Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli apartheid: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:51, 17 April 2007 editUrthogie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,196 edits →UN General Assembly Resolutions 3379 and 3380: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:41, 4 January 2025 edit undoM.Bitton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,579 edits →Request for Sources and Balanced Representation 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Pp-move-indef}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=start|importance=low}}
{{Calm talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{WikiProjectNotice|Arab-Israeli conflict}}
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
{{oldafdmulti
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
|date=May 29, 2006
{{Controversial}}
|result='''] nomination by sockpuppet of the article creator'''
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
|page=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29
{{Be calm}}
|date2=July 15, 2006
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Article history and WikiProjects |1=
|result2='''Another ] nomination by a sockpuppet'''
{{Old XfD multi
|page2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination)
|date=3 June 2006<!-- oldid 56729010 -->
|date3=August 8, 2006
|page=Israeli apartheid (phrase)
|result3='''no consensus'''
|result='''No consensus'''
|page3=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid
|result4='''keep'''
|page4=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination)
|date4=30 March 2007
|collapse=2
}}


|date2=15 July 2006<!-- oldid 64035264 -->
{{oldpeerreview}}
|page2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination)
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
|result2='''Speedy keep'''
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="4" | ]<br />]


|date3=11 August 2006<!-- oldid 69110851 -->
----
|page3=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
|-
|result3='''No consensus'''
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|-
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|-
|]
|]
|]
|]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->


|date4=4 April 2007<!-- oldid 120120303 -->
== "Consensus" lead ==
|page4=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
|result4='''Keep'''


|date5=24 April 2007<!-- oldid 125667783 -->
The lead should fairly characterise the views of both sides. One of the similarities between Israel and South Africa, as conceived by those who use the term, is that both were colonial states. The comparison is fairly interesting because in both cases land rights are nothing like straightforward. One could bicker over whether Israel is a colony or not, but we are representing the views of both sides, not posting the "truth", whatever we believe it is. ] 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|page5=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
:It's OR to mention colonialism in the lead just because one or two of the quotes attach it to the accusation of apartheid. In fact there seem to be colonialism quotes added to this article, which should be removed if they're not directly attached to quotes about apartheid. It seems like many of them are just added to show how much these people hate Israeli policies, rather than to discuss the accusation of apartheid.
|result5='''No consensus'''


|date6=26 June 2007<!-- oldid 140841349 -->
:By the way, has anyone noticed how noone cares when protestors talk about apartheid and nazis and colonialism at this point? Great way to ruin a legacy of anti-racism, people! Anyways, focus on the first paragraph I just wrote. This was just my own amused rant.--] 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|page6=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
|result6='''Speedy keep'''


|date7=4 September 2007<!-- oldid 155568006 -->
As per my edit: The rights and privileges are "disparate" not seperate.
|page7=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
|result7='''No consensus'''


|date8=11 June 2008<!-- oldid 218733282 -->
disparate \DIS-puh-rit; dis-PAIR-it\, adjective:
|page8=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
1. Fundamentally different or distinct in quality or kind.
|result8='''No consensus'''
2. Composed of or including markedly dissimilar elements.


|date9=21 August 2010<!-- oldid 380158466 -->
The term "separation" refers to physical separation/apartheid. This should also be included in the lead, since the allegations refer to disparate rights AND physical separation of the two groups impose largely by Israel. (i.e. the wall, etc.)
|page9=Israel and the apartheid analogy (9th nomination)
|result9='''Keep''' per ]
}}
{{Old moves
|title1=Allegations of Apartheid in Israel
|title2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
|title3=Apartheid in Israel
|title4=Israel and apartheid
|title5=Israel and the apartheid analogy
|title6=Israel and the apartheid analogy allegations
|title7=Israeli apartheid
|title8=Israeli apartheid (epithet)
|title9=Israeli apartheid (phrase)
|title10=Israeli apartheid (term)
|title11=Israeli apartheid allegations
|title12=Israeli apartheid analogy
|title13=Israel and apartheid
|list=
* Israel and apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Moved''', 20 July 2024, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Moved''', 24 July 2022, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid allegation, '''No consensus''', 4 December 2021, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Withdrawn''' per ], 3 May 2021, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 8 June 2017, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy, '''No consensus''' due to procedural issue, 29 May 2017, see ].
|oldlist=
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → ''?'', '''Not moved''', 12 January 2017, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 13 January 2011, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid '']<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', '''No consensus''', 20 August 2010, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 3 May 2009, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 28 August 2007, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 17 August 2007, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 16 March 2007, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 14 December 2006, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 6 October 2006, see ].
* Israeli apartheid → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''Move''', 26 June 2006, see ].
}}
{{Old peer review |reviewedname=Israeli apartheid |archive=1 |ID=58811773 |date=17 June 2006}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=high}}
}}
}}
{{press
| author=Haviv Rettig Gur
| title=Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages
| org=The Jerusalem Post
| url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660
| date=16 May 2010


| author2=Omer Benjakob
I have tried to make the lead more accurate. ] 06:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
| title2=On Misplaced Pages, Israel Is Losing the Battle Against the Word 'Apartheid'
| org2=Haaretz
| url2=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-on-wikipedia-israel-is-losing-the-battle-against-the-word-apartheid-1.9330590
| date2=26 November 2020


|author3 = Hava Mendelle
:I was considering that word before; I think it's good for clarifying the meaning, though other improvements may be possible. ] 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|title3 = The World Jewish Congress investigates Misplaced Pages

|date3 = March 23, 2024
==Allegations of Apartheid Banner==
|org3 = ]
Is there a reason we have a list of four countries other than South Africa? The banner seems rather ridiculously POV. Was there a discussion of this that I missed? ] 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|url3 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/the-world-jewish-congress-investigates-wikipedia/
:Because South Africa wasn't allegations. Read the template, allegations is the key word. Apartheid actually happened, today we have allegations and analogies. Feel free to add countries to the template. I know I will.--] 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|lang3 =
::Well, for starters, the banner is a mess. More importantly, your whole premise here is to distinguish real apartheid from mere allegations. Whether accurate or not, that's clearly one POV. I'm going to remove it for now; I think this needs to be discussed before being thrown into the article. ] 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|quote3 =
:::South Africa '''said''' it was practicing "apartheid". The government gave that name to its own practice, in its own language. In the case of Israel, other people are accusing the government not only of practicing similar things, but they are using a word imported from another time, place and language to do it. I would say that is a legitimate distinction. ] 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|archiveurl3 =
::::The distinction is real, I agree. The question is whether it's neutral to make it the premise for a banner at the top of the page. My longstanding problem is making this kind of statement indirectly. If we want to say that this is an important distinction, then I think we should state that clearly, not make it the premise for a banner that's included to illustrate it. ] 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
:::::If the distinction between apartheid-era South Africa and current-day Israel were properly made, this article would not even exist. ] 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|accessdate3 = March 23, 2024
:::::Mackan, banners that hold lists always go at the top of pages if there is only one. There is therefore no NPOV issue because it's a useful list of related pages, and no style issue because of the traditional way banners are placed. Noone ever got mad at me on ], yknow? If you insist on adding the content of the banner to the article explicitly, I say go ahead, I'd like that very much. Then again, would it not be kind of retarded to have such redundant information? I like the tidy little template more. Feel free as a bird to make that thing look better. But please don't try to hide it, because it's completely in line with Misplaced Pages practices and policies. --] 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::The banner 1. editorializes, and 2. defaces the article. Both of these are POV issues. Also, banners don't always go at the top, see ]. As far as the helpfulness of the list, I don't think it helps show your good faith when the first article, which you recently (today) created, starts off "Some go so far as to allege that there is racial apartheid in Australia." I'm sorry, but is this really the best you can do to respect ]? Beyond that, I'll await further comment. ] 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::It doesn't editorialize. I used the same method for deciding to create it as is used in any other info box. Info boxes go at the tops of article on the right, usually, so point number 2 is also invalid. Also, the banner on anti-Zionism is at the bottom because the word anti-Semitism isn't in the title of the article. It's a subsection that's part of the series, not the article itself. This ENTIRE article, not just this section, is part of an obvious series of allegations of apartheid. Check the title.--] 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::A series that you created today for the purpose of placing this banner? If you want to play games, we could of course create a very nice big banner here on Allegations of Apartheid, with links to all related articles. Primary articles could include ], ], ], with all of the secondary articles you list here. Is this something you would support? Personally, I would not, for reasons that I would hope you'd see. ] 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Please, think logically. Are Apartheid and Crime of Apartheid equivelant to, or a subset of Allegations of Apartheid? No, of course not. Info boes aren't based on going up a category. The info box on anarchism doesn't have links to Hobbes's work, despite the fact that they're both political philosophy.--] 18:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm not sure what you're looking at. ], ], ], etc., all have a large banner on ], as do ], ], ], etc. The banner contains all aspects of ], as would be most helpful to a person researching the topic. So would you approve or disapprove of something similar here? My feeling is that these banners are much less appropriate on sensitive topics where they look like editorializing. I'd appreciate it if you took this seriously, or if others would offer their opinion. ] 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:Mackan, the anarchism template proves my point exactly-- Every single title is a subset of anarchism. This is specifically what I made clear about info boxes earlier, and repeating my point for me doesn't really accomplish anything for this discussion. Everything is in the realm of ''anarchism'' on that info box. Not political philosophy, but ''anarchsm''. The same paradigm holds logically true for this template, as well-- everything invovled deals with ''allegations of apartheid.'' It would be just as much of a complete non sequitor to "play games" by adding ] to this info box as it would be to add a link to Hobbes's political philosophy to anarchy's info box.

:You are yet to shed any light on how this box editorializes in any way whatsoever. Is it a POV that these are allegations of anti-semitism? Sensitive topics which are this large tend to have one box or another, grouping them with other topics. If you view it as normalizing the accusation, I might ask why you don't say the same thing about the anti-semitism infobox. (Aren't we "editorializing" by showing how prevalent anti-semitism is? Perhaps the info box should be removed from every single page??)--] 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::You're saying that ] belongs to a subset of ], but ] does not belong to a subset of ]? ] 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:::No, of course I'm not saying that, I'm saying that: ''] belongs to a subset of ], but ''']''' does not belong to a subset of ''']'''.'' I've been trying to explain that to you for a while.--] 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::::The point is that ] has a large infobox on ]. Are you disagreeing with this? I'm suggesting we could equally place a large infobox on ] regarding ]. As far as I can see above, you're agreeing with me, but then adding some other point which doesn't seem applicable. Can you please clarify your position? ] 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::I would support putting an an apartheid template on ], but not this page. Seperate templates for seperate levels. Allegations of apartheid now has its own template, so it would be redundant to add its content to a seperate apartheid template.--] 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on the fun, but all this talk of subsets and supersets, going "up" a category or down, is a ], and a rather lurid and pongy one at that. The banner is just a clumsy POV-pushing effort. It lists nine countries (well, eight plus the amateurishly bigoted catch-all "Muslim countries"), only three of which actually link to articles, only two of which in turn existed before today, when Urthogie revved up his google engines and found six instances where the word "apartheid" was used in connection with Australia. 6SJ7 is right that there's an important difference between South African apartheid and the system of rule in the occupied territories so unsettlingly reminiscent of it to so many. There's an equally important difference between the South Africa – Palestine parallels, which have been the central subject of numerous books and articles, scholarly and popular, on the one hand, and the ''ad hoc'' for-the-nonce metaphorical usages Urthogie is busy collating and building articles around in his effort at well-poisoning, on the other.

There's an argument you want to make: Israel's been accused of apartheid, but so has everyone else. Fine. Just find a source that makes that argument, and we'll include it. The sources critical of the analogy on the whole don't say this, though. In fact by and large they say precisely the opposite: they say Israel is being singled out for special opprobrium. That's a pervasive argument, so it's well-represented here. As far as I know, however, the argument that ''everyone's been accused of apartheid – where apartheid is everywhere it's nowhere'' etc. has only been made by Wikipedians. It doesn't belong here, and certainly not in the form of a coy banner.--] 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


*Infoboxes actually are based on categorically grouping concepts. This is not a red herring, but a fact of how things are grouped.
*Red links are actually supported on Misplaced Pages. They allow the encyclopedia to grow.
*You are assuming bad faith by attempting to describe my "effort" to POV everything here.
*What would you propose we replace "muslim countries" with? The article is "Islamic apartheid". Info is on it in the ] article.
*I didn't use search engines, I just read the above page, and noticed that it was actually POV to only have a page for Israel and Cuba.
*I didn't find those sources for Australia, they were already on the Allegations of apartheid page. Please don't lie.
*The infobox isn't an "argument." It's completely NPOV, and approaching it as an "argument" is the only ] in this entire discussion.
*'''Since when the hell are sources required for an infobox'''? I love the double standards, ey!

Yeah, well double standards aren't allowed. We're keeping this.--] 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:I almost but a merge tag onto ] until I saw it was less than a day old; I imagined Urthogie has plans to expand it beyond a stub. OTOH, ] is getting rather long. Cuba is a special case anyway, as the problem there is chiefly about a small handful of tourists, not a more general societal problem, so I'm not sure that belongs in this new template per se -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, first of all, sorry for attributing to your personal researches what was in fact culled from that content-dump of an article, ]. Now, to your bill of particulars:
*I know that infoboxes are "based on categorically grouping concepts," but that doesn't mean their use is therefore by definition NPOV. We could, for example, add an infobox to this page categorically grouping "Crimes under international law associated with the Israeli Occupation." That infobox would, like yours, be a violation of NPOV.
:You would need an article called ] to do that. We already have an article for ''Allegations of apartheid.''--] 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
*There's a secondary question of whether grouping together every country whose policies someone at some time or another has likened to apartheid creates a compelling, relevant, and self-evidently justifiable "category." I would say it does not. The invocations of "apartheid" raked together in this crude manner vary enormously in number and kind in their different contexts, from ''ad hoc'' rhetorical flourishes to extended academic comparisons intended with greater literalness. Take a parallel case. "Ethnic cleansing" originally applied only to the former Yugoslavia. It has since been applied to many contexts. Sometimes the comparison is literal and widely used; other times it's metaphorical and idiosyncratic. The difference is important. You wouldn't create an infobox about "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and list therein the Junjaweed's campaign in Sudan side-by-side with the socioeconomic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or the gentrification of San Francisco's ], even though all three have been the subject of such "allegations."
:First off, notice how not every country is on the template. Only those countries which have significantly large sections on ] (or which already have large articles of their own) were added to the template. This is not a crude manner, it is a manner reflecting the content on wikipedia, namely, an article entitled ]. As for "Allegations of ethnic cleansing", that is not comparible to apartheid, because apartheid is named after a specific racist south african policy, while ethnic cleansing is concretely recognizable in some circumstances. "apartheid", in short, is subjective outside of its original home (south africa).--] 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

*I don't propose we replace "Muslim countries" with something else; I propose we get rid of it. It's crude and bigoted. There are 20+ "Muslim countries" comprising a billion+ Muslim people. So far as I know no serious scholar has written about apartheid as a common feature of these.
:It's crude and bigoted? Well, you're entitled to your POV, as are the accusers. What would you suggest as an alternative text for the link to the soon to be made ]?--] 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
*The comparisons with anarchism, Hobbes, etc. are misleading. In such cases there are copious reliable sources linking the topics that we link with our infoboxes. So far as I know there aren't reliable sources linking the discourse of "apartheid" in Israel-Palestine to the discourse of "apartheid"-like conditions in the tourist industry in Cuba, or Brazil, or elsewhere. In this case, the categorical grouping of "related" concepts seems to have been performed by Wikipedians and Wikipedians only.
:There are no "sources" for any info box as far as I know of you just made up this concept of sourcing an infobox because you don't like this one. The anarchism info box isn't "sourced", it's just so damn obvious that an article with anarchism in its title fits under anarchism. Same goes here with an article with allegations of apartheid in its title. Also, another point-- the subsets of a given subject's info box don't need to be connected to each other by any given source. If this were the case, you couldn't put ] in a philosophy info box if it hadn't been once linked with ].--] 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
*I apologize if you thought or think I'm alleging bad faith on your part. ] is one thing, ] another. Discussions of POV-pushing are pretty routine on contentious talk pages, and aren't usually thought to amount to accusations of bad faith. Everyone has opinions in these areas, and sometimes one has to take a step or three back to see how those opinions are shaping their approach to article content and presentation. All best,--] 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:This is a good tone to set. Thank you, --] 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::Folks, the right place to discuss all this (though it may be all the same crowd anyway) is at ]. I think the banner would mean splitting that page up into dozens of articles when it has only been so recently unified there so it's pertenent to that article most of all. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, perhaps you could just create a link from that page to here, since we already have something going on here.--] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, what you haven't answered is why you decided the correct infobox here is one which provides the different countries in which Apartheid has been alleged, and yet then nothing about apartheid itself. Your statement about "separate templates for separate levels" is simply nonsensical, as well as inconsistent with the example of ] that you provided. What you're saying here is that all of the ] should link to each other, but shouldn't link to the United States itself, because that's on a different level. Really?

This is the fundamental problem from which the POV is apparent: on a neutral basis, these choices don't make sense. A neutral attempt to give background on this subject would not simply provide other countries where the allegation has been made: it would provide the full information on Apartheid, the crime, the allegations, and everything else. The problem, of course, is that this adds further gravitas to the article, which everybody here is willing to accept is not needed. Equally problematic, though, is what you're attempting to do, which is pick only the information that appears to promote one POV. I say that not as an accusation, but as an objective statement of how it appears to the reader.

Also, you're incorrect again that infoboxes don't have to be sourced. If something is contested as ], it has to be sourced like anything else. ] 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
*First off, you're attacking a straw man. "What you're saying here is that all of the ] should link to each other, but shouldn't link to the United States itself, because that's on a different level. Really?". No, not really. As you can see, this template already ''does'' link to ], just as you would have the State link to the United States. --] 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
*Your second paragraph is barely comprehensible. Please write in clearer english as I can't even follow the logical progression of your thoughts. It might be partially my fault but this paragraph honestly seems to make no logical sense.
*Ok, so on to your final point (third paagraph). No, I'm not incorrect to say that infoboxes don't have to be sourced. If they did, then you'd have to consider every info box an "original synthesis" of links.--] 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::See my response below. Regarding the third, though, yes, they are, and are impermissible if they promote a viewpoint. Otherwise, if they're uncontested, they're fine. ] 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure we'd need all that in such a template; it does already link to ] which does point the way to all the subtopics of apartheid, and, I would imagine, as the historical ] of the word becomes less relevant in the coming decades, stands to evolve into the main ] article anyway. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::] is a redirect to ], and has been for a while now. It seems somewhat strange that my little template added to an Israel criticism page would spark such a revolutionary change in the structure of Misplaced Pages's coverage of apartheid. One can't help but feel that such a monumental merger would be out of the scope of this discussion, and more suited for the history of south africa page itself.--] 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I wasn't proposing a merger of anything, I just imagine there will come a point when few people immediately thinks of South Africa when they think of apartheid in much the same way few people immediately thinks of Armenia when they think of genocide. Anyway, Kendrick7 is not a crystal ball. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Indeed, .--] 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I'm not sure the template is necessary at all. I'm simply saying: the assumption of an infobox is that we're providing information that readers are most likely to find useful. That said, would a person ariving at this article actually not be much more likely to want to read more on ] than they would other countries where the phrase has been used? Certainly there's a curiousness to finding out that Australia or Cuba has been accused of Apartheid, but I can't think those are the most notable things people would be looking for.

::The reason you say it's not necessary, I'd guess, isn't because you don't think it would be useful, but because you probably recognize it would be too pointed. Surely the information is otherwise useful enough to provide, right? In fact, if Urthogie and I were talking about the Cuba article, I bet we'd both agree that extended links to articles about Apartheid would be useful. Why not?

::Anyway, I can't say this is the end of the world for me either way, I just think these things cheapen WP. What we probably need is a better policy on avoiding political use or appearance of templates/categories/etc. ] 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Can you think of any other big article, which has links to its subpages, some of them very big themselves, which have the main article's name ''in their titles''. Can you cite one other example of an article which fit these criteria that ''doesn't'' benefit navigationally from having an info box? Perhaps it's your personal POV of the world that makes you think such a template doesn't benefit the article. To me, it is obvious that any educated person should examine how allegations such as apartheid are used today. This doesn't imply a POV. It's possible to think Israel has apartheid and still get some insight on how the word is used from navigating through this handy info box..--] 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::::My point is that we should either have a full template or none at all. If you look at ] or ] or ], you'll see they discuss many issues across many levels and relating to many things. My problem is picking out one group of things which also happens to be an argument from one side. Regardless, you clearly have more energy than me on this issue, so I guess that's to your credit. ] 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Those are higher level templates. They cover more things because their articles cover more things.--] 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

==Arbitrary break in infobox/banner debate==
Thanks for your above, Urthogie. May I ask however that in the future you provide a single rebuttal to my posts rather than breaking them up into little pieces? My post was intended to present an integrated set of points, rather than a grab-bag. I also think that interjecting point-by-point rebuttals leads quickly to impasse, in the form of thick, gnarled, weed-like arguments between two people, instead of a vigorous but open debate that anyone can join.

With respect, I think you haven't quite answered the objections raised about the value of this infobox and the NPOV issues it raises. There are, as I said, many ways of "categorically grouping concepts," and some are indeed POV-pushing. Frontloading a "handy" list of all the other countries in which apartheid has been "alleged" is as POV-pushing as frontloading a handy list of all the other crimes Israel has been accused of. Now, you keep saying that infoboxes don't need reliable sources. This is true but only in the trivial sense; we don't, that is, include footnotes for infoboxes. The conceptual groupings they endorse, however, should be ones that are important to – or at the very least ones that have ''occurred'' to – the reliable sources that provide us with our understanding of the topic in the first place. Infoboxes are not little free zones where WP:NOR doesn't apply, where Wikipedians get to present their own idiosyncratic conceptual frameworks for the material at hand.

