Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Rufin report: Should I assume ...

... that Rufin's report was commissioned by Nicolas Sarkozy?

I know it was commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior, but I'm not certain as to when. CJCurrie 21:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Was Finkelstein's response directly about the "Apartheid" issue, or just a general condemnation of the report? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It deals directly with the apartheid issue. (Am I the only person here who's read the book?) CJCurrie 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Directly in what sense? Are those quotes a direct reference to Rufin's suggestion regarding the use of the term Apartheid? And no, of course, I don't have Finkelstein's book, there's little point in wasting my money on that kind of propaganda. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(i) The "truly terrifying" quote is a direct response to the apartheid suggestion. The other two quotes are taken from the conclusion of a full paragraph on the Rufin report, which encompasses several aspects including the apartheid suggestion.

(ii) Ever hear of a library? CJCurrie 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of them, but I'm discriminating in the ways in which I spend both my money and my time. Also, I don't see any benefit in reading Finkelstein, even if I could do so for free; I have plenty of valuable things to read first. Finally, we shouldn't be using general quotes to respond to specific issues; that gets too much into original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(i) Nice to see you're keeping an open mind. (I read Chesler's book, for god's sake ...) CJCurrie 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(ii) The quotes I've provided were fairly obviously used with reference to the apartheid suggestion, albeit in conjunction with other issues. If you strongly object, I have other quotes. CJCurrie 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask again: was the report commissioned by Sarkozy? CJCurrie 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who, if anyone, commissioned it; only that it was written. Does it make a difference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It does, if you know anything about Sarkozy. CJCurrie 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What difference would it make? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarkozy's relationship with France's Muslim population is, shall we say, somewhat difficult (and I don't think there's any question that the report's conclusions would primarily target French Muslims). He's not a neutral party on the issue. CJCurrie 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources we use are neutral parties, but Sarkozy isn't one of them anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If he commissioned the study, it's relevant to the article (and should be mentioned therein). CJCurrie 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance, because he isn't the author and didn't make the recommendations, and even if he commission it, so what? But first steps first. Do you have evidence that he commissioned it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have asked the question if I did. CJCurrie 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've completely lost track of this. You asked whether S had comissioned it. I said I didn't know. But you're still going on about how, if he did, it's relevant, but without saying why it's relevant, and without saying whether he did! Either find a source that says he commissioned it, or please let it drop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems my suspicions were misplaced: the report was commissioned by Dominique De Villepin, Sarkozy's nemesis. CJCurrie 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey's opinion

Interestingly, Sarkozy's policies towards Muslim immigrants have been described as "urban apartheid" in Le Monde[1].Homey 01:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lesson in that, Homey. Everyone is accusing everyone else of apartheid of some kind. The overuse has undermined it, and it has become meaningless, like "terrorism." A quick search on Google shows Desmond Tutu using it constantly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Brian Klug made precisely the same point about the New anti-Semitism when he writes "when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance. "[2] Homey 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Another bold suggestion

I think that the topic of political rhetoric is an important, yet apparently underserved issue in Wikipedia. Perhaps we should start a series of articles covering a full range of political issues that specifically explore the rhetoric used. This would certainly include the Arab-Israeli conflict through its various stages. That would put this article in its right place and might stave off some of this controversy. Thoughts? --Leifern 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The Request for Move vote page for the proposed move "Israeli apartheid" -> "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Please go there to work on this issue. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

Could editors bear in mind that footnotes come after punctuation, not before it? Like this, not like this . SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps slightly changing the way the refs are written so that the software no longer recognizes one as the same as the other. Please don't do that. Also, could whoever moved the Matas section in Criticism to the end please leave it alone? It was written to introduce the section and shouldn't be moved to below the list. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative British politicians

I've removed this because I feel the use of the reference was misleading. It was a 1969 article by Ian Gilmour MP ("Zionist doctrine and Israeli expansionism", Ian Gilmour MP, The Times. 25 June 1969), but was being used to give the impression that "conservative British politicians" support the use of the term, which they do not, so far as I know. If we want to say that they do, we need up-to-date sources, and more than one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need more than one Conservative but not more than one anti-Semite?Homey 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris McGreal as a source

