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

HAI GUYS, I JUST CAME TO VISIT YOUR INSIDES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.222.249 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps, but Davis's book isn't titled "the second-class citizenship of Arab citizens of Israel". Please provide a page number and relevant quote, or it will have to go, per WP:V, which, unlike WP:CITE, is policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 29 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)

If you're "not sure why an opinion piece would be a problem", perhaps you can explain why that objection was raised in the section I pointed to above. Now, regarding the sources you've used, they still won't do. Bruce Dixon of The Black Commentator is, as far as I can tell, neither reliable nor notable, nor are "Israel apartheid week" and ElectronicIntifada, and the Davis source is not properly cited (we need a page number and quotation). Please find proper sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 29 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)

The issue is not whether the source is "partisan" but whether it satisfies WP:V. I have no doubt that (unlike most of the sources brought so far), reliable sources have written on this subject; in fact, we know of at least one who has written extensively on it, Adam and Moodley, university researchers who write specifically about the topic of this article. Please focus on meeting the requirements of policy, rather than making nonsensical claims that insisting that policy be followed is "disrupting this article". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Davis is a seprate issue but so far the source used is not his book but an EI artcile that mention his book. EI is not a WP:RS source so I ask again for Ronald to remove it(i.e. self revert) . Edit war (what Ronald and tarc did so far) will have to be dealt with via the recent ArbCom rulling. Please avoid edit wars. Zeq (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No one here is edit-warring, Zeq. What has been done though is the rightful reversal of your removal of sourced content. It is explained to you in the next section why EI is an acceptable source. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V is still being violated here. Sources must still satisfy WP:V, even if they are just "opinions" or "allegations". You can't just quote any website you want as an example of your claim. I will give editors here 5 more days to find reliable sources, then I'll take action. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, this is becoming a rather disturbing trend that some editors here are adopting. Zeq doesn't like a source, so he axes the entire entry rather than pursuing other avenues (add a "citation needed", bring the matter to the talk page before deleting, etc...). You do not like EI so you, IMHO, overstep your authority by creating deadlines for compliance and issuing ultimatums, rather than seeking a third opinion or whatnot. The spirit of collaborative editing is being left by the wayside here. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was removed since no page number was provided and this is again an issue of WP:V - no one can tell if the source support what the article claim it does. The fact that you edit war instead of providing the correct page number for the refrence is indeed disturbing. Zeq (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is explained to you why you are wrong regarding page numbers in the section entitled "Page numbering". Perhaps you should spend less time accusing others of edit warring, and more time reading all new talk page sections before posting here? Tarc (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Jay, could you explain in more specific terms what's wrong with EI? I know that you don't like it, but I haven't seen you adress the question of why, if it's such a bad source, it's recommended by the Jerusalem Post and described by Jewish Telegraphic Agency as a good source for information about the Palestinian viewpoint. I don't like the JCPA, for example, but I'm not about to remove it from articles, issue ominous deadlines, etc.

Let's have some clarity here: What is it, specifically, that you are asking be verified? The article text simply says that people who talk about "Israeli apartheid" refer to certain aspects of Israeli policy in the territories: separate roads, separate infrastructure, separate legal system, unequal access to land, etc. What is it about this factual claim that you believe is insufficiently verified? What, in your thinking, would verify it? <eleland/talkedits> 13:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Telegraph Agency, in fact, describes it as a "cyberpropaganda" site that "is too biased to be of much use to mainstream publications." In addition, the actual source is Bruce Dixon. Finally, it is being used to cite the claim that Arab citizens of Israel are "second class", not that "people who talk about "Israeli apartheid" refer to certain aspects of Israeli policy in the territories." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 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)

This is preposterous. I wish you would stop warring over every word of this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you any productive, logical comments on the matter? <eleland/talkedits> 14:11, 5 March 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)

Don't patronize me, Zeq. The Jerusalem Post, which is not known as a far-left anti-Zionist rag, calls it "the Palestinian CNN." Abunimah has written op-eds for many major newspapers. EI is fine for citing a Palestinian POV, which is what I was using it for. <eleland/talkedits> 06:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Jerusalem Post is one of the most neutral newspapers in Israel. The "far-left anti-Zionist rag" is actually Haaretz and Yediot. Axxn (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

EI is not a WP:RS source. What he has done and the fact that some papers print oped from memebers of advocay greap does not tuen his blog/self published/advocay group (which is what EI is) to a propeer source. All refernce from this web site MUST be removed. EI can only be use as source for an article about EI - just read the policy this is not an issue of patronizing this is an issue of you edit waring to get your view in a way that does not conform to policy. )note that blogs of other journalists are not WP:RS source as well. Zeq (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To Anand: That's what I said, the JPost is not known as an anti-Zionist newspaper. It's a sort of mainstream/conservative paper, while Ha'aretz is mainstream/liberal, but both have a fairly broad editorial stance. I don't know about Y.A.

To Zeq: EI is a major Palestinian news site, and is recommended by mainstream pro-Israeli newspapers for a better understanding of the Palestinian cause. It's being cited here for Palestinian opinion. It's generally not a reliable source for contentious claims of fact, but then nor are CAMERA, MEMRI, the ADL, or any other of a dozen pro-Israeli advocacy groups that are regularly cited for matters of opinion. If you disagree, you'd really ought to specify a reason, rather than simply re-asserting your conclusion in ever firmer terms.<eleland/talkedits> 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Eleland can you post some links that show that EI is considered the "Palestinian CNN" or otherwise famous? If it is indeed so, then it means that the source is a notable. Any attributions would of course have to be attributed.Bless sins (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the issue. I suggest uou look at WP:V and WP:RS. EI is self published and no a major news organization. Zeq (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, the information was in EI's wikipedia article. They were profiled early on by the Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Telegraph Agency; the "Palestinian CNN" quote is from JPost's review, which was fairly gushing. The JTA were negative but acknowledged that EI was a useful resource for understanding the Palestinian POV. It should be in the references to the article Electronic Intifada. <eleland/talkedits> 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To Zeq: Yes, thank you, I am quite familiar with the provisions of WP:V and WP:RS, I can quote the key ones from memory, and I am active on the reliable sources noticeboard. I am happy to discuss EI in policy terms.

EI is not a major news organization. EI is not "self published," it is published by an advocacy group funded by grants and donations. This is exactly the same as CAMERA, MEMRI, the Anti-Defamation League, NGO Monitor, Campus Watch, Middle East Forum, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, etc etc etc. All of these groups are reliable sources for the purpose of citing, with attribution, the views of pro-Israeli advocates. Just as EI is on the opposite side. <eleland/talkedits> 16:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an overtly political website that is clearly inappropriate for citation in the lead of the article, according to WP:V. Moreover, the actual citation is to Bruce Dixon. Proper sources are needed. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Jay, WP:V says nothing of the kind. There's no mention of "overtly political" sites being problematic, and no mention of lead sections. Where do you come up with this stuff? <eleland/talkedits> 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:LEAD The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid Vs. Huiman rights violations

We already have articles about Human rights in the territories occupied by Israel. However this Allegations of Israeli apartheid article is about analogy to South Africa. The word "Apartheid" is key here.

This article [11] is listed as source but makes no mention of South Africa or of the word apartheid.

It is important that we use sources which speak of what this article is about. We are not a 1st source and we can not extend the use of violation of human rights to claim "apartheid". We must leave it to WP:RS to make such claim and analogy.