You rather breezily waved aside my point about the parallel case of "ethnic cleansing, saying that it's ''"not comparible to apartheid, because apartheid is named after a specific racist south african policy, while ethnic cleansing is concretely recognizable in some circumstances. 'apartheid', in short, is subjective outside of its original home (south africa)."'' I think this won't do, and if you don't mind I'm going to return to it and press you a little. ] is a ] from Serbo-Croatian named after specific policies in the former Yugoslavia, just like ] is a loanword from Afrikaans, named after specific policies in pre-1994 South Africa. The fact that you find the application of the term "ethnic cleansing" outside of its "original home" to be self-evidently justified in certain contexts ("concretely recognizable in some circumstances") is – with respect – beside the point. Many prominent persons with no particular axe to grind find apartheid conditions to be "concretely recognizable" in Israel-Palestine. That's also beside the point. What is ''not'' beside the point is that in both cases a morally charged historical analogy (apartheid, ethnic cleansing) is invoked in a ''huge'' variety of contexts. Sometimes the analogy is meant rhetorically and used merely for moral emphasis (describing the aftermath of Katrina as "ethnic cleansing" underscores the racial and socioeconomic fault-lines the disaster made visible, for example; referring to Cuban tourism as a form of apartheid, similarly, underscores the hypocrisy and unseemliness of a socialist pseudo-utopia kept afloat by a nakedly capitalist tourist economy). At other times the analogy is meant with much greater literalness, and becomes the subject of sustained historical comparisons by scholars, writers, journalists, activists and politicians (this is the case with ethnic cleansing in the Sudan, or apartheid in the occupied territories). An infobox that flattens these distinctions, and creates a single category for them, a category that is "so damn obvious" to Wikipedians with a given POV (but not obvious enough to have penetrated the thick skulls of our reliable sources), is POV-pushing original research. If apologists for the Janjaweed were well-represented on Misplaced Pages, they'd have a field day making little infoboxes about "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and neatly arraying within them whatever scraps of heated rhetoric they managed to comb together from their internet researches. I'd be opposing them as doggedly as I'm opposing you, so don't take it personally.--] 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Correction''': I wrote above that "ethnic cleansing" is a ] from Serbo-Croatian. In fact it's something called a ]. Sorry, I learned the word five minutes ago.--] 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== Other countries (other than Israel) that more closely resemble SA Apartheid? Which are they?==

The lead includes the following statement that is not backed up by anything in the rest of the article, and the footnote itself doesn't mention a country "that more closely resembles" Apartheid either. The lead should not included weak and perhaps non-existent claims.

"and that the practices of other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid. " ] 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:I've actually seen this argument made before. That the real apartheid is Islamic apartheid. Just add a citation needed template for now and we'll work on getting a source.--] 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::If you can get a source, that seems like a good solution.--] 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream sources: from the '']'':

<blockquote>Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries deny equal rights to women, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others. Where are the protests against Saudi apartheid?</blockquote>

I can find other sources too if you want to be stubborn.--] 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Islamic nations are criticised for human rights violations, but are RARELY if ever compared to South Africa and Apartheid. Israel, a democracy, is compared to South Africa. That's a big difference.] 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

==Some Critics==
6SJ7, I don't believe you've explained why you think the lead needs to characterize the analogy as coming from "some critics of Israel." Being gramatically unnecessary, it seems to basically be your OR. If you think it's necessary, feel free to explain why. ] 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== removed Jimmy Carter ==

His book says there is apartheid in Palestine, especially referencing the territories, but he never says that israel itself practices apartheid. He even makes this clear in speeches and interviews, etc., to it's essentially libel to say he makes this analogy for Israel when he only does it for Palestine. Removed him.--] 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:::"...he never says that israel itself practices apartheid"??? Carter writes "...A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. '''This is the policy now being followed'''..." I haven't yet looked at the edits being made to this article, and don't have time now, but these words are a clear '''allegation of Israeli apartheid''', which is the title of the article. The title of the article doesn't say "...in Israel" ] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, i really disagree. Since Carter makes his point using the concept of apartheid, it is really better to leave that information in the entry, where others can find it, and use it. This is an article to describe and detail broad uses of the term "apartheied" in relation to this topic, not to split hairs. --] 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::You're ignoring what I said. I know he says "apartheid", that's the title of his book. But it's not a reference to Israel, but to the existential situation he thinks the Palestinians and the Israelis find themselves in, respectively. His book, I remind you, is called ''Palestine: Peace not apartheid.'' Palestine refers to the entire land both the arab palestinians and the jews are on. Not only this, but he's even devoted speaches and articles to clarifying how his view isn't that there is "Israeli apartheid." He blame both sides (israel for the wall, palestinians for terrorism) in creating this situation they find themselves in. I'm removing the libelous quote unless you have some further explanation for it, or can address what I'm saying here.--] 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Urthogie, if you don't like the treatment, you should try to change it as seems appropriate. Suggesting this is libelous because you see a slight distinction from what Carter has said doesn't seem helfpul. As we define the analogy, we say that it refers to several things which are broadly defined. For that matter, where do we say the analogy alleges a policy of apartheid in Israel? Particularly with Sm8900's clarifications, I don't see any possible misunderstanding. Carter is extremely important to this debate, though; again, if you want to change something, do, but we can't just delete him. ] 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Sorry, but the article does in fact lay the definition square at the hands of Israeli policies: "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from the policies apartheid era South Africa to those of Israel." Neither Carter, nor Zbigniew Brzezinski use it this way-- to describe Israeli policies. Only to describe the situation that the sides find themselves in. It's not only OR, but it's libelous. I'm sticking to that.--] 16:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The only way in which Carter is releveant to this article is his many speeches and article in which he has made clear why he named his book what he did:

<blockquote>Well, he has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not "Israel." He should go to the second word in the title, which is "Peace." And then the last two words "Not Apartheid." ''I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid''. But there is a clear distinction between the policies within the nation of Israel and within the occupied territories that Israel controls and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. . . . (Italics added.)</blockquote>

Please stop libelling the man. The "apartheid" situation in the West Bank is a criticism of Israeli policies there, but not at all referencing anything close to an "Israeli apartheid" policy as defined by this article.--] 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:Urthogie, here is a quote which I just found from Carter. it completely proves that he '''does''' make the comparison. Now could we please stop arguing over this? Thanks.

:<blockquote> "When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa." (ref: , haaretz.com, 11/12/06). </blockquote>--] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, very well. If we're keeping him though, it needs to be specified he's not talking about all of Palestine, but only the West Bank. This is a key point that seperates him from the bi-national supporters.--] 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::My most recent change creates a section to specify between the two, so that this issue doesn't get confused. Some people say all of Israel is just apartheid because they believe Palestinians should own all the land. Others, like carter, believe Israeli policies perpetrate apartheid in the West Bank. Important distinction, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the writers of that article discussed in the overview section. --] 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with you completely, Urthogie. This article should make that distinction very clear.--] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::::that sounds fine. thanks. --] 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Also, can you work to help me remove examples of original research in the arguments sections? That is, remove any link that doesn't talk about the relevance of whatever issue to apartheid in specific.--] 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== Can we remove mentions of Gaza? ==

Israel unilaterally disengaged. Unless the criticism was written after the unilateral disengagement, I'm suggesting we remove it, as it makes a joke out of the arguments for the analogy, and for those who are ver ignorant on this subject it actually makes them think that Israel has done nothing to leave Gaza.--] 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:I would say that as long as Israel continues to control all land, air, and sea access routes into Gaza, then the territory is still under ''de facto'' control. Removing a ground presence was only a small part of the equation. ] 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:Most of the mentions of Gaza in the article relate to ongoing cantonization and border control issues that are still very much current. Don't see how removing these allegations makes sense solely because Israel has no feet on the ground there. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Tarq.] 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the mentions of Gaza in this article seem to deal mainly with occupation of land, not with border control or land, air, and sea control to apartheid. I'm saying we should remove those that talk about the land control, pre-gaza withdrawl.--] 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing what you are seeing. There may be a need for a historical section of allegations that are no longer current. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::How about, to be more specific, "Historical uses of the allegation"?--] 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:::''Historical allegations'' or something, sure. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::I really lean against any wholesale removals of any material. So let's keep it in, for reasons stated above. thanks. --] 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I d'know how moving it to a new section is "removal"--] 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== Hows the new lead? ==

I like to think of myself as a neutral person, because I'm rabidly pro and anti Israel at the same time. How is this lead?--] 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:I wasn't under the impression that anyone opposed this lead, but it seems like G-Dett might. Lemme exlpain why I wrote it this way:

<blockquote>
When the allegation of Israeli apartheid is made, it can mean one of two things. The first thing it can refer to is the claim that Israeli policy in the West Bank is analogous to apartheid. It can also refer to a seperate claim--which by default accepts the first one as well-- that Israel is a South Africa- style apartheid state.

The issues involved the first allegation are the conditions and restrictions placed on Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank, while the issues involved in the second allegation are supposed similarities between Israel and South Africa. A book-length study on the subject of these allegations said that the second claim is made most often by "Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state." The first claim, however, is associated with a seperate group, "which sees both similarities and differences, and which looks to South African history for guidance in bringing resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians."

The majority of intellectuals and journalists, however, disagree with the allegation being used in any way "and deplore what deem its propagandistic goals."
</blockquote>

:As you can see, the entire article is framed in a way which represents the largest piece of summarizing literature on the subject. This is about as close as we can get to fairly representing this material, and as far as we can get from original research. This stands in stark contrast to the mud-slinging fights that occured on the editing of the former lead, in which various people with opinions would add sentences that had subtle POV's.--] 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::How do I like it? I like that what you wrote (which I've reverted by the way) drew the distinction between the situation in Israel and the situation in the territories. I didn't like that the phrasing was so casual and chatty and unencyclopedic. I didn't like the last sentence distorted a sentence of Adam and Moodley's, and I didn't like that you threw it up there so casually without getting consensus here.

::I do like that you're interested in neutrality, and look forward to working with you.

::I also gotta admit that I ''do'' kind of like how you've swanned in here, made a bunch of crazy suggestions (my favorite so far is that we should remove reference to Carter because he's talking about an "existential apartheid" for which Israel is blameless), and then cheerfully opened up edit wars on two or three fronts to defend them. The chutzpah of it. You're a man after my own heart.--] 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::You have to give me credit though-- I recognize when I'm wrong :) Anyways, am I right to say the issues you have are with

:::#The style of speech being too chatty.
:::#The sentence: ''The majority of intellectuals and journalists, however, disagree with the allegation being used in any way "and deplore what deem its propagandistic goals."''

:::I can reasonably understand point number 1, although personally I'd take an informal voice over POV any day. I think that can be fixed as the article evolves. Point number 2... how does that misrepresent the authors who explicitly say: "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."?--] 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It misrepresents them because they're not talking about "allegations of Israeli apartheid." They're talking about broad historical comparisons; they're talking about any work (like theirs, for example) that attempts to "draw strategic lessons from the negotiated settlement in South Africa for the unresolved conflict in the Middle East." The mistake is hardly your fault; Adam and Moodley have been cherry-picked to death on this page. They're worth reading in the unadulterated original.

::::You say you prefer chit-chat to POV. Who was it who said, ]? Yogi Berra? Jack Handey? Help me here.

::::Have you recognized you were wrong about the infobox/banner issue? Because that silly tendentious thing with all its eager & hopeful red links is still sitting there at the top of the page.--] 20:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::No, of course I wasn't wrong about the banner issue.

:::::You're ignoring the basic fact that the three groups concern commentators on the analogy of apartheid. You're ignoring it by pointing out what the entire essay is about. Yes, the essay as a whole is about "broad historical comparisons", yes, but this ignores the fact that it's broken down into sections, and this is from one that deals with how people comment on the analogy. What you're saying is the logical equivelant of someone saying we can't use a book on dogs for a source on dalmations, because that quote doesn't deal with the "broader context" of dogs as an entire species.

:::::As a sidenote, I have read them in the article/essay in its unadulterated original format and I think this cherrypicked quote is actually one of the best quotes to use for framing this article. Apparently, so do others, because they've chosen to use it for an overview before I even came here.

:::::As far as Yogi Berra and such, how about ''you'' fix the voice, then if you're such a good editor in deciding how a sentence should sound. It's not a "false choice" as you would suggest, but it can be a win-win situation if you'll just improve the voice. I hope I've shown that there's no NPOV issue by highlighting your mistaken logic.--] 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::The Adam & Moodley material is from a book, not an essay. One chapter of it is available online; that chapter has tended to be read in isolation here (as an "essay"), and it's that one that's been cherry-picked to death. Now, it is absolutely clear that the tripartite division you're quoting from refers to attitudes towards the broad historical comparison, not the apartheid "allegation" (a word, incidentally, never used by A & M). You will see this if you read the paragraph which precedes the tripartite division, especially the first two sentences of that paragraph (p.19 in the original, p.12 in the online pdf file). For Adam & Moodley's presentation of the various components of that broad comparison, which include but are not limited to the apartheid analogy, see the next section (p.21-27 in the original), "Uses and Abuses of the Israel-South Africa Comparison."

::::::As for your last suggestion, I don't spit-polish shoes I don't intend to keep.--] 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are allegations of apartheid ''not'' a broad historical comparison or analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa?--] 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:Read pages 21-27, especially the first paragraph.

:Regarding the infobox, I'm still waiting for a reply to .--] 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::One sec, if the overview already had conensus, why would putting similar stuff in the lead suddenly be "cherry-picking"? My lead already has consensus based on this fact alone, that the overview stayed so solid. The only element of my lead that needs improvement is it's style-- an issue you brought up just to denigrate my edits to stop them from staying in the lead. If you continue to take this approach I'll just revert you whenever I get a chance. Chances are, more people will help me with that than you think. So my advice is for you to try and more actively gain consensus.--] 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with all the points made by G-Dett, as well as his overall approach and concerns. Thanks. --] 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Good, because I'd hate to have to discuss this with two people who have unique points of view on the issue. It gets confusing.--] 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, if you were being reasonable, you would admit that you came here a couple weeks ago to insert this argument in the lead, failed, and so then decided to replace it in template form.

Either way, if you get around to responding to G-Dett's post, please also try to explain again why you think we should have this particular "lower level template" here rather than any "higher level template." As I pointed out above, your example of ] actually cuts directly against your point, since all of the ], ], etc. articles actually have a plain ], not a narrow one on ]. It's gotten a little silly here to ask you to actually argue your point consistently, but since three editors are disagreeing with you, perhaps it's worth asking again. ] 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::I would like to second Mackan79's last post. Again, I agree with both him and G-Dett. And Urthogie, I am glad you see the merits of aruging with one point of view. perhaps you will realize that the essence of Misplaced Pages discussions is that each user usually represents a larger group of users who have a similar set of concerns. Since that simple idea seems to be in doubt here, i am using this to express my support for the other two editors, as a group. Thanks. --] 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, I'd be fine deleting the template, but simply tend to take a more minimalist approach. The problem with this template happens only to be specifically in regard to this article, where it was included as a sort of ], and serves to promote a particular argument. Does it make sense to require the deletion of the whole template because it presents a POV problem in one article? I'm afraid the result would be an unnecessary deadlock. ] 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:I believe apartheid, as a crime against humanity, is evil in all its forms, and while I certainly believe that Israel is the most egregious current example of its practice, I don't think a template listing it whereever it might reasonably said to be in practice is a terrible thing. I do understand that Urthogie's motive might not be pure, but considering the pre-existance of the general ] article, I can't say I disapprove of an overall (re)split with a navigatible template for this whole topic. Rome wasn't built in a day and I'd be happy were he to flesh out this template more fully, but I wouldn't mind giving this a week or two. At which point ] would be the best place to address your concerns. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

::I, like the majority of journalists and commentators believe the analogy is complete propaganda in regards to calling Israel an "apartheid state", and hyperbole in regards to the West Bank. The wall, the west bank, all of this is because of Palestinian terrorism. The Jewish state of Israel, unlike apartheid South Africa, is here to stay, no matter how much it's smeared.--] 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:::You, like the majority of those who employ the analogy, don't think it applies to the situation within Israel proper.--] 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Unindent. Lead had gotten quite ugly, with a fourth paragraph repeating an element of the third, a misplaced plural, etc. So I tightened it, not removing any substantive element, I think. ] 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

::andy, the fourth paragraph did not in any way repeat the third. In fact, it directly recgonized and addressed some key allegations regarding apartheid. it did not deny them, but provided a rationale based on security considerations. Thanks. --] 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:::It's a few hours ago, and therefor old history, but the fourth paragraph redundantly repeated the now-removed third (equally badly written) paragraph phrase "...that the cited practices of the analogy are based on security needs...". What's missing from the fourth paragraph now is the "instead of" component... Of course, apartheid had a real security component too, so it's a badly thought out argument for the illegitimacy of the analogy. The analogy is an attempt to appropriate the opprobrium earned by the racist components of apartheid to a situation where those elements are a much less important part of the ideology... But, I didn't remove the argument from the lead because it is a poor one. I just removed the then-existant repetition. ] 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== another request for editors of this page ==

Can you guys check to make sure that everything listed under "Israel alleged apartheid state" doesn't more accurately fit under "Israel alleged apartheid in territories." We don't want to libel anybody, so check the sources :)--] 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== NPOV tag replacement ==

Can I suggest use of ]. Problems with this article appear to be not just ], but that this article reads in parts like an essay and contains non-encyclopedic content. Some people may feel ] applies to, but this seems to have plenty of references.--] 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== POV tag ==

This article has been tagged as POV for a year.

NPOV is the most basic of wikipedia policies.

I think we should set a date until which this article would become NPOV. If we fail by that date we should remove the article. ] 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:Zeq, the reason people are removing the statements you're putting into the proponents sentence is that those are not what proponents say. It's not up to Misplaced Pages to try to rebut what the proponents say in the middle of the sentence where it's being put forward. What you're adding is right there in the next sentence, under what those who reject the analogy say. ] 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== lead shouldn't give undue weight ==

I reverted back to a somewhat earlier version (not the version I wrote, but only with a small modification by me). It is a violation of ] to give undue weight in the lead to those positions which accept the allegations. In fact, only in the final paragraph do we actually figure out what ''most'' commentators think about the allegation. Please don't remove this important fact, as we are otherwise giving undue weight to supporters (who are a minority in the press), and taking away the deserved weight of detractors (a majority in the press). If I were really being stubborn I'd insist we give more weight to the majority view on whether these allegations are valid, because the majority view is by definition deserving of more weight. However, I have been willing to compromise and give slightly less weight to the mainstream opinion which deserves immensely more. I've also compromised by not restoring my own lead, because I listened to consensus, despite the fact that I think it's immensely better than this lead.--] 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:Urthogie, you're the one who keeps saying we should acknowldge that some allegations pertain only to the West Bank, not to Israel itself or even the Gaza Strip. I am simply trying to reflect that difference. As for the restrictions, almost all commentators do accept that there are restrictions. They only differ on the cause. --] 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editor just removed this verified statement that most commentators reject the allegations as propaganda with the edit summary "RV POV". How is this qualification a point of view? Does anyone disatgree with it? It's a verified statement of fact.--] 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== Chill out on the lead for G-d's sake ==
Can we slow down a little with these incessant modifications of the lead? The usual protocol is to copy whatever version of the lead has enjoyed some stability (meaning weeks, usually) and paste it in on the talk page, list your objections to it and propose a substitute in draft form. Then others either echo your objections or dismiss them. If the latter, you're out of luck. If the former, then they make suggestions and modifications to your draft rewrite. By and by the draft rewrite tightens and refines and gets backing; and when it reaches some critical mass of consensus and stability it's moved, with a certain amount of fanfare, into the article itself.

The lead isn't the place to build sandcastles to be knocked down by the next caprice of the tides.

I'm not going to edit-war with you, Urthogie, but it may interest you to know that the last paragraph of the lead as you've got it now is virtually a word-for-word repetition of the second-to-last. Then again, that's probably all changed in the three minutes I've taken to write this.--] 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, this edit comment warring is a waste of time.--<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="yellow">]</font><font color="black">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:G-Dett, I hate that last paragraph too. I just kept it because I saw there was a seperate edit war going on over it. Feel free to remove it and edit war on it as I don't like it either. Sm8900 might get in your way though.--] 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

::May I ask what problem you have with that paragraph? i thought it was constructive, as being fairer to Israel. Thanks. --] 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Well like other users said, it's redundant.--] 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::::How is it redundant? it refers directly to the West bank, unlike the third para, which focuses mainly on Israeli Arabs. --] 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


*I don't see any Misplaced Pages policy that talks about "stability". I wish there was one and only after an article would be stable (no editors change it) for 3 month it will become viewable to the public.
*until such policy is in affect we will follow NPOV and LEAD policies. ] 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's how the last two sentences read when I posted my exasperated comment:<blockquote>
They also assert that Israel's limitations on Palestinians in the West Bank are justified by the ongoing hostility to Israel of numerous Palestinian groups.</blockquote>

<blockquote>They who reject the analogy also assert that Israel's limitations and protective measures against Palestinians in the West Bank are made necessary by security concerns, due to ongoing hostility to Israel from numerous Palestinian groups.
</blockquote>

The protocol for lead revision that I outlined at the top of this section ensures that the lead, whatever other faults it may suffer from at any given moment, will not stammer and chatter its way through these faults.--] 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== gaza should have its own section, as should west bank ==

Every single accusation of apartheid in Gaza before unilateral disengagement should be placed in a seperate section. While Israel controls the air space, and the borders, I'm yet to see any sources that say that this amounts to apartheid in the settlements. What reasons are there to oppose this rather logical division, aside to confuse people who haven't heard of the disengagement, or make this article not be taken seriously by those who have?--] 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== any secondary source for this quote? ==

"The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state" -- south African prime minister. I think it's likely true because South Africa was attempting to defend itself from criticism by associating with a morally just cause, but I'd still like to see a primary or secondary source even though my intuition is that it's true. The only source I could find was the guardian one, which is a tertiary source. Anyone know of a document or video from that era for this quote?--] 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== questionable examples ==

Shulamit Aloni, former education minister, Israel Prize winner, and a former leader of Meretz, and Tommy Lapid, leader of the liberal Shinui and former Justice minister, used the term "apartheid" when describing a bill proposed by the government of Ariel Sharon to bar Arabs from buying homes in "Jewish townships" within Israel proper.

Aloni's article clearly does not use the "Israeli apartheid" allegation in reference to Israel itself, but rather to its actions in the territories:

<blockquote>Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.</blockquote>

He therefore belongs in that section on settlements, not this one.

Lapid never even says there's apartheid. He variously says it "smell of apartheid" and that it's "getting close to apartheid". Note, he's saying this individual law is apartheid, not all of Israel, as well. Perhaps we need sections for specific laws and policies within Israel, so that we don't make it look like anyone who calls a given policy apartheid is saying the whole state of Israel is "apartheid state."--] 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:Israel is an apartheid state if they are creating apartheid conditions in the West Bank, right? I understand the distinction you are trying to draw, but you need to make it more explicit. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

::We intentionally created a new section just so we could distinguish between the claims against all of Israel vs. Israel in the territories. Do you still oppose my move, to that section, then?--] 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I believe your resplit into three sections makes more sense. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== my mistake ==

I just noticed that most of the quotes mention the West Bank and Gaza in the same sentence, so it's literally impossible to seperate the two from each other. I'm going to try to make clear in the lead of that section that Israel no longer occupies Gaza land. --] 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== Two problems with Kritt's changes ==

*First off, Tutu's apartheid allegations are solely based on Israel's actions in the territories. He goes out of his way to say that Israel proper is democratic.
*Second off, "most" is not a POV in the lead sentence. It's referenced to a source which, in dividing academic and journalistic commentators on the analogy into groups, says:
*Note: not some, but "the majority." Important distinction.
<blockquote>"The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."</blockquote>
*This page is called Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Kritt changed the lead to just have '''Israeli apartheid''' bolded, going against both style guidelines and NPOV. This is clear evidence that Kritt is not up to date with knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies.
*Kritt butchered a sentence in the lead which explained reasons that mainstream critics cite for not accepting the analogy, thus removing perfectly good references without anything on the talk page.

