyvphil:

Have you read Adam and Moodley? If so, please re-read again. The caveat for "ANC Communism" are their own, not an invention of wikipedia: the "ANC Communism" is clearly not stated as fact in the source text. One thing is the need to re-phrase the quotefarm this article is, another is to completely change the meaning of a source.--Cerejota 03:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What A&M actually say is "...apartheid ideologues also justified their rule by claiming self-defense against ANC-led communism...", which is quoted inaccurately in both the prior version and in both your revisions. Note particularly that they did not find it necessary to write "...against what they called ANC-led communism..." (or any other "caveat", for that matter), which kind of redundancy is what I rejected in reverting you, without then finding it necessary to consult A&M. Your ((sic!--my apologies Andyvphil)) explanation for adding scare quotes, "I don't think 'ANC communism' is the sort of term that should be passed off as though it were factual",[19] made it quite clear that your objection was to leaving the phrase "ANC communism" unchallenged, and that your substitution of "what they described as 'ANC communism'" was actually a weasel for "what they lyingly described as 'ANC communism'".
Now, the point in time at which it became unreasonable for "Afrikaner leaders" to think of Mandela as ZA's Fidel is arguable, but that was not the ground on which I reverted you. Rather it was that you were clearly committing both a weasel and an unnecessary digression. The statement "Afrikaner leaders said the ANC was communist" would not here require an editorial disclaimer. Period. Andyvphil 08:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misconstruing A&M: they are clearly not voicing "ANC-led communism" as their own voice, but that of the "apartheid ideologues". Do you understand the difference?

These are the type of misconstructions that border on WP:POINT disruption: since the only way out of your misquoting is to force users to turn the article into a "quotefarm" - a bad form - they disrupt article quality.

Now, I understand your point but I think you are approaching it in a wrong manner by ignoring the points raised by me and others: that the source doesn't state as fact that the ANC is communist, but the article as reverted by you does. The quotes are not weasel words, however, you are completely changing the meaning of their statement by not providing the quotes. This is standard copy-editing practice, not weasel-wording. However, your crime, completely misrepresenting and de-contextualizing a quote, is a much more serious one.--Cerejota 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"I think you are misconstruing A&M: they are clearly not voicing "ANC-led communism" as their own voice, but that of the "apartheid ideologues". (Cerejota)
My point, exactly, was that "ANC communism" was clearly not A&M's voice, and that in quoting them we were clearly not giving a voice to Wikipedia's position. Without the redundant "what they described as" phrase I have no objection to your putting quotes around "ANC-led communism" (or "apartheid ideologues" for that matter). I think they were there by implication already and that how many you put in is a subtle stylistic choice -- you, too, omit putting quotes around parts of the phrase that are identical but unimportant -- but I'm comfortable that you, unlike CJCurrie (I confess I had conflated your contributions) are not crossing the boundary into scare quotes. Andyvphil 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
See, it is possible to reach consensus, even here? ;) All it requires is a willingness to listen to each other. I betcha the version we reached together is much more encyclopedic than anything we would have come up with on our own...--Cerejota 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Analogy of apartheid

