Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Land

This passage now reads: "Proponents also allege that 93% of the land inside the Green Line is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli Lands Authority(ILA)[20]. The actual figures are 79.5% of the land is owned by the government and 14% is privately owned by the JNF, Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel. ILA lands can not be sold - to either Jews or non-Jews, they can only be leased, to both Jews and non-Jews.[21]."

Somehow, this line seems to have been removed: "This land was reserved exclusivly for Jews until an Israeli Supreme Court ruling in 2000.[1]"

The source, a BBC News article titled "Battling against Israeli 'apartheid'" says as follows:

"But in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the Israeli Land Authority, which leased land to the Jewish Agency to establish Katzir as a Jewish-only community, had acted illegally.

The authority did nothing hoping Mr Kaadan would just go away but after he filed for contempt of court, it finally caved in. This May it granted him his plot of land at 1995 prices - about $15,000 rather than $100,000.

Dana Alexander calls this "a landmark ruling which proves that all citizens should enjoy equal rights in a democratic Jewish state".

Foot dragging

But the battle is not over. Earlier this month some members of the Knesset tried to introduce a new bill which would circumvent the Supreme Court verdict and once again allow for exclusively Jewish communities on state land.

The bill was narrowly defeated and the former Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said he opposed it because "it smelled of apartheid".

So on paper Mr Kaadan remains the winner. In practice though bureaucrats are dragging their feet. There is still no lease and he hasn't started building his house.

Homey 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The line was removed because it is incorrect, anf is not claimed in the source cited Isarig 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why didn't you change it so it fit the source - - why did you remove the source altogether?Homey 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig has removed the following sourced statement:

The ILA could refuse to lease property to Israeli Arabs in hundreds of Jewish-only settlements existing in Israel until 2000 when the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that it could not discriminate against Arabs.[Dr. Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar, Haifa University Law School"A First Step in a Difficult and Sensitive Road": Preliminary Observations on Qaadan v. Katzir</ref> Following the ruling, the Israeli government attempted to introduce a law permitting Jewish-only settlements within Israel's pre-1967 borders but the measure was narrowly defeated."

He has made the following edit comment: "no it couldn't as the court ruling shows"

Quite clearly the ILA "did* follow discriminatory practices, otherwise they wouldn't have been taken to court and otherwise they wouldn't have *lost*. The court ruled their practices were illegal. Isarig, please stop removing references to the court ruling against the ILA and the subsequent attempt by the Israeli government to introduce a law permitting Jewish only settlements. You may not like these facts (I certainly don't) but that doesn't justify censoring them for facile reasons. The sensible edit would have been to change "The ILA could refuse" to "the ILA refused" as they were found to have refused to rent to Arabs. Instead you remove any reference to the Supreme Court ruling or the aftermath. If someone could please restore these statements (with corrections to fit Isarig's apparent point that yes legally they couldn't do what they did) it would be appreciated. Homey 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "sourced statement", but rather your POV spin on what the source said. Nowhere in BBC article did it say that the ILA could do this - and the court ruling proved the opposite- that they could not. Your entire position is preposterous - using a court ruling that established that a certain action by a gov't agency is illegal to claim that it was legal until that point. It is as if someone was to write that until the US supreme court ruled that burning the flag is protected under the freedom of speech amendment, that such acts were illegal. If you want to quote the court ruling - go right ahead an quote it - say the ILA tried to discriminate against the Kaadans in katzir, but the Israeli supreme court ruled that the ILA could not discriminate against Arabs, under Israeli law - and I have no problem with you quoting that , as it establishes what nonsense this analogy with Apartheid is. Isarig 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not use the BBC news report as a source in the last version you reverted (pay attention!) See the source above (click on the link) - emphasis added:

