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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

New name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral Terms for Describing People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Duke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

idi amin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Africa connection

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

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

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

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

Reduce quotes - Olmert

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

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

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

• On November 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)

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

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

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

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

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

Moynihan / Amin quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war / Protection

I've requested edit protection for this article at WP:RPP because of the edit warring. RolandR, Andyvphil, you two have had articles protected against your edit warring in the past and (IIRC) been warned/blocked for 3RR. Please discuss your potentially contentious edits HERE first before making them. Avruch^Talk 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to accuse me here of "edit-warring", since I have removed only once the passage which Andyvphil has added three times today. The passage in contention is an ad hominem attack on Idi Amin, allegedly by Daniel Moynihan. I'm not happy with the poorly-referenced initial reference to Amin, which simply states that in 1975 (no other date given) he accused Israel, in the UN General Assembly, of apartheid. Since the references do not specify when this statement was made, in what context, nor any other useful detail, I think that the Amin "quote" itself should be removed from the article. Even if it remains, to then add the arguably racist comments from Moynihan is going too far. In any case, the article quotes Moynihan criticising Amin as someone "scarcely qualified to cast the first stone"; this phrase does not appear in either of the sources cited, nor does anything similar. The phrase does appear in another Time Magazine article, not cited, [8] which mentions both Moynihan and Amin. However, nowhere is it suggested that this was Moynihan's own comment; rather, it was clearly the words of the anonymous Time journalist. This has been very sloppy editing work; if any of the editors insistent on adding this passage had bothered to read the sources they cited, they should have seen at once that they did not bear out the claims. What we are talking about here is a misattributed statement making an unrelated attack on a person alleged to have made an unsourced comment of marginal relevance to the article. I think the whole Amin paragraph should be deleted, unless someone can make a strong case for its relevance and can provide sourcing which stands up to scrutiny. RolandR (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether you think it should be included or not is irrelevant to the issue of edit-warring. You may not have hit 3RR, but you clearly participated in the edit-war regardless. In any event, if I'm not mistaken no action was taken against you or anyone else, and I don't think what I wrote above amounts to an 'accusation' of you. Avruch^Talk 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that making ONE reversion is "edit-warring"? In that case, what about Eleland, Jaakobou, Tiamut, Tarc, 6SJ7, Suladna and various anonymous IPs who have, over the past day or so, either added or deleted the same references? Why warn only me?

Please also resppond to my detailed criticisms of the paragraph in dispute. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't warn only you, I mentioned that you and Andyvphil had been involved and received warnings for edit-warring before (thinking of Norman Finkelstein). Am I arguing that 1 edit can be a part of an edit-war? Well, yes. Just because you only made one of the edits in a string of edit/reverts doesn't make you completely blameless. I see your detailed criticism, and haven't responded to them because I haven't really looked in depth at the article lately and don't intend to jump right into a dispute without having done so. I don't need to be knee-deep in the shit, though, to notice my watchlist light up with battling edits. Avruch^Talk 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) First, there's a difference between edit-warring to insert unreferenced nonsense, and edit-warring to remove it. The version now protected contains an unreferenced "quote" about "casting the first stone", and it relies on one source that doesn't mention Amin's attacks on Israel, plus another one, an op-ed piece that contains numerous provable falsehoods, and doesn't mention Moynihan at all. Second, and this is offtopic, but if we're going to make a stink over how Amin, a really bad dude, used the "apartheid analogy", maybe we should also mention that Amin, a really bad dude, was heavily supported by Israel in his rise to power. They called him their "special African friend", and encouraged him to make trouble with Sudan. The buddies only fell out in 1972, well after Amin's purge of rival tribesmen began. <eleland/talkedits> 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