I realize that for many this is hard to accept. For them Israel is an apartheid state and they want this article to reflect that. But we can not do more than the sources at our disposal. The use of non WP:RS sources in this article (like Electronic Intifada, Israeli apartheid week etc..) is problematic and should be avoid but also misrepresentation of WP:RS sources and stretching what they say can not be done - this is subttle violation of WP:NOR (but a violation never the less)

We need to base this article on facts, on proper sources and on correct use of the proper sources. Zeq (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"96. A system of road apartheid had been established in the Occupied Palestinian Territory ..." [12] <eleland/talkedits> 07:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Zeq didn't read all the way to the end. :) I believe that settles the questions raised by this particular talk page section, and we can move on. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uri Davis material, page numbering

For the benefit of those with a short attention span, I repeat what I wrote above: "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." This obviously applies to the Uri Davis books Israel:An Apartheid State and Apartheid Israel, every page of which is dedicated to establishing this proposition. Since what we are trying to show is that "some critics" hold this view, and not that it is necessarily true, this is a perfectly acceptable source. RolandR (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

quote from policy "Page numbers should be included whenever possible in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase". Tha Davis refernce relate to the quoted "second class citizens" to israeli arabs while this Uri_Davis#Apartheid_Comparisons say he speaks about oocupation (i.e. not the Israeli arabs) so plaese provide the page number where Davis say that the treatment iof Israeli arabs is similar to apartheid - we need to see his rational for this comparison. Zeq (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeq has truncated his citation of what he calls policy (actually, as it clearly states, it is a style guide), and in so doing has distorted its meaning. The full sentence is "Page numbers should be included whenever possible in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article". As has been explained several times above, by me and others, this citation does not refer to "a specific page" of Davis's boks, but to the books as a whole, which are indeed being used "to exemplify a particular point of view"

Zeq has also distorted the statement from the article about Uri Davis, which does not merely say "he speaks about occupation". The full statement is "Davis is noted for authoring a series of books and articles that classify the State of Israel as an apartheid state, alleging that Israel's policies in the post-1967 occupied territories are equivalent to South Africa's bantustanisation apartheid policies"

Zeq, please stop tendentiously truncating and misquoting your sources. We are not too lazy to refer to the original sources, and I certainly am no longer prepared to accept that what you cite is a genuine reflection of your source. RolandR (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronald, I have brought a direction link to the source - that should be enough (to answer your false accusations) Now back to davis quote: This is an issue of WP:V - we need to verify that the davis book say what you quote from it. If you can not we will need to delete it. Zeq (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The part I don't understand is: Why is it so hard for the ppeople who support this ref by davis to bring a correc t citation ? I don't want to argue about style guid or noty style guide I am asking a simple question:

Can you prove based on WP:V that what you have put into this article is in the source ? You should be able to do that or remove the false claim. Zeq (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that no one can provide a clear citation. I would also say that Davis by itself is a fringe source that should not be inluded in a wikipedia article. Zeq (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your jaundiced view of Uri Davis is of no relevance. He is an established academic, with several university appointments and a long record of publication. There is a lengthy quote from him further down in the article, explicitly discussing the comparison between mechanisms of discrimination in Israel and South Africa. Such a lengthy quote would not be appropriate for the lead. In any case, he is cited here (how many times do we have to explain this to you?) not in order to establish the truth or otherwise of this comparison, but to establish that "some critics" express the view that Israel is an apartheid society with respect to its Arab citizens. You are entitled to disagree with this view, but not to deny that it exists. Stop wasting our time with your repeated ill-thought out complaint. RolandR (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Davis say in this quote that israel is different from south Africa. Nither he nor you provide any proof for what is in the lead. Please look at the lead carefully if you can not show that what is written there has a WP:RS source in a way that we can all publicly verify WP:V the Davis ref from the lead has to go. There are basic rules to writing this encyclopedia and WP:V is one of them. So far none of you came with a page number of relevant quote. Zeq (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For heaven's sake! Davis wrote two books describing the state of Israel as an apartheid society. The purpose of citing him in the lead is to establish that "some critics" make this allegation. It does not "have to go". There is no point in continuing this discussion with someone whose comprehension skills are clearly limited. Stop your disruptive activity. RolandR (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No this is not what he say and not what the lead say. There is a big difference between the occupied territories and Israel proper and please don't try to blur this. Davis clearlt refered to post 1967 Israerl which means after the occupation of the west bank while the claim in this lead is about Israeli arabs. So go find the page number if you want to end this discussion. there are minimal rules of WP:V in this project and none of you were able to show that those have been met. Zeq (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is like arguing with a brick wall. In the passage quoted, Davis writes "The legal regulation of apartheid in Israel is structured in terms that are very different from the structures of legal apartheid in the Republic of South Africa. Nevertheless, apartheid in Israel is an overarching legal reality that determines the quality of everyday life and the circumstances of living for all the inhabitants of the state of Israel. The official and hegemonic value system of the Republic of South Africa is apartheid, and the key legal distinction in South African apartheid legislation is between 'white' versus 'coloured', 'Indian' and 'black'. The official hegemonic value system in the state of Israel is Zionism, and the key legal distinction in Zionist legislation in Israel is between 'Jew' versus 'non-Jew'. The introduction of this key distinction into Israeli law is, however, accomplished as part of a two-tier structure. It is this two-tier structure which has preserved the veil over Israeli apartheid legislation for almost four decades". Of course he's writing about the state of Israel. And note that, writing in 1987, he refers to a "two-tier structure" which has lasted four almost four decades -- ie, since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, not since the 1967 occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Every single page of the detailed and densely-argued book relates to Davis's contention that Palestinian citizens of Israel do indeed live, within the state of Israel, under a system that is analogous to apartheid and ought to be described by this term. Whether or not you agree with him, you simply cannot contend that he is stating something different. It would help if you would read what you don't like before criticising it. RolandR (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; Roland beat me to it. Comment was for Zeq.)

I don't have the specific book at issue, but that is not an accurate description of Davis's views on the subject. For example, here's Davis in an interview:

When there isn't universal citizenship that is equitable to all, democratic values are compromised in a serious way. A quintessential illustration of this is Apartheid South Africa, where 87% of the territory of South Africa was reserved under law for white citizens only, and denied from non-white citizens.

I fear that the situation in Israel is comparable, and I'm not talking about popular xenophobia, but rather a situation regulated by an act of parliament where 93% of the territory of the State of Israel - and I am not referring to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - is reserved under law for Jewish citizens only. If the apartheid distinction in South Africa was between white and non-white, the apartheid distinction in Israel is between Jew and non-Jew.

So, one cannot talk of Israeli citizenship in the same sense that one could talk of Canadian citizenship, because - racist practices and popular xenophobia in Canada notwithstanding - all citizens are equal before the law. This is not so in Israel: Jewish citizens are citizens of class A, and non-Jews are second, third and fourth class citizens.