I removed *"Brothers in Arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria", in The Guardian, February 7, 2006 from further reading list. See [3], [4], [5], [6]. If you insist on inserting it, add these four links because our readers deserver better than Chris McGreal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening line

SV why did you revert this:

"Israeli apartheid (alt: Apartheid Israel, Israel as an apartheid state) is a "

You have reverted this as "POV" - why? It's simply making clear that there are several terms being used. "Apartheid Israel" and calling Israel an actual or possible "apartheid state" are both phrases in use. There is not a single expression and we shouldn't pretend that there is. I also took out the scare quotes which we have not used thus far in the article.Homey 21:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Similarly could you please explain why you changed:

"The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations from the far left to the far right of the political spectrum, including United Nations officials, [2] South Africans, [3] Israeli political scientists, [4] members of the Knesset, [5] Palestinian-rights activists, [6] and neo-Nazi and anti-Semites [7][8]"

To: "The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations from the far left to the far right of the political spectrum, including United Nations officials, [2] South Africans, [3] Israeli political scientists, [4] members of the Knesset, [5] Palestinian-rights activists, [6] and neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals [7] and groups. [8]

It is redundant to speak of "individuals and organizations" in the beginning of the sentence and then "individuals and groups" at the end. You have described your change as RV POV when it's really RV grammar - and reversion to an incorrect form at that. Homey 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tutu quote

The current quote in the introduction is 91 words; this is a ridiculous length for a quote in general, and verging on copyright violation, but it's particularly absurd to have a quote of this length in an introduction. On top of that, it's virtually unreadable, containing a quote within a quote. I'm going to clean it up to something reasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We can go back to the consensus version of the lead which has neither the Tutu quotation nor the Rufin quotation. Do you agree?Homey 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I've cleaned it up to something readable instead, which actually gets the point across far more effectively than that unreadable mess. The extra length was actually hurting your cause, not helping it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, it's hard to believe there's ever been a consensus about anything on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You changed it to:

"Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu supported this analogy when, in 2002, he wrote: "Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through", and stating that a letter signed by "several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans" had drawn "an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies."

To the best of my knowledge Tutu is not a prominent Jewish South African. If for that reason alone I think it's necessary to name the two individuals who led the campaign. Homey 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A request that HOTR withdraw

(copied from user talk pages)

Homey, would you consider voluntarily withdrawing from editing the Apartheid articles for awhile? Your edits have caused a lot of problems and ill-feeling, and there's seemingly no end to it. A voluntary withdrawal for a couple of weeks would allow others to work out whether the various pages should be merged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1) No.

2) Could you please explain your reversion of the opening line? It incorrectly suggests that there is only a single phrase being used.Homey 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is not advisable. You a) restored a repitition and b) removed sourced info. Please be more careful.Homey 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq had been blocked for a day and will likely be blocked indefinitely. He is a unique problem and he's gone. Homey 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also banned from the article, as you know. Homey 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I reverted all your recent edits, not just one line. I did it because the edits are POV pushing, the creation of the article is POV pushing, and you've been removing and moving material you don't like etc etc. It's causing a lot of ill-feeling, and this is in part why you and Zeq are having problems. Please consider just letting it drop for a couple of weeks, which is in your own interests too. Zeq can't edit that page anyway, and there's a discussion going on about what to do with all the apartheid pages you created. I do think the whole issue needs to be dealt with by other editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was subjected to an AFD and survived. I understand there are individuals who would like to see it disappear, you may be one of them, but given that the concept has numerous hits on google, has been referenced in a number of academic papers and scholarly books as well as mainstream publications such as the Economist and given that it is part of the discourse within Israeli politics itself I don't see how removing the article is justifiable just to fit a POV preference that it not exist. Sorry but you are not NPOV on this issue and are not in a position to suggest that people who disagree with your POV leave the article.