/sighs I had thought that this was hashed out to the satisfaction of all up in the Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#idi amin section, but apparently some on the supportive-of-Israel side aren't ready to lay down their swords quite yet. Let's not beat around the bush here; the purpose of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Other usage examples section is tos list off a pair of loathsome characters who believe Israel is committing acts of apartheid, thereby diminishing the legitimacy of the accusation. I have no problem with that, as we should be inclusive of prominent figures who hold this opinion, whether they be decent people or scoundrels. Amin said it at the UN, and he was a notorious dictator-for-life. For Christ sake, can't it just be left at that? Piling on with criticism of the criticism is simply unduly unnecessary weighty point-making. This isn't Criticism of Those Who Make Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Tarc (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the section you refer to ended with Moynihan in the article, so it's the anti-Israeli crewe who are insistant on breaking consensus, if there was any. Amin and Moynihan's response belong in the UN section, but when I put it there I was obstructively reverted. If you don't understand that Moynihan saw Amin's speech as having rather more significance than the random spewings of a racist murderer I suggest you reread the TIME piece more carefully. RolandR is right that someone has misattributed to Moynihan the sentiment of a TIME writer (and someone (else?) has lost the second TIME cite that I added), but that's the result of the disruptive attempt to edit war Moynihan's observations out of the article. More on this when I have time. Andyvphil (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More time won't make you any less wrong. There is no place in the article for criticism of the critics. Period. Tarc (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no place in the article for criticism of the critics. Period. Tarc has spoken! All bow down to the great god Tarc! ... Actually, RolandR was right that the Moynihan material had been abraded in the struggle, so I'll add it and the Amin usage to the UN section only after I can find time to fix it up some. We need the context of the Zionism=Racism resolution too. And if Tarc and Saladna and the rest of the crewe persist in deleting well-sourced relevant material on no perceptable grounds except that they don't like it... well, it would be nice if Wikipedia had a real alternative to revert wars, but the truth is that the alternatives appear to be shams. We'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That it is "well-sourced" is immaterial; it has been deleted because it has no relevance, not merely personal opinion. The Amin quote stands fine as it is, there is no need for superfluous embellishment, as I have detailed above.. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think RolandR, Eleland and Tarc are quite right here. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to keep an eye on this page and request protection every time you folks start edit warring. It isn't exactly a productive way of moving forward, though, and you never know - when the merry go round stops, the version you don't like could end up protected in place! Avruchtalk 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Formal rights

Andyvphil objects to the word "formal" in the phrase, "Arab citizens of Israel have the same formal rights as all other Israeli citizens," and seems to believe this implies that they have something called "formal rights" but not something called "informal rights". This is a misreading of the sentence. What it means is that while the rights exist on paper, their exercise in practice may be limited. (In fact, the sentence takes no position on whether their exercise in practice really is limited, which is itself something of an unjustified weaselliness, given that nobody believes that is not the case.)

I admit that I made up the phrase on the spot, or recalled it from memory without reference to the sources. However, it is a perfectly adequate and natural phrase, which is used fairly regularly in high quality sources. For instance, here is a footnote in Ideology, Policy, and Practice: Education for Immigrants and Minorities in Israel Today by Devorah Kalekin-Fishman, who is a senior researcher in the Faculty of Education at the University of Haifa:

For the sake of clarity, it is important to remember that the Palestinian citizens of Israel live within the (still somewhat vague) "green line" that divides the state of Israel from the Occupied Territories. They are people who have formal rights as citizens. [my bold]

Or, from the report on an International Workshop organised by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Berlin, by Stephan Stetter, London School of Economics, which included 6 MKs, the Vice President of Tel Aviv University, the Director of the Centre for Multiculturalism and Education at Haifa University, the Director of the Department of Political Science at the Bar Ilan University, etc, etc, etc:

Participants agreed that while Arabs do enjoy the same formal rights as Jews that there is still a long way to go in the attempt to establish equal opportunities and rights in societal life at large. Differences in opinion emerged of how to achieve this common goal... [my bold]

