Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 27

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Supplement for Hebrew source in lead

Whenever protection is over, we could add Paulson, Michael (2007-10-28). "Tutu urges Jews to challenge oppression of Palestinians". The Boston Globe.. The relevant quote: "The pro-Israel demonstrators said Tutu's comparison of Israel to apartheid in South Africa was unfair because Israel is a democracy where Arabs have rights." -- 146.115.58.152 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we even keep this article?

I'm not going to waste everyone's time and cause more trouble than we've already had by posting an AFD, but as time goes by I am wondering if this article is really worth all the trouble - for anyone.

I'll stipulate that Israel's policy has been compared often enough with apartheid that the comparison is notable, but I think it's also clear that there is nothing approaching even a mainstream view as to what this comparison contributes to the debate, on either side. Those who are opposed to Israel's policies will inevitably get bogged down in having to defend their definition of apartheid and whether it applies to Israel; similarly, those who support Israel's policies, have to defend what is essentially a strawman argument, originally posited to make a point. The legitimate, factual issues, e.g., what Israel does and how it affects Palestinians (and for that matter, vice versa) get buried in all the noise.

I'd like to see a proposal that resolves this issue to the point that we all can get on with topics that really deserve our attention and commitment, but more importantly will yield something productive out of the disagreements. --Leifern 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a legitimate subject for an article. illegitimati non carborundum. Andyvphil 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I agree with Leifern. 6SJ7 03:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For Leifern and 6SJ7, then, could you elaborate -- what kind of proposal might gain some consensus and "resolve the issue" as you say? Let's assume there's no consensus to delete or to merge it (e.g., the defeated "Human Rights" type merge). We've restructured the article into two parts (policy and political rhetoric/epithet). What kind of proposal would you like to see? Thanks. HG | Talk 11:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My response to your question in a previous section sort of covers this as well. 6SJ7 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that anyone who is campaigning for the article to not exist really has no place in the discussion of the editing issues. It is the epitome of counter-productiveness to bring defeated AfD arguments to the table. Tarc 23:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tarc, we can get into another fruitless pissing contest about who has a place at this table, or we could try to have a reasonable discussion. I just have to point out that very little good has come out of this article for either side of the issue.

As for constructive suggestions, it's a fair request. Here's how I see it: the notability of this article is based on the fact that the comparison has been made with some frequency by notable people. Ok, fine. I'm not going to win an argument that this is insufficient basis, which is why I'm not putting up the umpteenth AFD. I suppose an accurate title would be Dispute over the accuracy and relevance of comparison between the intent and effects of Israeli policies toward Palestinians and those by apartheid South Africa, but I think we can all agree that is a bit too verbose. In the meanwhile, Israeli apartheid is blatantly POV, and I suppose some might say Libel of apartheid against Israel also has some problems. --Leifern 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the current structure reflects two notable sub-topics -- the famous/political people rhetoric and the handful of scholarly efforts. Arguably, some overlap. Leifern, I really appreciate your willingness to be constructive w/something you'd rather delete. In particularly, I applaud your willingness to spell in out in that long title. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's much less notability for the "Dispute over the accuracy and relevance" aspect, right? I mean, really, how many sources cover this as a live "dispute"? Sure, there's some. Yet the sources do cover the comparison/analogy efforts, esp the famous ones. By the way, I think "intent" and "effect" are truly important distinctions, though maybe not for the title. So, trying to draw you out and stay in a serious mood, since you gave two less-verbose titles that are POV -- how about coughing up a less-verbose yet constructive title that isn't so POV? Thanks. HG | Talk 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this: this is a complex topic. It conflates political rhetoric, intent and effect, international law, and the real-life situation for real people. I suppose some people think it's more important to make the case for a tenuous comparison than to write about the various factors that actually affect the lives of Palestinians, but I just can't see it that way. So I ask again: what good does this article do? --Leifern 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly put, this article just states some of the facts, which after tons of edits are quite well sourced. Based on these facts readers can make up their own mind if this situation is/resembles apartheid or not. --Magabund 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) A college student googles Israel+apartheid or the like, this article pops up. Do they find a balanced and contextualized presentation on the topics relevant to that search? Do they find links and summary style pointers to less "tenuous" content about Israel and Palestinians? Currently, it's a lemon. It's a bad reflection on us, our WikiProjects, and our failures at cooperative editing. For better or worse, the article won't be deleted anytime soon. So what title and content do you want that student to read? HG | Talk 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The student will come up with "allegations" meaning maybe not true, which will confuse him even more. Leifern's offer Dispute over the accuracy and relevance of comparison between the intent and effects of Israeli policies toward Palestinians and those by apartheid South Africa would make a perfect abstract to such an article, however, its title should be changed a bit to make perfect match. The title Israeli allegations of apartheid in Israel will do then; otherwise it's just another smokescreen. I would go with that if some undisputent content of the article in current version will be moved to new one, created from scratch under title Apartheid and Israel or similar ones, suggested by CJ/Zeq and others before. We never reach status quo and majority vote on this one to get consensus to change the title, not in English Wikipedia since so many people speak English; it's like mighty UN which couldn't reach consensus on little thing like Falklands affair back in 1982 - imagine the horror of the world speaking one language only - the simple world of Horatio Hornblower is over forever. One can only create the new article including this time the strong data only - without any allegations or quotes - just the simple facts, and hope the guys opposing the change of the title, also don't reach consensus in order to delete the new article - just like the original "allegations" article couldn't be deleted. I think it's the only way to beat their bias for everyone's benefit. greg park avenue 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: What Should The Article Be Called?

Suppose we re-engage here.

The article does exist. It's not going away. WP:WTA leads us to the inescapable conclusion that "allegations" is problematic. That means we need a name change. if you're serious about contributing here, please share a specific idea you have in response to the question above: What Should The Article Be Called? Then we can talk about the pros and cons of the various ideas like grownups.

Personally, I'm warming to HG's suggestion Israel and apartheid. (Compare, as he suggested, Christianity and anti-Semitism.) BYT 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, BYT, you get to decide what people have to do if they are "serious about contributing here"? I don't think so. In any event, I voted for a new name (and I think you voted for the same one), but it didn't get a consensus. Regardless of what you think "we need", the article will only get a new name if there is a consensus for a new name. So far, that has not happened. I also wish people would stop suggesting that WP:WTA says something that it does not say. 6SJ7 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7, I really value your opinions on this, and I am in fact trying to build consensus here.

What I'm proposing is that people stop spending quite so much time addressing what they don't want to see happen here, and perhaps a little more time identifying a specific option that they do endorse. Otherwise we're like any other bulletin-board on the Internet. Ultimately it does come down to creating and improving an encyclopedia.

Again: Although I didn't start out with this outlook, I could now see this article working with the title Israel and apartheid, per HG. And yes, let's get serious here, and try to actually get some work done. If that Israel and apartheid option doesn't work for people, what's an example of an option that does? 6sJ7, I would very much like to hear your insights and ideas. BYT 12:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks BYT, but don't miss what we learned above, that some folks like 6SJ7 (and Andyvphil) who aren't fond of "Israel and apartheid" would accept "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." This title, proposed by Jossi and Cerejota, did well in a straw poll. (Unfortunately, the poll didn't include an option like CJ's above or "Israel and apartheid"). So there's at least two plausible alternatives on the table.