Andyvphil does raise an interesting issue, which is that the use of the word "apartheid" as an analogy is questioned by highly notable sources such the United States government. This is true. However, this is beyond the scope of this article. Allegations of apartheid - to which this article points to - is the correct article to include content questioning the analogy from the ground up.--Cerejota 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Er...you're still doing it. Conflating two different things, that is. An objection to the aptness of an analogy is not the same as an objection to the use of it. And the US objection that I had in mind was that the term was not "meticulously elaborated and strictly constructed", i.e. that it was not a well-defined noun. It's perfectly ok to examine the analogy between Israeli policies and ZA Apartheid. Factually, one ought to come to the conclusion that the analogy is mostly inapt, but it's ok to "use" it.
And, no, Wikipedia is not obliged to use "apartheid" as a common noun even if thousands of reliable sources do so. We're obliged to quote them doing so, when appropriate, and without scare quotes, but we're not obliged to join the error. Certainly not as long as the contrary position is not fringe, and I deny that it is. Andyvphil 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Now we are getting somewhere! Your point is an interesting one, however, one that is not by any chance standard practice in wikipedia. For example, we have an article titled New Antisemitism, which is by far less normative than the use Allegations of apartheid, yet you do not raise the same objections. My problem is with such POV one-sidedness that prevents productive discourse. (For example, you and others complete ignored my exploration of Treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel - which would be a logical way to resolve the controversy, even if I am not entirely sold on it).
According to your line of reasoning, what determines normative use from the perspective of wikipedia are not the policies in question - in particular WP:V and WP:RS, but your POV. I take issue with this view as a form of soapboxing and WP:POINT: simply because we disagree with something it doesn't mean we cannot follow the sources.
Using your logic, instead of Nazi Germany we would have Germany under Nazi rule or some such non-sense.
Nevertheless, you miss the point I was making, which is your objection is a blanket one that covers a number of related articles, such as Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, and hence belong in the parent article: Allegations of apartheid.--Cerejota 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The objection I'm making to the "nounification" of of "apartheid" is indeed suggested by the lead paragraphs of Allegations of apartheid, though it is not as yet developed. And, yes, "what determines normative use from the perspective of wikipedia" is indeed, not policy, but consensus "POV" (aka "editorial judgement", which is still opinion). The idea that an article somehow extrudes itself from the sources without reference to editorial POV is a silly one, albeit rampant among would-be WikiLawyers.
I don't follow you on New Antisemitism. Are you under the impression that I object to the title Allegations of apartheid? Nor do I object to Treatment of ethnic minorities in Israel. Or to accurately quoting sources. Andyvphil 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research in the see also