Perhaps pseudonymous North American Wikipedians should avoid defending Israel by removing terms that renowned Israeli scholars and politicians find perfectly adequate to describe that country's situation. <eleland/talkedits> 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing badly is a professional skill of politicians, who generally don't want to be too clearly understood, and even renowned scholars sometimes do it also, particularly when writing by committee and/or acting as politicians. And the ability to Google "formal rights" makes it easy to turn up instances of such practice. But we shouldn't write sentences that require exegesis, and appeal to authority as a defense of doing so is unenlightened. If by writing that someone's rights are "formal" you mean that their exercise is impeded you should write what you mean, not force someone to decide that that's what you must mean after considering alternatves, such as the existance of a body of "informal" rights. The whole subject of what is a "right" is already much too complicated to add unnecessary obscurantism in speaking of the subject. Andyvphil (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing to the sources is now "appeal to authority?" I'm at a loss, Andy. "Formal rights" is a perfectly natural and normal formulation, used by scholars as a succinct descriptor of a complicated situation. Frankly, talk of exegesis and obscurantism would better be directed towards your own writings on this talk page. <eleland/talkedits> 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have pointed out why "formal rights" is inapt rather than "succinct". Instead of responding on point you justify the problem with your writing on the grounds that you can find sources (not follow sources, n.b.) with "authority" who have done the same. That is exactly appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Andyvphil (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Elelnad, it's "perfectly natural and normal formulation" to write 'rights' without adding formal (which gives implications regarding informal rights being unequal). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We all know that in Israel Arab citizens do not get the same treatment as Jewish citizens. (If this was the case, this article would not exist.) So the word "formal" is obviously an indispensable minimum here. Probably it is even not enough. Please stop the nonsensical censorship of deleting this word all the time. Wikipedia is supposed to observe FACTS. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think that discussion of "formal" (or de jure ?) rights would be important to everyone here, regardless of their own view. After all, doesn't South Africa contrast with Israel insofar as South Africa did deny significant "formal" rights to non-whites, whereas Israel does not deny formal rights? Perhaps it would help to rely on secondary literature here (as elsewhere). Meanwhile, it does look like the lead paragraph of this section ("Citizenship, personal status and family law") could be improved. I don't know why it goes into political representation here (3-4th sentences) rather than the section below on "Political rights...." Thanks. HG | Talk 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This ref[9] used to be a source for the article. Gives an example where it's the executive rather than the judiciary that's the source of discrimination. The guy went to court, won his case, but the ruling simply wasn't enforced: Tired of being treated as a second-class citizen, Kaadan sued the state in 1995. On paper, he won. But in practice, Kaadan and many other Arabs are still waiting for Israel to uphold their basic human rights. On paper == formal? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting self, If by writing that someone's rights are "formal" you mean that their exercise is impeded you should write what you mean, not force someone to decide that that's what you must mean... If Israeli court decisions upholding Israeli Arabs' rights are not enforced, say so with citations, don't construct POV characterizations of those rights in the voice of Wikipedia. Andyvphil (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Crime of apartheid

Half of Crime of apartheid is being duplicated here. I can't see any good reason for this. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Could probably edit out the list of other "crimes against humanity", e.g., but it seems worthwhile to have some idea of what at least some of the "allegers" might mean, so I think it desirable to have the Rome definition here rather than rely on a blue link jump. So, editing would be good; simple deletion not so much. Andyvphil (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't have anything to do with Israel, so I think it unnecessarily bulks up the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that ZA is no longer white-ruled, it has to do only with Israel -- not formally, but in fact. Andyvphil (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought 'apartheid' has been used to describe more than a dozen different governments. Articles for each country should try to avoid unnecessarily duplicative info, if you don't mind my saying so. Or am I missing something? Thanks. HG | Talk 00:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are, actually. The subject we're discussing is not the generalized accusation of apartheid, but specifically the UN formulation, which was intended as a bill of attainder against ZA but was seized upon as a useful propaganda weapon for use against Israel. The Durban Strategy is directed solely at Israel, not at Cuban "tourist apartheid" or even US discrimination. Andyvphil (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was reacting to your "in fact" statement. Anyways, since there's already an article on the crime, I do think that our description here can be slimmed down (summary style) and the "Rome Statute" section can be deleted. Fair enough? Thanks, be well. HG | Talk 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that "in fact" only Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid, but that "in fact" only Israel is accused of it. And having the Rome Statute definition here is helpful precisely in that it makes it obvious how strange that is, if you consult only the definition. So, no, as I said above I would not like to see it deleted, although the extended list of other "crimes against humanity" ought to be summarized (but not, I think, entirely deleted either). The central role of the Soviet Bloc/3rd Word dominated UN in the origins of the "apartheid" allegation is undeveloped in this article, so deleting material in that thread is not high on my list of priorities. Andyvphil (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're explaining this. However, how hard should we work to ensure that the article "makes it obvious how strange" is the accusation? Why not just give readers the gist and let them explore, via links, the full info if they want more? Or: can't we find a reliable source that makes this point, so it need not be such a strong editorial effort to demonstrate the strange-ness? Thanks. HG | Talk 01:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two things: (1) Making readers chase material across blue links to understand the significance of what they're reading here, and (2) telling them the significance of what they're reading. Btw, there is already a comment in the lede about accusing Israel and not others (it's a badly contructed sentence, following one of the sources, but the idea gets across). Andyvphil (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Crime of apartheid" from article?