More importantly, don't miss the crucial point agreed upon above by Leifern and Tarc. They recognize that the discussion has a presupposition -- we cannot enter into this discussion in good faith if we do so in order to delete the article. Who wants to help resolve this mess, either to help rename or simply edit the article? If we are to participate in good faith, and not try to refight the battle, I think everyone needs to accept certain settled assumptions or presuppositions. Leifern and Tarc are to be commended for this insight, but it needs to be fleshed out. What other presuppositions will help us grapple with this messed-up article? I don't want to tax your patience or be disruptive, so at some personal risk I'll lay out in detail what I think might be helpful. HG | Talk 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re the title, allow me to suggest "A goddamn mess". Jtrainor 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Presuppositions to any future resolution

As we've learned from Leifern and Tarc, folks may need to share some core presuppositions in order to work out a stable resolution here. If somebody is motivated only to delete the article, they can't very well participate in good faith on renaming it. (Instead, they can recuse themselves and pursue other means to delete it.) However, letting go of deletion isn't the only presupposition needed here. Let me articulate what I see as the necessary presuppositions for consensus. These challenge folks on both sides of what has been a battle. Sorry if I get some of this wrong. Key pt -- I'm not saying you have to agree to these as Truths. Rather, based on my reading of the situation, everyone should be prepared to accept -- maybe begrudgingly or with bitter resignation -- the following presuppositions:

Not deleted means Notable. If your ~~overarching~~ only real goal is to delete the article, please recuse yourself from renaming or editing discussions (and votes). (You can pursue more AfDs as you wish. But here we take the AfD defeats for granted.) What do the AfD defeats mean? The AfDs didn't endorse article content or the title. Nevertheless, the AfD do establish -- or force us to accept as a presupposition -- that the article passes muster on notability. So, what about the article is notable? Here's where it may be a bitter pill to swallow.
Notability has two parts. It's taken us a while to listen to each other on this and accept it. But once we got it, we restructured the article profoundly. The restructuring had consensus support and was implemented without any protest. One notable part is this:Policy analysis comparing (and contrasting) Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. Now, we aren't asking you to believe such analysis to be True. It could well be False. Still, the presupposition here is that there is what WP policy calls a "significant minority" opinion among policy speakers/scholars to be described in this article. This opinion deserves its due weight, no more, no less. Specifically, notability here means that it's not merely a fringe that to be ignored/deleted. The other part is this: "Apartheid" in political discussion. Some folks believe that Wikipedia needn't describe offensive allegations. They may be correct. Nevertheless, enough editors support one or the other part of this article that, to engage in a constructive renaming conversation, all discussants would need to (grudgingly) accept both parts as notable. (Likewise, with editing, one might whittle down the content in good faith but you shouldn't try to delete the verifiable, bare essentials.) Now here's the hardest part for the renaming discussion:
The title merits improvement on both ends. Due to the battle and negotiated truce, each POV side "won" part of the title. One POV side got "Allegations of" and the other POV side got "Israeli apartheid." If we are to change the title -- and that remains to be seen -- I seriously doubt we'll change one side and not the other. Why? Well, if somebody insists that it is a True fact that Israel has a system known as "Israeli apartheid" then somebody else will insist on describing this as an "allegation." (Alternatives like "Controversy over Israeli apartheid" have not gotten much support.) Now, some like the current title and some of us want a better title. In order to change the title, we need people on both POV sides to be willing to live with, begrudgingly accept, a title that lets go of what they negotiated in the POV battle. Or else recuse themselves on renaming. What does this presupposition imply? It means that True/False arguments about "Israeli apartheid" have little or no bearing on the discussion -- we need to assume that the new title does not settle the score but rather leaves the topic as an open question.

Will editors be able to work from these presuppositions? It's not easy. I suspect presuppositions #1 and #2 are hardest for the pro-Israel POV and #3 for the Israel-critics POV. If you are a dedicated POV warrior for either "side" here, you may find it difficult to accept these presuppositions. Even if you think of yourself as fairly neutral, it's my experience that most everybody finds that the whole package requires some concessions. After all, these are merely presuppositions, not Truths. What gives me hope? Time and again, we hear editors shift positions and speak out for alternatives, even against their preferred choice(s). Scan back up the page, you'll see people expressing a willingness to find common ground. Start with CJCurrie, whose suggestion wasn't a first choice and move down from there. (Or look at the flexibility expressed in our August/September discussions.) It's been very frustrating, but it should be possible for us to fairly describe even the most disputed verifiable content.

How would our working from these (or modified) presuppositions help lead us to resolution? First, some editors would understand when they need to recuse themselves from the discussion. Second, the presuppositions will help us identify the merit of various arguments or concerns. If an argument depends on, or boils down to, a disagreement with a core presupposition, then it would be tabled. (Even if True for some folks.) Finally, by adopting all three presuppositions, we gain some momentum to move forward. Does this make sense? Do you think that these presuppositions would be useful? If you don't agree with a presupposition, can you still use it as a working assumption? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

HG, while I appreciate your measured tone, I would also appreciate your ceasing to call for unnamed editors to "recuse" themselves. It isn't merely that the suggestion is without merit (though it is), nor that you have no standing to ask such a thing (though you don't), but I think the Anti-Israel folks have done a rather excellent job of silencing those who oppose them already. They have no need of aid from those who are, or who are posing as, moderates. IronDuke 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke. I would also say this: First, the AfD defeats in this case mean that the nominations did not get a consensus. That is all they mean. I would go back through the whole history of corruption in the AfD's in this case, and relating to this article generally (including the recent involvement of Lothar of the Hill People, who turns out to be yet another sockpuppet of HoneontheRange)... but whenever I do that, people start saying let's move on, don't dwell on the past, etc. So I won't dwell on it. I'm just pointing out that the failure of one or more AfD's doesn't necessarily have a particular meaning. Second, there is no rule restricting my ability to edit, participate in talk page discussions, or otherwise be involved with the article if I do not hold the "correct" opinion as to whether the article should exist, and I decline to accept any greater restrictions on my participation than the rules provide. 6SJ7 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

John Nagle. HG offers a good summary of the current situation. We've reached something of a compromise, and we're more or less stuck there. So be it. ArbComm seems to agree. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid#Final_decision. The arbitration was finally closed with no action because the problem seemed to have stabilized.--John Nagle 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The ArbCom said nothing about this article. This particular article wasn't even the subject of the arbitration. I knew someone(s) would try to "spin" the ArbCom's statement, and unfortunately I was correct. 6SJ7 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the next person who characterizes their perceived opponents as "Anti-Israel folks" is likely to be brought before WP:AN/I. One does not have to be opposed to the state of Israel in order to favor the recognition of the subject matter here. Tarc 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct, and I will certainly back such a complaint. I would go further and say that an editor's supposed personal "support" or "opposition" to any given political philosophy has absolutely zilch to do with this project. When allegiance to a given political system becomes the measure by which we evaluate the neutrality and appropriateness of articles here, we are in big trouble. Also, if the problem has stabilized, could we please get an admin to unlock the article so we can get to work on improving it?

Finally, 6, I know there are editors who feel this article should not exist. There are articles I feel should not exist. Consensus sometimes dictates differently than our personal sentiments would suggest.. See Meet the Robinsons: a great movie with a great motto. "Keep moving forward." BYT 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarc or BYT, I gather you have no problem w/my term Israel-critics POV? (John Nagle, thanks for your affirmative words. Not sure quite what you mean about ArbCom. I think ArbCom does expect us to continue making progess to resolve the content dispute here. Right?) HG | Talk 14:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, perhaps I wasn't clear enough about when to recuse oneself. All I mean to say is that folks shouldn't edit or discuss/vote on renaming an article in order to keep it bad or make it worse, i.e., in order to get it deleted. I think this is approx like saying, edit/discuss in good faith. It has little to do with this particular article. I've change my wording, is that better? Also, I certainly do not imply that any specific ("unnamed") editors should recuse themselves. All are welcome, from any side, provided they act in good faith, that's all. Does that sound fair and acceptable?

