Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli apartheid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Political rights, voting and representation, judiciary

Regarding the recent change by User:Tiamut - the section "Political rights, voting and representation, judiciary" discusses both law, and practice. The first paragraph discusses the laws, which are equal for all. The fourth paragraph discusses practice, where there might be some discrimination. The fact that Jews and Arabs are equal under the law, is not someone's opinion, but an objective fact - if anyone disputes this, I challenge them to produce the text of statutes that are discriminatory. We only attribute a claim to the source if there are multiple viewpoints. If something is generally agreed upon, we present it as fact, and only reference the source in a footnote.

Again - Tiamut's claim regarding practice is irrelevant - this is already covered in the very same section. okedem (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof regarding the "fact"-icity of a given claim is on the person adding the information. The source cited for this particular claim is an Israeli advocacy group. As such, I've attributed the material to its author.

There are a number of sources that state that Israeli law does discriminate against Arab citizens. I would be happy to provide them if that was what the sentence said. It does not say that. It says the law does not discriminate and it is therefore attributed o the source provided. Tiamut^talk 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples of sources which state that Israeli law discriminates against Arabs include:

The Palestinian-Arab minority in Israel, 1948-2000: a political study, By Asʻad Ganim: "Israeli law enshrines fundamental discrimination in favor of Jewish citizens and to the detrimant of Arab citizens."
Challenging ethnic citizenship: German and Israeli perspectives on immigration, By Daniel Lévy, Yfaat Weiss: "Section 5 [of the Law of Return], does explicitly discriminate against Israel's Arab residents."
Israel, pluralism and conflict, By Sammy Smooha: "Institutional discrimination against the Arab minority is built into the very structure of the Jewish sectarian character of the state. The exclusionary Law of Return, which grants citieznship to foreign-born Jews but fails to extend the right of repatriation to native Palestinian refugees, establishes the favourable status of a Jew in Israel." Tiamut^talk 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You fail to quote a single law that discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel. Whoever Israel chooses to give citizenship to, is irrelevant. The rights of its citizens are the question, and in that, there's no legal difference. I feel I have to repeat this - there is no difference in the rights of the Arab citizen, and the Jewish citizen. Having the state gives citizenship to someone of your faith is not a right. Of course, that's not even what you claimed in your edit summary, which was completely irrelevant, as the section already deals with the practice as well as the formal situation. Legally, actually, we don't have equal rights - Arabs have the privilege of not giving three years of their life to the Army.

I assume you don't want me to start tagging every single Palestinian / Arab source with the qualification "An Arab group claims", right? Then there's no reason to apply a different standard to this one.

Anyway, I've added another source - Freedom House - not Israelis, and not an advocacy group. This should be enough. okedem (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the Freedom House country report on Israel are you referring to? Is it the part that says "While they have full political rights, the roughly one million Arab citizens of Israel (about 19 percent of the population) receive inferior education, housing, and social services relative to the Jewish population."? Given that you consider the Freedom House source to be a reliable source on the matter of "full political rights" (which I'm not sure means the same thing as full legal rights), presumably the rest of the report is also suitable as a reliable source for this article, including the remainder of the sentence I quoted above describing the inferior public services received by Arab citizens of Israel. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read what I wrote above? I'm not contesting claims of discrimination, and I've already pointed out that the section were discussing deals with these claims in the fourth paragraph. All I'm saying, is that the laws themselves do not discriminate between the groups. Perhaps in practice there's discrimination, but not in the laws themselves, which is what our article says, and what the sources say. okedem (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem is partially right here. In general, the laws of Israel do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or ethnic origin, and most of the discrimination faced by Palestinians, especially citizens of Israel, although official, is a matter of practice, rather than law.

However, in the first place, the 1967-occupied territories are governed by several codes of law, with the result that Palestinians and Israeli settlers do have completely distinct legal statuses. This different legal status, with resulting different rights and privileges, is referred to by many as analogous to apartheid; which is the subject of this article. Even those who reject the analogy must recognise that it is made by a large number of reliable sources.

In addition, within the state of Israel, there are a number of laws which do discriminate on the grounds of religion or ethnic origin. Best known of these, of course, is the Law of Return, which grants the right to citizenshipo to those recognised by the state of Israel as Jews. Those not benefiting from this privilege , even if they are born in Israel, must acquire citizenship through other means. Although often defended as merely an immigration concession, this law in facts provides the legal underpinning for many other rights and privileges granted to Jews alone. A notorious recent example was the checkpoint in the West Bank, with a sign which stated (in Hebrew and Arabic only, not in English) that access was permitted only for Israeli citizens and "those permitted to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return" (ie Jews). There are many more examples.

It is also argued that the complex system of land ownership and management in Israel, under which "state land" (much of which was acquired by dubious means from previous Palestinian owners) is, by law, controlled by bodies answerablr not to the state, but to the World Zionist Organisation, and answerable not to the citizens of Israel but to "the Jewish people". The detailed mechanics of this are very complicated, and discussed in a number of books cited in the article. Some would argue that this constitutes a deliberate legal framework designed to grant or deny rights on the basis of religion or ethnic origin, and thus is a classic example of apartheid. Others disagree. This article should not take sides in deretmining the justice of the claim and counter-claim, but should present both objectively.

But we cannot state baldly in the opening that the laws of Israel do not discriminate, since it is this assertion itself which is challenged by those who make the analogy with apartheid, and particularly by those who argue that even within its pre-1967 borders Israel is an apartheid state. At most, we can say that this is claimed by some and denied by others. RolandR 10:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

RolandR:

We're discussing Arab citizens, not Palestinians, so the situation in the West Bank is not relevant here.
The Law of Return has no bearing on citizens of either ethnicity - we are discussing the rights of citizens, not random people around the world. Your West Bank example is, again, irrelevant - Jewish and Arab citizens are, again, completely equal there.
You're confusing some issues with land there - state lands are controlled by the ILA, part of the state, with no Arab/Jewish issues (that's about 80% of the land). A much smaller part of the land in Israel, some 13% (mostly forests and parks) are owned by the JNF - private lands, purchased by private money donated by world Jewry, for the Jewish people. The money was donated with the express intention of using it to purchase lands for the Jewish people. All of the land was paid for with this money. A part of it was bought from Israel, for a lot of money, after 1948, and some of that was owned by Arabs. Until a while ago, these lands could not be leased to Arabs, but last I heard a solution for this was found, in form of a land swap between the JNF and ILA. Anyway, these aren't laws, and so this isn't relevant to our discussion.

Can you provide any examples of Israeli laws which differentiate between Arabs and Jewish citizens?

Those who claim the actual laws discriminate are a fringe opinion, and should be treated as such. We don't write in the article about the moon that "some claim it's made of cheese, but scientists deny this". If such claims are not back up by actual laws which differentiate, they're nothing by drivel, and should be ignored. okedem (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

These sources may be useful for that section, both about a recent decision in an Israeli court in which the judge refused to convict Arab youths on the basis that "Israel operates on two fundamentally different levels of enforcement for ideological offenses committed by Arab and Jewish minors." See [1], [2]. nableezy - 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tragically, he's right on that one. Haredi and settlers who throw rocks are, in the best case, arrested and swiftly released. Of course, the solution is to punish all of them for their actions, not acquit them, but I understand his sentiment (though I doubt it'll stand on appeal, if the state appeals). okedem (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Freedom House country report on Israel only states that Arab citizens of Israel have full political rights. Likewise, the Jewish Virtual Library source only states that "the Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government". Therefore the sources we have currently only support the statement that Arab citizens of Israel have equal suffrage and political representation, not the statement that there is no differentiation under the law and equal recourse to the courts. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added another source to that effect ("Arab Israelis are citizens of the Israel with equal rights"). Can you present any law that differentiates between Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel (Except for Arabs being exempt from military service)? okedem (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is nonsense of a high order to claim what you've done - Israel is different from every other western society because it divides nationality from citizenship. Citizenship (ezrahut) is held by all, while Jews alone have nationality (le'um). Arabs cannot be nationals of Israel, only Jews can be "nationals." The lebal basis of this difference was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1972 in a statement that 'there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people'.

One of the obvious differences this makes is over the use of 'national land', 93% of the land area of Israel and not available for use by Arabs since they are not eligible for nationality according to the Law of Return. Some of this land is, in practice, used by Arabs but they can and increasingly do have it confiscated. They will often then have their homes bull-dozed and be forced into ghettos of lamentably poor standard. This is not equal rights in any sense and your argument is not a proper argument. 86.155.143.24 (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You speak out of lack of knowledge:

State lands (80%) are available to all, regardless of nationality ("le'om", not "le'um"). Only Jewish National Fund lands (13%) are intended for Jews, being private lands purchased with Jewish money, for Jews.
The Law of Return has no relevance to nationality (le'om) - it only determines who can become a citizen. It has zero impact on people who are already citizens (Jews, Arabs, or others). A person can come to Israel, become a citizen according to the Law of Return, but not be recognized as Jewish by the establishment, and so their nationality would be listed as "Other". This is the case for many Russian Jews, who had perhaps only a Jewish father or grandfather - this is enough for the Law of Return, but not enough for the Jewish religion (demands a Jewish mother). Repeat - the Law or Return only determines who can become a citizen. It has no relation to the listed "nationality" of immigrants, and no impact at all on citizens.

I think I've repeated myself quite enough. If you cannot present a law that differentiates between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, this argument is over. Remember - this discussion isn't about the actual situation (whether there's discrimination in practice), but about whether, under the laws, Arabs have equal rights. okedem (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The situation needs writing up properly by people who understand what's going on.