Elmer: A classic apartheid construction -

Davis: A classic apartheid construction when it refers to the essential attributes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is essentially a conflict between a settler-colonial state and an indigenous population dispossessed by the colonial project. <eleland/talkedits> 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you fail to show a specific page in Davis's book where he makes the analogy between how israeli treat Israeli arabs (who for example get to vote, get goverment jobs, learn and teach in Universities etc...) and the situation of blacks in south Africa. We are not talking about the west bank here - we are talking about israel and you have shown no proof that Davis say that about the treatment of Israeli arabs. you either show this page number or we have to remove the reference. WP:V is very clear policy. Zeq (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And what you have been told, over and over and over again, is that the citation refers to the book as a whole, thus a page number is not necessary. The guidelines are very clear on this as well, and I suggest you start following them and stop threatening to remove verifiable, reliable sources. Just in case the point needs to be cemented in stone for you one last time; The Entire Book Is the Source. Do you understand now? Tarc (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The book is used as ref to a specific sentense. If the whole book is you refrence surly you can post (at least here in talk) the relevant passgaes that show you POV. If you can not we will have to remove this refernce. this is a simpe issue of WP:V - people can not just take your word for it they have to see it. do your homework and come back Zeq (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You should really give your tone and attitude a bit of an adjustment before it is reported. What you are asking for is neither necessary or required, and I really don't see much else to say on this. Tarc (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You can not continue this. You are asked for days now to show where in the book you use as ref he makes the nalogy to South Africa. I will tell you whty you can not - since he actually in the book say the exact oppositee. So either show us here (on talk) the paragraph that support your claim or we will have to remove the false claim from the encyclopedia. Zeq (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It should not be removed, and we will continue this as long as you fail to understand simple Wikipedia guidelines. Once again, "Page numbers should be included whenever possible in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase." Note those two words there, "whenever possible". In this case it is not possible, as the citation refers to the book AS A WHOLE. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for them to be included.

I am asking for you to show us - even here in talk - where in the book Davis makes the analogy between Israeli arabs to south Africa. You can not show it simply because it is not there. our citation of davis book as reference to this fact is simply not trie and this is why you fail to prove it. Zeq (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you an illiterate idiot, or are you just pretending to be one? As we've explained countless times, the whole book, including explicitly and specifically the title, makes this analogy. And we are citing it in order to show that "some critics" make this analogy, not necessaeily to prove that it is true. RolandR (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

can you instead of making accusations on vandalism and violating NPA do one constractive thing ? actually two:

1. read the short lead of the article. I mean it - please go and read it first.
2. Now that you have read it: Can you tell me where in davis's book he makes the analogy between Israeli Arabs to the way Blacks in South Africa were treated. cvan you give me here on talk the page number or bring a quote.

• if you can do that we are done (with Davis ciataion issue) but if not we would need to remove it. I hope you did not include Davis just based on the title of the book and actually read the whole book or the relavnt chapter so finding where he say it will not be so hard for you. Thank You. Zeq (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those with a short attention span, I repeat what I wrote above: Davis's book isn't titled "the second-class citizenship of Arab citizens of Israel". Please provide a page number and relevant quote, or it will have to go, per WP:V, which, unlike WP:CITE, is policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It will not be going anywhere, and you have already been told why it is appropriate and square with appropriate policy and guidelines. Must be that famous "short attention span" that's all the rage, eh Jayjg? Tarc (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, rather than making multiple erroneous statements, it would be more helpful for you to properly source the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than making erroneous statements yourself, you can go back and read to see that the concerns regarding citations are addressed already. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to be clear that the issue was never addressed. Yes replies were written but they were not to resolve or address the issue they were given in a way that attempt dismiss the legitimacy of a legitiamte request for verifaible sources. So far we are dealing with a violation of WP:V and use of non WP:RS. The problem is that this whole paragraph (using ref to Davis and sourced to EI) is not verified and not sourced properly. This issue still need to be resolved. I suggest that as policy suggest we move the paragraph from the article to the talk page and try to resolve it instead of just saying that it was addressed. it was not. Zeq (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't avoid providing proper citations, per WP:V, no matter how often you claim you can. See also this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Using an entire book as a reference. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest questionable use of sources

WE need to review this and decide on sources do they meet WP:RS prior to inclusion in the article:

Several critics, including Uri Davis , Mazin Qumsiyeh , Bruce Dixon , Heribert Adam & Kogila Moodley, Saree Makdisi , and Ilan Pappé , extend the analogy to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as "second-class".

I would like to point out that "second class" is not apartheid. (there are many places in the world in which people feel they are 'second class' )Zeq (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeq (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Every single one of these sources explicitly uses the word "apartheid" to describe the status of Arab citizens inside the state of Israel. I cannot yet confirm that they all explicitly use the term "second-class", though this is surely implicit. Davis, Dixon and Adam & Moodley certainly use the term, I will check the others. In any case, if that is the objection, I would not insist that this term renmains in the lead, and would be happy for it to simply state "Several critics ... extend theanalogy to describe the civil status of Arab citizens of Israel".

Also, as you well know, this has already been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Using an entire book as a reference. It seems to me that you are simply being obstructive for obstruction's sake, and have so far offered no positive suggestions. When you do, I will be happy to discuss them seriously. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the whole objection based around whether they use the phrase "second-class" is spurious. I rewrote that text some 2 weeks ago, and did not place "second-class" in quotation marks, because the specific phrase "second-class citizen" is not necessarily used by those who are making the same point. Something like, "Arab citizens still are not treated as full citizens of Israel in the manner which Jewish Israelis are" does not use the phrase "second-class" but it's clearly making the same point. This is pathetic Wikilawyering; the sentence is about critics who say that Arab Israelis are treated as less than equal citizens in the context of an apartheid-like system, not about the mathematical intersection of the set of sources using the terms "Israeli apartheid" and "second-class citizen." <eleland/talkedits> 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

> _ (ctrl-click)"> _ (ctrl-click)"> _ (ctrl-click)"> _ (ctrl-click)

Tarc (talk · contribs) made an edit [13] which inserted material like "> _ (ctrl-click)"> _ (ctrl-click)"> _ (ctrl-click)"> _ (ctrl-click)" in a citation. Is this a broken bot, or what? --John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea in the process of rolling back Zeq's questionable edits, it put those things in somehow. Unfortunately my internet connection picked that moment to barf, so I was unable to get back to fix it. So, my edit is now undone, and we can proceed from here. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I had inadvertently introduced them when making my edits, since they were both in ref tags I originally added. Anyway, I've now removed this nonsense, and restored my last substantive edit. RolandR (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The level of discussion here is deteroreting to "who madwe the change": [14] ? Can I erspond to that with the diff showing RolandR made the change and he should have discussed it first. But this is kindergarten level. The point is that he is using websites which are not WP:RS and again fail to show the connection between the parts in the lead to the actual refernces used. So again we have a problem with WP:V violation. why it is so hard to get the correct quote and show that what you claim is indeed what the sources claim. ... ???? Zeq (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, this is breathtaking inanity. You're making vague and nonspecific claims about WP:V but not actually specifying what you think is unreliable and why. An interview with an Israeli historian of note in a notable academic journal edited by professors at major American universities fails RS? Or is it the Arab-American professor at UCLA, published in a very well-known US Left opinion journal that you have a problem with? Sheesh! Stop wasting editors' time here. <eleland/talkedits> 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, as we have repeated until we are blue in the face, we are simply attempting here to establish that "some critics" make this analogy, not to prove the truth of this assertion. I have entirely ceased to assume good faith; Zeq is deliberately trying to waste our time and to disrupt the article. So far, there have been nine requests for deletion of the article; all have failed. So what better than to tie us up over every little detail, in order to make the article unworkable?RolandR (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, you don't assume good faith, yet you think that websites such as [15] and this FromOccupiedPalestine.org are good sources ??? You are showing that you have failed to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopdia base on policy and not a collection of links to hate sites.

