Talk:Israel and apartheid

Archives
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

The main discussion area for this series of articles is at: WP:APARTHEID

From presuppositions into Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also section

Per WP:GTL I have been trying to trim these sections in articles. If the link really is relevant and has not been linked before, can it be worked into the article? This is more of a MOS issue folks, not really that hardcore. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not saying particularly that "See also" sections are good MOS, but I don't see anything relevant at GTL. WP articles are works in progress, and if there is relevant material on WP that hasn't been worked ito the text but ought to be, a "see also" link is a useful temporary substitute ("temporary" referring not to any particular length of time, but until such time as someone does the work.)Andyvphil (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How is Ketuanan Melayu relevant to this article??--Tom (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Make the connection in the Allegations of apartheid article and it won't need to be here. Just deleting it is too easy. Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral Terms for Describing People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Duke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

idi amin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Africa connection

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

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

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

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

Reduce quotes - Olmert

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

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

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

• On November 292007, similarly Olmert warned of the end of Israel in case a two-state solution is not eventually found for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, drawing comparisons with the end of Apartheid in South Africa.

• Olmert made a similar remark in November 2007:

  "If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished."

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

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

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

Who Was Whose Ally

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

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

Structure of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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