Nobody can have Israeli nationality, there is no such thing, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled to that effect in 1970. Instead, there is a currently a choice of 137 nationalities (including Jew, Arab, Druze, Russian, Georgian and even Hebrew) that Israelis can have on their ID card. See Haaretz for a court case[3] going on since 2003 in which a number of Israelis (of various backgrounds) have been trying to have Israeli entered on their ID cards rather than Arab or Jew. The state’s response has been to argue that recognising an Israeli nationality would "undermine the very principles under which the State of Israel was created". The discrimination of the system is enforced by reference to the "Law of Return", as I'm sure everyone knows. 81.152.36.99 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read a word I said? I never claimed there's an Israeli nationality, just citizenship. And as I explained, the law of return has no bearing on Israeli citizens, Jewish or Arab. Can you show any effect this law has on citizens, or any other law that differentiates between Jews and Arabs in Israel? okedem (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Law of Return (mirror-image of the Nuremberg laws) deprives non-Jewish citizens of most of the rights of citizenship, including any say in the nature of the state they live in. In theory (though not entirely in practise) it deprives them of the use of 93% of the land of the country, in many cases robbing them of their property. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and it's highly offensive to pretend you don't understand. It's also highly offensive to say we're not discussing the position of Palestinians, since Israeli-Arabs increasingly self-identify as Palestinians, something else it's unlikely you don't know. 81.152.36.99 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You've obviously failed to read any of what I said regarding land, and continue your false claims regarding that. There's no difference between Arabs and Jews in ILA (Israel Land Administration) lands, which are 80%. Not in theory or in practice. There is a difference for JNF lands (13%).
All citizens of Israel have the right to vote, for instance, including the Arabs, which is why there are three Arab parties in the Knesset. How do you explain that? You keep bringing up the Law of Return, but clearly don't understand its meaning - it is only an instrument of immigration; it doesn't affect citizens in any way.
"Palestinians" - don't pretend you don't understand what I mean. Israeli-Arabs' self-identification is irrelevant here; in common usage the term "Palestinians" refers to the Arab residents of the Gaza strip and the West Bank. While the "self-identify" thing might muddle things a bit, the term is clear enough, especially as we're also using the term "Israeli-Arabs" to discuss the Arab citizens of Israel. As we don't have another term for the WB/GS residents, "Palestinians" will have to do.
From your refusal to present any law that differentiates between Arabs and Jews, or to name any specific right that Jews have but Arabs don't, I can only assume you failed to find any.

Unless you bother answering my questions, and cut the baseless soap-boxing, I'm done discussing anything with you, and will revert your edits. okedem (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My edits are aimed at producing a good NPOV article. ILA lands are controlled by Jews and they see no reason to conceal what they're doing, the state of Israel is Jewish and only Jewish interests count. Arabs have their lands confiscated and can rent them back only until members of the chosen race can be found to take over.

The vote of Palestinians is practically worthless, since the state they live in is not theirs and their representatives will be charged with treason if they seek to make it a state for all its citizens. The leader of Balad, Azmi Bishara, was expelled from his homeland in April 2007. He's not even a Muslim, he's a Christian.

The law that discriminates against Arabs is the Law of Return, most other laws imposing discrimination refer to it. That's why Israel is widely (perhaps generally) recognised as an apartheid state, the subject of this article.

And rejecting people's self-identification is insulting and wilfull racism on your part. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) This IP was used to avoid scrutiny: the IP and the master account have both been banned from editing Wikipedia. See here.

I see you flatly refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion, repeating your hate-spewing comments and baseless claims. Since you don't want to provide specific details, as I have asked for multiple times, and show you are clearly disconnected from reality, I will revert any edit you make to damage this article, and will no longer not reply to you on this talk page. okedem (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that Palestinians (not the demeaning "Israeli-Arabs" you've insisted you wish to call them) suffer really serious problems from racism, and this article concerns this exact topic, and the degree to which it is legitimised by the laws of Israel. Lots of these laws, though they actually refer back to the "Law of Return", granting Americans and Russians unlimited occupation rights in the homes and lands of anyone who previously lived there.

And, far from me failing to engage in meaningful discussion, it's you who is refusing to recognise, or the degree of threat that Palestinians live under. 86.159.70.117 talk) 22:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (This IP was used to avoid scrutiny: the IP and the master account have both been banned from editing Wikipedia. See here.

Okedem, quit edit warring or you will be taking a trip to AE. The IP's edit looks at least defensible to me - while you on the other hand are trying to pass off opinions as undisputed facts, which is obviously unencyclopedic. I suggest you take a step back from this dispute and reconsider the arguments being made. Gatoclass (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support the IP's edits. I find it disappointing that Okedem has edit-warred over the last ten days to retain his preferred version of "the facts" in this article despite multiple editors having expressed concern with its lack of NPOV. I hope the edit-warring is over now. Tiamut^talk 08:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you has bothered presenting any evidence for your claims; neither of you bothered to participate in the discussion. The IP keeps wasting time with irrelevant claims about Palestinians (yes, I know some Arab-Israelis identify as Palestinians, but that's irrelevant here - that paragraph is discussing the Arab citizens of Israel, not the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, and even if you don't like the terms, that's all we have).

I have repeatedly asked to be presented with any laws that differentiate between Jew and Arab citizens and Israel (no, the Law of Return doesn't apply to citizens, though the IP can't grasp that). I have repeatedly explained the difference between ILA and JNF lands, but the IP keeps repeating his acrimonious drivel regarding that. Just saying: "Okedem, you're edit warring, I support the IP." is worthless - address the actual points, argue on the facts, present actual sources and evidence.

The information there is sourced and accurate. Unless one of you wants to actually contribute to this discussion (read my above comments), I'm going to keep reverting this POV-pushing edits. okedem (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, I've presented you three different scholarly sources that say that Israeli law discriminates against Arab citizens. That you prefer to create strawmen by creating WP:OR arguments (such as the Law of Return doesn't apply to citizens as a way of dismissing what is said by those scholarly sources) is not an excuse for you to continue edit-warring against an emerging WP:consensus. I disengaged from the discussion alotgether because talking to you seems to be useless as you just revert to your preferred version and keep playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

You are alone in your opinion that the idea that Israeli law does not discriminate against Arab citizens is some kind of irrefutable fact. Instead of ignoring what your fellow editors are telling you and the sources they go to trouble to present both here and in the article itself, it would behoove you to stop your knee-jerk reverting and engage in a discussion on how to accomodate the new sources and viewpoints we have introduced. You are not god Okedem and your opinion doesn't get to trump everyone else's simply because you are a self-proclaimed bearer of the WP:TRUTH. Tiamut^talk 09:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I restored most of the material you deleted in you last edit. However, I reorgnied the sentence and paragraph order in a way I hope is better. I'd appreciate constructive criticism on how to improve it further. Tiamut^talk 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Tiamut, you seem to fail to recognize that a discussion requires you to actually reply to the said points. You keep repeating the claim that the law discriminates, and yet refuse to present any laws that makes any difference between Jewish and Arab citizens. You refuse to explain how the law of return has any bearing on citizens (probably because you know full well that it doesn't).

I repeat my challenge to you - present any law that differentiates between Arab and Jewish citizens (not non-citizens wishing to become citizens - between citizens of Israel). Not evidence for discrimination in practice - we're not discussing that. Show me de jure discrimination in the texts of the laws of Israel. It shouldn't be too hard - you keep claiming it's so obvious and common. So go ahead - prove me wrong, and I'll shut up. okedem (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut doesn't have to "present any law that differentiates between Arab and Jewish citizens". All she has to do is provide sources which state that Israeli law discriminates, and she's done that. This is not about what either you or Tiamut happen to believe or disbelieve. It's about what reliable sources have to say about the topic, and clearly, some of them have said that some Israeli laws are discriminatory. Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I presented sources which state no such differentiation exists. But surely, if Tiamut can find sources claiming discrimination in the laws, they actually move past the generalities, and discuss the actual laws. I can only presume those sources aren't propaganda pamphlets, speaking in slogan of "discrimination". Surely, Tiamut is discussing serious sources, which delve into the text of the laws, and analyze the discrimination there.

You see, when someone says something doesn't exist, they can't provide examples. But when you claim something does exist - examples for it are a must.

As Tiamut (and some others) are so certain of this de-jure discrimination, it must be very easy for her to present examples of this. If she can't - I can only conclude her claim is baseless, and should be ignored.

I'm waiting. If I don't see any example of such discrimination between Jewish and Arab citizens in the laws of Israel, I'll conclude Tiamut's "sources" are nothing but fluff, and she (and others) are wasting our time, and don't actually know anything about this subject. okedem (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I presented sources which state no such differentiation exists

Yes, and Tiamut presented sources which state that such discrimination does exist. Situation: we have different sources expressing different opinions. Action: we summarize those opinions in the article. What we do not do is take one of those opinions and present it as if it were an undisputed fact. That's what you've been doing, and that's why you've been opposed.

As to your other point, it's simply a red herring. It's not for us to decide that a source has an incorrect opinion, our job is just to present the range of opinions according to the usual wiki policies. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Our job is to provide something useful for our reader, and not rely on fluff sources. That means providing the most basic information - if you claim there's discrimination in the law, you need to say where, in what law. With every user claiming that Arabs aren't equal under law, whenever I ask them for a single example, they disappear, or avoid the subject. The unavoidable conclusion is that they have no idea. They repeat claims they heard somewhere, just because they make Israel look bad, which is their usual agenda. They don't give a damn about accuracy, about providing full and accurate information for the readers. They found some page saying what they want, and they couldn't care less about substantiating any of these claims. okedem (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Our job is to report what reliable sources have to say. Many of them point to the Law of Return as an example of a law that discriminates against Arab citizens, but you refute the validity of that claim, claiming it only governs who can become a citizen or not. You are fully aware that the complex system of laws and the differentiation between ezrahut and le'om rights means it is difficult to point to one law. That is why you have constructed this red herring around which to pin your argument. Sorry Okedem, but it won't fly here. The situation is a bit more complex than your black and white world outlook. You actually have to respect what other scholarly sources have to say and the ones I cited at the top of this section are authored neither by propaganda organizations or anarchist activists. They are reliable academic experts in the field, so try to begin respecting your fellow editors and the things they bring to the table and drop the "I'm-right-and-you-are-all-wrong-attitude". Its getting very tiresome.

I support the IP's additions as being more representative of NPOV and both sides of the debate here. Your version is POV and assumes a truth that does not exist. Tiamut^talk 15:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another useful source to expand existing sections on discrimination and/or land is From Arab land to `Israel Lands': the legal dispossession of the Palestinians displaced by Israel in the wake of 1948 authored by two Israelis at the University of Haifa. It covers the different legislation used to disposses Palestinian refugees (both those outside and the Present-absentees inside) of their land. Tiamut^talk 15:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, a smokescreen. I have asked, time and again, how the Law of Return affects citizens, but you refuse to answer. I've asked for specifics of these claims, but you evade. You don't provide any law differentiating between Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel, because no such law exists. Claiming that "it's complicated" isn't a substitute for an answer. Show me a law that gives rights based on nationality ("le'om"). Show me the specifics of your claim, if it has any merit. okedem (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, read the sources I linked to in this section. They give the answer you are looking for. And read RolandR's comment below timed 15:49: What you asking is for us to engage in OR. I don't who you are soapboxing for, but it does nothing to improve the article in line with wiki policies. Tiamut^talk 16:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Tiamut, your links don't work for me (I get blank pages). I'm sure you can answer to the point for once, and indulge me with a single example of any law that depends on nationality (le'om) for rights of Israeli citizens, or really anything specific at all, based on differentiating laws (as opposed to de-facto discrimination). As I've told RolandR below, I'm not looking to satisfy my own curiosity, but to give the reader some factual points, beyond the slogan level. This is called improving the article.