I've reverted Kritt. --] 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the lead: I believe Urthogie's format used here better and more consise, and I made the same improvement: ]. Why the diffence?

Tutu talks specifically about Jerusalem, not the West Bank and Gaza. Please read his comments, he talks about "Holy Land" (Tutu's own words), not the "occupied West Bank".

The lead should not contain the quotes of one person as a set in stone summary. The lead you restored is POV, and it removed the issue regarding physical separation.

Please do not Edit War.] 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:Tutu doesn't say Jerusalem is apartheid though. He criticizes the situation in Jerusalem, but doesn't call it apartheid. He calls the situation in the territories apartheid.

:Feel free to add back physical separation (as long as its made clear that its Palestinians, not Arab-Israelis who are physically separated.) T

:The quote is not one person, but from a book length study on the comparison, which actually doesn't agree with the majority. To play it off as a POV issue is therefore ridiculous. Also, note how it has had constant consensus in the Overview section.--] 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. Tutu knows everything there is to know about apartheid, he's leveled the charge against Israel, and his direct quote refers to Palestinians that no longer can access their homes in Jerusalem inside of Israel itself. It's clear as day what Tutu is saying. Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue.] 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry, but you're the one confusing the issue. You're saying that anything bad Tutu says about Israel is a reference to apartheid, even though he only uses the term explicitly in reference to the territories.--] 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


The word apartheid doesn't have to appear in every sentence. Please cool it. Urthogie, kindly do not try to censor Desmond Tutu. His comments are clear.] 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, his comments are clear. For example:

<blockquote>Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.</blockquote>

Sorry Kritt, but he think justice means leaving the territories, not destroying the Jewish state of Israel. So your reading of him is not only original research, but it's also wrong.--] 12:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

==Lead: "and that ''other countries whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid'' are not accused of it."]==

Who says other countries practices more closely resemble South Africa's than do Israel's? Let's see some sources for that before it makes into a Misplaced Pages lead paragraph. Israel is accused of apartheid far more than is any other country in the world. South African anti-apartheid individuals have not accused Islamic countries, Cuba, Brazil, or Australia anywhere near the level they have Israel. The lead is POV and unsupportable.] 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:Read the sentence carefully. It's specified as an argument among those who oppose the analogy only. Sources seem to be already provided.

:Israel is accused more of apartheid more than any in the world because a large portion of the world doesn't think Jews have a right to a Jewish state in Palestine. But this petty argument has nothing to do with the article.--] 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the two sources you have are very weak for the claims you make in the Lead. They belong elsewhere. I read those sources and they do not agree with the sentence you support: ''"whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid"''. The sources you have provided do not make that claim. Even so, it's a very small contingent that you are using, it's very much like cherry-picking, to support a point-of-view. Islamic nations may commit human rights abuses, but nobody calls it "apartheid" as they do democratic Israel. It truly doesn't belong in the lead and it's POV and unsupportable. Please reconsider it. Thanks.] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:UPDATE: Just noticed I misread you...Two sources work for that argument to establish that its made. I can add more if you insist.

:Some Islamic nations bar non-muslims from entry, most treat women worse than anywhere in the world, most of them you can't live in safety if you're Jewish, and some of them you'll have econd class status in a lot of them if you're christian. I don't call it apartheid, though, because that's an insult to South Africa. People call Israel apartheid, despite the fact that arabs there have better lives than in any of their dictatorships, because they truly believe Palestinians own the entire land, believing that the Jews have no right to a Jewish state there. Such is politics. And that's why most educated commentators don't resort to such rhetorical violence.--] 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:I said that I read through the sources that are provided as the footnotes ( I think currently #3, #4), and they do not say what the Lead sentence says. It's POV and maybe your personal view of things.

::Because you might hate Islamic practices, doesn't mean that the world calls them apartheid, that's what I'm saying, and you haven't shown where the back up is for ''other countries whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid'', where is it? We are talking about a lead paragraph, and there's no back up.] 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Some of the world does call it apartheid-- in major newspapers, policy magazines, etc. Two sources are enough to establish the argument exists for this page, by the way. I'll add more in a sec.--] 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:also, can I ask how you came here all of a sudden, having edited almost solely this page, and knowing how wikipedia works from the very first second? This is just a sidenote.--] 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:I read through tons and tons of the Discussion page here.] 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the sentence's own sources and footnotes (as weak as they are) do not back up the sentence! It's misleading and doesn't belong anywhere near the Lead. It's POV and speculative.] 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


:I looked at the sources, they do work. For example, from "Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel":

:<blockquote>''Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries deny equal rights to women, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others. Where are the protests against Saudi apartheid?''</blockquote>

:You need to look more thoroughly it seems.--] 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That one rhetoical question is all there is from a newspaper editorial? That doesn't warrant a sentence in the lead. It does not say that it "more closely resembles S. African apartheid", and there are literally zero South Africans that have made that claim. Come on now, please stop disrupting the article with unsourced POV claims.] 06:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== why i moved shulamit aloni ==

She is not saying Israel is an apartheid state, she says that only the territories are. From the source provided:

<blockquote>Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. </blockquote>

1967, people. Not 1948.--] 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

== don't put examples in the issues subsections ==

Examples should go at the top of the allegations sections. I've moved (or removed, in the case of repeats) examples that are in the individual issues susbections. The point of these subsections is to explain the ''reasons'' for various POVs, rather than to just quote more allegations.--] 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

*This isn't a criticism per se, but the sheer volume of edits lately is getting out of hand. I see little reason for a single editor to make two dozen separate edits in approximately 30 minutes, for example. Perhaps work should be done off in a personal sandbox or some such, and then incorporate the change in one shot? ] 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:Well, I'm being bold, but not reckless. Any possibly controversial change is mentioned on the talk page. Do you have specific concerns with my edits?--] 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::As I said; the volume. It makes the history page a nightmare to navigate this way. Just suggesting that you do what you want to to in one edit rather than 30 in a row. 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Well with many edits users can revert to a certain point, rather than whole sale. It's actually done so that consensus is easier to reach, even if it's hard to navigate.--] 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

== removed Zbigniew Brzezinski ==

This is the actual quote from the source:

<blockquote>Zbigniew Brzezinski: President Carter, in my judgement, is correct in fearing that the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid: ie, two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation.</blockquote>

This is represented in the article as an allegation of apartheid, which it isn't. This article isn't called ]. Apparently someone went googling for everything with Israel and apartheid in its text :)--] 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:I think perhaps the article should better clarify at the front the way in which the analogy is often used, which is how Carter and Brzezinski use it. Your problem gets to G-Dett's earlier comments about the problem with this compromise title, in taking an often somewhat waffly discussion and turning it into a formal allegation against Israel. That wasn't the intent of the title. In theory, I think we have still been treating this as a page on "Israeli Apartheid" and discussion of that analogy, which was not limited to formal allegations, but intended to include the entire discussion. ] 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

::Well, the current title was formed by consensus and has stayed that way in line with ]. To me, it's like holding a grudge on the article when you guys (and girls) treat it like it has a different name.--] 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't what it means to "hold a grudge on an article." There are some editors who think the apartheid analogy is justified and some who don't. And early on there was a debate about whether this article should address the substantive issues behind the analogy or whether it should treat it as some kind of epithet. The compromise word which allowed the article to move forward was "allegations." Common usage has conferred upon this word dual connotations: it can sound grave and detailed ("serious allegations") or spurious and concocted ("wild allegations"). This makes it diplomatically useful to us, which is presumably why we chose it. I've grown weary explaining, however, that our use of the word in the title is inaccurate and misleading, because an "allegation" strictly speaking is an assertion of fact that is in theory falsifiable, not an interpretation or comparison that can be debated but not proven or disproven. The vast majority of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" described by this article aren't allegations at all. The only actual "allegations" as such are those pertaining to the crime of apartheid as defined under international law.

:::The title in other words is merely a flawed attempt to name and summarize the contents of the article. It's not a blueprint for the contents of the article; to treat it as such puts the cart before the horse. In any case, if we ''were'' to begin using the title as a blueprint for appropriate content, then this article would be about a paragraph long and no more. And then all of the material that doesn't deal with the legally defined crime of apartheid, but instead with ethically and historically based comparisons that animate so much popular, political, and scholarly debate, but can't be proven or disproven – that is to say, everything here from Jimmy Carter to Adam and Moodley to Desmond Tutu to Benjamin Pogrund – would have to be moved to some new page, and we'd be back to square one, trying to figure out what to call it.

:::Speaking of square one, Urthogie, do you think you could make a practice of using this page to propose edits you intend to make, rather than announce ones you have made?--] 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Carter and Tutu do belong here. People who say the jewish state is apartheid belong here. people who say the territories are apartheid belong here. those who criticize israeli policies and call them apartheid belong here. Does the apartheid of the future belong here? No, no it doesn't. ].--] 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::It's all part of the analogy, which is what this article is about. That includes "We have apartheid," "We don't have apartheid," "We ended apartheid," "We're on the cusp of apartheid," etc. Discussion of this issue is what we should include, not merely people who say "Yes" or "No." He's also discussing Carter's view about the apartheid analogy. Again, I think the issue here is really framing, not whether to delete promient references. ] 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::<blockquote>That includes "We have apartheid," "We don't have apartheid," "We ended apartheid," "We're on the cusp of apartheid," etc.</blockquote>

::::::Yes, I agree that all of those are included, too. However, what is not included is someone's prediction of what will likely happen in the future. And I agree, also, that this quote could be kept in the article if it was framed in reference to Carter's view. For those who want to keep it, I suggest attaching it as a comment made by him on Carter's view.--] 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry, Urthogie, but I don't find this reasoning compelling. A good many people who talk about "Israeli Apartheid" and have given the term currency hedge on the question of whether apartheid is a fully present reality now or an ineluctable future consequence of present policies (Carter, for one, says both things). It makes no sense to divide this into two articles, one for debate of the first position and one for debate of the second, because out there in the real world the discussion just isn't divided up in this way. --] 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's simply not an example of the allegation. That's a fact. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the article. I'm saying he shouldn't be in the examples section at the beginning of that section-- because he's not an example of someone who's made the allegation.--] 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Here's what he defines as apartheid: ''"two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation."'' You're saying there's some aspect of this he thinks isn't happening now, but ''might'' one day happen? I think you're putting terrific strain on the obvious meaning of his words. The future-tense aspect of his statement (not that it matters) is rhetorical: it's a way of saying it's not too late, we can stop this thing before it becomes permanent, and so on. This is a pretty common rhetorical mode when you're imploring someone, directly or indirectly, to change their ways: "If you go on drinking like this, you're going to have a serious problem." --] 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::In the quote, Zbig says he agrees with his old boss, and then misquotes him (Carter alleges present apartheid, in the territories). Are there other refs for ZB on this subject? ] 13:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::This really is a non-issue. Brzezinski's not misquoting Carter. He's phrasing Carter's argument diplomatically. There are plenty of situations in the English language in which temporality of verb tense doesn't correspond to temporality of subject matter. The second and third sentences of the very post I'm writing, for example, use the present tense for something that plainly happened in the past. We quote past statements in the present tense; it's an idiomatic formula deriving from a literary convention of honoring the continued relevance of past authors, who still "speak" to us. There are many such idiomatic formulas. In the case of Brzezinski's quote, the idiomatic formula is that of the diplomatic imploration, in which what is obviously a present reality is deferred into a grammatical future tense, in order to stress that it's not too late for something positive to be done. Someone who says "if you don't knock it off, I'm going to get annoyed" is already annoyed, not speculating about a possible future mood. Someone who's told "if you don't come clean with us, you're going to lose credibility" has already lost credibility. It is exactly the same thing when Brzezinski says if Israel doens't change it's policies there's going to be ''"two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation."'' That's already the situation; Zbig's saying it's not too late to change the status quo. Let's not be thick-skulled here.--] 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Nonsense. If I tell you to tell Urthogie that that if he doesn't knock it off I'm going to kick his ass and you tell Urthogie that if he doesn't knock it off I'm going to be annoyed you aren't speaking in some diplomatic hopeful tense. You're misquoting me. I take it the answer is we don't have a second source for Zbig on Israel/apartheid? ] 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Your verve is coming through loud and clear, your point less so. How does Brzezinski misquote Carter? Is your concern the same as Urthogie's, about Brzezinski's verb tense? When you say you want a "second source for Zbig on Israel/apartheid," it's not clear to me what you're asking for. Do you want the second source to give a different Brzezinski quote? Or just gloss this quote in clear terms as an example of the Israel/apartheid analogy? I hope you're not demanding that the source use the word "allegation," because not very many of our sources – not even Adam & Moodley, our central source – use that word, because it's the wrong word.--] 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm asking if there is a second instance of ZB using the a-word. ZB says Carter "is correct in '''fearing''' that the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is '''likely''' to '''produce''' a situation which '''de facto''' will '''resemble''' apartheid". But what Carter actually said is that apartheid is is Israel's "'''present policy'''". I don't think that what's going on in the "Ask the Expert" article is ZB "phrasing Carter's argument diplomatically". He's being diplomatic, all right, but what's really happened is that "Sy Lippman, Los Angeles, CA" has dropped this radioactive turd in his lap and he is staying as far away from it as possible without letting the words "I disagree with Jimmy Carter" pass his lips. He does this by "agreeing" with a misquotation of what Carter has said. We ought to be careful not to misrepresent ZB as a supporter of the analogy without including the context and all the caveats he does, unless we have another citation that enables us to go further (which is what I've asked about). Urthogie was absolutely right that the 29 March version didn't come close to doing this and while the current situation is much improved as regards what he said it's still somewhat deficient in context. I don't know that this is fixable in the appropriate amount of space. ] 21:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Andyvphil, I agree with you in one respect, that we shouldn't foreground with great fanfare a quote taken from a Q & A (even a formal, written and prepared Q & A with a former national security advisor in a major international newspaper). Your interpretation of Brzezinski's response to the question, however, strikes me as totally unfounded. He doesn't toss this "radioactive turd" out of his lap; on the contrary, he emphatically states '''a)''' his support for Carter's thesis; '''b)''' his disgust with Carter's critics-cum-character assassins, and '''c)''' his concern about the climate of intimidation surrounding the topic broached by Carter. His response is energetically forthright and entirely free of weasel words. It is also provocatively detailed and explicit: ''"two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation."'' And yet you're asking us to believe that his choice of verb tense – idiomatically ordinary as it is – amounts to a "misquotation" of Carter, and that this misquotation reveals his underlying desire to make clear that his endorsement of Carter's argument is ''really'' a rejection of it. The logic of this is perverse: you're insisting that we scrutinize his words with extreme literalness, idiom be damned; but then on the basis of that literal reading, we should conclude that he really means the exact opposite of what he says. Go figure.--] 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::The idea that the difference between what Zbig says Carter says and what Carter actually says is a matter of verb tense is, again, nonsense. Carter says the '''current policy''' of Israel is apartheid. Zbig "agrees" that if things aren't worked out something resembling apartheid may result in the indefinite future. If you insist that he's saying, in some obscurantist (but assertedly, somehow, not weasel-like) idiom, that the '''current''' policy of Israel is apartheid then it is '''you''' who is suggesting "we should conclude that he really means the exact opposite of what he says" about the subject of '''this article'''. That he may agree with Carter that America should promote a "fair and mutually acceptable resolution" without undue inflence from the pro-Israel lobby may be interesting, but is not on point here. ] 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Brzezinski doesn't see a difference between his own position and Carter's. I don't see a difference. But you do. Do you think that the other Brzezinski material I've posted below would not be on point in this article, on the grounds of its verb tenses? Having read it, do you still think the apartheid comparison was a "radioactive turd" thrown on Brzezinski's lap by an impertinent Angeleno, or would you agree he's been willingly invoking it for a decade now?--] 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, stop making original research arguments combining your apparent knowledge of linguistics ("no, no, he really means this") and the Brzezinsky quote. Please, learn to choose your battles, this is a relatively minor loss considering how many other examples you could find in the time you spent arguing. Thanks, ] 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:It's not a loss, Urthogie, you're being ridiculous. If this is merely a discussion of "allegations," then we would not be able to have any opposition to those allegations either. "Sorry, that's not an allegation." I'm waiting for you to get done with your revamp for the time being, but there is no way we would remove this reference. ] 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:This isn't a battle, Urthogie, just a diversion. You've mistaken a patient, painstaking explanation of the obvious for a detailed display of expertise. I don't know the first thing about linguistics; the issue here is idiomatic competence, which all editors are expected to have.--] 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if you guys insist I suppose I can be pragamatic-- I don't want it outside the context of Carter's views though. Remember, it's merely a response to a question about Carter's views. And I'm not changing my mind on this. Since I'm making a reasonable comrpomise to be fair rather than correct, I'll revert either of you on a daily basis if you try to remove this compromise.--] 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

==More Brzezinski material, going back ten years==
Brzezinski has apparently been invoking Israeli apartheid for a decade now. In 1997, sitting alongside Madelaine Albright on PBS's ''Newshour'', Brzezinski said of then-Prime Minister ]:<blockquote>
His concept of "peace" is really very different from the concept of peace that labor embraced and which I suspect we support. His concept of peace is essentially a very close equivalent of what the white supremacist apartheid government in South Africa was proposing at one point for the Africans--a series of isolated--lands--broken up, not contiguous territory, essentially living in backward villages, surrounded by white islands of prosperity. This is the Likud image of solution for the Palestinian problem, and, therefore, when he's asked to stop building settlements, to stop engaging in actions which would make peace possible, instead of subverting them, he's being asked to change his policy, and he has no incentive to do that unless he feels that America will disown him, or unless the Israeli public disowns him.
</blockquote>
In May of 2002 the ''Toronto Star'' reported that:<blockquote>
FOR YEARS, critics have compared Israeli policies in the occupied territories to the old South African apartheid system. Now more mainstream figures — such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Canadian-born former U.S. National Security Adviser, and South African anti-apartheid stalwarts Bishop Desmond Tutu and author Breyten Breytenbach — are drawing the parallel. Members of the 80,000-strong Jewish community in South Africa have joined the debate as well.</blockquote>
I can't find relevant quotes from him in 2002, but I doubt the ''Star'' was referring to his five-year-old statement on ''Newshour''. Could be, though.

In October of the following year, in a speech at the New American Strategies for Security and Peace conference in Washington, D.C., Brzezinski said:<blockquote>
Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering.

Indeed as some Israelis have lately pointed out, and I emphasize some Israelis have lately pointed out, increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa -- the minority dominating the majority, locked in a conflict from which there is no extraction. If we want to prevent this the United States above all else must identify itself with peace and help those who are the majority in Israel, who want peace and are prepared to accept peace. </blockquote>
In fact, it seems that Brzezinski has been pushing the meme for longer than Carter. I note moreover that he always uses what I'm calling the diplomatic future tense. The bad moon always rising and waxing, never quite full: "Increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa," he says in 2003. And then in 2006: "the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid." Then again when Z-Big orders a hot dog, he probably says "I would like a hot dog," like I do, just to be nice, not because his hunger is hypothetical.--] 01:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:Congratulations on your good work! This is exactly what I asked for, and we can now pull Zbig out of the Carter paragraph and attribute his own views to him, weasel-wording and all. (I still reject the "diplomatic future tense" as being anything other than weaseling.) BTW, I think one says "Xenophon says..." not as part of a convention of honoring past authors but because he "speaks" to you in the present instant whenever you are reading him; and "I would like a hot dog" is not an example of temporal shift at all -- it is perfectly correct to say "I would like a hot dog now". ] 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
::Indeed, a man who puts the word "increasingly" before every verb in a sentence, and throws in "prospect" and "becoming" and "if this continues" for good measure...is trafficking in weasel words. Can't argue with that. Put it down to a career spent in state service and a retirement spent in public punditry. Thanks for the kind words and the interesting exchange about idiom. I'm off (well, not just yet, but will be) to my four-martini-and-three-hot-dog lunch, cheers,--] 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

== Urthogie's edits ==
This is a final appeal for Urthogie to refrain from major edits without consensus. I've thus far avoided edit-warring with him, and haven't touched the page for days. At this point, however, the article is losing any semblance of being encyclopedic and is instead becoming Urthogie's highly idiosyncratic and wildly unreliable blog. Here's one of his latest additions:<blockquote>
Indeed, some Palestinians have gone so far as to encourage settlement of their land so as to make Israel look like an apartheid state.
</blockquote>This piece of lunacy is unsourced, naturally.

Urthogie, if you stop your frenzied editing now, we can group what you've done into various categories and go through it systematically. If you don't, I'm going to begin reverting, starting with what is patent nonsense, and moving through to what has been merely compromised by haste and lack of editorial judgment.--] 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:I follow the article, though I have only become seriously involved in editing on occasion. However I do watch. I was away for about 3 days, and the degree of undiscussed editing is massive. Much of it is likely to be quite contentious. Why has nobody reverted Urthogie to this point? ] 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::There have been a few attempts, but U is pretty dogged. Some of it is contentious; some of it is totally off the wall.--] 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

::I think a couple of us felt the article has been such a battle ground that we may as well let Urthogie do as he likes for a few days, and perhaps some new compromises could be found. If you look at Urthogie's talk page, you'll see he actually has been reverted a lot of times, but at least I decided to let things slide for now. That's not to say it should go on forever; if people are starting to get more fed up, anybody could start reassessing things. ] 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at G-Dett's anecodtal evidence of how I am editing in an irresponsible fashion, turning this into my "blog." She mentions this sentence,

<blockquote>Indeed, some Palestinians have gone so far as to encourage settlement of their land so as to make Israel look like an apartheid state.</blockquote>

Instead of trying to gain some insight into why I wrote this, she ignores completely the possibility that this sentence could be sourced with information already in the article. The source, of course is:

<blockquote>* Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian proponent of the binational solution has argued that it is in Palestine's interest to "make this an argument about apartheid", to the extent of advocating Israeli settlement, "The longer they stay out there, the more Israel will appear to the world to be essentially an apartheid state".]</blockquote>

There are several other Palestinian intellectuals who take this approach as well-- their argument is that ties between Israel and the territories should be strengthened so as to give an appearence of oppression and apartheid over indiscriminate economic and political boundaries.