I am removing again the links put back by an editor, please discuss before removing.--Cerejota 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what was removed per relevance. --Tom 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The links are not origional research. They are simply links to articles that present the opposite POV, and they certianly are not covered by any template on this page.--SefringleTalk 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What sources state that the issues presented in the see also links are germane to allegations of apartheid in Israel? If you provide us with such, they they are in. As per WP:OR they must be direct connections. We already had an apparently successful debate on removing a "timeline" that was also based in OR connections. When you add something simply because it makes sense, you are engaging in OR. Period.--Cerejota 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Prehaps you can show me a see also section from some article on wikipedia that isn't OR?--SefringleTalk 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
When you write something like "When you add something simply because it makes sense, you are engaging in OR" you're engaging in serious WikiSilliness. Anyway...as regards removing Crime of apartheid you need to engage my comment about the Nuremberg precident if you are to argue that that link is irrelevant. Andyvphil 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1)Sefringle: That other articles in wikipedia ignore core policy is a fact we have to handle, but that doesn't mean a suspension of these policies, or that those articles aren't correct. As I mentioned, we removed an infobox timeline precisely because its very construction was OR: no source has constructed a cohesive timeline on apartheid in israel. Sources who use the analogy have built timelines of the palestinian-israeli conflict, but those already exist. See Also's are similar.
2)Andyvphil: Not it is not wikisilly to suggest we try to respect core wikipedia policies on content. All content must come from sources. No buts, ifs or whatnots. Failure to comply with WP:OR is indeed a major problem in wikipedia, but unfortunately I can only concentrate on a couple of articles at a time. What is indeed wikisilly, is that we want to push unsourced POV by construing a See Also that doesn't flow from article sources.
For example, none of the sources we have, to my knowledge, mention the "crime of apartheid" in connection with Israel: if we see also this we are telling our readers that the "crime of apartheid" are somewhat related to the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid": that is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" if the connection is not made by reliable and verifiable sources. I suggest you respect the intelligence of your fellow editors, even if you disagree with them, and think twice before calling serious, constructive arguments "silly". --Cerejota 10:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK let me get this strait. Almost every wikipedia article has a see also section, and none of them have a citation to prove they belong in the see also section, yet you keep insisting that it is OR it include them. You actually expect to see a citation in the see also section. Besides looking bizarre, it isn't necessary. Who is to say that the links you left aren't OR?--SefringleTalk 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not what I am suggesting, and it seems you do not understand sourcing in wikipedia.
Sourcing is not only putting a citation for something being said next to each statement. It means that the ideas expressed, and the narrative followed, must stem from sources, with no amount of original research engaged in even by experts in a given field. In many non-controversial wikipedia articles, sources are cited only once, but the rest of the ideas and narrative, including "see also", fit the sources.
See also's should fit the narrative that the sources imposed upon us, but don't have to be directly sourced as you seem to understand that I am suggesting. WP:OR doesn't require we put a cite next to every bit of information. It does require that every bit of information could potentially have it. The difference is clear.
I again bring to you a similar debate on this page on a timeline. All of the items in the timeline were properly sourced, and most of them had cite tags to boot. Yet the entire concept of a timeline was WP:OR: no source that we could find spoke of a historical timeframe of the allegations of Israeli apartheid.
See also's are like a timeline: they need to connect to the whole article in a fashion that doesn't create a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." (please read WP:OR).
So see also's that serve to provide additional information that the sources allude to, and that help define what the sources allege, are ok. Those who introduce novel (for the article) narrative and historical interpretations are out.
In order to prove that each inclusion is relevant and not novel, simply alluding in this talk page to what sources connect to it is enough. But inclusion simply because it makes sense is original research. Period.--Cerejota 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Cerejota, you say the "see also's" have to "fit the sources". That seems reasonable. Hoewever, in this case there are sources cited in the article that attribute the "apartheid" accusations against Israel to both antisemitism and anti-Zionism -- and yet you have removed those items from the "see also's". How do you justify that? 6SJ7 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct and I don't justify it. I am actually putting them back, or refraining from removal if they already were put back. I am studying sources as we speak. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Crime of apartheid, Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority, and Allegations of apartheid links are clearly relevant. The analogy of apartheid needs to be linked, as the article is accusing a country of apartheid. The Palestinian Human rights link is also relevant as the article addresses Palestinian Human rights.--SefringleTalk 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No they are not as no sources establish relevancy. You are engaging in OR.
1) Allegations of apartheid is already included in the nav box. No need to be redundant. And in terms of a see also, I triple dare you to find sources that join the allegations of apartheid in general with specific ones in the Israeli state.
2) Crime of apartheid - no source talks about this crime being relevant with regard of the Israeli state. This is because it isn't, as Israel is not a signatory of the Rome Statute of the ICC, nor has it been referred to the ICC by the UNSC.
3) Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority - this articles is about allegations under the Israeli state. Any other state is not covered. Nor do any sources compare the Palestinian National Authority with the State of Israel in terms of Allegations of Israeli apartheid.--Cerejota 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, re Crime of apartheid: It's puzzling to me that you think those accusing Israel of "apartheid" are accusing Israel of some different "apartheid" than that in "Crime of apartheid", but it's easy enough to demonstrate that you are in error. Simply Google "'International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid'israel" and you get results like this and this.That's enough, but also, again, the Nuremberg precident makes clear that ICC jurisdiction or referral is irrelevant. Andyvphil 07:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding me... I have no problem if a source states a direct relationship: however, none of those in the article, nor the ones you provided - one is a presentation by an NGO to the UN, and hence a primary (not reliable and verifiable) source, the other doesn't load in my computer. In the wider context of all allegations it does warrant inclusion, however the sources we see here, to a man, use analogies not based on international law. In other words, discussion of Crime of apartheid belongs in Allegations of apartheid and in other pages that sources allow. Otherwise its OR. --Cerejota 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe you have an overbroad conception of the limitations on the uses of primary sources on Wikipedia. The NGO's presentation to the UN is a reliable source for its own views, and it can (WP:PSTS) be quoted for that purpose, just not to establish the fact of Israel's guilt. Anyway, there's simply no question that many of those accusing Israel of "apartheid" understand themselves to be accusing Israel of the same "apartheid" that the UNGA defined as a "crime against humanity". Just do the Google I gave you. Andyvphil 08:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you re-included see also links not mentioned by any source?--Cerejota 09:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
First, I deny the premise. But, in any case, they don't require citations. They are a navigational aid, and "making sense" per ordinary editorial judgement is sufficient. But that question is moot -- with such a wealth of sources it is foolish not to assume that connections which make sense are not explicitly made there. I've already demonstrated this with Crime of apartheid. So now I'll look at New Antisemitism...sure enough. Check out Finkelstein's assertion that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's 2003 report on antisemitism included allegations of Israeli apartheid in its list of antisemitic activities. I have never looked at Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority but if the allegation of this particular "crime agains humanity" against Palestinians isn't mentioned then common sense tells you that that's an omission in the article, not the available sources. The allegation is false at its core, but that is of no importance for this discussion. Andyvphil 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