There is however one important link you have added: the one showing that the intent is to create a boycott of israel. Many of those who use the nalaogy use it to pressure Israel in hope that there will be one state of both Jews and Arabs instead of a two state solution. This indeed need to be explained. In any case the lead as it now stand is horribe from an encyclopedic stand point. Zeq (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no comment to my above message on talk I think it is only proper that we delete from the text the unencyclopdic content. No one have explained here why it meets any wikipeia policy. It also violates NPOV and UNDUE by giving undue wight to a fringe minority(a) within the minority(b). ( b= those who claim Israel is anapartheid country to Paalestinian in west bank, a = those who extend the nalogy into Israel proper). Apartheid came from south africa regimn - In Israel proper there is an arab minister in the govement, members of knesset (10) are arabs so enough with this nonsense. this section will be deleted from the lead unless it will shown to meet policy:

Several critics, including Uri Davis , Mazin Qumsiyeh , Bruce Dixon , Heribert Adam & Kogila Moodley, Saree Makdisi , and Ilan Pappé , extend the analogy to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as "second-class".

To put it in plain words: Discrimination exist in many countries in the world yet they are not called apartheid. you would need to come up with better sources to justify the extension of the analogy - which btw, is not even suported by the non WP:RS sources used so far (see below) Zeq (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not trying to justify the extension of the analogy. We are not discussing the validity of the analogy. Wikipedia contains articles about political positions, opinions, and points of view. Wikipedia documents such things. Wikipedia does not endorse or refute them, we just document them, and we document the endorsements and refutations of others. I'd link you to policy pages, but I know you've had those links before. This is pathetic. How many more years is it going to take before you accept WP:NPOV? <eleland/talkedits> 10:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

quotes from sources used to "extend the analogy"

Pappe (from a web site that is not WP:RS: "There are of course differences in the way Israel treats the Palestinians living under occupation and those whom it regards as citizens."

Also noted above that Uri davis also did not aprove of the analogy to south Africa.

Other sources used are web pages that have to do with Activism such as "boycott israel" and blogs of activists ("from occupied Palestine".

We need to set this article on solid encyclopedia foundations., proper sources and quote from them correctly. Wikipedia is not a hidgepodge of random links in which the word "israeli apartheid" is mentioned. Zeq (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't invest too much time in the article.

Pappé is currently writing a book where he develops the comparison between Israel and Apartheid. So we can be sure that this article will soon explode with plenty of excerpts from his book.

Did you know he talks about wikipédia in his last book... Not good for neutrality here but he knows the power of media. Ceedjee (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia as a watse of time. So I will continue to demand that this encyclopdia use good sources according to it';s own policies.

Side issue: Pappe himself is not a great source so I am not sure we can use him in this or other articles now that his academic standing is being diminished. Zeq (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually his academic standing has increased. His professorship was blocked at Haifa. He was promoted to full professor in England.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Zeq.

But we will never get a consensus on that issue...

Ceedjee (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not need to get consensus on issue which clearly covered by policy. Zeq (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Zeq, did you really think we weren't going to read the article you linked? Did you really think we weren't going to call you on your nonsense?

PAPPE:There are of course differences in the way Israel treats the Palestinians living under occupation and those whom it regards as citizens. But there are also common features of that policy. [...] The wish to retain the façade of a democracy complicated the translation of these attitudes into actual policy toward Palestinians inside Israel, those who are officially regarded as citizens. Until 1966, in the name of security, the rights of these Palestinians were removed and they were subjected to cruel military rule. But when, after 1967, the U.S.-Israeli alliance became the central source for the Jewish State’s existence, one of the more democratic features developed among them was the abolition of that military rule. Racism and apartheid-which were official policy under military rule-now became illicit and in a way more dangerous because it was more difficult for human and civil rights organizations to expose them. In the years since 1967, as a Palestinian citizen you could never know where the racism and discrimination would hit you. It meant that at any given minute, without prior knowledge, you were likely to encounter de facto segregation, discrimination, abuse of basic rights and even death. This is still the state of affairs today, and in many ways it has worsened since the outbreak of the second intifada.

<eleland/talkedits> 10:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And how do you seriously type something like "a web site that is not WP:RS" in regards to a scholarly journal edited by a host of university professors? [16] Or are you trolling? <eleland/talkedits> 10:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your quote is about "policy under military rule" and you sue it for Israel proper - do you know the difference between the occupation in the west bank and Israeli proper (which is not under any military rule) ? note that discrimination alone is not apartheid. As for WP:RS - I don't know if you realize but pappe had to leave his academic post since his creadbility was chalanged. Zeq (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read it, Zeq. The "military rule" referred to there is the 1947-1966 military rule of Palestinians within Israel proper - there were no "occupied territories" at the time. According to Pappe, this was an overtly apartheid-like system. Then when the formal military rule was lifted, it shifted in his view to an informal, concealed apartheid system. Zeq, it is incredibly irritating how we have to repeatedly correct you on very obvious points in source material. <eleland/talkedits> 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good source

"Critics make a strong case that Israel’s oppressive occupation - singling out Palestinians on the basis of religion, confiscating their lands, collectively punishing the innocent for the actions of others, and killing scores of innocent civilians in military missions - is a form of apartheid.

Israelis deny the assertion and heap even harsher criticism on Palestinians.

Former US President Jimmy Carter, who hosted the Israel-Egypt peace accords, has titled his book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.” He makes a strong case that Israel’s conservative policies are turning Israel into a new Apartheid-like South Africa."

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3329865,00.html

Zeq (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Political allegation"

I've removed "political allegation" from the first sentence (added by Zeq). It's redundant to reuse the word "allegation" and the appending of the word "political" before it, falsely circumsribes the motivations behind those making the analogies. Some make it for purely humanitarian reasons, others because they find it to be an apt metaphor. In short, I find this addition to be unneccessary and inapt.

I'd like to suggest that changes to the introduction be discussed here first so as to limit the tendency toward edit-warring. It takes a lot of discussion to garner consensus for changes to the lead since it's a summary of the article itself. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the allegations . It is there for right that the political motives will be the subject of the article. If there is more than one POV about it we should cover all major POVs about such motives. One view is that the allegation is made to turn Israel into a country with a majority of Palestinians thus denying the right of the Jewish people to a homeland. [17] and many more sources clearly show that. The use of the term "apartheid" was instituted to bring about a "regimn change" as it was in south africa. So far the calls for boycott did not work but the crisade to turn israel into a country with a minority Jewish population continue unabaded.

Here is a quote from this source:

Israel has a 20% Arab minority who are citizens and can vote, although they are frequently discriminated against and are described by some as a "demographic threat". Within a few years the number of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories is expected to equal, and then exceed, the number of Jews in Israel and the settlements. Some Palestinians argue that they should campaign for a so-called one-state solution: equal voting and citizenship rights within a larger country that includes Israel and the occupied territories and in which Palestinians will soon have a majority.

Zeq (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot speculate about the motives of those making this analogy, Zeq. You have no verifiable source for your view, which seems to be original research. It would be equally true to claim that many activists deny the legitimacy of the Israeli state precisely because they believe it to be an inherently racist and apartheid society. But such speculation can have no place in the article. We are noting that some people hold this view, and your defensive response has been to attempt to delegitimate every reference to the existence of such views. There is of course a place in the article for (equally well-documented) arguments to the contrary. But you simply can't get away with airbrushing these views out of the article with your specious claims of breaches of policy.