"The State of Israel allocated land to the Jewish Agency in order to establish Katzir.[2] This so called "community settlement" was founded in 1982 in the Wadi Ara (Nahal Eirun) region. In 1995, the Qaadans, a Palestinian-Israeli family, attempted to acquire land in Katzir but failed to do so. Until the Supreme Court Qaadan v. Katzir decision, Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel. A sophisticated discriminatory procedure, involving the State, the Jewish National Fund (JNF), the Israel Land Administration (ILA), the Jewish Agency, and Community Cooperatives guaranteed the ethno-national purity of these settlements. In October 1995, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) which represented the Qaadans, petitioned the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Aharon Barak confessed this to be one of the most difficult cases he ever encountered.""A First Step in a Difficult and Sensitive Road"Homey 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

"Dugard has since abandoned any pretense of impartiality and become an outspoken enemy of Israel.[2]"

This statement is clearly POV and nowhere in the link is he described as an "enemy of Israel". Homey 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's grossly POV. I already changed it earlier today but User:SlimVirgin restored it as part of a wider package of changes/reverts [3]. I sincerely hope that she didn't intend to do this, as the line is totally incompatible with WP:NPOV (since when did "critic" equal "enemy"?), is not sourced (violating WP:CITE) and is quite possibly libellous to boot. I've changed the line to "Dugard has since become an outspoken critic of Israel", which the referenced article does support. I strongly recommend that nobody should try to restore the previous version. -- ChrisO 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Third paragraph

This is getting absurd. Are we now going to list everyone who has ever used the term (except for Conservative MPs, of course). Neo-nazis, anti-semites and Holocaust deniers?Homey 07:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I'm totally confused now because stuff keeps being added and immediately removed then added again. I'm about to go back and re-add some edits I just made, which may have been removed, or else may simply not have taken, I'm not sure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Less unexplained reverts = progress. 72.232.204.226 08:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in intro

I don't entirely follow this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The rise in anti-Semitic propaganda in the Palestinian territories (propaganda whose ideological roots can be seen to be generally sympathetic to South African Apartheid), on the one hand, while on the other, the fact that the State of Israel formerly supported the Apartheid regime, points to some of the difficulties faced by both proponents and opponents.

It shows the inconsistencies behind the use of the term, by both sides. These are some of the underlying realities both blindly pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli tendencies want people to forget about - Apartheid claims in a vaccum. Still, for some reason, the pro-Israeli side in the edit dispute here appears to be the one actively (aggressively, even) reverting it. Which is strange as I find equally unflattering. 72.232.204.226 08:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean now. Edward Said wrote a bit about Palestinian anti-Semitism, so I'll look to see whether he mentioned this specifically. I agree that it's important to point out how the world seems to have turned itself upside down, with the supposed victims (Pals) absorbing the vocabulary of the aggressor (anti-Semites, Apartheid South Africa), but our problem has been (on other pages) that academic sources struggling to describe this are dismissed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Juxtaposing the ITC article (that does not mention the term in question) and Chris McGreal's piece (that is even more irrelevant and full of errors - see #Chris McGreal as a source) is WP:OR. We already have more than plenty of articles on the conflict. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What HS did when he supposedly "undid" my edit is interesting. Before my edit, the last two paragrphs in the intro were:

1. [Pro-Israeli] Dr. Jean-Christophe Rufin, president of Action Against Hunger and former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières ...

2. [Pro-Palestinian] Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu supported this analogy when, in 2002, he wrote....