And even though I strongly disagree with you, I've never once accused you of editing for any entity or interest other than your own beliefs. The very least you could do is avoid such ugly accusations about me. okedem (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again Okedem, please read the links. This one in particular is very good From Arab land to `Israel Lands': the legal dispossession of the Palestinians displaced by Israel in the wake of 1948. Its a PDF file. Do you not have Adobe reader?

I've also added some more specific information from an Arab citizens advocacy group to the article body to address your concerns. They state that there are at least 20 laws that discriminate against Arab citizens. I've attributed the information to them, just as the refutation is attributed to the Israeli advoacy group cited. That seems NPOV to me at least.

And the wording I chose in my last comment may have sounded as though I was accusing you of editing for an organization, but that's not what I meant. I meant that it sounded as though you were soapboxing for an audience here (the passerby and reader). Sorry if it offended you. That's how I perceive your commentary here: as though you are trying to prove that discrimination does not exist even though multiple reliable sources say it does. Tiamut^talk 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see I misunderstood you, sorry, and thanks.

Look, at no point am I claiming that discrimination doesn't exist. I know it does, even if I disagree on the extent of it, and what it includes. I know that there's selective application of laws - for instance, Arabs have a higher chance of having their illegally built buildings demolished than Jews (and especially settlers). The PDF you present claims enacting new laws to appropriate land. I don't know about that, but I don't dispute it at this time. I referred to the links you placed at the top of this section, to google books.

To recap - I don't dispute discrimination, including selective application of laws. I do dispute the claim that the laws themselves make distinctions between Arabs and Jews. Even if the results are discriminatory, they can come from different application (like harsher sentencing for criminals) of the identical law.

The Mossawa center claims 20 discriminating laws, but I can't find a single example there. Though I am no legal expert, I've never encountered or heard of a single law that gives Jewish citizens extra rights, or takes rights from Arabs. Does such a law exist? What are these 20 laws? Their report from 2008 (under "Publications", I can't seem to link directly) repeats this claim (p.25), but doesn't expand upon them. It only mentions the Citizenship law (regarding Palestinians), which, again, is irrelevant - while most of the marriages between Palestinians and Israeli citizens are to Israeli-Arabs, the law applies just as well to Israeli-Jews. Perhaps it affects Arabs more, but their rights remain equal to Jews. Can you find a list of these twenty laws? okedem (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the student-run publication, Human Rights Brief, the twenty laws were identified by the Palestinian-Israeli legal advocacy group, Adalah, [4], as part of a report they submitted to the CERD (International Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination). A summary of the major findings of that report is available here, though I cannot find the full report. Israel's response and follow up reports to CERD are available here. CERD's concluding remarks from 2007 in response to submissions by Adalah, other organizations and the Israeli government are available here, and make for very interesting reading, relevant to this article and discussion.

I hope you find the information useful. Tiamut^talk 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, those are interesting links. I found a lot of material there about different allocation of budgets, and differing application of laws with regards to Arabs and Jews, but was unable to learn what those "twenty laws" actually are. I see a lot of laws that are applied differently, and laws relating directly to the nature of Israel as Jewish (like the holidays), but not anything relating to rights of the citizens. I think they simply choose to use a different terminology, especially as they claim the Law of Return discriminates, although it only affects immigration, and not citizens (and having your spouse gain citizenship is not a basic right). okedem (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see a list of discriminatory laws in that article, it's because you didn't read it, as there are plenty of examples in there. And in any case, as I've pointed out to you before, it really doesn't matter what your opinion is, what matters is what reliable sources say, and there are plenty of reliable sources which say that some of Israel's laws are discriminatory. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read it, and they provide some examples, but those are of laws that are being applied differently, not giving different rights or anything. And anyway, there are much, much less than twenty of them mentioned. okedem (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

See my post to Igorb below. Gatoclass (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User conduct issues

Just a quick note: the IP above seems to be making statements that are, if not outright antisemitic, coming very, very close to it. I would caution any good faith editor against standing shoulder to shoulder with our WP:SOAPy IP. IronDuke 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note - anti-semitism in this context can only refer to mention of the Jews here. If it's antisemitic to mention that Jews run Israel and Arabs don't then I don't know quite how to stop doing it. What do the rules say on this - on the face of it, it's IronDuke who has broken them. It's not just me whois being attacked - there is a clear threat to other editors.

Thinking I'd check and see if IronDuke makes a habit of absurd and nasty objections on this subject, I quickly found this, where he says it's a libel describing Daniel Pipes as "a Jewish American". Yet IronDuke won't hesitate to libel others, here he uses an Israeli newspaper to make a likely libel on Joe Stork, accused of supporting terrorism, the Munich Olympic massacre (?).

Perhaps readers will simply conclude that IronDuke is concerned that Okedem's wiki-lawyering is failing and there's a real danger this article will become an honest expression of the apartheid analogy. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC) This IP was used to avoid scrutiny: the IP and the master account have both been banned from editing Wikipedia. See here.

You "quickly" found a diff from March? It isn't necesary to comment on your "analysis" of said diff, as it rather speaks for itself. However, I wonder if you can say what other account(s) you may have used or be using? IP's are often used to make hideously inappropriate comments -- no surprise there. I'm really not posting this for you, but for the amen corner of established editors you seem to have acquired. They really ought to know better. IronDuke 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now you've both had your say, can you please drop it as this talk page is chaotic enough already without having it degenerate into personal bunfights. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you're 100% behind the IP's remarks? That's what your post above seems to indicate, but I'd like to just double-check. IronDuke 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? My comment is not an endorsement of anybody's remarks. I'm simply saying, we don't need a flame war. If you think the IP has been uncivil, you can take it up at WP:WQA or WP:AN/I. You know that article talk pages are not the appropriate venue for pursuing such matters. Gatoclass (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Double huh? You made a remark in support of the IP's edits above [5]. I'm not 100% certain you are endorsing his/her talk page comments--it looks as though you are, but I wanted to double check. Are you? IronDuke 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That comment was obviously made in relation to one particular "edit" (singular) which was the subject of an edit war on the mainpage. How anyone could interpret that as an "endorsement" of somebody's talk page comments I cannot imagine, but quite frankly I find your repeated attempt to insinuate on that basis that I am somehow endorsing "antisemitic" remarks to be just a tiny bit offensive. If you have nothing to contribute to this page but a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, then I suggest you would be better off finding something else to do. Gatoclass (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a rather lengthy paragraph to write without providing any kind of answer. Are you saying then that 1) the remarks the IP made were antisemitic and 2) you therefore of course do not support them? Again, you hint at that, but aren't saying so directly. Why is that? It seems like a very, very easy question to answer. IronDuke 04:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironduke, I'm really not interested in debating with you whether a third party's comment meets the threshold of "antisemitic" or not. As I've said to you, if you feel they were, you can either take it up with him directly at his talk page, or take it to an appropriate venue. However, perhaps I can save you the bother by pointing out that even you yourself expressed doubts as to whether or not his comment met such a threshold. Regardless, as I've said before, this is still not an appropriate venue for such a discussion, so hopefully you will agree to drop this now. Gatoclass (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an appropriate venue for asking you a direction question about something occurring on this page? I beg to differ. In any event, we have you down as refusing to say whether the comments were antisemitic, and refusing to say whether you support them in either case. I have nothing else to add to that if you don’t. IronDuke 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Gatoclass, I demand to know whether you are now, or have ever been, a member of the Communist Party, and when you stopped beating your wife (or husband, if appropriate). If you fail to make this clear, we will draw our own conclusions.RolandR 00:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing begging the question with asking a question. You need not respond to my post though: I am sure we can all draw our own conclusions from it ;). IronDuke 23:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

General note: the IP in question has been [6], as s/he was editing anonymously to "avoid scrutiny and being connected with his past." Without singling anyone out, I would urge editors of this page to be cautious when supporting obvious sockpuppets (to say the least). IronDuke 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Update – the IP and the master account have both been banned from editing Wikipedia. See here. IronDuke 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussions about legislation and citizenship

Well Duh! Why CAN'T we discuss "discrimination in practice"? The clever folks in the UN Sixth Committee (Legal) [7] insured that "policies and practices" were criminalized under the terms of Article 1 of the apartheid convention.

The definition of the crime in Article 2 of the convention doesn't limit the crime to legislation, or permit governments to deny basic rights and freedoms to groups of so-called non-citizens. It includes: "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;"

Ha'aretz reports that the Israeli Interior Ministry revoked the residency of 4,577 East Jerusalemites in 2008.[8] The EU ministers report said that Israel and the government of the Jerusalem municipality have a policy of discriminating against the city's Arab residents with regard to building permits, health services, education, sanitation and more. The report said that during the past years, Palestinians have received fewer than 200 building permits per year. Based on the population growth, permits for another 1,500 housing units annually would be necessary to cover the housing needs. The EU report said the village of Silwan had received only 20 building permits since 1967.[9]

The National reports that 35,000 Bedouin residents of Israel’s southern Negev have been waiting for six years to hold elections to their own regional council. Now they have been denied the right to hold their first election, after the Israeli Knesset passed a law that allows Jewish officials to rule their local council indefinitely. The Knesset already created the legal fiction of the 45 so-called “unrecognised villages”, which are denied all public services, including electricity and water. No elections will be held unless the Interior Ministry deems the local Bedouin ready to run their own affairs. [10]

According to the ICC prosecutor, the Arab League (which includes the State of Palestine) presented his office with documentation related to Israel's activities during Operation Cast Lead. [11] The Arab League had established an independent international fact finding commission on Gaza. Paragraph 30 contained a finding regarding "reports that some soldiers had acted under the influence of rabbis who had encouraged them to believe that the Holy Land should be cleansed of non-Jews." [12] There were credible reports in the Israeli press about Rabbis who advised soldiers not to show concern for the civilian population of Gaza, and distribution of printed materials calling on them to ignore any strange doctrines and orders that confuse the logical way of fighting the enemy. One headline said "The IDF Chief Rabbi: Troops who show mercy to enemy will be 'damned' [13], see also IDF rabbinate publication during Gaza war: We will show no mercy on the cruel. Another rabbi recently advised that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation: West Bank rabbi: Jews can kill Gentiles who threaten Israel

The adoption of the Goldstone report by the parent organ of the UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies renders the discussion about an apartheid "analogy" moot. Among other things, it stated that the Mission believed that Israel's movement and access policy in the West Bank violated the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. See paragrapgh 1548. The Palestinian Authority had already filed a complaint with the ICC Prosecutor and said at the time: "We will deliver more information about war crimes and crimes against humanity -- not only in Gaza during the last Israeli attack, but also from 2002 until this moment."[14] Both the Arab League and the PNA have filed additional materials with the Prosecutor's Office. See ICC Prosecutor receives Palestinian Minister of Justice, Arab League and Independent Fact-Finding Committee

The Goldstone report also outlined Israel's two-tiered system of discriminatory laws and said it resulted in "institutionalized discrimination" against the Palestinians:

'Despite prohibitions under international humanitarian law (IHL), Israel has applied its domestic laws throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967. Notably, existing planning and construction laws were annulled and replaced with military orders, and related civil powers transferred from local authorities to Israeli institutions, with ultimate discretion resting with military commanders. The application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation. Administrative procedures qualify indigenous inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “alien persons” and, thus, prohibited from building on, or renting, large portions of land designated by the Government of Israel as “State land”.'

