Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Is this an article about Israel?

Topic of a banned sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reading this article, I find out that I don't read about Israel, but about the Palestinian territories, a territory that have never been defined as part of Israel neither by the Israeli authorities nor by the international community. Considering that the area has been subject to ongoing harsh conflict for decades, a conflict that reached new peaks of violence during the early 2000s, I fail to see where the apartheid analogy exists at all. Most sources mentioned in this article are pro-Palestinians. Palestinians have said over the years that there was no Jewish nation, that Israel should be wiped up and all kind of statements which they late revoked (at least their mainstream leadership). So today the buzz word is "apartheid", so what? What does it have to do with conveying reliable information? Do we have a special article about anti-women apartheid in Saudi Arabia and Iran? Do we have articles about anti-White apartheid in Zimbabwe? Do we have an article about the Iranian allegations that the US is a satanic nation? This article mislead its readers twice: first it present the WB&G as part of Israel, then it brings pro-Palestinian resources as if they were neutral. Sorry to say that, but that's a really bad work. Nacnikparos (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the assertions that many have made regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians and the subject of their rights (or lack thereof) as compared to Israel's Jewish population, and the comparisons of said treatment to South African apartheid. Anything more you read into it is a product of your own bias. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Nacnikparos has been blocked as a sock of Drork. nableezy - 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New section

This article is clearly bad-written from many aspects. I introduced some minor changes to make it more accurate, but they were repeatedly reverted. Is that the way you normally treat fact accuracy on WP? Quesilophonosis (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your wording seems very WP:POV, that's why it's getting reverted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, please don't use jargon. It is not appropriate to send me to read long articles, while you can use simple words like "politically biased" or "opinionated". Secondly, I find it really hard to understand how you reached your conclusions. The article does not discuss the situation in Israel proper. There are Israeli Palestinians and non-Israeli Palestinians, depending on whether they live in Israel proper or in territories it took over in 1967. This distinction is endorsed by the international community, otherwise the annexation of East Jerusalem would not have been regarded as a problem. Secondly, the article expresses an opinion that East Jerusalem should be deemed part of the West Bank. This is not acceptable on many countries like Israel, the UK, the US and others. Israel deem East Jerusalem as part of its territory. The UK and the US regard Jerusalem as a territory that does not currently belong to any country. Thirdly, the apartheid analogy is a habit of pro-Palestinian organizations. Only few neutral observers ever made this analogy. This is also not clear from the article. Quesilophonosis (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
This link [1] does not discuss Israel at all, so it is hardly relevant. This [2] links to a pro-Palestinian site that campaigns against Israel. It quotes pro-Palestinian organizations. The fact that they convened in a UN building in Geneva does not make them neutral. Quesilophonosis (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

International law section

I noticed that the article had two sections both covering international law with some duplication of points, so I merged them together into a new section called "International Law". However, I think the content of this section needs work.

  • At a superficial level, the formatting of the references needs improving. We don't need comments in the footnotes say "see article X and Y". We should have a properly-formatted reference for each source, and cite them both in the article.
  • I also think that some passages in this section may have issues with WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. For the article to say that the Crime of Apartheid is not limited to a comparison to previous apartheid regimes, we need a source that says exactly this. Preferably, the citation should give a quote saying this, so it's clear to editors that this is not OR. It's possible that I'm mistaken about the OR, but it's hard to tell because the way the sourcing is done without quotes or even page numbers.
  • The whole first paragraph appears to be making only a single point, and should be shortened. The second paragraph then appears to make exactly the same point all over again. Presumably, this background point can be made in just a couple of sentences rather than two paragraphs, leaving more room for describing sources that suggest that Israel is in violation of the Crime of Apartheid. Overall, the WP:WEIGHT of the parts of this section is all wrong. It should very briefly lay out the background regarding the Crime of Apartheid (preferably in only a 2-3 sentences), and then spend much more time on sources that actually discuss Israel and apartheid, the topic of this article, going over their reasons for why they think a violation is happening. Less background, more point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd add that we should avoid too much detail and naming of particular points of the law, as these are fairly impenetrable to lay readers. We should favour readable overviews based on secondary sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked through all the sources cited in this section. The good news is that most of the points made in the section, including those that look at first blush to be OR, appear to actually be made in one source or another. So the material does not need to be scrapped wholesale. The bad news is that the sources are very poorly matched against the text, so that statements in any given passage may not be supported by the reference given against it, but may be supported by another used elsewhere. So it's a mess. Additionally, all the other criticisms that I made above still stand, it's an unwieldy and poorly weighted section with bad formatting, and some of the references are totally borked. At least one reference lists one source, but then links to another source by the same author, and the relevant content is in the linked source not the named one. I'm hoping to find time to rewrite this whole section, I think it's badly flawed but redeemable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is really pretty simple, the crime of apartheid was not originally defined as an analogy to South Africa. The convention included similar policies and practices as those that were practiced in the whole of Southern Africa. Nowadays it can include almost any inhuman act imaginable and its definition is devoid of any geographical connotations. Many of the the sources cited in the article do not use the terms "analogy" or "Africa". Many of them explicitly state that they are discussing violations of international law. The section on international law would be completely unnecessary except for the stubborn insistence of a few editors to employ the WP:COATRACK "uses of the analogy" to inappropriately re-frame the worldview of an entire article.
The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (30 November 1973, A/RES/3068 (XXVIII) always stipulated that certain acts of genocide also qualify as apartheid (if they are committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.) At one point in time, a panel of UN experts considered declaring apartheid as a special instance of genocide for general procedural purposes. However, no UN organ ever reported violations of the genocide convention or its parallel, article 2(b) of the Apartheid convention, in South Africa or Southern Africa.
The Additional Protocol I to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 says that apartheid can be considered a war crime when the required connection exists to an armed conflict. For example, on page 20 of his report (A/HRC/4/17) Dugard said "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report." Some of the "actions described in this report" were military incursions, shellings, and war crimes: "The indiscriminate use of military power against civilians and civilian targets has resulted in serious war crimes." (page 2) and "Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale. While individual criminal accountability is important, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the violation of peremptory norms of international law in its actions against the Palestinian people should not be overlooked." (page 3)
Since 1994 prosecution of crimes against humanity no longer requires a connection to an armed conflict. Inhuman acts similar to, but not specifically listed in the Rome Statute, can be included in an indictment for the crime of apartheid under Article 7, Crimes against humanity, 2.(h). harlan (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not the meaning of the content of this section that's problematic, it's the way its written and the problems with misplaced and incorrect referencing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section to better reflect the sources, be more readable, and have better referencing. For those interested, my drafting is available here and my review of the sources is here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Uses of the Analogy" subsection

This section presents multiple WP:OR and WP:Synth issues. It cites sources which do not mention "Africa" or "the analogy" as examples of "uses of the analogy". For example, the former Attorney General of Israel, Michael Ben-Yair, is discussing violations of treaties, but doesn't mention the analogy or Africa

"We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."[3]

This subsection uses a magazine article that mentions Ronnie Kasrils and quotes Salim Vally to introduce "the analogy", but they are discussing Israel's violations of international law. That fact is trimmed-off of the cherry-picked portion of the "This Magazine" article used in the summary. Here is the whole quote:

The idea of Israeli apartheid emerged in the final years of the white South African regime. According to Vally, ex-patriot Palestinians supportive in toppling that regime drew the link between Israel and South Africa, which intensified in the early 1990s. “There was a widespread view,” he recalls, “that Israel needed to be isolated in the same way apartheid South Africa was and for the same reasons-its intransigence, its violation of international law.”

That is not a casual comparison. Here is an article that mentions Ronnie Kasrils, Salim Vally, the HSRC study, and John Dugard in connection with the filing of formal charges, including the crime of apartheid, against a South African IDF officer who provided legal advice in target selection during operation Cast Lead "Charges Laid against Israeli Officer in South Africa"[4] harlan (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That link no. 60 is dead. BTW, are these three people and one organization the only ones accusing Israel of apartheid? This is hardly a large group. Quesilophonosis (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Palestine Chronicle link works for me. According to the article the officer had been credited with giving the Israeli army the go-ahead for the use of white phosphorous. The case was filed by Professor Farid Esack, and Palestine Solidarity Committee members with the Police in Brixton based upon the Rome Statute of 2002 and South Africa’s Criminal Court Act 27 of the same year. The HSRC is the statutory research organ of the South African Parliament. The article mentions several organizations including the Palestine Solidarity Alliance, the Media Review Network, and the South African NGO initiative. The article says that the NGO Initiative hired Professor Dugard and Professor Max du Plessis to assist with the case.

Dugard has served as a Judge on the International Court of Justice, as a Special Rapporteur for United Nations on Human Rights, and as a Special Rapporteur on the International Law Commission. Here is a Tikun Olam article which explains that the ICC is interested in the IDF officer's case. "International Criminal Court to Investigate IDF Officer" [5] + the Newsweek article cited by Tikun Olam [6] harlan (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that an organization is South African does not contradict the fact that it is pro-Palestinian. Usually it is okay to bring one-side's opinion, but you have to properly attribute it, and bring the other side's reaction/opposing opinion next to it. These are basic rules of fair writing. As for the white phosphors, what does it has to do with anything? You are talking about possible violation of the laws of war during exchange of fire. This is a bit like saying that the Palestinian policy of using suicide bombers is an apartheid against Jews. Quesilophonosis (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
PS - Link no. 60 works for you probably because you have subscription. It is a privilege not enjoyed by everyone here. Quesilophonosis (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The link works for me, and I am not a subscriber.here must be soething in your settings, or at your server, that is blocking it. RolandR (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:PAYWALL says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible."
There is a big difference between being anti-Apartheid and being pro-Palestinian. Neither has any direct relationship on the reliability of a source. Michael Ben-Yair is trained in law, and he is not Pro-Palestinian. His views are certainly not properly described or attributed. He is simply a member of a fabricated Wikipedia list that labels him as a person who uses the analogy.
Any inhuman act, including the use of white phosphorus can be included in the crime of apartheid. John Dugard wrote an article at the UN Treaty Organization which explains that Additional Protocol I to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 recognized apartheid as a “grave breach” of the Protocol without any geographical connections. The same protocol defines grave breaches as war crimes. [7] In Dugards report on the situation in the OPT, A/HRC/4/17, of 29 January 2007 he described the shelling of civilian areas in Gaza, and military incursions there as a form of collective punishment, and war crimes. He concluded his overall observations by asking "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report." harlan (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, are you preparing a lawsuit against me? If not, do without these lawyer-like phrases. If you want to convince me you're right, bring me a source I can read. If what you say is true, than "Apartheid" practically means anything. This means that Hamas is engaged in Apartheid against Israelis, Iran is engaged in Apartheid against Sunni, Baha'i, Christians and Kurds, French is engaged in dress-Apartheid against Muslim women, and the list is long. Dugards reports do not reflect the UN position (according to the UN rules). He preaches for a multinational state in lieu of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He clearly has a political agenda. You cannot cite him as if he were a factual source. He has his opinions. Okay. People have opinions. Opinions are not facts, even when preached by South African judges. Quesilophonosis (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
About Michael Ben Yair's article - (1) It is an opinion, it doesn't cite facts. It is not written a legal opinion or factual report, it reflects its writer's opinion. (2) The fact that a former Israeli senior civil servant writes such an article, and publish it on one of the three major Israeli newspapers, is a prove of freedom of speech and self criticism on the Israeli arena. Not exactly the dark regime you described above. (3) When a parent tells his son "If you'll do it again I'll kill you", he doesn't really mean he's going to kill his offspring. Therefore, you should be very careful about the conclusion you draw from such an article. It is very likely that Ben Yair exaggerated his words on purpose in order to enhance the public impact. To sum it all up - don't use this source for this article. It does not add anything. Quesilophonosis (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Your analysis of Michael Ben Yair's statement is an example of the WP:Synth problem that I'm discussing here. Of course the opinion of an Attorney General of Israel is relevant whenever he says Israel has ignored international conventions and imposed a cruel and injurious regime that in effect amounts to apartheid in the occupied territories. Get real.