suggested article split

I read this quote from carter:

"It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not."

And yet this man is being included in an article on allegations of israeli apartheid.

Perhaps we should split parts of this article to allegations of apartheid in the west bank, since its clearly mislabeling carters quotes to include him here. "It's not Israel." That says it pretty concisely.--Urthogie 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: the allegations are about Israeli apartheid (ie promoted by the state of Israel), not about the de jure territory of Israel. Besides, other sources do speak of it being inside de jure Israel and outside of de jure Israel. I do agree Carter should be used only when talking about the Palestinian territories as a supproter of the allegations, and that he can be used as a criticism voice when refering to Israel proper, but he is by far not the only source. I think the article has much more glaring issues (such as quote farm) than this issue of territoriality, which is resolved by providing sections as it is done now.--Cerejota 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I support the name change as it is a far more neutral title.--SefringleTalk 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not an issue of neutrality, this is an issue of promoting a POV split.--Cerejota 04:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a POV thing so much as an accuracy thing. Even if you are anti-Israel, can you see how it might confuse people to hear so called "Israeli apartheid" isn't in Israel?--Urthogie 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I suggest you cease labeling people who may oppose this as "anti-Israeli". Second, it isn't so much the location of the alleged act that is the critical here, but rather it is who is perpetrating the act. Anyone with a shred of common sense will interpret "Israeli apartheid" as "apartheid instituted by the state of Israel", not "apartheid within the state of Israel." Tarc 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This article includes both, so no, it would actually increase confusion, melding together two seperate subjects.--Urthogie 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote farm issues

The "quote farm" problem is still outstanding. I'd suggest, first, that the date of the quote be added to each quote. It matters whether someone said something on this subject in 1973 or 2003.

I'm inclined to get rid of the quote from StandWithUs unless the name of an individual can be associated with the quote. There are questions about who's behind that organization, and the organization doesn't disclose much information about itself, so it lacks something as a reliable source.

What's the source for the first Benny Morris quote? Is it from the same source as the second one? They read as if written far apart in time. The first one sounds pre-intifada; the second one is clearly post-intifada. Dates would help here. --John Nagle 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with this approach. Quotefarm is not about sourcing, but about directly quoting souces. I think the article as it stands right now, with may be a thinng here and there, by and large is notably sourced and has a basically good narrative structure (please read above for some caveats). However, I don't think we can even begin to address any of these things until we resolve quotefarm: we must allow the Encyclopedic Voice to speak, to present information, and to inform our readers. Quoting directly and extensively is not only unnecessary, but ugly and confusing: the changes in tone from writer to writer do not make good content. Furthermore it reduces the size of the article without dtracting form its informational value: this is not rated importance "high" by any project and hence shouldn't be given more than its due.--Cerejota 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

completely biased lead

"Those who use the analogy claim that Palestinians are not afforded the rights and privileges of Israelis and that Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories amounts to oppression. They may point to the physical separation between the two groups, or claim that Arab citizens of Israel receive second-class status."

What the hell? I know that Palestinians are not afforded the same rights and privelleges as Israelis-- they're not Israelis. I also know that Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories amounts to oppression (which is not to say that the Palestinians don't oppress the Israelis as well). However, I also am not such a dumbass to think that poor treatment of people means they're under apartheid.