'The two-tiered civil status under Israeli law, favouring “Jewish nationals” (le’om yehudi) over persons holding Israeli citizenship (ezrahut), has been a subject of concern under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, particularly those forms of discrimination carried out through Israel’s parastatal agencies (World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund and their affiliates), which dominate land use, housing and development. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also has recognized that Israel’s application of a “Jewish nationality” distinct from Israeli citizenship institutionalizes discrimination that disadvantages all Palestinians, in particular, refugees.'

The report noted that the ICJ had already advised the General Assembly on the illegality of the regime of restrictions on movement and that 'The Mission further considers the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.' The state of Israel seems to be using propaganda, threats, and coercion to head off an independent criminal investigation of the report and other complaints filed with the International Criminal Court. See for example Israel to pin permission for 2nd Palestinian mobile operator on ICC complaint withdrawal; Netanyahu: Accepting Goldstone kills peace process harlan (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual, harlan, you waste our time with irrelevant quotes. We're not discussing de-facto discrimination, because no one is contesting the claims made in the article in this issue. The controversy is about the claim of de-jure discrimination. okedem (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual you get a failing grade. There is a de jure system of laws, regulations, policies, and practices which govern: "Israel’s application of a “Jewish nationality” distinct from Israeli citizenship [which] institutionalizes discrimination that disadvantages all Palestinians, in particular, refugees." harlan (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the 1,000th time, I ask you to cite any law that differentiates between Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel - giving one or the other more rights, or discriminating one or the other. And don't cite Goldstone. okedem (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Wikipedia principles explicitly exclude this kind of original research and use of primary sources, and require us to cite reliable secondary sources. When we do so, you repeatedly remove them, arguing that they are "fringe" or "irrelevant; or you attack the source. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant; there are reliable secondary sources which claim that Israeli law discriminates against non-Jews. There may be reliable sources which claim the opposite. In that case, you are welcome to include them; and we can note that the sources draw contradictory conclusions. But we cannot ourselves assert thst one is correct sand the other incorrect, as you seem to be demanding. RolandR 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way your snide remark about Richard Goldstone is uncalled for, and probably a breach of WP:BLP; I urge you to remove it. RolandR 15:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this issue with you above, RolandR. When I asked for specifics, you disappeared. The request for specifics isn't simply for my own curiosity, but to give the reader useful information, beyond the general (and useless) "there's discrimination!" level. When making such a strong claim, one needs to support it with specifics, lest we stoop to the level of a political activism pamphlet.

And BLP is irrelevant here, this isn't an article, but a talk page, and I've made no factual claim regarding Goldstone (like saying "he's getting money from X" or whatever), but my opinion of his performance. His report shows a terrible naivety and lack of understanding, which is deeply disappointing in someone in his position, but there you go. okedem (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted". Accordingly, I have deleted your personal attack omn Goldstone.

And I have restored it. My comment is not a factual claim that can be right or wrong (no man can physically be "a joke"), but is an expression of opinion, and I will not have you censoring my opinions, in matters relating to the article (harlan cited Goldstone to prove some point). okedem (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RolandR, you insist on censoring my comment. It is not a factual claim, but an opinion, which cannot be sourced. It is obviously just my own opinion, as it cannot be objectively correct or not. Thus, it has nothing to do with BLP. Additionally, it is relevant to this article, as harlan has quoted Goldstone in this talkpage, to support some of his claims.

If you don't like this comment - report me, but don't touch it.

Richard Goldstone, with his skewed report, has shown he is, at best, ridiculously naive, and has little to no understanding of the situation. He has willingly accepted a one-sided mandate. He actually claims to be able to investigate the topic, when two of his commission members have already passed judgement before the investigation even began, and one of them even published an opinion column criticizing Israel for "war crimes", during the war itself. His report is full of idiotic assertions, and absurd demands, like - Hamas should investigate accusation of war crimes (naturally, that's impossible - it is Hamas policy to fire rockets into towns, with the open intent of killing civilians; these aren't cases of negligence or some misconduct, but their tactic). Thus, Goldstone has made a mockery of the UN (if that's even possible anymore), and made a fool of himself. okedem (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) RolandR has the right of this. Wikipedia prefers us to use reliable secondary sources. Goldstone is a secondary source. If you wish to debate the reliability of Goldstone, you need to demonstrate that Goldstone is not a WP:RS according to Wikipedia's definition. Personal opinion about a source being "a joke" is a waste of other editors' time, and has no place on a talk page. Unless you have a valid argument for why Goldstone does not meet WP:RS, you should not be removing that source from the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never removed him from the article. okedem (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "And don't cite Goldstone". Perhaps you haven't been removing that source (I haven't looked for that in the article), but it sounds like you're denying it as a suitable source. And you'd need to demonstrate it's not a WP:RS to do that, not just call the author childish names. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't see me removing the report, why are you accusing me of it? It annoys me to see Goldstone cited here to support claims totally irrelevant to his mandate, when he got things wrong even within his one-sided mandate. You may find my comment irrelevant, and you're free to ignore it, but it has nothing to do with WP:BLP, as it is not a factual claim, but an opinion, relevant to this discussion - I find him to not be credible. Don't agree with me - fine. But don't try to censor my opinions regarding him. okedem (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that if claims that some Israeli laws give different rights to Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens are in this article, then it should also mention which laws and rights are those. If such laws exist, why there is such problem mentioning them? It would be better to write in the article something like "Israeli law 'A', gives to Israelis of ethnic group 'B', right 'C', while Israelis of ethnic group 'D' do not have this right", or "Israeli law 'A' deny ethnic group 'B' right 'C', as it is done in South Africa under apartheid article, instead of making an article full of claims but no facts. But the truth is, those who will try that, will fail, because the fact is, no Israeli law differentiate between Israelis based on race, religion or ethnicity, and no law is different from what might be expected from other democratic nation states. Igorb2008 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand how people can keep claiming that no-one has cited specific laws which some view as discriminatory. If you'd read any of the links provided by Tiamut, you couldn't say that, but for your benefit and Okedem's, here is a list of some laws which have been cited by reliable sources as discriminatory:

The Law of Return discriminates in favour of Jews because it allows them automatic citizenship;
The Absentee Law was designed to dispossess Arabs who fled their lands;
The law which bans political parties from challenging Israel's status as a "Jewish state";
Property laws which have the effect of keeping property out of Arab ownership;
Special legal status accorded to Jewish groups and the Jewish religion;
Limited citizenship status to Arabs living in East Jerusalem, including a law depriving them of their property rights should they be absent for more than three months. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The reports I cited did specify the laws, regulations, policies, and practices in question. The entire cradle-to-grave two-tiered Israeli civil code (the whole enchalada). Everything that governs the application of a “Jewish nationality” distinct from Israeli citizenship institutionalizes discrimination that disadvantages all Palestinians (and everyone else). The CERD and Goldstone reports are littered with examples and footnote references to laws and regulations. For instance, a footnote on page 57 of the Goldstone report explained: "For those holding “Jewish nationality” (as distinct from Israeli citizenship), special immigration rights and privileges are provided in the Basic Law: Law of Return (1950), as well as development and access to natural resources under the Basic Law: “Israel Lands” (1960).

The apartheid convention criminalizes the results of "policies and practices" anyway. The country's legislation isn't a necessary element of the crime. According to the Rome Statute it consists of committing an inhumane act against one or more persons in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.

You are trying to discuss an irrelevant legal standard called "equality in law". The applicable legal standard that was adopted in the apartheid convention is called "equality in law and in fact". That has been the standard for the protection of religious groups, and racial or ethnic minorities under international law since the early 20th century. For an explanation of the justiciable difference read the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the "Minority Schools in Albania".[15]

As for the "democratic nation state" part. The members of the Constitution and Law committee publicly stated that there cannot be a constitution in Israel unless it defends the principle of inequality. See MKs debate protection of 'equality' in future constitution.[16] That is a tacit admission that there is no intention of protecting equality under the present or future legal system. Tony Judt wrote: The problem with Israel, in short, is not—as is sometimes suggested—that it is a European "enclave" in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a "Jewish state"—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.

Two years after the U.S. adopted its own Civil Rights act in 1962, Assistant Secretary Phillips Talbot, of the State Department confirmed that the U.S. government “does not recognize a legal-political relationship based upon religious identification of American citizens. It does not in any way discriminate among American citizens upon the basis of religion. Accordingly, it should be clear that the Department of State does not regard the “Jewish people” concept as a concept of international law.” see Volume 8 Whiteman's Digest of International Law, 1967, page 35.