After HS reverted, the intro was only left with no. 1. 72.232.204.226 09:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I inadvertently reverted you, but I didn't know you were editing "underneath" me, as it were. I kept looking at the saved page, and not seeing my edits, and thinking either there was a server problem, or else that I was hallucinating having written them. :-) I restored the paragraph to the intro that I think I deleted by mistake. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Np. I realize it was by accident. I had a similar problem (see bellow). 72.232.204.226 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And what of the missing Desmond Tutu paragraph? Homey 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which one? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The one that used to be in the lead but now isn't?Homey 09:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that you can do anything about it now as you are already in violation of 3RR by a long shot. Homey 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, she's not. She said it was an accident. I was also getting edit conflicts sometimes and other times it would just overwrite other edits. It's a glitch, I think. 72.232.204.226 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm in violation of 3RR, unless I did it by mistake. But if I deleted a Tutu paragraph by accident, I can certainly put it back. I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any Tutu paragraph missing from the intro. Can you give me a diff? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she is in violation of 3RR even without that particular revert. Rather a shame since I posted a warning on your talk page and everything. Should I ban you now or will you do it yourself? Alternatively, you can agree to voluntarily recuse yourself from the article for 24 hours. Homey 09:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in violation of 3RR, unless it happened by accident during the edit conflicts, and you're certainly not in a position to block anyone from this page given your involvement. Rather than issuing threats, can you please tell me which Tutu paragraph you're referring to so I can restore it if I removed it? I've looked but can't see anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not in violation of 3RR, unless it happened by accident during the edit conflicts,"

You were warned so that's not acceptable. I'm giving you the opportunity to voluntarily recuse yourself from the article for 24 hours. Do you accept or would you prefer to be blocked?Homey 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Tutu paragraph was removed by Humus as the anon said. As for the 3RR, most people say they violate it by mistake, that is hardly an excuse for an admin. Homey

So are you saying I put it back, or what? Please be clear, with diffs, so I can see what you mean. And when you say the Tutu paragraph, do you mean the one that lists all the people who have used it? And no, I will not stay away from the page. I haven't violated 3RR, unless it was during the edit conflict with the anon, and I restored his/her paragraph, as explained above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying do you agree to voluntarily recuse yourself from the article for 24 hours or would you prefer being blocked for at least 24 hours for a 3RR violation? (as you're a repeat offender and no newbie the period may be longer depending on the admin implementing the block) If you agree to voluntarily recuse yourself I will take down the 3RR report I posted. Homey 09:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin doesn't need to withdraw for 24 hours, just not revert for that time period. I'm not sure how being an admin is relavent - accidents happen, there have been a lot of edits made to the article and it's difficult to keep up. As for the Tutu passage, I left it in the body and moved Rufin back to the body. Both were there before, but the intro is just too long now and I'm not sure why either need to be part of the intro really. 72.232.204.226 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(ec) You posted a report, Homey? Heh. You show your true colors. Can you even remember the number of times you violated 3RR and I didn't report you? Anyway, I did not violate it. Any admin looking at the edit history will see there were edit conflicts with the anon where we inadvertently reverted each other because we didn't know the other was there, and we both took steps to undo it. So if you're counting trying to undo mistakes as reverting, you're on a hiding to nothing. As we made clear to you on the 3RR page recently, admins don't count mistakes caused by edit conflicts toward 3RR violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we both had that problem. The edit conflict warning only worked some of the time and other times it would just overwrite everything, I'm not sure why. I don't think it should count as Slim Virgin reverting me. I understood she had that same problem as soon she explained it and restored my edits. 72.232.204.226 09:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even getting an edit conflict message. I think we may have been editing perfectly in synch without realizing. I edited and saved. You edited and saved. I then edited again without realizing you had changed anything, and just re-typed the missing material, thinking I hadn't properly entered it or something. Something like that, anyway. And then the same in reverse when we realized, and both tried to undo the reverts. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