And by the way, the Guardian article you cite does not make the link you suggest. Although it states that some Palestinians support a campaign for a one-state solution, the article nowhere states or implies that they therefore invent an analogy with apartheid. RolandR (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't speculate. Are you saying that the allegation is not political  ? Zeq (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am refraining from asserting -- with no evidence -- that it is political. RolandR (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead have turned into a hodgepodge of links

this is no way of writing an encyclopdia:

"Several critics, including Uri Davis[2] [3], Mazin Qumsiyeh [4], Bruce Dixon [5], Heribert Adam & Kogila Moodley[6], Saree Makdisi [7], and Ilan Pappé [8]

other than being just a collection of links this give WP:undue representation to a fringe minority within the minority.Zeq (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, if this article was about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would be WP:UNDUE to include mention of the view of people who make apartheid analogies in the lead. However, since this article is about apartheid analogies made with reference to Israel, it is correct to state the views of those who make those analogies and differentiate between those who make them as applicable to Israel and the occupied territories and those who apply the anology even within Israel proper itself. What you are suggesting is that we remove any discussion of the positions of those who make the anology from the introduction. How can we discuss the subject of this article in a WP:NPOV fashion, or at all, if we do that? Tiamut^talk 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Only a minority describe the situation as "apartheid" . The article already is POV since people will arrive here via a redirect from the term "israeli apartheid". The people who use this term (like Carter) have came bvery clearly and clarified that they are ONLY discussing the occupied territories in this term.

Within this minority of those who use this ten there is a smaller minority who makes the really outragous claim that israeli arabs are also subject of apartheid like regimn. This is clearly violation of WP:Undue and should be removed.

The lead it self need to be cleaned from the hodgepodge of links. Zeq (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As Zeq well knows, these links were introduced following extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Using an entire book as a reference, in order to show that this was a view held by several critics, and not just one. The situation now seems to be that every single source we cite is dismissed by Zeq and others as fringe, extremist, unrepresentative or otherwise unsuitable. If we include just one source, it shows that it is "a minority of a minority"; if we include several, it is "a hodgepodge of links". Forgiveme if I regard this as a concerted attempt to include any reference to the description of Israeli policvy towards its own Palestinian citizens as a form of apartheid. RolandR (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I share your skepticism and concerns. In order to break the seeming impasse here, I suggest that we restore the simple prose that was once in place and put the names of people and the links that were provided to substantiate the claim in a footnote so as not to clutter the lead. What do people think of that suggestion? Tiamut^talk 00:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear hopw this came about:

1. There was a senstence not supported at all by the source
2. That source was replaced by a refernce to a complete book
3. you all failed to show the book supports the sentence
4. after long time of refusing to cite the exact place where the book "supports" your claim you went to the next stage
5. colected various links to fringe views on non WP:RS web sites that pretend to support your POV setence

No wonder we end up with a lead that is not sourced properly and is a hodgepodge of links. I suggest you review [[WP:Not] and WP:UNDUE about the emphasis you are pushing to claim the ridiculus claim that israeli arabs are under "apartheid". In southAfrica blacks could not vote, could not ride the same bus, could not share the same beach and more. Israel arab may face discrimination but not apartheid and I sugest you fix the lead to fit what the RS sources say. Zeq (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Roland, you still have to provide a page number and representative quote for the Davis book - that's also from the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Using an entire book as a reference section. Please do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Eland, this is the entrence from the Gaza side into Erez crossing. Are you in israel or speak hebrew ? this is called "hasharvul" see this for example: [18] - btw Elalnad: You may disagree with my POV but in all my thousands edits in wiki no one ever claimed I used wrong fact. Zeq (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Zeq, just on this talk page I see cases where you very clearly "used wrong fact." I'm aware that the ubiquitous vertical concrete blocks that are used in some parts of the West Bank wall are also used at Erez, since I spent some time looking for photos of Erez. However, in all of the photos of Erez that I could find, the blocks were seen under a roof. In any case, the fact that Erez uses those blocks, and the photo showed those blocks, doesn't prove anything whatsoever. How do you know it is Erez? <eleland/talkedits> 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything. the roof at erez was looted in june 2007, the area closer to Israel has those walls and the photo I found showed exactly this point. In any case if you still think this is the west bank why don't you prove it.... PS you also accused me of lying on this page about facts ? where - which fact do you claimed I misrepresented ? please back up your accusations or appologize. Zeq (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was the West Bank. I don't know where it is. It could be Antarctica for all I know. Nor did I accuse you of lying; I said that you got facts wrong. Start at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Apartheid_Vs._Huiman_rights_violations for an easy example. Zeq, this is offtopic, but you really need to learn how to take a deep breath, calm down, and read things carefully. You're causing a lot of unnecessary drama here. <eleland/talkedits> 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very calmed and FYI the barrier is only in the west bank....Zeq (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new to this article. I browsed through the discussion but didn't find much talk besides this on the photo, and none of it mentioned a reason for keeping it tucked way down inside the article (besides the fact that it was nearby a mention of the wall). Since there is currently no cover photo, and this one seems appropriate to me, I moved it up top. I hope that thats ok, and that I haven't trampled on something which has been debated before- you cant blame me for not reading every word on this discussion page. Rudy Breteler (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudy, can you explain what is the connection between analogy to SA apaertheid laws and the wall ? Zeq (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To the user known as "Runtshit"

your vandalism against RolandR is an unbeliveable stupidity. Your edits are detected in minutes . Before they are corrected they have zero infulance and I suggest to that you stop them if you can not do something more productive with your time. All you do now is bump some articles to the top of many people's watch list. that is all and this is meanigless. please stop. What ever your grudge against RolandR you are only doing his cause a great sevice by this constant vandalism. enough. Zeq (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Further Reading" additions

What would be the purpose and relevance of these additions ? Since neither of the three address the allegations of Israeli apartheid in any way, they really do not belong. Comments? Tarc (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

they will be valueable to a reader of this article to know the situation. Zeq (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. At all. None of the listings mentions the apartheid allegations in any way, so why are they here? What it appears to be is a bit of synthesizing on your part, to take several examples of Arab-Israeli cooperation and attempt to show your point of view that the apartheid allegations are unwarranted. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not "unwarrnted" - the facts are complex and the reader desrve a comprhensive overview of the facts. If they don't fit your POV you are the one doing original reaserch in an attempt to remove a proper source that is relevant to the subject of the article. Zeq (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The reader deserves to view articles that are not in violation of Wikipedia policy. A section entitled "Further reading" would suggest that more information about, oh I dunno, ALLEGATIONS OF ISRAELI APARTHEID, can be found by clicking those links. The three you added yesterday have nothing to do with the subject matter. The ones you added today (Washington Post, etc...) are quite appropriate, although as the list lengthens there may be issues with this becoming a linkfarm. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case it is good you made the list shorter. In any case your point is well taken and I will make sure the "Further reading" section is about the analogy and the allegations. Zeq (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More information about "The analogy"