During the same era, Hannah Arendt was reporting on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. She commented on the 'breathtaking naiveté' with which the prosecutor claimed "We make no ethnic distinctions," while, at the same time he denounced the Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans. She felt it was rather ironic, since rabbinical law legally governed the personal status of Jewish citizens, so that no Jew could marry a non-Jew. She explained that it had nothing to do with respect for the faith, but rather that religious and non-religious Jews seemed to think it was desirable to have a law that prohibited intermarriage. She observed that children of mixed marriages were legally bastards, and that if a person didn't have a Jewish mother he could neither be married nor buried. Government officials admitted to her that they were agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which that sort of thing would have to be spelled out. Eichmann in Jerusalem, by Hannah Arendt, Published by Penguin Classics, 1992, Page 7, ISBN 0140187650

The latest State Department Country report notes "As in previous periods the Religious Affairs Ministry failed to implement the 1996 Alternative Burial Law that established the right of any individual to be buried in a civil ceremony and did not utilize any of the money allocated in the 2008 budget for the development of civil/secular burial plots." harlan (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the article must mention this laws, with explanation why some view as discriminatory. It is not immediately clear why some believe Law of Return, or Absentee Law or some property laws discriminate against Arab Israelis, or which laws give special legal status to Jewish groups or religion, without giving it to other religions, and how it affect political and judiciary rights of non-Jews in Israel. If there is a law that deprive Arab residents, but not Jewish residents,in East Jerusalem of their property rights, should they be absent for more than three months, it should be mentioned in the article. I honestly never heard of such law, and find it hard to believe that Supreme Court would allow such racist law to pass. There is also no law that deny citizenship from Arabs living in East Jerusalem, all of its residents were offered citizenship since it was annexed. Status of residency however can be revoked, under Israeli law, if somebody become permanent resident in another country and left Israel for more than seven years. This law also do not distinguish between residents Arab or Jew. Also there are definitely political parties in Knesset that challenge Israel's status as a Jewish state, it should be mentioned along with the law. Basic Law: “Israel Lands” (1960), as you can see here [17], does not even mention Jewish nationality, it forbid transfer of ownership of state lands to anyone, Jew or Arab.

To answer your points,repatriation Laws are not unique to Israel, they also exist in many democratic nation states,while not giving automatic citizenship to the nations Diaspora ,give relaxed demands to acquire it. The issue of lack of civil marriage and burial, is a different one(of separation of religion and state) , and mixed marriages are recognized and legal in Israel. Separation of religion and state is also an issue with constitution as mentioned in the article you provided. Who exactly among supporters of "Jewish state", ever demanded a state in which Jews have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens do not enjoy? From the beginning, Herzl envisioned Jewish state where everybody would enjoy equal rights. How is that different from French, Swedish Italian, Albanian etc states where Jews and Arabs can also enjoy equal rights? There are still European countries, like UK, where religion is not separated from the state, and Church of England enjoy exclusive legal status, and there are crosses of the country flag. Non of European nation states, provide equal status to minority languages, and all education is in the language of the majority. So all the issues that Arab Israelis bring up in Israel, are no different then Jews or Arabs can also raise in modern European states, non of which deal with individual rights, or international law, but rather with national rights, and demands that state will express self-determination not only of majority nationality, but also of minorities. For example, while Jews in France have full individual rights, French state is not self-determination for Jewish people.Regards. Igorb2008 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point Igor. You and Okedem asked for some examples of laws that have been criticized as discriminatory. I've now given you some examples. The issue now is not whether or not these critics are right to call these laws discriminatory - we could argue about that until the cows come home. The issue is only whether or not there are critics who have labelled some laws discriminatory, and since that is demonstrably the case, we can't claim in the article, as Okedem has attempted to do, that Israel's laws do not discriminate. We can't do that because clearly there is disagreement in reliable sources about whether or not there are discriminatory laws. So the appropriate course of action is to represent those various viewpoints, according to the usual Wiki policies. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear what was done here. The advocacy movements simply skew the terms used, when laws having zero impact on Israeli citizens are presented as discriminating. Of course, it's good to have some examples, but my previous assertion is even stronger now. It is clear that the text of no law in Israel differentiates between Jewish and Arab citizens, giving one or the other more rights. As I thought. okedem (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue being discussed is whether any Israeli laws are discriminatory. There are sources suggesting some Israeli laws are discriminatory in regards to who can become a citizen of Israel, and therefore that point of view should be included per WP:NPOV. Your assertion that the laws are only discriminatory if they discriminate between existing Israeli citizens is another point of view. That point of view should also be present in the article to the degree that it is supported by reliable sources, again per NPOV. As Gatoclass points out, because there are conflicting sources on this subject both points of view must be presented and attributed per NPOV. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You've just shown you have no idea what we're discussing here. The discussion isn't about the general issue of discrimination, or if the legal system is being manipulated (by selective application of laws) against Arabs.

It's about something very specific - these two sentences: "Israeli citizenship law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity. Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens, including suffrage, political representation, and recourse to the courts." (my bold). okedem (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not merely the accuracy of that statement, but the context in which it is placed. Whether Israili law is discriminatory between Israel citizens should be placed in the context of the wider discourse on whether Israeli law is discriminatory at all. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but no one has actually discussed that. The whole dispute in the article was about those sentences, and that's what the discussion was about. The article discusses the apartheid analogy, and that is about discrimination between citizens of the country based on their ethnicity or race, not about the laws with regard to the worldwide population. okedem (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if there are only two possible solutions. Perhaps someone can come up with an alternative wording that all parties can agree on? Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with Gatoclass, and the article must present all POV. I just think that article must present the laws, and explain why some consider them discriminatory, and some not. For example,it should mention what Law of Return is, and present arguments about it from both supporters and opponents, and give the reader all information to make his own mind. My problem with the recent changes is that it can be understood from them that there are SA-like laws n Israel that give Israelis unequal political,judiciary and voting and representation rights, something I don`t think that even activists for rights of Arab Israelis like Mossawa are suggesting.Igorb2008 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Igor, to answer some of your questions, apartheid began in South Africa and Palestine during the 20th century colonial era and became a matter of state policy in the late 1940s.

There is a peremptory norm of international law that prohibits a government from using a change in the country's sovereignty as a result of either conquest or cession to plunder private property. The use of legislation that appropriates private property from the victims of war is considered illegal, not discriminatory. For example, Article 144 of the Treaty of Sevres required the Turkish Government to recognize the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-i-Metroukeh), and to declare them to be null and void, in the past as in the future. In keeping with a line of precedents, like Edmund Burke's Inquiry into the Seizure of (Jewish) Private Property in St. Eustatius, and U.S. Chief Justice Marshall's decision in the Percheman case, the customary prohibition was codified in the Hague Convention of 1907 and again in paragraph 6 of the Nuremberg Charter, article 147 of the Geneva Convention, and article 8 of the Rome Statute.

Ben Gurion actually sold the land to the JNF without any legislative authority. That is why discussing laws is irrelevant. Ha'aertz reported that "Of the more than 2.5 million dunams owned by the JNF, two million dunams were not purchased with the small coins put into the blue boxes, but were rather lands abandoned by Arabs that David Ben-Gurion, in a typical maneuver, "sold" to the JNF in 1949-1950. The first deal was clinched on January 27, 1949. It included the sale of a million dunams of abandoned land in various areas in return for about 18 million Israeli pounds." See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/864483.html With all due respect for the 'blue box',

By Meron Benvenisti, 29/05/2007

There are no other countries using "repatriation laws" to enlist so-called "proper converts" to colonize and settle the occupied territories of another people, while denying the lawful inhabitants the inherent right of self-determination, right of residence, freedom of movement, and repatriation of their own refugees.

Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide to describe a foreign occupation that destroyed or permanently crippled a subject population either in whole or in part. See The rape of Palestine: hope destroyed, justice denied, By William A. Cook, Expathos, 2008, ISBN: 9079778028, page 2. He said there was an inherent and constitutive relationship between genocide and settler-colonialism.[18] The use of colonists by the occupying power to dispossess the indigenous inhabitants was an integral part of Lemkin's definition of the crime of genocide. Empire, Colony, Genocide, By A. Dirk Moses Lemkin observed that the use of propaganda to rationalize the crime; appeal to popular beliefs and intolerance; sow discord (divide and rule); and to misrepresent or deceive others about what was really happening was an integral part of the process of genocide. see Item #5 on the list under Lemkin's Methodology starting on page 88

In 1985 the UN established an ad hoc Working Group of Experts who reported that apartheid was a special instance of genocide. The difference between the two crimes was clarified in the Rome statute. Although both can bring about the physical destruction of a group, either in whole or in part, an institutionalized regime is not a necessary element of the crime of genocide. Intent is not a necessary element of the crime of Apartheid. See Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity |

Apartheid Johan D. van der Vyver [19]

The founding charter of Ahdut Ha'avodah called for a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and demanded the transfer of Palestine's land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession. In "Letters to Paula and the Children (page 153), Ben Gurion wrote that he was in favor of partition because he didn't envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. He said that what we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish. He explained that he planned on building a first-class Jewish army that would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country and complete the task of redeeming the entire land with, or without, the consent of the Arabs.

In Jabotinsky's Iron Wall he said, Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall.

The Goldstone report said that the Israeli occupation force used excessive and unnecessary lethal force to suppress a grass-roots, non-violent anti-Apartheid group (page 296). The report said that 19 people including 11 children had been killed in demonstrations up until July 2009. The evidence cited included a 109 page legal analysis prepared by the anti-Apartheid group. It says that Israel is in violation of the Apartheid Convention. In any case, Article II(f) of the Convention says that "persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid." is an example of the crime of apartheid. The same report also cited the multinational "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?" study, sponsored by South Africas' HSRC, reviewed each clause (actus reus) of the convention and concluded that Israel has introduced a system of apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in violation of a peremptory norm of international law.

The Goldstone report also concluded that Israel has failed to fulfil its obligations to protect the Palestinians in the West Bank from violence committed by settlers under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The report said evidence of the acquiescence of the security forces in this violence could amount to a violation of the relevant obligations relating to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Insofar as this acquiescence only occurs in respect of violence against Palestinians by settlers, and not vice-versa, there is a strong argument that the behaviour of the security forces is in breach of the obligations of Israel to not discriminate on the basis of national origin.

Separation of religion and state is not a different issue in light of the reports that some soldiers had acted under the influence of rabbis who had encouraged them to believe that the Holy Land should be cleansed of non-Jews. Rabbi Yosef Elitzur of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the settlement of Yitzhar wrote the “Handbook for the Killing of Gentiles” that I mentioned above. He is generously funded by the Government of Israel.[20] The IDF provides him and the other settlers with armed security that facilitates the colonization of the country with, or without, the consent of the Palestinians - in keeping with the doctrine espoused by both Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky. Just the other day, Elitzur called for violent operations against Palestinians,[21]. According to published reports the suspects in Friday's “price tag” arson attack against the mosque at Yasuf are the settlers of Yitzhar and Tapuach.[22] Both settlements are on the new National Priorities Map approved by the Israeli cabinet and are illegal under many international laws, including the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. harlan (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Harlan, as you can see yourself, there is a long list of claims about the conflict, such as claims of genocide you presented. That is why I think that it is important to give the reader all information, to allow make him make his own mind, especially regarding such controversial claims,as that Israeli law is discriminatory.