72.232, I feel the Rufin report is important for the intro, because it directly addresses this allegation, it was an official report commissioned by a government, and it suggested the allegation be criminalized, which was a radical suggestion. It's therefore an important comment, and in fact the only authoritative comment, we have about this allegation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a recommendation, but what happned with it? We have reports and statements from other official sources, why this one in the intro, and others, say Tutu, not? 72.232.204.226 09:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because this was recently commissioned by a European government that has had a huge upsurge in anti-Semitism, the highest increase in the world, I believe. So it's the most official, most authoritative, and the author is a well-known humanitarian and anti-racism activist. I don't know what the French government did with it. I'm trying to get hold of it or find out more about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have academic comparisons of Israel and apartheid that don't make it in. We really have to be careful not to play little games, justifying giving prominence to view X that we agree with, while downplaying Y that we don't. --Coroebus 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I still think it belongs in the body somewhere. If the French govt. acted on the recommendation and took an official position on it, maybe mention it more briefly in the intro and link to the entire passage or something, but otherwise, we have govt. ministers and other vips using the term or criticizing its use, so I'm not sure why Rufin is so prominent in this context, even if I take the point about the rise of anti-semitism France and why that is important, which I do. 72.232.204.226 10:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The other reason I felt it was important for the intro is that Rufin is someone the left would normally expect to be on their "side," and yet he has taken a very hard anti-racist stance, which ties into the New anti-Semitism and the confusions you were alluding to above, where each side is hijacking the other's vocabulary. So I liked it for that reason too, because it hints at the political confusion behind the term. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it's important to find out what happned, if we are to treat is so prominently. [Yes, I was 72.xx - surprise]. El_C 10:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Rufin report was accepted by the government then it would be signifiant enough for the lead. As it is, there's no reason to quote from it and not from, say, the report from the UN rapporteur or from Benvinitzi or a dozen other reports or articles. Also, it would be unbalanced and POV to have it in the lead and not Finkelstein's response. Homey 11:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jew Watch

Coroebus, you removed the citation for Jew Watch, then requested a citation. Can you explain? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, as I said above, a copy-paste of a Ha'aretz article is not enough to claim that they use the term. I knew if I removed the Jew Watch reference altogether it'd start another mini edit war, so I've posted , if anyone has a better citation, feel free to include it, otherwise I'll remove the Jew Watch reference (we still have plenty of other anti-semites and neo-nazi referenced). --Coroebus 09:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I found one where Jew Watch itself is using the term, rather than just reproducing an article that uses it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The shopping list is ridiculous and we did have consensus a few weeks ago to get rid of it. It's unencyclopedic and unnecessary and will only grow at this rate. We can have hundreds of names in it, I'm sure, from all walks of life before this is over.Homey 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm in favour of a slimmed down article, but the current approach is a bloated POV trading beast. I'm not going to get too involved until we can settle on a more sensible approach (i.e. I'm just going to intervene to remove the most over the top POV pushing). --Coroebus 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better to give actual examples than to say it's used by generic X and generic Y. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better to have a lead that is actually readable and encyclopedic. The elaboration belongs in the body of the article. You know this. Homey 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not when it's a hotly disputed issue like this. It's best to be clear exactly who said what and give links. That way, there's less room for weasel wording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, do that in the body of the article, not in the lead where a laundry list stops the article cold since it's not readable. Look, we had a consensus, you unilaterally came in and decided to overturn it and when challenged claimed it was an "old consensus" (two weeks old). I know you want to push your point but you can't do it to the extent of making the article unencyclopedic and unreadable. Homey 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, no matter how many times you say otherwise, that "consensus" concerned only the first paragraph and not the entire intro. When you have posted "diffs" to try to prove me wrong on this, you have only proved me correct. And aside from that, that attempt to reach consensus was in the context of a mediation that failed. There was a majority for a title that had some qualifier, and yet now there is no qualifier. So forget about the alleged "consensus," it doesn't apply to the paragraph in question for a variety of reasons. 6SJ7 14:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The diffs were in regard to the entire lead. See the last time we talked about this above. Homey 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was correct then, and I am correct now. I am not discussing it with you any more. I am just pointing it out to others so that they will not be led astray by your claims that there is some "consensus" that restricts current editing. 6SJ7 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See here. Please tell me what this mythical second paragraph in the lead is? Look carefully, there is only one paragraph of writing before the heading "origins". Homey 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy and paste the consensus lead along with the "orgins" section below. Please note the lead has only one paragaraph:

Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.