What this lead does is it makes the mundane, obvious observation that Israelis oppress Palestinians the crux of the argument. NO! The argument is not over whether oppression or disparate treatment occurs, but whether this constitutes "apartheid." The entire debate has been reframed to make it seem like arguing for "apartheid" is arguing for the least bit of disparate treatment and oppression. I've marked the page as totally disputed.--Urthogie 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the first mention of the palestinians, because it should say Arab Israelis. As to your argument of "framing" the allegations in X or Y way, this is pure sophism: the lead clearly describes "Those who use the analogy claim". It doesn't state it is true, nor that those who use the analogy are right. It simply states what this article is about, and does it well, IMHO.
It is balanced by describing those who dislike or criticize the analogy. It is inherent and logical that the allegations are mentioned first and the criticism and counter-allegations second, as the topic of an article is always mentioned first (WP:LEAD). There is no bias or undue weight that is apparent.
What you are basically doing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and this article has survived enough AfDs to signify there is consensus the article stays, or at least to not be deleted. It follows then that the lead as fixed by me its an accurate representation of the contents of the article/
{{totallydisputed}} is not helpful in this case: there is actually better alternatives, like {{introrewrite}} or {{POV-intro}} (which I just put in until you reply to this post with further elaboration).
Lastly, please do not criticize with out offering alternatives... How do you feel the intro can be improved?--Cerejota 03:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New Navbox

I have added this article to the "Types of segregation" navbox, to provide further context.--Victor falk 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the template and making decisions like this without consensus. You know you are walking into a difficult area and you're being reckless.--Urthogie 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


This article is unfit to appear in an encyclopedia

The bias is in the title. The title puts one side in a debate on the real topic (the amount and nature of racism in the country in question) on the back foot before the first word of text, and the neutrality of the article cannot be recovered after that catastrophic start. This article sets out to group together a group of slurs under the pretence that together they make an encyclopedic topic. This is no more the case than for "Allegations that French people smell". Or imagine other series of article built around usage of slurs in the media: Allegations that Tony Blair is a liar, Allegations that Angela Merkel is a liar, Allegations that Bill Clinton is a liar, or Allegations that Paris Hilton is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that Lindsay Lohan is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that .... is a talentless bimbo. All of those could be sourced, and the fact that something is sourced does not necessarily make it neutral or a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. The quoting of sources on any article does not confirm that it complies with Wikipedia:Neutrality to the slightest degree; any biased essay can be fully sourced. No rephrasing or sourcing can make this article anything more than a politically motivated attack page. Wikipedia is not a place for debate or for arguing the toss. The presence of these articles disgraces Wikipedia. Dominictimms 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am no friend of Israel. My own biases have nothing to do with my feelings about this type of article. Dominictimms 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed the lead sentence

It seems that the term "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" equals X, whatever X my be, therfore I changed the lead from "draw" to "is". --Tom 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I changed it to "are". Any English majors out there that can help explain/correct this :) Thanks, --Tom 23:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename to "Israeli apartheid analogy"

We should rename the article to "Israeli apartheid analogy".

  • The entire lead discusses "the analogy" rather than allegations per se.
  • Many of the "proponent" sources "make comparisons", "draw an analogy", say it "is reminiscent of" or "resembles" rather than outright alleging apartheid
  • An analogy includes allegations of identity, so it covers those who actually do make allegations.
  • Adam and Moodley discuss three groups, and "allegations" refers only to the second. The first "is incensed by the very analogy". The third group "sees both similarities and differences".
  • The word "apartheid" would refer to, neutrally, apartheid in South Africa, to which the analogy is drawn. By contrast, "apartheid" in "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is used as an epithet.