So, while you can argue with how I summarized that source, you can't claim that sentence is "off the wall" given that it's completely sourcable. I just hadn't yet added the source(s). A more valid, and rational criticism of it would have been that it misleadingly uses weasel words-- something I hope we can discuss. I've removed it though, because--like before-- I've decided to be pragmatic rather than correct. This anecdotal sentence, meant to show my edits in a bad light does far from that-- it reveals how there is a knee jerk response to me on this page, and how well I handle critique. --] 02:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

::The most generous interpretation I can come up with is that you innocently conflated a reporter's interpretation with the comments of notable individual. Your style of editing, quite frankly, does not inspire me to generosity. You are on a controversial page. Discuss major edits '''before''' making them. ] 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::By "my style of editing" are you referring to the fact that I removed the offending sentence as soon as I saw the complaint about it?--] 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Dozens of consecutive undiscussed edits. And be careful about the bad faith comments on the talk page. ] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, first of all don't feel embattled. This has always been a contentious page. Secondly, the reaction to you here has not been "knee-jerk." In fact there's been an unusual degree of forebearance, with veteran editors of this page standing back while you rapidly dismantle work achieved through months of difficult editorial negotiations, and – without consensus or even discussion – replace it with casual, bloggily tendentious prose riddled with errors both typographical and factual. I think you timed your dramatic debut on this page very well, insofar as many here (including me) have been worn down by months of bitter edit-warring. We've been more stunned than roused to action by your five-day barrage of dubious edits.

What follows is a preliminary list of what I intend to clean up in your wake, along with detailed explanations.

'''1.'''The lead that existed before you debuted here will be restored. What you've written in its place is wordy and vague ("Those who use the analogy point to the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank") as well as inaccurate ("Most journalists and academic commentators reject the analogy as propaganda"). This last misrepresents Adam and Moodley's work in both letter and spirit. For background on this, see the detailed talk-page discussion regarding "the uses and misuses of Adam and Moodley"; it's archived . As I wrote in that earlier discussion, Adam and Moodley stress that<blockquote>"the main focus of this study" is to "draw strategic lessons from the negotiated settlement in South Africa for the unresolved conflict in the Middle East," and they make very clear that this is the analogy that provokes the three types of commentary they list. That's the general analogy that is the centerpiece of their book. There is a more specific analogy which is the centerpiece of our article, between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and Afrikaner policies toward black South Africans during apartheid. They deal with that too, but that's not what the tripartite classification refers to.</blockquote>In short, Adam and Moodley are describing a taboo that casts its shadow over any attempt, like theirs, to look to South Africa for historical guidance in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their subject is the average attitude towards a broad analogy that includes but is not limited to the moral equation our article covers; and they make clear that they regard this average attitude as representative of an unfortunate taboo, rather than a consensus of expertise or even considered judgment. Your selective and distortive use of them in the lead has the effect of suggesting the exact opposite. (It also conflates their broad subject with our narrow one.) There is no justification for this kind of distortion, and there's no need for it either, as the material in question is presented accurately, and with appropriate nuance and detail, in the very next section of the article, "Overview."
'''2.''' I'm going to remove the "allegations of apartheid" banner, per our previous discussion, which you walked away from following a series of serves you couldn't return.

'''3.''' You added this sentence last night: ''"Tutu has also leveled allegations of apartheid against China's actions in Tibet, the United Kingdom's treatment of suspected terrorists, and the United States's treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay."'' This is at best an inadvertently grotesque distortion, at worst a serious misrepresentation of source material. In each of these occasions, Tutu weighs in on some issue of 'might vs. right,' and in doing so offers vague parallels, drawn from his own experience, about the perils of power unchecked (''"I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial"''), the inevitable triumph of popular resistance (''"We used to say to the apartheid government: you may have the guns, you may have all this power, but you have already lost. Come: join the winning side. His Holiness and the Tibetan people are on the winning side"''), etc. etc. On none of these occasions does he make an "allegation of apartheid." To say this would be like going through every Elie Weisel speech touching on contemporary political or moral issues and arguing that he's making "Holocaust allegations." I'd be inclined to read your misinterpretation as mere sloppiness, but the way you've given a double-listing, each listing cited separately to the same source (''"the United Kingdom's treatment of suspected terrorists, and the United States's treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay."'') for Tutu's single quoted statement about Guantanamo Bay, suggests to me that you were knowingly writing spin. Do refrain from this.
'''4.'''Lastly (for now) there is the ill-conceived section on "The Debate on the one-state solution," which opens with a false assertion and a cheerful volley of typos:<blockquote>
As Moodly and X observed, the allegation of apartheid is often made by those who support a one state solution. </blockquote>They don't observe this, and it'd be beside the point if they did. What Adam and Moodley wrote was this: <blockquote>"'Israel is Apartheid' advocates include most Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state."</blockquote>
Read that carefully. It's these "several Jewish post-Zionists" specifically, not the "'Israel is Apartheid' advocates" generally (much less the Palestinian masses), who are doing this idealistic predicting of a binational state. Binationalism, at any rate, is a separate issue. What I said about its place in the lead (applies to its place in the article.--] 18:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:You've raised several valid points. In regards to point number 3, I apologize for that-- I was working off of the ] page-- I shouldn't have trusted its use of sources, my mistake. But you are being a complete asshole and assuming bad faith when you assume I'm trying to "spin" the page just because I trusted that page's use of sources. Point number 4 is definitely worth discussion and possibly implementing.

:But not all of your points are valid. Feel free to remove the sentences mentioned in point 3, but the other ones I'll just revert pending discussion. Please start new talk page sections or continue the old ones if you want to implement your suggested changes of points 1, 2, and 4. Thank you for assuming good faith, -] 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::I've implemented your third point, removing the offending sentence, once again showing how open I am to criticism.--] 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

==Article structure==
How did allegations of Israeli Apartheid, get twisted into an article that first highlights Apartheid within Israel Proper, as opposed to the general apartheid policies carried out by Israel? The article is not structured correctly. Is Urthogie trying to structure the article so that the allegations get buried deep within the article? Is this good faith? The allegations are what a reader wants to learn about, not about refutations and discussions about whether the apartheid is within Israel, West Bank, or Gaza, etc. All those issues can be covered within the context of the allegations themselves. It's not an article about geography. I think the article is being stuctured as to sneakily hide and bury facts.] 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:Kritt, this division has consensus, ] to see how people agreed with this division. You are editing against consensus if you try to remove this 3 way division of the article. It's already been explained to you that Tutu's accusing Israel of apartheid in the territories only:

<blockquote>Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.</blockquote>

:Same with Carter:

:<blockquote>] states that ] are equal citizens, and says that the apartheid-like system in the West Bank is not based on racism.</blockquote>

:They both ''criticize'' policies inside Israel proper, but they never call Israel proper an apartheid state. That's why we have separate sections, per consensus.--] 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are editing in a POV fashion, and there is no consensus for what you are doing, mostly complaints. Please stop edit warring. Placement of ] before Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter is highly POV and it lacks good faith. Tutu and Carter comment on Israeli apartheid comprehensively, and to attempt to slot them deep into the article under "West Bank" is not practising good faith. ] 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:] is before them because he is in a section before them. There is in fact consensus for having these sections, whether you deny it or not. As I said, please scroll up. This arrangement has consensus. I also highly oppose your removal of that sentence in the lead, which is adequately sourced. Please discuss before removing it again.--] 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::We don't need a discussion in order to delete weasel words. ] 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:The arrangement is being used by you, Urthogie, to push POV and hide the most basic information and allegations from the reader. Please be fair. ] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Kritt; I'm not sure which concensus Urthogie is talking about. The placement of the West Bank discussion at the bottom is very strange. If we're going to keep all the other changes, I think we should simply invert the discussions. ] 13:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I support putting that section first. I'll do it myself. What I opposed was putting content in the wrong section.--] 13:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks. I tried something new for the lead, which I think is an improvement. I said "other human rights abusers"; this was meant to frame the argument so analogy-opponents are not admitting to any validity to the analogy (saying "other countries are just as bad" gets it wrong, I think). Perhaps the word "other" needs to be removed then, though, I'm not sure. ] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

::While this change is worth considering (to me, it seems to say the same exact thing as we currently have, but it in a longer way...) I disagree with your changing "Most journalists and academic commentators reject" with The analogy is rejected by many. The source says the majority, not "many."--] 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:::You're taking the quote out of context, though, changing the language, and placing it in an inappropriate position. I'm sure you can see the problem with this. Should, for instance, the page on ] state in the lead that more Americans are Democrats? Should the page on ] say in the lead that most Americans support abortion rights? Should the page on ] say that most Christians are not Mormon? There are of course sources for all of these statements. My attempt was to strengthen the argument itself, while fixing that problem. Was this not a fair representation of the anti-analogy position? The thing is, if we want to quote adam/Moodley, we should put all three of their categories, not just the first. We could place that as a third paragraph of the lead; I happen to think it's better where it is, as the first material in the body of the article. You should also see, though, that saying "other countries who also resemble Apartheid" is problematic, something I simultaneously tried to fix. ] 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your metaphors are amazingly misleading. the demographics of mormons are notable. the demographics of republicans are notable. the demographics of the pro-life cause are notable, too. The article on ] would make clear that there are barely any shakers left.--] 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:"Most" is not a synonym for "a majority," Adam and Moodley aren't talking about "allegations of Israeli apartheid," and we're not going to quote them out of context in the lead in an effort to ].--] 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::It actually is a synonym, and they are talking about the comparison/analogy to apartheid south africa. By the way, accusing me of an effort to poison the well is assuming bad faith..--] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:Urthogie, it was a simple question to get you to acknowledge the NPOV issue, which you have tended to skirt. The demoraphics of all of these things could be relevant, which is why I said it's very appropriate in the first part of the article. The question is whether NPOV allows us to say in the opening to the second paragraph of an article that most scholars disagree with the theory in this article. I'm saying that would not be normal. The use of Adam and Moodley to make this point, when they then go on to argue that the analogy can be useful, is particularly problematic. To take them out of context in this way is also problematic. If you would please look again, I think you'll see that my version of the opposing position is very fair, while Adam and Moodley's views are fully laid out below as they should be. ] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's where we disagree, I suppose. To me, it's immensely important that such context be given as soon as is reasonably possible (perhaps, even, right after defining the allegations). I would demand the same exact thing on an ] article. "Most commentators reject the connection between fascism and islam as inflammatory." Yep. (Adam, and Moodley, by the way, argue that the "differences outweigh the similarities" in their lead paragraph)

And G-Dett, before you chime in, the subject of that chapter is the comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel. On that subject, they categorize the commentators into three groups. The majority who say "no, that's propaganda", those who say israel is an "apartheid state", and those who see similarities and differences. Thanks for being logical and not assuming bad faith, --] 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:But ] doesn't say that. In fact, there seems to be pretty broad concensus that this isn't the way to start an article. With Adam and Moodley right there in the first paragraph, I don't see the problem. The way I phrased it, the oppositional statement seems very strong, which seems like the most it really has a right to be; not for WP to immediately assert which view is more popular (and in such strongly worded fashion, which really goes beyond what Adam and Moodley say).

:I see G-Dett's version now, which is an improvement. I also strongly agree that Adam and Moodley should simply be discussed below, but also that if we are going to mention them in that position, we can't misrepresent them. ] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

N.B."]" is a logical fallacy, not an act of malevolent scheming or criminal nastiness.--] 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett's version is a blatant misreading of Adam and Moodley. Here is proof. The lead of this chapter reads:

<blockquote>Although Israel and apartheid South Africa are often equated as "colonial settler socities," we argue that the differences outweight the similarities. This analysis questions these popular analogies.</blockquote>

Then there are several paragraphs concerning how we could learn to reconcile differences in light of the ideas this model offers. Then, we are back to discussing the main subject (see above blockquote):

<blockquote>Academic and jouranlistic commentators on '''the topic''' can be roughly divided into three groups:</blockquote>

The topic, of course is the "analysis" of "these popular analogies."

Then, of course, it obviously follows that the three groups are based on their views towards the analogy. They are divided into three groups: those who think the analogy is propaganda, those who think "Israel is apartheid", and those who see merits to both positions. However, G-Dett's revision to the lead completely mixes up the paragaphs on reconciliation with views on the analogy. Thank you, --] 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:Nonsense. Read the last sentence of the first paragraph from which you cherry-picked your quote about "popular analogies": "the South African model of postconflict reconciliation may indeed inspire revisions of unworkable policies." The topic of the tripartite division is not simply "these popular analogies." That it isn't is made abundantly clear by the third grouping, which obviously includes Adam & Moodley themselves: "A third group diagnoses similarities and differences, but, above all, looks to South Africa for guidance." Looking to SA for guidance is the explicitly stated goal of Adam & Moodley's book.

:The "subject these three groups are based on" (your words) is a broad one, and obviously and explicitly includes both the specific "Israeli apartheid" analogy as well as the subject of how reconciliation should occur. This isn't a matter of interpretation, but rather of words on the page.--] 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:Again and again, they make clear that "the subject" under discussion is the broad analogy, especially as it includes prospects for peace. Look at the title of their book: ''Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians''. And look at the concluding sentence of the very chapter you're talking about: "Despite the earlier-noted differences, probing the Israel-South Africa analogy does furnish insights in conflict resolution and obstacles to a negotiated settlement, while at the same time revealing the limits of such comparisons."--] 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::Can you explain to me how a broad analogy of apartheid doesn't include views on the claim/allegation of apartheid? The latter seems to be included intrinsically in the former.--] 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== suggested compromise ==

How about we compromise as follows: we move the "most" clause to the "Israel as an apartheid state section." I'm willing to take it out of the lead if everyone opposes it, but we'd have to move it somewhere like that section.--] 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== I don't believe the new approach is creating a better article ==

With all due respect, I think this article is in a lot worse shape that it was back in mid-March. I for one would support a wholesale reversion back to what had been a stable, well written article, somewhere around or so. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. Not to ratchet up the pressure, but I'm looking with a worried eye at the current move to delete the article. The editors who have opposed this article's existence from the get-go have been conspicuously quiet as this latest busy visitor makes himself at home – rolling up the carpets, tearing down the curtains, throwing out the china and replacing it with dixie cups and plastic sporks. It's a lot easier to condemn a building as structurally unsound if someone's already taken a wrecking ball to it.

:Kendrick, I would join you in supporting a wholesale reversion. The need for it is nothing if not timely.--] 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

::A wholesale reversion is the equivelant of censoring the only person consistently editing here who has a POV that these allegations are completely untrue (a rather mainstream view). Perhaps the reason people asked to have this deleted is because they had trouble dealing with a group of "israel is apartheid" editors? I'm inclined not to agree with them, but a wholesale reversion of my edits would only confirm their avoidance of this article-- which to me, seemed ridiculous, but now somewhat reasonable.

::The group of editors here has nothing even resembling consensus. Consensus means various editors from ''various viewpoints'' on the subject matter can come to an agreement. If you all think there is some value to the idea of Israel as apartheid, I'm willing to accept that and work with you all to improve the article. However, don't claim you have even a turd of consensus if all of you agree to unilaterally destroy my contributions (the most significant of which, such as the 3 way split, and the allegations template have gained consensus from Kendrick...who started this talk page section).--] 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I think a reversion to the version of May 28, 2006 would be best. (OK, in order to save people the pain of scrolling back through pages and pages of edit history, the article was not created until May 29, 2006. This is a really long way to go for a joke, but I'm not proud.) ] 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

::I might actually have to offer a word or two for Urthogie here. While I haven't compared the full extent of the changes, I think his effort to better organize the article actually makes some sense, disagreements notwithstanding. Looking at the version before, for instance, one serious problem is the huge reliance on quotes, and beyond that, quotes which offered almost nothing in the way of explanation. If you look at the old "Use of the term" section, specifically, the explanation really stopped with Adam and Moodley, then proceeding into a quote farm of people making the allegation. We then had an explicit list of the same kinds of quotes, apparently by more prominent individuals though not clarifying this. We then had a section on the UN, slightly out of place, followed by the long section on people lambasting use of the term, again without really any explanation. Only after all that did we actually have an explanation of what all these people are talking about.

::Urthogie's version, while quickly done, actually seems to solve much of this, by splitting it up into three ways in which the allegation is used, so that we can actually have some context and explanation. Already this division is contextual information the other didn't provide. He then provides the quote list, but followed directly by a discussion of the conditions. At least on a surface level, this seems to make sense. Perhaps partially as a result, he's also then trimmed up the "Use of the Term" section to remove what were really just examples, to something that could be built into a more encyclopedic explanation (possibly using the rest of Adam and Moodley).

::In any case, that's not to say I agree with all of the changes. For one thing, I'm not sure the "Allegations that Israel is an Apartheid State" section should really be a section of its own. If anything, I'd move it to third, as in "Some people make the allegation without specifying what exactly they're referring to." Perhaps others should give it another look, though? I'm sure there are other issues that I haven't picked up yet, but I think the organizational approaches might have some merit. ] 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I this division when Urthogie first discussed it, but the way it's been implemented has left me exasperated. --] 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current run-on sentence in the lead is bordering on nonsensical. Scroll up to see my suggested compromise. Also, I think "apartheid state" allegation section should stay because some people think Israel is a colonial apartheid state ever since 1948. So they are purposefully referring to all of Israel, not just being vague--] 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of what this article is: Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. It should explain them, who makes them, and discuss criticism of them -- using reliable sources. What I see happening is a restructuring of the article to support turing everything upside down, and focusing on "criticism" and denial. This really isn't fair to the reader who comes here to get facts. Urthogie, if you want to represent a POV, then work on the criticism sections, but please do not deny or censor the many, many allegations themselves because they are sourced.] 22:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure why you think you can reliably predict the motivations of every single person that comes to this article but the simple fact is that no single person can change an article in order to match it to their vision and then announce that people are not permitted to revert them. Call it what you want but as long as it is allowed by wikipedia policy, it is allowed.- ] | ] 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

==Adam/Moodley in lead==
Another problem with the "majority of journalists and academic commentators reject any analogy" quote in the lead is that the book it's cited to was published before Carter's. Carter's book has blown the topic wide open and rather transformed the discussion. The A & M statement may very well still hold but I think we'd need a current source for it.--] 13:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

::That's dubious and the cite is only 2 years old. Find a source that Carter's book "transformed the discussion". ] 07:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:It occurs to me maybe one of our problems is the failure to note the diversity of use at the front, to make clearer that this isn't simply an allegation, but a rather more involved discussion. Looking through the article, it's kind of striking how many people have discussed this. That said, I'm not sure our "Some people allege it and some people call it slander" really paints an accurate picture. What if we started with something like this:

:<blockquote>'''Allegations of Israeli apartheid''' draw a controversial analogy from the policies of ] ] to those of ]. Those who use the analogy point to ] treatment of Palestinians in the ], policies of physical separation between the two groups, and/or allege second-class treatment of Arabs citizens in Israel proper.

:<blockquote>While some argue that the situations resemble apartheid currently, others argue that such conditions are at risk of arising in the future. The analogy has also been invoked by Israeli political leaders and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.
|author4 = Yaakov Menken
:<blockquote>Many journalists and academic commentators have rejected any analogy from South African apartheid to Israel's policies and conditions.<ref>Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. ix</ref> Those who reject the analogy argue that ] enjoy democratic rights,<ref></ref> and that other countries also resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it.<ref></ref><ref name=Buruma>]. ,'']'', July 23, 2002.</ref> These critics also maintain that Israel's limitations and protective measures against Palestinians in the ] are based on security needs,<ref name=Matas>Matas, David. ''Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism''. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55.</ref>. </blockquote>
|title4 = Misplaced Pages hates Israel and Jews
|date4 = August 6, 2024
|org4 = ]
|url4 = https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-hates-israel-and-jews/
|lang4 =
|quote4 =
|archiveurl4 =
|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate4 = August 6, 2024


|author5 = Aaron Bandler
:I'm not sure what else could be done with a middle paragraph like that, but if we're following ], it seems like an approach we might try. ] 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|title5 = Misplaced Pages Editors Title Article “Israeli Apartheid”
::It would all be much simpler if this article (cut way down because it is way too long, there is no need to list everybody who ever said anything on the subject) were just a section of some other article, like maybe ]. Then there would be no need to worry about titles or leads or anything, although I am sure some people would edit-war over the section heading and introduction. But that would be much less disruptive than this mess. ] 16:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|date5 = September 26, 2024
|org5 = ]
|url5 = https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/375347/wikipedia-editors-title-article-israeli-apartheid/
|lang5 =
|quote5 =
|archiveurl5 =
|archivedate5 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate5 = October 7, 2024


|author6 =
Mackan, I like your idea of making clear at the outset that the discussion is more nuanced and involved than “pro/con” would suggest. But I don’t know about the second paragraph of what you've proposed:<blockquote>
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State
While some argue that the situations resemble apartheid currently, others argue that such conditions are at risk of arising in the future. The analogy has also been invoked by Israeli political leaders and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.</blockquote>
|date6 = September 19, 2024
|org6 = The Misplaced Pages Flood
|url6 = https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/2024/09/wikipedia-decrees-israel-is-apartheid.html
|lang6 =
|quote6 =
|archiveurl6 =
|archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate6 = October 7, 2024


|author7 = Shraga Simmons
Who argues that there's a risk of such conditions arising in the future? Brzezinski makes very clear that he’s talking about present conditions becoming permanent, not new conditions arising. I’m not looking for a reprise here of my debate with Andyvphill, so let’s just bracket Brzezinski for a moment. Who else besides him could be thought to be talking about future Apartheid-like conditions arising?
|title7 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists.

|date7 = November 11, 2024
How about this for the “nuance” paragraph:<blockquote>While some who invoke the comparison allege Israel's culpability as a "colonial state," others argue that understandable security measures, when combined with the expansion and consolidation of Israel's settlement program, have produced a status quo that if left permanent will constitute a ''de facto'' form of apartheid. Broader analogies between apartheid South African and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse have also been invoked by Israeli political leaders, and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.</blockquote>
|org7 = aish

|url7 = https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
I know, Urthogie, there's some cruft there. :) --] 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|lang7 =

|quote7 =
:Definitely a big improvement. I was thinking of Brzezinski and Carter, which wasn't to say they don't also consider the conditions in some ways comparable now, but perhaps that they also seem to suggest things could go more in that direction in the future. Actually if you look at Barak's statements as quoted by Adam and Moodley, they also have a quality of "if we don't act now" to them. (p. 21) Partly I was thinking this would render moot the debate with Andyvphill, while making a little clearer that it's not always necessarily an outright allegation of full on Apartheid right now. I think your proposal is very good, though; I'm curious what others think. ] 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|archiveurl7 = https://web.archive.org/web/20241113082217/https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/

|archivedate7 = November 13, 2024
I object totally to inclusion of that sentence. That one single quote does not belong in the Lead. As I recall, the word colonialism, having more sources was taken out of the lead. Let's be fair here. Also, somebody needs to find a copy of the Adam and Moodley book and NPOV all of their quotes. As it stands, Adam and Moodley have been cherry-picked to support a pro-Israel POV. It's not honest, and it doesn't fully represent what they say.] 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|accessdate7 = December 1, 2024

}}
:I agree. What did you think about this proposal for the lead? Combining G-Dett with my suggetion, we have:
{{Mbox |image=] |text=For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see ''']'''.}}

{{Archives|banner=yes}}
:<blockquote>'''Allegations of Israeli apartheid''' draw a controversial analogy from the policies of ] ] to those of ]. Those who use the analogy point to ] treatment of Palestinians in the ], policies of physical separation between the two groups, and/or allege second-class treatment of Arabs citizens in Israel proper.
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}
:<blockquote>While some who invoke the comparison allege Israel's culpability as a "colonial state," others argue that understandable security measures, when combined with the expansion and consolidation of Israel's settlement program, have produced a status quo that if left permanent will constitute a ''de facto'' form of apartheid. Broader analogies between South Africa and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse have also been invoked by Israeli political leaders, and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 44
:<blockquote>Many journalists and academic commentators have strongly rejected any analogy from Israel to South Africa's apartheid era.<ref>Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. ix</ref> Those who reject the analogy argue that ] enjoy democratic rights,<ref></ref> and that other countries also resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it.<ref></ref><ref name=Buruma>]. ,'']'', July 23, 2002.</ref> These critics also maintain that Israel's limitations and protective measures in the ] are based on security needs.<ref name=Matas>Matas, David. ''Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism''. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55.</ref> </blockquote>
|algo = old(60d)

|archive = Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive %(counter)d
:Needs more work, I think, but might be a way to reduce the tension by beefing up the discussion a little. ] 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index
::One problem is that the 3 paragraph version is a bit repetitive at the moment. ] 07:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
|mask=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
:::Thanks for the comment, I cut a little verbiage, which may or may not help. Am I overlooking something obvious? ] 13:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
}}

== Op Cit ==

The first cite in this article (to a study, apparently) seems to be malformed. It says "op cit" in the footnote, but "op cit" refers to earlier citations. There is no earlier citation, so the study seems impossible to look up at the moment. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:OK I think I fixed it. I think it should have been:
:Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. , University College London Press, pp. 20-21. ISBN 1-84472-130-2 ] 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:Picky picky V. I think editors need to get used to ] possibly refering to what has since become ''later'' citation due the the ease of reoganizing sentences on the wikipedia. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Allegations of apartheid}} ==

] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice-->--]<sup><small><font color="Orange">]</font></small></sup> 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

==Benny Morris==
Why is Benny Morris and the following blockquote the largest in the article? This article is about Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and the reader wants to learn about them, who makes them, and what the allegations actually are. I find the emphasis on Criticism to be POV. Let's not deny or hide the allegations of Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter. Discuss criticism, but let's not suppress allegations or bury them for POV purposes. Here is the largest quoted source in the article. WP is not supposed to be a soapbox? Let's be fair. The Allegations themselves should not be suppressed or denied.