As I have said before, until a formal charge is brought against Israel under the "crime of apartheid", there shouldn't be anything about that "crime" in this article. As for the Durban Strategy, I never knew about that before. Maybe this entire article should be merged into that article. After all, the very existence of this article is part of the "strategy". 6SJ7 (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a silly thing to say before, too. Andyvphil (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do? 6SJ7 (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Memo to you: repeatedly say silly things; expect derisive dismissal. Andyvphil (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to brush up on WP:CIV. By the way, I just went to delete both of these irrelevent subsections in their entirety, but found that the article has been protected. On the wrong version as usual, because any version of this farce of an article is the wrong version. Notice, however, that I direct my comments to the article, not to other editors. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So sorry your intention to start an edit war was so rudely thwarted. Andyvphil (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "wrong version" to lock an article on, I'm afraid. And snide comments about the articles existence, which you and others have have tried to subvert by various means both mundane and sundry, do not really add much to the discussion. Tarc (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put Durban Strategy up for deletion, as it's a (stub) POV fork of this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durban Strategy (2nd nomination). —Ashley Y 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that, in effect, it has already been deleted. Over the past 24 hours or so, someone came along and changed the title to something generic, and the "strategy" aspect now does not even appear until the third paragraph. (I moved the title back to where it was, but it was promptly reverted.) As for this article (Allegations of something-or-other), when it is unprotected, the "Durban strategy" should be mentioned in the intro. This "strategy" aspect does a lot to explain where these allegations (and, indeed, this article) come from; they are all part of an organized strategy to discredit Israel. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Plea for help in connecting the dots: Is there something special about January 1, 2008 that I've missed? Is there an issue we are supposed to have resolved here by that date? Is it, for instance, this Durban strategy business? BYT (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The photos

The two images (latuf Faroon and the photo of a man in the Erez crossing from gaza into israel) are a blunt attempt in turning wikipedia into a propeganda tool. Who ever inserted them should be in ArbCom explaining why he added those images. Zeq (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They are perfect illustrations to the subject. // Liftarn (talk)

Images do add to the quality of WP articles. However, since this has been a contentious article, dealing with opposing real-world POVs, perhaps we could discuss which images might show both sides of the story. For instance, might we find an image of Palestinians treated separately and an image of Palestinian treated w/o differentiation? Could that work? Optimistically yours, HG | Talk 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand Zeq's concerns. Who says pictures are needed, when the topic of the article itself is about contention, and furthermore the underlying issue described is of great political sensitivity and complexity? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're writing up a touchy and tense topic. Still, somehow editors need to rise above our squabbles and write an encyclopedia article. See Abortion. It can be done. HG | Talk 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but any picture by definition will try to present only one image, which detracts from the goal of this article to be very fair and balanced, and to not present any of the allegations of "Israeli apartheied" as being actual fact, but merely to document such allegations, and the political debate around them and the associated issues. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Images are definitely needed, if available. They enhance the quality of an article. Infact, this is one of the criteria for becoming a good article (see WP:GACR). The points of contention should be the following:

• are the images a copyright infringement?
• do we have sources that connect them to allegations of Israeli apartheid?

Bless sins (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is regularly lectured about how important it is to place relevant-to-the-topic images of the face of Muhammad into Muhammad, regardless of whether or not various parties will be offended by them, I cannot avoid pointing out that WP:NOTCENSORED. BYT (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yusuf, and I can point out that wikipedia is not propeganda. Zeq (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yusuf has an extremely good point. On the article Muhammad, there was a MASSIVE debate, in which all sorts of arguments were thrown against images. The consensus turned out to be: if appropriate images are found, they'll stay.

Regarding propaganda: images that show examples of antisemitism can be found all over wikipedia. Thus, we should also display images that show examples of "allegations of Israeli apartheid".Bless sins (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• you must be joking. The great antisemite Mufti Husseini photo with Hitler was removed using the argument that the 3rd reich still holds copyrights on the image....This show excatly where we are in trying to use photos for historical accuracy. Zeq (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, really? I coulda sworn the Reich was defunct. I'll put it back if you point me to the debate. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this shows the obvious structrual bias of Wikipedia. // Liftarn (talk)

Maybe we could find some photos of some of the Israeli children who haven't been blown up by terrorists because the barrier is there. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The existance of this article shows the obvious structural bias of wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• no images. Any image is an obvious attempt at propaganda (as most of this article is any though). Yahel Guhan 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • May I quote you on that over at Talk:New antisemitism? // Liftarn (talk)