==Origins==

The analogy was used as early as 1987 by Uri Davis, an Israeli-born academic and Jewish member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in his book Israel: An Apartheid State (ISBN 0862323177) which provided a detailed comparison of Israel and South Africa. The highly controversial World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa adopted resolutions describing Israel as an "apartheid state" [4]. The term was subsequently used by the South African cleric Desmond Tutu in the articles he published following his visit to Israel. [5].

OK, do you get it now? Homey 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And here is Kim's edit note for the version above (Action as mediator: Of all contributers to the discussion,this first sentence was accepted by all except 1 editor)Homey 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's about where I had it two days ago. --John Nagle 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, what I get that you either misunderstand what I am referring to, or that you refuse to get it. I am talking about this edit, the first one you made after your 48-hour block. You removed what was then the second paragraph of the article, with an edit summary referring to a "consensus." At the time of the alleged previous "consensus," the intro was only one paragraph. Between that time and the time of the edit in question, a second (and I believe a third) paragraph had been added to the intro, otherwise you couldn't have removed it. The "consensus" concerned only the first paragraph. So that's my final answer. Say what you want about this, I am not responding to it. I also don't see why you posted essentially the same thing here and on my talk page. I read this page, so you only need to post it here. 6SJ7 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's been a misunderstanding then. When I have been referring to a "consensus version" on this Talk page I have meant Kim's version above. I'm sorry if that was not clear. Homey 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the same version, which did not support your edit. 6SJ7 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go bang my head against the wall now. Homey 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes on extreme positions

There seems to be an ongoing attempt to somehow get the extremists from the Klu Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis into the article. If those go in, we really should have an "ethnic cleansing" section to balance it. Some good cites on ethnic cleansing in the West Bank are

• Rep. Dick Armey Calls for Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians "Last night on MSNBC's highly-rated program Hardball, House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey ( R-TX) called for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the occupied territories and endorsed Israel's conquests of those lands."
• Uzi Cohen of Israel's Likud party proposes ethnic cleansing "Cohen has been accused - mainly in his own words - of advocating ethnic cleansing, giving the Palestinians 20 years to get out of the West Bank voluntarily, and, in the event of his political patron Silvan Shalom being shunted to the sidelines, World War III."

Should material like that go in? --John Nagle 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. WP is not a place for tit-for-tat POV pushing. Allegations of ethnic cleansing are not directly related to allegations of "Apartheid". OTOH, usage of the term "Israeli Apartheid" by extremists is relevant to the discussion, as it supports the critic's position that the term is used as a political epithet by antisemites. Isarig 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. WP is not a place for tit-for-tat POV pushing.

True. So let's get rid of the POV pushing on all sides, including the nonsense about neo-nazis which is only there to push the NAS POV.Homey 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Including this article as a separate article. 6SJ7 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Land (ii)

From Isarig's talk page:

Um, quite clearly they did quite that or they wouldn't have been taken to court! Please look at the source. Homey 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, quite clearly they tried to do that, and the court ruled they can't. thus to say ithey could do it is wrong. Isarig 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless they did do it - read the source. The court found the practice illegal. Yes, legally they couldn't do it but nevertheless they had done it to that point (and tried to do it even after the court ruling). Do not remove sourced statements again, if you want to nitpick them, fine, change "could" to "did" but don't remove any reference to the court ruling. Your objection also doesn't explain why you removed the reference to the Sharon government's bill to legalise the practice of Jewish only settlemetns. Homey 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are the one nitpicking here, and your entire position is preposterous - using a court ruling that established that a certain action by a gov't agency is illegal to claim that it was legal until that point. It as if someone was to write that until the US supreme court ruled that burning the flag is protected under the freedom of speech amendment, that such acts were illegal. It's nonsense. The source you cite does not say what you claim - it is your POV OR. Isarig 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The source, by an Israeli law professor, says there were "hundreds" of Jewish only villages. Please read the source and stop trying to censor facts you don't like. Homey 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Until the Supreme Court Qaadan v. Katzir decision, Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel." do you not understand? The quotation is from an Israeli law prof who wrote up a paper on the case, a source you didn't even look at before deleting it, judging by your reference to it as a "BBC report". Homey 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:CIVIL and warn you that you can (and will) be blocked for violating it. I understand the statement very well. Yes, there were (and are) hundreds of villages were currently only Jews live. This does not mean the ILA could prevent Arabs from buying houses there, as the court ruling shows. If you want to cite an Israeli professor who, like you, falsely believes this to be the case, go right ahead, but don't claim this is a fact - it is that person's opinion. Isarig 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Zeq got banned by the ArbComm from various articles for doing just what you're doing, removing sourced material. I strongly suggest that you don't do it again. I'm afraid an Israeli law prof is a credible source for interpreting a court ruling whilst you are not. If you can find a source that contradicts the law prof then do so and make an addition or modification to the refernce but do not remove sourced material again. Homey 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"This does not mean the ILA could prevent Arabs from buying houses there, as the court ruling shows"