Have you made the same suggestion to Jay, Humus or Moshe? If you have then you can suggest that I leave. Otherwise you are displaying a bias. Homey 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't made the same suggestion to anyone else. You created the articles and the problem, and you seem to be at the center of the ill-feeling. It's not a question of having a POV. Everyone has a POV. It's that you seem to be editing very aggressively in order to do nothing but push that POV, and to seek out every opportunity to push it, to the detriment of the articles in my opinion. And to your own detriment, because now you feel you're being harassed because of it. (And that doesn't mean I'm excusing harassment, because there's no excuse of it.) Please at least consider taking a break from those pages, for your own good as well as other people's. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zeq seems to have survived. In any case he is banned from the article so isn't an issue. The best course is to ignore him on the talk page.Homey 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, you are not a neutral arbiter here. Please don't pretend that you are.Homey 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be neutral. I'm just asking you to consider it. I won't keep on repeating myself, however. It's just a request. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay has edited very aggressively - to the point of reviving an article after there was a consensus to disperse and redirect it and of trying to merge articles against consensus. He has upset a number of individuals who have complained about his behaviour. I await, with interest, your request to him to leave the articles.Homey 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then don't repeat it and please don't mindlessly revert. Homey 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then stop adding POV, stop trying to whitewash, and stop adding grammatical errors, especially while claiming to be cleaning up grammar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain how this is not redundant:

The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations from the far left to the far right of the political spectrum, including United Nations officials, South Africans, Israeli political scientists, members of the Knesset, Palestinian-rights activists, and neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals and groups.

Why not say "neo-Nazis and anti-Semites"? It seems like you're trying to belabour the point by saying "neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups and individuals". I'm not going to get into a revert war but I find your reversion bizarre and would like an explanation. Homey 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to labour the point. I'm trying to make it. The expression is used by anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and Holocaust deniers. You are trying to whitewash that, because you agree with the expression, and you hate to think of yourself agreeing with them. But you do, so you might as well face it.

Just let the facts speak for themselves, and stop being a control freak. Also, please don't post to my talk age again about the article content. I'm copying these posts to the article talk page. I posted here only to ask you to withdraw voluntarily in order to allow things to calm down.

I recommend you read a book by Jon Elster, a Marxist political scientist, called Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality (Cambridge, 1983). He talks about situations exactly like yours, where a person realizes his beliefs imply or incorporate some terrible idea, and the ways in which that person tries to kid himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how "neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic groups and individuals" expresses an idea that is any different than "neo-Nazis and anti-Semites". The only difference I can see is the addtion of three unneeded words to an already lengthy sentence. Homey 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, the intro is way too long already. All verbose quotes, from both sides, should be integrated into the body of the article. The intro should give an overview, not start stating facts supporting various viewpoints. --Ben Houston 22:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest we go back to the consensus version Kim drew up two weeks ago. A two week old consensus should still hold. Homey 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are implying Guilt by association. Homey 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I am listing who uses the term. Period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the difference between "neo-Nazis and anti-Semites" and "neo Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals and groups"? If you cannot justify your reversion you shouldn't keep making it. You are only making a long sentence longer and redundant. Homey 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I view SlimVirgin's request as self-serving since she disagrees with Homey. I too would rather that people I disagree with stop editing the articles where I am running into conflicts. --Ben Houston 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And I view your statement as self-serving, since you support Homey. Now what? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You made my point completely, thanks! --Ben Houston 23:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means Jay and I both stay. Homey 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare yourself to anyone else who is editing this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because of AGF I'll assume that's meant as a compliment and not a personal attack. Homey 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed he can't; he's made 1/4 of the edits to the page, and his edit count is 3 times that of the next most prolific editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SV's edit note reads "it's important to point out that it's extremists on both sides who as so often agree when it comes to Israel, and who are the ones who most often use this expression"