To answer your other points, all Israeli religious institutions, of all recognized religions, are state funded, without state intervention or control who runs them. Whether the state should condition funding on some sort of control it is another issue. Whether Rabbi Yosef Elitzur should be persecuted for incitement to racism it is also another issue. It has nothing do do with equality in Israel.

I am not sure about peremptory norm of international law that prohibits a government from using a change in the country's sovereignty as a result of either conquest or cession to plunder private property. If such a thing exists, than it will be really hard to find an example, in 20th century, when the norm was respected, and change in the country's sovereignty not resulted in plundering of private property. Even UN did not respected it then , since in 1948 it settled Palestinians in the homes of Jews who were expelled by Jordanians when they occupied East Jerusalem.
As for Goldstone report, Goldstone himself admitted, that he had no resources to investigate the claims and testimonies presented in the report. How for example he can conclude that Israeli force used excessive and unnecessary lethal force against demonstrators, without investigation? Since rocks and Molotov-cocktails are commonly used against soldiers in those demonstrations, it is possible that soldiers felt immediate threat to their life, and had legal right to use force.
As for Jabotinsky or Ben-Gurion writings, as you can see, that are arguing that Jewish right to return to Israel and self-determination should be defended. Non of them suggested that Arabs should not live in Jewish state or not have equal rights.Ben-Gurion was not opposed to creation of Palestinian state either, and he accepted partition plan, and offered peace to Arab states. It was Arabs states insistence that 1949 Armistice Agreements,should state, that, what is now known as Green line, should not be recognized as permanent or de jure borders. In that time it was British and Arabs who were it denying the lawful inhabitants the inherent right of self-determination, right of residence, freedom of movement, and repatriation of their own refugees. I am not sure what you mean by "proper converts". Both Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion were not religious and secularists, so I don`t think any of them cared what religion Jews followed. And as in other countries Israeli law of return refer to specific group of people, to allow them to return to their land of origin. Probably when Palestine will be established, it will have law of return of its own, that allow Palestinians to return, but not to Jews, since even now they refer to Jews as colonists.
I am not sure how Raphael Lemkin definition of genocide relevant here, since the occupation did not destroyed or permanently crippled the subject population either in whole or in part. Regardless International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defined crime of Apartheid, as your can see here [23], and non of its paragraphs deals with repatriation laws, state symbols or state religion.Igorb2008 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Igor the ICJ and CERD had already determined that the wall and the associated regime violate the basic human rights of the Palestinians, that the settlements the rabbis are inhabiting were established in breach of Israel's obligations as an occupying power, and that all of that constituted a grave breach of international law. Most other states believe that, under existing international law, when the IDF kills Palestinian civilians who are demonstrating against an illegal situation, it constitutes a crime. That is true even if the deaths are unintentional. Persecuting groups that oppose Apartheid is, by definition, an example of the crime of Apartheid. That offense is enumerated in the examples contained in the international convention. Goldstone reported that members of an anti-apartheid group had been killed on the basis of government reports; testimony; and video evidence.

Israel permits people without any previous national or ethnic connection to acquire Jewish nationality and immigrate to Palestinian territory. For example How 90 Peruvians became the latest Jewish settlers. There is no parallel in the laws of the other countries. No other country is doing anything remotely like that.

Lemkin's definition is appropriate because it includes "divide and conquer"-style attacks by colonial regimes on the political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of indigenous groups with the intention of destroying their existence as a group and displacing them. Israel asks Palestine to accept hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers, while denying Palestinian refugees to return to their own country of origin.

Lemkin explained that "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." He said "This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor's own nationals." A ‘Just settlement’ of the refugee problem refers to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians, since expulsion, mass deportation, or displacement are crimes against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime. harlan (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the point, the is no group that is intended to be destroyed or displaced,no mass removal of the population, no group that is at risk of being annihilated, whether physically or culturally, so Lemnkin has nothing do do with situation. And I do not think that Israel is opposed to Palestinian refugees returning to Palestine, it is settling them in Israel, that Israel is against.

I maybe wrong about international law on this , but I think it is highly unlikely that it treat killing of demonstrators differently, based on what they demonstrate against. Killing of civilians constitutes a crime regardless.But if a soldiers felt immediate threat to their life, they had legal right to use force.

Also how can agroup can be considered ant-Apartheid group, if there is no crime of Apartheid by the law definition. Goldstone report did not reported about any anti-apartheid group, it reported about killings of demonstrators against Israeli West bank barrier, and it based not on government reports, or video evidence, but on report of Addameer [24] "Stop the Wall report", and Al-Haq press releases, they were the ones that called the group ant-Apartheid. Goldstone report itself does not mention the word Apartheid even once. ICJ and CERD had indeed determined that the wall violate the basic human rights of the Palestinians, but neither ICJ ruling nor CERD report [25], nowhere claimed that wall is a form of racial discrimination or segregation. ICJ or CERD, had no problem with the wall where it was build on Green line.

I understand now what you mean by "proper converts" remark, but how many converts do you think among Jews returning to Israel,especially considering that Israel recognizes only Orthodox conversions, which are very strict, and take years of highly controlled life? And amongst them, how many move to Palestinian territory? Even in Israel, as you can see here,[26], the number of conversions is in hundreds. The law return is designed to allow Jews to return to their indigenous land, while also allowing those who assimilated into Jewish nationality to get to Israel, and enjoy self-determination. Nowhere the law states that they should move to Palestinian territory. Regards. Igorb2008 (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the Prosecutor's job to conduct a preliminary analysis of the report to determine if there is jurisdiction and evidence or elements of a crime that warrant further investigation. Page 296 of the Goldstone report said allegations of the use of unnecessary, lethal force was a concern. It cited a report about "Israel’s suppression of the popular movement against the Apartheid Wall of Annexation" in footnote 271, and provided a link to a website for a list of the 19 people including 11 children killed in anti-wall demonstrations up until July 2009. "Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.", is an example of the crime of Apartheid that is enumerated in Article 2(f) of the Apartheid Convention. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions contains protections for civilians that prohibit violence to life and person, and carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court that are applicable at all times and in any place.

The Fact Finding Mission said it believes that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. It also made similar comments about failure of State officials to investigate settler violence against Palestinians. The 2004 ICJ judgment addressed legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel that resulted in destruction and requisition of property, restrictions on freedom of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and impediments to the exercise by the Palestinians of the right to work, to health, to education, and to an adequate standard of living in breach of international law. The findings of the Court were addressed by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). That is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by its State parties. Apartheid is within their area of competence and responsibility. See the "Documents" tab - Note by the Secretary-General, “Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Draft convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid” (A/8768, 14 September 1972)" and Note by the Secretary-General, “Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Draft convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid” (A/9095 and Add.1, 26 October 1973)" at the UN Treaty Organization [27] harlan (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your justification for a single clause of the Apartheid definition is a logical fallacy. A detailed explanation follows a few passages below.

But in short, the only clause you manage somehow to fit is the "persecution of apartheid opposition", which a) bears very little significance compared to the actual "meat" of the Apartheid definition; b) has a pre-requisite in the form of a popular agreement on the existence of apartheid to protest against. Otherwise, by your logic, it is enough for someone to proclaim he is protesting apartheid for apartheid to become real. That is circular logic and is quite ludicrous. Sort of like the trick of accusing a person of always disagreeing with you. He's "guilty" no matter what he says.

- edited for clarity --Sirotnikov (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem oblivious to the fact that the ICJ had already found that the wall and the associated regime were illegal because, with the exception of the Israeli inhabitants, they violated a number of internationally guaranteed humanitarian and human rights of the remaining inhabitants. Some of the offenses that were cited are by definition war crimes which are subject to universal or ICC jurisdiction.

The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination, land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living. The Court also noted that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fact Finding Mission and several UN Rapporteurs subsequently noted that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. All of those things happen to be constituent acts of apartheid that are enumerated in article 2 of the convention. BTW, those findings of fact are all prima facie evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

So, it is unsurprising that Palestinians use the legal definition of apartheid, when they demonstrate against the illegal situation created by the construction of the wall and the associated regime. The Apartheid convention also prohibits any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent members of the group from exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. harlan (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate article (name)

What is this article about? Its name is "Israel and the apartheid analogy". It speaks about different opinions of people, some of whom believe Israel behaves as apartheid, and others don't. The aricel cannot just claim, that there is analogy, but rather cite people claiming so, so why is the article called "Israel and the apartheid analogy"? I can't think of an appropriate name for the text in this article, unless this is a newspaper article. May be renaming it into "List of claims that Israel has analogy to apartheid", would be better, I don't know, but I believe that leaving its name as is, does not convey a neutral point of view, that wikipedia is supposed to represent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.134.74 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I put a POV tag on the article and pointed out that the Rapportuer of the responsible UN treaty monitoring body had recommended that an opinion be obtained from the ICJ on the question of whether or not Israel had established a system of Apartheid.

The recent UN Fact Finding Mission report said there was evidence of crimes against humanity and war crimes that a Court could reasonably conclude amounted to persecution, and violations of crimes as defined by article 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute. The ICJ had already concluded that restrictions on freedom of movement were a violation of the basic human rights of Palestinians, and the UN Fact Finding Mission said it believes that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. The report also said that there was evidence of the unnecessary use of lethal force against a non-violent anti-Apartheid group. It reported that 19 individuals had been killed by members of the IDF or Israeli border police during demonstrations. "Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.", is an example of the crime of Apartheid that is enumerated in Article 2(f) of the Apartheid Convention.

This is really a circular argument, reminding me of Python's argument clinic sketch. Before people can be recognized "apartheid oppositioners" there should first be a recognized basis for the existence of apartheid, according to the definition Igor quoted. As Igor consistently showed you, there is no evidence of any other portion of the Apartheid definition. As such, claiming that the mere existence of accusers proves there is apartheid is ludicrous. Imagine a case of a radical anarchist who honestly believes the US is an apartheid, and goes on to protest causing massive civil disturbance, setting cars on fire and what not. By your logic, as soon as he is arrested the US is then automatically an apartheid because it arrested a protester against apartheid.