The court ruled that the ILA's practice was illegal and ordered them to stop. Until then the ILA did just that - again, according to the law prof's gloss on the court ruling Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel', the ILA did prevent Arabs from leasing houses there. Where is your source that says otherwise?Homey 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Empty threats will get you nowhere. If you feel you have a case- by all means take it up to ArbComm. The claims you are making are not sourced. The quote you cite from Prof. Kedar is not an interpretation of a court ruling, it is an unsourced claim, proven false by the ruling. Prof Kedar is welcome to his POV, incorrect though it may be, and you are welcome to quote him, saying he believes this to be the case- but you can't state it as fact. If you are interested in sources taht show that Arabs can and did buy or lease ILA and JNF lands - have a look at the CAMERA refernce I've provided. Isarig 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And here are links to the BBC report on the case"

and to the law professor's paper: "A First Step in a Difficult and Sensitive Road": Preliminary Observations on Qaadan v. Katzir Homey 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of Prof. Kedar is WP:RS, your personal opinion that he is wrong is not. Yes, I can quote him, it is sourced as per the fact that he is a law professor. If you can find a source that contradicts him (not your personal interpretation but someone who actually says what you're saying) then use that source but do not remove sourced material again. The argument is not on whether or not Arabs could lease land at all (you claimed earlier no one could buy land so I don't know why you are now saying otherwise), the question is did they have the same access to land as Israeli Jews or were they excluded from certain properties - according to Kedar they could not buy property in "hundreds" of Jewish only villages until the court ruled the ILA's practices illegal. By your argument schools in the US were never segregated because Brown v Board of Education ruled that school boards could not segregate by race. There is no excuse for you removing links to the BBC report and to Kedar's paper which is what you've been doing. Stop it. Homey 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The staement I removed is "The ILA could refuse to lease property to Israeli Arabs in hundreds of Jewish-only settlements existing in Israel until 2000 when the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that it could not discriminate against Arabs" which is stated as fact, when it is not. It is the personal opinion of Dr. Kedar. If you want to reinsert that statement, properly phrased, along the lines of "Some, such as Dr. Kedar believe that The ILA could refuse to lease property to Israeli Arabs in hundreds of Jewish-only settlements existing in Israel until 2000 ", followed by examples of when this ocured, go right ahead. To your analogy: If I wanted to claim that prior to Brown vs. Board of Education the US was segregated (or was an "apartheid state" as you would have it), I would have no probelm showing state and local government law describing that practice. When you show simialr Israeli law that says the ILA can refuse to lease land to non-Jews, you will have a point. Until then, you can quote Dr. Kedar and explain that this is his perosnal POV. (And I will be happy to explain why it is wrong, and source it). Isarig 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is your source that Arabs were able to lease land in these hundreds of Jewish villages prior to the court ruling? Do you have any source, at all, that disagrees with Kedar's assertion? Saying "Some, such as X believe" means there are some who believe otherwise - where is your source for this? I'm fine with saying "According to Dr. Alexandre Kadar, a professor of law at Haifa University..." but your suggestions of wesal words is not acceptable without some proof that Kadar's statement is contested by anyone other than yourself. Homey 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