Thus "Israeli apartheid analogy" is more neutral, better reflects the article is it currently is, and most importantly better reflects the sources. —Ashley Y 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people use it as an analogy. Others use it as an epithet. Others insist it is a factual description. Your suggestion doesn't really cover all of that. Also, why are you suggesting the change here, rather than at the central discussion? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Insisting that it is a factual description or using it as an epithet is implicitly making an analogy. "Analogy" is the broadest term that best reflects the variety of approaches made in the sources, and is indeed already widely used in the article (and pretty much exclusively in the lead). —Ashley Y 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Your view is interesting but, as you know, the naming of this article has been an extremely contentious issue. If you want the word "analogy" in the title, Apartheid analogy (Israel) would make more sense. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to accept that as the article title, Jay? CJCurrie 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally would support it if it means an end to the madness. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that either. Also, can anybody address what I wrote above that the first sentence should be along the lines "Allegations of Israeli apartheid IS an analogy" rather than "draw"??Thanks --Tom 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a parallel discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid page. Per my comments there, I think Israeli apartheid analogy is more appropriate. Tiamat 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Renaming the article may establish its purpose a bit better. "Israeli apartheid analogy" seems fine, but "Comparisons between apartheid and practices in Israel" is a bit more specific, if not less pithy. "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" is not bad either, although it makes the article less able to stand on its own. GracenotesT § 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need to stand on it's own. There's a whole slew of Apartheid analogies that are considered "encyclopedic". <<-armon->> 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless it's necessary to refer to them primarily as "Apartheid analogy (type)," that wouldn't seem beneficial though. Of course either version allows for other articles; the problem with the parentheses is suggesting that an apartheid analogy is generally a discrete and notable topic simply for having been made. I think this would strike many readers as strange: "Wikipedia covers any analogy to apartheid as its own subject?" Then other problems also seem to stem from this. Mackan79 05:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid analogy would be an improvement, but I would strongly prefer something like "Israeli apartheid" controversy. Deciding whether this or that instance of the word's use constitutes an analogy, an allegation, or an epithet is usually a matter of original research, almost always immaterial.--G-Dett 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can use quotes in names? It would be unusual anyway. —Ashley Y 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't know of any rule, but maybe there is one. You're right, it would be highly unusual. It seems that a group of editors wants some sort of disclaimer in the title, and I'd prefer scare quotes to solecisms. Also, I'm concerned that so many of the titles that have been in play here have emphasized the verbal act – Allegations of Israeli apartheid; Israeli apartheid (political epithet); Israeli apartheid analogy – as opposed to the furore that surrounds it. The latter, not the former, is the locus of notability. (We have Lewinsky scandal, not Allegations of fellatio in the White House.) Our emphasis on verbal act over notable and prominent discussion in the present case may be inadvertent or by design, but it has led to the truly extraordinary assumption that any use of the word "apartheid" in its non-South-Africa-specific sense – a sense given by every major dictionary of the English language – is intrinsically notable, and should have an article built around it.--G-Dett 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another reason for switching to "apartheid analogy". Roger Waters, the co-founder of the band Pink Floyd. See also [20] and [21]. He protested apartheid in South Africa and he did the same in Israel. That's the analogy. He didn't do that in France or Brazil, just there. He even did that against the will of Palestinians themselves [22], which makes him pretty neutral. But he's missing from this article. I'd recommend to add new section "Apartheid anology in music", while cutting off all that lenthy political quotes or reduce it to one sentence. Who needs that many statements anyway? It maybe violates the copyright too? What else is missing? The principal reference to Jimmi Carter's book is missing. There are only references to comments about the book. There's also an error in introduction. The analogy applies to Gaza and West Bank ONLY, not to Israel itself, or at least it's not documented. greg park avenue 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It might warrant a mention, but this is stretching notability: Roger Waters is notable for making music, not for the depth of his sociological studies.--Cerejota 22:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many more. Bob Marley while performing live at the Roxy in 1976 [23] put Israel and South Africa into one bag, adding also Macedonia, Tanzanya, Angola and some more but nothing on the current list of the "allegations of apartheid" in Wikipedia. Harry Belafonte. Nick Nolte and Sidney Poitier in the movies. No one pointed it out, that these both countries were the only ones which were for prolonged period of time under cultural embargo, enforced by the artists themselves. No one pointed it out in this article, that in apartheid era these countries were so close like Switzerland and Liechtenstein is. An Israeli citizen could travel freely to South Africa without visa or paying any customs duties, to work there, to live there, etc. It shows how similar these both political/economical systems were. If this is not an analogy, than what is? greg park avenue 12:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One more comment and here we go. Bob Marley was completely free of bias concerning Judaism, see his lyrics in Exodus, then you'll see that he was inspired and probably even enchanted by Jewish tradition/religion. Yet in 1976 he included Israel on his apartheid list. But one year later in Jimmy Carter era when the peace talks were under way, he stroke it out. The song's "War/No more trouble" lyrics, performed in 1977 during the concert "Live at the Rainbow" by Marley and the Wailers (available on DVD), does not spell "Israel" any more. It's like giving Israelis the credit. And that's what makes Bob Marley a reliable source of reference which should be included in this article. If even he compared Israel to South Africa, then there must be an analogy. And I wouldn't underestimate all those magnificent men with guitars in preference to scholars. Nixon once did that and lost. Please, mention Bob Marley in this article too, or I will. greg park avenue 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Ashley Y has correctly identified a problem here, but it lies in the wording of the the lead - and/or in the definition of "apartheid" we're using. Apartheid South-Africa style was official labeling of peoples, giving them different ID cards etc, with the apparently benign intention that they should look to their own communities for support, justice, education etc. The problem we have is that some people are using the word for all kinds of other discriminations, none of which are as institutionalised as "apartheid" was intended to be. The solution is to use the word "apartheid" according to the Afrikans meaning, in which case it may only apply to one currently existing nation on earth. PalestineRemembered 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, ignore the last remark in the comment above, I mean the one in the nickname. The same downstairs, which I find even more offensive, since it's addressed to the user who openly supports Palestinian course (right to return). greg park avenue 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