According to historian ], one of the most widely quoted scholars on the ], <blockquote>Israel is not an apartheid state — rather the opposite, it is easily the most democratic and politically ] state in the Middle East, in which Arabs Israelis enjoy far more freedom, better ], etc. than in all the Arab states surrounding it. Indeed, Arab representatives in the ], who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the ], etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.) The best comparison would be the ] by the US Govt ... and the British Govt. of German emigres in Britain ] ... Israel's Arabs by and large identify with Israel's enemies, the Palestinians. But Israel hasn't jailed or curtailed their freedoms en masse (since 1966 ).</blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote>As to the occupied territories, Israeli policy is fueled by security considerations (whether one agrees with them or not, or with all the specific measures adopted at any given time) rather than racism (though, to be sure, there are Israelis who are motivated by racism in their attitude and actions towards Arabs) — and indeed the Arab population suffers as a result. But Gaza's and the West Bank's population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues, which itself is a function of the continued state of war between the Hamas-led Palestinians (and their Syrian and other Arab allies) and Israel.<ref>, February 7, 2007.</ref></blockquote>] 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

: Morris is a scholar. Carter and Tutu are deranged politicians and Tutu is a Christian Church leader. The quotes you added to the Overview section surely do not belong there. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::If we're quoting Morris because he's a scholar, then why aren't we quoting his scholarship? This is a statement he made to CAMERA, presumably in an email but possibly on the phone or something. They asked him what he thinks of Norman Finkelstein, and this was his response, which we've gone and pasted into our article in its entirety. Only the first sentence has anything to do with apartheid; it's just one item in his rhetorical-checklist-style response to Finkelstein via CAMERA.

::The reason CAMERA (a pressure group that lobbies the media for coverage more favorable to Israel) is asking Morris what he thinks of Finkelstein is because Finkelstein has made extensive use of Morris' scholarship.

::For those who don't already know: Morris is the most prominent of the ]. His landmark book ''The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem'' argued that ] played a central role in the 1948 Palestinian exodus and the creation of the state of Israel. This book was recently reissued and updated with further research buttressed by declassified government documents; the new edition makes the case about ethnic cleansing in even stronger terms. Between the two editions, however, Morris' politics shifted 180 degrees: he went from being a leftist post-Zionist to being a Sharon supporter. In the new edition of his book, he argues that ethnic cleansing is sometimes morally justified, and that Israel made a historic mistake in not completing the job. Morris is a rare bird, one of the few scholars of the Arab-Israeli conflict who keeps his scholarship and his advocacy thoroughly distinct. His scholarship creates a problem for mythologizers like CAMERA, but his advocacy creates an opportunity for them. So they often ask him for a political statement like this in order to neutralize the effect of his academic work. Alan Dershowitz, to take another example, emailed him and then quoted his emailed response in his book ''The Case for Peace''. The goal in that case was the same, to use "citizen Morris" to obviate the work of "historian Morris" (Morris emphasizes this distinction and coined both of these phrases himself). --] 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The statement goes to the credibility of Finkelstein and thus is relevant.- ] | ] 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Not everything that "goes to the credibility of Finkelstein" is relevant to an article on Israeli apartheid.--] 15:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus Spapiens: ] representing criticism, should not be the most quoted person in the article, that is just dishonest.] 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He should be the most prominent quote in the article. He's the most scholarly. G-Dett, by the way, is suggesting we add '''original research''' by adding notes on his scholarship. That is for his article, not this one. A link is given on his name. This whole talk page section is unneeded. Thanks, --] 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:Huh? Original research? A link is given on whose name? I'm not suggesting we add anything at all; the point of my only edit on this matter was to ''subtract'' the bulk of a rambling quote that had been lovingly copied-and-pasted in its entirety from the CAMERA website into our article. I left in the part that addressed "Israeli apartheid," since that's the subject of this article.

:My longer post about Morris was written for the benefit of editors who might be scratching their heads wondering why Wikipedians who exalt Morris as "the most scholarly" of our sources never use or refer to his scholarship, but instead prefer to quote his emails, phone calls, casual statements to partisan pressure groups, etc. What I wrote was ''not'' a proposed addition to the article page, for G-d's sake. ] applies to article pages, not editorial discussions. I thought all of this was clear; apparently not.--] 14:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, well I think the quote should be kept in full. It's all relevant. Your opinions on morris's opinions should be on forums, not here.--] 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Talk pages are for collective discussion of editorial decisions. A key editorial decision always facing us on this page is the question of what material to include in the article and how prominently it should figure there. It is exasperating to have to be so explicit, but here goes: if we are quoting Morris because of his authority and status as a scholar, then it is his scholarship we should be quoting. --] 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

] is a better authority on ] than is Benny Morris. The POV to bury Desmond Tutu is dishonest. If you want Morris, then kindly stop burying Tutu. Let's try to be fair here.] 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, you wrote: ''"Carter and Tutu are deranged politicians"''. Can you be NPOV? ] 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

== reverted redundancy ==

It's redundant to have a separate examples section when we already have all these examples specifically integrated for clarity.--] 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:Absolutely, let's integrate the examples. But first let's get A-M's POV out of the center and down to the Crit section where it belongs -- they are NOT the subject of this article. Kritt has it mostly right, it's just his steps are too small. Seems to me I saw G-dett complaining about other editors putting A-M at the top, too. Go ahead and organize by topic if it can be done (which is not clear) BUT A-M DON'T GET TO WRITE THE "OVERVIEW". Their POV doesn't get to be priviledged. ] 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::If you plan to push A & M off their burnished thrones and into the regular ranks of commentators, I don't think you'll run into too much resistance. The only reason they've enjoyed such prominence here is that for a long time very few had actually read them, and the radically distortive version of them presented on this page made out that they had rejected this article's analogy categorically. So those who felt their POV had been echoed by the only full-length study of the subject gave that study glowing blurbs, said that A & M are the only real experts here, we should foreground them, structure the article around them, quote them and Benjamin Pogrund and no one else, etc. etc. Until it was brought to general attention that A & M had been distorted beyond recognition, that the phrases cherry-picked so as to imply a rejection of the analogy between Israel and South Africa were, in their original context, only A & M's qualified misgivings about an analogy that their book, after all, is ''premised'' on. When this, as I say, was brought to general attention, all the candles and cigarette lighters held aloft in A & M's honor guttered and went out, the house lights came on, and collective belief in their infallibly abruptly subsided, mid-swoon as it were. Like I said, I don't think you need to worry about a lot of editorial resistance if you plan to demote them.

::What I complained about was citing them misleadingly in the lead. I wasn't suggesting that we take the "overview" section out of their hands, but in principle I have no objection to doing just that.--] 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I kind of liked the A & M material, though, for at least providing some sort of overview. Would some other format be better? I'd thought the proposed "nuance" paragraph might actually go into this kind of overview, if it doesn't fit the lead. Otherwise, my concern was simply that we're jumping to the raw data rather quickly for an encyclopedia article. ] 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I also think the A & M material is good. Andyvphil's point as I understood it is that they shouldn't "own" the overview.--] 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not one person editing the article that has read, or has a copy of A & M's book. It's not mainstream at all. The A & M information has been "cherry-picked" to represent pro-Israeli POV. People should endeavour to get a copy of that book first. They are NOT the only or ultimate source. I wish people would be honest.] 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

==Why are pro-Zionist and Criticism blockquotes longer than Allegations of Apartheid themselves?==
I think we need to NPOV the amount of blockquotes and/or even them out. A reader who comes here to learn, finds less text about the allegations themselves. Please do not bury ] expert Desmond Tutu's allegations. ] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, let's put Tutu and Carter and Barghouti and the Durban communique right at the top. Just keep the quotes on topic. Tutu on someone's general unhappiness with the occupation is not on topic. Tutu drawing the analogy with pass laws is, and is absolutely important to defining the subject of this article. Which has to preceed commentary on the analogy. ] 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


A & M actually give an overview of the analogy, while noone else does, aside from short articles in newspapers. This is why we give them weight in the article. Also, integration actually has consensus support. You keep editing against consensus by reworking the article structure, andy. Everyone here but you and Kritt support having the sections in the form they are right now.--] 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really getting tiresome that some editors appear totally unwilling to collaborate here. Please be fair and honest. This article is about allegations, not playing games with the article structure to deny or hide them. The level of blockquotes for Criticism needs more brevity, and I will work on that.] 07:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:Many editors suport the longer blockquote for Morris.--] 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Whether it is 1 editor or a 100 isn't terribly relevant if it is running afoul of ] concerns. ] 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Agree with Tarc here. If we're going to lean on Morris' scholarly reputation to justify a lengthy block-quote, then that lengthy block-quote should come from and/or be representative of his scholarship; otherwise we're playing a ].--] 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::'''NPOV is not measured by number of words'''. As it is, the comparisons between Israeli practices and apartheid are of several different types, ranging from those who say there are some worrisome similarities to those who categorically say it's all apartheid to them. As for collaborating, the recurring theme on this article is an insistence by some editors that the allegation be accepted as a premise. --] 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Leifern, can you point to a ''single'' example of such insistence on the part of a key editor of this article?--] 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

'''''NPOV is not measured by number of words?'' T'''hen why do pro-Israeli editors revert, deny, and diminish the actual allegations themselves, and support only huge blockquotes of "criticism"? ] 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== andy ==

You keep reverting the article structure to a version that has no consensus. We have an overview section for the purpose of summarizing the subject. Going right into examples is the opposite of explanatory, and that's why we don't do it right away. We do it soon after though.

Also, to Kritt, please stop puttin things in the wrong section. Tutu and Carter don't allege that all of Israel is an apartheid state. We distinguish for a reason-- to be clear on this issue. We've already put the section that Tutu and Carter are in at the very top, per your request. The overview (a summary section) is the only thing which comes before it.--] 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:Your opinion of that is your original research. Carter and Tutu state clearly what they mean, that's why it's in blockquote, so editors cannot twist their or bury their words for POV purposes. This article is increasingly an attempt to deny and hide the statements of the actual sources. Collaboration means not burying the allegations of ] or interpreting them along Original Research and POV lines.] 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, so my opinion is original research and yours is fact? Puhleez. By the way, I move them to the top of the section per your request.--] 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

] and ] are not original research. Please do not continue to bury them and disrupt the article and the allegations. The allegations themselves are the topic. Work on Criticism if that is your POV. Thanks.] 06:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== Split article ==

There should be two articles - ] and ], with a redirect from ] itself to the '''latter''' of the two. This latter article could use almost all of the material here on actual status issues, but would need a ton of balance. The allegations should refer to this latter article for all but the most general and noncommital factual claims (though all the he-said-she-said which uses the word apartheid stays.) This article should be about what its title says, and not an excuse for a POV fork of factual data. (note: I'm not claiming that any data here is false - just that any article with this title will inevitably sideline any equally-true pro-Israel facts). --] (] • ])
:I agree, but it's difficult to know exactly where exactly the perfect place to split it is.--] 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::There was actually some support for this idea in the last discussion to rename. I think the article is better organized now, but it's one thing to consider, which might also help stem the proliferation of "Allegations" pages. If so, I think this page would generally go back pre-Urthogie, and would then simply end before the sections on conditions, which would be moved, linked and potentially summarized per ]. ] 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There could be two articles, without diminishing or hiding the factual information contained herein.] 06:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== Question ==
Do Adam and Moodley's research really investigate the distribution of journalists' and commentators' opinions on the allegations?
To me it seems (from the chapter used as a source here) that they only assume this. Is this a part of their scientific study? How did they do it? It would be unprecise to claim that this is something the study "found" unless this distribution is the object of their study. Any opinions?
<blockquote>An academic investigation in 2005 found that the majority of journalists and academic commentators reject, as propaganda, any analogy from South African apartheid and the political process of reconciliation that ended it to the Israel-Palestine impasse and the prospects for resolving it. and that other countries also resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it.</blockquote>
] 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. Our text makes it sound like this was a study of how many people accept and reject the analogy, which isn't accurate. It's also still the wrong place for that sentiment, as I think Urthogie actually agreed (at least as a compromise). If we're looking for something else, I think what needs to be made clear is that many people object to the legitimacy of the analogy, in addition to challenging it on substantive grounds, if we're hoping to find agreement. ] 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:You're right, Pertn. The comment about commentators being incensed by the analogy is not their 'finding'; it's them giving the contours of the discussion which their book hopes to reshape. Their book isn't a statistical analysis or survey of attitudes toward the Israel-South Africa analogy. It's an attempt to build moral, political, and historical lessons from South Africa into an approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--] 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::OK. This should be changed immediately as the protect is removed. The current wording, with it's prominence in the article is flat out misinformation. ] 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam & Moodley represent a disproportionate part of the article, and nobody has heard of them. Pro-Israeli POV editors have cherry-picked from (A&M), and continually try to diminish the allegations of ] from experts like ]. That conduct is really dishonest, in my opinion. Adam & Moodley do NOT deny allegations of Israeli Apartheid, however this article leads one to believe they do. Neither Adam or Moodley is an expert on ] as is Desmond Tutu or the many other ] activists that are referenced in this article, but are mostly obscured by pro-Israel editors. Thanks. ] 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== Structure ==
I like that Urthogie has emphasized the distinction between the charge of apartheid in the territories vs. within Israel. I don't, however, understand the point of this ''third'' section with its cryptic title "Allegations that Israel is an apartheid state." What view is supposedly shared by the figures herded together into this section? "Apartheid state" is a phrase. Some people use it to mean that there are "apartheid policies inside of Israel proper"; others use it to mean that Israel practices something like "apartheid in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." Probably more use the phrase to mean the former than the latter. But who cares? There are separate sections for both of these views, and we don't need a third. Let's dissolve the section "Allegations that Israel is an apartheid state," and slot the figures within it (who seem to have grouped together for no other reason than a similar choice of words) into their proper categories.

I also think we should structure our presentation to reflect the fact that the preponderance of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" refer to the territories, not Israel proper.--] 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:The sources indicate which of the three uses they are employing. "Apartheid state" is the claim made by those who think all of Israel is an illegitimate country since its inception, and therefore apartheid because they consider it no different from Palestine. Sources flesh out which their writers' take.--] 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::If this is the case, shouldn't we just add them to the "apartheid policies inside of Israel proper" section? Or are you saying that these writers are those who find the very idea of Israel to constitute ''by definition'' apartheid, whereas those in the section where I'd like to move them merely have a beef with this or that policy?

::In any case, isn't this three-part division a little misleading? The overwhelming majority of RS's who talk about "Israeli apartheid" are talking about the territories. I think it would make sense to devote the bulk of the article to that, and then put the other senses of the term further down?--] 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Although this suggestion makes sense, I think it might be original research... not sure though... by the way, once this is unprotected, can you please help me revert andy who continues to mangle the article structure repeatedly? Thanks--] 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I got your back, Urthogie. The second the article opens up I'll walk up to Andy all friendly-like but then I'll crack him one with my elbow and you can pile-drive him while he's still stunned and we'll pin his ass to the mat.

::::While we wait for our moment, though, remind me who Andy is. Andyvphil? His edits seem modest and adequately explained on the whole. There's a couple I disagree with, and I'd love to get him back for disagreeing with me about the 'diplomatic future tense'...but what's he mangled?--] 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The structure. Adding examples before overview, as if we don't already have examples.--] 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:I didn't place examples before the "overview", I relied on the lead to be the overview, renamed the faux-overview and started moving it down to the commentary section where it belongs. A-M are so deeply embedded in this article that I couldn't do that in one go without devoting more time to the effort than I have available, but I am indeed proposing and intending a radical change in the article, and it will be a building site for a while if that goes ahead.
:The quoted A-M typology of critical reaction isn't really a serious typology at all, but an attempt to claim for themselves credit for being the moderate middle. There is no reason you can't both deplore the analogy (group-1) and look to the South African experience for insight into possible ameliorations ("group"-3, i.e. A-M). Of course there are some similarities between situations where two ethnic groups contest control of the same real estate. And differences. South Africa, Kosovo, Iraq, Israel, etc., etc., etc. The analogy is controversial not because it is completely loony but because of its semantic load: it is in one dimension of a piece with the Durban declaration that Zionism is racism. To the extent that this article '''concentrates''' on the other dimension of examining in detail arguments over the degree to which the Israeli and South African examples are the same or differ it underweights the basic conflict over semantic high ground. Witness G-Dett's satisfaction with the fact that A-M '''assume''' the legitimacy of the analogy. We come at this from different sides but at least we both understand what the argument is about. ] 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Noone's stopping you from improving the overview section by adding people other than A and M who analyze this analogy. Just please stop reworking the article structure.--] 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

::It's sophistry to say that "Israeli apartheid" is analogous to "Zionism=racism." The first targets a specific set of state policies; the second targets a much larger and historically evolving political and cultural force, one which has been protean in its manifestations. The other remarks in Andyvphil's post, however, especially about A & M's typology and the "conflict over semantic high ground," strike me as accurate and important. Which is why it doesn't really make sense for us to lean on A & M as our core canonical text; the issue over "semantic high ground" is exactly what they want to deflect in their plea for "moral literacy." Given that Andyvphil has my consent to "topple A & M from their burnished thrones," as I enthusiastically put it, I'm not sure why he thinks I take such satisfaction in their assumptions. I took considerable satisfaction, I'll confess, in watching those who'd borne them aloft in those burnished thrones, parading them in state on this talk page, suddenly and unceremoniously drop the celebrated authors on their asses when it became clearer what they were saying. But that, after all, is a different thing.--] 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::What's sophistry is to '''deny''' that "Israeli policies=Apartheid" is mostly a form of name-calling closely akin to "Zionism=racism". "he second targets a much larger and historically evolving political and cultural force, one which has been protean in its manifestations"??? In person, you can really keep a straight face while delivering such a gaseous emission? (Pro-)Israeli points, "Terrorist!" Third-worlder points, "Racist!" Neither even knows what protean means. Mostly it doesn't get any more sophisticated than that. (BTW, is it Zionism or Racism that's protean?) ] 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::I agree Andy makes a good point about the problem with A&M. It is a bit self-serving, but at least it provides something, which I think we mostly agree is accurate in the end (if phrased as they do; our current representation in the lead that most simply "reject" the analogy is a bit off). I think their purpose is also somewhat self-evident, which makes it less of a problem when we attribute it directly to them in the text. Perhaps Andy is right that it fits better with the rest of the commentary; that simply leaves the question of what else we might say in the overview, which I think is important to have in some form. If you want to restructure the format, Andy, could you give an idea of what you're planning? ] 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::G-Dett has it right (as far as I can tell -- I've only read the excerpt, and found it very forgettable) that A-M are attempting to deflect the conflict over semantic high ground inherent in the "apartheid" analogy in favor of trying to draw policy lessons from the South African experience. That makes them legitimizers of the analogy, and implies a deflection of the article from the subject of its title to the substance of the comparison. Well... that's a legitimate part of the article, but it's not the history of the allegations, which I think should be central to an article of this title. I don't think I'm saying anything here that others haven't said elsewhere on this page in different words. Move A-M down, maybe put up a timeline, see what develops. I haven't thought it out in any more detail than that. Just do it. ] 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::See below, there are several article which serve to give an overview/analysis of the analogy, such as parts of that NY book review. I wish people would stop posing this false dillema. The overview can be improved.--] 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

] has reworked the "structure" of the article to push pro-Israeli POV. Andy is correct to worry about Adam & Moodley's positioning in the article. Plus, nobody currently editing the article has read, or has a copy of Adam & Moodley, and the quotes are cherry-picked". They are relatively meaningless in this issue worldwide. ] ] activists are being hidden and obscured. ] 05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:LOL! Moodley is pro-POV?--] 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== check it ==

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19993

<blockquote>It's only when one speaks of the lesser "Palestine"—meaning, as Jimmy Carter says he does, the territories that would participate in the full-fledged two-state solution that's supposed to be the aim of Western diplomacy—that "apartheid" begins to shape up as a charge more troubling than an epithet, as a loose analogy that carries some weight.</blockquote>

also..