Since this article is actually about the analogy actually about the allegation of the analogy, we should devote a section to those who are making the allegations: Who they are, what are they motives and if there are sources who frame this allegation in w ider context we should cover these as well, explaining the goals of those making the allegations. I have started to look for sources on this , for example found a source which claim "The anti-Israel movement is cynically exploiting the memory of African suffering in order to score points in the fraught field of Middle East politics." which help to show the motives behind this allegations are political and propeganda in nature. to be continued. Zeq (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

violation of WP:Undue

This edit: [19] is not relevant to the subject of the article itself. It is just taking a ride on the use of the analogy in the quote in order to push another POV - that about ethnic cleansing . The whole quote is that a fringe minority within a minority with in a minority and thus violates WP:Undue : "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. " and 'An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" Zeq (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, and discusses the use of this term. Professor Moshé Machover is a well-known critic of Israeli policy, and his view that the analogy is misleading and unhelpful is certainly notable and relevant, and worthy of inclusion in the article. You are again being disruptive, Zeq; please make some constructive edits. RolandR (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who don't answer the specific issue that was raised: The violation of UNDUE. It is not enough who machover is and the fact that he started his setnce by saying that using the word partheid is not enough. The allegation he makes about ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with the subject of this article. This is not the "ethnic cleansing" article. Please revert your revert and restore proper text. your edit is disruptive since it is in clear violation of the policy explained above. (I remind you that undue is a policy) Zeq (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I do not see any meanigfull response to why an accusation about "ethnic cleansing" belong in this article I would suggest we remove this quote. Just saying that the allegation of apartheid does not go far enough is not a reason be included in this article as it adds nothing about the actual subject of this article. It should be move to articles about Allegations of Ethnic cleansing in Palestine if there is such an article. Zeq (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, it's a representative quote from an article entitled "Is it Apartheid? an Analysis of Israel-South Africa Analogy," by a source which is notable and reliable in the context of what pro-Palestinian activists are saying (Jewish Voice for Peace.) I understand that you think talk of ethnic cleansing is not relevant to AoIA. However, this source thinks that it is, and we can't override our own sources out of personal pique. <eleland/talkedits> 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not what I think. The issue is that the quote is not about the allegation. It does not allege, it does refute the allegation it just makes a totaly different allegation and including it is violation of WP:UNDUE as it does not belong here but in article about a totaly different allegation. Zeq (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood as an example

"is a controversial [1] neologism that, according to the Jerusalem Post, pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates[2] have used to refer to the Muhammad al-Durrah incident as an example of "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel."[2] It has been publicised by a campaign led in part by Boston University academic Richard Landes, who has produced an online documentary video called Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources, highlighting specific instances of alleged media manipulation.[3]"

""israeli apartheid" is a controversial [1] neologism that, according to .... anti-Israel advocates[2] have used to refer to security arrengment in the west bank .... as an example of .... It has been publicised by a campaign led in part by Boston ...., who has ......[3]

I think we should use the same type of languge to all neologism that are used in the conflict. Zeq (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I concurSusan Sowerby (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

another important source

[20] Zeq (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article still in existence?

It should be deleted just like all the Apartheid Articles, unless there's some antisemitic agenda here. How can this seriously be held, when there are countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia who really do Apartheid. One can't be a citizen in Saudi and in most Arab countries if you're not Muslim. Iran kills its bahai, kurdish and other population centers consistently because of apartheid reasons. Amazing. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the other "allegations of apartheid" articles were created in bad faith in an attempt to leverage this one out of existence. The existence of this, a notable topic supported by reliable sources, is not conditional on the existence of other articles. it stands on its own. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

always WP:AGF. Zeq (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also unlike your assertions, this article is based on fact. As is evidenced every day in news stories about Israeli attacks on Palestinians, and the blockade of Gaza, Israelis are attempting to destroy the Palestinians for land.--Ocean8765 (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the existense of this article. The allegation exist and it is repeated widely. This article is not highlighting who are the people making the allegation, why they do it, what shakey factual basis they have for thios allegations. This is the problem with this article. Many wikipedians have tried to fight the existence, the name of this article instead of making it a better article. btw, just look at an adavanced country like Qatar where 20% of the population are citizens, only half of them or less can vote and the rest have lower level of rights according to the law. this is apartheid but no one noticed....Zeq (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing of Qatari soldiers killing civilians for land. I hear of Israelis doing it every day. Can you please refresh my memory? I'm sorry you weren't taught how to distinguish truth from lie. --Ocean8765 (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Para entitled "Analogy between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa"

The following paragraph is all assertion and no proof. In fact the footnote given does not contain the quote at all!

Historically, Geoffrey Wheatcroft has noted, Israeli officials had mulled the possibility of adopting the South African apartheid model as one that the state of Israel itself might emulate. In the late 1970s:-

'(t)hey didn't wish to copy what was once called "petty apartheid", the everyday harassment of black South Africans, but "grand apartheid", the Nationalists' attempt to conjure away the problem of minority rule by dividing the country into supposedly autonomous cantons or "homelands".'[7]

Note 7 which is this: [21] makes no reference at all to the above statement. ie the statement itself has no valid references. Can I remove it entirely until it is sourced? Juanita (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Ok, so the note does not go anywhere but the underlying info is : Geoffrey Wheatcroft No Fairy Tale: The forgotten history of Zionism,' in Times Literary Supplement Feb.22, 2008... BUT: There is no such article or book. Instead it is this article: Zion story: Jabotinsky, Weizmann, and the roots of the most contentious communal struggle on earth today Actual quote is:

What neither Siegman nor Lelyveld mentions, and Carter may not even know, is that in the late 1970s Israeli officials did in fact discuss – in private, but also in plain terms – the South African example as one they might emulate. That is, they didn’t wish to copy what was once called “petty apartheid”, the everyday harassment of black South Africans, but “grand apartheid”, the Nationalists’ attempt to conjure away the problem of minority rule by dividing the country into supposedly autonomous cantons or “homelands”.

Since when is the discussions of some "Israeli officials" (names??) in "private" (who does Wheatcroft know this, then?) proof that apartheid exists in practice today? Wheatcroft is a amateur by his own admission and a writer not an historian. See Why should we feel compelled to believe the statement that "Israeli officials" "mulled the possibility of adopting the South African apartheid model" without some serious historical sources as opposed to someone's mere say-so? Furthermore the allegation is apparently not well known (Carter may not know it) thus it really isn't even a part of the whole essence of the 'analogy.'

I am getting ready to throw the whole paragraph in the can unless I hear some clear argument as to why not.  Juanita (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

moving right along, the very next paragraph in this section says:

Adam and Moodley argue that notwithstanding universal suffrage within Israel proper,

"if the Palestinian territories under more or less permanent Israeli occupation and settler presence are considered part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the three and a half million stateless Palestinians under Israeli domination gains more validity."[3]

and refs:

Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians (2005) excerptPDF, University College London Press, p.20f. ISBN 1-84472-130-2

Second-class citizenship: "Above all, both Israeli Palestinians and Coloured and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differently between dominant and minority citizens."

But wait! Adam and Moodley apparently say that one can only use the apartheid analogy if you consider the territories "part of the entity under analysis" and only then does it gain more validity. Of course one could ask how much validity is more? More than nothing?

Check the next reference to second-class citizenship ...from these people. They have defined second-class citizen as anyone who does not monopolize state power. They claim that Palestinians are 2nd class because they are treated as 'intrinsically suspect'. These are opinions and feelings not provable facts. The only provable facts would be that they prohibit access to land in an unfair way, or that they allocate more civil service positions more to "dominant" citizens and spend more money on the education of the "dominant" ie majority Jews. Gee if 70% of your population is Jewish, and 20% of your population is Arab (Muslim) wouldn't you expect it reasonable that jobs and resources are divvied up something along those lines?