6SJ7, thanks for your input too. You apparently disagree with #1 (at least!) because you don't think the AfD defeats imply notability. But can you please support this assertion? Here's my reasoning: Any article should be deleted if it does not pass the Notability hurdle; By "consensus" (in WP sense). This article should have been deleted if it lacked Notability, but it was not. Therefore it must have passed the hurdle. I think it's eminently reasonable to interpret AfD defeats in this manner, regardless of the topic. Otherwise, if you don't think AfD defeats establish anything policy-wise, then the decisions appear arbitrary (i.e., lacking reason) and could just be re-voted endlessly. See what I mean? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

HG, I did not get that at all from what you wrote, but I'm very happy to hear your clarification. Yes, certainly, people should not be trying to rename it to something "delete-able", though I can't for the life of me think what such a name might plausibly be, or that such a thing would work. Tarc, BYT, I don't know what to say. You're welcome to take it to AN/I, though I would think both of you have enough experience to know it would be laughed off of there. Yes, Virginia, there are "Anti-Israel folks" editing hereabouts. They have a POV and they push it. It violates no WP policy to point this out; indeed, it supports a very important one. I will note, in passing, that the effort once again to silence someone who disagrees makes my earlier point far more eloquently than I was able to. IronDuke 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's talking about silencing any viewpoint, Duke. On talk pages, though, let's stick to questions of notability, rather than whether the existence of a given article is good or bad for Israel. (Or Lichtenstein. Or the Confederacy.) .

HG, may I ask you -- what do you think needs to happen for this page to be unlocked? BYT 14:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(BYT -- Since this is off-topic, let's move this q&a if need be. The page was protected due to edit warring over the lead paragraph (see above). While the lead wording hasn't been resolved, I don't know if it's still a live issue. To request unprotection, go here. For controversial edits, you may still want to discuss them here first. Thanks.) HG | Talk 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's talking about silencing any viewpoint, Duke.

You and Tarc were just discussing precisely that, BYT. IronDuke 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

On talk pages, though, let's stick to questions of notability, rather than whether the existence of a given article is good or bad for Israel.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here; it certainly isn't to any point I've made. IronDuke 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that this is the talk page for the article; it is not AfD. So if you're going to bring AfD-like arguments to the table regarding why the article should not exist, then that is pointless and no one is going to pay them any mind. That is not "silencing" or anything of the sort, just a statement that those sorts of views are wrongly placed. Tarc 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to HG's point about recusal which, since his clarfication, makes sense. I was referring to pointless threats about dragging this to AN/I because I dared to suggest that some editors might be pushing POV. That's what I mean by "silencing." IronDuke 15:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading this thread, here is what I think. If someone wants to propose something about the article, they should just propose it. Then people could discuss it. This would be much more productive than asking other people to propose something; or talking about who gets to discuss and who doesn't; or discussing how to discuss the article. 6SJ7 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Very sensible suggestion... IronDuke 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A very naive suggestion. I think we've had quite enough of the warring POV ideas and counter-ideas over the years, and jumping on HG for trying to instill a sensible framework that actually *gasp* works towards a finale rather than a perpetuation of the status quo is just plain ridiculous. Tarc 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's "jumping on HG" on this issue, I just think 6SJ7 is suggesting that extra layers of instruction creep aren't going to help. Maybe he's wrong, maybe they will help, but I don't think so. As for "naive", I would put the idea of working "towards a finale" on any WP article firmly in that category. For better or for worse, that's not how this place works. IronDuke 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

HG, regarding #3 - allegations versus Israeli apartheid; the best thing to do I think and already recommended once suggesting that over 80kB is too much for one article - is to split the article into two articles:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid based on allegations, statements and quotes ONLY. Allegations in the title is crap anyway, even ArbCom says that.
The new article which includes the term "Israeli apartheid" or the words "Israel" + "Apartheid" in its title, but it would be allegation free - it supposed to be created yet - based on facts ONLY. Just one example, the part "A statute known as the "Citizenship and Family Unification Law" denies the status of citizenship or residency to spouses of Israeli citizens who are residents of Gaza or the West Bank. [15]" is poorly referenced by some advocacy group "Znet" and cannot be moved into the new article. It's even logically inconsistent - Jewish settlers in the West Bank are not included in this package - it's Chomsky's POV and it belongs to allegations, not in the new article - unless someone finds more reliable source. A group advocating Noam Chomsky cannot be treated as notable source. Leave out Uri Avnery, Guardian, StandWithUs and other tendency sources also. Keep the neutral ones as reference [2]. greg park avenue 19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We definitely don't need two articles on this subject. 6SJ7 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

When you edit an article over 70kB, 6SJ7, Wikipedia manager recommends it to you to split the article if possible. When your talk page exceeds 35kB, the same manager advises you to archive that page. That's enough reason for me to suggest splitting, isn't it? greg park avenue 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other ways, and in this case better ways, to deal with the length issue. I think quality is more important than quantity. 6SJ7 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and the best way to keep the article short is to get rid of "allegations". The facts you can explain only once, while allegations keep coming up like fungi after rain. Or like cockroaches - if you see one you can be pretty sure there'll be more, lol. greg park avenue 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in this article except allegations, and reactions to allegations. The only connection between any "facts" and the subject matter of this article are the allegations themselves, and some "original synthesis" connecting some of the facts to "apartheid", which should be removed. So, by your standards, I have just shortened the article to zero K. Glad to be of service. 6SJ7 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From presuppositions into Proposals

6SJ7, there are different ways to propose changes. In simple cases, BRD suffices. In difficult cases, a new title can be proposed and discussed. Even harder cases? Here, we've already seen many proposals -- they make us weary and leave us with a sense of impasse or polarization. We took a break from proposals during the ArbCom case, but I don't think you/we should encourage more willy-nilly proposals. Instead, our guidelines encourage various discussion techniques. For instance, we discussed alternative titles. We drafted a synthesis of the naming arguments. By making explicit the 3 fruitful presuppositions, above, I'm trying to help us reason our way towards a consensus proposal.

That said, why haven't you read my comment as a proposal? Look again. In effect, I am proposing that we rename the article. I am proposing that the new title will encompass two notable, verifiable parts (subtopics). I am proposing that the new title should exclude both the word "allegations" and the phrase "Israeli apartheid." //* Note below//... 6SJ7 and others, do you support these proposals? If no, then why not? Let's discuss the presuppositions. If yes, then we have strong momentum to rename the article and we've greatly narrowed down the title options. We'll likely end up with 2-3 title candidates. At that point, the discussion will be much easier if we've accepted the presuppositions ("proposals") and don't have to re-argue them over and over again. I don't think this is instruction creep, it's merely following a somewhat orderly path toward a difficult decision. So, now what do you think of these proposals? HG | Talk 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke. I would have no problem with a title that excluded both "Allegations" and "Israeli apartheid," though that's not saying much; I can't say if I'd accept a title unless and until someone suggests it. IronDuke 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate slightly -- do you concur that there are two notable subtopics? (Also, I can understand your skepticism.) Anyway, thanks again. HG | Talk 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not concur that there are two "notable subtopics," if I understand what you mean by that. I believe that the first "subtopic" you discussed, policy analysis comparing and contrasting Israel and South Africa, is in fact an invitation to push a particularly vicious POV in a way that violates WP:NOR. This article doesn't merely recapitulate the positions that others hold, it essentially packages them all in a novel manner and makes the case that apartheid exists. That is not acceptable, and the article should not, in title or in text, make such a case. As for skepticism, I can only agree to apply it where appropriate, and not where not. IronDuke 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil. A title that contains neither "Allegations" nor "Israeli Apartheid" is a different subject. If you think that subject deserves an article, write it. No need to "rename" (delete) this article. Andyvphil 13:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I'm really not trying to innovate here. All I can work from is the Talk history. For instance, Andyvphil, for 2nd choice in a straw poll you accepted "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." It's fine if you've changed your mind -- would you no longer accept that name and, if not, why? thanks muchly. HG | Talk 15:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7. HG, I will have to answer your question this way: I am sure there are specific titles that meet your description that I could support, especially since I already "voted" for one. 6SJ7 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BYT. "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" would work for me. Note too that the term "apartheid" has emerged as a political slogan or epithet and that this article should address that fact. Also people like Chomsky and Carter, notable public figures, should be referenced if they chose to use the term to describe, or even engage in, the controversy. Equally notable people who disagree with their use of the term can be quoted as well, of course. BYT 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BYT, Apartheid term doesn't apply to a conflict; it's an internal affairs policy inside Israel government. Never heard about such policy inside PA. And I wouldn't put Chomsky and Carter into the same bag. Chomsky is a scholar turned radical, Carter is not. I have nothing against the article about Chomsky, but citing his neonazism views in Wikipedia seems a little above the board to me. There are many scholars like him, even on the other side of the fence, say Edward Said, who opposed the Oslo Accords for some reason or other, and cast the first stone by throwing real stones against an IDF outpost, showing Palestinian kids what to do, and starting by this act unofficialy the second intifada. These scholars opinions we don't need to keep here in Wikipedia as sources of reference. Or maybe we do? But what for, to start another Wikifada? greg park avenue 15:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What is an "internal affairs policy inside Israel government"? Apartheid? That is the allegation, or accusation, or lie (if you will) that this article is about. There is no Israeli policy called "apartheid." There are various policies about how things happen, primarily in the West Bank, that some people compare to apartheid, and this becomes part of the "allegations". As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the "allegations of apartheid" are part of the conflict. In fact, this very article is part of the conflict. 6SJ7 10:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do at all with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and an article title with that in it is by far the worst suggestion of the lot. Tarc 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, aside from not understanding your claim that it's unrelated to the conflict, I'm curious: do you accept the 3 proposals (to rename, to cover both topics, to avoid "allegations" and the phrase "Israeli apartheid" in the title)? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just clarifying here -- an example of a title that "avoids the phrase Israeli apartheid" would be "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," right? BYT 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BYT. But the point here isn't to accept one candidate but rather the 3 proposed goals/criteria for selecting a candidate. Given your past comments, I gather that you (BYT) can live with the current title but would also (like maybe Yahel below) support the 3 proposals and at least 2 candidates. HG | Talk 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan This needs to happen for the sake of NPOVing this page, so I will give my support for the proposal (though I doubt it will get passed based on the history of this page). Yahel Guhan 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins The thing is that the entire basis of this controversy is the claim/allegation of "apartheid". This topic wouldn't nearly be as explosive if that term wasn't being used. So yes, although we can remove the term "Israeli apartheid" from the title, "apartheid" somehow need to be kept. I liked the proposal to create to separate articles, one about allegations, or use in public discourse, the other about facts from academic and scholarly sources.Bless sins 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