Propoganda or not, wikipedia is not censored.Bless sins (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Mufti & Hitler' image, Zeq completely mischaracterized the situation referred to above. In short, Zeq holds the opinion that if an image can be found "all over the web", then it must be public domain. See the discussion in this archive and in this one, and you will see that the issue was one of fair use, which in regards to Nazi-era images I eventually found the answer here; Wikipedia:PD#German World War II images. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had imagined it was something less sinister. I thought works of the Third Reich itself, like works of the US Federal gov., were always copyright free, and all the more so as a defunct entity. And a lot more works than you might think especially as the media was state run. Although, tracking this down for a given image is of course problematic. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For consideration: Adam and Moodley book cover. HG | Talk To try something more mundane. And not necessarily in the lede, but when describing their book, how about the cover of Adam & Moodley, pictured here? (And we could do a book by opposing scholars, if one is available.) Thanks. HG | Talk 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Davis book cover. Or we could add the cover of Apartheid Israel, a book by Israeli academic Uri Davis, which is a thorough examination of the term and its rationale. RolandR (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, he's considered more extreme and politicized, whereas Moodley/Adams are not. Plus, the photo/title leaves a very different impression. HG | Talk 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, he is an Israeli citizen; he lives and works in Israel; and he was probably the first academic to popularise the term (in his 1987 book Israel:An Apartheid State".) And his text is arguably rather more relevant to this article than Adam & Moodley's book. As is the book by Marwan Bishara (brother of exiled Knesset member Azmi Bishara), Palestine/Israel: Peace Or Apartheid : Occupation, Terrorism, and the Future. RolandR (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, book covers cannot be used in articles where the book itself is not the subject of discussion, per WP:NONFREE. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but Adam & Moodley's specific book is discussed, several times, e.g., "Apartheid" in political discussion|this section. So is it ok, Tarc? If anybody objects to adding their book cover, please say so with a reason, thanks. HG | Talk 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Davis book is also discussed, as his whole body of work on this topic. And I still think that it would be a more appropriate image than the Adam/Moodley book cover, which does not mention the word "apartheid". RolandR (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to either of these book covers as images in this article, on the grounds of undue weight, and there may be other reasons but I can't think of them right now. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding 6SJ7, but I'd like to ask you to spell this out a bit more. Adam & Moodley are mentioned 11x in the article, so they are pretty central to it. Notably, why not put the book cover in section "Political discourse concerning Israel" which focuses largely on their book? Perhaps you feel the whole article is undue weight, but that's another issue entirely. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, what would the caption be for the image of the cover of Adam etc.'s book? In any event, I do think Tarc is correct, the book cover probably cannot appear here under WP:NONFREE. The article is not about the book, it merely uses the book as one source. I don't think the fact that it is a major source changes the result, although I admit I am not an expert on that policy. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Caption? Good question. How about a variant of this from the publisher: A timely, relevant look at the issues of a polarized struggle, Seeking Mandela is an original comparison of South Africa and Israel, as well as an important critique of contemporary peace-making strategies. E.g., proposed caption: "Academics Adam and Moodley compare South Africa and Israel and analyze peace-making efforts." (I assume Tarc was concerned about fair use of cover for Davis book, which isn't mentioned in article. But you are welcome to raise this question w/the copyright folks. I would have expected a warning on my Talk page by now.) Another caption based on current article text: "Adam and Moodley apply lessons learned in South Africa to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." So, what do you think of these proposed captions? Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've tried to answer the concerns about the image and I proposed a caption, then waited a maybe 36 hrs. I don't mean to imply that 6SJ7 or others won't have further objections, but perhaps I could place the image, you'll see how it looks, and then discussion could continue here? Thanks for your understanding. HG | Talk 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Apartheid Week" external link

Humus and Liftarn have been warring over this, per my personal 1RR pledge I won't revert it again, but it appears to be one of the more (if not most) prominent activist campaigns relative to "Israeli apartheid." See (for example):

• MK to attend "Israeli Apartheid Week", Jerusalem Post 2007-02-13
• Israeli Arab MK to attend "Israeli Apartheid Week", Israel Insider 2007-02-13
• Israelis play leading role in London's "apartheid week", Jerusalem Post 2007-02-15

etc

I'm not sure how it's "unencyclopedic propaganda" to link to the organizers' site; we also link for example to "An Old Story: Anti-Semitism, past and present" in the National Review, "Zionism On The Web," "Deconstructing Apartheid Accusations Against Israel" from the hasbara (their term) group JCPA, etc etc etc. I guess only the other sides' propaganda is unencyclopedic? <eleland/talkedits> 11:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I'd urge both sides describe the need for any of these external links. WP:EXTERNAL: "external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." I'm not sure why you all are adding the links this way. If JPost and NatlRev are reliable sources, shouldn't they be used (if at all) to support text within the article? (If a source is not good quality, then neither article text nor external links are justified.) If so, I'd ask anyone who supports these links to propose drafts here for article content based on these sources. Bear in mind that the article already covers quite a bit on the rhetorical ("propaganda") conflict. Thanks for your cooperation. HG | Talk 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

important new source

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=306670 --Zeq (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Israel's ambassador to Canada.[10]. I don't know how much weight that deserves, or if I'd call this "important."" Kind of what you would expect, really. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a response by an official representative of the government, so it could go into "Political usage by Israels." Where else does the article give an official Israeli rejoinder? (BTW, could somebody turn that section into paragraph form, instead of bullet points? MOS.) Thanks. HG | Talk 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

the article lists a set of facts that are not mentioned in wikipedia:

Israel is a liberal democracy, guaranteeing civil, religious and social equality to all its citizens — including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze and Baha’0is. Israel’s Arab citizens have the right to vote, and are represented by three Arab political parties in Israel’s parliament (the Knesset), representing a gamut of views from communism to Islamic fundamentalism. Several newspapers freely represent the views of Arab citizens in a far freer manner than is permitted among the media of Israel’s neighbours. Complete freedom of religion for all is strictly protected in Israel — unlike in neighbouring countries, which recognize only one state religion, Islam, and even criminalize and persecute the practice of other faiths. Consider, for instance, Saudi Arabia, whose police recently arrested 40 Christians for the “crime” of praying in a private house. Followers of the Baha’is religion, who are persecuted in Iran, are welcomed in Israel, and maintain their central religious institutions in Haifa and Acre. Coptic Christians, who face restrictions in neighbouring Arab countries, enjoy freedom of religion in Israel.

Is Israel a perfect democarcy ? of course not but nither is canada or the UK or the US and even not Saudi Arabia....

Zeq (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It reads like a "look how good we are" laundry list, along with a selective and parsed critique of neighboring states. None of those "facts" are terribly relevant to Israel's apartheid-like treatment of Palestinians in the OT, though. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, I have admitted that Israel is not prefect. No country is. The point is that Israel is a democarcy, far from "aprtheid" and he is 100% correct on all facts as far as how the country (in general) is run and what it's laws are. The article fail to mention these issues which he lists. I don't planed on taking his whole article and put it into wkipedia but the so-called "laundry list" must be addressed just as the oppostire Laundry list is in the lead of the artixcle right now. NPOV you know... Zeq (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it isn't relevant to the article at all. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is an objection to including opinion piece at the lead I have removed one from the lead - that article was also an opinion about Israeli Arabs which is not what the lead is about. Zeq (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have restored it. You claimed that the article is not making such an analogy, when the article title of " Second-class citizens in their own country" makes it quite plain to the English-speaking world that it is doing just that. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"second class" can mean many things - while this wikipedia entry is about analogy to South Africa aprtheid era and system(" South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era") . The article you inserted make no mention to south africa or apartheid.

It is also wrong to use an opinion piece )which is what that is) as a source for "facts" - so I have removed it. Please avoid the edit war. You do not WP:Own this article and I suggest you read carefully that opinion piece again before you try to insert it as facts. If you still disagree explain why - as i said your argument about "when the article title of " Second-class citizens in their own country" makes it quite plain to the English-speaking world is apartheid" is your own WP:OR and as an opinion piece it does not even mattter if you were correct about the "english speaking world" . bottom line: use facts not polimic opinion piece . Zeq (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Any publication from the national post, that relates to Israel, should be treated with caution. The newspaper has a defacto official pro-Israeli policy. Unlike other Canadian newspapers, that give coverage to both Israeli and Palestinian POVs, National Post is dedicated to the Israeli side. Thus it is no surprise, or notable fact, that the Post has published this.

• so far no answer in talk to any of the issues raised here. Only edit war by several editors to keep an unrelevant opinion piece in the lead of the article. Zeq (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The National Post, can, however, be treated as a source that is reliably transmitting the Israeli ambassador's views.Bless sins (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, your concerns have been noted, and find that I do not agree with them. Thank you for your contribution. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you are the person that aprove all edits in this article . Do you WP:Own it ? Zeq (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