<blockquote>Carter defends the use of "apartheid" in his title like a politician defending a particularly tough attack ad. He says he doesn't regret it, that it was a deliberate provocation that has had its intended effect; in other words, that it works as an attention grabber. In his hands, it's basically a slogan, not reasoned argument, and the best that can be said for it, as we've seen, is that significant similarities can be found in the occupation of the territories. It's understandable if Israelis who feel sickened by a sense that they're personally implicated in the brutality of the occupation resort to the word in order to shame their countrymen. Some outsiders might contemplate the phenomenon of suicide bombing and ask how they would deal with the bombers before resorting to the label "apartheid." Others might insist on their right to be outraged about both the bombings and the oppressive measures imposed in the name of counterterrorism.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Meron Benvenisti, who has been intrigued by the comparison to South Africa over the years, now calls for a rhetorical cease-fire. The use of the term "apartheid," he wrote back in 2005, has become in Israel a "mark of leftist radicalism," while its denial stands as proof of "Zionist patriotism." Objective comparison or discussion of the validity of any comparison is "nearly impossible." Anyone who goes into the question, Benvenisti wrote, "will be judged by his conclusions." The choice, he said, is between being called an anti-Semite or a fascist. The occupation should be seen in its own harsh light, he concluded, rather than subjected to a comparison.</blockquote>

Article distinguishes between the various accusations, showing we're doing the right thing here. Plenty to add from it, not only to discussing Carter's example, but also for the overview section.--] 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


'''''"Carter defends the use of "apartheid" in his title like a politician defending a particularly tough attack ad."''''' ]: Misplaced Pages is not a blog. That source is POV. ] 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:L o fucking L. The whole point of the encyclopedia is to present various points of view. If they're mainstream sources, like the New York Review of Books, they're admissable. Let's take a look at your understanding of POV, and compare it to the real NPOV policy:

<blockquote>All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.</blockquote>

:Source: ]. So, we're actually supposed to represent views. The key, of course, is that we represent them fairly, but they should be represented. I don't see how that in any way equates to turning the article into a "blog."--] 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

==this article==
this article is unwarranted and non-factual, based on the fact that "apartheid" itself is a charged, loaded and scurrilous word. There is absolutely no factual basis for labeling Israel aparthied. it has tried repeatedly to make peace with Palestinians, and has been rebuffed repeatedly. Any existing restrictions are due to ongoing incitement by the Palestinian side, and stem only from lack of success of Israel's efforts to reach a lasting definitive political settlement. --] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:All well and good, but there's a fairly hefty RS-discussion and debate of the issue. Our job is to present this discussion, not censor it on the basis of moral and ideological objections to the subject matter at hand.--] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::Indeed, the discussion and the use of the term surely are notable, considering that there's so much literature devoted to this rhetorical device. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Although referring to Israel as an apartheid is a deliberate distortion of the facts on the ground, because several sources repeat this distortion enough, it has unfortunately become a hurdle both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict that both sides have to overcome. The distortion must be understood by both sides and by the rest of the world. Thus, this Misplaced Pages article is necessary and should not be deleted. On the other hand, I would prefer this article to be condensed and presented as a part of the ] article. --] 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no deliberate distortion. Experts have spoken. The allegations of Apartheid are numerous, and reliable. Many South African ] activists have said so. The attempts to deny or hide these allegations discredit Misplaced Pages.] 05:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:They're not hidden, we moved them to the very top of their sections because you whined about it.--] 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== suggestion ==

The article's examples should be converted from bullets to paragraphs. This way they can be discussed by other sources in the paragraphs as well.--] 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Other sources in paragraphs is a terrible idea. This is an attmempt to revise, hide, and deny the actual allegations themselves. Let the text not be hidden. ]: if you want to work on the Criticism sections, please do so, but do not remove allegations due to POV. ] 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>Most Misplaced Pages articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed</blockquote>

Source: ] (style guideline). Kritt, is it incredibly POV to follow style guidelines??? Noone is suggesting we remove the allegations, only that we make them conform with style guidelines. Damn.--] 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== page shouldn't be unlocked until the following is acknowledged and accepted: ==

*The article's structure right now is basically pretty good, and should not undergo quick, radical structural changes.
*It is a red herring to argue that the overview is biased in favor of A & M. If other people give an overview of the analogy/allegation in any sort of notable book, feel free to ad it. Indeed, the overview section should not only include Moodley and Adam, but many points of view as several here have suggested.
*The bullets in the article should be converted to paragraphs, per ].
*Editing this page is hard enough. Arguments should be leveraged on the basis of policies, not subjective dialectics.
*Editors here need to read ] in full. NPOV applies only to the article itself, not the talk page.
*Editors here need to stop accusing one another of "hiding" the truth, as if there is a sinister conspiracy. We are all here because we want the page to be neutral (or at least I hope so). Accusing someone of "hiding" something when the article clearly provides many examples of is a red herring that ignores that other people can fairly disagree without being incorrigable demons.

Until all of us either agree to these points, or agree to revert anyone who edits in violation of these points, I don't support unlocking the article.--] 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Should we also accept that A&M' research is misrepresented in the article? (see my "question" section above here) ] 08:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, we should discuss changing the sentences dealing with them but not remove them. I think there is agreement in this regard.--] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a fork of "Human Rights in Israel" article - no beating around the bush. If anything, there could be a different article at "Human Rights of Palestinians in Israel and West Bank". So what is the primary argument that this article should stay seperately than those two? The title is inherently POV and OR - that is the primary reason why so many edit-wars and disputes happen: if the title has problems, than the disputes will never cease no matter how NPOVising is done. Let's just merge it with HR in Israel or rename it to HR of PL in IS and WB.. ] 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:You really can't perform 500 edits in a couple of weeks and then demand that all other editors accept that the structure is now basically good. The structure is now basically yours. That's not the same thing. ] 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::Noone owns an article, but I believe the structure I've developed has consensus here. Most editors here support this three way division. So focus on the consensus, not on me :)--] 13:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I hadn't looked at this page in a few months. It's much worse. Big ] problem; far too many controversial edits by one person. Maybe if we just reverted back to early March and blocked Urthogie for a few weeks... --] 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please use the Talk: page for constructive comments. Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I had reached just such a conclusion about the recent changes and made a similar proposal ]. A consensus seems to be forming which is the exact opposite of what Urthogie is proposing here. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Actually, most of the opposition is to my editing style. The structure of the article is supported by the majority of users here. You yourself expressed support for it earlier.--] 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Urthogie, the opposition is to the style and the content. You keep claiming "consensus" for what you've done here, but I see little to support that on this talk page. Personally, I think you've butchered the article beyond hope, and too would support a March-ish rollback. ] 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Mackan, Kendrick, and G-Dett, the three users who have been the most articulate critics of my edits on this page, have all supported, in varying degrees the tripartite division of these allegations. At the very least, there is no consensus ''against'' the division. The whole idea of reverting the article back to March was raised, but several users, such as me 61S7, and Mackan opposed that.--] 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


::::Hi Urthogie. I recommend that you take a break from this article and let others add their input, as you come to it with a very strong POV and you have made and insisted upon numerous controversial edits which have been meet by major resistance by almost a dozen editors. So far many editors on this page have been polite with you and your disruption of this article, but this graciousness is unlikely to be indefinitely extended if you continue this disruption (see ]). Continuing on a path of confrontation and disruption in order to force the article to conform to your perspective at the expense of the perspectives of others is against Misplaced Pages policies (see ]) can result formal penalties. I recommend that you read ] of ]. --] 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The article right now reads as an example of Israeli apologetics for the situation in the Palestinian territories and the history shows that any attempts to address even the allegations section are being reverted. This is a clear violation of ]. --] 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been to this article for a while, on the plus side I'll say it seems to be better written than it was.

However, there is at least one major problem I see with this article, which is a problem I see with a number of other controversial pages on Wiki. And that is that the article essentially leads off with a long series of denials that the allegations have any validity.

In my opinion, such a format is totally inappropriate and violates NPOV by attempting to "poison the well" in advance of the allegations themselves. Now I don't know if there is a Wiki rule or guideline on this, but I think it's long past time, if it does not exist, that one was written prohibiting such practices. IMO, the criticism section of any article should always come ''after'' the section or sections describing the substance of the topic (in this case, the allegations).

Another criticism related to this one is the frequency with which contradictory statements are introduced into text as opposing editors seek to counteract each other's statements. The end result of this tendency is that the overall integrity of articles is destroyed as one contradictory claim succeeds another in line after line. Articles thereby become an incomprehensible mess, which drags down the quality of the project as a whole. Again, I think this practice needs to be strongly discouraged, preferably by a rule or guideline if one does not exist.

The third problem I have with this article in particular is that it's become rather too long and waffling. Surely the allegations, and the criticisms and denials of such, can be presented more succinctly? ] 03:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:Hey, thanks for making the many valid points. I do think the Criticism section comes after, though, if you'll double check. What's needed is both points of view for the sections preceding it. When the page is unlocked we should work to represent the views of those who support this analogy into those sections. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

::I'm afraid I must disagree with your interpretation. The "Criticism" section does come later in the article, but the problem is that the "Overview" section is also a de facto criticism section. It simply shouldn't be there. I also agree with the other editors who have said that too much emphasis is given to A&M in general - particularly since their actual position on the issue has been purportedly misrepresented in the article. ] 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I think this can be addressed by simply adding other overviews to the overview section, and correcting any of the misrepresentations of A&M. Why would you say it must be removed, instead of that?--] 04:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::::It goes back to my first post. The article is already too long and I don't see the need for an "overview" at all. At best it is only summarizing the opposing points of view which are already extant in the article, which is to say it's redundant.

::::In theory an overview might be useful but in practice I see it becoming just another battleground over content - and therefore ending up not as an "overview" at all but just as a further series of pointless digressions and obfuscations - and before the main topic has even been addressed. IMO, best to divide the article into two main sections, a section detailing the substance of the allegations and a section detailing the criticisms and/or refutations of those allegations. Try and keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. ] 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I think it makes clear some things which examples alone don't make clear. Namely, that most commentators reject the analogy, and that there is a certain political orientation which tends to be associated with the allegations.--] 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just my point. What is a statement that "most commentators reject the analogy" doing at the head of the article? It looks very much like an attempt to poison the well before the allegations themselves have been canvassed.

Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, Adam and Moodley themselves do not reject the notion of apartheid applying to Israel. So the statement itself is a misrepresentation of their position. The point they were apparently trying to make is that "most commentators" are either wrong or ill informed. But the way they are quoted, it looks as if they are endorsing the view of this supposed majority. ] 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:Adam and Moodley believe that there are more difference than simmilarities as far as the analogy. I agree that we can work with editing the overview to represent their views more accurately. This is why I encourage you to edit and add to it, rather than remove it.--] 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

''Adam and Moodley believe that there are more differences than similarities''

That may the case, but then that is a long way from being "incensed by the very analogy and deplor what it deems its propagandistic goals". But the way the information is presented in the article gives the impression that the latter is the informed view - when A&M apparently reject it.

As for "editing and adding to it", I've already stated my view about that. It's just going to become another battleground over content. Why not just divide the article up into pro- and anti- sections, and leave it at that? ] 05:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:Because that's a violation of ]-- undue weight. More weight needs to be given to the more common view, namely of being incensed by the analogy and deploring its propganistic goals.--] 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::No it doesn't. "Undue weight" applies to reliable sources, not to just anyone with an opinion. A&M concluded that "a majority" of commentators reject the notion of Israeli apartheid, but many commentators would not qualify as reliable sources in Wiki terms. So the fact that "a majority" reject the notion means nothing.

::Furthermore, how reliable in the first place is this assertion that "a majority" reject the analogy? I see no evidence of actual research A&M have done to come to this conclusion. Did they do any research at all? Or are they just expressing an opinion, based on their personal impressions? And if the latter, why on earth should such an impression be presented front and centre in the article as if it were established fact - let alone used as a justification for weighing the content toward one particular view? ] 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Conclusions don't need to be true, only verified. Unless this (actually true) claim by Adam and Moodley is disagreed upon by another mainstream source, I believe that this is the very basis of deciding due or undue weight.--] 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::::What constitutes a "verified conclusion"? Wiki's rules on verifiability clearly state that common sense must be used in determining the reliability of a source or statement. Without evidence that A&M actually did some research to conclude that "a majority" reject the analogy, a mere assertion in that regard can hardly be relied upon.

::::But in any case, you have ignored my central point, which is that "commentators" are not necessarily experts. The fact that, for example, you might have some blowhards on Fox News who are "incensed" by the analogy means nothing, because such people would not qualify as reliable sources. Therefore the statement that "a majority of commentators reject the analogy" is worthless in Wiki terms. ] 07:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::It is kind of common sense to assume someone did a study when everyone calls it a "study" or a "book-length study." We don't need proof that they studied their subject (rather than making it up), last time I checked.

:::::If you can do a study which finds that most commentators work for Fox News, and somehow relate it to allegations of Israeli apartheid, by all means, go ahead. If you're wondering, supporters of Israel don't all work for Fox News. Most Americans support Israel by a significant margin, as does the Democratic party (whose leader opposed Carter's comments), and even many far-left progressives support Israel, too! But I'm not here to argue the (to me obvious) truth for the Adam and Moodley claim. The requirement here, of course, is only verifiability, and that requirement is completely met. --] 01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::The point is, this one statement not repeated by any realiable source anywhere made by a source in the course of a rhetorical argument doesn't belong in the lead as if it is somehow the gospel truth. It's undue weight. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It's a study though... an analysis, not quite an "argument." It's a very calm and reasoned endeavor in which they aim to summarize the debate and valid and invalid points on each side. This one source has so much ''due'' weight because there is nothing else like it. (A reflection, one might say, on the notability of this subject matter). Also, I want to note that it is not treated like absolute truth because we say "A 2005 study" rather than just stating its findings as a solid, indisputable fact.--] 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Howe are you calling it a "]"? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, well, we are quoting a preface ''to'' a study. That's not quite the same thing. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::A preface can be sourced just as an introduction can be sourced. When I'm editing genetics pages noone has an issue with me doing this.--] 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Per ], our meaning would be the second listed, which isn't accurate. In any case, the problem remains undue weight, but also particularly the release of Jimmy Carter's book, whether we state the year or not. Since Urthogie likes to pin us with what we say in his favor, I'll note that he did also agree to remove this earlier as a compromise... ] 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, from a Misplaced Pages policy standpoint you'd need a source saying that suddenly most commentators accept the allegations of Israeli apartheid now to contradict Adam and Moodley. Obviously, such a source can't be found because such a claim is patently untrue. The reaction to Carter's book-- or more specifically, its title-- is only further proof of how most commentators and society at large view this allegation. Look at the reaction from the Democrats... from Carter's own staff, who resigned. The polls supporting Israel in the United States, have not spiked as a result of Carter's book. It's a book that makes the allegation! It's not the Middle East version of ], causing some sort of huge paradigm shift. Nothing fundamental has changed in regard to what "most commentators" say. Carter's book added to the discussion, but it did not change what "most" believe. Aside from the work of Benny Morris (and even that's a maybe), I don't know of any author who has singlehandedly changed conceptions of the Middle East conflict in the public at large, or among "most commentators".

Also, the word study is kind of vague when it comes to the ]. "Analysis" would be the equivalent here. But honestly, it's silly semantics. Adam and Moodley overview the allegations. If someone else mainstream does it, please add them to that section. See below for why I think the arguments against the inclusion of A&M have been red herrings.--] 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:No one is saying A&M's statement shouldn't be in the article period. Heck &mdash; I was the one who typed it into the article in the first place. It just doesn't belong in the lead. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley are the only academics whose expertise is precisely the comparison between South Africa and Israel, and also the only academics who have written academically on the subject. ''Of course'' their views should be extremely heavily weighted. As for objections that the "criticism" comes first, whether or not that is reasonable depends on whether or not you view the concept as valid or as spurious. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:''The reaction to Carter's book-- or more specifically, its title-- is only further proof of how most commentators and society at large view this allegation. Look at the reaction from the Democrats... from Carter's own staff, who resigned. The polls supporting Israel in the United States...''

:Again, you are completely missing the point. It matters not a whit how "society at large" views the allegation. Nor does it matter what "Democrats" think. Wiki content is not determined by a popularity contest. It's determined by what reliable sources think - that is, predominantly, academics and other experts in the field.

:So A&M's assertion that "most commentators" reject the analogy is worthless in Wiki terms, because "most commentators" are not academics or experts in the field. They are TV and newspaper opinionators, and the majority of such people would never qualify as reliable sources for the purposes of this project. ] 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::What "most commentators" think is actually extremely valuable in "wiki terms." Note that it says both journalistic ''and'' academic commentators.--] 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Characterizing what most people think in the lead is not conventional, even for minority viewpoints. I think Jay's comment actually sets up the right framework, but also that in terms of Misplaced Pages, the choice between "valid" and "spurious" has to be a semi-objective one based not on our opinions, but on the sources available. When those include Carter, Tutu, Brzezinski, and professors all speaking within the area of their expertise, I don't believe an encyclopedia can dismiss them.

:::Of course, we probably won't agree on this either unless some proposal actually satisfies both sides. In my view, the thing to do is not to treat the idea as illegitimate, but to present the idea, and then note that opponents consider it illegitimate. This sends out the warning that the entire premise here is disputed. Alternatively, we could add the middle paragraph toning down the analogy so that calling it completely illegitimate doesn't seem necessary (I don't believe most people dismiss A/M as completely illegitimate). Probably people should try to focus more on concrete proposals, though I'm currently guilty of not doing this myself. ] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::''What "most commentators" think is actually extremely valuable in "wiki terms."''

::::No, what "most commentators" think is of no interest to an encyclopedia, except perhaps as sociology. Encyclopedias base their content on facts, not popular notions.

::::''Note that it says both journalistic ''and'' academic commentators''

::::Yes, but it doesn't say a majority of ''both''. It only says "a majority", which presumably means a majority of commentators of all types. And since journalistic commentators far outnumber academic experts in any given field, it's not unreasonable to assume that the bulk of this purported "majority of commentators" to which A&M are referring are in fact, merely media commentators and not experts at all. ] 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

# What most people think is a fact worth noting, especially in regards to political issues like this allegation. In other fields too, really. Most mainstream researchers reject ]. Most people support the ], not the ]. Most people don't vote for the ], so we note that it's a third party. I could go on and on. The majority of Christians are of this sect..etc.. I could keep going. This argument is fruitless.
# It doesn't matter how you interpret it, or play word games with the word "both". We quote it exactly to avoid such issues.--] 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:''What most people think is a fact worth noting, especially in regards to political issues like this allegation''

:Show me where in Wiki rules or guidelines it says that articles should make reference to "what most people think".


== Tags ==
:''It doesn't matter how you interpret it, or play word games with the word "both". We quote it exactly to avoid such issues''


{{re|ABHammad}} Kindly explain the added tags (and why there are several for apparently the same thing)? ] (]) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:The question is not whether the comment is "quoted exactly" but whether it should be quoted at all - or at least in the prominent position it now occupies. There is also the question of whether A&M's own position on the controversy has been properly stated, or if in fact they are being misrepresented by an out-of-context quote. ] 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::No specific Misplaced Pages policy is necessary to justify the inclusion of such important information such as what the public or the academy or the press thinks about something. If a mainstream source says something relevant in this regard, we can use it. The relevant policy, I suppose would be ].