* Note. To clarify: With the 3 proposals above, I had assumed that any new title, while excluding 'Israeli apartheid' as a phrase, would include the term 'apartheid' -- Thanks. HG | Talk 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

thought - i think there's great use of hyperbole and neologisms in this conflict - i think we should make a head article called "Politically charged terminology in the Arap-Israeli conflict" and change the title of this article to "Apartheid (Arab-Israeli conflict)" - this suggestion would also work for "Pallywood (Arab-Israeli conflict)" and many more similar articles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, esp if you find reliable sources that synthesize/compile the political discourse in this manner. However, perhaps you could move your idea to another Talk section? Or maybe a WikiProject page? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheid (Arab-Israeli conflict)" might work for me. Practically every article on Wikipedia involves some degree of synthesis as a matter of necessary editorial discretion, but that question can be sidestepped by creating a Category instead, though that would not point to sub-elements like Apartheid wall (redirects - or in this case a "disambiguation" with only one element! - don't go in Categories, do they?), I guess. But, Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, Pallywood, Islamofacism,... what else? Just do it, as a first step?Andyvphil (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeq Let's set a side for the moment the question if there is or there is not apartheid in Israel. (we will be back to it in a minute). What we can all agree is that the use of the term apartheid is part of a propaganda war in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I there for suggest that this will be the subject of the article "Controversy over use of the word "Apartheid" in the context of the –Israeli-Palestinian conflict" – we can at that point list who uses the term why they use it what are the counter arguments etc… At that point, if we do it in NPOV fashion the reader can develop his own POV if there are only allegations or there is truth in it. Zeq (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pure hogwash. We do not all agree that it is propaganda, stop projecting your own bias onto the larger community. As far as I can tell, the likes of Jimmy Carter and others are not enemies of the state of Israel, they are simply calling a spade a spade. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, thanks for responding. While it may not be your first choice, I'm wondering if you might be able to live with a shortened version. For instance: "Controversy over Apartheid regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." (For style, let's assume better to avoid quotation marks.) HG | Talk 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Academic papers on that issue from a french political geographer specialist of South Africa exist in online journals

Two academic papers (copies on line) from a French political geographer specialist of South Africa exist on that issue of the use of the analogy with apartheid for the Israelian-Palestinian situation. Based on the distinction between all the forms of the South-african apartheid and on the large range of the uses of the analogy, It argues that the analogy doesn't make sens for the nature and the legal system of the Israelian state, but it could be accurate on some aspects between the "Grand apartheid" and the way to deal with "occupied territories". Nevetheless, the israelian policy towards occupied territories miss one fundamental caracteristics of the "Grand apartheid", which wasthe systematic exploitation of the work force of the former bantustans. Another caracteristic was missing but is no longer with Gaza with the disengagement but is still with West bank, it is the attempt to tranfer new territories in order to "consolidate the so called new homeland state and trying to obtain an international recognition as a decolonized state. It would be interesting to add those references and to use it for new synthetic version.

GIRAUT F., 2004, “Apartheid et Israël/Palestine, enseignements et contresens d’une analogie”, Cybergéo (Revue Européenne en ligne de Géographie) Points Chauds, 20 p, http://www.cybergeo.eu/docannexe/file/5454/apartheid.pdf

GIRAUT F., 2004, “Apartheid et Israël/Palestine, analogie et contresens”,Outre-Terre 9, pp. 145-154. http://cairn.webnext.com/sommaire.php?ID_REVUE=OUTE&ID_NUMPUBLIE=OUTE_009

Frederic Giraut 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)FredFrederic Giraut 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you the author? I gather "scientific" in your (French) usage is what would be called "academic" in English... Anyway, I've removed the "editprotected" template as there is yet no specific edit proposed. Andyvphil 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am and I just would like to add this two references to the "further reading" section, thinking it could be accurate. Frederic Giraut85.5.198.102 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the article links. Sorry to say that I can't read French w/o a lexicon and much effort.

Nobody is perfect, but thank you very much for your efforts and your attention.

I'm wondering how you would characterize some of the authors you discuss.

How many of these authors do you see as capable of publishing on this topic (Israel and apartheid) in peer reviewed academic journals? Just few have done it: Yiftachel and Glazer. (I disagree with the second one). Unfortunately good specialists (in history, political geography or law) of both situations are not numerous. And because of that, the argumentative and serious pamphlets must be considered too and seriously criticized when it needs.

Are you saying that Roane Carey or François Maspéro are pursuing a constructive critique? Just that they are claiming to contribute towards peace, and they are not in the same use of the analogy as thoose who tried to condemn the zionism as a whole. It doesn't mean that they are really constructive. Do you differentiate between radical and more scholarly uses of the analogy? Between, on the one hand, the radical use applied to the zionism and the Isrelian state proper, and, on the other hand, the critical use applied to the occupation of the west bank.

Thanks. HG | Talk 04:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC) ... Also, I gather that the Cybergeo article is a more complete version of you study? Yes

frederic giraut85.5.198.102 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think links should be in english; after all, this is the english wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer to follow the style guidelines than your personal preferences, and I've seen several articles regarding Middle Eastern issues that link to Hebrew-only sites.. Non-English links are fine for a citation if there are no suitable translations. Tarc 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward?

It seems that the most recent effort to find consensus on an article title has come to nothing ... much like all previous efforts. While disappointing, this is hardly surprising. The stalemate that has engulfed this page for well over a year shows no sign of abating, and is unlikely to be resolved by the current participants on this talk page.

I've been reluctant to contribute to this page in recent weeks, for the simple reason that I have no desire to become trapped in an endless series of discussions and negotiations that all participants know, or should know, will lead nowhere. These sorts of discussions are meaningless distractions when carried out by the likes of Olmert and Abbas, and are equally meaningless here. We need to find a different route.