and more seriously: none of the issues I raised have been answered. In the opinion piece you choose to add to the lead there is no mention of SA or apartheid. Do you think the only way you can do what ever you want in this article is because you have more people that are willing to edit war ? You., bless since etc.. ? Zeq (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to consider that rather than removing the entry entirely, a better approach would be to either a) find a different source, or b) remove the source and place a {{fact}} tag in its place to alert other editors that this needed attention? Jumping quickly to c) remove the content entirely strikes me as something less than a spirit collaborative editing. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad we have agreement that this source is totaly unappropriate. Please remove the content that is now only there due to your edit war (with help of ronaldR and Blesssins). Next if you find better content and source we can discuss it. Zeq (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Goddamn it, if you are going to COMPLETELY ignore what I say then I will be terminating any and all communication with you, and work with other editors instead, as it will have proven to be an exercise in futility. I do NOT agree that the source is inappropriate, and I will NOT be removing the content. However if YOU have a problem with the content, then you can either find a different source, or use the aforementioned fact tag. Simple removal can be considered tenditious editing, and is completely inappropriate. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not ignore. I listen and seriously I did not see any response to the actual points I made. All you did is "thank me" for the contribution. Can you answer the real points raised ? It was you just few days ago who argued that an opinion piece not approriate for use in the lead. Now you say it is OK ? I guess you only accept opinion piece that support your POV ? the 2nd point is that nothing in this article speaks about apartheid or South Africa - you are the one making the analogy and extending the meaning of "2nd class" (which is OR). answer the issues please. Zeq (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not analogous to the laundry list that you wanted to insert, it is clearly about the apartheid-like situation and therefore is most appropriate for the article, and finally Roland has added a 2nd link to this particular entry to support it further. You can send all the "FYI"'s to your friends that you care to, but it won't have much of an effect on the facts here. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not answering the issues at all. Don't confuse it . You argued that opinion piece should not be in the lead (your words) and I accept we need facts. this opinion piece does not mention apartheid or SA and thus the conclusion that it is about the analogy to SA is completly your own. Now remove it. The only reason it is still there is because you edit war to re-insert it. Zeq (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Now remove it" ? My dear Zeq, do NOT order me other any other Wikipedia user to do ANYTHING ever again. You are in no position to dictate the actions of others here in any way, shape, or form. Are we clear on that?

As for the issues, I have already addressed them, perhaps you can go back re-read a few times if need be, especially noting that there is now another source. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No you did not addressed any of the issues. I am asking you (or one of your tag team revertes) to answer where in this opinion piece there is any analogy to SA apartheid ? and why should an opinon article be part of this article lead. Zeq (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source

This source is not reliable. Firstly, I can't see an author. Secondly, the writing is clearly not objective, but biased towards one side (which is ok, as long as we attribute it). Thirdly, I don't see any evidence of notability.

Thus, I'm removing the source.Bless sins (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally added the citation, precisely because it is a pro-Zionist source making the point (which had been challenged) that "no Arab party has served in any coalition government. ". In these circumstances, a quote from an explicitly Zionist source is more useful than one from a source whose objectivity might be challenged by a supporter of Israel. There was a great deal of toing and froing at the time, with an attempt to show that the Nazareth Democratic Party had been a coalition partner; the Knesset source was there to show clearly that this was officially recognised as part of Mapai, while a Wikilink to the relevant article established that ir was indeed an Arab party. This led to the consensus text that "no independent Arab party has ever been part of a coalition government". Your edits have removed both the sources, and the relevant clarification of sources. I have re-inserted the citations; please review the page history before making such potentially disruptive edits. RolandR (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "pro-Zionist source"? What makes their notability worthy of quotation on wikipedia? Does anyone care what they think? (contrast this to the views of an Israeli ambassador or diplomat, whose views many would be interested in hearing). Anyone can dig up a random website from the internet. You must show why this wesite fulfills WP:RS.

Also the Knesset website makes no argument relating to "apartheid". Thus it is irrelevant here.Bless sins (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The pro-Zionist source is the Zionism and Israel Information Center, which states that it is "intended for use ... by supporters of Zionism who want to know how to explain Zionism to others". For most purposes, it would indeed not be a reliable source; but when the assertion that Arab parties had never formed part of a coalition government was being challenged (and Bless sins restored the assertion, asking for a source), I thought that quoting an explicitly Zionist source that confirmed this would end the reversions -- as indeed it did. The purpose of the Knesset link, which described the Nazareth Democratic Party as "a minority list associated with Mapai", was to show that this was not an independent party. Removing these sources risks re-opening the whole debate about whether an independent Arab party has ever been part of the government. Since this statement is clearly relevant to the characterisation of Israel as an apartheid society, it would be unwise to remove sources which have been accepted by editors on both sides of this debate. RolandR (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So in other words "found it on some website." -- Kendrick7^talk 03:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to scrap over this; we can simply use the source already on offer in Democratic List of Nazareth:

Jiryis, Sabri (1976). The Arabs in Israel. New York: Monthly Review Press. pp. p 164. ISBN 0853453772. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

"Mapai's decision to become politically active among the Arabs was undertaken with some hesitation. There was nothing in its history or ideology to attract the Arabs or win their support. For a start, the party did not even accept Arabs as ranking members, on the grounds that no Arab could be a loyal member of a Zionist party. The party's "experts" on Arab affairs soon suggested solutions, however, for these and other difficulties. Arab participation would be in the form of special lists drawn up before each election on the basis of residence and religious sect from among the party's hangers on. The party machine would undertake financial and influential support of these lists, thus "freeing" then from having to set up their own political apparatus. The allegiance of the successful candidates to the party and their support for the party's position would thus be guaranteed."