Do you see this is a logical fallacy? Do you see that you use a mere accusation to dishonestly justify a single side clause in the Apartheid Convention? Certainly my example isn't perfect because there are far more allegations regarding Israel than there are regarding the US. However, those allegations are contested, there are many counter-arguments, and so far the apartheid accusation is very far from being commonly accepted. You yourself have been unable to find any other clause in the definition to justify this accusation. Thus, the mere accusation of apartheid, and Israeli actions against some protesters who make such accusation (specifically only some of those who directly engage in violent disturbances) is not enough to circularly justify the accusation.

--Sirotnikov (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact finding mission's report cited numerous situations that constitute systematic discrimination and persecution on the basis of race or nationality. Unless Israel rebuts those findings of fact in its follow-up report to the General Assembly, it constitutes prima facie evidence of apartheid. The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty. It is the constitutional document that distributes powers and functions among the various UN organs and permits them to create subsidiary organs to fulfill their functions and purposes. Those subsidiary organs include the special fact finding commissions, special rapporteurs, and treaty monitoring bodies. The ICJ has affirmed that UN organs can make legal determinations within their areas of competence. In January of 2007, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard, reported to the General Assembly that elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. Dugard is a South African professor of international law who has served as Judge on the International Court of Justice and as a Special Rapporteur for the International Law Commission. harlan (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a self-evident principle of law that an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties. The UN has acknowledged its legal obligation to protect civilians in situations of armed conflict under the recently adopted R2P international law norm. See Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006), Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. If it fails to act, the General Assembly can exercise its own responsibility under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. The 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly was convened for the first time in April 1997 and last resumed in January 2009 to consider the crisis in the Gaza strip that prompted the deployment of the UN Fact Finding Mission.

The Israeli Bar Association has finally noticed that the ICC Prosecutor is still conducting a preliminary analysis of the charges that were filed a year ago by the Palestinian Authorities, and that the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission contained a reference to the "Uniting For Peace" resolution that was used to impose collective sanctions against the Apartheid regime in South Africa. See A real threat of ICC prosecution and Goldstone clause could lead to sanctions The guidance from ARBCOM said this article wasn't supposed to be used for propganda purposes. The claim that the article is merely discussing "an analogy" has become untenable. harlan (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Some editors think the article doesn't have a NPOV because it doesn't go far enough in describing how the State of Israel's actions resemble apartheid, and other editors think it doesn't have a NPOV because it goes too far by describing the comparison at all. The truth is in the middle. The article describes the discourse on the subject in a neutral manner, giving all sources suitable weight. It's clear that the discourse is real and notable, and that it involves a comparison to South African apartheid. So the title "Isreal and the apartheid analogy", while pleasing to almost nobody, should be acceptable to all editors as a lowest common denominator describing the subject. Perhaps the analogy involves a inaccurate comparison, or maybe the analogy doesn't go far enough. Both of these points of view are described in the article, per WP:NPOV. Nobody can deny that the analogy exists as a discourse, so it makes sense to use it as the title because it's an undeniably factual assessment of the situation: that a discourse exists that compares the State of Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This encyclopedia has articles on the Holocaust and on Holocaust denial. An ordinary editor should be able to create an article about the official conclusions of the UN Rapporteurs; the UN Fact Finding Mission; studies conducted by independent State Agencies; or criminal complaints from international organizations once they have been filed with the ICC Prosecutor. The reports specifically mention violations of the Apartheid convention, war crimes, and the regime associated with the Security Wall. The ICJ found that it violates humanitarian and human rights laws, and the Fact Finding Mission believes it does so based upon race or national origin. There are credible reports of the IDF rabbinate encouraging acts of atrocity on the basis of race or national origin. That fact has also been mentioned in a published fact finding report that was supplied to the ICC Prosecutor. There is a self-evident principle of civility involved here. Editors should not be forced to recognize or accept a situation as if it were a harmless "analogy" once the responsible treaty monitoring body and the General Assembly have concluded that sufficient evidence exists to warrant investigations of crimes defined in the statute of the International Criminal Court. harlan (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We can all agree that there's a discourse comparing the State of Israel's treatment of Palestinians to apartheid. That's what "analogy" means, a comparison. Your point seems to be that the discourse goes beyond a comparison and equates Israel's behaviour with apartheid, saying it is apartheid (or perhaps, it is the crime of apartheid). It's certainly the case that some of the sources do that. Per NPOV, we should present the sources fairly and proportionately. If the most reliable sources were overwhelming in stating that the behaviour not only resembles apartheid, but is apartheid (or is committing the crime of apartheid), then I would agree with you that the "analogy" title is insufficient to present the sources fairly and proportionately. I'm not sure that's the case, it seems that many of the sources say that it resembles aspects of apartheid, but I'd be interested if you think you can demonstrate that the most reliable sources consistently go further. In terms of movement at the UN to have the State of Israel taken to task for the crime of apartheid, sources to that effect could be counted among those that go beyond stating a resemblance. But the scholarly sources would also need to overwhelmingly agree, as they do in holding up the historical reality of the Holocaust. In the instance of the Holocaust, we have persons who were not only accused of crimes but also prosecuted and found guilty. We also have historians in near-universal agreement on the existence of Holocaust. That's an extremely high bar to make your comparison to. To draw the full parallel you're making, Israel (or its leaders) would have to be found guilty of the crime of apartheid in court and scholars would have to be almost universally saying that the State of Israel's behaviour is apartheid. Personally I think you've set too strong a threshold by making that comparison. I would settle for international legal experts overwhelmingly agreeing that Israel would be found guilty if taken to court (it's unlikely to actually happen for political, not legal reasons as the US would veto it at the Security Council), and that scholars were overwhelmingly saying that the State of Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians is apartheid. It would not have to be near-universal agreement as it is for the Holocaust, but it would have to be a substantial majority of foremost experts making the case strongly. Do you think that's currently the case? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues for Moderation or ARBCOM

Editors have repeatedly removed a wikilink from the Israel article stating that Israel and the apartheid analogy is nothing but a propaganda tool - and that the comparisons some people choose to make, for their own purposes, are of no relevance. e.g. [28] The term 'apartheid analogy' has no definition. It is NOT a legal term of art (i.e. its use does not preclude wrongfulness or illegality of the actions that it describes). The "analogy" article contains actual reports regarding the crime of apartheid that have been submitted to the UN treaty monitoring bodies. The international convention and the international criminal statute define "the crime of apartheid" and supply the elements of the offense. Neither of those sources mentions the term "apartheid analogy", and neither treats any subject that constitutes lawful behavior. When I added information, citations, and wikilinks about "the crime of apartheid" to the "apartheid analogy" article, other editors here deleted it and said "we're discussing the analogy (between Israel's actions and apartheid, not apartheid itself". [29] I asked for a published definition of the term "apartheid analogy" from a WP:RS source in the |Clean-up of article needed section above, but no definition was ever supplied.

The point I was making in the section above is that when editors trivialize reports of acts that are defined as war crimes or crimes against humanity under the provisions of the Rome Statute that have been committed against groups, or members of groups, based on race, religion, or national origin it is considered an unambiguous form of incitement under the EU framework. Demanding that other editors adopt the "analogy viewpoint" surely constitutes uncivil behavior. Nothing in Wikipedia policy prevents us from accurately describing the fact that Israel has been charged with the crime of apartheid and the strong moral repugnance that many people feel when acts that are, by definition, war crimes and crimes against humanity are dismissed as a mere "analogy". [30]

The Apartheid Convention did not create any new human rights. The list of basic human rights enumerated in Article II of the Apartheid Convention are enshrined and protected in other international conventions. Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [31] says "States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction." The review of Israel's report by the CERD panel of experts stated "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 [32]

Under the Rome Statute "persecution" involves the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights against an identifiable group on prohibited discriminatory grounds (e.g. race, nationality, ethnicity, culture or religion), provided the crime is committed in connection with other conduct that may constitute a crime falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In 2000 the UN Commission on Human Rights reported "widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity." See E/CN.4/RES/S-5/1 19 October 2000 [33] The recent UN Fact Finding Mission also reported collective punishment and said there was evidence of crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined by article 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute of a scope and nature that a Court could reasonably conclude amounted to "persecution".

The 848-page written submission [34] of Palestine and the other interested state parties in the 2004 "Wall" case did say that Israel's policy and practices included a regime of racial discrimination, segregation, collective punishment, and apartheid that give rise to criminal liability by the Government of Israel for violations of human rights and some prima facie grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol 1 (Article 85), and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Secretary-General submitted a 1066-page dossier,[35] including reports from the treaty bodies, which contained prima facie evidence to support those charges. One report outlined the use of the “Wall of Apartheid”, coercive force, and enclaves of Jewish settlements to violate the right of self-determination, right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence, right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, right to just and favorable conditions of work, right to education, right to health, right to liberty and security of person, rights to freedom of opinion and of association, and the right to life. [36] The dossier and those reports were cited and discussed by the Court, and then summed-up in paragraphs 130-134 of the Court's Advisory Opinion. It concluded that the basic human rights of the inhabitants of the Palestinian territory (with the exception of Israelis) were being violated. For example, the "Report by the Special Rapporteur, Jean Ziegler" (para 133) discussed the underlying strategy of settlement and "Bantustanization". He said that constitutes a violation of the obligation to respect the right to food because it "cuts off Palestinians from their agricultural lands, wells and means of subsistence". Ziegler noted land is confiscated for the building of "the security fence/apartheid wall", the network of "settler-only access roads", "extension of settlements", and "the building of security buffers around the settlements". He cited USAID, UN, and World Bank studies which illustrated the collapse of the local economy, isolation from farm lands, lack of access to adequate supplies of food and water, and the resulting cases of Palestinians suffering from malnutrition and hunger, children with associated permanent developmental problems and anemia; lack of adequate health care, and etc. Ziegler noted that the occupying Power does not automatically have the right to take measures related to the security of its civilians living in settlements in the occupied territory, because the establishment of settlements is in itself illegal, as outlined under the sixth paragraph of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[37]

The ICJ took note of the report on Israel's implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and said it was "not without relevance" that Israel had claimed settlers in the Occupied Territories enjoy the right to an adequate standard of living under the terms of the Covenant, but that according to Israel, the Palestinian population within the same jurisdictional areas were excluded from the protections of the Covenant. That report also noted that Israel's emphasis on establishing a "Jewish State" and granting rights and privileges on the basis of "Jewish nationality" had turned Arabs and Bedouins into second class citizens and impaired their exercise of basic human rights. [38]