If one is going to argue the validity of these arguments, one should be able to argue how they are NOT valid. There is no reason why one should not counter the argument immediately as it is presented. This one is weak. Juanita (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

.Footnotes

Something seems to have gone wrong with the footnotes in this article. As Juanita notes above, the Wheatcroft reference, which is marked as footnote ⁽⁷⁾, actually links to another footnote, marked ⁽¹⁵⁾. I've had a look, and can't work out how this has happened. Could someone who understands coding better than I do try to correct this? RolandR (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd.I'm sure whern I noted Wheatcroft's remark (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&oldid=205786354)I gave a precise page numeration reference to the New York Times. I have guests, but if no one else fixes it, I'll go back and do so myself. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, stuffed if I can fix it. Needs a boy boffin a coupla hundred years yunga than meself. Anyone?Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I have fixed it. In footnote ⁽¹¹⁾, someone had put a ref name= tag within another ref name= tag. I removed it, and the problem seems to have resolved itself. RolandR (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RolandR. This signifies that I made a grievous mistake above, and should have written: 'Needs a gentle boffin of my years superbly immunized against those creeping effects of ageing that have disabled my capacity to adapt to modern technologies! Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered, which have an impact on this article and possibly it's editors: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification"

Yossi Sarid of the Meretz-Yachad party writing in Haaretz April 25 2008: Yes, it is apartheid:

The white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened - a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid. Nor does it even solve the problem of fear: Today, everyone knows that all apartheid will inevitably reach its sorry end.

One essential difference remains between South Africa and Israel: There a small minority dominated a large majority, and here we have almost a tie. But the tiebreaker is already darkening on the horizon. Then the Zionist project will come to an end if we don't choose to leave the slave house before being visited by a fatal demographic plague.

It is entirely clear why the word apartheid terrifies us so. What should frighten us, however, is not the description of reality, but reality itself. Even Ehud Olmert has understood at last that continuing the present situation is the end of the Jewish democratic state, as he recently said.

The Palestinians are unfortunate because they have not produced a Nelson Mandela; the Israelis are unfortunate because they have not produced an F.W. de Klerk.

--99.241.54.97 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even here?

Why is this article even here? It's nothing but empty speculation. Israel is a sovereign democratic nation and its borders do not extend into Gaza. It has no political authority in the Palestinian region. Sure, it supports 90% of all necessary resources to the land (while Arab nations do nothing), but it has no legal bounds. It's governed by HAMAS. NOT ISRAEL.

Now, for the Arab citizens in Israel, that's another story. But that situation does not even border SA's problem. Legally, they have the same rights and privileges as any other Israeli citizen. Now what actually goes on is debatable, but "officially" everything checks out. Allegations against Israel are thus politically motivated and therefore not wikipedia worthy. This article needs to go!

Some of have mentioned the fact that no articles exist for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, or the majority of Arab/Muslim theocracies. These countries have laws built into their constitution that limit the privileges of non-muslim citizens. Those countries deserve a dedicated Apartheid wiki page, not Israel.

This is a joke.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can familiarize yourself with the archives of past discussions regarding this topic. its the little filing cabinet looking thingy up top. As for why there are no longer any articles on apartheid in other nations, you can read up on a fun ArbCom case from last year here. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It was dismissed. Big whoop. Why am I still seeing a 10,000 word propaganda piece hosted by wikipedia??Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above user has twice tried to AfD this page, both times without properly finishing the process. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, please do not waste your time here. This article, which a majority of Wikipedians rejected, should indeed go. But some editors contrived a way to game the Wikipedia system so that not only would the article remain, but it would be effectively impossible to delete it. It is very unfortunate that this was allowed to happen, but that is the situation for now. IronDuke 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is thoroughly cited, what's the problem? FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Thoroughly cited" would be the beginning of the process, not the end. IronDuke 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly cited with poor sources. A classic wikipedia fallacy. Article is over-dependent on biased sources and as I've mentioned many times, fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. And yes, there is room for editing, but it's been around for more than a year. I don't expect anything to change so the best thing to do is to get rid of it. I still can't understand how someone could support this.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources seem very reliable, and the subject of this article is very notable. Whether this article should exist or not shouldn't be an issue, but the form of it is. FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How do they seem reliable? The intro uses commentary from a left-wing radical, Uri Avnery! Half the people used as evidence belong to the same political agenda. Plain and simple: This article is NOT balanced. Period. The article is overwhelming sourced, but that is all. The quality of the sources are far from neutral. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget this article is in START class. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I love how we have a spate of "new" users so well-versed in the byzantine Wikipedia processes of AfD nominations and WIkiProject article classifications. Every issue you raise now has been raised in the past, and more than thoroughly answered. Specifically in answer to your "Why am I still seeing..." question, it is because there has been broad consensus to keep it, based on the notability of the subject and the reliability of the sources. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Broad consensus because the majority of wikipedia goers belong to the same political affiliation. Appealing to the masses much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why do you think there is an article here called Pallywood? It's as controversial as this article, but you seem to be more than happy that it's here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. Stop dodging dude. My opinion on Pallywood (which I haven't even stated, you ASSUME), is irrelevant. Just like your affiliation with the Arab League wiki, or your blatant leftist ideals. Get it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Get what? You seem to be critical of the Wikipedians who believe this article's existence is supported by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and critical of FunkMonk's alleged affiliations, yet become offended when someone calls you out on your own beliefs. Assuming good faith is a two-way street; if you want you be taken seriously here, then don't dismiss other editors with broad brush strokes of leftism and or Islamism. Tarc (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But this article isn't supported by Wikipedia policy and guideline. I merely brought up FunkMunks affiliation when he accused me of having a double standard with Pallywood, which I NEVER even commented on. If anybody didn't assume good faith, it WAS FUNKMONK. GET IT? THANKS YOU! Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The existance of this article is strongly supported by the WP:NPOV policy, and by the WP:N guideline. That's why it's always kept at AfD.Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment That's why it was kept? If you look at the rulings in the past nomination, members have brought up some strikingly different reasons WHY this was kept. Very few claim this follows the NPOV policy, even those who want it keep. Why else would it be rated start class? Don't twist facts to your personal agenda. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I do not have a personal agenda on this subject, except to see Wikipedia's policies followed. I don't have any strong opinion on Israel and Palestine, except that it looks like an awful mess and I hope for a peaceful outcome. Whether or not the WP:NPOV policy and the WP:N guideline are quoted, they are constantly in the back of the minds of people closely familiar with Wikipedia, especially during deletion discussions. People with a close understanding of how Wikipedia works often vote Keep because of them, as I did, not because of personal opinions on the subject in question. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is valuable to Wikipedia as a presentation of all sides of a highly notable debate. Look at it this way: a lot of people probably hear people talking about "Israeli apartheid" and just believe it unthinkingly. This page, which can present the debate in a public place with all sides accurately represented, will help those people to learn more. Reading this article could cause some people to change their mind and no longer believe that there is such a thing as "Israeli apartheid", if the well-sourced arguments convince them of that. Can we please let the arguments from either side of this debate speak for themselves? That's what the WP:NPOV policy says to do. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CommentWikipedia is not a podium. It has been made crystal clear by me, and others, that this article is far from neutral, and thus it does not qualify under your questionable rating system. The article is pure speculation, often defeating itself through several sections (i.e, explaining why Israel is not an Apartheid state) while maintaining the illusion that it still might be through poorly sourced text and over-dependence on important figures. It's an unnecessary political op-ed that is being sanctioned by one the most recognized encyclopedias on this Earth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What you call my "questionable rating system" is Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Until you recognise their value and importance, discussion will be fruitless. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and anyone can edit the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The policies and guidelines have been created by editors to define how Wikipedia should be edited. Why should I take your personal definition of how Wikipedia should be edited seriously when it comes into direct conflict with the consensus of all editors? I respect the consensus in general, because I can see that the consensus policies and guidelines lead the way to a reliable, neutral encyclopedia free from censorship, and I respect them in this instance because that's the result that has been created. This article does not say that there is Israeli apartheid, any more than the race and intelligence article says that race does affect intelligence. Both articles report that some prominent people have said such things, it reports their arguments, and it reports the counter-arguments that have been made. That is exactly what an encyclopedia article on a contraversial subject should do, present all sides even-handedly. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lies. The article shifts from "Israel is an Apartheid" speech to "Israel isn't an Apartheid" speech with more emphasis on the former. After all, the article is "Allegations of an Israeli Apartheid". The article most definitely presents both sides, but more like a NY Times op-ed. As I've said, wikipedia is NOT a podium. This article is redundant, self-defeating...and propaganda. The allegations are proven wrong but zealots with big names are utilized to continue the illusion, similar to Holocaust Deniers. We might as well have Allegations for everything: Allegations of Earth not inhabiting the Milky Way Galaxy, Allegations why Wikipedia doesn't actually exist and is in fact a figment of our imagination, etc.. understand? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between these allegations and your fanciful ones is that there is significant and notable coverage of this.