<eleland/talkedits> 06:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous

The following sentnece is not clear: "Israeli citizenship law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity"

First of all how can the "Israeli citizenship law" apply to those who are already "Israeli citizens"? If one already has a citizenship, what more can the "Israeli citizenship law" do for them?

Secondly, does Israel not give Jews automatic citizenship (after landing in Israel) under the Law of Return?Bless sins (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with second paragraph of lead

The second paragraph of the lead is highly problematic. It states the following:

Those who use the analogy argue that separate roads, differences in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israelis in the Israeli-occupied territories constitute a system of apartheid. Some of those who draw the analogy also use it in reference to the second-class citizenship of Arab citizens of Israel.

Unfortunately, the neither of the first two references actually mention "apartheid", much less "Israeli apartheid", and the third reference is simply a book name, without a page number or a quotation. Before I remove it entirely, can someone find proper sourcing that does not consist of original research or references to entire books? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The whole book is an explanation of why Davis considers the state of Israel, within its internationally recognised borders, to be an apartheid society. It is probably the most relevant source in the whole article. RolandR (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Roland, you've failed to respond to the objections to the first two sources (that they don't even mention "apartheid", and are therefore original research); can you please do so? Also, quoting an entire book really isn't helpful for a specific claim. Can you instead provide a page number and quote that supports the claim? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." RolandR (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the paragraph is problematic, as all of this stuff can be sourced. If the citations are problematic, we can just provide new ones. <eleland/talkedits> 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES, INCLUDING PALESTINE (UN report) "96. A system of road apartheid had been established in the Occupied Palestinian Territory whereby highways were reserved for exclusive use by settlers, relegating Palestinians to second-class roads obstructed by checkpoints and roadblocks."
• Israel accused of 'road apartheid' in West Bank

<eleland/talkedits> 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Forbidden Road Regime in the West Bank: An Apartheid Practice "By unlawfully discriminating against Palestinians based on their national origin, the Forbidden Roads Regime is reminiscent of the apartheid system that existed in South Africa. "
• Israeli Apartheid: The Striking Parallels to South Africa "The apartheid state in question is, of course, Israel. Its first class citizens are Israeli Jews, the majority of them of European or sometimes American origin. The second class citizens are Israeli Arabs, who enjoy significant but limited rights under the law including token representation in the Knesset."

etc, etc, etc... <eleland/talkedits> 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing material to high quality, relevant sources is critical for any article. Please replace the existing sources with proper ones. Also, regarding to your last source, I note that it is an opinion piece. Please review this section in the Talk: page above. Also, the wording used in the paragraph violates WP:NPOV; please fix that by attributing claims to sources, rather than stating opinions as fact. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why an opinion piece would be a problem, Jay, for a line which begins "Those who use the analogy argue..." I would think that's precisely the kind of claim that we'd want to source to an opinion piece.

I would assume your NPOV objection pertains to the phrase, "the second-class citizenship of Arab citizens of Israel" - obviously, we shouldn't treat that as if it's a fact rather than an opinion. I'll fix the language post-haste. <eleland/talkedits> 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement that we are trying to verify here is not "Israel is an apartheid society", nor "Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel". It is "Some of those who draw the analogy also use it in reference to the status of Arab citizens of Israel, which they regard as second-class". The sources are not being cited to prove either of the first two assertions, but simply the third. They do indeed draw this analogy. Any source which makes this analogy is almost bound to be regarded by some as partisan; but this cannot possibly be given as a reason not to cite them as evidence that they draw this analogy. If we were to follow this logic, we could never discuss or explain any controversial belief, since the sources which propound it would be regarded as illegitimate even to establish that they make these claims. Please stop disrupting this article; if you disagree with the arguments, nothing prevents you from bringing comparable sources as evidence that others make a different argument. RolandR (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

• Those who reject the analogy argue that all citizens of Israel including Arab citizens of Israel possess the same citizen rights.[clarify][7]. They also argue that it is political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out,[clarify][5]

I don't know what "citizen rights" are; do you mean "citizenship rights?" I would check the given reference to clarify, but I can't read Hebrew. And the phrase "malign Israel by singling it out" is an odd one. Why would "singling out" a country "malign" it? The reference given calls the charge "ridiculous," says there is no comparison, and seems to suggest that people who make the comparison should be thrown in jail (!) but says nothing about "singling out" or some such. <eleland/talkedits> 04:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

policy

I suggest you look into WP:RS. EI can only be used as source in an article about EI. Zeq (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)