Dugard's report says that it was submitted in order to implement a UN mandate contained in A/RES/60/251 [8] That resolution requires the Human Rights Council to maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure. It also contains a decision which says that the Council should act to prevent and address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. Can you provide a source which says the findings in Dugard's report weren't considered official? harlan (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[Link no. 60 -> I've archived the page in WebCite: transparent URL: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpalestinechronicle.com%2Fview_article_details.php%3Fid%3D15348&date=2010-04-24; short URL: http://www.webcitation.org/5pEhoYu6o. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)]
In this interview with Al-Jazeera [9] Dugard admits his reports were not endorsed by the UN. He also talks about the legitimacy of Hamas rule in Gaza and other issues that reveal the inherent bias in his reports. Quesilophonosis (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked if you could provide a source which said Dugard's report wasn't official. The Al-Jazeera article doesn't mention that; the need for additional UN endorsements; or the lack thereof. The CERD panel of experts concluding observations a few months later cited a half dozen areas where Israel's policies and practices where not in line with its obligations under article 3 of the ICERD.[10] Dugard seems to be commenting at length about the Quartet's legitimacy. But I didn't see any comments regarding the legitimacy of Hamas in the interview. He says that the Quartet fails to communicate with Hamas in Gaza and that Hamas has to be included in the negotiations.
On page 6 of his report Dugard explained that his mandate did not include the violation of human rights caused by the PNA or the political conflict between Fatah and Hamas. That is no accident. The UN has blocked Palestine's attempts to accede to the relevant human rights and humanitarian rights conventions which form the legal basis of the HRC's own mandate. In addition, the Security Council has not recommended Palestine's admission as a UN member state. In the recent Kosovo case several interested parties, including permanent members, expressed the view that the Security Council cannot legally bind non-state entities as a matter of principle. See footnote 37 on page 44 of Court Record CR 2009/24 [11]
Dugard did report on the violations of applicable customary norms that apply to non-contracting or non-state parties when they engage in armed conflicts. For example, he mentions the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel on pages 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 21 of his report. He said "Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel." harlan (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversions

RolandR reverted my edits which I explained here in details. On his talkpage he says: "This user recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return." and "This user is an anti-Zionist." I don't argue with his opinions, nor deny his freedom of speech. I even admire him for being honest and fair. I am, however, entitled to wonder whether his insistence to reject my edits has to do with his political opinions. I would like to point out again that my edits has to do with facts and facts only: (1) All allegations in this article refer to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza which are not recognized as part of Israel. (2) Almost all people and organizations that use the term apartheid in their criticism against Israel are either Palestinian or pro-Palestinians. This is asserted in the article itself (look at the sources!). Quesilophonosis (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There are sources cited in the article which say that Israel is an apartheid state. Your argument about the West Bank and Gaza doesn't hold much water either. South Africa created Transkei, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana in order to remove blacks from the South African population registry. Israel used the Oslo process in an attempt to legitimize its colonization of the West Bank and Gaza. It has settled hundreds of thousands of its citizens there and absorbs the land, but not the people in a process Ariel Sharon described as Bantuization. harlan (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL Harlan of all the things I have seen you say... this is one of the highlights. Israel made huge concessions in Oslo and removing/freezing settlements was not one of its requirements. What promise did the Palestinians fulfill in Oslo? Starting the 2nd Intifada? An attempt to legitimize colonization... hahaha such bullshit it's not even worth discussing. This is your own WP:OR and in fact a violation of WP:SOAP because it has nothing to do with the article at hand. That is, unless you are proposing we enter that text in the article. Do you have a source? The same thing goes for your claim about Sharon and Bantuization, which is categorically false. Breein1007 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from above) A couple of Ha'aretz articles by Akiva Eldar concerning Ariel Sharon and his enthusiasm for a Bantustan solution to the Palestinian problem: Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope; Sharon's dream.     ←   ZScarpia   11:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC) (has someone attempted to put a template:hab collapse template on this section?)
Your interesting analysis is YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION. Somehow you have some difficulties to differentiate your personal opinions from those of other. It also reflects on the way you interpret other people's opinion, see the case of Ben Yair. Interestingly enough, your direct the blame at me, probably in order to distract other editors' here from your manipulation. Now, are you claiming that the Palestinian Authority is a Bantustan? Are you claiming that Yaser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad were/are all Israeli puppets? Interesting thought, only I saw a claim of yours arguing that Palestine was a state led by these very leaders. Interesting indeed. Apparently, being consistent is not a rule well kept on Wikipedia. As for Dugard, he reported about Apartheid without submitting any factual ground to his claims (unless you regard Apartheid as any act of violence, which is nice, but not very helpful). I am not surprised then, that there is no single document that says the the UN actually endorsed his report. The whole discussion here is a bit fishy. Your edits on WP are almost entirely anti-Israeli, with a lot of personal analyses and misquotes. Other editors here declare themselves to be anti-Zionist and seem to ignore any suggestion to make the tone of this article less argumentative and more to-the-point. Quesilophonosis (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Breein1007 and Quesilophonosis, there is no original research involved. "No to apartheid, to save Zionism", Le Monde, 1 February 2002 explains that Ben Yair's position is pro-Zionist, not pro-Palestinian. The former editor of the New York Times, Joseph Lelyveld, cited the use of the term apartheid as a plausible if somewhat contentious way of characterizing the occupation of the territories: "a description of what the occupation already was or might become." He mentioned Ben Yair's use of the term as an example which described the occupation regime that he said began on “the seventh day” of the Six-Day War. See Jimmy Carter and Apartheid in the New York Review [12]
Henry Siegman's article in the Nation [13] says that Israel has crossed the threshold from "the only democracy in the Middle East" to the only apartheid regime in the Western world. It also recounts a helicopter ride with Ariel Sharon over the West Bank where the plans to use settlements to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state were spelled-out in great detail.
Pages 76-80 of the HSRC report contain a section which analyzes whether or not the Oslo Accords pass muster as "special agreements" governed by Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Geneva Convention. The HSRC concludes that they do not because they recognize unlawful prior practices and, through the allocation of jurisdiction and authorities, attempt to enable or ratify a continuation of those violations. Here is a relevant extract:

Article 2(d) of the Apartheid Convention and the history of South African Homelands (Bantustans) raise the question of whether establishing an ‘independent’ state (homeland) for the Palestinian people in only part of the OPT could be corollary to the racial enclave policy for which apartheid South Africa was notorious. Nominal independence in the Homelands was presented by the South African government as expressing and satisfying the right to self-determination of black Africans. Yet the international community determined that the Bantustans were tools of apartheid and denied them recognition on this basis. The criteria for determining when occupation has ended therefore cannot consist solely of claims by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority (as local authorities under occupation) that Palestinians have assumed sovereignty in a nominally independent State. Whether nominal statehood improves the condition of protected persons and fulfils the right to self-determination must be determined. In order to conform with Article 47, any agreement that leads to the creation of a Palestinian state must not merely perpetuate Israeli occupation under another guise.

Those sources merely scratch the surface of the available material on the subject. harlan (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting. Extremely interesting... You've been preventing editing for certain articles for a long time claiming that Palestine was a state and no one could deny it. You even said the UN treated Palestine as a state. Now you say Palestine is not a state, especially not in the UN view. Integrity is not your best trait, is it? The Oslo Accords were signed by Mahmoud Abbas on behalf of Yaser Arafat, witnessed by the US and brokered by Norway. I know you're not fond of the US, but are you suggesting Norway, Arafat and Abbas supported Apartheid? Against the Palestinian People? How very interesting. Did I mention the problem you have with integrity? Oh, I did. Good. As for the authority of Dugard, read this (that's simple English): "Special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. They are advisers and do not decide UN policy." [14]. So, unless you find a UN endorsement, his report is of little value, just another paper. And Dugard is affiliated with the Arab League, acting on its behalf, which puts him in conflict of interest. You are right that there is plenty of information about Israel and Apartheid. Most of it condemns it as poor Palestinian propaganda. You take one or two articles using these terms as a exaggerations and build a whole theory upon them. Did I mentioned your lack of integrity? Oh twice. Good. Won't hurt to say it again, though. The article from Le Monde Diplomatique that you mentioned says the following: "The applicability of the South Africa model to Israeli-Palestinian relations is problematic. The first issue is the geographical delineation of Israeli "apartheid": does it cover all of Israel or only the WBGS? Palestinians living beyond the Green Line are Israeli citizens, while Palestinians in the WBGS are not. The former are not confined to specific geographic areas out of which they cannot move, nor are they excluded from the Israeli political process - they vote and can be elected, though they are discriminated against. The latter are an occupied population awaiting a political solution (...) While not specific about the boundaries of the land that Israel occupied or about Palestinian national rights, reso lution 242 affirmed that the way to peace in the Middle East had to be through returning land and recognising all states. The Oslo process was based on resolution 242." [15] Did I mention you lack any integrity? Oh yes... quite a few times. Okay, let's move on. How about this source? [16] It talks about Israel and Apatheid but says the connection between the two is a lie. Good to know Wikipedia promotes lies. I though it promotes truth, but I must have been wrong. How about this article by Khaled Toama? [17] and this one [18] (the same author, which unfortunately is just an Arab Israeli, not a South African While judge). Have I mentioned you lack of integrity already? Dhafda3 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Drork, you always misrepresent your opponents actual statements, and the post above is no exception. I've been saying that no one could deny the PNA claims that Palestine is a state, that the UN says they are entitled to their territory and their state, and that many other states already recognize the existing institutions as a state. That is a notable published fact, but it does not mean that there has been an acceptable and final territorial settlement between Israel and the Palestinian authorities in accordance with resolution 242 and the Geneva Conventions. The UN does does not recognize states. Israel and the US have used threats and procedural measures to block Palestine from acceding to human rights treaties and from becoming a UN member state. So they cannot demand that Palestine be held accountable under the terms of most international conventions. Nonetheless, there are customary rules that still apply to non-state belligerents. You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. harlan (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you are pathetic. After writing thousand of megabytes about how Palestine is a state as a fact that cannot be denied, and conducting endless wars with people asking to write "political entity" or "geopolitical entity" for the sake of precision, suddenly you back off and claim you were misunderstood, because your current attack on Israel is dependent on the idea that the Palestinians don't have a state. In short - your job here is to write anti-Israeli propaganda masking it with pseudo-scholar language and misuse of references. Did I mention you lack any drop of integrity? Have I mentioned you were pathetic? The problem is that you turn Wikipedia pathetic with you. I don't expect you to change, I just wonder why people who do value Wikipedia cooperate with you. Dhafda3 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Drork, for the last time, I've said that Wikipedia editors play no role in the recognition of states. Abba Eban said "The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State." See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12 [19] Lots of individual states have recognized Palestine as a state. That is just the way the cookie crumbles.
I did not say that the UN Special Rapportuer made policy, I said they have a mandate to report violations of human rights law. Dugard's report cited GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251 OF 15 MARCH 2006, and said 5. "At the outset it is necessary to stress the scope and limitations of my mandate. "I am required to report on violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by Israel in the OPT. (page 6). Those reports are official and require no endorsement. They may contain recommendations that can only be implemented by other organs.
The reported violations don't require any endorsement. For example, the Secretary General included the report by the Special Rapporteur, Jean Ziegler E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2, 31 October 2003 in the dossier he provided to the ICJ. It said "The building of the security fence/apartheid wall through Palestinian land is also threatening the right to food of thousands of Palestinians, leaving many Palestinians separated from their lands or imprisoned by the winding route of the fence/wall or in the closed military zone along the edge of the fence/wall." and "The Special Rapporteur is also particularly concerned by the pattern of land confiscation, which many Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals and non-governmental organizations have suggested is inspired by an underlying strategy of “Bantustanization”." The Court cited the findings in that report (para 133) as violations of the human rights the Court outlined in paragraph 134. [20] harlan (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, don't play innocent. You edit only I/P articles on Wikipedia, and you constantly push an extremely controversial political opinion based of feeble sources. When people tell you this is wrong, you answer: you have to bring source that proves I'm wrong. Trying to contradict your claims is like contradicting the claim that the moon is made of cheese. You won't find sources because no one actually take this claim seriously. However, even when sources are provided to you, your brutally reject them. You are not afraid to insult other editors, to humiliate them, to revert their legitimate edits etc. You get away with it because you have friends that bail you out and because you are a lawyer who knows how to plead before the pseudo-courts of Wikipedia. As for your claims here: Dugard's report has little value as a source. First of all, as you indicated, he himself claim they are limited and one-sided. That's actually enough to disqualify them as reliable source. Secondly, he is a person of extreme views. He calls for legitimization of Hamas rule in Gaza. He calls for the UN to step out of the quartet, and most importantly, he agreed to work for the Arab League during the recent war in Gaza, i.e. he took side in this conflict. His reports do not reflect anything but his own opinion. The fact that they are written on a UN official paper is not significant. This article cites Dugard extensively as if he were some kind of authority. He is not. If you want to write about human rights violation in the Palestinian territories, then the proper name for the article would be "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" and you will have to include all violations, of Israel, Hamas, the PA and even UNRWA. You will also have to provide the background, namely the fact that this region was a source of harsh terror attacks on Israeli civilians for years. Currently this article is merely a collection of references to propaganda against Israel. When you are confronted with this fact you say: yes, but Israel is bad so we might as well condemn it. Fair enough, but do it on your personal blog, not on Wikipedia. 79.176.16.63 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I added material to the State of Palestne article which said Robert Weston Ash and Secretary General Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the State of Palestine does not exist. You got into trouble for trying to remove all of the opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia has a project on international law, Wikipedia:WikiProject International law. I edit articles on international law, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations organs and their functions, diplomatic recognition, and statehood that have nothing to do with the Israel Palestine conflict.