To that end, I'd like to remind readers of the following ArbComm resolution, as determined during the 2006 discussions (not to be confused with the more recent round):

Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Proposed_decision#Negotiation

Given that the resolution requires parties to enter into good faith mediation if negotiations are unsuccessful, and given that negotiations on the name of the article have been going on for months without progress, I think it's fairly obvious that the time for binding mediation has arrived. Indeed, the language of the resolution seems to imply that this is not voluntary.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie 06:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. BYT (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article in question, 27 months ago, was Israeli apartheid, a title that was inappropriate without, as one of the arbs noted, a "liberal use of quotation marks". The current title in effect supplies those "quotation marks" via the appended "Allegations of", which incidentally changed the subject to what it now is and towards which the content has migrated. The title now accurately and in a NPOV fashion describes an encyclopedic subject, and those who can't stand it aren't going to like any other. Mediation is pointless and, at this remove, I am glad to say, need no longer be considered mandatory. Andyvphil (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with this logic; it's clearly the same article, notwithstanding the name change, and the ArbComm ruling is as applicable now as ever. CJCurrie (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Allegations of..." title is the mediated version as far as I am concerned, as that was the compromise that moved it from plain "Israeli Apartheid". The ArbCom ruling has been satisfied, and it is time to move on. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no such thing as "binding mediation". And since the title has changed and IMHO no longer violates any policy or guideline the 2006 arb decision is no longer germaine. If you disagree you'll just have to take it to arb again. LOL. Andyvphil (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

First I believe that to make the article more neutral we should put the emphasis on whether or not Israel is guilty of the crime of Apartheid. Moreover, simple facts should mostly make up this thread : Definition of the crime of Apartheid, Allegations of Israel apartheid in the UN, etc. That section should be at the start since it is easier to make it neutral and gives a historical backround to further analysis which are based on interpretations and suppositions.

There should also be a description of the war-crime defined as Apartheid by the U.N. And which portion applies to Israel(especially for each law discussed in the first section). If there has been such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution. And for each crime that could have been commited officially or allegedly, if it was "systematic" and "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a different article with a different title, and it rests on some planted axioms that are going to make NPOV very difficult to achieve. The very idea that Israel might be "guilty of the crime of Apartheid" rests on the (IMHO) falsehood that "apartheid" is a "crime" of which someone or some entity can be "guilty". Its definition was in fact an act of Third World/Soviet Bloc propaganda warfare directed first at ZA and redirected, when convenient, against Israel. And allegations that Israel is guilty of the UN-defined "crime of Apartheid" are only a portion of the subject of this article. Andyvphil (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we please quantify what it is (besides the article's existence) that is leading editors to support the POV tag up top?

We should identify exactly what the problems are, so we can work together to fix them.

Some version of this discussion took place a few months ago, but I'd like to reconnect on this based on the article's current (and no doubt flawed) embodiment. Thanks, BYT (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article's existence is enough of a reason to support the tag. IronDuke 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion. If that's the only thing we've got on the table, perhaps the tag needs to be removed. I feel certain there are content-based concerns, though, from you and from other editors. BYT (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's fair to say we feel differently. IronDuke 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you object to the existence, then there are mechanisms in place to address that. Wrongly using a POV tag that is meant to flag content issues is not the proper way to proceed. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is wrong to use a POV tag in the manner I suggest. Given how badly the AfD process was gamed in this instance (or how well, depending on your POV), I think having an indication at the top of the article that the article in question is problematic is the right thing to do. IronDuke 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke. I think this article is inherently POV, and if it is going to exist, should have a POV tag. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have observed this article get edited, debated, nominated for deletion many times, etc., and it's still a POV mess. Whether or not it's possible in theory to make it neutral, repeated and failed attempts have all failed. I think any attempt to get it deleted will be met with shrill accusations regardless of the arguments for such an action; there is certainly a well-founded basis for tagging it in violation of NPOV. As for specifics, read the various discussions about it. --Leifern (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag is for the content, not for the article's existence. There is no debate here, and if it is being used in appropriately, then it will be removed. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the POV tag is for content, which is why I think it's likely to stay. IronDuke 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me barging into the discussion without previous experience editing this article... but I can't see arguments against allegations of Israeli apartheid in this article. Shouldn't there be a counter-argument section (or sections)? Screen stalker (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PS - without that, this article shows only one side of a multi-faceted issue, which is clearly POV. Screen stalker (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New name

based on this: [1] this article should be named controversy about using the term Apartheid in the context of the Israeli-palestinian conflict Zeq (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit wordy, but it is accurate (assuming we fix the typos) and NPOV. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what NPOV is all about "Describe the controversy" Zeq (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The current name already describes the controversy accurately and neutrally. Please leave this poor, dead horse alone. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's really no such thing as a dead horse on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And consensus has been squarely against you in this. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

see this name: Controversy_about_Saudi-Arabian_textbooks - based on that this article should be named: controversy in the context of the Israeli-palestinian conflict --Zeq (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI. There has been considerable discussion of "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" as an option. If we move forward with the renaming discussion, this option is likely to be remain on the table because it has received a fair amount of support. HG | Talk 07:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, except for the fact that this topic does not fall within the scope of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as has been noted in past discussions. Zeq's current name suggestion is by far the worst I've seen here yet, as it drops "israeli apartheid" entirely. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Tarc is the only one objecting I think we should move ahead with the move. The example set in the articles about Palestinian textbooks as well as Saudi ones is critical. We can not continue to use names with "apartheid" in them for nothing but the south Africa apartheid. So I suggest we change to Controversy about Israel alleged policies Zeq (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Since Tarc is the only one objecting I think we should move ahead with the move." Laughable. But not funny. Andyvphil (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

About the same reaction I had. Broken Engrish aside, the name suggestion is simply atrocious. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming people are not serious about this. It's a parody of a title, not a title.BYT (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As serious as the examples listed above. Zeq (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zeq. Since you're interested in the renaming, I would appreciate your thinking about and then add your comment to the section above, Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#From presuppositions into Proposals (and the one preceding as background). Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Terms for Describing People

I think it would help to use neutral terms to describe people. Judging from the article, one of the first leading statesmen to use the term was the President of Uganda in 1975. Describing him as a dictator shows bias and in in this context is unencyclopedic. (It would be acceptable in an article on the governance of Uganda.) I personally think that President Carter was the second worst US President ever - but mentioning this just to discredit his use of a term would be just as unencyclopedic as calling the President of Uganda a dictator.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think the "dictator" is in pretty general usage regarding Amin (and I'll provide a source, one of many, many, quite soon). If we didn't use the word for someone like Amin, it would be meaningless. IronDuke 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

President Amin had syphilis too. But like his being a dictator, it is not relevant to a neutral POV article on this issue. When you include these things it can easily become pejorative: Syphilitic murderous dictator Idi Amin said... --Toddy1 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless his syph was so far advanced as to suggest that he was literally raving it is not relevant here. But we're not using Amin as a "reliable source" for the truth of his assertion. The absurdity of this notorious dictator pronouncing judgement on Israel in the context of the UN isn't some trick by pro-Israeli editors. It is precisely the point, and rightly so. Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Andy is correct as to his point about RS. I would also note, Toddy, that you have now shifted your argument from "he wasn't a dictator" to "what difference does it make if he was?" In any case, his having been a dictator is both verifiable and relevant. IronDuke 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, the last time I edited this article, I did not change "President" back to "dictator", instead I changed it to "military ruler and self-appointed President-for-life." This has the benefit of being both adequately descriptive (which "President" is not, in this case), and absolutely, indisputably true. Of course, that did not stop Suladna from reverting it anyway, along with his/her removals of all mention of David Duke. I can understand this, after all we would not want to suggest that any disreputable characters ever accused Israel of apartheid -- even if they did. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it relevant what David Duke says? Is he Israeli? Is he an Arab? Is he a world leader like Presidents Carter and Amin?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No I have not shifted my argument about President Amin. In this context it is not relevant whether he was a democratically elected leader like President Carter or a dictator like virtually every other African leader at the time. The use of the word "dictator" to describe him pejorative - i.e. not NPOV. It is much better to use neutral terms to describe people like Carter and Amin.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Duke is relevant because many, many people follow what he says on isues relating to Jews, either to support him or to combat him. Desmond Tutu is not an "Israeli", an "Arab", or a former "world leader" like Carter and Amin. Will you be removing mention of him from the article? IronDuke 17:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure which thread is about what anymore, because they have gotten mixed together. I think this section was started to talk about whether we describe Idi Amin as a "dictator", the next section is to talk about whether we mention David Duke, and the one after that has been started to discuss whether we mention Idi Amin's religion. It would probably be best if we keep them separate that way.