The 2004 ICJ judgment concluded that Israel had facilitated the transfer of part of its own population into the Occupied Palestinian territory. That is, by definition, a grave breach of the Geneva Convention and a war crime according to the terms of Additional Protocol 1 (Article 85) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 8). When the Palestinian Authority accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, it said "We will deliver more information about war crimes and crimes against humanity -- not only in Gaza during the last Israeli attack, but also from 2002 until this moment." [39] The League of Arab States (including Palestine) submitted a 254 page report [40] to the ICC Prosecutor which cited the "Wall" case and requested that those suspected of having committed grave breaches of the Geneva Convention be investigated and prosecuted. Article 85 of the Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 provides for the prosecution of aggravating factors like persecution as grave breaches and war crimes "4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:... ...(c) practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination;" and "5. Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes." [41] harlan (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

CERD is the UN body responsible for combating apartheid, and it never even mentioned the word apartheid in its reports about Israel. One UN Special Rapporteur wrote that Israeli policies different from the apartheid regime, but resembles some of its aspects. That is all. ICJ report has nothing to do with the issue, it never ever claimed or discussed racial discrimination, it discussed where West Bank barrier can be build. ICC,As of 4 October 2007, had received 2889 communications about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries, and ICC not investigating Israel. Goldstone report, the recent UN Fact Finding Mission report cited here, never even mentioned the word, except in reference footnote , just like in Wikipedia, where the word is in the name of the article quoted. This article is presenting list of accusations, by very small minority, that Israeli policies is motivated not by security, but by racism. There are not a lot of facts in the article.For example the are claims in it, that twenty laws are discriminatory, but no mention of which laws, and why.The are claims that WB barrier is an "apartheid wall", but no mention if it actually separates people by race. Can you imagine SA apartheid article, if it was just list of those who accuse of discrimination, without mentions of laws and practices? "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is a compromise , and I think that the article should improve, to fit even this name. Igorb2008 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Igorb the conventions say that apartheid consists of policies and practices of segregation and discrimination. All of those reports and judgments mentioned Israeli policies and practices of racial segregation, separation, or discrimination. The ICJ cited a report which used the itemized list as Article II(3) of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and said it was "not without relevance" that Israel had claimed settlers in the Occupied Territories enjoy the right to an adequate standard of living under the terms of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but that according to Israel, the Palestinian population within the same jurisdictional areas were excluded from the protection of the Covenant.

Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination says "States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction." The CERD panels of experts have cited concerns under article 3 of the Convention in several reports. For example "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law." [42] CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998

No reports claimed of any policy of racial segregation,including ICJ report, as your can see here[43]. In addition CERD quote, you have provided, is not from its report or conclusions about Israel, but form protocol of CERD meeting, in which statements from all speakers where recorded. Your quoted Mr. van BOVEN words, one of the speakers, and not CERD position. Non of CERD periodic reports on Israel, ever accused it of apartheid, and CERD is the body that is responsible for discussing any allegation of Apartheid. Israel has not been charged with crime of apartheid,and in 2000 the UN Commission on Human Rights never claimed that race, nationality, ethnicity, culture or religion is the factor in alleged offenses, so International Criminal Court never accepted jurisdiction on the matter. The report to general assembly cited above,[44], also never accuse Israel of apartheid practices or racism ,and deals with warfare conduct. This article is about use and legitimacy of use of epithet "apartheid" in relation to Israel, and why some use it, and some oppose it, and not about human rights in Israel or PNA.It more related to Palestinian public relations. Igorb2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Mr. van Boven was a voting member of the CERD panel of experts and he was speaking about the seventh, eighth and ninth periodic reports of Israel (CERD/C/294/Add.1) at meeting of the CERD that was called to "consider reports, comments and information submitted by State parties under article 9 of the convention." He mentioned the opinion of "the majority of publicists" that the practice of using State lands in the Occupied Palestinian territories to establish settlements for persons of Jewish nationality is a violation of a prohibition against racial discrimination. Under Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, are a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.[45]

The CERD panel did cite Article 3 of ICERD regarding the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. Here are some examples from CERD/C/ISR/CO/13, 14 June 2007 [46]:

"22. The Committee notes with deep concern that separate “sectors” are maintained for Jewish and Arab persons, in particular in the areas of housing and education, and that according to some information, such separation results in unequal treatment and funding. The Committee regrets that information provided by the State party on this matter was not sufficiently detailed. (Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the Convention)"

Paragraph 23 the CERD "remains concerned, however, that the condition that applicants must be “suitable to a small communal regime” may allow, in practice, for the exclusion of Arab Israeli citizens from some State-controlled land. (Articles 2, 3 and 5 (d) and (e) of the Convention)"

Paragraph 33 noted "the State party had chosen to disregard the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Committee is of the opinion that the wall and its associated regime raise serious concerns under the Convention, since they gravely infringe a number of human rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel. These infringements cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order. (Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention)"

Paragraph 34 "The Committee is deeply concerned that the severe restrictions on the freedom of movement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, targeting a particular national or ethnic group, especially through the wall, checkpoints, restricted roads and permit system, have created hardship and have had a highly detrimental impact on the enjoyment of human rights by Palestinians, in particular their rights to freedom of movement, family life, work, education and health. It is also concerned that the Order on Movement and Travel (Restrictions on Travel in an Israeli Vehicle) (Judea and Samaria), of 19 November 2006, which bans Israelis from transporting Palestinians in their vehicles in the West Bank, except in limited circumstances, has been suspended but not cancelled. (Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention)"

Paragraph 35 "The Committee notes with concern the application in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of different laws, policies and practices applied to Palestinians on the one hand, and to Israelis on the other hand. It is concerned, in particular, by information about unequal distribution of water resources to the detriment of Palestinians, about the disproportionate targeting of Palestinians in house demolitions and about the application of different criminal laws leading to prolonged detention and harsher punishments for Palestinians than for Israelis for the same offences. (Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention)"

Palestine's written statement in the Wall case accused Israel of apartheid. Paragraph 562-573 summarized several chapters and said that Israel is using illegal settlements to create enclaves and impose segregation amounting to bantustanization. One of its features is a fictitious grant of sovereignty. Progressively, a process is under way limiting any 'Palestinian State' to Palestinian cities and villages comprised of a number of separate enclaves without sovereignty and with no resources for self-sustenance and no possibility of free circulation for the population, and surrounded by Israeli sovereignty in the interstices between the enclaves.

The Goldstone report cited the ICJ Judgment (para 185, 198, 201, and etc.) and said that the Mission believed that in the movement and access policy there had been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin (para 1581). He used the term Separation (Hafrada) and wrote at considerable length about the subject; about the enclaves; and the dual legal system based on nationality in the Occupied Territory.

In the Wall case Judge Higgins noted that a major difference in Israel's case was that "First and foremost, there was already, at the time of the request for an opinion in 1971 on the legal consequences of certain acts, a series of Court Opinions on South West Africa which made clear what were South Africa's legal obligations." See Paragraph 2 [47] In his report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007 John Dugard recommended that another advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s conduct should be sought from the ICJ. He stated this advisory opinion would only complement the opinion that the ICJ had delivered in 2004. harlan (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid for arab states

may anyone find a parallel or open an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can create an article. However, unless the article is based on a number of reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books, and academic articles then it is likely to be quickly deleted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This sort of tit-for-tat article creation got quite a few people slapped down the last time they tried to pull that stunt. Not an advisable route to take. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be more useful to cover discrimination in the Middle East in a more unified fashion. Iraq being a prime case, but the Shia under the House of Saud aren't treated very nicely either. Why not just adopt a NPOV and call Gaza a "Death Camp" as surely that would have no historical baggage. ;-) Hcobb (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe we call that synthesis. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

pure Agitprop

If ever an article called out to be deleted, this would be it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are free to review the 8 previous AfDs to see why this article has been retained. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to bet big bucks that it was because there were more editors of the anti-Israel school of thought than there were pro-Israel or purely neutral editors. 8' previous AfD's demonstrate quite a lot of sentiment paralleling mine. Stellarkid (talk)

One does not have to be "anti-Israel" (a code-word for "antisemitic") to be in favor of retaining an article that covers a notable and widely-documented subject. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, let's not be coy here, Tarc. While some people who are anti-Israel are "antisemitic", not all are. I see you have managed to find a way to accuse other editors who find this article full of gas to change perfectly legitimate criticism into an unwarranted personal attack. Please try to refrain from turning WP into any more of a battleground then it already is. Stellarkid (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you had a legitimate criticism, then there are better means of expression than a dismissive, throwaway one-liner on the article's talk page. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article describes a notable public discourse. The position that this discourse is propaganda is described in the article. The article itself is not propaganda, because it discusses the discourse in a neutral manner. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is notable public discourse, in the context of criticism of Israel or in discussing Jimmy Carter's book, but it is not notable in and of itself with respect to one state. Do we have such an article with respect to Jewish or Christian citizens of other Arab states in the region? With respect to women in Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim states? With respect to Sudan? Certainly the "apartheid analogy" can be and has been made with respect to women in the Muslim world, or Christians and Jews in same. Is there another article in WP describing or making an argument for a particular analogy? I think not. No, this article is weakly disguised criticism of Israel and only that.

An analogy is 1)an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably agree in others & 2)a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect. An analogy is not a fact and may be weak or false. This particular analogy is basically an argument meant to bring forward the political view of some anti-Israel activists (including some in the UN) that Israel treats its Arab population similarly to the way the South African government treated its black population and therefore pushes the erroneous conclusion that Israel is a racist country. Since the analogy starts from false premises, it fails. And no, it isn't neutrally presented and I will in the coming weeks attempt to demonstrate why. Stellarkid (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All are arguments that have been tried and broadly rejected in the past, particularly the "weakly disguised criticism of Israel" shtick. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can find the same depth and breadth of sources comparing the treatment of women in Islam to apartheid as this article cites comparing the treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel to apartheid, then you won't have any difficulty creating and maintaining an article on that subject on Wikipedia. The definition of notability here is coverage in reliable sources, not any editor's personal opinion of what is notable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, saying the analogy is weak or false doesn't hold water since the analogy has been used by at least two Israeli prime ministers. Are they too "anti-Israel activists"? --Dailycare (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)