Prof. Dugard isn't conducting a propaganda campaign. His reports on the situation in the OPT have been filed with the ICC Prosecutor and he is assisting Palestinian groups in South Africa that have filed criminal charges against IDF officers there. He reported to the UN that military incursions and shelling of civilians together with Israel's other actions constituted collective punishment and apartheid. The Goldstone Fact Finding Mission also reported on discrimination based upon race or national origin, collective punishment, persecution, and war crimes. Goldstone made several recommendations that were endorsed by the HRC, General Assembly, and the EU. The United Nations recognizes the League of Arab States as a regional group. Prof. Dugard was asked to serve on an Independent Fact Finding Committee by the Arab League with the tasks of investigating and reporting on violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law during the Israeli operation Cast Lead. The Committee was comprised of Professor John Dugard (South Africa: Chairman), Professor Paul de Waart(Netherlands), Judge Finn Lynghjem (Norway), Advocate Gonzalo Boye (Chile/Germany), Professor Francisco Corte-Real (Portugal: forensic body damage evaluator) and Ms Raelene Sharp, solicitor (Australia: Rapporteur). Their report, which cited the findings in the ICJ Wall case, was delivered to the ICC Prosecutor On 9 May 2009 by Secretary General Musa. Arab League members, like Jordan, are also members of the ICC. The Prosecutor met with the members of the investigating Committee to discuss their report on 15‐16 October 2009. See para 8 of the ICC Letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, dated 12 January 2010 [21] That report raised the issue of Israel's state responsibility to prevent incitement to genocide. It cited reliable reports in the press of rabbis advising soldiers that they had a duty to rid the holy land of gentiles. harlan (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about puppets, is anyone investigating?     ←   ZScarpia   11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You mean you are a puppet or just a politician? Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Neither of those.     ←   ZScarpia   12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC) -- (By the way, referring to edits as vandalism unless they clearly are vandalism breaches WP:CIVIL)
Good for you, then you don't need any inquiry. BTW, denying truth is not very civil either. Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
As for your remark above - you blame the whole world about Original Research and Synthesis, but this exactly what you are doing in this article. You take a series of opinionated articles from Israel, you couple them with a UN envoy whose reports were never endorsed by the UN due to their bias, you take some Palestinian propaganda, and you compile an indictment against Israel. Then you present this indictment as if it encompass all Israel (while in fact it is relevant, if at all, only to a specific territory that has been recently a war zone). You also present opinions as facts and call it an encyclopedic article. People, wake up from your political dream. At least allow less impartial people to correct your errors, it is not a shame to admit mistakes. Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm very much mistaken, you've gone way over the WP:3RR bright-line.     ←   ZScarpia   12:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
How good it is to discuss bureaucracy rather than facts. You know this trend was very popular in the Soviet Union. It is still common in N Korea. Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Usr received a template warning for this two hours ago, and still persisted. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I will bet good money that lustright == Quesilophonosis. Unomi (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And several other users could be added to the equation with little risk to your money I think.     ←   ZScarpia   13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged them all for sock-puppet investigations, and the most recent one as a username violation as well, as it is a munging of 3 of your usernames into one, for harassment purposes. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Tarc, you've just reverted verified information, namely that an Arab Israeli journalist wrote against the Apartheid analogy with strong word, and that the UN rapporteur was affiliated with the Arab League. Being mad at some guy is not an excuse for deletion of important verified information WatchFrog (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you think you're actually fooling anyone here? Tarc (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No Tarc, I merely try to show you how low this project has deteriorated making itself a political forum and adhering to bureaucracy like a Soviet regime, rather than to the pursuit of facts. Will you finally learn the lesson? Dhafda3 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the tools that the bureaucracy makes available becomes necessary when editors engage in idht and refuse to accept what is in the sources. Unomi (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, are you willing for once to step outside your political views, your bureaucracy, your anger, read the article and think: does it benefit anyone? Does it convey information? The Internet is full of propaganda, opinions, debates. Wikipedia is redundant if it's just another forum like these. Put "Betelgeuse" instead of Israel and "Martians" instead of Palestinians, and tell me if this is a good article. Be honest with yourself. Once you're honest with yourself about the content, you'll see that the bureaucratic measures become meaningful rather than just weaponry against people whom you don't like. 79.176.16.63 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of journalistic opinion regarding analogy and its flaws

This is the opinion of a notable Arab journalist, why is it being removed? Is the issue the source? -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was removing it from the lead because
  1. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, and this source doesn't appear in the article. It appears that editor(s) are adding it to the lead in order to give it special prominence, which strike me as a POV warrior approach to editing.
  2. It appears to have originally been added by an editor using multiple sock-puppets to evade a ban on editing Israel-Arab articles.
  3. It was introduced using highly WP:weasel language
  4. The quote given from the source merely re-iterates points made further down in the lead. Adding this source in the first paragraph in the lead, directly after a contrary statement as if it was a rebuttable, creates a tit-for-tat writing style that would be unsupportable if applied to the article as a whole.
My objection is to how the source is being used, not the source itself. I've only just read the source. Now that I've read it, I'd say it seems like an opinion piece that has a place in the article in the context of the dialogue for and against the analogy. It still doesn't seem to merit special prominence in the lead, as it simply repeats points made in other sources already cited. I have added it as a source against the point it supports, and it could also be added to the body of the article with the quote in-line.
On a personal note, I think this source is unconvincing because it only discusses the analogy in relation to "Israel proper", with no mention of the role of the State of Israel in wider Palestine. That's rather weird, given that most proponents of the analogy make it chiefly in regard to how Israel treats wider Palestine. However, this is just a personal (i.e. OR) concern, not something that will affect my editing in regard to this source. The source itself seems to be an RS for the opinion of the journalist, and relevant to the dialogue regarding whether there is apartheid in Israel proper. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Ryan, you say in your talk page: "Contraversial political pages are where (...) the systemic Western bias of an English-language wiki emerge." Do you edit this article to make it more informative, or are you battling against "systemic Western bias"?
  1. If this article is about the WB&G, then why does it say that Israel treat "Palestinians" like SA treated non-white people? Mr. Toameh is an Israeli Palestinian and he says he didn't experience Apartheid in Israel. When I tried to add "Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza" I was condemned for spreading unreliable information. Now you say I was right. Are you going to be consistent about it?
  2. The lead says: "Other advocates of Palestinian rights extend this analogy to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class." The fact that this analogy is false, according to renowned Israeli Arab journalist, is left to one of the inner paragraph. It is like writing in bold letters "the man is a murderer" and then below in small prints "but most people say he is not".
  3. The entire article is a collection of opinions. There is no factual information in this article. Dugard is quoted extensively, though he merely offered his views, and he himself said these views are one-sided (he blames the UN for not granting him a wider mandate, but when it comes to criticizing the UN itself, Israel and the US, suddenly he forgets about the limits of his mandate). If this article is about opinions, then ALL opinions about the issue should be presented equally.
  4. You use of the term "wider Palestine" is inappropriate in this context, and suggest your motives here are problematic. Am I wrong? 79.180.25.39 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello anonymous user. Yes, I'm concerned about systemic bias. But I don't oppose it through activism, I oppose it by trying to carefully follow Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NPOV. As you can probably imagine, this article is a magnet for "point of view warriors" of all stripes, but I'm not one of them. I don't have strong opinions on the subject, I just think it's a sensitive subject meriting a good article that explains the issues clearly and follows policy. I'm not a saint, and I surely get things wrong sometimes, but my motive is to edit in a neutral fashion and improve articles without pushing an agenda - even when I have an agenda, which in this case I don't.

  1. I said that the apartheid label is chiefly applied in regard to "wider Palestine", by which I meant the geographic area encompassing both Israel proper and "Palestine" (and especially the relations between them). However it's also used in regard to Israel proper, although I think to a lessor degree. So it seems weird to me when those arguing against the apartheid label only argue against its use in regard to Israel proper, and ignore its more common or stronger use. I suspect they're deliberately ignoring the bigger issue, and writing for an uninformed audience that won't realise what's missing from their analysis. Of course, their may be a more innocent reason - I can think of a couple, but they're not very convincing.
  2. The rebuttals to this point are presented in the second paragraph of the lead. Which is where I moved the source to. It's much more readable to state the case for in one paragraph, and then the case against in the next one, rather than a sentence-by-sentence manner that would be harder to follow and likely to result in a toxic editing environment as POV editors take turns expanding the tit-tat-tit-tat exchange.
  3. The article is not entirely "opinion", it also covers some background information about the existence of certain international laws and "facts on the ground" like checkpoints that are not really contentious as points of fact. But yes, it's mostly about opinions. There is nothing wrong with having a Wikipedia article that presents opinions from reliable sources, so long as it follows WP:NPOV.
  4. It's quite possible that my usage is inappropriate, feel free to mentally adjust it to the terms of your choice. I'm using it to mean the combined area that encompassed both Israel and "Palestine", and I thought that something like "wider Palestine" was a geographic term that would fit that, but could well be wrong. I'm not a geographer or a political analyst. It's not a term I'd use in my editing - I'd use whatever term the relevant sources used.