you are confused as to where the burden of proof lays here. Israel's Basic laws guarantee equal right to Israeli citizens, regardles of ethnicity, and were the basis for the court's ruling in the Katzir case, that the ILA actions were illegal. If you want to claim that prior to that case it was legal and/or common to prevent Arabs from leasing lands in hundred of villages- the burden of proof rests with you, to either cite laws making this legal, or to give examples where this occured. Right now, all you (and Kedar) have is one example where this was attempted and struck down by the court - proving my point, not yours. As to sources, I've pointed you to the CAMERA references multiple times. Go and read them.Isarig 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. That doesn't mean there were no such things as Jim Crow laws. The US Constitution guarantees equality based on race, that doesn't mean there was no such thing as segregated school systems. You are confusing what ought to be with what was. Again, do you have any source that says the ILA did not bar Arabs from leasing land in hundreds of Jewish villages prior to 2000?Homey 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your analogy, and as I wrote, all you have to do to make your point is to show the Israeli equivalents of the Jim Crow laws. Why haven't you done so? Isarig 18:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were a number of laws in the 1950s and 1960s when Israeli Arab villages were under virtual martial law. There's also the Law of Return which gurantees me the right to Israeli citizenship because my ancestors lived their two thousand years ago but denies it to Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel or whose parents or grandparents were born there. Not exactly "equal protection under the law". Homey 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

None of these laws relate to your claim about the ILA , and the law of return does not garnt any rights to any citizens of Israel. So, when are you going to support your claim? Isarig 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell me Isarig, if the ILA did not refuse to lease land to Arabs then why did the court case even occur? If what you are saying is true the court case would never have been necessary. I'm not saying prior to the case it was "legal" to discriminate against Arabs, I'm saying prior to the court ruling the ILA practiced discrimination against Arabs.Homey 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Kaadan's were refused - illegally and improperly - at Katzir (not by the ILA, BTW, but by the community's board of admissions), they sued and won. This make my point, not yours. Isarig

And prior to the ruling Arabs were not permitted to rent land in hundreds of Jewish villages. As a result of the ruling the Israeli government attempted to introduce a law permitting "Jewish only" villages. The bill was narrowly defeated in the Knesset.

This is a claim that you need to support. As I said, the burden of proof lays with you. I've suggested ways in which you can support this claim (e.g: citing relevant laws, or enumerating cases where this happened, unopposed) - for some strange reason you are not keen on supporting your claims. Isarig 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why the government introduced the bill? A bill that Tommy Lapid described as "smelling of apartheid" if your claim is true and the ILA action against this family was an isolated incident?