:I reverted @]'s changes as the phrasing is backed by RS and has long-standing consensus. Ideally they should discuss this change here before applying that label. ] (]) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::There's no actual question here, from a policy standpoint, though. This entire discussion is a bunch of word and logic games (one of them has been addressed head on in the section below), and policy isn't being mentioned at all. Perhaps this is why even Kendrick, who has criticized a lot of aspects of my edits, supports the inclusion of A&M in the article ("No one is saying A&M's statement shouldn't be in the article period."...) I'm sorry if you disagree with the overview given by the source. If you really wanted to present a strong argument, do what most people do on Misplaced Pages: add another source-- add a source that gives an overview of the allegations, like A&M does. Add a different view, noone is stopping you.--] 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::<s>I reverted the tags, I agree there is a major problem with the current wording. This article is written like apartheid is a fact in Israel but this is obviously contested. Why is Misplaced Pages the only mainstream source in the west that says this like a fact? ] (]) 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
:::Apartheid is fact per every international human rights organization including ] (]) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::<s>Using human rights watch interpretation of the ICJ does not mean that "the world's foremost court" have decided such if they didn't say it clearly. And any way there's much to the world beside the ICJ. Give me one Western liberal country that adopted this usage? thanks ] (]) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
:::::Why are "Western liberal" countries the authority? It's the consensus of human rights organizations. ] ] 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::<s>Human rights organizations have their own (deep) biases. It is not only there isn't consensus among western liberal democracies and main media sources, I don't think any of them has ever endorsed this claim. I think it shows that the usage of apartheid in regards to Israel is primarily a talking point of activists, politicians, and progressive groups, and except those, the allegations are viewed as extremely fringe. ] (]) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
:::::::Governments are not reliable sources. Human Rights Watch is a . There is no equivalency. ] (]) 11:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::An article wide tag is not necessary if the complaint is adequately addressed by inline tags so I removed that.
:::::::The opinion of any {{tq|Western liberal country}}, in other words, politicians, are noted but not relevant.
:::::::The ICJ has concluded that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention and "Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid".
:::::::Subsequently the UNGA has passed a resolution (this is not yet in the article afaics) stating "Calls upon all States to comply with their obligations under international law, inter alia, as reflected in the advisory opinion.." and "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin in violation of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention,3 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 4 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights5 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination6 and customary international law".
:::::::If there is anything left to decide, it is how exactly to summarize the cumulative opinions of NGOs such as Amnesty, the ICJ/UNGA view, and potentially, the ICC view "Salam’s discussion of the crime should be studied by relevant criminal justice authorities, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, as it outlines the legal framework needed to investigate the crime of apartheid." ] (]) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Framing the current situation as apartheid in WP:VOICE, solely based on the views of human rights groups whose worldviews increasingly diverge from Western mainstream perspectives, is problematic and has no real impact on the ground. There is a clear reason why the Western world, the only part of the world that actually cares for human rights, including not just governments but also major news outlets, has not endorsed these apartheid allegations—and that is what truly matters in reality. The only countries that endorsed the claims of apartheid (and genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and all the other terms commonly used in recent propaganda) are, ironically, countries like Iran and Syria, which are not very known for their human rights record. ] (]) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You completely ignored the point we just discussed about governments not being reliable sources. ] ] 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You completely ignored the point that the entire western world rejects the claims, rendering the views of (politicized/radicalized) human rights organizations irrelevant for many. If we want to comply with WP:NPOV, as we're supposed, we cannot use WP:VOICE to make claims that are rejected by all the vast majority of those who actually care for human rights. ] (]) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm ignoring your personal feelings that this article should reflect the opinion of countries, and not RS because those RS are in your opinion "radicalized"? Yes. That's my duty as a Misplaced Pages editor. ] ] 12:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::<s>I agree mostly wtih ABHammad and Oddnahlawi above. The most correct and encyclopedic presentation of the issue should be something like: {{tq|Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have claimed that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation."}} ] (]) 12:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
:::::::::::::I think this would be the perfect opening paragraph to an article titled ]. We should ensure the inclusion of South Africa and Jordan along with Iran and Turkey.
:::::::::::::Plus, this is illogical: "framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Israel's actions being justified by "security concerns" has nothing to do with the nature of these actions. I can construct a wall based on security considerations, but that doesn't change the fact that a wall exists. ] (]) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::<s>The usage of 'apartheid' is, similarly to genocide, closely related to the aims of a policy, apartheid is conducted for reasons of racial segragation. Walls can be built for various reasons, not all of them related to apartheid. Does anyone claim that the Berlin Wall was apartheid? this claim is empty. ] (]) 12:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
:::::::::::::::No, the usage of apartheid has been documented by an increasing number of detailed reports over the past decade. The usage of genocide is new and no conclusive reports nor an ICJ ruling have been issued. So, again, there is no equivalency. I was not trying to compare walls with apartheid; I was refuting the idea that a justification negates the existence of reality. As another example, you can steal a car and market it as "logistical considerations"; nevertheless, a theft still occurred. Justifications are a marketing strategy and do not negate reality. ] (]) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::First of all, the world does not revolve around the western world, and the western world does not revolve around western governments. That being said, the ICJ is based in the Netherlands; the UN is based in the US; HRW is based in the US; Amnesty International is based in the UK. These are western institutions, so the argument that "the entire western world rejects the claims" does not hold up to any scrutiny, and is irrelevant anyway. ] (]) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The composition of the ICJ and the political process by which judges are selected is much more relevant than its physical location. But anyway, it's not accurate to say that the ICJ agreed with the apartheid characterization.
::::::::::::HRW's misleading summary dances around the fact that the opinion itself never made such a statement, only alluding to it with {{tq|the court’s language is a compromise}}. They then mention that two of the less-neutral, non-Western judges, Salam (Lebanon) and Tladi (South Africa), did clearly take that position.
::::::::::::Everyone seems to agree that there was no such court finding. The unofficial summary says {{tq|without qualifying it as apartheid}}. Judge Nolte wrote that the court {{tq| open the question whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid}}.
::::::::::::If anything, this is weak evidence that asserting this in wikivoice is inappropriate. (Weak in the sense that the court didn't reject the claim either, though some individual experts do, such as ] and ].) — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm struggling to see either Dershowitz (who I recall advocated using torture in criminal investigations) or Kontorovitch (who I'd never heard of but who appears to be an Israeli lawyer who disapproves of sanctions against Israel) as a human rights expert. What makes you think they are more reliable on this subject than an international human rights organisation? ] (]) 16:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::There may be better sources, those are just a couple I'm aware of. Dershowitz's position on torture isn't extreme though - it mimics Israel's Supreme Court decision which banned torture except in ticking time-bomb scenarios.
::::::::::::::Human rights organizations have political agendas, and at best are only as reliable as the individuals behind them. For example the HRW content being discussed was written by Clive Baldwin, who has some relevant education but doesn't appear to be a LLM/PhD holder or a practicing lawyer. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::It should be noted that Misplaced Pages's article on ] does list Alan Dershowitz as a source for the pro-torture side, while providing ] by pointing out that multiple "human rights organizations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders" are anti-torture. Governments or individuals making statements, as notable non-expert biased observers, should of course be mentioned, but more weight should be given to human rights organizations and experts. And that's exactly why the pro-torture section of that article is shorter than the anti-torture section. This article should follow the same standard. ] (]) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
<s>Clearer here: I would like to suggest the next option which I think is much more balanced and encyclopedic than recent changes: {{tq|Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have said that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation."}} ] (]) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>


:The recent UNGA vote on the ICJ opinion can be seen so it is just not true to say that the Western world is "against", only 14 countries (Argentina, Czech Republic,Fiji, Hungary, Israel, Malawi, Micronesia Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States) voted against the resolution. ] (]) 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sorry, but if anyone here is playing word games, it's you. You have been trying to argue that the phrase "a majority of commentators" should be interpreted as "a majority of ''reliable sources''". And on that basis, you tried to argue that you have a right to weight the article toward one particular POV.
::How this or that politician chooses to talk about it is completely irrelevant. As per above, their countries are now bound by UNGA resolution. They may choose to ignore it but that has consequences too (UK/Chagos Islands refers). ] (]) 13:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Having said that, I'm not that keen on the Easter egg in Line 1 tho. ] (]) 13:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::: is the official publication. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Makeandtoss}} "a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination" seems to be a quote from Amnesty report? I don't think we want wording tied only to one source? ] (]) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::That's the textbook definition of ], that was : "a system of institutionalised racial segregation." So it's a basic definition that cannot be rephrased much. ] (]) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's also not in the body so we might want to have a think about that. ] (]) 14:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::If we want a recent RS, there is mentioning both ICJ and UNGA in one place, and referring to the situation as apartheid, will see if I can find some more. ] (]) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Lede is a summary so it doesn’t have to be in the body verbatim. ] (]) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::So what is it a summary of? ] (]) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::, says "racial discrimination and segregation or apartheid" and expounds at length on third states responsibilities. ] (]) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: "its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
::::::::I think this (the article 3 breach) is the most relevant wording that we need to be using. ] (]) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I would think human rights organizations are the best qualified regarding human rights issues, instead of countries with a clear political agenda. On one hand you have the ICJ, UNGA, HRW, Amnesty, etc, and on the other hand you have a bunch of countries asserting otherwise. Those countries are actually a minority as Self noted, not "the entire Western world" - and even if that wasn't the case, human rights organizations are clearly the authority here. We do not add POVs from unqualified parties regarding what does and doesn't constitute a war crime (we wouldn't cite a, idk, architect giving his opinion), but are supposed to give equal weight to political institutions? - ] (]) 13:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Countries voting to endorse the ICJ decision did not vote on whether there's apartheid or not, that's a wrong reading of the vote. I haven't seen a single government in the West that officially recognizes the situation in Israel-Palestine as apartheid. You are welcome to prove otherwise. Anyway, the current use of voice to describe the situation is clearly biased and adopts one view over that of countless other sources and governments that do not use this term for Israel-Palestine, because they reject it. ] (]) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::In the document Zero shared:
:::::::::::{{tq|Affirming in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, that:}}
:::::::::::{{tq|(e) Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near- complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction”}} ] ] 15:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Bitspectator already covered part of your argument. And borrowing from what they have said before, governments are not reliable sources. Nor do they have the same weight that human rights organizations do, when talking about human rights violations. You want to dismiss their conclusions because, in your opinion, they are "politicized" - are we supposed to believe that governments are not? They are not objective institutions, on the contrary, they all have political agendas that influence their assessments. - ] (]) 18:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thing to do here is get into all the detail in the article body and what individual judges did and didn't say and what is apartheid/Convention or apartheid/Rome Statute compared to what all the judges signed off on, the article 3 breach. is likely the top rated source for all the details as of right now. To be clear, we do not have a proper conclusion as yet on apartheid. So I don't agree with Line 1 of the lead as is currently, this situation is a bit like the Genocide article just because the title says a thing, that doesn't mean that that it is an incontrovertible fact, even though the case here is much stronger than in the genocide case. We do know that there is an article 3 breach but ICERD does not specifically define apartheid so... ] (]) 11:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::: ] (]) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reminder this article is about Israeli apartheid, not the ICJ decision; as stated previously, the ICJ ruling is the cherry on top, and not the decisive source. We already have numerous major RS such as HRW and AI. ] (]) 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Both of whom have updated their positions to reflect the ICJ ruling? ] (]) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::HRW in its most recent report said the language was a compromise, but that the finding was apartheid; not that there was no finding of which of the two (apartheid or segregation). ] (]) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*Agree with ] that international human rights organisations are likely to be better and fairer judges of matters to do with human rights than governments are. ] (]) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
* Even non-authoritarian governments are not necessarily reliable sources. For example, the Japanese government reguarly downplays war crimes it committed against the historical consensus. The Israel-Palestine conflict is so partisan on the global stage that we really shouldn't rely on what governments say on the issue (this goes for both for both pro and anti-Israel states), but instead what non partisan courts, human rights organisations and NGOs have said have about the topic. The consensus among non-partisan sources does indeed seem to be that Israel is committing crimes either of or equivalent to apartheid, and Misplaced Pages should reflect that. ] (]) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*:<s>Part of the issue is, that the human right sources are not always non-partisan. Specifically in the case of Israel, Amnesty has been long accused for harboring anti-Israel biases. A major staffer once stated that Israel was similar to the Islamic State, the secertary general falsely said on Twitter that Shimon Perres admitted Arafat was murdered, and Amnesty International USA Director stating that "We are opposed to the idea ... that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people." That's one reason why many people don't see Amnesty a non-partisan source.<br>The question here, anyway, was whether the status in Israel and the West Bank can be described in Wiki voice as apartheid (the status in the last months here) or not. The fact that the West did not endorse this framing in major sources is, I think, an answer. ] (]) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
*::These arguments have already been addressed by multiple users in this thread. I have removed the tags. ] ] 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] the tags should be removed when consensus is reached, and it's clear we're not there yet. I don't want admins to get involved but if weren't going be to constructive here we may need to do it, especially since this is the second time an involved party removed the tags in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Kindly restore the tags. Thank you. ] (]) 07:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::I'll revert, but you have to address the points we're making. Making an argument that's already been responded to (multiple times, by multiple users) isn't constructive and doesn't justify the tags. ] ] 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The tags are justified as long as we haven't reached consensus ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::It's your responsibility to justify the tags. I self-reverted solely to encourage you to do that. Consensus is not uninamity and if WP:IDONTLIKEIT justified a tag, every word of every CT article would have a tag. ] ] 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::You seem to have understood what consensus is. Read WP:CONSENSUS: "When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (], ], ]), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (], ]). " Your edit summaries, "''consensus against the tags formed"'', and ''"allow opportunity to justify tags"'', goes against good faith, I am afraid. Since you are part of this discussion, it is not for you alone to decide what the consensus is. There are many editors here who do not agree with the current framing. If we cannot reach a compromise, we should try other ways, not just decide to remove tags on your own in the middle of the discussion. That is disruptive. Let's try to work together and reach a compromise for Misplaced Pages's good. ] (]) 17:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Most people here are actually working on the problem and not arguing about tags so if you had something useful to contribute to that effort, have at it. ] (]) 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Please do not defend the disruptive removal of tags, done again and again in the middle of discussion. Someone experienced like you should understand the importance of good faith discussion. ] (]) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Non responsive. ] (]) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I self-revert at your request and you accuse me of bad faith. ] ] 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::IMO, you were right to remove the tags. I have re-removed them. This discussion has gone on for ages, and you're right to point out that arguments against these tags are extensive. Not having them is backed by RS and long-standing consensus. ] (]) 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree that there's a bit of a balance issue here. ] would suggest that we need to cover a minority POV that questions whether apartheid is the appropriate term to describe this. For example, the book by ], {{Cite book |last=Pogrund |first=Benjamin |title=Drawing fire: investigating the accusations of apartheid in Israel |date=2014 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-1-4422-7575-1 |location=Lanham, Md.}}, isn't cited, even though his 2023 Haaretz editorial is cited. That evolution might be worth going into, even though he changed his perspective more recently. Another book that might be useful and isn't cited AFAICT is {{Cite book |last=Ariely |first=Gal |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/israels-regime-untangled/945A8FB1ED60EE6F5F6B1C352FEED8B1 |title=Israel's Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid |date=2021 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-84525-0 |location=Cambridge |doi=10.1017/9781108951371}}, which describes Israel as a "disputed regime." From the blurb, {{tq| Some regard the country as an apartheid regime that can only be challenged through boycotts and sanctions. Others believe it is a stable liberal democracy, created under extreme conditions}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Detailed hundreds of pages report published by the world's most prominent rights organizations such as HRW, Amnesty International, and the ICJ have obviously more weight than a sentence sourced to Israeli authors Gal Ariely and Benajmin Pogrund. Given these two groups of sources equal weight would be ]. ] (]) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Actually, HRW and Amnesty should be attributed as advocacy groups, per ] (''in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion'' for the latter, I don't see a listing for the former but should be easy to see why), and ICJ is a primary source that hasn't ruled yet, whereas the books I just offered are reliable sources. While they may have some bias, ] tells us that this just means we need to balance and attribute them, not exclude them. And in fact as I said, we already cite Pogrund, just his editorial in Haaretz, not his book. That makes no sense. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::That is incorrect, HRW is not considered an "advocacy group" on WP:RSP. Also, this is not a controversial case because this viewpoint is the majority viewpoint supported by HRW, AI, and ICJ; and contradicted seemingly only by two unknown Israeli authors. ] (]) 21:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::HRW is definitely an advocacy group similar to and should be treated the same as Amnesty, and it's been discussed many times in the RSN archives, though I do not know what the consensus is because I haven't checked if there was a recent RFC on its reliability or bias; but I definitely disagree that this is not controversial. It's obviously very controversial and I'm sure there are quite a few other sources that argue these points. It's almost farcical to claim this is settled and not a controversy. Anyway, those authors aren't unknown at all. As mentioned, we already cite one, and the other is {{tq|Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev where his research focuses on democracy and national identity}}. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I totally agree, and I want to add that some editors here saying governments are just politicians and therefore should not be considered is completely wrong. Governments are much more complex than individual politicians. If, right now, most Western nations—those who actually care for human rights—do not endorse HRW's and Amnesty's claims of apartheid, it says much more about these advocacy groups than it does about the governments, who more or less agree that the situation, bad as it is, is not apartheid. This should be made clear in the lead, that the Western world has not endorsed these allegations. The current use of Misplaced Pages's voice to present claims not widely accepted in the West but supported by failed states and totalitarian countries, is bad. ] (]) 08:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Countries are not reliable sources. The idea that this article should not only reflect the view of countries, but of a select minority of countries (124 vs. 14) has no merit. ] ] 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::I don’t understand where the number 124 comes from, as I don’t think there is a list of 124 countries that have endorsed the claim of Israel-Palestine being a case of apartheid. Also, the Western world has different standards for defining human rights, so the views of the EU carry more weight compared to countries like North Korea and Iran, which, let's admit it, may support these claims for political reasons, rather than out of genuine concern for human rights. ] (]) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::That was already discuss3ed above, by voting for the resolution, the 124 countries endorsed this part of the resolution:
*::::::::::Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction
*::::::::::and we have plenty sources for that as discussed below.
*::::::::::Countries that abstained in effect took no position and 14 objected, including the US and Israel. ] (]) 17:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*::As on many CT pages, our readers would be better served with description and detail, not controversial labels which tend to evoke emotion and over-generalize the facts.]] 17:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::If we removed every part of this article that could cause an emotional reaction in someone, there would be no article at all. ] ] 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::While I agree that readers should be provided with description and detail, I don't think editors should concern themselves with the emotions evoked in readers by any of the 10 billion Misplaced Pages page views per year or whatever the number is nowadays. It's not relevant to content decisions. ] (]) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::"emotional" in the sense of knee-jerk reactions to labels as substitutes for factual detail.]] 02:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)


:The security concerns part should be stated in the context of what critics have called "a pretext" for racism. HRW that "{{tq|denying building permits and demolishing homes that lack them, have no security justification}}" and "{{tq|blanket denial of long-term legal status to Palestinians from the occupied territory married to Israeli citizens and residents, use security as a pretext to further demographic goals.}}" ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, the falseness of your premise has been exposed and now you are reduced to arguing that Misplaced Pages has a responsibility to record "what most people think". Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think you are going to persuade too many people that you have a right to tilt the content of this article in a particular direction on such a flimsy basis. ] 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
*Support removing the tags. This discussion was over a while ago and no new arguments are being made. All points have been thoroughly answered. Tags in themselves do not improve an article. Many of the arguments seem to be late comments on the RM discussion from a couple of years ago. ] (]) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== ICJ sources ==
::You're taking this whole discussion out of proportion. It's not about the whole article, which should (almost already seems to) include every single reliable source imaginable, but about a small section called "Overview." Like I said, find someone else who gives an overview and add them to that section. Good luck, --16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


{{yo|Black Kite}} regarding your , this was discussed above. We have at least five secondary analyses by law professors (I hadn't included per overcite), as well as a judge, confirming the clarification I made.
:::The point is, you began by arguing you had a right to an extra section of de facto criticism in the overview because "a majority of commentators" agreed with your position. But now it's been pointed out to you that "commentators" does not equate to "reliable sources", you just go back to the "well add your own stuff to the overview!" argument. But I've already explained to you why I don't want to do that - (a) because it's likely to become just another battleground over content, and (b) because in so doing it will inevitably end up duplicating content in the other sections.


The source you restored is an article by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. It's also written for a lay audience and lacks depth, particular in relation to apartheid claims. Surely this isn't the ] given the available alternatives.
:::That's why I've argued for just two main sections - a pro and an anti. We don't need ''two'' pro and anti sections - one in the overview and another in the main body of the article. But that is almost certainly what will happen if the overview stays. That's why I say it's redundant and that whatever information is in it now can easily be moved into the criticism section. ] 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Also while ] calls itself a blog, it has a team of and a . Their review process carries much more weight here than that of the ''The Guardian'', whose editors generally have no relevant credentials. But even if these were self-published, all five analyses would easily pass ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::What most academic commentators and journalists think is what deserves the most weight. The definition of due weight is not based on numbers of reliable sources, but rather on what is the established mainstream opinion.--] 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


:Agree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::That might be ''your'' definition, but it isn't Wiki's! ] 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:There is nothing wrong with the sources (except the one part authored and "served for over 20 years in various positions in the International Law Department of the Military Advocate General's Corps in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including as the head of the department, and retired at the rank of Colonel), I have more accurately summarized the article body and balanced the one sided source selection. ] (]) 11:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.</blockquote>


== Recent lede edit ==
Minority views, huh? Helps to read shit doesn't it.--] 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation {{strikethrough|of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and}} is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. {{strikethrough|The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue}}" ] (]) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
== Illogical reasons for editing or moving or removing A&M ==


:I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim {{tq|while individual judges were split on the issue}} though which is a non-essential detail. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
G-Dett and Pertn have argued against the current placement/position of A&M in the article. Let me outline why I think their logic is severely flawed. Here's their logic (See relevant posts at: )
::Fyi {{ping|AlsoWukai}} since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. ] (]) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


== Racism and Zionism in lede ==
# Adam and Moodley wrote a book about learning from South Africa to make peace in Palestine/Israel (given)
# A book about Learning from South Africa to make peace in Palestine/Israel is not a book about allegations of Israeli apartheid (true)
# Therefore, Adam and Moodley can't be a good source for an overview on an article about allegations of Israeli apartheid (false)


Hi @],
Translated another way, it could sound a bit more ridiculous


I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and ]. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. ] (]) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
# Smith and Williams wrote a book about dogs (given)
# A book about dogs is not a book about dalmations (true)
# Therefore, Smith and Williams can't be a good source for an overview on an article about dalmations. (false)


:I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. ] (]) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Adam and Moodley devote a chapter of their book (which covers a much larger topic) to the more specific topic of comparing South African apartheid to the situation in Israel/palestine. In that chapter of their book, they discuss the allegations of apartheid and who makes them. They analyze these allegations, and come to the conclusion that while there are some similarities, the situation is more different than similar, and the causes are much more different as well. Even if you disagree with their specific analysis, the answer here would be to add ''other'' mainstream overviews, not to remove this one on the basis of spurious logic. --] 01:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:
:Number 3 is the howler here. We're not saying they can't be a good source for the overview; we're saying they shouldn't own the overview. --] 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::{{blockquote|In 1975, former ] ] voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the ] that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". ], executive director of the ], said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.}}
::Good, so we agree. Add some sources to the overview, buddy. (Make sure it's not an original synthesis though.)--] 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, ]. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. ] (]) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Cream in your coffee, boss?--] 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


== Israeli civil law ==
<nowiki>:)</nowiki>--] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


{{ping|Makeandtoss}} In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by ], misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship.
Also, if you do end up adding sources, we can adjust the lead to reflect that of course. I think the main issue is just that people tend not to write cool-headed analyses of such emotionally weighted charges.--] 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


(which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that ]. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? ] (]) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== separate section for Carter? ==


:WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. ] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that so much of this relates to Carter's book. I was trying to improve the coverage and discussion of his book's use of the word but I was overwhelmed by how many sources discuss it. If we want to give an in-depth discussion of his use of the word in an NPOV fashion, wouldn't it make sense to give him his own section? Anyone who searches for stuff on this subject can't help but notice his use of the word is responsible for most of the term's discussion/coverage. Any support in this regard?--] 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at ]. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of ],<ref name=Haklai2015>{{cite book | last1=Haklai | first1=O. | last2=Loizides | first2=N. | title=Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts | publisher=Stanford University Press | year=2015 | isbn=978-0-8047-9650-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xeyACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 | access-date=2018-12-14 | page=19 | quote=the Israel settlers reside almost solely in exclusively Jewish communities (one exception is a small enclave within the city of Hebron).}}</ref><ref name=Dumper2014>{{cite book | last=Dumper | first=M. | title=Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City | publisher=Columbia University Press | year=2014 | isbn=978-0-231-53735-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E8nbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA85 | access-date=2018-12-14 | page=85 | quote=This is despite huge efforts by successive governments to fragment and encircle Palestinian residential areas with exclusively Jewish zones of residence – the settlements.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207|title=Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements|newspaper=Reuters|date=7 December 2014|via=www.reuters.com|access-date=21 February 2023|archive-date=30 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150730104133/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/07/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207|url-status=live}}</ref>
== Idid Amin is a reliable source ==


: The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is called allegations of Israeli apartheid. A major head of state making the allegations is by very definition notable. The definition of a reliable source for this article isn't a political scientist. If that were the case then we'd have to exclude other political figures as well, which we haven't done. All in all, it's ridiculous to remove this guy.--] 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


::Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. ] (]) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
My guess is that this misunderstanding of what makes a "reliable" source is based on the misconception that the source must be a "reliable" person.--] 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent. By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel."
:I was reverted again. Gatoclass,
:::This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. ] (]) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of . The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. ] (]) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. ] (]) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


{{reftalk}}
*not just "good guys" get to be represented.
*assume good faith. just because you assume bad faith and think including him is an "attempt" at something, doesn't mean you can revert him.
*please use the talk page if you want to avoid revert wars.--] 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


== Request for Sources and Balanced Representation ==
== UN General Assembly Resolutions 3379 and 3380 ==
{{hat|]. ] (]) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I noticed that the article has recently shifted its language to refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" and the stance now being solidified due to the ongoing war. Its language refers to Israel as an "apartheid state" in a way that seems more definitive. Given that this term is highly contested and there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe it's important to ensure that we present the full spectrum of perspectives. Could we include more references to sources that provide an opposing viewpoint, particularly those that challenge the use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel? This would help maintain neutrality and offer readers a broader understanding of the issue. ] (]) 00:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:No. See ]. ] (]) 00:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
UN GA resolution #3379 declared Zionism to be racism, while #3380 created the ]. I'm surprise no ] I've seen has ever pointed out this simple correlation, but, in light of that, to only mention the Idi Amin quote in the context of one and not the other is misleading -- I seem to recall both were debated and passed on the same day, so of course politicians would be commenting on both during their photo-ops, etc. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Hab}}
:Can't this just be fixed by correcting the numbers? The guy accused Israel of apartheid.--] 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:41, 4 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli apartheid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
          Article history and WikiProjects
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • Israel and apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Moved, 20 July 2024, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, Moved, 24 July 2022, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid allegation, No consensus, 4 December 2021, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, Withdrawn per WP:SNOW, 3 May 2021, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 8 June 2017, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy, No consensus due to procedural issue, 29 May 2017, see discussion.
Older discussions:
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → ?, Not moved, 12 January 2017, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 13 January 2011, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid , No consensus, 20 August 2010, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 3 May 2009, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, No consensus, 28 August 2007, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, No consensus, 17 August 2007, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 16 March 2007, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 14 December 2006, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 6 October 2006, see discussion.
  • Israeli apartheid → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Move, 26 June 2006, see discussion.
Israeli apartheid (final version) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which on 17 June 2006 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS.