If you happen to be the editor who has been banned from editing Israeli-Arab conflict articles and is using sock puppets, can I suggest that your approach to editing is self-defeating and you may want to reconsider how you go about this? You seem articulate and somewhat informed on the subject, which are good attributes in an editor, but strong POV editing will just result in frustration. I would humbly suggest that you internalise WP:NPOV before trying again. There is plenty of space for opinionated editors to bring reliable sources to this article that support your personal opinion on the apartheid label, so long as you introduce the material in a neutral manner. I can only speak for myself, but I will strongly support any edits that introduce material that's against the apartheid label if it's done in a way that follows the NPOV policy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This IP clearly is another Drork sock. His only edit notes "When I tried to add "Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza" I was condemned for spreading unreliable information. Now you say I was right". This is the same edit that Drork has been warring on for weeks. I have reported the IP to SPI. RolandR (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:DENY. It would be best to either strike or outright revert any further edits to this page by this sock. All this has devolved into now is trolling, and responses just feed this person's attention needs. I am hopeful that we will soon see the IP range of that ISP blocked for a good while. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe just block all of Tel Aviv while you're at it? Breein1007 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
As you have supported and restored this troll's comments and edits over the last day or so, forgive me if I do not place a high value on your opinion of the matter. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If you knew Breein1007 better you likely would place any value on his opinion of the matter. Meat puppetting for a sock puppet now Bree? NickCT (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Boaz Okon

This may be of interest for the article. Judge (retired) Boaz Okon, former director of the Israeli Court System, Yedioth Ahronoth (ynet) legal affairs editor, Milestone in right direction. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

<removed comment by indef-blocked editor using IP sockpuppet>
Thanks for sharing. Next time you respond to something I post by voicing your personal opinion about the real world or me I'll delete it per WP:TALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal section - Discrimination based upon denial of nationality, not citizenship

The HSRC found that Israel had violated Article 2 of the Apartheid Convention by denying Palestinians the right to a nationality (page 215-219). Several recent posts on the talk page mention "Israeli Palestinians", but there is no such thing under domestic Israeli law.

For example, the author of "A racism outside of language: Israel's apartheid", by Saree Makdisi, 2010-03-11, Issue 473 [22], says that Israel engages in verbal sleight of hand and linguistic evasion on that particular point: "How, after all, can you acknowledge that Israel discriminates against its Palestinian population when there is no such thing? What Palestinians? There are no Palestinians inside Israel, only 'Israeli Arabs'. But that’s the point".

"There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.' So Jewish citizens of the state are classified as having 'Jewish nationality', but non-Jews, although they can be citizens of the state, are explicitly not members of the 'nation' – i.e., Jews all over the world, whether they want to be affiliated with Israel or not, whose state Israel claims to be. As a result, the national identity of the Palestinian citizens of Israel – who constitute 20 per cent of the actual rather than merely the ideological population of the state – is denied and erased at every institutional level. Unlike Jewish citizens, who are recognised as having a national identity, Israeli law methodically strips Palestinian citizens of their national identity and reduces them to mere ethnicity, which is why the state invented the term 'Israeli Arabs' to refer to them. (That term is never used to refer to the Arab Jews who make up a considerable proportion of Israel’s Jewish population – the real Israeli Arabs – because of course in their case Israel wants to erase their Arab identity and absorb them as Jews, whereas in the case of Palestinian citizens the reverse holds true: they can’t be absorbed as Jews, so their indigestible Arabness is emphasised)."

"Stripping Palestinian citizens of their national identity is not only merely degrading, however. In Israel, various fundamental rights – access to land and housing, for example – are attendant upon national identity, not the lesser category of mere citizenship. Thus, Jews who are not citizens actually have more rights than citizens who are not Jewish; in no other country on earth do racially privileged non-citizens enjoy greater rights than citizens and residents."

The Goldstone report noted that on a fundamental level it was the application of Israel's domestic laws that had resulted in discrimination in the OPT. "The application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation."

The HSRC study indicates that Israel denies "Israeli Palestinians" in the OPT their right to a nationality by denying Palestinian refugees from inside the Green Line their right of return, residence, and citizenship in the State (Israel) governing the land of their birth. The study notes that "The argument that discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in the OPT is not racially motivated, but is based purely on citizenship is tautological. Under Israeli law, Palestinian refugees from within the Green Line and living in the OPT would not be prevented from returning to Israel and obtaining Israeli citizenship if they were Jews." (page 165) harlan (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

The article contains a number of very biased statements regarding the rights mentioned in Israel's Declaration of Independence.

Section C. Declaration of the United Nations Partition Plan [23] required that a declaration be made by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence containing legal guarantees regarding non-discrimination and equal rights for women, members of religious groups, and minorities. The UN resolution said "The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them."

Henry Cattan wrote that the application of Israel for admission to the United Nations had been delayed, in part, because several countries wanted evidence that the required "Declaration" had been supplied. see The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, pages 86 and page 87.[24] At the 51st meeting of the hearings, Abba Eban said "the constitutional instruments, whereby the government of Israel is bound,are: 1. Its Declaration of Independence promulgated as law in the officiai gazette;" and that pending the promulgation of the constitution, the stipulated rights are embodied in the fundamental law of the State by virtue of the Declaration of Independence. see pages 6 and 7 [25]

The Jewish Virtual Library says the first President of the Supreme Court, Justice M. Smoira, dismissed its constitutional relevance: "The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes." The Library says "However, since the Basic Laws: Human Dignity and Freedom of Occupation were passed, the principles set forth in the Declaration have become a substantive, binding component of legislation and law."

The legal experts on the CERD disagree: "The Committee remains concerned however that no general provision for equality and prohibition of racial discrimination has been included in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), which serves as Israel’s bill of rights. --Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD/C/ISR/CO/13, 14 June 2007 [26]

The Knesset web site says "Some were inclined to view the Proclamation of Independence, and especially its declaratory section, as a constitution, but the Supreme Court stated, in a series of decisions, that the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it." [27] harlan (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You were so busy quoting people you forgot to tell us which sections of the article you object to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The bogus statements about the legal status of the Declaration start right in the lede: "Others say that it is "a foolish and unfair comparison",[14] that Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as other Israeli citizens[13][14][15] and that "full social and political equality of all [Israel's] citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex" is specifically guaranteed by Israeli law.<ref name="JVRIsraelIsNotAnApartheidState">{{cite web |url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/Israel_&_apartheid.html |title=Israel Is Not An Apartheid State |accessdate=2008-04-05 |date=2008 |publisher=[[Jewish Virtual Library]]}}</ref><ref name="The Declaration of the State of Israel">{{cite web |url=http://www.mideastweb.org/israeldeclaration.htm |title=The Declaration of the State of Israel |accessdate=2009-09-09 |date=2009 |publisher=[[MidEast Web]]}}</ref>
It continues with this "In December, 2006, Maurice Ostroff of the Jerusalem Post criticized Tutu for being well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided: "If he took the opportunity during his forthcoming visit to impartially examine all the facts, he would discover - to his pleasant surprise - that accusations of Israeli apartheid are mean-spirited and wrong-headed... He would find that whereas the apartheid of the old South Africa was entrenched in law, Israel's Declaration of Independence absolutely ensures complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or gender.[153]" harlan (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed comments that don't comply with WP:TALK and I will keep doing it until they do. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So you mean "biased" and "bogus" in the sense of "I don't agree with what the guy who's being quoted said"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 7:34 pm, Today (UTC+3) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I mean "biased" and "bogus" in the sense that Wikipedia is supposed to present all significant viewpoints and describe them, not endorse them. The legal experts at the CERD, the Knesset, and the Supreme Court of Israel don't agree with the guy who is being quoted. There needs to be a section of the article on the Declaration that presents all of their views.
The Knesset did not mention the word equality in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), and the Court holds that the Knesset is supreme in the field of legislation. Goldstone, HSRC, CERD, Badil, Al-Haq, Adalah, and etc. have complained that the Knesset has adopted a number of laws that unabashedly discriminate against citizens on the basis of their nationality, but in many cases the Court has not provided a remedy or overturned those laws on the ground they violate the the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) or the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence. In the 1960's Hannah Arendt said that government officials admitted to her privately that they were agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which that sort of thing would have to be spelled out. Nowadays the MKs in the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee openly admit that there can't be any guarantee of equality for non-Jewish citizens in the future Constitution, unless it contains a clause stating that High Court decisions could be overruled by parliamentary legislation. [28] harlan (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Supreme Court does agree. Perhaps you should re-read the Haaretz article you provided above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) No, the Supreme Court has never stuck down clauses 8, 10, or 12 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) as amended. Those grandfathered the discriminatory Law of Return, & etc. and allow the Knesset to exercise legislative supremacy or the government to use emergency regulations to deny or restrict rights under the Basic Law:

  • 8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required or by regulation enacted by virtue of express authorization in such law."
  • 10.This Basic Law shall not affect the validity of any law (din) in force prior to the commencement of the Basic Law.
  • 12 ...notwithstanding, when a state of emergency exists, by virtue of a declaration under section 9 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 5708-1948, emergency regulations may be enacted by virtue of said section to deny or restrict rights under this Basic Law, provided the denial or restriction shall be for a proper purpose and for a period and extent no greater than is required. [29]

The Haaretz article was referring to the non-binding dicta written by former Justice Barak in a 1994 case. Adalah emphasizes three important points: (1) an extended bench of the Supreme Court has not recognized the principle of equality as a "constitutional right" in any written decision to date; (2) the Supreme Court has not ordered the initiation of affirmative action programs as a remedy, even after a finding of state discrimination against Palestinian citizens; (3) the Supreme Court remains very reluctant to rule on cases presenting serious challenges to the dominant political ideology of the state, or requiring fundamental changes in Israeli society or political culture, even when these cases are grounded on strong legal reasoning.[30] harlan (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz said "A High Court of Justice decision, however, ruled that one may interpret from the text that it upheld the principle of equality". Haaretz is a WP:RS. You are not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The 1994 High Court case is discussed in the Adallah article. I cited a 2007 CERD report, and one or two more WP:RS sources which say that equality is not protected by the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992). The MKs serving on the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee obviously don't think that equality is currently a constitutionl right. When a Court opines that it may do something that merely reserves its position. The Adalah article says that no Supreme Court panel has actually recognized the principle of equality as a constitutional right since that time. harlan (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring your usual OR, if Adallah has said something pertinent to the issue, it can certainly go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Your assumptions about OR are incorrect. The efforts of the religious parties to prevent the establishment of a constitutional right to equality has been discussed in loads of articles and textbooks that were cited during the CERD reviews. The fact that the amended 1994 Basic Law: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty would not effect existing laws such as the Law of Return, 1950, the Nationality Law, 1952, Foundation of Law, 5740-1980, & etc. was addressed by all of the leading publicists. For example, Yoram Dinstein's "Israel Yearbook on Human Rights" had an article on "Religion vs. Equality in the Israeli Legal System" after the 1994 High Court case which explained that the Womens Equal Rights Law of 1951 specifically excluded marriage and divorce laws from its guarantees of equality for women. The article said that exclusion laid the ground rules for the subsequent subordination of equality to religious values in the Israel legal system. The article noted that the wording of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty was adopted to avoid the difficulty of giving priority to equality; perhaps does not expressly entrench the right of equality; that it can be reversed by ordinary legislation; and furthermore will not override statutory or judge made existing laws. See pages 210-212 [31] Despite what the Haaretz article might suggest, the fact that the Declaration does not contain any principles that can overturn a law is explained on the Knesset website. harlan (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename proposal - first steps

Notification

Israel and Apartheid

Source Repository - Please review before commenting.