As for Idi Amin's dictator-hood, it is absolutely relevant. It provides pertinent information that a reader can use to evaluate Amin's statements (which is similar to what Tarc says a few sections down.) For the same reason, the see-also to Amin's persecution of his own people (often on the basis of race or ethnicity!) also is relevant. I don't think there is any question that Amin was a dictator and I don't understand why there is any debate about it. I do understand, however, that the NPOV policy often leads us to use "softer" words than might otherwise be warranted. (By the way, the source article describes Amin as a "murderous dictator.") It is for that reason that I inserted the description "military ruler and self-appointed President-for-life". It is undeniably true, it is consistent with Wikipedia's own article on Idi Amin, and it more-or-less gets the point across. To describe Amin simply as "President", using the same word we use for Jimmy Carter for example, is ridiculous. "President" implies some sort of democratic process. I think it should be left the way it is right now (not surprisingly, since I wrote it.) 6SJ7 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that some people consider the word president implied some sort of democratic process. Well, I suppose it takes all sorts.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

David Duke

Duke is a notable person, who has notable views on Jews and related issues. I can see no good reason not to include his views here. IronDuke 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of persons who have notable views on the subject. Many are prominent political and media figures, including anti-apartheid activists, Israelis and Palestinians from mainstream organisations. There is no need to include an obscure American bigots such as David Duke.

Judging from the history of this article, the only reason why he is included is because pro-hasbara editors want to use the ole' trick of guilt by association. Suladna (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

notability on this issue is somewhat difficult to establish. idi amin would seem as a more notable person... but a google search for idi amin [2] gives 20 times less resultes than a david duke search [3]. it seems fair to include duke despite the (to paraphrase) "pro-hasbara editors'...ole' trick of guilt by association". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

David Duke is actually a pretty prominent American bigot. He isn't obscure at all. His run for governor (about 15 years ago, I guess) made nationwide news, after he defeated the incumbent in the primary. He is more than notable enough for his support for this "Israeli apartheid" nonsense to rate a mention in this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Son of Sam was also a pretty prominent American guy. But that does not mean we should give his views too. Perhaps on articles on vegetarianism wikipedia should state that One of the most famous vegetarians in history was Adolf Hitler.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

on point, editors' claim about the anti semitics who are degrading the value of the claims (regardless if they have merit or not) is not a good reason to exclude notable anti-semitics from the article - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. we should remember to not overly expand on the subject per WP:TOPIC, but other than that, duke seems far more notable than the anti-zionist israeli fellow (of whom i never heard of) and just as notable as idi amin. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, this is getting ridiculous. Idi Amin was a president of a whole nation and Uri Davis is an israeli human rights activist who has written several books on the apartheid comparison. David "15 years ago I ran for governor" Duke who mentioned the apartheid comparison in half a sentence is no way as relevant as these two and has no place in the article. Suladna (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. You googled David Duke without quotation marks. Idi Amin doesn't give "20 times less" results - he actually gives more ([4],[5]). Suladna (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say... that David Duke is well known on issues relating to Jews is... well-known. I would urge you to read up on him a bit--he's still very much a force to be reckoned with. IronDuke 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article isn't about "Jews", it is about Israel. Equating Israel with the Jews is antisemitic. Are you an anti-semite? Suladna (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you should be aware that your remarks border on trolling. I understand that this issue is an emotional one, but it really helps if we try to keep the temperature down a bit. Yes, equating Israel and Jews is a favorite theme for antisemites, David Duke is an antisemite, and people like him will use Israel as a stand in for Jews if it helps further their cause. And he's far from the only one, sadly. IronDuke 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's about allegations that Israel is engaged in apartheid. Which Duke, a notable antisemite, did. It is worth mentioning that antisemites accuse Israel of apartheid even if all who accuse Israel of apartheid are not antisemites. And issues about Israel are certainly included in the category "issues relating to Jews", so your "question" is uncalled for and uncivil. Andyvphil (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Suladna, i apologize for the mistake. regardless, you've only proven that the ration is 1:0.8 instead of 1:20 in favour of duke... i don't quite see how an equal rate for both merits that we should remove the short mention about duke. to repeat myself, "editors' claim about the anti semitics who are degrading the value of the claims (regardless if they have merit or not) is not a good reason to exclude notable anti-semitics from the article - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT." Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

idi amin

i'm sure there will be some resistance to describing idi amin as 'muslim', but i consider it to be a notable issue in the arab-israeli conflict. subsection open to hear your points. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, let us examine why "self-appointed President-for-life" is used as a descriptor. Amin was a critic of Israel, one who leveled this apartheid charge. Pointing out that he was a leader who assumed dictatorial- control of his country is done to mitigate that criticism by pointing out the unsavoriness of a non-democratically elected leader criticizing a democratic state. And rightly so, in my opinion; its like impugning the credibility of a witness on the stand by pointing out his past crimes. This information provides a context to Amin's criticism to the reader.

Now, why would "devout Muslim" be necessary to the text? What value is that information, in the context of criticizing Israel, to understanding Amin's criticism of Israel? It would seem to me an attempt to show that a "devout Muslim" is as suspect an Israeli critic as a dictator is. I believe that that is a very wrong message to send to the reader, that it makes being a "devout Muslim" into a negative characteristic. Even on Amin's own article, the only significance that being a Muslim has to his history is that it apparently allowed him to live in Saudi Arabia in exile. If it is barely a blip there, then it is certainly not germane to this topic. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarc is 100% right. (And that's not a sentiment I've frequently expressed, I think.) IronDuke 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on what has been said so far, I do not see how his religion is relevant. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Me, neither. BYT (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Amin's anti-Zionism may have been connected to his religion (see Anti-Zionism#Muslim_anti-Zionism) and if research reveals that to have been alleged we should mention it. But show me the cite first. The only evidence in his article that he was a "devout Muslim" is the note that he "joined an Islamic school in Bombo in 1941, where he excelled in reciting the Qur'an", and as far as I know his persecutions were ethnic rather than religious. So I deleted the "devout Muslim" business from the lead there incidental to mentioning his stay in Libya. No one's put it back. Andyvphil (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

...but it turns out TIME did say he was discriminating in favor of Moslims, so I've quoted that. Andyvphil (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Olmert: Collapse of two-state solution will lead to South African-style struggle

From the article:

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.

"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert said, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html --Cerasitans (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is covered elsewhere in the media as well. --Cerasitans (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an AP story just on the comparison that Olmert made:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published Thursday that creation of a Palestinian state is a vital Israeli interest, and that failure to reach a peace agreement could plunge Israel into a South African-style apartheid struggle.

Such a scenario, he said, would mean "the state of Israel is finished."

While Olmert has long said that the region's demography is working against Israel, the comments published in Haaretz were among his strongest as he prepares a skeptical public for the renewed peace talks launched at this week's conference in Annapolis, Md.