New secondary source of possible interest

Thought I would share this paper by Ran Greenstein from the Sociology Department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. This copy notes that it was to be published in November 2006 in the Mishmat Umimpal ("Law and Government") journal of the Faculty of Law at Haifa University. Entitled Citizenship and political integration: Can we draw lessons from the rise and demise of apartheid in South Africa? it explores similarities and differences between Israeli and South African legislation and court outcomes and concludes that the differences between the two historical experiences bode badly for a South-African type resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Yet another example of the scholarly discussion surrounding the issue. Tiamat 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I liked the following parts, which appeared to define apartheid in it's original (and only realistic?) meaning:
  • The legal dimension: addressing issues of citizenship and racial and ethnic classification. This dimension formed the constitutional foundation of the apartheid order. It was also a main site of resistance to it, focusing on the need to overcome racial and ethnic divisions and to forge a unified national identity
  • The social dimension: addressing issues of land ownership, labour organization, residence and movement between different parts of the country. This dimension was the site for creating and maintaining physical segregation, as well as of attempts to overturn it in practice
  • The political dimension: addressing issues of state institutions and resistance movements. This dimension was a site for the formation of exclusionary and inclusive political identities and structures, which were formed, re-formed and co-existed in a state of tension
PalestineRemembered 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ A
  2. ^ B
  3. ^ A
  4. ^ B
  5. ^ a b "Simon & Schuster: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover) - Read an Excerpt," Simon & Schuster November, 2006, accessed April 9, 2007.
  6. ^ Meet the Press, December 3, 2006 [24]
  7. ^ "Jimmy Carter Issues Letter to Jewish Community on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" Carter Center, 15 December 2006, accessed April 9, 2007
  8. ^ a b Carter explains "apartheid" reference in letter to U.S. Jews International Herald Tribune, December 15, 2006, accessed 23 April, 2007
  9. ^ Meet the Press, December 3, 2006 [25]
  10. ^ "Jimmy Carter Issues Letter to Jewish Community on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" Carter Center, 15 December 2006, accessed April 9, 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_23&oldid=1238717291"