Pro

  • I do not see how this title presupposes that claims have validity.
  • There are 3 main types of sources as far as I can see, some are comparing Israeli policies to those of the South African apartheid regime directly. Others are drawing directly from the text of Crime of Apartheid, and while those obviously were motivated by the South African scenario they remain distinct. While yet another contrasts Israeli policies with South African ones highlighting the differences. As such the title containing the word analogy misses the mark, it constitutes a false analogy if you will. Unomi (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
An allegation by whom? If Israel was an apartheid, why hasn't the international community taken any steps over the last 40 years to end it? Israel is not in violation of any "international law" as far as apartheid allegations go. Please tell me what laws in regards to race-based institutionalized discrimination Israel is in violation of. I'm waiting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that you have not read any of the sources? Unomi (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again, this renaming bid is an entirely useless discussion. It took an extensive discussion to arrive at this title in the first place. This is the sort of useless WP:Battleground arguments that we should be avoiding, both for the sake of neutrality, our wellbeing and personal time. ::Sigh:: Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The crime of Apartheid was not codified as an analogy. The UN and the signatories deliberately included constituent acts in the general legal definition of the international crime of apartheid that were NOT applicable to the situation in South Africa. For example, most publicists note that Article 2(b) regarding the intended "physical destruction" of a group did not apply to apartheid policy in South Africa. Conversely, other practices which are NOT enumerated or analogous to the state of South Africa may also be relevant, since Article 2 mentions "similar policies and practices … as practiced in southern Africa", not just South Africa. Some examples of legal papers that mention those particulars are the HSRC legal study "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid", page 17: available at [32] or [33]; and "Apartheid", by Johan D. van der Vyver, regarding the lack of intent in South Africa to physically destroy any group: [34] Furthermore, Article III of the convention provides that "International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved" (see for example page 296 of the HSRC study). So, the large amount of material included in the article to "explain" the motivation for Israel's policies and practices is given WP:UNDUE weight. harlan (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Israel and apartheid is preferable to Israel and the apartheid analogy. WP:NAME lists five ideals for a Wikipedia title, and on all five points the proposed title is better.
  1. Recognisable - the two words Israel and apartheid are recognisable, whereas the analogy is less so, as many relevant sources do not directly describe the discourse as an analogy
  2. Easy to find - readers seeking to learn more about why some people decry "Israeli apartheid" may not recognise an article about an analogy as containing the information they're seeking
  3. Precise - analogy is arguably over-precise to describe the diverse contents of the article, as the aspects concerning the Crime of Apartheid are arguably not about an analogy
  4. Concise - the proposed title is clearly more concise
  5. Consistent - titles using analogy for anything other than a clear-cut and explicit analogy are fairly rare on Wikipedia, whereas titles joining two subjects with and to discuss a controversial intersection are fairly common, see Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, Mormonism and polygamy, Christianity and alcohol, Christianity and homosexuality, religion and sexuality and race and intelligence for some examples. In none of these cases is a relationship between the two subjects implied, even if in some cases a relationship clearly exists. Christian cultures clearly have a history of antisemitism, but whether there is any link between race and intelligence is a highly controversial subject. Instead, the only implication of and is that discourse on the intersection of the subjects is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with each of your justifications as far as WP:NAME, and your analogies with Christianity and alcohol, etc. were especially apt. I too support the title Israel and apartheid Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Con

  • Apartheid is an analogy. Apartheid referred to a specific situation in South Africa, the conditions of course which are not the same in Israel. The title "Israel and Apartheid" presupposes that Israel is guilty of apartheid. An analogy can be true or false. As other editors have noted, it took a long time to reach a consensus on this title. To find a means to change it now seems like a hostile takeover. Stop wasting everybody's time and drop this. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of published sources which explain that the crime of apartheid is not an analogy.
You should seriously drop it. You are entering into dangerous POV territory because you and Harlan want a more direct connection to Israel and Apartheid (just like that title!). Yawn. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm citing reliable published sources which make a direct connection. harlan (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The only other thing that could make sense is "Israel and the Apartheid Allegation." But since the current title was chosen after painstaking consensus, maintain keeping it as is. "Israel and Apartheid" is clearly prejudicial. So can we just drop this, please? A lot of veteran editors here from both sides of the figurative aisle know it's not going anywhere. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
PS: This article was named Allegations of Israeli apartheid for a long time, and it was repeatedly nominated for deletion in part because of its POV title. See the top of this page for the AfD history. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The current title is neutral. Shortening it to "Israel and apartheid" certainly gives readers the impression that there is a concrete connection between the two, which there clearly isn't. As Malik mentioned, there were long discussions to reach an agreement for the current title and this new suggestion is not satisfactory whatsoever. Breein1007 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • For starters, the article shouldn't be on wikipedia in the first place. Why it's still around is beyond me. This wouldn't pass in any other encyclopedia. If anything, the article should be renamed "Allegations of apartheid in Israel" or simply shortened (seriously!) and merged into Human rights in Israel. When I first joined wikipedia one of the first things I did was propose an AFD for the article. It had at least 4 or 5 AFDs up until that point. I gave up because of the POV-pushing and edit-warring, and I wasn't much of a help to begin with. There is zero evidence to support any form of South African-inspired apartheid in Israel. Minorities (Arabs specifically) have full rights, and yes there are inequalities and discrimination but nothing inconsistent with demographic conflicts in other developed nations, such as USA, Britain, and France. Post-Apartheid South Africa today is more of an apartheid than Israel. 1/5 (1,000,000) of the white minority has fled the country because of the racism, and 6,000+ white farmers have been killed since the early 1990s. Not to mention the disgusting treatment of Zimbabwe immigrants who are getting hacked to death by SA natives. But that's besides the point. Perhaps we should start an article like "Arab world and the apartheid analogy." Certainly more evidence to support. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The apartheid analogy, as the article states, mainly concerns the Occupied Territories (which rightwards leaning Zionists consider part of Israel) rather than Israel proper. Would you say that "there is zero evidence to support any form of South African-inspired apartheid" in the Occupied Territories and that, there, "minorities (Arabs specifically) have full rights" when compared, say, with Jewish settlers? -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I understand the apartheid libel extends to all of Israel, not simply the territories. For starters, Israel's presence in the WB/Gaza began 20 years after the establishment of Israel. Was Israel apartheid before the occupation began? 95% of all Palestinians live in cities governed by the Palestinian Authority. Jericho, Nablus, Bethlehem, Ramallah - all independent of Jews. In fact the IDF has to have approval from the PNA to even enter these cities. Like I said, there is zero evidence to support a racial-based mode of discrimination against Arabs in the WB/Gaza. Israel's war is predicated on politics, not race. The "Jewish" settlers live in towns independent of Arabs. Prior to 1967, there were no settlements - and the territories were occupied by the Arab states, Jordan and Egypt. Palestinian life expectancy of 40, malaria was endemic, and no calls for a Palestinian state. When Israel showed up, she eradicated malaria, tripled the standard of living and doubled the life expectancy, and even tried to move Arabs out of their refugee camps, but this was condemned by the UNGA. Analogies to Apartheid South Africa is offensive and unfair to those who truly suffered under the apartheid. Anyways, this really isn't relevant and is simply my POV. Again, I don't believe the article has a right to exist on wikipedia and it would be rejected by any other encylopedia. But, as far as names go, it shouldn't be changed. "Israel and apartheid" and "apartheid in Israel" turns an article that is essentially a laundry list of critics who make a living dissing ISrael, into an article that converts an illegitimate philosophy into an indisputable, definitive reality. "Analogy" is IMO far too generous. Fallacy would be more appropriate. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
A couple of Ha'aretz articles by Akiva Eldar concerning Ariel Sharon and his enthusiasm for a Bantustan solution to the Palestinian problem: Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope; Sharon's dream. "The 'Jewish' settlers live in towns independent of Arabs." Did you know that the word Apartheid translates to the word separation in English? "Analogies to Apartheid South Africa is offensive and unfair to those who truly suffered under the apartheid." Those who suffered under apartheid don't seem to agree.[35][36] A laundry list of critics who make a living dissing Israel? Perhaps a bit unfair?[37][38] -- ZScarpia talk 04:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I imagine the Jews wouldn't mind living with Arabs - as many Arabs work in the settlements (and get paid a hell of a lot more money than in Jordan or Ramallah), but the Palestinian land laws prohibit Jews from purchasing land from Arabs. Now that is certainly racist. Jews live independent of Arabs because they safety cannot be guaranteed in Palestinian-controlled areas. I imagine this is a no-brainer here? If you didn't know 100% of the Jews in the Arab world were expelled Nazi-style, so no need to separate. Just kick em' out to the Zionist entity. Also, Jewish presence in what is now the WB predates the Arab identity. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Perhaps we should call a halt now? -- ZScarpia talk 13:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am also opposed to changing the title, what you proposed is more ambiguous and less accurate. It indicates to the reader that there is somehow a conclusive opinion that Israel practices "apartheid". - Epson291 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't, any more than Christianity and homosexuality implies that Christians are gay. It is common practice on Wikipedia to use and in titles of articles that discuss the intersection of two subjects. The title Israel and apartheid indicates a discussion of the intersection of Israel and apartheid, including the discourse regarding a resemblence between Israeli policy/practice and South African apartheid, discourses denying any resemblence, accusations that the crime of apartheid is being commited, and defenses that it is not being committed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
What are we? Junior lawyers doing mock court? I don't think so! Stellarkid (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. My point is that from what I can see the title format "X and Y" is used on Wikipedia to discuss the intersection of two subjects, and it doesn't prejudge the nature of the relationship, if any, between them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Opposed It is the analogy being talked of here. It is simple enough to disambiguate "Israel and Apartheid" to this article so that argument has little merit. I think one or two people here would like to start an "Israel and the crime of apartheid" article, but that would be a polemic, not an encyclopedia entry. Stellarkid (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

*Opposed - Israel and Apartheid implies that Israel is Apartheid. Most readers won't notice the slight difference. Actually this article deals with allegations on behalf on states and political organizations that have ongoing disputes with Israel for decades. The proper title for this article is "Allegations of Apartheid against Israel, and preferably it should be a paragraph in the article Human rights in Israel where these allegations be put in their right context. Nacnikparos (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)(Drork sockpuppet     ←   ZScarpia   10:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Neutral

  • The current title is far from perfect; but the proposed alternative is little better. There is scope for an article on Israel's relations with apartheid South Africa, but this should be a separate article; the proposed title is too ambiguous to be of use. I would prefer "Israeli apartheid" or "Zionist apartheid", but I recognise that neither of these stands a chance of being accepted. I am more concerned to ensure that the article itself remains, even if under a less-than-perfect title, than to reopen the interminable stale discussion about the optimal title. RolandR (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Both titles seem equivalent. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure the suggested name is any better or worse than the current name. ← George talk 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I sympathise with both(inserted 20:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)) some of the Pro and Con arguments. To me the proposed title is a better one and doesn't imply that the practice of apartheid by Israel is a fact. If I didn't think that other editors would strongly reject that and later try to have the title modified again, I would record my opinion as a Pro. As a variant of the current title retaining the word analogy, I would prefer something like "Israel apartheid analogy". -- ZScarpia talk 13:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I would second ZScarpia's proposal. Seems better than the "Israel and Apartheid" wording. Ultimately though I think all the proposed and the current title(s) are pretty similar. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