His reference to apartheid was particularly explosive because Israeli officials have long rejected any comparison to the racist system once in place in South Africa.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jD4YSkDPlclqd9dHvg2f0Ij18zEgD8T79TR80

--Cerasitans (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another, this one entitled "Olmert: Failure Will Sink Israel Into Apartheid." http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3929618

Also in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency here:

He added that American Jews would be the first to abandon an Israel that practices apartheid-like policies in a bid to maintain Jewish primacy.

"They will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents," Olmert said.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105600.html

--Cerasitans (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with this article. If you look at what Olmert is actually quoted as saying (and not the paraphrases by journalists), it appears that he did not use the word "apartheid." Even if what he said might be interpreted as meaning "apartheid", he was talking about the potential result of hypothetical future events that he is warning against. The articles you have linked-to are very interesting, however. They demonstrate how several different writers can take the exact same quote and twist and turn it in several different ways, to mean different things. It's fine for a talk page, but unfortunately this sort of thing tends to leak into articles as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He said that the status quo without a two-state solution is an Israel that "does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents." From that perspective, what he said is sadder than a simple apartheid comparison, he described in detail what we in this article merely refer to using the shorthand "apartheid". He went further than you, he just outright stated that Israel isn't at the moment a democracy nor does it have equal voting rights for all its residents. I admire Olmert's honesty and I do understand his motivation: he is saying this to scare, and rightly so, the Israeli right into accepting the compromises necessary to achieve a two-state solution. I hope it works. --Cerasitans (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... no he didn't say that. You omit both the "If the day comes..."(future indefinate) and the ""They will say..."(they, not Olmert) from your interpretation. Yes, if Israel annexes the West Bank and doesn't allow Palestinians to vote... But he's warning, not confessing. Andyvphil (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The only conditional in his comparison is this: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses." It is only the hope of progress towards a two-state solution, a hope that doesn't change any of the current facts on the ground (who has voting rights, etc) , that is the conditional in that sentence. --Cerasitans (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil and I often disagree on this page, but in this case he is correct. Olmert was speaking about a hypothetical future in which Israel would include the West Bank and possibly Gaza as well (and concluding that such an Israel would be non-viable, because it would either cease to be a Jewish state, or it would have to deny voting rights to a portion of its population.) He was not talking about what currently exists. Cerasitans, you are free to interpret his statement in your own way, but the purpose of this page is to discuss the article, and your interpretation does not belong in the article. So what are we talking about? I do find it interesting that the only edits you have ever made to Wikipedia are on this section of this talk page. That might lead one to suspect that perhaps you have previously made other edits under other account names. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, the thought crosses my mind that if the article were called Analogy between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, there wouldn't be any need for this discussion as to the relevance of Olmert's remarks. CJCurrie 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be equally irrelevant. The article still wouldn't be about something that might possibly hypothetically happen in the future, if something else happened in the future. Plus, he didn't say "apartheid." Notwithstanding Cerasitans' professed belief that we can use the word "apartheid" as a shorthand, the last time I checked, they hadn't abolished the rule against original research. 6SJ7 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how shrill and dismissive your comments seem? Olmert was clearly drawing an analogy between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, in the context of musing over a hypothetical turn of events. He didn't argue that Israel was practicing apartheid, and we shouldn't distort his words to suggest that he did, but neither should we pretend they aren't germane to the broader topic. CJCurrie 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrill? I barely made a sound. He was drawing an analogy between some of what happened in South Africa, and a potential future Israel that he was warning should NOT be allowed to come into existence. In other words, the analogy is with "Not-Israel." So if you look at it in terms of what does exist, he was drawing a distinction, not an analogy. 6SJ7 02:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite my reading of his comments, but it doesn't really matter. Olmert was drawing an analogy between the trajectories and evolving political situations of the two nations: an analogy does not imply an exact parallel, and his comments are clearly relevant. CJCurrie 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

relevant - of course but it is a potential future Israel that he was warning should NOT be allowed to come into existence. How much wight do we usually give to such warnings in an enclopedia. Should we add his viwes about and Iranian A-bomb to the Iran article ? his views on the palestinian refugee issues ???? 06:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a one sentence reference is undue weight. Beyond which, Olmert's views on Iran and the refugee issue *are* notable (although the Iran article is probably not the right place to mention the former). CJCurrie 07:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

South Africa connection

I have no problem with the article mentioning concrete connections with apartheid S Africa, as this is relevant to the topic (although not in any sense evidence of Israel being an apartheid state). However, it should not go in the lede. If anyone is tempted to revert it back in again, please justify here and reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this about the "...supplying arms and nuclear technology" bit? I really don't see how that is relevant. The issue here is the accusation that Israel's present actions regarding the separation wall, status of Gaza and the West Bank, etc... are comparable to S. Africa's system of apartheid. Not sure I see where the issue of nuclear arms fits into this, in the lead or anywhere else. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. There was a ZA-IL alliance of conveniance and it no doubt played a part in inspiring the allegations. I thought we mentioned that already somewhere. Should be sourced, of course. And not important enough to be in the lead, I think. Certainly not the way it was inserted. "It is well known..." Sheesh. Andyvphil (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can source the "...played a part in inspiring the allegations" assertion, then there is a great degree of doubt. Tarc 13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reduce quotes - Olmert

Supply a better rephrasal; criticise particulars; suggestions; instead of just reverting please. (unsigned, Asgrrr, 10:06, 1 December 2007)

Replacing with a paraphrase is not the idea behind the tag. Not that I conceed the tag is correct, either. Andyvphil 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put back the quote by Olmert deleted by Jaakobou. It seems highly pertinent to know the exact words, rather than a watered down version.

On November 29 2007, similarly Olmert warned of the end of Israel in case a two-state solution is not eventually found for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, drawing comparisons with the end of Apartheid in South Africa. ^[1]

Olmert made a similar remark in November 2007:
"If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished."^[2]^[3]

--Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

i think it's undue and somewhat out of context, but i won't insist on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the way the quotes (2004 and 2007) are handled right now is not so bad, although more of the 2007 quote should be in there because it explains why he thinks it would be the "end of Israel" and in what sense he thinks Israel would be "finished." I am not going to do that right now. I do think the paraphrase above, saying that he was "drawing comparisons with the end of Apartheid in South Africa", is completely wrong. Fortunately that sentence is not currently in the article. In fact he was drawing a comparison with the beginning of apartheid in South Africa, not the end. 6SJ7 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who Was Whose Ally

Jaakobou has made an edit inserting that the USSR was a Cold War Ally of the enemies of Israel. I am not really sure that it is pertinent, but if we accept that it is, then it must also be pertinent that when the US Ambassador criticised President Amin, the US was Israel's ally and financial backer. Either both are relevant, or neither are.--Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrected wording in response to a request by Jaakobou--Toddy1 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Structure of this article

If this were a normal article about a political catch-phrase, then the origins of the article would be very clearly placed at the top of the article.

However as President Amin of Uganda is a deeply unfashionable political figure these day, he is relegated to the bottom along with some minor US politician, who is only quoted as it helps discredit the phrase.

Personally I think this is a terrible article. The reason it is so bad, is that the people writing it are too involved in the subject to be objective.