When the Allegations that Wikipedia Does Not Exist rises to such a notable level that mainstream, reliable media devotes coverage to such a belief then you are free to come back here, click on that now-red link, and edit away. That it is "propaganda" or "proven wrong" is purely a matter of one's own personal opinion and not at all relevant to what we're doing here. Please become more familiar with the "verifiability not truth" aspect of WP:V. You as well as anyone is certainly free to edit this page..within Wiki policy of course...but I have to say that if you are going to approach editing this article from the basis that it should not exist, then that probably won't be very productive in the long run. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We've gone through this SEVERAL TIMES. I'm not debating th notability of the article, or the significance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WTf? Again, we've already established that this article isn't NEUTRAL, and therefore reliable media isn' RELIABLE. As I've said many times, the article defeats itself by explaining why Israel is NOT an Apartheid, but then continues to maintain the illusion that there could possibility be an Apartheid. It's like someone is debating the existence of gravity. Yes, it's a notable subject, and yes there could be "reliable" and "notable" people who advocate the absence of gravity, but that doesn't make it any less false. This article gives the impression that there is validity in the concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel WHEN THERE ISN'T I know how you're going to respond. "There is reliable news media in the article." XD XD XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah whatever dude. I can't save you so I'll let you drown. And I mean that in the most cordial, wikipedia-approved way. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this in the simplest way that I know how to; the article does not exist to prove or disprove whether some actions of Israel are, in fact, apartheid-like. We're not here to take a stand or, produce a finding of fact, or establish validity. This is a situation that has understandably brought about significant controversy, and it is that controversy itself...who has made these allegations, on what basis, who rejects it, and why they do so. The article's importance and notability derives from the allegation itself. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 - from what I can gather from your responses, you're happy to discuss the article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The key policy is WP:NPOV. That policy says that All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It's clear that the Israeli apartheid comparison is a significant view published by reliable sources, including the United Nations (see the first source) among many others. Note that "reliable source" doesn't mean they have to be correct in point of fact, just that it has to be verifiable that someone actually said these things, that we can trust the source to be reporting people's opinions accurately. The question is then whether this article covers the views fairly and without bias. Can you point out specifically where you think one view or the other is being presented in a biased way in the article? Your suggestion that the text moving from one POV to the other and back is biased seems strange. To me, that seems an excellent way to maintain neutrality, presenting point and counter-point. Your main objection seems to be that you think the rejection arguments are so solid that any further discussion is pointless. You are entitled to that opinion, but it shouldn't stop the article from presenting both sides even-handedly. Personally I think the rejection arguments to the argument from design are so strong that the argument has been rendered null, but in that argument's article the rejection arguments don't even get a look-in until the bottom of the page. That's a more typical approach on Wikipedia, that the argument is presented first in one big block, and then the rejections are presented at the bottom. Would you prefer the article in that style rather than mixing the arguments and counterpoints together as it currently does? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mandela "memo"

I have removed the reference in the article to a memo supposedly written by Nelson Mandela to Thomas Friedman. As noted above, this memo is a myth. It was actually a journalistic satire written by Palestinian commentator Arjan el-Fassed of Electronic Intifada in 2001, in the style of Friedman's own mock memos to world leaders. In distribution around the world, Fassed's own name somehow got omitted, and the statement was ascribed to Mandela himself. See el-Fassed's article about this. RolandR (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Are you certain of this? I've found several news media sources indicating otherwise, plus additional information expressing his opinion (with Tutu). If not, I'm awfully sorry. Truly.70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely certain. Read the article by Arjan el-Fassed linked above; he is clearly upset at the misattribution of this article, and the removal of his byline. Although I would like to see Mandela write such a letter, it is clear that he did not. This incident is a striking example of the ability of the internet to inflate an untrue story, with scores of sites quoting each other until the true source is overwhelmed and lost. You are right that several news sources have repeated this; this shows that they simply did not check their facts and sources. RolandR (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, apologies. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article move was EXTREMELY bad form

I am not quite sure how to move a page over a redirect, so someone that does should move this back to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Contentious articles should be discussed here first before any action is taken; renaming just for the sake of renaming was a poor action to take, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just thought if people didn't like the title they'd move it back. Can we see if there can be a consensus for the new title since it is more netural? Strongbrow (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongbrow, there is no need to apologise. And there is no reason for others to abandon WP:AGF. Bold, revert, discuss - just don't forget the discuss part. CIreland (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's like disagreeing over what color to paint the room, one party paints it in their color anyways, then wants to re-start the discussion on whether the new color looks good or not. That is not a solid basis for an honest discussion.

And if I knew how, it'd already be moved back, but I've seen page histories and such get mangled by wrong moves before so I didn't want to take the chance. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the move was bad form, especially since the Afd debate consensus seems to be keep. A move of this article needs to be discussed. --Thetrick (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cireland, WP:BOLD doesn't excuse disruptive changes that clearly violate the consensus building process. Further, it's extremely difficult to revert page moves like this one where the original article was turned into a redirect. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Inexperienced user makes a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute. No need for hysteria. CIreland (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. CIreland has this right. The page move was not difficult at all to fix; it just required some quick requests for help from admins, which were speedily granted. It's great to have new users who are bold, even if they make mistakes; once they learn they'll be a great asset to the encyclopedia. Next time, spend less time condemning and more time explaining, please. Do not bite the new users, and if you don't know that someone else a new user, well, that's a good reason to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I know this is a tough article to work with, but please be nice to each other. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested name change

The deletion discussion has closed and the person who closed it has suggested a rename and rewrite of the article. I propose we rename this article Israel and the apartheid analogy since it's more neutral. First of all it doesn't have an accusation of "Israeli apartheid" in the title and secondly it doesn't use the questionable term "allegations" which a number of people from both sides of the debate took issue with in the deletion discussion. Strongbrow (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please list this discussion at [[22]] and inform the people who voted in the deletion discussion? Strongbrow (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)