    1. 1) Please do not let this discussion devolve into a fight over whether you believe Israel is or isn't guilty of "apartheid." If you're arguing that Israel clearly, that's clearly contentious (at best), so please don't go around yelling its incontrovertibly so (and don't fight back against these claims in this discussion).
    2. 2) This is the perfect example of this silly WP:Battleground mentality which is a huge waste of Wikipedia resources.
    3. 3) It seems pretty obvious that there is no way the article is being retitled to "Israel and Apartheid." The only possible title could be "Israel and the Apartheid Allegations" BUT ONCE AGAIN, the current title was formed after LONG consensus and there seems no valid reasoning to suddenly alter it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I find myself in agreement with PlotSp again. I think we all have to be honest and admit that this article is about a particular POV. A significant and notable group hold the POV, a significant and notable group hold the oppossing POV. Whatever the title is, it must not make any assertion as to whether Israel is or isn't guilty of "apartheid." Let's accept this, and not WP:Battleground.NickCT (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What we are arguing about is what is the content of the RS, as there seem to be editors among us who have not read the sources then clearly we need to bring it up. I don't see anyone arguing for a title which asserts that Israel is guilty of Apartheid, I certainly don't understand Israel and apartheid to do any such thing. At the moment it seems that it is quite possible that it actually will be renamed to just that. The thing is, almost none of the sources deal with any analogy, analogy has a specific meaning. Could you link to where consensus for this title was established? Unomi (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the right way to approach this is to discuss the relative merits of the titles in relation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and not to prejudge the outcome. An old consensus can always be overruled by a new consensus, if one should form. I recall that last time we discussed this I started out in favour of Israel and apartheid but ended up somewhat reluctantly accepting Israel and the apartheid analogy as a "compromise name". I still think it's an okay name, but I also still think the shorter form is even better for the reasons I outlined in the Pro section. I agree with Unomi that an understanding of the reliable sources that make this subject notable is vital to ensuring the name appropriately reflects the sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look for the previous discussions. I think the article was moved from Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israel and the apartheid analogy during talks in archive 29. At that time I speculated whether Israeli apartheid analogy would be more concise. The move was quite controversial and eventually done in a bold move. There was considerable discussion, but it can't be said that it was a group-hug moment or especially well-executed. Since then I see a couple of abortive attempts to change the title in the archive, but I can't see any attempt to change it to Israel and apartheid except for a brief mention of that title in archive 31, even though my recollection was that this was one of the options previously discussed extensively. So it seems that we may now be discussing the possible title Israel and apartheid in depth for the first time here, not repeating previous discussions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
So, what are we doing? Unomi (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say. In terms of the straw poll we have 7 for, 5 against, and 4 neutral. Arguments for include the proposed title being more concise, that the content is not all about an analogy (particularly discussions about the Crime of Apartheid), and that the proposed title fits better with the ideals of WP:NAME. Arguments against include that all the content does describe an analogy, and that the proposed title implies that Israel is guilty of apartheid. While there is a majority in favour of the change, there doesn't appear to be a consensus. However, there also isn't a consensus to keep the existing title, and the existing title is likely to be a source of ongoing dispute. I think it might be worth trying taking this to the Mediation Cabal. That would provide a structured environment in which to discuss the various options. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good way forward, I was hoping that we would see more participation, but perhaps people will come out of the woodwork as mediation progresses. Unomi (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I've created a case here, if it's accepted then hopefully we'll hear from a mediator sometime. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Any progress chaps?     ←   ZScarpia   20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No-one has taken up mediating the case yet, but this can take a while sometimes. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post article

An interesting article that mentions this page. [39]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an interesting read and one can just discern also the JPost's own "POV" ;) --Dailycare (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet, according to Israeli editors of the encyclopedia who asked to remain anonymous so as not to damage their editing rights on the Web site, these articles are slowly being taken over by pro-Palestinian campaigners in an effort to tilt the encyclopedia’s narrative of the conflict and its history to reflect their position.

So this is a clear admission of a confederacy of sockpuppets? When will these socks be washed out of the edit spin? Hcobb (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if (as I strongly suspect it is doing) the Jerusalem Post wasn't using Dror Kamir (who outed himself as Drork) as a source of information on Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   01:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not? He's an editor with some experience here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure North Corea feels the same thing. "Everybody is against us. Bohoo! Bohoo!". To be neutral is not the same thing as giving exactly the same number of words to each view. // Liftarn (talk)

Request for MEDCAB Mediation

Hello, I am the current MEDCAB mediator for this article, any questionc may be directed toward my user talk page. All onvolved parties are asked to leave a statement on the casefile page under "Opening Statements" I do not appreciate edit warring or flame, and if I see this, I will have this article (and the talk page) locked down by an Admin. Therefore, please keep a cool head. Ronk01 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Israel, Anti-Zionism Categories

Per this edit;

I'm really not sure these categories are appropriate. Someone who felt the apartheid analogy was valid yet supported the state would be offended by this categorization. I'd acknowledge Breein1007's point about many of those who make the analogy being "anti-Israel", but making this blanket accussation seems unfair, and seems to be an attempt to downplay the analogy by saying "this is only something Israel's critics believe". To say you think State X treats some minority badly is not to say you are anti-State X. Let's try to be grown-up here Bree and enter the discussion part of BRD. What do you say? NickCT (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories

This article was added to Category:Anti-Israel and Category:Anti-Zionism. They both seem like reasonable categories, but WP:CAT#Categorizing pages requires that an article be categorized based on what the article says, not what editors think are appropriate categories. I can't find anything in the article that supports the inclusion of the article in either of these categories. Thoughts? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(chuckling) Per my thoughts in the section above; I think Malik and I were having the same thought at the same time. Bree, would appreciate a self revert. NickCT (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that too. Thank you for bringing the disagreement here rather than reverting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning for the categories, from the edit summaries, is that anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activists use this analogy. That may well be true, but that doesnt mean this analogy is either anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. A number of committed Zionists have used this analogy, either for describing what they view as a potential for an apartheid state if Israel continues with its current policies, or for describing what they see now as an apartheid state. If there were a category Category:Arguments used by anti-Zionists I wouldnt object to including that, but Category:Anti-Zionism is way too big a stretch. The same applies to "anti-Israel". nableezy - 20:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure anti-zionists also use toothpaste, but I wouldn't add toothpaste to that category either. Many also use the parallel with South Africa as a model on how to reach reconciliation between the two groups. // Liftarn (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The cats are inappropriate in my view. People like Boaz Okon certainly aren't anti-Israel. If assigning a cat like anti-Israel is valid for this article then editors could make RS based arguments for adding the cat to NGO Monitor, Gerald M. Steinberg, StandWithUs etc, any number of people and orgs that are subjectively considered to be acting against the interests of Israel by some set of RS based commentators. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
These categories seem inappropriate. This article is about the dialogue over whether or not the State of Israel is engaging in a certain sort of systematic discrimination - apartheid. Being critical of details of Israeli policy/practice and being "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionist" are not the same thing. Not only those who are anti-Israel or anti-Zionist have drawn a link between Israel and apartheid, as sources in this article show. 03:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The anti-Zionist category is fully appropriate since the article specifically mentions the allegations that "Zionism is apartheid" ,"Zionism is a form of nationalism ... based on the privilege of inclusion and the discrimination of exclusion". This is taken directly from the article text . Removing the categories would simply make it harder to find this article . But suit yourself. Marokwitz (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Block revert Marokwitz's edits

Regarding these edits;

Marokwitz has made a series of edits here that vary between somewhat helpful to blatant POV pushing. Of particular interest are the additional quotes from Carter which are referenced to a link that strangely does not seem to work.

I want to blanket revert but I'm a little hesitant to, b/c some edits were clearly made in good faith. In making so many edits at the same time, I think it was Marokwitz's intent to use good-faith edits to in-essence "shield" POV edits. Is he gaming the system? Can I blanket revert? NickCT (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are showing your inability to WP:AGF, and it's not the first time either. For your own good, I suggest you refrain from making public these suspicions of yours and certainly do not blanket revert based on them. Breein1007 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't add any new links about Carter, I just reogranized existing content that was already in this article. Please check again and then I expect you to apologize. Marokwitz (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to remove the POV after consensus declares it to be so (here I define consensus as three concurrs) I want to keep this case from going up to ArbCom agian. Remember, always assume good faith. Ronk01 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
@Bree - You wouldn't know what good faith was if it sat on your face. Please go away.
@Marok - You are indeed correct. I thought those dubious comments from Carter were inserted by you. They were in fact not. I stand corrected. Would you be opposed to removing the material that is referenced by the broken link?
@Ronk01 - Ok. Does anyone else take issue with this recent set of Marok's edits or is it just me? NickCT (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't get to tell me where to edit, buddy. You don't own this page, and I'll comment wherever I see fit. Unlike you, I'm here to collaborate and improve the encyclopedia, not silence people who I disagree with. Breein1007 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to remove the "dubious" comments since they are absolutely true. I found the updated link to repair the ref, as you could have easily done yourself with a simple google search, if you really cared to check. Now, if you have any policy based comments on my edits, feel free to share them here, otherwise using the polite words you so elegantly used earlier in this discussion, "please go away". Marokwitz (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Could this edit be considered POV [[40]]? Ronk01 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What part seems POV to you? He flipped the order of two paragraphs, added some wiki links, and added info about the disengagement from Gaza. I'm having trouble seeing any issue with that. Breein1007 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, it is't really that POV (the wording could be better though) I was just trying to see what the other editors thought. Ronk01 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Ronk - I don't see any blatant POV issues with this edit. @Breein - Bigot filter on, sorry. @Maro - Those words weren't aimed at you. I'd appreciate the same level of respsect I offer you. Something Breein fails to recipricate. As to specific coomments, I'll need to go over the edits again. I mistook some of the reorganized material for novel material.
The reorg did actually bring to my attention some material that seems a little awkward. Those Carter comments sort of bug me. They seem contradictory, and I'm guessing they are taken out of context. Additionally, there seems like there are allot of quotes from people of dubious notability. I've noticed before a common strat with these I/P issues is to balance someone like Carter's comments with someone like professor bernstein from college X of questionable credibility. I think a lot of blockquotes offered would fail notability requirements. Anways, I'll review when I have a little more time. NickCT (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The analogy is deadly

The article seems to have enough coverage of "the analogy is wrong" viewpoint, but scant mention of "the analogy is deadly". The reason why the analogy itself might be so dangerous is that the world currently sees the ANC as having been benign and the fears of the apartheid supporters in South Africa as being ungrounded. If the smokescreen of the analogy was used to deliver the Israelis into the hands of deadly terrorists they might find themselves exiled at best. (For what, the fifth time or so?) Hcobb (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Now go read WP:SOAP and focus on what you can actually provide reliable sources for, as your own views dont really matter. nableezy - 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

? What is going on?

Apparently there is mediation going on with respect to this article. Why is there no link or mention of it on this page or am I missing something? Any mediation on this article should be clearly linked for contributors and readers to see I would think? Stellarkid (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an ongoing informal mediation over the title of this article at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy, please do contribute. The link to it from this talk page has dropped off because of archiving - if anyone knows of a template for informal mediation then it might be an idea to add one to this page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Ryan. Stellarkid (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli nationality

Possibly of interest: Supreme Court to decide if there is an ‘Israeli nation' - a new attempt to establish an Israeli nationality. Currently the Israeli Interior Ministry list has more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens on it, including Jewish, Arab, Druse, Circassian, Samarian, Hong Konger, German, Albanian and Lichtensteinian, but not Israeli. Probably, neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality.(16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC))     ←   ZScarpia 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When was the last time the United States established a "Black Village"? What would be the reaction if we did? Here's the confession to the crime of apartheid:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953568.html Israeli Arab minister Ghaleb Majadele said on Tuesday that Israel's plans to construct a new Arab city - the first since 1948 - would strengthen the sectors' "sense of belonging" in Israel.