To turn this into a good article, it should lead with a section identifying the circumstances in which the phrase was first used, a quote from President Amin's speech, references to the UN resolution, etc. (If this was put into context it would show just how cynical Amin and the other African leaders were.) The next part should explain who resurrected Amin's phrase and why. Only then should it go into the question of whether the comment is fair (which unfortunately is most of the article) --Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The main reason it is a terrible article is that it isn't about anything but name-calling and reactions to name-calling -- a situation which, I think, your suggestion would only make worse. Plus I think your suggestion would aggravate the "original synthesis" problem that already pervades this whole article. 6SJ7 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about some political catch-phrase or a pick-up game in calling names, but about a well established fact concerning the present and clear official Israeli policy related to minorities, even if the title suggests otherwise, and severeal editors conveniently insist on keeping the word "allegations" just for this one single reason - to discredit the merit of the article on which it focuses. The quotes by Idi Amin or David Duke are cheap shots and by no means shouldn't be included in here. To establish the validity of analogy to apartheid in Israel one needs more than just quotes from some hotheads. For example, Jimmy Carter fully explained in his book why he's using this phrase to justify the title of the book, and the book wasn't about this particular name but about the practicing of apartheid in Israel. And this article is, or at least it supposed to be, also about the apartheid-like policy in Israel, not about the political ping-pong in calling names. Instead of crying all you need to do is: ask to strike the "allegations" word in the title and then you can challenge anyone - show me that there is such a thing like an Israeli apartheid! Half of the article will have to go by then - all this trash including statements by Idi Amin at el, but let me tell you something: they don't want to see this trash go and want to keep this title as is. This way the wishiwashers may always claim - if there is some contamination in the article, everything is contaminated and garbage. I only wonder why ArbCom let this "allegations" article stay for so long? This is disgrace to Wikipedia. Yes, it is. greg park avenue 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See genetic fallacy <eleland/talkedits> 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed Greg's latest comment previously. As a matter of fact, this article is solely about a political name-calling catch phrase. It is not about any policy at all, but rather about an epithet applied by some people to a policy, or rather, a combination of policies. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

This page is roughly a million kilobytes long and there isn't a single picture in the entire thing! Can someone rustle up some images - any images? Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A fitting picture can be found here. It shows John Vorster, prime minister of apartheid South Africa, on his visit to Israel. He speaks with israeli leaders Yitzak Rabin, Menachem Begin and Moshe Dayan. Suladna (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to get too philosophical here, but how can you have a picture of something that does not exist? As for the photo that Suladna describes, it seems ridiculously inappropriate for this article. Among other things, it would only add to the "original synthesis" problem that plagues this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Do we mention Voerster in Israel in maintext? That objection wouldn't apply to this one. Andyvphil (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that a photo of Idi Amin? If so, fine with me. This article is already a bad joke, that would make it into an even worse joke. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Idi Amin at the UN, no less. It blows up nicely. Andyvphil (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What about this picture: Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg? Also a joke? If so, the Image:Berlinermauer.jpg must be a pretty bad joke too by such standards. greg park avenue (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the first question, I'd say that would be "undue weight" if nothing else. As for the second question, with the photo of the Berlin Wall, are you actually comparing a wall designed to keep people prisoner in their own country, to a barrier designed to keep terrorists out? I find that mind-boggling. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you put the Carter's "undue weight" as a counterbalance to the statements made by white supremacists, then you might be right. But you might be wrong when implying that the apartheid wall in Israel is being built to keep the terrorists out only. I would say, such walls are designed for keeping wanted persons in and unwanted persons out in first place, they're common especially in occupied zones/territories as East/West Berlin once was, and that's why we call them apartheid walls. greg park avenue (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not need images (except perhaps spiteful cartoons). It is a misconception that every Wikipedia article needs one or several decorative images. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, not a childrens book. --Ezeu (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think Ezeu put it best. Ditto that. IronDuke 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am generally pro-image where Wikipedia is concerned, but only when the article lends itself to pictures. This one probably doesn't. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moynihan / Amin quotes

The following text is at issue: In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1975, Idi Amin Dada, then head of the Organisation of African Unity and self-appointed President for Life of Uganda, accused Israel of committing apartheid. The US ambassador criticized President Amin as someone "scarcely qualified to cast the first stone" inasmuch as he had expelled Uganda's Asian population and murdered Ugandans of many tribes while promoting fellow Muslims and tribesmen.[6][7]

The first reference is an opinion editorial from Joel Pollak in Business Day, ZA's main financial newspaper. Besides the fact that it begins with a false smear of somebody else, the only information relevant to our article is the writer's claim, "the first person to compare Israel to apartheid SA at the UN [was] Idi Amin Dada, the murderous dictator of Uganda, who made the comparison in a speech to the General Assembly in 1975. Shortly thereafter, the Arab states pushed through the infamous UN resolution equating Zionism with racism". Nothing about the response, nothing about how bad Amin was. It adds very little since it's such a poor quality source, too.

The second reference is a contemporaneous TIME story, which states:

"Daniel P. Moynihan ... found himself embroiled in his first major diplomatic brawl since becoming U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations three months ago. Publicly squared off against him initially were U.N. representatives of numerous African states, who were furious at what they regarded as his rude attack on Uganda's President Idi Amin Dada and, by implication, on other black African leaders as well ... The Africans were angered by a weekend speech that Moynihan gave at the AFL-CIO convention in San Francisco. There, he sharply denounced the bizarre anti-U.S. address that Amin had delivered to the General Assembly two days earlier, in which Big Daddy had also demanded 'the extinction of Israel as a state'"

This is all very interesting, but nothing in the article discusses the apartheid allegation. In fact, Moynihan is quoted "insisting that Amin had started [the furor] when 'he slandered and blasphemed the American people by saying that we let the country be run by Zionists.'". So if anywhere, this reference might be relevant at some page about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, but not to this page. <eleland/talkedits> 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are being misleading. The Pollack article doesn't "begin with a false smear", it begins with accurate reporting on the origin of a myth (the "Mandela letter"). I am less convinced of the accuracy of the statement that Amin was the first to accuse Israel of apartheid, but the cite does establish that Amin did make the allegation in his speech before the UN and it has been used in the article for a looong time for that purpose. The Amin allegation is quite famous -- probably the most famous, before Carter's -- so it should not be difficult to replace Pollack for that purpose if you wish to.

And, yes, one of the main reasons the Amin allegation is famous is that it has been useful to the pro-Israeli side to tar the allegation side with its association with a genocidal murderer. But, then, the whole point of the allegation itself is to tar the Israelis with an association with Apartheid ZA. Such is the way with propaganda. That's our subject here. The title of the article is Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and Amin is not being quoted for the weight he lends to or subtracts from the allegation.

Moynihan's criticism of Amin for having the temerity to criticize others when Amin was himself a "racist murderer" is irrelevant to Amin's allegation of Israeli apartheid only if you parse Moynihan as saying its unseemly for racist murderers to accuse the US of being run by Zionists but ok for them to make allegations against Israel. This bizarre interpretation has never been seen outside Wikipedia. And the Time article does not adopt it. It says, indeed, "...he sharply denounced the bizarre anti-U.S. address that Amin had delivered to the General Assembly two days earlier..." but doesn't adopt the strange notion that it was only anti-US sentiments that Moynihan was objecting to. It continues "...in which Big Daddy had also demanded 'the extinction of Israel as a state'". Nor is there any question that when Moynihan referred to the ~"in the range of two dozen democracies in the UN"~ being assailed for being democracies that was counting Israel in that number. The idea that Moynihan can be quoted on Amin in Assertions that Israel should be destroyed but not in Allegations of Israeli apartheid is POV-obtunded absurdity. Andyvphil (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, Amin is being quoted because he is an unsavory character. This fact is already established, and piling on a counter-quote by Moynihan or anyone else is simply unnecessary. Go clutter up Idi Amin's article with it if you really wish, as it does not have a place here. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the quote as it is supports Israeli Apartheid. Any quote that is brought that is not neutral must be clearly defined as such especially in this case where unneutrality of the character is flagrant. The attempts to say it indirectly just bring unnecessary facts that can be found on the Admin Dada page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

^ . Haaretz. 2007-11-29 Warns of end of Israel http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html Warns of end of Israel. Retrieved 2007-11-30. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7118937.stm Olmert warns of 'end of Israel', BBC News, 29 November 2007, 14:54 GMT.
^ . Haaretz. 2007-11-29 Warns of end of Israel http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html Warns of end of Israel. Retrieved 2007-11-30. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] . Haaretz. 2007-11-29 Warns of end of Israel http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html Warns of end of Israel. Retrieved 2007-11-30. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7118937.stm Olmert warns of 'end of Israel', BBC News, 29 November 2007, 14:54 GMT.

[3] . Haaretz. 2007-11-29 Warns of end of Israel http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html Warns of end of Israel. Retrieved 2007-11-30. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]