POV. Many who use the phrase are not extremists. Isn't it also important to point out the moderates who use the phrase? If the phrase is used by the right, the left and the centre and if even the Economist and members of Kadima raise it as the reason to disengage then why imply that only extremists use the term? Homey 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, anyone can draw any comparison if they like, and there is no question that within Israeli politics, there is a great fear, nearly a phobia, of becoming a racist state. I know of no other country in the world that so freely raises and debates the most extreme implications of their own policies on a moral basis. But that rather disproves the point you are trying to make, namely that Israel is an apartheid state by creating an encyclopedic article about a phrase, as if the mere usage legitimizes it. I wonder, for example, how long an article called Imperialist America would last here, and that is surely an often used phrase. --Leifern 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Liefern, I am not trying to make a point, I simply want the article to reflect the ways in which the concept is used. I created a section on how it's used within Israeli politics in the way you explain and put in a quotation from Olmert who argues that the Palestinians want to create a "South African" situation for tactical reasons.Homey 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I find the study of political rhetoric absolutely fascinating, and trying to tar Israel with the apartheid feather is neither particularly original nor effective. But this article doesn't describe any "concept" at all - it consists of a bunch of rhetorical fallacies (begging the question, appeals to authority, quoting out of context, etc., etc.) to somehow substantiate a demonstrably absurd notion, namely that a state has no right to protect itself from its enemies. --Leifern 23:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I was a member of my university debate team thus I know the games that one plays to win arguments whether or not one is actually right. But many of the people making these accuations are not political manipulators but people like Desmond Tutu and John Dugard. Thus, I view your characterization as a strawman. --Ben Houston 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You know it absolutely astonishes me how some people unjustly accuse their opponent of invoking a rhetorical fallacy and then go right ahead and commit it, as if making the accusation immunizes them against the same criticism. John Dugard's report has been widely discredited, and all that we're left with is the characterization itself; I don't know what's bugging Tutu, but if you're going to accuse a country's government of being racist, you better have the facts to back it up. In this case, there simply are no facts, and all you, Homey, and the others are left with is the fact that people make the comparison; not whether the comparison has any merit, or serves any purpose, but only that it's made. --Leifern 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I clearly do not percieve reality as you do -- you are talking right past me. Honestly, where you see rhetorial manuverses, I see accurate portrayals of reality that are properly nuanced (at least in the more mainstream sources I am talking about) that are under attack by a powerful special interest group who purposely conflates legitimate criticism with less reputable criticism in order to discredit it. There is a lot of ethnical politics as play as well as the tendency of viewing a percieved threat as something that must be attacked full-on, one can not even consider there might be something legitimate about some of it. --Ben Houston 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if you are willing to concede that any and all international borders can be characterized as apartheid with some legitimacy. In the meantime, yes, I suppose I am in a minority for thinking that Jews have the right to stop people from trying to murder them; and for thinking that Palestinians have the same capacity to distinguish good from evil as anyone else, and should be held accountable for that. --Leifern 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply that only extremists use it. I wrote that it's used from the far left to the far right. It's the latter you don't want the expression to be associated with. Just leave it alone and go edit something else for a few days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, are you going to ask everyone who disagrees with you to stop editing. Homey 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please a bit of order. This article needs relaxation instead of confrontation. -- Szvest 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

On the point that Homey raises, SlimVirgin posted the following to Talk:Bantustan a few days ago (and she was right):

Chris, it's definitely OR to say "most often" and "frequently," because without a source, it's a Wikipedia editor's opinion based on looking at one search engine. You would need to find an authoritative source who actually made that claim, and then quote him or her.

Since there's no source for the claim that extremists "most often use this expression" I've changed the line to read "The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations across the political spectrum", without making unsupported judgements of frequency of use. We can certainly document who has used it but I very much doubt that we can reasonably document the frequency of use without dipping into the prohibited realms of original research. -- ChrisO 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, where did the article say it was "most often" used by extremists? I wrote: "The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations from the far left to the far right of the political spectrum ..." I didn't use the words "most often" or any equivalent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From your edit summary: "it's important to point out that it's extremists on both sides who as so often agree when it comes to Israel, and who are the ones who most often use this expression". This is, I'm afraid, OR on your part - I don't see any source provided that associates the term with a particular extremist political wing. Your wording in the article implied - following your edit summary - that the term is associated only with political extremes, which I don't think the following lines bear out. I don't think you were trying to say that Desmond Tutu, the Israeli left and the UN are far right or far left but the article could be read as implying it. However, Jossi's revision seems much better, so it's all a bit academic now. -- ChrisO 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This ad hoc process began by SlimVirgin has no authority. It is a means to avoid standard processes for who knows what reasons. I strongly recommend that this ad hoc process stop and SlimVirgin, if she must, take it up with long-term or complex vandalism or tedious editing or some other process that at least pretends to be neutral. SlimVirgin is not an authority here, and neither am I, and it is not necessary to pretend that she or I am. --Ben Houston 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"A request that HOTR withdraw". The discussion was faster moving than I was though -- although it was still under this heading.--Ben Houston 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've lost me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He's questioning your right to say who should and shouldn't edit the article. Homey 00:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

left right and centre

Jossi's edit makes the most sense, I think. Rather than characterise by saying "extreme left" or "across the spectrum" it lets readers determine for themselves. Homey 23:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm content with it. -- ChrisO 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm mystified at how the Conservative could be removed but not the neo-Nazi. Homey 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained it above. British conversatives do not use that expression, to the best of my knowledge. You quoted one article from 1969! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't quote anything - someone else put that in - but it does seem relevent at least for the "origins" section. You seem to assume I wrote the entire article or at least put everything in it that you dislike. I did not. In any case, we have one reference for a Tory - why is that unaccptable whilse one reference for Jew Watch or one for David Duke is sufficient to put them in the lead? Homey 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not from 1969!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If it were from 1969 you'd have a stronger argument as it would suggest he helped originate the idea rather than picking it up from the media the way Jew Watch picked it up from Ha'aretz. Homey 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the 1969 citation is the earliest media reference that I've found. I don't know whether Ian Gilmour originated the idea but he does seem to have been among its first public proponents. It's worth pointing out that in those days the British right was quite pro-Arab while the left was generally pro-Israeli - how times have changed! -- ChrisO 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jew Watch

The Jew Watch reference seems somewhat tenuous to me as what the link actually shows is an article from Ha'aretz posted on the Jew Watch site.[7].

And, as I've said previously, there are examples of white supremacist groups using the phrase "evil empire" to describe the Soviet Union [8] - does this mean we should say in our Evil empire article that "The phrase has been used by Ronald Reagan and white supremacists"? Clearly that would be guilt by association and poisoning the well and I believe that's the effect of including isolated instances of the far right using the phrase - a phrase they neither originated nor popularised and for which we can only find two or three citations. Homey 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The expression is constantly used by fascists and people on the far left, who agree about Israel and anti-Semitism. If you don't like Jew Watch, put in Stormfront. If you don't like them, try the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. You can take your pick because there are lots of them using it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"The expression is constantly used by fascists and people on the far left, who agree about Israel and anti-Semitism."

Well now you're pushing your personal New Anti-Semitism theory. Did you read my posting of Klug's quotation in response to your comment on Tutu? Klug says of NAS precisely what you say of Tutu's use of the word apartheid. The pro-Israeli side and the pro-Palestinian side have quite a lot in common. Homey 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you know very well that your views are shared by fascists, which is why you're trying to censor this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled you would say that. You are in violation of WP:NPA. Please withdraw that statement immediately. Homey 00:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it hypocritical that Homey claims to be "appalled" by this undeniable fact - after weeks of multiple-page rampage targeting the Jewish state. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, tell me, since your Jew Watch link is a cut and paste of an article from Ha'aretz, does that make Ha'aretz a fascist newspaper? Homey 01:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Homey is right on this one, we can't say Jew Watch have used the phrase when they've actually just posted a story from Ha'aretz. If you have links for stormfront or other anti-semitic/neo-nazi groups you could swap them in instead. --Coroebus 08:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not an analogy

Let's be clear here: there is a difference between the following:

• "Israel is just like/worse than apartheid era South Africa"
• "Israel's policy has some features that are similar to apartheid-era South Africa"
• "A comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa shows that..."

Only the first of these is an analogy, and barely that. Merely mentioning apartheid and Israel in the same sentence does not justify the term "Israeli apartheid." In fact, it is very easy to make the comparison with facts and conclude that Israel is among the countries in the world least like apartheid-era South Africa. --Leifern 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)