Hcobb (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh? You are drawing conclusions that do not exist. Nothing in the article suggests anything even resembling apartheid policies. In fact, the "city" is being pushed by the Left and Arab parties. Hopefully your inference does not make it to the article. User POV should stay out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You two are obviously incapable of NPOV edits on this article. Your silly opinions have no place on this talk page. Keep this up and we're going to AN/I -- though I'd like to avoid it because the admins are harried enough w/ all this I/P battleground nonsense. And Wikifan, just stay away from engaging these bozos -- Wikipedia policy is against them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I shouldn't be here anyways. I have no intention of editing the article at this point. Thanks for the comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
ZScarpia, if these sources don't mention apartheid then you're engaging in original research by drawing conclusions about a comparison to apartheid from them. Any conclusions described in articles must come directly from reliable sources, they cannot be the product of editor interpretation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledged. The reason I mentioned the newspaper piece is because the subject of nationality is discussed in the article. I thought that it may be relevant that Israeli groups have made several attempts to have the current classification system changed.     ←   ZScarpia   11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, "I thought it may be relevant" but I decided to add this hateful editorializing: "neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality." You best not do that again. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I struck-out my comment. If you can give me a convincing explanation of why it was hateful, I'll try to avoid writing something like it again (though I've noticed on your talk page that you have been warned not to make hate-speak accusations without good reason, so I do hope that you can give a convincing explanation). Apologies for the offence caused.     ←   ZScarpia   16:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Plot Spoiler (talk - considering the constant accusations of antisemitism levelled at non-Israeli editors and the failure of admins to protect them, your attack on, and threats against, Zscarpia, look quite uncalled for. -- Urbane23 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the moral support Urbane23. In this case, Plot Spoiler, though perhaps overreacting a bit, does have a point. The struck out sentence was something that came in to my head just before hitting the Save button which doesn't really belong here. I would quite like to know why Plot Spoiler thinks its "hateful", though (perhaps I'm being obtuse). As for calling me a bozo and so on, it has no affect on me. Hopefully Plot Spoiler feels a bit better for having "laid down the law". He or she will know nothing about my ethnic origin so wouldn't know whether to accuse me of being antisemitic or self-hating. I suppose that the course of action taken would be to accuse me of being antisemitic unless given reason to think otherwise.     ←   ZScarpia   22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't accuse anybody of anti-Semitism yada yada. What ZScarpia said was just unnecessarily inflammatory. Thanks for your understanding. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To return to the subject at hand, the HSRC study and the Barcelona University study both cite the nationality law as a violation of article 2 of the Aparheid Convention. Comparisons of the State of Israel's legal system to the Nuremburg race laws have been published by reliable sources, e.g. Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil", and described as a status quo of apartheid, e.g. see Amnon Raz Krakotzkin, Chapter 10, pp 171-172 in "Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem", Steven E. Aschheim ed. [41]

During the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt commented on the 'breathtaking naiveté' with which the prosecutor claimed "We make no ethnic distinctions," while he denounced the Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 1935 on the grounds that it had prohibited intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans. She felt it was rather ironic, since rabbinical law legally governed the personal status of Jewish citizens, so that no Jew could marry a non-Jew. She explained that it had nothing to do with respect for the faith, but rather that religious and non-religious Jews seemed to think it was desirable to have a law that prohibited intermarriage. She observed that children of mixed marriages were legally bastards, and that if a person didn't have a Jewish mother he could neither be married nor buried. She said that government officials admitted to her privately that they were agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which that sort of thing would have to be spelled out. See Eichmann in Jerusalem, by Hannah Arendt, Published by Penguin Classics, 1992, Page 7, ISBN 0140187650 harlan (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, a book I should have read by now. I'll get myself a copy. A relevant current article: Amira Hass, IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank.     ←   ZScarpia   02:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

tomdispatch.com - Noam Chomsky - A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won’t), 27 April 2010: Meanwhile in the West Bank, always with firm U.S. backing, Israel has been carrying forward longstanding programs to take the valuable land and resources of the Palestinians and leave them in unviable cantons, mostly out of sight. Israeli commentators frankly refer to these goals as “neocolonial.” Ariel Sharon, the main architect of the settlement programs, called these cantons “Bantustans,” though the term is misleading: South Africa needed the majority black work force, while Israel would be happy if the Palestinians disappeared, and its policies are directed to that end.     ←   ZScarpia   00:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I had meant to comment on this at the time, but UN Special Rapporteur Ziegler's report on 'The strategy of “Bantustanization”'(page 9) [42] mentioned that senior Israeli commentator, Akiv Eldar, had written about the explicit use of the Bantustan concept by Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, who once “explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict”. Ziegler's report was cited in Palestine's written statement to the ICJ and it was included in the Secretary-General's dossier in the ICJ Wall case. The Court based its findings on the Statements of the Secretary General and the reports by Ziegler and Dugard. See paras 132, 133, and 134 of the Advisory Opinion. [43] harlan (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And also many thanks for mentioning "Eichman in Jerusalem" earlier. I did get myself a copy.     ←   ZScarpia   16:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Fund - Professor John J. Mearsheimer: The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners:

The story I will tell is straightforward. Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans – to include many American Jews – Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream.

... There are three possible alternatives to a two-state solution, all of which involve creating a Greater Israel – an Israel that effectively controls the West Bank and Gaza. In the first scenario, Greater Israel would become a democratic bi-national state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. ... Second, Israel could expel most of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, thereby preserving its Jewish character through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. This is what happened in 1948 when the Zionists drove roughly 700,000 Palestinians out of the territory that became the new state of Israel, and then prevented them from returning to their homes. ... The final alternative to a two-state solution is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control over the Occupied Territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves.

... In response, Netanyahu made it equally clear that Israel intended to continue building settlements and that he and almost everyone in his ruling coalition opposed a two-state solution. He made but a single reference to “two states” in his own speech at Bar Ilan University in June 2009, and the conditions he attached to it made it clear that he was talking about giving the Palestinians a handful of disconnected, apartheid-style Bantustans, not a fully sovereign state.

... The most likely outcome in the absence of a two-state solution is that Greater Israel will become a full-fledged apartheid state. As anyone who has spent time in the Occupied Territories knows, it is already an incipient apartheid state with separate laws, separate roads, and separate housing for Israelis and Palestinians, who are essentially confined to impoverished enclaves that they can leave and enter only with great difficulty. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at the comparison to white rule in South Africa, but that is their future if they create a Greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. Indeed, two former Israeli prime ministers have made this very point."

... Other Israelis, as well as Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu, have warned that if Israel does not pull out of the Occupied Territories it will become an apartheid state like white-ruled South Africa. But if I am right, the occupation is not going to end and there will not be a two-state solution. That means Israel will complete its transformation into a full-blown apartheid state over the next decade. In the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians. Of course, this means that Israel faces a bleak future as a Jewish state.

... The main problem that Israel’s defenders face, however, is that it is impossible to defend apartheid, because it is antithetical to core Western values.

... Apartheid is not only morally reprehensible, but it also guarantees that Israel will remain a strategic liability for the United States.

... Hardline Israelis and their American supporters are aware of these problems, but they are betting that the lobby will defend Israel no matter what, and that its support will be sufficient to allow apartheid Israel to survive.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also: The American Conservative - John J. Mearsheimer - Sinking Ship, The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself, 01 August 2010 issue.     ←   ZScarpia   00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of Norman Finkelstein's take (an alternative source for the Counterpunch article cited): Carter, the media and Dershowitz.     ←   ZScarpia   14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz - Declaring war on the intellect - Israel and Noam Chomsky, 18 May 2010 (Editorial written following the refusal to allow Noam Chomsky to enter the West Bank): One does not have to be an ardent supporter of Chomsky in order to agree with his view that Israel is behaving like South Africa in the 1960s, when it understood that it was an outcast, but thought it could solve the problem with the help of a better public relations campaign.     ←   ZScarpia   20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The New York Review of Books - Peter Beinart - The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment, 12 May 2010:
In Israel itself, voices from the left, and even center, warn in increasingly urgent tones about threats to Israeli democracy. (Former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have both said that Israel risks becoming an “apartheid state” if it continues to hold the West Bank. This April, when settlers forced a large Israeli bookstore to stop selling a book critical of the occupation, Shulamit Aloni, former head of the dovish Meretz Party, declared that “Israel has not been democratic for some time now.”) But in the United States, groups like AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference patrol public discourse, scolding people who contradict their vision of Israel as a state in which all leaders cherish democracy and yearn for peace. ... But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power. To the contrary, it is gasping for air. To understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, it’s worth considering the case of Effi Eitam. Eitam, a charismatic ex–cabinet minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank. “We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system,” he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu’s Likud. And for the 2009–2010 academic year, he is Netanyahu’s special emissary for overseas “campus engagement.” In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government’s behalf. The group that organized his tour was called “Caravan for Democracy.”     ←   ZScarpia   14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Policy - Glenn Frankel - Israel's Most Illicit Affair, 24 May 2010:
"Now comes Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine, a Rhodes scholar, and an American Jew whose parents emigrated to the United States from South Africa. His singular achievement in his new book, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa scheduled for publication on May 25, is to have unearthed more than 7,000 pages of heretofore secret documents from the bowels of South Africa's Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry, and Armscor, the state defense contractor, including the secret 1975 military cooperation agreement signed by defense ministers Shimon Peres and P.W. Botha."
"Polakow-Suransky sees in the excoriation of Jimmy Carter's 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by American Jewish leaders an echo of their reflexive defense of Israel vis á vis South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. The author himself draws uncomfortable parallels between apartheid and Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, noting that both involved the creation of a system that stifled freedom of movement and labor, denied citizenship and produced homelessness, separation, and disenfranchisement. As the Palestinian population continues to grow and eventually becomes the majority -- and Jews the minority -- in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, the parallels with apartheid may become increasingly uncomfortable. Even Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed, observing in 2007 that if Israel failed to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians, it would inevitably 'face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights.' 'The apartheid analogy may be inexact today,' Polakow-Suransky warns, 'but it won't be forever.' I've always believed the apartheid analogy produces more heat than light. But it's a comparison that Israel itself invited with its longstanding partnership with the white-minority regime."
    ←   ZScarpia   12:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The main section dealing with apartheid in Israeli-controlled areas of the IPSC site. Articles containing the phrase Israeli apartheid ('Hafrada' or 'afrada') on the IPSC site.     ←   ZScarpia   23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Referral to Formal Mediation

As the mediator for this article, I have been watching this talk page for some time, and I feel that it is beyond the scope of informal mediation to resolve this issue, I woiuld therefore reccomend that the editors of this article please suspend edits to the article, and request formal mediation. This is an issue that extends well beyond the confines of this article, or even Wikipedia, and as an individual with no official links to the Wikimedia foundation, I simply do not feel comfortable leaving such a poteltially litigious issue in the hands of individuals without legal protection. Ronk01 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation by the Mediation Committee may be a good idea. Not because there are legal issues, but because this is a protracted issue that may require experienced mediators. However, I find the rest of your comments rather surreal, even taking into account your explanation elsewhere that you are concerned about "heated comments" that I can't perceive in the informal mediation case. The informal mediation that's currently underway is in regards to the name of this article. How that issue is potentially "litigious" is beyond me. If you no longer wish to mediate the issue, let's see if someone else wants to take over. If that doesn't work out, or the Mediation Cabal agrees with your assessment that there are legal issues involved that make this case sensitive, let's go to formal mediation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I asked for clarification at AN/I and there don't appear to be any WP:Legal issues with users editing the article. No one has made any legal threats. [44] harlan (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To be truthful, I am overreacting, but as I explained on the AN/I page, I am covering my own a@$ here, to continue, my concern is that in the past, this article has had some serious issues with POV and COI, both of these can lead to heated discussion, (especially since this topic is such a controversial one) and heated discussion can lead to legal threats, my concern is this potential. As a professional indivudual, I cannot take the risk of exposing myself to legal action (the constant threat of malpractice is bad enough) and I would like to see this refered to individuals who cna deal with this kind of debate properly. Just a reminder, people have sued over less. Ronk01 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Please clarify that you are asking us to stop editing the mediation case, not the Israel and the apartheid analogy article, as your recommendation was ambigious. If you no longer wish to mediate the case then you're right that we should stop editing the mediation case page, because there's no mediation without a mediator. We'll have to either wait for a new mediator to volunteer, or start a formal mediation case. I've asked for advice on the Mediation Cabal talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What possible legal ramifications can come from being involved in this article? It sounds ridiculous, to be honest. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if one editor made nasty comments about another editor, using their real name, and the other editor sued for libel? It does seem absurd that we should stop informal mediation for that reason, especially given that scenario could unfold anywhere on Wikipedia and the mediation has been very cool-headed so far. But the mediator is totally right to stop mediating if they are uncomfortable for whatever reason, even if it's a self-admitted overreaction. :) Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my reccomendation was regarding the casepage, I would reccomend formal mediation as an alternative, since disputes that lose their mediators tend to stay on the caselist for quite a while before getting picked up. Ronk01 (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking things over I can see the possibility of litigation over the "crime of apartheid" business as articulated by Harlan. Stellarkid (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, in addition to that, defamation suits are a real possibility here. Ronk01 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):After all, Harlan does sound like he is attempting to make the (legal) case that the government of Israel is engaged in the crime of apartheid. That is not appropriate for WP and I can see that the GOI could conceivably take WP to court for this. If this is the case, it might be simpler to have the editor(s) in question simply cease and desist in this line of argumentation. Not clear on the defamation aspect... Stellarkid (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I consider it remote that Israel (I assume that's what GOI stands for above) would sue wiki editors. Everything on wikipedia comes from reliable sources, so Israel should rather be suing Desmond Tutu than us. As I've participated in some discussions concerning the title, I can also participate in any formal mediation. It would be my first time, though. --Dailycare (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of of who says it, Wikipedia posted it into a public forum. By the way, the suit would likely be against the Wikimedia Foundation, not the editors, so unless you want an Office Action here, (This is not a threat, I am merely concerned about the possibility) I would advise harlan and all other editors to cease and desist this line of discussion immediatly. Ronk01 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A state cannot be libelled, and cannot sue for libel. Even if Israel could sue for libel, an argument that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid is not a libel. Some of the comments above verge on using the threat of legal action in order to enfoerce, or block, particular edits; this is itself not allowed on Wikipedia. Editors on this article should not be constrained by this specious argumentation. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I must agree with RolandR. Besides the legal fact that libel/defamation only applies to individuals (large groups or countries have no claim), there is the sinister suggestion "it might be simpler to have the editor(s) in question simply cease and desist in this line of argumentation". This sounds like a scare tactic to stifle discussion of possible improvements to the article. The title Israel and apartheid may be better, or may not. But we need to follow the suggestion of Ryan Paddy who - correctly - suggested on the mediation page that all alternative titles be explored and weighed. I respect the mediator's choice to bail out, but there are other mediators, I'm sure, that will step in - if not in informal mediation, then formal mediation. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this is an absurd concern. To suggest that editors should avoid discussing whether a state is breaking an international law is the height of suppression of free speech. It could only get anyone into trouble if they live in one of those unfortunate countries where there are shitty laws against criticising the state. But Israel is not Turkey, and this isn't the Armenian Genocide debate. It looks like another editor is going to volunteer to mediate the informal mediation case, so hopefully they will be along soon and it can resume. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not so sure I agree with you. In the US we have something known as "class-action suits." If there is not such a concept in international law, perhaps there should be one. In Nazi Germany, the group of people called "Jews" could not sue for defamation or anything else in the German courts. Thus the German propaganda that eventually led to their mass murder was allowed to perpetuate. (Parenthetically, and belying the "apartheid" analogy, in Israel, Arab citizens (and advocacy groups) can and do file suit with the Israeli government and often win. Stellarkid (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally contribute to articles that fall within the scope of the Wikipedia International Law project. I can hold my own in discussions with participants who make their living writing textbooks on the International Criminal Court, working for Al-Haq, the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), and etc., e.g. [45] In short, I'm really not here looking for free legal advice. harlan (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Given Ronk01's concerns, I've offered to take over the mediation - assuming there are no objections from anyone involved, and that you all want to continue with informal mediation for a bit longer. I'll need a couple of days to look over the dispute and the arguments made so far, so I can do that while we discuss whether or not you want me to take the case. comments or questions? --Ludwigs2 21:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have strong opinions on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? I don't much care about the answer to this because if you're a good mediator it shouldn't matter, but I think if unasked it will be the elephant in the room. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong opinions? No. Mostly I see it as one big ball of misery for everyone. If you pushed me on the point I'd say that political actors on both sides of the problem are guilty of intermittent fits of irrationality, and the normal citizens on both sides end up paying the price for it. I would also probably be a bit harsher on Israel because they are the more powerful force by far, which in my mind sticks them with higher standards for their behavior. But it's not an issue I think or worry about except in a passing "What is the world coming to?" sort of way. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I find this "potentially litigious" concern of the previous guy to be a load of bunk, and am rather nauseated by what has happened here, to be honest. I've had no involvement in the current mediation, just have had varying levels of involvement in the article over the years. Doesn't matter which way you lean or don't lean IMO, I just wanna see someone that can see the matter through. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I ahave a hard time assuming good faith from Ronk01, who exhibits all the characteristics of a disruptive user account.A quick view of his editing behavior and (user) talk page contributions paint a picture of someone who has no idea of what they are talking about. That such person has been given serious credence in a mediation process only tells me that such mediation is at best pointless at worse an attempt to poison the well in this discussion.

I am in particular piqued with the mention of "office action" and other legal stuff - people have been blocked for saying much less than he has already. Why is not some admin intervening here? Office ONLY intervenes in BLP issues and issues of copyright and doesn't accept, in a blanket policy, ANY libel issues beyond BLP and will defend the project to the utmost consequences, and to argue that some edit or editors are legally endagering the project is prima facie a violation of WP:NLT. The legal issues raised here are a distraction. Nothing to see here, move along.--Cerejota (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he intended to disrupt the case, even though that was the result. I think he is just new to mediation, uncomfortable with the subject matter, and misinformed about legal ramifications. I'd like to thank Ronk01 for giving mediating the case a try when no-one else was stepping up. Now let's get on with the case with the new mediator. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

reverted source

Ttomdispatch.com is not an RS IMHO. I do not understand the ened to source Noam Chomsky in that list, but if we do, a primary source from the horses mouth is enough.--Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the significance of Noam Chomsky: he is, of course, a very notable academic and political activist, far more noteworthy than some of the other individuals mentioned in the list. (BTW, I did not add him into the list). However, you raise a good point: at some point the list may get too long, and perhaps at that time it will need to be split out into a new article such as List of persons that discuss apartheid in relation to Israel or something similar. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are links to the same article, posted on Noam Chomsky's own site and on the Huffington Post site. In both places it mentions the article is crossposted on the tomdispatch.com site, where it was published first. Are either of those links acceptable? Surely, what matters in this case, since the article is being provided as a source to show what Chomsky's opinion is, is that the article is written by Noam Chomsky, not where it is published? Put another way, isn't an article on the tomdispatch.com site a reliable source for Noam Chomsky's opinions when the article itself is written by Noam Chomsky? On the question of notability, of course, everyone has their own opinion on whose is worth mentioning. At the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid, for instance, questions were asked about why Alan Dershowitz's opinion was given such prominence. He is not, after all, a specialist in international maritime law. Nor is he neutral. He is also much criticised (Ran HaCohen, for instance, views him as a "discredited joker"). I think, though, that editors should, where multiple views are being presented and they are out of sympathy with one or more of them, cut some slack to allow "the other side" to present the best case they can. I agree with Noleander's opinion of Chomsky and think that he is notable enough to be mentioned.     ←   ZScarpia   13:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Ran HaCohen is notable for his "anti-Israel" criticism? Amazing. We just lost an article on Seth Frantzman to an AfD when he at least has a large reputation and writes opinion pieces for reliable papers (JP) as opposed to Antiwar.com. I think I will put the bio up for an AfD. Why should someone be notable for criticizing the Jewish State only? It is clearly not sufficient for notability when the shoe is on the other (Palestinian) foot! Stellarkid (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The Jerusalem Post is a quality newspaper, meaning, for one thing, that its fact-checking is likely to be stronger. Is that what you meant by a "reliable newspaper"? It is not reliable in the same sense as academic journals where the content is peer reviewed, though. Whether particular content can be taken as a statement of fact will depend on factors such as who wrote it. Source reliability, is of course, determined by consensus. As far as I know, I've never heard of Seth Frantzman (would this be him?) and I took no part in the AFD (I'll do a Google search for articles of his later, though). When you say, "we just lost an article on Seth Franzman," would I be right in assuming that the we you are referring to is "pro-Israel" editors? As far as the article on Ran HaCohen is concerned, you are, of course, quite within your rights to make an AFD. It would be good if it didn't sound as though you were doing it for tit-for-tat reasons, though. There is a little more to Ran HaCohen than writing for Antiwar.com. He is published other places, including Yedioth Ahronoth, "the most widely circulated paper in Israel" (interesting that you didn't similarly describe Seth Franzman as a contributor to FrontPage magazine). I have to admit, the article is a bit stub-like and reference-free, though (perhaps I'll take some time to do something about that - for a start, the article could do with a photo: a pity that the one here is so small).     ←   ZScarpia   16:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC) (postscript: I see that Wikipedia editor Sfrantzman is the writer Seth Frantzman; it looks as though he's at the start of a prolific writing career, so perhaps deleting the article on him was premature)
I agree it was premature but that didn't stop all the usual suspects from coming in and arguing that he was nothing more than a blogger. Nor would an AfD be a tit-for-tat because it appears Ran HaCohen does not look like he has as large a reputation that Frantzman does. Makes it look like the Frantzman AfD was a purely political one. Surprise! The other sources that SF has written for include the Tucson Weekly, Jerusalem Post, Middle East Quarterly,National Post, The Jewish Press, and Canadian Jewish News. Stellarkid (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that Jezhotwells has been opening AfDs on a number of BLP articles which have had long-term Unsourced tags on them. Could that have been why he listed the Frantzman article? Clearly, the argument that Franzman is nothing more than a blogger has no validity. I noticed that he described Time Immemorial on Amazon as: "The classic work on The Jewish Settlement of Palestine. This is the classic book that explodes the myths surrounding the establishment of a Jewish State in Israel." Presumably he's not a great admirer of Norman Finkelstein?     ←   ZScarpia   00:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The article on Ran HaCohen is too much of a stub. But, as ZScarpia notes, he is much more than a writer for AQntiwar.com. For a start, he is an academic at Tel Aviv University, and a significant translator.[46] RolandR (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
That is his own page on which he is touting his own horn. Translations are given as his "field of interest." Not sure how notable that is.Stellarkid (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky appears to be a suitably prominent source in relation to the Israel/apartheid subject (note that it's prominence of views and representatives that matters for WP:NPOV, not notability of authors). If Chomsky has published a suitable article in several places, then we should cite the publication that best meets WP:RS, which is probably the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS if a writer is an "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" then we could cite his self-published work, but that's not the preferred option and it isn't necessary here with the Huffington Post copy available. All the other talk about biographies of other writers and whether they are notable doesn't really belong here, it should be on their talk pages or the relevant Article for Deletion pages. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The way I look at it is that a list of people and organisations who have made the analogy has been included and the problem is to decide who should be included. The natural way to do that is to come to a consensus over who the most influential or notable (meaning, amount of attention paid to their views) people and organisations are and at where the cutoff for inclusion should be. In WP:NOR, prominence has to do with properly balancing the weight given to individual viewpoints. I think that the amount of attention given go the recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry to Israel demonstrates that he is seen as having significance.     ←   ZScarpia   23:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_34&oldid=1238717311"