There are many reasons why, and the topic is complex and discussion of it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want a simple answer, it is because some in the government of the time were racsits. What doies thi shave to do with your claims? No such law was passed. Isarig 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, CAMERA is a propaganda site and is not WP:RS and even they do not deny that the ILA had Jewish only villages. Are you denying these Jewish only villages existed or still exist?Homey 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcom eto your POV of CAMERA, but they are most certainly a WP:RS. They deny that Arabs could not lease ILA lands. Very explictly. Isarig 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Today, but not before 2000. Please show me CAMERA's article on the 2000 court ruling. The CAMERA piec you link to is a polemic but even it states there are "restrictions on access by non-Jews to the roughly 13 percent of the land that is privately owned by the JNF" and that is YOUR source, not mine[6] Homey 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"...Levin (CAMERA) indicts the National Geographic, Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, Webster’s New World Encyclopedia and even the Encyclopedia Britannica for 'unabashed inventions', and 'mutilations of fact'. She offers no documentation or authority for these attacks.... CAMERA promotes even more aggressive tactics against university libraries." [7] Sorry, they are a polemical site, not RS. Homey 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Camera has its own wikipedia entry here that covers a lot of its activities and criticism: Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America. --Ben Houston 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote , you are welcome to your POV about CAMERA. You asked for a source refuting the claim that the ILA could prevent non-Jews form buying and leasing land - and I gave it to you, so now you are bitching that you don't like that source. Well, tough for you. That you don't understand the difference between the ILA and the JNF is your problem, not mine. Isarig 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out, CAMERA does not assert that there was no discrimination prior to 2000 and admits that the JNF had land that was "restricted" to Jews. Your source is POV and not RS but even it does not support your claim. 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are confused about what claims are made and who needs to support them. I have not made a claim that there is (or was) no discrimination against Arabs in Israel, and thus the CAMERA source I've provided does not need to assert that. You, OTOH, made the claim that prior to 2000, the ILA could prevent Arabs from buying lands on 97% of the land in Israel - a claim which is false and directly refuted by the source I've given you. Isarig 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source neither confirms nor denies that prior to 2000 there were hundreds of Jewish towns in which Arabs were denied the right to lease land. Therefore, you have no basis on which to claim that the law professor's statement is a contested opinion. Your source does confirm, however, that the JNF holds or held land that was reserved for Jews only. Therefore there is no basis on which you can say the professsor's statement is not factual. Homey 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My source explicitly denies the claim that Arabs can be denied use of 97% of Israeli lands. Read it. Again, as to Kedar's assertion - the burden of proof is on you to support his claim, in face of explict Israeli laws and court rulings which show the opposite. For the third time, I encourage you to show some support for these wild allegations in the form of citing relevant Israeli law or relevant examples when such use was denied. Isarig 22:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the professor's article yourself. Homey 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read it. It contains no support for his allegations, which are directly and explictly refuted by my source. Isarig 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library (emphasis added)

The Government appointed an Arab citizen to the board of the Israel Land Authority in November 1999. This marked the first representation of non-Jews on the board, which by law has 18-24 members. Half of the members represented organizations forbidden by statute to transfer land to non-Jews. During the year, the High Court of Justice ruled that the Government must appoint an additional Arab to the board. In March 2000, the High Court ruled on an October 1995 petition brought by an Arab couple who were barred from buying a home in Katzir, a Jewish municipality that was built on state-owned land. The High Court ruled that the Government's use of the Jewish National Fund to develop public land was discriminatory, since the fund's by-laws prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. The High Court determined that its ruling in the case would not affect previous land allocations and that differentiating between Jews and non-Jews in land allocation might be acceptable under unspecified "special circumstances." The municipality was instructed to develop and publish criteria for its decisions and a plan for implementation. Israel Lands Authority had not fully implemented the ruling by year's end.

Homey 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I wrote before, the fact that you don't understand the difference betrween the JNF and the ILA is your problem, not mine. Isarig 00:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Land" subject probably fits better in West Bank, with a brief note and "Main Article: West Bank" here. --John Nagle 04:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The JNF/ILA issue actually refers to land within the Green Line, not the Occupied Territories. Homey 07:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New John Dugard article

I have created an article on John Dugard, the international law professor who formerly pushed for international intervention against apartheid and who is a judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and who reported to the UN, as Special Rapporteur about what he felt where apartheid like conditions in the occupied territories. If people wanted to help improve that article further, it would be appreciated -- I've taken it up to something reasonable but it is not really complete. I have not yet covered the controversy in that article or explicitly detailed his role in the fight against SA apartheid. --Ben Houston 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of the POV claim that Dugard is an "enemy of Israel" that someone added to the Israeli apartheid article?Homey 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that claim in the article. --Ben Houston 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone else has changed it.Homey 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO did... -- Heptor _talk 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't revert, but it's pretty apparent that he's pretty anti-Israeli, to put it kindly. --Leifern 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)