Archiving icon

Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Tags

@ABHammad: Kindly explain the added tags (and why there are several for apparently the same thing)? Selfstudier (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted @ABHammad's changes here as the phrasing is backed by RS and has long-standing consensus. Ideally they should discuss this change here before applying that label. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I reverted the tags, I agree there is a major problem with the current wording. This article is written like apartheid is a fact in Israel but this is obviously contested. Why is Misplaced Pages the only mainstream source in the west that says this like a fact? OdNahlawi (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Apartheid is fact per every international human rights organization including the world's foremost court, the ICJ. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Using human rights watch interpretation of the ICJ does not mean that "the world's foremost court" have decided such if they didn't say it clearly. And any way there's much to the world beside the ICJ. Give me one Western liberal country that adopted this usage? thanks OdNahlawi (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Why are "Western liberal" countries the authority? It's the consensus of human rights organizations. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Human rights organizations have their own (deep) biases. It is not only there isn't consensus among western liberal democracies and main media sources, I don't think any of them has ever endorsed this claim. I think it shows that the usage of apartheid in regards to Israel is primarily a talking point of activists, politicians, and progressive groups, and except those, the allegations are viewed as extremely fringe. OdNahlawi (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Governments are not reliable sources. Human Rights Watch is a reliable source per WP. There is no equivalency. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
An article wide tag is not necessary if the complaint is adequately addressed by inline tags so I removed that.
The opinion of any Western liberal country, in other words, politicians, are noted but not relevant.
The ICJ has concluded that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention and "Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid".
Subsequently the UNGA has passed a resolution (this is not yet in the article afaics) stating "Calls upon all States to comply with their obligations under international law, inter alia, as reflected in the advisory opinion.." and "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin in violation of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention,3 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 4 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights5 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination6 and customary international law".
If there is anything left to decide, it is how exactly to summarize the cumulative opinions of NGOs such as Amnesty, the ICJ/UNGA view, and potentially, the ICC view "Salam’s discussion of the crime should be studied by relevant criminal justice authorities, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, as it outlines the legal framework needed to investigate the crime of apartheid." Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Framing the current situation as apartheid in WP:VOICE, solely based on the views of human rights groups whose worldviews increasingly diverge from Western mainstream perspectives, is problematic and has no real impact on the ground. There is a clear reason why the Western world, the only part of the world that actually cares for human rights, including not just governments but also major news outlets, has not endorsed these apartheid allegations—and that is what truly matters in reality. The only countries that endorsed the claims of apartheid (and genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and all the other terms commonly used in recent propaganda) are, ironically, countries like Iran and Syria, which are not very known for their human rights record. ABHammad (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
You completely ignored the point we just discussed about governments not being reliable sources. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
You completely ignored the point that the entire western world rejects the claims, rendering the views of (politicized/radicalized) human rights organizations irrelevant for many. If we want to comply with WP:NPOV, as we're supposed, we cannot use WP:VOICE to make claims that are rejected by all the vast majority of those who actually care for human rights. ABHammad (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm ignoring your personal feelings that this article should reflect the opinion of countries, and not RS because those RS are in your opinion "radicalized"? Yes. That's my duty as a Misplaced Pages editor. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree mostly wtih ABHammad and Oddnahlawi above. The most correct and encyclopedic presentation of the issue should be something like: Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have claimed that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Galamore (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I think this would be the perfect opening paragraph to an article titled Governments' views on Israel and apartheid. We should ensure the inclusion of South Africa and Jordan along with Iran and Turkey.
Plus, this is illogical: "framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Israel's actions being justified by "security concerns" has nothing to do with the nature of these actions. I can construct a wall based on security considerations, but that doesn't change the fact that a wall exists. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The usage of 'apartheid' is, similarly to genocide, closely related to the aims of a policy, apartheid is conducted for reasons of racial segragation. Walls can be built for various reasons, not all of them related to apartheid. Does anyone claim that the Berlin Wall was apartheid? this claim is empty. Galamore (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
No, the usage of apartheid has been documented by an increasing number of detailed reports over the past decade. The usage of genocide is new and no conclusive reports nor an ICJ ruling have been issued. So, again, there is no equivalency. I was not trying to compare walls with apartheid; I was refuting the idea that a justification negates the existence of reality. As another example, you can steal a car and market it as "logistical considerations"; nevertheless, a theft still occurred. Justifications are a marketing strategy and do not negate reality. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
First of all, the world does not revolve around the western world, and the western world does not revolve around western governments. That being said, the ICJ is based in the Netherlands; the UN is based in the US; HRW is based in the US; Amnesty International is based in the UK. These are western institutions, so the argument that "the entire western world rejects the claims" does not hold up to any scrutiny, and is irrelevant anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The composition of the ICJ and the political process by which judges are selected is much more relevant than its physical location. But anyway, it's not accurate to say that the ICJ agreed with the apartheid characterization.
HRW's misleading summary dances around the fact that the opinion itself never made such a statement, only alluding to it with the court’s language is a compromise. They then mention that two of the less-neutral, non-Western judges, Salam (Lebanon) and Tladi (South Africa), did clearly take that position.
Everyone seems to agree that there was no such court finding. The unofficial summary says without qualifying it as apartheid. Judge Nolte wrote that the court open the question whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid.
If anything, this is weak evidence that asserting this in wikivoice is inappropriate. (Weak in the sense that the court didn't reject the claim either, though some individual experts do, such as Alan Dershowitz and Eugene Kontorovich.) — xDanielx /C\ 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see either Dershowitz (who I recall advocated using torture in criminal investigations) or Kontorovitch (who I'd never heard of but who appears to be an Israeli lawyer who disapproves of sanctions against Israel) as a human rights expert. What makes you think they are more reliable on this subject than an international human rights organisation? John (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
There may be better sources, those are just a couple I'm aware of. Dershowitz's position on torture isn't extreme though - it mimics Israel's Supreme Court decision which banned torture except in ticking time-bomb scenarios.
Human rights organizations have political agendas, and at best are only as reliable as the individuals behind them. For example the HRW content being discussed was written by Clive Baldwin, who has some relevant education but doesn't appear to be a LLM/PhD holder or a practicing lawyer. — xDanielx /C\ 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that Misplaced Pages's article on Ticking time bomb scenario does list Alan Dershowitz as a source for the pro-torture side, while providing WP:BALANCE by pointing out that multiple "human rights organizations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders" are anti-torture. Governments or individuals making statements, as notable non-expert biased observers, should of course be mentioned, but more weight should be given to human rights organizations and experts. And that's exactly why the pro-torture section of that article is shorter than the anti-torture section. This article should follow the same standard. JasonMacker (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Clearer here: I would like to suggest the next option which I think is much more balanced and encyclopedic than recent changes: Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have said that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Galamore (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The recent UNGA vote on the ICJ opinion can be seen here so it is just not true to say that the Western world is "against", only 14 countries (Argentina, Czech Republic,Fiji, Hungary, Israel, Malawi, Micronesia Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States) voted against the resolution. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
How this or that politician chooses to talk about it is completely irrelevant. As per above, their countries are now bound by UNGA resolution. They may choose to ignore it but that has consequences too (UK/Chagos Islands refers). Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Having said that, I'm not that keen on the Easter egg in Line 1 tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Here is the official publication. Zero 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: "a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination" seems to be a quote from Amnesty report? I don't think we want wording tied only to one source? Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
That's the textbook definition of apartheid, that was adopted from the Apartheid Convention: "a system of institutionalised racial segregation." So it's a basic definition that cannot be rephrased much. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It's also not in the body so we might want to have a think about that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
If we want a recent RS, there is DAWN mentioning both ICJ and UNGA in one place, and referring to the situation as apartheid, will see if I can find some more. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Lede is a summary so it doesn’t have to be in the body verbatim. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
So what is it a summary of? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
UN experts here, says "racial discrimination and segregation or apartheid" and expounds at length on third states responsibilities. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Amnesty "its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
I think this (the article 3 breach) is the most relevant wording that we need to be using. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I would think human rights organizations are the best qualified regarding human rights issues, instead of countries with a clear political agenda. On one hand you have the ICJ, UNGA, HRW, Amnesty, etc, and on the other hand you have a bunch of countries asserting otherwise. Those countries are actually a minority as Self noted, not "the entire Western world" - and even if that wasn't the case, human rights organizations are clearly the authority here. We do not add POVs from unqualified parties regarding what does and doesn't constitute a war crime (we wouldn't cite a, idk, architect giving his opinion), but are supposed to give equal weight to political institutions? - Ïvana (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Countries voting to endorse the ICJ decision did not vote on whether there's apartheid or not, that's a wrong reading of the vote. I haven't seen a single government in the West that officially recognizes the situation in Israel-Palestine as apartheid. You are welcome to prove otherwise. Anyway, the current use of voice to describe the situation is clearly biased and adopts one view over that of countless other sources and governments that do not use this term for Israel-Palestine, because they reject it. ABHammad (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
In the document Zero shared:
Affirming in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, that:
(e) Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near- complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction” Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Bitspectator already covered part of your argument. And borrowing from what they have said before, governments are not reliable sources. Nor do they have the same weight that human rights organizations do, when talking about human rights violations. You want to dismiss their conclusions because, in your opinion, they are "politicized" - are we supposed to believe that governments are not? They are not objective institutions, on the contrary, they all have political agendas that influence their assessments. - Ïvana (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Thing to do here is get into all the detail in the article body and what individual judges did and didn't say and what is apartheid/Convention or apartheid/Rome Statute compared to what all the judges signed off on, the article 3 breach. Keane is likely the top rated source for all the details as of right now. To be clear, we do not have a proper conclusion as yet on apartheid. So I don't agree with Line 1 of the lead as is currently, this situation is a bit like the Genocide article just because the title says a thing, that doesn't mean that that it is an incontrovertible fact, even though the case here is much stronger than in the genocide case. We do know that there is an article 3 breach but ICERD does not specifically define apartheid so... Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
More here Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Reminder this article is about Israeli apartheid, not the ICJ decision; as stated previously, the ICJ ruling is the cherry on top, and not the decisive source. We already have numerous major RS such as HRW and AI. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Both of whom have updated their positions to reflect the ICJ ruling? Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
HRW in its most recent report said the language was a compromise, but that the finding was apartheid; not that there was no finding of which of the two (apartheid or segregation). Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ïvana that international human rights organisations are likely to be better and fairer judges of matters to do with human rights than governments are. John (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Even non-authoritarian governments are not necessarily reliable sources. For example, the Japanese government reguarly downplays war crimes it committed against the historical consensus. The Israel-Palestine conflict is so partisan on the global stage that we really shouldn't rely on what governments say on the issue (this goes for both for both pro and anti-Israel states), but instead what non partisan courts, human rights organisations and NGOs have said have about the topic. The consensus among non-partisan sources does indeed seem to be that Israel is committing crimes either of or equivalent to apartheid, and Misplaced Pages should reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Part of the issue is, that the human right sources are not always non-partisan. Specifically in the case of Israel, Amnesty has been long accused for harboring anti-Israel biases. A major staffer once stated that Israel was similar to the Islamic State, the secertary general falsely said on Twitter that Shimon Perres admitted Arafat was murdered, and Amnesty International USA Director stating that "We are opposed to the idea ... that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people." That's one reason why many people don't see Amnesty a non-partisan source.
    The question here, anyway, was whether the status in Israel and the West Bank can be described in Wiki voice as apartheid (the status in the last months here) or not. The fact that the West did not endorse this framing in major sources is, I think, an answer. Galamore (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    These arguments have already been addressed by multiple users in this thread. I have removed the tags. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Bitspectator the tags should be removed when consensus is reached, and it's clear we're not there yet. I don't want admins to get involved but if weren't going be to constructive here we may need to do it, especially since this is the second time an involved party removed the tags in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Kindly restore the tags. Thank you. ABHammad (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'll revert, but you have to address the points we're making. Making an argument that's already been responded to (multiple times, by multiple users) isn't constructive and doesn't justify the tags. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    The tags are justified as long as we haven't reached consensus Galamore (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    It's your responsibility to justify the tags. I self-reverted solely to encourage you to do that. Consensus is not uninamity and if WP:IDONTLIKEIT justified a tag, every word of every CT article would have a tag. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    You seem to have understood what consensus is. Read WP:CONSENSUS: "When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). " Your edit summaries, "consensus against the tags formed", and "allow opportunity to justify tags", goes against good faith, I am afraid. Since you are part of this discussion, it is not for you alone to decide what the consensus is. There are many editors here who do not agree with the current framing. If we cannot reach a compromise, we should try other ways, not just decide to remove tags on your own in the middle of the discussion. That is disruptive. Let's try to work together and reach a compromise for Misplaced Pages's good. ABHammad (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Most people here are actually working on the problem and not arguing about tags so if you had something useful to contribute to that effort, have at it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Please do not defend the disruptive removal of tags, done again and again in the middle of discussion. Someone experienced like you should understand the importance of good faith discussion. ABHammad (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Non responsive. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    I self-revert at your request and you accuse me of bad faith. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    IMO, you were right to remove the tags. I have re-removed them. This discussion has gone on for ages, and you're right to point out that arguments against these tags are extensive. Not having them is backed by RS and long-standing consensus. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that there's a bit of a balance issue here. WP:NPOV would suggest that we need to cover a minority POV that questions whether apartheid is the appropriate term to describe this. For example, the book by Benjamin Pogrund, Pogrund, Benjamin (2014). Drawing fire: investigating the accusations of apartheid in Israel. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-7575-1., isn't cited, even though his 2023 Haaretz editorial is cited. That evolution might be worth going into, even though he changed his perspective more recently. Another book that might be useful and isn't cited AFAICT is Ariely, Gal (2021). Israel's Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108951371. ISBN 978-1-108-84525-0., which describes Israel as a "disputed regime." From the blurb, Some regard the country as an apartheid regime that can only be challenged through boycotts and sanctions. Others believe it is a stable liberal democracy, created under extreme conditions Andre🚐 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Detailed hundreds of pages report published by the world's most prominent rights organizations such as HRW, Amnesty International, and the ICJ have obviously more weight than a sentence sourced to Israeli authors Gal Ariely and Benajmin Pogrund. Given these two groups of sources equal weight would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, HRW and Amnesty should be attributed as advocacy groups, per WP:RSP (in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion for the latter, I don't see a listing for the former but should be easy to see why), and ICJ is a primary source that hasn't ruled yet, whereas the books I just offered are reliable sources. While they may have some bias, WP:RSBIASED tells us that this just means we need to balance and attribute them, not exclude them. And in fact as I said, we already cite Pogrund, just his editorial in Haaretz, not his book. That makes no sense. Andre🚐 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    That is incorrect, HRW is not considered an "advocacy group" on WP:RSP. Also, this is not a controversial case because this viewpoint is the majority viewpoint supported by HRW, AI, and ICJ; and contradicted seemingly only by two unknown Israeli authors. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    HRW is definitely an advocacy group similar to and should be treated the same as Amnesty, and it's been discussed many times in the RSN archives, though I do not know what the consensus is because I haven't checked if there was a recent RFC on its reliability or bias; but I definitely disagree that this is not controversial. It's obviously very controversial and I'm sure there are quite a few other sources that argue these points. It's almost farcical to claim this is settled and not a controversy. Anyway, those authors aren't unknown at all. As mentioned, we already cite one, and the other is Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev where his research focuses on democracy and national identity. Andre🚐 21:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    I totally agree, and I want to add that some editors here saying governments are just politicians and therefore should not be considered is completely wrong. Governments are much more complex than individual politicians. If, right now, most Western nations—those who actually care for human rights—do not endorse HRW's and Amnesty's claims of apartheid, it says much more about these advocacy groups than it does about the governments, who more or less agree that the situation, bad as it is, is not apartheid. This should be made clear in the lead, that the Western world has not endorsed these allegations. The current use of Misplaced Pages's voice to present claims not widely accepted in the West but supported by failed states and totalitarian countries, is bad. ABHammad (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Countries are not reliable sources. The idea that this article should not only reflect the view of countries, but of a select minority of countries (124 vs. 14) has no merit. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t understand where the number 124 comes from, as I don’t think there is a list of 124 countries that have endorsed the claim of Israel-Palestine being a case of apartheid. Also, the Western world has different standards for defining human rights, so the views of the EU carry more weight compared to countries like North Korea and Iran, which, let's admit it, may support these claims for political reasons, rather than out of genuine concern for human rights. ABHammad (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    That was already discuss3ed above, by voting for the resolution, the 124 countries endorsed this part of the resolution:
    Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction
    and we have plenty sources for that as discussed below.
    Countries that abstained in effect took no position and 14 objected, including the US and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    As on many CT pages, our readers would be better served with description and detail, not controversial labels which tend to evoke emotion and over-generalize the facts. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    If we removed every part of this article that could cause an emotional reaction in someone, there would be no article at all. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    While I agree that readers should be provided with description and detail, I don't think editors should concern themselves with the emotions evoked in readers by any of the 10 billion Misplaced Pages page views per year or whatever the number is nowadays. It's not relevant to content decisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    "emotional" in the sense of knee-jerk reactions to labels as substitutes for factual detail. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The security concerns part should be stated in the context of what critics have called "a pretext" for racism. HRW points out that "denying building permits and demolishing homes that lack them, have no security justification" and "blanket denial of long-term legal status to Palestinians from the occupied territory married to Israeli citizens and residents, use security as a pretext to further demographic goals." VR (Please ping on reply) 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support removing the tags. This discussion was over a while ago and no new arguments are being made. All points have been thoroughly answered. Tags in themselves do not improve an article. Many of the arguments seem to be late comments on the RM discussion from a couple of years ago. John (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

ICJ sources

@Black Kite: regarding your revert, this was discussed above. We have at least five secondary analyses by law professors (I hadn't included per overcite), as well as a judge, confirming the clarification I made.

The source you restored is an article by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. It's also written for a lay audience and lacks depth, particular in relation to apartheid claims. Surely this isn't the WP:BESTSOURCE given the available alternatives.

Also while EJIL: Talk! calls itself a blog, it has a team of 14 editors and a review process. Their review process carries much more weight here than that of the The Guardian, whose editors generally have no relevant credentials. But even if these were self-published, all five analyses would easily pass WP:EXPERTSPS. — xDanielx /C\ 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Andre🚐 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the sources (except the one part authored and "served for over 20 years in various positions in the International Law Department of the Military Advocate General's Corps in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including as the head of the department, and retired at the rank of Colonel), I have more accurately summarized the article body and balanced the one sided source selection. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent lede edit

The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue" Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim while individual judges were split on the issue though which is a non-essential detail. — xDanielx /C\ 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Fyi @AlsoWukai: since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Racism and Zionism in lede

Hi @Allthemilescombined1,

I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and WP:UNDUE. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. Lewisguile (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:

In 1975, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the General Assembly's resolution that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". Vernon Jordan, executive director of the National Urban League, said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.

Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, WP:UNDUE. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli civil law

@Makeandtoss: In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by the principle of relevance, misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship.

Your edits (which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that false implication. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? Dotyoyo (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at Israeli settlement. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish identity or ethnicity,

The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. Zero 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. Dotyoyo (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent. By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel."
This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of this page. The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. Dotyoyo (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Haklai, O.; Loizides, N. (2015). Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts. Stanford University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8047-9650-7. Retrieved 2018-12-14. the Israel settlers reside almost solely in exclusively Jewish communities (one exception is a small enclave within the city of Hebron).
  2. Dumper, M. (2014). Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City. Columbia University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-231-53735-3. Retrieved 2018-12-14. This is despite huge efforts by successive governments to fragment and encircle Palestinian residential areas with exclusively Jewish zones of residence – the settlements.
  3. "Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements". Reuters. 7 December 2014. Archived from the original on 30 July 2015. Retrieved 21 February 2023 – via www.reuters.com.

Request for Sources and Balanced Representation

WP:ECR. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed that the article has recently shifted its language to refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" and the stance now being solidified due to the ongoing war. Its language refers to Israel as an "apartheid state" in a way that seems more definitive. Given that this term is highly contested and there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe it's important to ensure that we present the full spectrum of perspectives. Could we include more references to sources that provide an opposing viewpoint, particularly those that challenge the use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel? This would help maintain neutrality and offer readers a broader understanding of the issue. 72.179.16.52 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: