Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44

Hafrada - unaccepted policy of crime or accepted policy of peace

The article now opens with the following text: "crime of Apartheid, as expressed by the Israeli concept of hafrada." and a source is given, showing the use of the term Hafrada, separation, which sounds similar to Apartheid. This is a purposfully chosen term for an overall Pov tone of the article.

Here are several sources that prove this is a falacy, and that it is missing the context that exists as I time and again proved: Anti Israeli bias, and not just arguments against current Israeli policies. I am sure that good secondary sources exist, but am bringing these just to show that the way the article is currently being handled and written is definitely biased and even skewed with a one sided POV.

Emphasis in the following links, and translations are mine:

"...We wish to bring a permanent end to this blood filled conflict... in a state with 80% of the population Jewish... while a promise that non-Jews: Muslims, Christians, Druze and others, will all have full rights, personal, religious, civil rights just like all citizens of Israel. Judaism and racism are opposing terms. We understand the permanenet solution to be in the area... of most of the Land of Israel under the Brittish Mandate, alongside a Palestinian entity which will be a home for most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."
"... We Jews and Arabs... We the people, we shape the face of history. And we the leaders hear the voices and sense the deepest emotions and feelings of thousands and millions and translate it into reality...
"Peace Now currently works to ensure Israelis embrace the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: two states, meaning the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. "
Hashem Mahamid (Arab Member of Knesset, about the living alongside the Jewish settlers in Hebron) "There cannot be co-existence, there is no possibility, only a decieved co-existence, because you cannot co-exist with someone who believes he is the master and all the others are just his slaves... Let's not smear and blur the issue, the truth must be said. There is no room, Mr. chairman, for extremists from either side. No room for those who want the full Land of Israel, and not for those want the full Palestine.... Hebron is not Israeli, and Jaffa is not Palestinian... whoever says its all mine does not seek peace, and is dancing on the blood of both nations.
Abd Wahab el-Darawsha (Arab Member of Knesset)
Mr. Chairman. We are witnessing a historical process of reconcilliation between the two national movements... which will terminate the blood spilling and stop tragic acts in which Jews and Arabs are killed... and wounded. Even here... people are saying 'we cannot make peace with the Palestinians'... and I want to tell him: "It is not possible to realize the full land of Israel dream. You can continue dreaming but you must be realistic and wake up... in the same way that I tell the extreme Palestinians that believe in the dream of the full Palestine. To them too I say: you can continue dreaming, but in fact, there is no way you can realize that dream. There is only one option open for the two nations: a compromise... by which the Israeli army will withdraw from the captured areas... and by which the Palestinians will build an independant state in the west bank and in the Gaza strip.
Raanan Cohen - Member of Knesset from the left:
...and there were worrisom calls for a Jihad on Jerusalem. He found himself a great place to declare that from, in South Africa. They are very dangerous... because they are religious... as long as the Palestinians see this as a religious dispute, there will be no solution... We have no other option, Jews and Arabs to find what unites us... and first and formost is to leave the Almighty out of it. We shall not fight His wars because we must live here and we must do all we can for the peace and co-existance, because there is none other. Thank you.
Deputy minister of defence and former general Motta Gur:
...around 1988 the Syrians and Palestinians began to realize that the state of Israel is alive, exists, an indesputable fact, not to be conquered in battle, and the only way to continue living with it is to reach co-existance and peace. The whole Palestinian theory... of obliterating Israel off the map, of annihilating Israel, and replacing it with the Greater Palastine... but realized that they must come to terms with us. ...We are strong... and must be careful... but should we step back from the chance to reach peace and security? No way!
... (following further questions) There is no room for anyone but the Jewish people to the historic claim that Jerusalem was their state... The united Jerusalem will forever be ours.
Now! End occupation. Now! The right of return... my party which I represent talks about two different states. One state for all citizens which is non-Zionist state. Non-Jewish state. Within the borders of '48. And a Palestinian state, with the the right of return. ...This is the program of my party.

I stress again to point out that I DO NOT agree with a policy of separation. But that does not make any policies of separation with the Palestinian authority, a policy of deliberate segregation. And the use of the word Hafrada (partition) hinting to apartheid is therefore not acceptable. To the contrary. They were and still are the policies of an expected peace process to terminate the blood bath that the region has been going through. The three anti Israeli sources (electronic intifadah, counterpunch and Zu'ubi) I brought above make this point crystal clear, in Israel's enemies' own words.

Partition is at the foundation of the region. It was the UN resolution on partition that allowed the Jews in Israel to survive an all-out onslaught, after under the British "mandate" Jews were being slagutered in the 1921 Jaffa riots, in the 1929 Palestine riots, during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, and would have been by the 8 armies fighting it in 1948.

Please correct. And help me find secondary sources so that this article can be factual, correct and at least transparent about the controversies and about the sides using the term.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • This is indeed a fallacy - and to boot - is not support by the citation provided (which does not contain the word Hafrada) - but does perhaps seem cited in the section in the article. Hafrada/Separation from the Palestinians - a step towards 2-states / disengagements - is indeed entirely separate and in a counter direction from continued occupation. However, since the whole article here is really filled with wild claims - refuting that someone claimed this is a connection between Hafrada and supposed apartheid is difficult - as these wild armchair claims have been made by various writers.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
So what do you propose. Just leave the article as it is written now, slowly work through it starting with the opening sentences, or is there any other option? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The whole article, as far as I am concerned, is a collection of opinions. Some with some basis. Some with no basis. However as we are covering opinions, you end up covering whatever opinions are out there, however bizarre and unfounded (and really - the Hafrada connection is one of syntax (Hafrada sounds like segregation - and viola! We're back 1960s America) and not substance (as most of the "Hafrada" policies - were/are aimed to create a 2-state reality (and opposed by many right-wing Israelis who don't want 2 separate states)). You have similar issues with pages devoted to say 9/11 conspiracy theories. What can you do about it? Attacking it on the merits, on Wikipedia, e.g. saying the whole thing is absurd... Won't get you far. You need to find academic critiques that refute. You need to work in the antisemitism angle - backed up by RS (which actually does exist) - e.g. If every other ethnic group can get an ethnic based Nation state (e.g. Hungary, Latvia, Finland, etc.) - why not the Jews? There are RSes that assert this. I frankly tend to stay out of an article like this one - it is really one big POV-fork, and unless you have wide consensus for balancing, you end up with a whole new collection of opinions pushed into the article as a response.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The comparison of Hafrada to apartheid can be sourced to academic sources, but it's placement in the first sentence of the lead may be too prominent and also limit too narrowly the scope of the page—not all sources discussing apartheid explicitly mention Hafrada. The lede should reflect the article content. The current sentence is too narrow and essay-like, but Hafrada is not the only problem. The entire sentence is essay-like and would need to be revised for NPOV. Seraphim System (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I was BOLD and cut it out of the lead - it shouldn't have been there - it can stay in one of the many sub-sections where it is. I'd note that in many social science disciplines an academic paper is often just an opinion (sometimes an absurd one - [1]).Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is discussed in very great detail above, and it is clear that many academic sources do indeed make this explicit link. It was appropriate to add this a couple of months ago, and inappropriate to remove it today. I have restored the phrase. RolandR (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus here, and doesn't seem to be in the previous discussion, to put this term in the first sentence of lead. I also think it's UNDUE where it is now and will remove it shortly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "Hafrada" alone (one of it seems god-zillion arguments) shouldn't stand in the lead alone. It doesn't like this particular line of reasoning is used by most of the apartheid claims, but just by some (while other advance other lines of reasoning).Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Could somebody please add the following opinion of a Sudanese human rights activist in the section Israel and the apartheid analogy#By others:

Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, writing for the Gatestone Institute, has criticized Desmond Tutu for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, stating that Arabs in Israel enjoy a variety of rights that blacks in apartheid-era South Africa did not, including the right to vote, and that Palestinians are only stopped at checkpoints to prevent attacks. Deng asks why Tutu criticizes Israel for apartheid policies it does not have, but ignores what Deng believes to be actual apartheid practices in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and especially his own country Sudan.[ref]Bishop Tutu and "Israeli Apartheid"[/ref]--Newer wiki (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this paragraph was previously removed by User:Seraphim System, so what we're looking at here is not just a simple edit request. It is a request for an editor to come along and revert Seraphim's edit, so anyone who's counting their reverts should know that making this edit would exhaust their whole 1RR for the day. Alephb (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This was removed because as User:Newer wiki says himself in the above comment, Deng is a primary source who compares Israel to his own experience, in his country Sudan. This article is full of primary sources, and I am removing them. They should be replaced by academic or expert secondary sources per WP:RS WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:NEWSORG - I also find it strange that this is the second post requesting that citation cleanup on this page be reverted - this time by a user with only one post. Seraphim System (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Simon Deng is a known Sudanese human rights activist no less reliable or "expert" than Naomi Klein and other individuals in the 'support' section. The only mistake was that he was included in the section of South Africans. It was a matter of mistaken nationality, that's all. He could be in "others" opposing the comparison. This article is full of primary sources for both sides, since they are reliable to present attributed opinions.--Newer wiki (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The section is of opinions by "others" after a section about "notable and scolarly". The section is about opinions, Simon Deng is in fact notable and in fact a human rights activist, and therefore the source from Gatestone institute is good and should not be treated as OR. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not done cleaning up, but most likely Naomi Klein is also not necessary for this article, as there are an abundance of academic sources available on the subject. This effects the readability of the article. Notability is not a guideline for WP:RS, scholarly expertise is...notability is also not a free pass for primary sources. Please review the policy. Seraphim System (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
How many days are needed till you finish "cleaning up"? There is a slightly uncomfortable feeling with a bit more than an inkling of a notion of proof that your "cleaning up" is only done on texts opposing your POV? I hope I'm wrong. I don't know who Naomi Klein is, or what that has to do with the removal of Deng's opinion. I repeat: This section is about opinions, so RS is not the issue here and therefore notability ABOUT THE OPINION, and about the sayer definitely is. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, User:Newer wiki, you probably meant Kenneth Meshoe a member of the South African parliament in his presentation on the "Prager University" youtube channel here. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pashute If you scroll up you will see I have pinged several users to see if they have any objections to my rather conservative changes. So far none of the users who have been involved in the extensive discussions about cleaning up this page have objected to my edits. I am not imposing large unilateral changes because I have to give other involved editors an opportunity to comment and discuss any changes I make. I do think you should read our policies more carefully. We do not make exceptions for WP:RS because an editor believes the section to be about "opinions" - I will point out also, that Deng's comments are impossible to disentangle from his comparison to events that he lived through. Unless there are academic secondary sources that discuss Deng's theory it is, by definition, WP:OR. Seraphim System (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —MRD2014 talk contribs 02:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Israeli apartheid allegations. Most respondents below either supported, or were happy with, this alternative formulation, suggesting it was a better fit than either the current title or the proposed title, per WP:CONCISE, WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISE.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing to no consensus: it seems there is a lot of confusion in this discussion, and a new RM had been star. Despite a clear consensus in the RM here, there have been objections made, and it appears that a new RM was started before the old one was finished. @Hungarian Phrasebook: please do not do that again - all RMs will be closed eventually, and it creates a lot of confusion to have two running at the same time for the same article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy – The proposed title is more concise, as per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title, without altering the meaning or connotations of the current title or losing any information, and thus without reopening the settlement that was reached several years ago regarding the name of this article. More concise titles, made up only of content words with the exclusion of funciton words, makes it easier for Wikipedia users to navigate the encyclopedia. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Support as mover. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose This title would take a view on that there is an "Israeli Apartheid" - which is contested POV. You'd have to change analogy to defamation or possibly the more neutral allegations to make this fly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
    • No it does not, you're parsing the title. The title is neutral but if you wish to suggest it takes a view you'd have to say it takes a view that there is such a thing as an "Israeli apartheid analogy" which is a different thing (Perhaps because of the way the box is formatted you failed to see that the word "analogy" is still in the title). I think everyone agrees that an analogy has been made, regardless of whether or not one views that analogy as accurate (and whether or not it is is beyond the scope of this discussion). Hungarian Phrasebook (talk)
      The suggested title allows such parsing to be made, unlike the current one. If this is contracted, analogy should be counterbalanced to make clear, in the title, that this is a viewpoint against Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
      The suggested title is not "allowing such parsing to be made", indeed with three words instead of five, if anything, the title is less likely to be misleading. You're also now arguing for changing the content of the current title. The proposed title is no different in content from the current title, it simply removes the non-content words. Your complaints are about the current title rather than about the proposed change per se. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
      No, as the "and the" contraction takes no viewpoint of the relationship between A and B. One can "and the" an infinite set of pairs of disjoint subjects. E.g "Genocide and the cubism analogy" as opposed to "genocidal cubism analogy". The first draws no connection between A and B. The second ascribes A to B.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
      You're splitting hairs. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Icewhiz's opposition is correct; the proposed title assumes such a thing as "Israeli apartheid" exists as a thing unto itself. The apartheid analogy per se is the subject of the article, and the proposed title invites, if not demands, the parsing (Israeli apartheid) (analogy), when it's actually a (South African apartheid) (analogy) (applied to Israel). The hairs need splitting; the current title does that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's a better title, "and the" is unnecessary. Above users comments are ill-informed - - I can't make sense of the above comments supporting the use of "and the" - it makes no difference to the meaning of the title to remove this. in fact the use of analogy at all in the title is a POV violation - the page should be more properly called Israel apartheid allegations - as that is NPOV. John Dugard said apartheid in Israel is " worse than the one that existed in South Africa" - this is not an "analogy". He is not talking about "Oh they had "No blacks" signs on the bathrooms in Africa and they don't in Palestine" - he is talking about murdering persons of a racial group, torture, administrative detentions, etc. Seraphim System (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    So in other words you don't support the proposed rename but wish a different one? I could live with "allegations", though starting your argument with a personal attack isn't a good way to get the support of other users. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see there had been comments already, I added a strike through since it has been responded to already per WP:TPG Seraphim System (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, he supports the proposed rename (as indicated by bolding) since "it's a better title" but would prefer a further renaming. However, removing or replacing "analogy" isn't part of this proposal so is not under consideration here. I suggest if editors wish a different name than that proposed then that can be suggested later in a new vote. However, if those editors think the current proposal is better than the status quo (as in Seraphim's case, above), readers should vote support and then vote later for a further renaming should that be proposed by someone. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree that removing the "X and Y" construction would better follow our policies on naming articles then the current title, so I have voted support. Seraphim System (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the change to Israeli apartheid analogy, although I also echo that replacing analogy with allegations would better fit WP:NPOV. The relevant text "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X")." That would seem to be a discussion for another day, however. WP:CRITERIA states that: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." TrickyH (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Support per TrickyH. The idea behind the move is good, but it should be "Israeli Apartheid Allegations", maybe "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel". Heptor talk 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, the suggested title is more concise and does not connotate what Icewhiz says, IMO, any more than "Austrian sheep question" would equate Austria with sheep. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I simply don't understand the purpose of the word "Analogy" in this context. The article is - or, rather, should be - about the argument that Israeli policies meet the definition of the crime of apartheid in international law. It is not or, at any rate, should not be about whether those policies are like apartheid. Apartheid is a crime in international law, with clear definition, and there is a legal argument that Israel is committing that crime. So the title should be "Israel and Apartheid". Not apartheid-like. Not "Similar to apartheid" or "analagous to apartheid", but "apartheid".
Please note that I am not taking a position on the legal question one way or another. I'm just saying that there is an argument that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, and that that argument is the subject of the article. Ravpapa (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

OtterAM replaced a statement of Benjamin Pogrund for another declaration of the same person which is already in article. I ask somebody to delete the redundant quotation here and restore this one:

Benjamin Pogrund, author and member of the Israeli delegation to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, has argued that the petty apartheid that characterized apartheid-era South Africa does not exist within Israel:

The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasized at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other's homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.[ref name=Pogrund]Pogrund, Benjamin. "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote", MidEastWeb. First published in Focus 40 (December 2005). Retrieved 29 December 2006.[/ref]

--190.230.70.122 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Both quotes need an academic secondary source, we are trying to clean up the quotes on this page and IP editors should not keep posting requests to add quotes without reading the talk discussions, this is the third IP request to add a quote in the past month. Sorry, one was the first post made by a new account which was rejected, and the other was from User:Alephb who does have other contributions, and that quote was added in by consensus. However, the issue of "petty apartheid" should not be inserted by quote, unless that issue is discussed by the major scholarly sources it is both WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. There are arguments on both sides, including aout Israel's marriage laws - I don't insert my own WP:OR and neither should you. We are not supposed to build Wikipedia articles by using one blockquote after another to support a position, we are supposed to summarize secondary sources. Seraphim System (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What you need to do is find a source that cites Pogrund, or let us know who Pogrund is citing if he is secondary for the comments, from for reading the quotes, it sounds primary. Example: Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. - this is not an acceptable quote. Seraphim System (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Sources for who Pogrund is can be found here: Benjamin Pogrund.
A good source for this quote is from the Times of Israel here: Is Israel an Apartheid State? - From Somone Who Knows. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of who he is, I am asking for an academic secondary source that cites Pogrund to evaluate whether inclusion is WP:DUE. It should ideally be cited by more then one academic source to evaluate due weight. I believe he wrote a book about this, but I am asking how widely has that book been cited and by whom. Seraphim System (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
So Pogrund, who is established as an activist about apartheid, and who gave an interview of his opinion (based on personal experience) is not DUE? He has to write a bogus supposedly unbiased scientific study? This is beginning to remind me of my studies in Neuroscience about the mechanists' argument against the existance of a synapse between brain cells. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pashute: If I made a mistake, feel free to revert my change. OtterAM (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Why can't you? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Closing due to no responses in six weeks. —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 17:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ben Gurion quote

This quote is WP:REDFLAG we can't include until we will find a good WP:RS for example Independant write that the "The quote attributed to Ben-Gurion has also been disputed" [2] --Shrike (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I must add that if we quote Ben-Gurion (who was fairly inactive in the 1967-1973 (his death) period, then we should quote every other Israeli PM post-1967 who made statements regarding Israeli society and equality.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, Shrike, that the blog (which is not a WP:NEWSBLOG despite being hosted by a newspaper) is not a reliable source. However, it did cite a source for the quote. Perhaps an interested editor can verify whether it is accurate.
I believe you're mistaken, Icewhiz. We should not quote anybody who didn't use the word "apartheid", because doing so would be original research. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems this quote has been discussed in some secondary sources, one that I was able to find quickly is Molavi, Shourideh C. (2013-06-28). Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-25407-7., so it would not be WP:OR. The Independent article does not seem to give a source for the statement that the quote is disputed, and I haven't been able to find more about it except from obviously not WP:RS blogs, etc. Does anyone have a better source for who is disputing the statement? Seraphim System (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
See this debunking of this misquote: [3], in Hebrew. Tehy are claiming this first surfaced in a 2005 book where someone remembered hearing this on the radio 35 years ago. They asked for the opinion of several relevant Ben Gurion research figure who all think this is false.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Presspectiva seems to have a bias, Jewish Press describes them as an "Israeli Media Watch Dog" - BRILL is a major publisher, is there anything similar that discusses the dispute? We can include the Presspectiva responses to apartheid claims, they have written about this more then once, but it would need attribution. The fact that the quote has been included in a book published by BRILL seems like a strong reason for inclusion somewhere. I'm not opposed to excluding the quote entirely as WP:UNDUE, if it has not been widely discussed in secondary sources about apartheid. Seraphim System (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Book publishers don't fact check every claim... They pretty much do not. Presspectiva does, as most sources, have a bias, but their work is generally sound and in this case they provide the original 2005 source for this claim which is dubious by itself (the author remembering something on the radio 35 years ago). It is also an unlikely thing to be said by DBG in 1970. In any event, this is the first google result that comes up in Hebrew for DBG apartheid, and you would expect some of the local anti occupation activists (who may be a minority, but a very vocal one) to have taken this up a bit more had he said this. In terms of debunking far out of left field "facts", well that is generally the purview of such watch dogs (unless this was claimed by someone really major), otherwise it is really a non news item that someone made a dubious claim somewhere - if someone makes a false quote in some obscure book, this is not something you expect to be studied in depth. I do not have any strong opinion on this quote (besides being unlikely per my personal knowledge of DBG), but Presspectiva taking this on and publishing a debunk (they are selective in that one would not expect them to confirm such information, including Benny Morris and others asked for their opinion), definitely increases the dubiousness of this particular quote.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I was not able to find (looked a little, not alot, the university does muddle search results a bit) a similar quote in Hebrew, which I would expect to find more easily than in English for DBG (both in general for DBG, and in particular in the wide anti-occupation community) The only thing that really came up was the Presspectiva debunk which was an easy find.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really think including this quote (or any quote) is essential to the article. Generally, I think quotes should only be used when paraphrasing is impractical without losing the meaning of the secondary source, or when the quote is somehow significant in the secondary sources, like if it is discussed by many secondary sources or very influential. So, I think leaving this out is okay. Seraphim System (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

too long!

This article is WAY too long. I already made a few minor trims (the diffs can be seen here and here), but I propose the following larger trims:

  1. Remove the paragraph that begins "Adam and Moodley also argue ..." checkY
  2. Remove the introductory sentence and three paragraph list of the the "pillars" in the "Analysis by international legal team" subsection checkY
  3. Remove the one-sentence paragraph that begins "According to Amnon Rubinstein ..." as weill as the following paragraph that begins "In formulating the law ..." checkY
  4. Remove the paragraph that begins "Yossi Paritzky, a former Israeli minister ..."
  5. Remove two sentences in the "Education" section that begin with "A 2007 report" and end with "tolerance and understanding"
  6. Remove the paragraph that begins "Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian"
  7. Remove the portion of the long Carter quote that begins "This is the policy now"
  8. Remove the paragraph that begins "Israel academic and Ta'ayush"
  9. Remove the paragraph that begins "Raja G. Khouri"
  10. Remove the paragraph that begins "An early example" checkY
  11. Remove the paragraph that begins "The Ontario wing" checkY
  12. Remove the paragraph that begins "On 21 April 2010" checkY
  13. Remove the paragraph that begins "In October 2012, Baleka Mbete" checkY
  14. Remove the paragraph that begins "Academic and political activist" checkY
  15. Remove the 3 adjacent paragraphs that begins "In October 2000," "Retired Israeli judge," and "Danny Rubinstein" checkY
  16. Remove the paragraph that begins "Israeli poet" checkY
  17. Remove the subsections titled "The September 2012 poll by Dialog pollsters" and "By activists" checkY
  18. Remove the sentence that begins "In addition, most of the West Bank" checkY
  19. Shorten the introductory sentences explaining who Benjamin Pogrund is checkY
  20. Remove the paragraph that begins "In response to increasing inequality" checkY
  21. Remove the paragraph that begins "The Economist warned" checkY
  22. Remove the paragraph that begins "According to Hirsh Goodman" checkY
  23. Remove the paragraph that begins "In 2016, Jay Michaelson" checkY

--GHcool (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I say be bold—we are all keeping an eye on the article anyway, if anyone objects to any of these we can bring it back to talk and discuss it, but all in all the article is way too long. It could be much shorter, and still more effectively present both sides of the argument if it was a summary of secondary sources instead of a collection of long quotes randomly put together without any clear narrative or structure. Seraphim System (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It's problematic if the only ones removing material from the article and being bold are the ones who are opposed to the article's existence or who think there's no such thing as Israeli apartheid. A bipartisan approach would be better. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it makes that much of a difference at this point. The article is mostly a bunch of quotes kind of slapped together without any logic or actual reason for them being there. It's just a bunch of people saying "It is apartheid" or "it is not apartheid" — once the non-essential excess in the article is reduced, the content can be balanced. Seraphim System (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The education section has some NPOV problems that are serious, but I think should be resolved through regular editing. The section itself if a normal length. The Support and Criticsm sections are really what is over burdening the article right now. Seraphim System (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm almost tempted to suggest something like a table to structure the quotes. At least that would be readable, and maybe make it collapseable. I don't want to lose all the information there, or the work that went into putting the sections together, but it would be better if it could be formatted in some way that was manageable, since it is basically all quotes, and very little narrative. Seraphim System (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the Support and Criticism sections is what should be cut, especially by biased entities. For example, the assessment of the "pro-Israel advocacy organization" HonestReporting is worthless. That is an organization (and far from the only one) whose raison d'être is to show Israel in a positive light. If these organizations regurgitate valid points then there's bound to be a more serious source making them, which should be used instead. Uglemat (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Cutting President Carter's exact words was a bit much. John Nagle (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there are enough quotes in the section, but I have revised it to make the section more clearly emphasize Carter's main points, and contrast with Mearsheimer's analysis. I left it to our readers to decide for themselves whether they agree with Mearsheimer's analysis or not, which is what NPOV requires. Seraphim System (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I propose restoring the paragraphs removed by Seraphim System about StandWithUs and HonestReporting since they clarify that Palestinians in the West Bank are governed by the Palestinian Authority, and the fact that within Israel Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. That's not expressed anywhere else in article.--181.1.145.52 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

These things are actually "expressed":
  • Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually,[14] morally,[14][dead link] and historically[15][better source needed] inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel.[16][17][18] Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa. [19][citation needed]
  • Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and deemed to be occupied territory under international law, are under the civil control of the Palestinian Authority, and are not Israeli citizens. In some areas of the West Bank, they are under Israeli security control.[citation needed]
  • The African-American student organization Vanguard Leadership Group, a group that has developed ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,[295][296][297] published an ad in April 2011 requesting that the Students for Justice in Palestine group "immediately stop referring to Israel as an apartheid society and to acknowledge that the Arab minority in Israel enjoys full citizenship with voting rights and representation in the government", and that "It is highly objectionable to those who know the truth about the Israelis' record on human rights and how it so clearly contrasts with South Africa's."
  • In contrast, according to former Judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa Richard Goldstone, the situation in Israel does not conform to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute. As examples, Goldstone pointed to the facts that Israeli Arabs vote, have political representation in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on the Israeli Supreme Court, and that Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment. According to Goldstone, in Israel equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal, and inequities are often successfully challenged in court.[69]
It's very easy overlook. I can understand why a random IP address finds these facts sorely missing in the article in question. Uglemat (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Stand With Us is WP:RS for this. Honest Reporting is also a minor source. Besides, it is discussed elsewhere in the article, as noted by Uglemat (you can add Jimmy Carter to the growing list of sources we have covering this point. Our articles are based on the majority viewpoint in significant scholarship, not the viewpoint of Stand With Us, against everyone else. This proposition that the West Bank is a sovereign state is a major WP:REDFLAG Seraphim System (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Benjamen Pogrund is a major source this, can anyone find if he has said the same thing? Then we can source it to him. If no one else has said it, then why should it be included? Seraphim System (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You mean if he has said that the occupied territories are sovereign? Seems unlikely, in late 2005 he wrote "[The West Bank] is occupied by Israel. No occupation can be benign. Israeli harshness and misdeeds are reported day in and day out by Israeli media. Everyone is suffering, Palestinians as victims and Israelis as perpetrators." His main point seems to be that "Palestinians are not oppressed on racial grounds as Arabs, but, rather, as competitors"[4] Uglemat (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
From the work of his that I have read about this I have never seen him say "The West Bank is under PA control so Israel is not responsible for what happens there." If this view is not shared by the more authoritative critics of the allegations against Israel, then I don't think we have to include it in the article. Stand With Us really is not WP:RS —there are biased groups of scholars, like SPLC, or ADL, or ACLU. Stand With Us is not one of those, its literature is limited to propaganda flyers intended for distribution on campuses. What does including their opinion add to the article, they have no scholarly authority whatsoever. This is the same Stand With Us that put out the "What about these Rachels?" flyers and the "Divesting from Israel is Anti-Semitic" flyers — I mean, people can divest from whatever they want right? I understand the rationalizations but awkward — on their fact sheets they do include citations. I checked apartheid to see if I could follow the claim that "The West Bank has its own government" to a source...I can't, it is uncited.[n 1] Neither are the "facts" given in support of that particular fact cited. SO I wouldn't consider it WP:RS for this statement, just like I wouldn't write "Stand With Us wrote, 'One Rachel died by accident. Many Rachels were killed by suicide bombers.'" on Rachel Corrie's page. Seraphim System (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Both StandWithUs and HonestReporting are two-bit organizations which are worthless as RS. That much can be chiseled in stone. I would further argue that they are also below the radar for attributed opinion as there is no integrity displayed in their "opinions" and only a few activists take them seriously. Claims like "the West Bank is under PA control" are not opinions we should quote, but blatant lies we should ignore. Zerotalk 01:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see your objecting badil or any other pro-palestinian organisation if we quote activists it should be from both sides of the POV Shrike (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
By Zero0000's standard we should remove views from all 2-bit scholars and activists, leaving in only official governmental positions of note. Will definitely make a shorter article.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Like at RS/n the best thing is to look at whether the source is WP:RS for a specific claim. In this case, the claim is completely uncited, and we don't know who wrote it. This is an easy exclude. I dont think pro-palestinian organisations with be 100% reliable 100% of the time for 100% of the statements they make either, but we need to consider each instance in the context of the particular statement being cited, and what it is being cited as support for. Seraphim System (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ The Apartheid Slander factsheet.pdf (PDF), retrieved 2017-06-12
I don't think we should quote people that weren't published by WP:RS even if there are scholars.One thing if there are some editorial control for fact checking but if it WP:SPS or printed on activist site its mere polemics and shouldn't be included. Shrike (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what source you are talking about specifically, but I don't think there is any need to be combative. StandWithUs caught my eye because I have heard of them before. The only pro-Palestine groups I know off the top of my head are Adalah and Al-Haq. I have never even heard of badil, so how can I object to it? I am sure that StandWithUs is not the only objectionable sourced used on Wikipedia, but I don't think "Other objectionable sources are used too" is a good reason to include it. WP:POINTY anyone? Seraphim System (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Phase 2

This article is still WAY too long. I propose the following larger trims:

  1. Remove the paragraph that begins "Yossi Paritzky, a former Israeli minister ..." checkY
  2. Remove two sentences in the "Education" section that begin with "A 2007 report" and end with "tolerance and understanding" checkY
  3. Remove the paragraph that begins "Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian" checkY
  4. Remove the portion of the long Carter quote that begins "This is the policy now" checkY
  5. Remove the paragraph that begins "Israel academic and Ta'ayush" checkY
  6. Remove the paragraph that begins "Raja G. Khouri" checkY
  7. Combine and summarize the 2nd two paragraphs in the "In relation to the Israeli disengagement from Gaza" subsection checkY
  8. Remove the entire "By notable authors" subsection checkY
  9. Remove the entire "By neighboring countries" subsection checkY
  10. Remove stuff about Adrian Guelke. checkY
  11. Summarize the "By South Africans" section checkY
  12. Shorten quote by Shulamit Aloni checkY
  13. Remove the sentence that begins "A more recent B'Tselem" checkY
  14. Remove the 9 paragraphs beginning with "Daphna Golan-Agnon" and ending with "it has become: Apartheid" checkY
  15. Remove the two introductory paragraphs in the "Criticism of Israeli apartheid accusation" section checkY
  16. Remove the first two paragraphs of the "Comparison to South Africa" section checkY
  17. Shorten and summarize the last two paragraphs of the "Comparison to South Africa" section checkY
  18. Shorten and summarize the last three paragraphs of the "Delegitimization of Israel" section checkY
  19. Remove the "Criticism by Arab citizens of Israel" and "Criticism by African American students" sections checkY
  20. Remove the sentence that begins "Dershowitz also accuses" checkY
  21. Remove the paragraph that begins "In March 2011" checkY
  22. Remove the "By Canadian officials" and "By British officials" sections checkY
  23. Remove the sentence that begins "American rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein" checkY

--GHcool (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is still too long Seraphim System (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this article is not that it is too long but that it lacks focus. Should the proposed name change occur - and I hope it does - then we should revise the article to focus precisely on the allegation that Israel is violating the Law of Apartheid in international law. All the discussion of whether Israeli policy is like South African policy, all the references to BDS and to the Israeli Citizenship law (which I don't think anyone claims is a violation of international law, discriminatory though it may be). On the other hand, we need to add some stuff: for example, Israel claims (as does @Sir Joseph:) that the Law of Apartheid does not apply because the territory is occupied and therefore not under Israeli law. Yet the latest Knesset "Arrangement Law" (חוק ההסדרה) does apply Israeli law to some aspects of life in the Occupied West Bank, posing a possible contradiction to Israel's main line of defense against allegations of Apartheid.

If we pursue this approach to the article, I guess about two thirds of it needs to go, We could, conceivably, create a new article for the excised material, but, in my own opinion, it is all too diffuse to be organized into a coherent article. Ravpapa (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that Israel doesn't extend some law there, I said it's not part of Israel so you can't say that Israel is an apartheid state for something that is not part of Israel. In some US territories, non-natives are unable to purchase land, does that mean the US is apartheid? If you claim the WB is not part of Israel, then you can't have it both ways. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Did I say anything? There are two ways this word is used 1) in comparisons with South Africa 2) in discussions of whether the State of Israel, or particular individuals, are guilty of apartheid. I don't want to look it up right now, whether it is international or non-international conflicts, but I don't think it matters since it can be either—I will look it up before adding anything to the article, obviously. Seraphim System (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Reply to @Sir Joseph:: You are absolutely right that that is the argument that Israel makes against the allegations of violation of the Apartheid law. It is an argument which should be and is clearly stated in the article. The counterargument should also be stated - (1) that the Law of Apartheid (specifically, article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973)) makes no exception for situations of occupation, and that (2) The Israeli rule in the Occupied West Bank can no longer be considered an occupation in the ordinary sense, considering the fact that Israel has colonized much of the territory and has imposed its own laws in some areas over the last 50 years. These arguments are much less clear in the article and need to be clarified.


The argument you make is against the claim that Israel is in violation of the Law of Apartheid. It is not, however, an argument against the existence of the article, which should be about the applicability of the law to the situation in the Occupied Territories. There is an increasingly vocal call, like it or not, for the adjudication of Israel under the law, and that call, valid or invalid is worthy of an article.
Unfortunately, the article is diffuse and tries to include a mess of stuff which is hardly relevant.
Reply to @Seraphim System:: What you want to read is The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973). For a rather thorough review of the argument that Israel is in violation of the Convention, look at https://www.scribd.com/document/342220531/UN-ESCWA-report-on-Israeli-apartheid#from_embed . To read the history of the report, and the politics that caused its ultimate suppression from the UN website, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/world/middleeast/un-rima-khalaf-quits-israel-apartheid.html?mcubz=2 . Ravpapa (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Is that the same as the definition in the Rome Statute? I don't know if anyone has said anything, from a legal point of view, about whether it is or is not still an occupation. It probably is in one sense, and not in an another, depending on the situation at this point. 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was the "anti" claim by a South African politician removed? While there is a section on SA, it has no ANC members opinions now, while the Pro side does. That seems rather POV. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the ANC quote from the support section also. I thought it was part of the delegation, I've left the delegation in because it discusses the opinion of a human rights attorney. I had previously removed other comments from delegate members also, keeping only the specialist opinion. Seraphim System (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Unfortunate though this is, as I said below, after a month of listing there seems to be fundamentally no agreement, and no clear consensus has emerged for any of the possible new titles on the table. If anyone thinks one of the other proposed titles (e.g. "Israel and apartheid", "Debates concerning..." etc.) may be able to gain a consensus, they may feel free to propose that as a third and new RM. I would advise that there be some informal discussion first, though, or perhaps even a wider RfC on the Israel project pages. Then to only go for the RM if you're reasonably sure it might succeed. We don't want to end up with another month of conversation going round in circles!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid – I was going to wait until the earlier move request discussion was closed but as it's been more than a week and it seems obvious that it will be closed as inconclusive I'm going to proceed now. "Claims of Israeli apartheid" seems to be a title everyone can agree with, as indicated by the ""Allegations" discussion" above. It's neutral, removes the inaccurate term "analogy", and is (relatively) succinct. I still think "Israel apartheid claims" or "Israeli apartheid claims would be preferable but am willing to support "Claims of Israeli apartheid" as a compromise. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Prefer allegations of Israeli apartheid or alleged Israeli apartheid (as more technically accurate) - but the suggested title is better than the current title.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Claims" is just an awful and very charged/POV word, and the construction "Claims of Israeli apartheid" is also awkward and does not really accord with article-naming conventions. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
In the May 29 name change discussion you support use of the term "allegations" which has the same meaning as "claims" but which, according to its secondary dictionary definitions, has additional negative connotations that "claims" does not have (ie The term "allegation" is sometimes used to imply that a claim lacks merit or is spurious). Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
No, "claims" does not have the same meaning as "allegations". "Allegations" is neutral, "Claims" is most definitely not neutral an thus violates [[WP::NPOV]], see WP:CLAIM. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Wrong because "claim" isn't as synonym for "said" here eg "he claimed" which is what WP:CLAIM addresses. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

{{strikethrough*Support but would prefer allegations also. Seraphim System (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)}}

  • Support. "Claims" seems more disinterested than "allegations" to me. This title also shifts emphasis from "Israel the region" to "Israeli perpetrator", which seems appropriate since the West Bank is occupied. Uglemat (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"Allegations" is neutral, "Claims" is most definitely not neutral an thus violates [[WP::NPOV]], see WP:CLAIM. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Amakuru, you seem to accidentally have moved "Israeli apartheid analogy" (as opposed to allegations) to "Israel and the apartheid analogy"; the former happens to be a redirect to the latter, so this page is currently a redirect to itself! :D Uglemat (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Uglemat: yowza! Silly me. Hopefully this is now corrected. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amakuru: The proposal is NOT to move the article to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The article should either be kept where it is now or moved to the proposed title of Claims of Israeli apartheid if there is consensus for that or to a something very close like Israeli apartheid claims. Allegations of Israeli apartheid has explicitly been rejected in the past and if that was the proposal there would be a very different discussion with different participants. "Allegations" is also an explicit violation of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles . Please do not move the article to a title which has not been formally proposed. If it is to be moved to "Allegations..." then there needs to be a Requested Move that formally requests that. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The consensus, thus far, supports allegations - even though the suggested target is claims (which is also supported as better than the current title). This is nothing non-neutral about allegation or alleged - they are used routinely in objective reporting. The main objector to allegations is Hungarian Phrasebook. Regardless - it should be "claims of" or "allegations of" (or "alleged) - as per English and consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
"Allegations" hasn't actually been debated here because it's not the suggested move so there's no proper deliberation. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any need for a third move discussion. I don't think there is any rule that the RM needs to be formally proposed again if consensus can be established in this discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The reason why it would be improper to move the page to a name that hasn't been formally opposed is that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" or "Israeli apartheid allegations" is not listed as a proposed name at Wikipedia:Requested moves so most editors will be completely unaware that it's on the table, editors who may have chosen to participate in the discussion if "allegations" had been formally proposed. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that is very likely, I think this based on strong views that you have about the title, more then the lengthy discussions that we have already had about this. There seems to be a slight preference for allegations at this point, with most of the editors willing to accept either version. I don't think it makes sense to keep opening one move discussion after another. What if in the next one we find there is consensus for claims instead of allegations? Do we open a fourth, and keep going around in circles? I think it's better to just let this RM play out. Seraphim System (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. It is the well-established custom in RM discussions, that a consensus may form for a title other than the one proposed, in which case the closer is entitled to move straight to that other title. Although there are some rules around the RM process, they are not rigid, and a closer would never reject a title that had consensus, just because it wasn't the one proposed. Obviously like any other close, a move to a third title can be brought to WP:Move review if someone objects to it, but the fact that it wasn't the proposed move wouldn't on its own be a valid reason to object. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the title is fine as is. Right now it's about Israel and the analogy. Claims of apartheid is a POV title and one that is not appropriate especially considering that apartheid is minority control over the majority and no such thing occurs in Israel, antisemitic claims notwithstanding. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That is, in fact, not the definition of apartheid. Apartheid is only a context. The crimes are crimes against humanity, it was codified in 1973 to include "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 recognised 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" It doesn't say anything about being a majority or minority. Being the minority group does not negate the intent here, all the definition requires is the "institutionalised regime" — this could be a minority or a majority ethnic group depending on the circumstances. I've never seen any scholarship on apartheid saying it must be the majority minority group. Besides, most of this discussion is about Israel's conduct in the West Bank and Gaza. Seraphim System (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: "Apartheid" just means apartness in Afrikaans ie separation or segregation, it doesn't mean minority rule. The system in Canada for First Nations people (i.e. "Indians") that existed until the mid 20th century in which native peoples were forced to live on reserves and could not leave them without a pass has been called a form of apartheid (and apparently was studied by the National Party government in South Africa when they were creating apartheid) even though Native peoples were a minority population. The term for white minority rule is "white minority rule" - it is the element of segregation that is termed "apartheid". This is aside from whether or not the term is applicable to Israel and/or the West Bank, the point is whether the affected population is a minority or majority isn't what determines whether or not it's apartheid.. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you know of any rights that Israeli Jews have that Israeli Arabs don't? And you are wrong, this article is talking about Israel proper, not the WB or Gaza Strip, since they're not part of Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It discusses the whole country, including the occupied territories, but some of the sources, in particular Jimmy Carter limit their use of the word to the West Bank and Gaza. Seraphim System (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
"this article is talking about Israel proper, not the WB or Gaza Strip". That is demonstrably false. Searching for "West Bank", there are 87 hits on the the page. Furthermore, what is "in Israel" and outside is quite ambiguous. The current wall in the west bank includes many settled areas beyond the pre-1967 borders which is the border with near-universal support internationally, in accordance with UNSCR 242. And in the west bank there lives hundreds of thousands of settlers who (evidently) thinks Israel should own the whole area of the mandate of Palestine, an attitude that has been quite popular among Israeli leaders. For example, just before the Six-Day War, Yigal Allon stated that in case of war, Israel must set as one of its central aims 'the territorial fulfilment of the Land of Israel'. (Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine conflict, 2nd ed., p. 143, one of many irredentist sentiments cited in the book) Uglemat (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

*Support. No need to repeat the arguments ad nauseum. Ravpapa (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Despite the extended discussion below, which is back and forth, we pretty much do have consensus to move at this point. Seraphim System (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But is there consensus for this proposed move, and if not, for any of the proposed alternatives? But that is for the closer to assess. I do not envy them the task. Andrewa (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not as hard as you are making it out to be, I count 6 for and 2 against. There is no point confusing things here, this section should be limited to the vote. Of the 6 who currently support the move, 3 would prefer Allegations and one is explicitly neutral. But all 6 support moving to "Claims of Israeli Apartheid" in the event that we are unable to establish clear consensus for "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" - but this article is so long as it is that maybe two articles would be better. The content that is not about the analogy could be merged into a new article. It doesn't really make sense that we created the narrower article, without creating the broader article, but that is what happened.Seraphim System (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • *Oppose "claims" and oppose "allegations" per WP:CLAIM - the very basis of this request for consensus was founded upon something that directly violates Wikipedia guidelines. That alone should be a sufficient counterargument. I was preparing an argument to support use of the word allegations until reading a counterargument on this article: "due to the non-neutral definitions of the term as "a statement, made without giving proof, that someone has done something wrong or illegal" (primary definition Cambridge Dictionary) "an assertion made with little or no proof" (secondary def'n, Dictionary.com) etc." as said by Hungarian Phrasebook. As these definitions could produce the same concern that I have with use of the word claim, I cannot yet support use of the word allegation. However, let it be remembered that we are not discussing "allegations" but rather a choice between "claims" and the existing title. The existing title should be revised, but the proposed revision to be discussed is to use the word claims, which between direct arguments against "claims" and support for "allegations" is currently facing WP:SNOW opposition. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC) This user doesn't meet WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 criteria --Shrike (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose After reading User:BrendonTheWizard's argument I am starting to agree. This article is sufficiently long and a large amount of the content is about an analogy, which is different from the language used in law sources. (Apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories seems to be preferred). I have looked at Allegations more thoroughly and I see that it is used by a range of sources from Haaretz to NGOMonitor but the repeated objections from other editors has raised concerns that the common meaning of Allegations is different from its legal meaning, and this might introduce new POV issues into article. I've also noticed that this language does not seem to be, at a casual glance, preferred by law-specific sources. Seraphim System (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I was actively involved in the debates that led to the current title ("Israel and the apartheid analogy") being selected nine years ago. I don't know if anyone has ever been entirely satisfied with it, but at the time of its adoption there was a general recognition that it was the best available choice capable of reaching a critical mass of support. Ultimately, I'd be willing to accept its retention ... but now that this discussion is well under way, I'd also like to offer the following remarks: (i) "Claims" is both acceptably neutral and a more accurate title than "analogy" -- if these are the only two choices, I would support the proposed move; (ii) "Allegations" is not, in my view, a good option. The word is sometimes used neutrally, sometimes not ... and it would easily lend itself to a non-neutral reading if included in the title; (iii) My preferred choice is Debates concerning Israel and apartheid, which to my knowledge no-one has proposed as yet. This phrasing strikes me as accurate, neutral, succinct, and sufficiently comprehensive. I don't know if other contributors would be in favour of it (and I'm not formally proposing it as yet), but I would welcome discussion of the possibility. CJCurrie (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless we are willing to move it to Israel and apartheid it seems the title will always be embarassingly POV. I don't mind the proposed title Debates concerning Israel and apartheid but it is basically adding POV words to soften the title, which we don't usually do. Almost all of our articles (in politics areas at least) touch upon a debate in sources, we don't name them Debates concerning Donald Trump or Debtes concerning human shields or Debates concerning Anti-semitism Seraphim System (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe that any of the hypothetical titles you've mentioned would be in violation of WP:NPOV in and of themselves. "Debates concerning" might be an unnecessary qualifier in most cases, and I'm sure there are some limited instances where the phrasing would be POV, but I don't believe that it's inherently POV or that it would be POV in this particular instance. I would add that the articles for Donald Trump, human shields, and anti-Semitism cover significantly more ground than simply that concerning debates about the subject, whereas this article is primary focused on debate and interpretation. CJCurrie (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Israel and apartheid in theory. My only concern is that the title may create confusion about whether the article is about accusations that Israel practices apartheid or if it's about Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa. I suppose in the current context most readers would generally assume the article is about the former and perhaps a disambiguation hatnote pointing to Israel–South Africa relations could be added to prevent confusion. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)tion

Support allegations but would accept claims too as the second choice.As there is debate between the sources whatever the phenomenon exist or not hence we can't imply in wikivoice that those allegations are true per WP:POVTITLE --Shrike (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - please see my note at the bottom of the discussion below. Unless anybody can think of a way to save this, I'm going to have to close it as "no consensus". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I would support User:CJCurrie's proposal of Debates concerning Israel and apartheid as an alternative that addresses the WP:CLAIM issue that editors have raised in this discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

This article should have no mention of the WB or Gaza. The only reason to include is to be a POV negative push. If the WB and Gaza is not part of Israel under the law, then we can't include in this article. The article title is not Israel and Territories and Apartheid. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No the allegations are against the State of Israel, not that they take place in the territory that is widely recognized as being the country of Israel, which Uglemet has discussed. WB and Gaza are occupied territories, so that is something you have to follow WP:RS on. This article is not about your personal opinion of what the law says. If you want to discuss what the law says start a new section based on international law WP:RS, otherwise please stop and follow WP:FORUM Seraphim System (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Take your biases elsewhere and stick to AGF, even if I am pro-Israel. You can't have a discussion on allegation of Apartheid with Gaza and WB and the rest of Israel, it's comparing apples to oranges. Whatever you want to call WB and Gaza, it's not part of Israel and the people there are not Israelis and are not afforded the same rights as Israelis. Any discussion of apartheid needs to be apples to apples, namely Jews and Arabs in Israel proper. Is there apartheid in the US because Puerto Ricans can't vote for President or that Samoans are not US citizens? This is why the whole article is biased, same as most of the IP conflict articles. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
AGF yourself, when writing article we follow WP:RS. This proposition that "It is not apartheid because the WB is not part of Israel" has been discussed here before. If you want to discuss this, start a new section with a proposal that is sourced to multiple WP:RS secondary sources, that have an in depth secondary analysis supporting this, with citations for their analysis. We don't base our articles on propaganda or slogans, we base them on the majority view in secondary sources. Again, I am reminding you that this kind of back and forth is appropriate on a discussion forum, but not on a talk page. I am also letting you know that some editors might consider the statement the people there are not Israelis and are not afforded the same rights as Israelis to be racist hate speech — Do you have significant sources for this so we can have a reasonable discussion, or not? Seraphim System (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
How is it racist to say that Palestinians in the WB are not Israelis? They aren't. Israel never annexed the West Bank. Arabs in Israel are Israeli citizens and have the same rights as Israeli Jews, even serving on the Supreme Court. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
In the view of some international law scholars, Israel is doing things that it may not authorize itself to do. This is a strawman argument, we are not talking about whether Palestinians in WB and Gaza have the same rights, as if the nature of the wrongdoing discussed in the sources is limited to participation in elections or citizenship. The issue is not a routine one, it is whether Israel's actions rise to the level of crimes against humanity — that is what the WP:RS are discussing - whether certain acts are being committed within an institutionalized regime of racial segregation with the requisite intent for criminal apartheid. Whether or not Israel believes what it's doing is legal is quite beside the point, the state of Israel is quite clearly being accused of severe wrongdoing by a vast and dizzyingly diverse array of sources. Similarly, at Nuremberg, we did not care that Goring screamed "Not Guilty" like he meant it, which he did. He was condemned to be executed anyway, in a jurisdiction whose authority he never accepted. His acceptence being beside the point, he chose to commit suicide. Seraphim System (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that the dichotomy of "inside Israel" and the WB and Gaza is crucial, and should be made clear to the readers. It seems like you want to discredit the former (which rests on a much weaker foundation) while sweeping the latter under the rug, by making "no mention" of it, even though Israel is the occupying state which enables the settlement. When you say that the "only reason to include is to be a POV negative push", what you really mean is that it makes Israel look bad, ergo it must be biased. Unless we have two different articles for the different concepts, what needs to be changed is the title, and this is one of the reasons I supported the name change (see above). Uglemat (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there any sources that have used apartheid to describe the situation inside Israel? There is a lot of current discussion about which law is applied to the settlers. Seraphim System (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, although I imagine the argument has been made on the basis that Israel is a self-described "Jewish state", Israeli racism towards Arabs, and so on. The situation inside Israel seems mostly to be the domain of Israeli propagandists attempting to draw attention away from the occupation. Uglemat (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that has been part of the apartheid argument, at least not in WP:RS. The only source I have ever heard be explicitly critical of the "Jewish State" or more specifically "Jewish Democracy" is Noam Chomsky, but he has also said that he does not think apartheid is the correct term for the situation in IsraelSeraphim System (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. We article must make sure readers understand the difference, because a lot of the time they do not, in fact they may not even be aware that there is such a place as the "West Bank", and what Israel is doing there. Uglemat (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the introduction to the article lists some sources which "extend the analogy". For example, the interview with Ilan Pappe, which especially refers to the period before 1966, and also refers to Israeli laws. He makes sure to point out that "There are of course differences in the way Israel treats the Palestinians living under occupation and those whom it regards as citizens". Uglemat (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some people have made an "analogy" - mostly critics. Others however are not making an analogy. This article would benefit from hat split anyway, I would not mind two articles. The Allegations title, however is broad enough to include the analogy made by critics and activists, and some sources that are not making an analogy, like Jimmy Carter. Seraphim System (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If euphemisms are allowed as titles of articles, I'll be for the use of "Claims of Israeli Apartheid". But the claims have actual and factual grounds, so, I'm not for the change of the title.Odemirense (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC:)
The thing about allegations is, once they are proven, someone goes to prison. This stems from a generally misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "proof". Having something be unproven is not bad, or negative, it is not POV an it does not mean there are no factual grounds for the claim. Facts have to be proven this is something different. Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, as a title, is quite accurate. Since some of our sources do not make an analogy to South Africa, it is also preferable, unless we want to split articles. The analogy with South Africa is a different topic from Allegations of Apartheid and right now this page has some of both, but I think Allegations is the broader topic. Seraphim System (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
But those allegations have been proven by UN officials.Odemirense (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
UN officials, as all diplomats, mainly act to further the interests of whomever appointed them. In any event, it is clear that the status of this issue is not in consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"Claims" is a POV word

Many editors seem to be missing the fact that "Claims" is an inherently POV word, and therefore using that in the article title violates WP:NPOV. See WP:CLAIM. This is in addition to the problem that this RM was started while another RM was in progress. For those two reasons, I suggest declaring this RM a mistrial. Perhaps just leave things as they are for at least a month or two and then create a neutral RM if a move is still desired. [By the way, despite assertions to the contrary, "allegation(s)" is not a POV word; is a common very neutral legal term meaning unproven assertion. "Claim", however, is a very loaded word implying falsehood, and that's why we have the guideline WP:CLAIM.] Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLAIMS is about the verb "claims", not the noun, specifically "claims" as a synonym for "said" ie "he claims". It doesn't apply here. Also, you're not a judge or an admin so you can't "declare a mistrial". Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
"Claim" has the same connotation whether it is a noun or a verb, and both are therefore subsumed under WP:CLAIM. I am not declaring this RM a mistrial, I am suggesting that it clearly should be declared a mistrial for the two reasons I have given. You are a new editor, and had been here barely a month and had made only 2,000 edits when you created this RM, so these were honest mistakes, but they should be overturned. Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That is certainly your opinion, however if you read WP:CLAIMS only the verb is referred to. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the procedural note - this RM was opened as a result of a discussion in the previous RM - and reaching a semblance of consensus (though still debated between "claims" and "allegations") - I think it was reasonable to re-start the discussion after we got to something better than the initial suggestion there. Regarding "claims" or "allegations" being a POV word... Well that's the problem with this whole article which is really a POV-fork on various Israeli subjects - this article covers the POV of some people that tie Apartheid to Israel. As the article is covering a POV, it needs to be clear that this is a POV in some manner (at least as long as the article itself exists or as long as this is a viewpoint held by some, but not all, people of note - i.e. is not established fact).Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point: "claims" is a negatively POV word and should not be used; "allegations" is fine, neutral, and accurately describes the issue without judgment or intrinsic implications of falsehood. In terms of two concurrent RMs, Amakuru, the closing admin on the first one, already stated that that was improper and confusing and should not have been done. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/allegation has as its primary definition: allegation -noun 1. "The definition of an allegation is an accusation against someone without proof." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/allegation gives the following as a definition of allegation:"2. an assertion made with little or no proof." So I'm afraid as has been discussed extensively, "allegations" has POV connotations. Its use is also a violation of WP:TITLE: "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation". Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not, Allegations is perfectly fine, technically correct, widely used and even the preferred usage, and is preferred by many if not most of the users discussing Claims vs. Allegations - from both sides. Allegation doesn't mean something isn't true - just not definitely proven. It doesn't mean it won't be proven. Many allegations turn into findings of fact (or convictions).Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The aforementioned dictionary definitions remain, notwithstanding. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed ad nauseam above, including copious dictionary refrences - I'll note that most didn't agree with you. Furthermore - while I disagree with Softlavender's arguement here (which is why I commented) - allegations and claims really are quite equivalent - the argument applies to both. Allegation is the more technically correct term - which is why it has wider usage in the literature.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Right now the consensus seems to be leaning towards Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Seraphim System (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Building consensus

From above It's not as hard as you are making it out to be, I count 6 for and 2 against. There is no point confusing things here, this section should be limited to the vote. Of the 6 who currently support the move, 3 would prefer Allegations and one is explicitly neutral. But all 6 support moving to "Claims of Israeli Apartheid" in the event that we are unable to establish clear consensus for "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" - but this article is so long as it is that maybe two articles would be better. The content that is not about the analogy could be merged into a new article. It doesn't really make sense that we created the narrower article, without creating the broader article, but that is what happened.Seraphim System (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nor is it quite that simple... Note that The wp:closing discussions#Consensus reads in part Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue... (my emphasis). Policy, guidelines and precedents are seen as part of the expression of this community consensus that is to be assessed.

Closing such discussions as this is not for the fainthearted. But we can give them some help, and I think that you've made a good start above. It would be good for the people quoted above to explicitly confirm below that this is their wish. Andrewa (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that policy does not mean the closer should just make things up when there is clear consensus, this is only for when we have close calls like 5-4. The short version of that policy is we close no consensus when there is no consensus. I don't know why you are bolding community here. Either way we have a narrow page for which the broader article doesn't exist. Content forks are like time's arrow, they go one way. I generally agree with comments made by other editors that this is basically a POV-fork from a broader article that we haven't created yet. Some allegations of apartheid are analogies, but not all allegations of apartheid are analogies. There are sources for this (basically every source that doesn't explicitly say "apartheid analogy"). It isn't that big a deal to keep this article, because there are enough sources to justify this as a stand alone article, and I don't mind working on the other one...so, I'm pretty ambivalent. Seraphim System (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Good question. I am bolding community to stress that the consensus we assess is that of the whole community, not just those who have !voted. Disagree that this is only for when we have close calls like 5-4. Wikipedia is not a democracy and if we have four policy-compliant arguments and twice that number of illogical rants that try to push a POV, it's the four that represent a strong consensus. And it happens.
A no consensus close should be a last resort. It should mean that no consensus is possible, or at least likely, not just that it has not yet been achieved. Andrewa (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are bolding community here because no one who has voted for the move has done so without policy reasons, these reasons have been discussed at such length that there is no need to repeat them, including POV and the fact that this title is a POV-fork. In fact, not all of the content of this article deals strictly with a comparison to South Africa. Seraphim System (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more I am convinced this needs two separate articles. It seems clear that some of the content of the page is about comparing South African apartheid to Israeli occupation, and some of the content of the page is about apartheid as a crime. Seraphim System (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is already enough of a POV-fork (Israeli society according to those who allege (or deny) apartheid) - there's no need to create a fork within a fork. The "criminal" aspect of apartheid (As per Rome 2002 or the 1973 statute) is not accepted by all nations and is any event a political/diplomatic allegation. This is also covered, to a certain extent by Crime of apartheid#Accusations of apartheid by country#Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The allegations don't need to be accepted by all nations to meet notability guidelines. They don't need to be accepted by any nations. And, no, they are not "political/diplomatic" allegations, there have been multiple law review articles written on it. Either way, I have been planning to write a (law) version for a while, but I haven't gotten to it yet, I am busy with other things and working on another law article now. Since I use formal citation, creating these articles takes quite a bit of work. Seraphim System (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
But this article has no bearing on the law article—that is definitely and certainly a seperate article, with different standards for sourcing and citation. With regards to this article, I keep going back and forth—after looking at the secondary sources I think "Allegations" would be fine. It seems to me like Tutu may have been making a "comparison to occupation"—that was my initial reading, but all the secondary sources, including subsequent news articles, have said he made an accusation of apartheid. Whether or not that is true, that is how the WP:RS on both sides have interpreted it and used it. Seraphim System (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion stalled

To everyone involved in this discussion: regrettably I think it's going nowhere at the moment, and I may just have to close it as "no consensus". We did appear to have a consensus last week, but since then even some of those who supported it have defected to oppose. Can anybody see a way forward other than packing up and leaving things where they are, un-ideal though that might be? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I was just about to relist but considering that Israel-related topics are subject to ArbCom rulings I think a community RfC would be a good idea. DrStrauss talk 11:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was a community RFC.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Israel and apartheid would be simple, succinct, direct, avoid questionable terms like "Allegations", "claims", or "analogy" and would not beg the question as some feel the title Israeli apartheid would. A hatnote could be added to the article to disambiguate it from Israel–South Africa relations. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I would support this also. Either Israel and apartheid or Debates concerning Israel and apartheid would be fine and avoid the controversial terminology of "claims" "allegations" etc. Seraphim System (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as whatever is claimed in this POV fork article on Israeli society is far from the attributes of Apartheid - in proportions of the alleged minority discriminated, the inclusion of the minority in the country (in the rest of Wikipedia most editors still insist the West bank is not Israel - most apartheid allegations are in relation to policies outside of Israel proper in the occupied territories), and the entirely different basis of alleged application (not skin color, but rather ethnic or religious origin - which is not visible prima facie (i.e. a Jewish baby raised as Palestinian or vice versa would be recognized by others in adulthood as per their aquired habits and not their innate skin color or other attributes).Icewhiz (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Not visible prima facie? Whatever, there is no need to vote here because this would have to be a new proposal in any case. Anyway most of the sources I have discuss apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, this article is way too focused on making an analogy between South Africa and Israel, This is because its content has, in large part, been determined by cherry picking and quote farming news sources. Some of this has been improved by recent editing. There is no problem keeping the current content, except it would have to be source checked thoroughly to make sure there is no WP:OR (i.e. inclusion of sources that have not made an analogy with South Africa or used the language "analogy".) The South Africa analogy has received enough press coverage to be notable, but it does not include all sources that have discussed apartheid. Apartheid includes all the sources that discuss apartheid, which is why broadening the title would be correct under our policies, as the current title is too narrow. Seraphim System (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
It should probably just be moved to its redirect Apartheid in Israel to avoid the x AND y construction. Seraphim System (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Then use of Israel should be confined to usage elsewhere in Wikipedia - without OPT. "Israel and Apartheid" is problematic as this is not what the sources claim (which we must not are a minority view to begin with, and in any event an issue in dispute - and not accepted by all) - both in regards to Israeliness (unless we look at a one state solution) and in regards of Apartheidness (e.g. claiming Israeli immigration law, which has many parallels - e.g. Hungarian nationality law, JNF claims (a separate entity from the state which has parallels elsewhere), population registry (again with several parallels), and any number of claims which are not directly related to apartheid). If we were to have an article on "Israel and Apartheid" it would have to be limited to Israel proper and Apartheid proper (and not allegations that are loosely around apartheid).Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Furthermore, speculation by various individuals regarding future societal/conflict/population-land outcomes should be eliminated from the article - per WP:CRYSTALBALL.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Reinforcing a point - as long as the title contains claims, allegations, accusations, debates, sayings, opinions, arguments, positions, lamentations, etc. etc. (any prefix which shows this is a position of some people) - you can be very loose regarding the rest of the title - to match what these positions are. The moment you go into a title in Wiki's voice - you are much more limited per NPOV, UNDUE, PROPORTION, V, etc. there is a built in trade off.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Icewhiz it sounds more like you're arguing against the existence of the article itself rather than a proposed name.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is a POV-fork (covering sayings of people who have said "apartheid"+"Israel" or "not apartheid"+"Israel"). However as long as this article exists, I will oppose any POV-pushing title in wiki's voice.
We should probably just have another vote, Debates concerning Israel and apartheid would be ok too. Normally, I would say it should be based on the sources, but since most of the sources are news outlets they use terms that our editors aren't comfortable with like "accusations" and "allegations"-comparison is basically what we have, which would narrow the title too much. Law sources use different terminology but since this isn't a law article, our guidelines say it should be written on a lower level, per NPOV in case readers think it means something else we should say it for them for POV. Seraphim System (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
As for a minority view, I guess if you count the people who are saying apartheid is too generous, then those people plus the people who are denying wrongdoing might together outnumber the sources, but in terms of academic sources there are many more who are open to it, then not. I read a lot of International Law Journals by the way, and Israel Law Review is one of the best. I'm sure you heard one of the board members resigned recently, I believe...actually I'm not sure if he resigned, but he isn't on the board anymore. Our article on him should probably be updated to reflect this. Seraphim System (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess my point is, aside from the sources that seem to believe some kind of war crimes have occurred, even if those crimes are not apartheid—excluding those entirely, and looking at the first sources I found on Google books:
  • Ageel, Ghada (2016-01-07). Apartheid in Palestine: Hard Laws and Harder Experiences. University of Alberta. ISBN 978-1-77212-082-0.
  • Davis, Uri (2003). Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84277-339-0.
  • Jacobs, Sean; Soske, Jon (2015-11-24). Apartheid Israel: The Politics of an Analogy. Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1-60846-518-7.
  • Pogrund, Benjamin (2014-07-10). Drawing Fire: Investigating the Accusations of Apartheid in Israel. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-2684-5.
  • Pappé, Ilan (2015-10-15). Israel and South Africa: The Many Faces of Apartheid. Zed Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78360-592-7.
  • White, Ben (2014). Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-3464-6.
  • Bishara, Marwan (2002). Palestine/Israel: Peace Or Apartheid: Occupation, Terrorism and the Future. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84277-273-7.
  • Carey, Roane (2001). The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid. Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-377-2.
  • Badran, Amneh (2009-09-10). Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa: Civil Society and Peace Building in Ethnic-national States. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-27582-2.

To be perfectly clear, it is true that the last source on the list, the Routledge source, uses the word "Zionist" instead of "Apartheid", which would be in a minority if, say, the proposal were to rewrite the Zionism article. Though the use of the word "Apartheid" is fairly extensive. Also, one of the sources does explicitly have "analogy" in its title. As for POV forks, we seem to have an article called "Anti-Zionism" and at the moment it seems to have a lot of content about conspiracy theories and a main article link to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The whole split is far from producing a balanced NPOV article on Zionism, but I don't really agree with you that this article is a POV fork of Zionism—the Routledge source's use of the word Zionism is relatively unusual, and many more sources exist that discuss it as Apartheid, so there is nothing wrong with following the WP:RS to have a separate article. Seraphim System (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we bring all the sources that write about Israel and do not mention apartheid? Or that extol positive aspects of Israeli society? As for international law journals mainly covering alleged war-crimes and other alleged impropriety, that is not surprising and true of just about any topic they cover (including the USA and war crimes ) - it makes for a very boring journal article when your underlying thesis is "everything is OK" - those sort of articles only really fly in rebuttal to claims. Alleging a connection between current day Israel and apartheid is done mainly by those writers who are highly critical of Israel. For instance - Marwan Bishara whom you cite whose brother Azmi Bishara (founder of Balad (political party)) has fled Israel due to various terrorism and espionage charges.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding allegations or alleged - I disagree that colloquial use would always or even imply this is untrue. In news reporting it is quite common to refer to alleged crimes and alleged criminals - in routine reporting that quite often assumes the accused is guilty, but uses alleged to show that the accused (or even just a suspect) hasn't been formally convicted yet.Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Im also concerned because some of the people quotes in our article may not be making allegations. They may be making comparisons-I noticed this when editing the article more closely. And I dont think we should say that have made allegations if they haven't. Some have compared apartheid to the occupation. This may have been picked up by other writers, and distorted by Pro-Israel pundits, but I am still reluctant to say they have made allegations. That's why a broader title would be preferable (but not so broad to the point of absurdity) Seraphim System (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If we are including in the article people who have made general comparisons without any intent to allege misdoing... Well that may be an issue in scope here (do we include such comparisons of "the sun shone on the backs of laborers in Apartheid South Africa as it does in Israel?") - I would question the inclusion of such idle comparisons (why do you support including them?), but if there are intended to be in then perhaps the current analogy title is most appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Placement of "Analysis by Human Sciences Research Council" under "International analysis"

This study - [5] (page 12) - was largely written (as per "Principal Contributors" in report) by Palestinians working for Palestinian NGOs in Israel Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and OPT Al-Haq (and both organizations are listed as "Contributing Researchers"). A large fraction the "Consultation" authors are NGO affiliated Israelies and Palestinians. Labeling this study as an "international analysis" is highly misleading, as is leaving out the identities of the authors.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It was commissioned by an agency of the South African government. Its principal contributors include professors at University of KwaZulu-Natal and University of London. Unless those universities have relocated, you can try as hard as you'd like, but you can't dismiss the report as the work of a few Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
PS - Do you understand what "Consultation" means? Why would you focus on that and not on the principal contributors or contributing researchers? They're the ones who researched and wrote the report. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
It's roughly 50-50 (in each category listed - Principal, contributing, and consultation (which I did not focus on in the least)) - 50% for SA/London 50% for Palestinian related. Which is why they should simply be listed with their affiliations.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
That's what footnotes are for. Not section headings, and not for you to cherry-pick the authors. Feel free to knock yourself out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I did not cherry-pick - I provided (in the edit you reverted) a simple list of the principal contributors (and only them) without prejudice to their affiliation, and mentioned all affiliations. Listed in the order provided in the document - just as I might add was done in the section above "Analysis by Adam and Moodley". However, this probably shouldn't be under "International analysis" at all - as it is difficult to qualify it as such. It is usually customary (on and off Wiki) to refer to the authors of reports, and not just to the commissioning body who paid them.Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't have an international analysis section at all. We don't identify sources by their nationalities. It would be like adding a "Jewish analysis section"—I don't think that would be well received. I worked Adam and Moodley into appropriate sections to reduce undue emphasis and I moved the HRC report to the Crime of Apartheid section because this report is discussed by law sources. Seraphim System (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: Thanks for the heading change and reorg. But why not list the principal authors of this report that we cover at such length? Specifying actual authors (and affiliation), as opposed to sponsoring bodies, is usually the norm.Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The secondary sources I have seen do not describe the report this way, I think we should follow the secondary WP:RS for describing the report. I would have to check again but I think Adalah may be mentioned in the sources, which would be find for adding a link to the body, but not to change the section heading. Some reports are referred to by their contributors in WP:RS like the "the Goldstone Report" but I don't think that is the case for the HRC report Seraphim System (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I did not check at-length (yet) the secondary quotation of this report (but rather read the report itself) - however if we give this report so much length, we should at least the section body mention the main authors and their affiliations.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to mention the editor and the seven contributors, please do so in a footnote. Adding their names and affiliations would be a paragraph of its own in the text! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I was able to find in WP:RS:

  • "The HSRC commissioned an international team of scholars and practitioners of international public law from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and the West Bank to conduct this study." (from Electronic Intifada, this is also on the HSRC page)
  • "South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council, in a response to an investigation commissioned by the South African government in 2009, issued a report confirming that the everyday structural racism and oppression imposed by Israel constitutes a regime of apartheid and settler colonialism similar to the one that shaped our lives in South Africa." (from The Guardian)

I can't find any secondary sources, aside from Electronic Intifada that discuss the composition or affiliations of the HSRC team. There are numerous books and news reports discussing the HSRC report, and with the exception of EI, none of them discuss the affiliations (national or organizational) of the contributors. I'm not sure why it is important as HSRC seems to have a pretty good reputation The main page of the HSRC says this:

The research team included scholars and international lawyers based at the HSRC, the School for Oriental and African Studies (London), the British Institute for International and Comparative Law, the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (Durban), the Adalah/Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and al-Haq/West Bank Affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists. Consultation on the study's theory and method was provided by eminent jurists from South Africa, Israel and Europe.

Which could be paraphrased and added as a footnote. I'm adding that I don't really see why this is important or appropriate for inclusion. To me it seems like too much detail for a Wikipedia article, and we don't usually do this when we reference organizations. We routinely use NGO and other non-profit sources while writing article, without discussing the details of who wrote the report, unless those details are included in media stories. I also found this footnote from Friel discussing the principal contributors [6] and NGO monitor here [7] which I think is an ok source just for the contributors, despite the other conclusory statements. Seraphim System (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If we include such a report at such length (which seems somewhat dubious) - We should note that this wasn't composed by an independent and unbiased team that was assembled by the South African Human Sciences Research Council - but rather that the authors were all on the record with severe anti-Israeli stances before the beginning of the work on the report. Tilley - [8] and of course her extensive electronic intifada work and activism [9], du Plessis, Scobbie and Kattan - on record in jan 2009 [10], and Al-Haq / Adalah are of course on-record as organizations well before hand. The same is true for most if not all of the Contributing researchers and those listed in consultation.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you point to a reliable source which says this? RolandR (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course not. Because there are none. We shouldn't even bother to reply to such typical "Palestinians don't exist, and Israelis who say the Arabs have rights are traitors" smears. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz - I did not say that, please do not put words in my mouth.Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I initially looked at this section due to the way this report was presented without an Author (but rather mentioning the auspices under which it was performed, "international analysis", and "team") - which I find suspicious in any article or subject matter. Looking a google-scholar - it is described as: "Occupation, colonialism, apartheid?: a re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law, V Tilley" and is cited by 12 other scholar entries - [11] which is not a high count (though it seems google-scholar's count is off by as a search for the title itself shows more results (88), possibly since this wasn't a journal or conference paper (it was presented in a special self-organized conference for the report I believe). Many of the citations themselves are reference to the report as part of the BDS or demilitarization movement (as an example of an activity in this regard - both from supporters ([12]) and opponents ([13]) - and not to the contents themselves. Many others are self-references by authors. Virginia Tilley has a long record in this subject matter - why not name her as author?Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Because she's not the author, it's a 300 page report, I don't think she wrote it herself. Why not post a WP:RS? I think this is the third request for WP:RS. I have posted some and none mentioned Tilley by name. We can't just decide which scholars to highlight because of OR about their involvement in a subject, we're not watchdogs and the whole thing is suspect.Seraphim System (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
To be precise she is listed as sole Editor in the report, and the first of 7 Principal Contributors. Citations of this report in journal articles (sparse as they may be) are [14], or [15], or [16] "Virginia Tilley et al., Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A Re-Assessment of Israel’s Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories under International Law (Cape Town, 2009)" or "Tilley, Virginia et al 2009, Occupation, Colonialism and Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian Territories under international law, Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council".Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure what Icewhiz is talking about. I added the editor and a complete list of authors to the citation of the report more than 15 hours ago. She's listed twice -- among the authors and as editor. Do you complain just to hear the sound of your own voice? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I made some modifications - cutting out text that hardly appears elsewhere (e.g. Foreign Ministry) + changing text to match what is stated in the source + removing various statements about the authors (which were described - but not named) + focusing on the conclusion and not the research questions - I left most of the second paragraph unchanged. I still think that Tilley should be name explicitly (and not just in ref text) - as she is the sole editor (and the first listed in the contributions) - I don't quite understand the opposition to naming her (in a ,edited by Virginia Tilley, written by herself and other contributors). She is listed as such in any citation, and is on the cover of the subsequent book release of the study ([17]).Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words, "Land" section intro

The intro to the "Land" subsection of the "Inside Israel" section reads like propagandistic weasel words. Its opening sentence implies, without clearly saying so, that there is or has been discriminatory law and practice regarding land in Israel, presumably since the founding of the state, while seeking to persuade the reader (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that the situation is improving. It further seeks to persuade the reader that this claimed improvement is sufficient to confound the accusation of discrimination -- the very thing that the facts it describes has just forced it to admit implicitly. Improvement or progress, even if real, does not confound an accusation, of course. On the contrary, it confirms that a problem exists.

This was not law, but rather the policy of the private Jewish National Fund, which has since (for many years) changed. There is no actual present-day legal issue.Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
That comment does not address the question of the phrasing of the subsection intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 11:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if Icewhiz can prove that the JNF's policy has changed. What happens is that the JNF is given other land in compensation whenever the JNF (in accordance with the law but in violation of its charter) sells land to non-Jews. Zerotalk 12:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't precise. The JNF's charter (harking back to 1901 - a private non-profit for reclaiming the land of Israel) has not changed AFAIK. The workaround of forcing a landswap on the private institution - has changed the situation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the correct description of that situation that there has been discrimination since the founding of Israel? If so, the first sentence of the "Land" subsection must reflect this if it is to conform to NPOV, I submit.
In case it isn't clear, I posted this because I don't have sufficient privileges to make the necessary change myself to fix the weasel words by acknowledging pre-existing de facto discrimination. Can someone please action this for me? KindaQuantum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

The lead of this article claims the following:
"However, others believe that even if Israeli law does not make explicit distinction between categories of citizens, in effect it privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state, by creating benefits for IDF service, which is not mandatory for Arabs."
Isn't this discrimination in favour of Arabs? For them, military service is voluntary while its mandatory for Jews and Druzes. How could this possibly be considered as discrimination against Arabs?
Dank Chicken (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think of military service as a burden, then being free of such service seems like a benefit. But if, as the sentence you quote says, the state provides benefits for military service (and families with members who have served), and leadership in business and politics has historically been linked to military service or military leadership, is not serving in the military a net benefit or a form of discrimination? See Israel Defense Forces#Bedouins and Israeli Arabs for more information. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It's discrimination against because without military service you are not eligible for certain social welfare benefits and where military service is almost universal for Israeli Jews it is the opposite for Israeli Arabs. Nixon Now (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Its not universal for Israeli Jews. Ultraorthdox Jews aren't serving in the army.--Shrike (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
And why its in lead I suggest moving it in the body of the article per WP:LEAD--Shrike (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Nixon Now - for the past 20+ years (following a high court case) - there is no difference in welfare benefits between army veterans and non-veterans.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Shrike, this would be great to expand into its own section on laws that have different application based on religion or race, or are viewed as discriminatory. Keep a little info in the lead, since it's a key element of the apartheid debate. Fuzzypeg★ 23:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Arabs and Orthodox Jews aren't prohibited from serving in the army. They can enlist and get all of the possible benefits if they so please. ~90% of the Israeli Jews and Druzes have no choice but to enlist unless they have a medical condition or any other special reason.
Therefore, it is definitely not discrimination against Arabs and Orthodox Jews, but arguably a form of discrimination in favour of them.
Dank Chicken (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The talkpage isn't meant for general discussion of the subject of the article, but for discussion about changes to be made to the article itself. Shrike, which aspect of WP:LEAD are you referring to? --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discrimination, literally speaking, simply means making a distinction between groups. There doesn't have to be a value judgement in it. However, discriminating between is often conflated with discriminating against (implying bigotry), because the word is so often used that way. Neutral language would use different wording, e.g. "distinguishes between". Establish the fact that this law distinguishes between religions using neutral language (unless you are conveying the opinion of a non-neutral source), and then you can explain the various views on whether and why this is a benefit or a problem for Palestinian Israelis. Fuzzypeg★ 23:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

NYT article about the legal status of Arab citizens of Israel and OT Arabs (2012)

This looks like it would make a relevant "Further reading" or reference link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html

The author is an Arab Israeli citizen from Lod (Lydda in Arabic) in Israel, his wife a Palestinian from Nablus, 30 miles (48 km) away in the occupied West Bank. They met and live in the USA.

Extract: 

Israeli law prevents my wife from living with me in Israel [...] (Of course, Israelis who marry Americans or any non-Palestinian foreigners are not subjected to this treatment.)

The piece is hardly NPOV in itself, but I believe it would add to this article by tending to confound the claim that Israel is not a de jure apartheid state. KindaQuantum (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Israeli law prevent enemy aliens from entering Israel (whether they marry Jews or Arabs). There is nothing unusual in this.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep drinking the kool-aid. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My sense is that the restrictive regulations upon Palestinian movement even for family and friends, not just in and out of Israel itself but also from town to town in close proximity, is already discussed enough in the article and properly cited. If we use this as an external link, something that I wouldn't object to, then we should probably try to find an archived version of the article to prevent link rot. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a subsection, perhaps following the HSRC analysis section, briefly describing and linking to the database of discriminatory laws maintained by Adalah, the center for Arab minority rights in Israel? The database covers both Israel and the OTs, so it probably should not go under either the OT or Israel sections.

https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771

The claim is that all the laws (over 65 at time of writing) discriminate in effect ("de facto"), while at least some discriminate explicitly, in their text or "on their face" ("de jure"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear, I posted this because I don't have sufficient privileges to make the necessary change myself. Can someone please action this for me? KindaQuantum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There should probably also be a brief sentence added after Richard Goldstone's reported assessment that there is no de jure discrimination in Israel. Something like "This is disputed," with an accompanying reference link to the Adalah database.KindaQuantum (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Bump. I see no refutation of the appropriateness of these inclusions. Are they not relevant on-topic NPOV improvements to the page? On the contrary, I believe I have made a clear case that continuing to exclude them will amount to bias. It is frustrating not being able to make the changes directly myself; while I understand the motivation for the restrictions, without some reasonably accessible channel for good edits still getting in, this is not what WP should be, IMO. Would someone with sufficient edit privileges please do the right thing and include them? Thank you. KindaQuantum (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an organization with a highly biased agenda, not a reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Good luck finding organisations without a highly biased agenda. Given that this is an article about highly biased opposing views, bias is no reason to exclude a viewpoint. Adalah seems to be a prominent Palestinian rights organisation and thus a reputable source for such views. However, according to some site called ngo-monitor.org this list is deceptive because it doesn't distinguish between laws and proposed laws. If true, this would indeed be misleading, and it shouldn't be included in this article.
Ngo-monitor.org also has some weaker criticisms: they claim that the list includes pejorative references to Zionism, and they seem to imply that some of the laws in the list relating to historic Jewish connection (in particular, symbols and the Hebrew calendar) are not in fact discriminatory. Of these latter concerns, they could be dealt with not by excluding the list from the article, but by noting the opposing opinions. Fuzzypeg★ 02:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ngo-monitor.org's criticisms are credited to this article. The author, Joel H. Golovensky, claims Adalah wants to grant citizenship to Palestinians, changing the nature of Israel so that it is no longer a "Jewish" state. So Golovensky himself is admitting from the outset that Israel discriminates (i.e. distinguishes) between Judaism and other religions. Golovensky in turn is summarizing this study by the Institute for Zionist Strategies. Neither Golovensky nor the IZS claim that the Adalah list conflates proposed legislation with active law. And the list itself has clear labelling of whether each law is active or proposed. Currently all are active. IZS disagrees with Adalah over whether the laws are discriminatory (e.g., does a jewish symbol on the national flag really discriminate against non-jews?), but for the purposes of this article that's fine that the discrimination is disputed. That's the whole point of this article: to explain what the different significant points of view are, without making any judgement over which is right or wrong. I agree with KindaQuantum that this list should be referenced. Fuzzypeg★ 03:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree there's an apparent big problem in this article. As currently written, the lede suggests that there are no explicitly discriminatory laws, and only one possibly implicitly discriminatory law: IDF service being not mandatory for Arabs. Clearly there are laws which discriminate on the basis of creed, such as the Right of Return, and marriage laws. If the Adalah list clearly distinguishes between active and proposed laws (see my comment above), then I would recommend including it in the article. If someone believes there is a more reputable list of discriminatory laws that contains the same or expanded information, then they can replace it with that. Fuzzypeg★ 02:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There are no discriminatory laws in relation to current citizens. Claimin the flag or calendar are discriminatory are one big stretch.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In your opinion. The purpose of this article is to represent all significant points of view on the subject, not just the one you personally agree with. Fuzzypeg★ 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In you edit it you didn't gave view that those laws are not discriminatory per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Shrike. Look more carefully: the sentence immediately prior gave that view. If there is some other significant opinion you believe is not represented, you should add it, rather than remove well-cited text.
Your stated reason for reverting my edit was that the source I added is not reliable. You have given no explanation why. I have explained here why I believe it is reliable; see WP:BIASED. Please either clearly justify why the source is not reliable, or else restore my edit. Thanks! Fuzzypeg★ 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You are citing a WP:PRIMARY source which was published by a highly biased political advocacy group - far from a suitable source for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In no way is it a primary source. It is a secondary source with elements of tertiary, since it does some of its own editorialising, but also gathers and cites other secondary sources. Yes it is biased (as are most of the sources for this article), and that is entirely to be expected, and perfectly permissible under WP:BIASED. Fuzzypeg★ 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
If we include this frivolous "database" as a source, one would have to, for the sake of NPOV when using such a highly biased source, include the ample criticism of this "database" (which sees the flag of Israel as "discrimination", or views an ordinance prohibiting trade with enemy nations as "discrimination"). You can not add one without the other.Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason I shouldn't add one without the other: I have preserved NPOV, and this is a team effort. If you can help expand the arguments around why the laws are not discriminatory, by all means do so! This is a key aspect of the "apartheid" debate, not yet covered in depth; so you may be able to make some great additions to the article! Fuzzypeg★ 22:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please don't just say "highly biased agenda", articulate what you mean. This debate is not limited to the arbitrary terms you are setting - the current content is about the privileges and benefits conferred by the state, which is a fundamental concern in evaluating any civil rights issue (including the recent gay marriage decision in the United States) And yes, Adalah is prominent because they are lawyers, which they obviously would have to be as a Palestinian human and civil rights organization to be enjoy the same consideration as ngo-monitor. Seraphim System (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

After Shrike has restored my edit, I intend to add this sentence to follow it: "A proposed 'Jewish State' bill, which the government plans to pass by late March 2018, will explicitly restrict the right of self-determination to Jews only.[1][2][3]" Fuzzypeg★ 23:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Israel takes first step towards ‘Jewish nation-state’ law, Joel Greenberg, The Financial Times, May 11 2017.
  2. ^ Full text of MK Avi Dichter’s 2017 ‘Jewish State’ bill, The Times of Israel, 10 May 2017.
  3. ^ Government Says It Will Push Jewish Nation-State Bill for First Vote Soon, The Jerusalem Post, December 18, 2017.
It would be WP:OR to add this based on the sources you presented. A nation state bill has many parallels elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Icewhiz. You also stated in your revert comment: "Change to lede without change to body. Sources do not connect this to "apartheid" - WP:OR by editor. Nation-states exist elsehwere." In fact, the first cited reference, the Financial Times piece, does connect this with "apartheid". It directly quotes Ayman Odeh, head of the Joint List party in Israel, describing the law as "apartheid, racist and nationalist". So no, it's not original research. As to your other points: yes, nation states exist all over the world; what's your point? And changing the lede without changing the body: what policy or guideline does that violate, and how? If you want to rearrange material, great! But don't just delete. Please take more care before simply reverting well-referenced edits. Far better would be to start in the talk page, by explaining clearly what part of what guideline you believe is violated. I am an experienced and conscientious editor, not a vandal. Thanks, Fuzzypeg★ 12:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
See MOS:INTRO. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body. If we were to mention everything Mr. Odeh says is "apartheid" and "racist" we will have a very long article indeed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think MOS:INTRO stipulates that the lede cannot contain other material as well as summary. But there's no need to quibble over that, as I've already indicated my desire for this material to be reorganised and expanded below. I need time to get there, though, which is only hindered if you revert me. Importantly, please remember that you should always WP:PRESERVE content that meets the content criteria, not delete it but rather reorganise/improve it if you feel it doesn't meet style guidelines, or needs different context etc. I hope, therefore, that you will restore my edit. Regarding Odeh, no I don't intend to fill this article with his views on apartheid. I can't tell if you're joking there, or still trying to somehow argue that my addition is WP:OR. Either way, I don't understand your point. Fuzzypeg★ 14:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You should probably work on finding how to include Odeh's remark on one version of a proposed bill into the body (where it might be UNDUE/OR as well - I think if you examine Odeh's language of late - this has become a common figure of speech in relation to many alleged wrongs) - before trying to insert this into the LEDE.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think Odeh needs to be quoted in the body of the article? I hadn't intended to do so. You haven't explained what your concern is about UNDUE/OR: what part of these policies are violated? if you're suggesting that Odeh might be unique in linking the proposed bill to "apartheid", just google "jewish state bill" apartheid and you'll find plenty others: MK Jamal Zahalka, MK Yael German, journalist Gideon Levy and a horde of others. If this is all you're concerned about, I can easily add more references. Fuzzypeg★ 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I reverted Shrike's edit because he wrote "Not reliable source for such changes", but there were four sources at the end of the sentence. Let him make his argument here against each of the sources. I'm sure he doesn't like any of them, but as we say, Tough. Liking or not liking something isn't sufficient reason to include it or remove it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
First of all WP:ONUS is on you to prove that those source are reliable and should be included moreover Like Icewiz noted there was also a POV problem but linking a highly subjective database your edit brought a POV violation without bringing any counterbalance.--Shrike (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank-you Shrike. Reliability/reputability are all discussed above, as per WP:ONUS. You have repeated the same vague claims about bias ("POV violation") and reliability without explaining clearly what parts of what guidelines you believe are violated. Until you do so I'm unlikely to be able to answer your concerns. Please read WP:BIASED and WP:IMPARTIAL. Fuzzypeg★ 11:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

English usage

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "apartheid":

1(in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
1.1 Segregation on grounds other than race.
They give 20 example sentences of the generic second usage, none of which involves South Africa.
This article is based on the false premise that any use of "apartheid" in connection with Israel is the first meaning. It cites a (very one-sided) collection of sources with straw-man claims that an exact analogy is being made, which they attempt to debunk. Is it "encyclopedic" to indulge in this sort of word games?

Keith McClary (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

One reason for this is that certain quotes from Desmond Tutu which were widely discussed in the media did make an analogy, and this article is a discussion of that analogy and criticism of it. It went through a significant cleanup. Some of the content in this article might be better suited for a separate article, as the topic is rather narrow (but long enough with enough sources that I think it would not improve it to add everything to one article.)Seraphim System (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The topic doesn't seem too narrow, as this is a major point of dispute being played out internationally: There are many articles and opinion pieces in the news media on exactly this subject, is Israel an apartheid? Desmond Tutu is far from alone in drawing the analogy. I would suggest that dictionary definitions of apartheid could profitably be included in this article, as well as the legal definition. Currently the very first sentence of the article seems to imply that the word apartheid is always intended in a legal sense; I doubt this very much. Fuzzypeg★ 23:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Technical wording change required to 4.6

If I understand the legal implications of the passage of the presumably-former-Bill-now-Act in July 2018, this heading needs to be changed to read something like "'Jewish State' Act of 2018". It currently reads "Proposed 'Jewish State' bill". The date of passage needs to be added: July 19, 2018. KindaQuantum (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

I believe the introduction paragraph should be extended after the adoption of the Nation State Bill.

Avi Dichter has told Arab legislators: "The most you can do is to live among us as a national minority that enjoys equal individual rights, but not equality as a national minority". Since Israel now officially, and not just de-facto, treats people differently depending on their religion, the analogy is not an "analogy" anymore, but rather reality. I think it's very important to mention this new law and the worldwide condemnation that is accompanying it.

BeŻet (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Prominence of 4.6

Following the passage of this bill into law, should it not be more prominent on this page? At the very least, the Act, and the fact that it denies self-determination to the large, alienated, dispossessed, unconsenting indigenous ethno-religious minority, should be mentioned in the lede or soon after, IMO. KindaQuantum (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP and what sources use the anology --Shrike (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. To be clear, I was not seriously suggesting that my precise wording be used, only that its content be borne in mind by whoever does the edit. Your rebuke is against propaganda-speak, and it's justified and I accept it; my concern, though, is to pre-empt the common Zionist propaganda that so often carries the day unchallenged and unquestioned. That was what set the tone for the whole of this article when I first encountered it. I take pride in having been instrumental in getting propaganda out of this page up till now. No doubt there is some more NPOV way of putting the implications of the new Act. I shall watch with interest to see how it is done. Nevertheless, when all's said and done, my basic editorial point remains valid: the passage of this law is a major development in the page topic that needs to be reflected more prominently. NPOV enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I endorse this comment fully. Tafkira2 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition of UN ESCWA report

I propose the addition, under Section 3 of this article, possibly following 3.1, of a paragraph on the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) report on the question of whether Israel is practicing apartheid. Several factors support mentioning this report: it was a scholarly study; it presents an international legal analysis regarding the crime of apartheid; it was endorsed by a UN organ; and it was highly significant to the debate about apartheid in triggering a high-profile international diplomatic kerfuffle as well as global media attention. It therefore seems to have the significance sufficient to warrant a reference to it here, as a significant contribution.

I anticipate some objections to this, which I'll treat briefly: (1) that the report lacks the standing of a UN report due to its being removed from the UN website. The report was indeed removed, but it was never retracted. A statement at the time by the Secretary General's office stated that removing it from the website was not because of its content but on procedural grounds - that it had not been submitted to the proper committees for review. (Even this objection was later shown not to be accurate, but a more involved discussion on this claim is not required here.) The Secretary General said that it did not reflect his "personal views" but that criterion has no bearing on the standing of a UN report. (2) that the report lacks credibility due to a lack of scholarly rigor. To my knowledge, there has been no scholarly critique to date of this article that has rejected its substantive findings or cast it out of the ambit of responsible scholarly debate. I could be wrong, but even if this is the case, it has also been endorsed by other scholars, so divisions on this point would not seem to warrant excluding it. (3) that the authors were biased. Ad hominem attacks (against one author, Richard Falk, in particular) were just that - ad hominem. They can't be taken as impugning the methodology or findings of the report. They might be cited in some (carefully worded) discussion of reaction to the report.

I suggest the following text. The external link is suggested because it is to a university library archive that should remain stable for the foreseeable future.

"In 2017, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) released a commissioned study examining whether Israel's policies regarding Palestinians wherever they live are consistent with the Crime of apartheid as defined in international law. The final report, Israeli Practices toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, presented a legal analysis of Israeli laws and policies regarding Palestinians in four legal and geographic categories or "domains": Palestinian citizens of Israel, Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinians living outside Israel. While Israeli law and policies in these four domains vary considerably, these variations were found to comprise an apartheid regime by constituting a strategically complementary system to ensure permanent a Jewish demographic majority in Israel and thereby Jewish-national domination of Israel and all territories under its control."

This text could be usefully followed by discussion (with citations) to challenges against the report, but such citations should either be scholarly or clearly labelled as political or polemical. Tafkira2 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The document by ESCWA (a group of 18 Arab states) is a political document, not a scholarly one, . The UN specifically rejected this work (saying it reflects the opinions of the authors' only) - so suggesting this is connected to the UN is misleading. The report itself received very little notice (definitely not scholarly notice) - with the main political response being its rejection.[18].Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


I object to both the content and subtext of Icewhiz's comments.

1. Re the subtext: I flag Icewhiz's frank political bias. For one thing, the parenthetical comment that ESCWA is composed of "18 Arab states" is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the member states are "Arab" or "Semite" or "Muslim" -- or "Latin American," for that matter. The implication that states are professional or unprofessional based on their ethnicity is racist - there is no other word for it. Icewhiz's bias is further confirmed by the claim, "the main political response being its rejection." This is an Israeli-centric view. Israel's defenders and media outlets chimed in with denunciations, but most of the rest of the world covered the report favorably, it was reviewed and praised by several leading international law scholars, and ESCWA director Rima Khalaf was subsequently given several awards for her role in commissioning and defending it. I can provide sources for this, but as Icewhiz offers none, I don't (yet) feel obliged.

2. As #1 suggests, this is a scholarly study, as the writing and citations make clear. It conforms completely to scholarly standards. There is no basis for calling it a "political" document, unless Wikipedia aims to reject as "political" any scholarly study that has political implications, which is clearly impossible. As noted, it has been reviewed favorably by scholars and has become featured in a number of scholarly conferences: again, citations can be provided if needed, but Icewhiz offers none the other way.

3. "The UN" did not reject this report. ("The UN" is a vast complex of committees and agencies: it never acts as one entity.) The Secretary General ordered it removed from the website under enormous pressure by the US and Israel. However, the SG himself, despite later distorted coverage, did not say anything about the merits of its content. SG Office spokesman Dujarric, in the SG's official statement, clarified that it was pulled from the website on purely procedural grounds that had nothing to do with its content. Evidence for this is available on any Google search. (In that search, statements appearing that it did not reflect the SG's "personal views" are entirely irrelevant: this proviso had only to do with defending himself against ad hominem Israeli/US attack. The SG's "personal views" are irrelevant to all UN reports. He is not the CEO of the UN.)

4. Many UN studies are commissioned by its standing committees from professionals and go on respective UN websites with the proviso that they are the work of those professionals, as was this one. When such reports are posted, that means they have been endorsed by the commissioning agency. The press release for this report confirms that ESCWA unanimously endorsed this report. Whether or not it is on the website, it remains a UN document, as confirmed by UN copyright law.

5. Regarding what attention it received: aside from the enormous global media coverage of the report, of its withdrawal, and of the resignation of the ESCWA director in protest -- again, any Google search on "Israel apartheid report" shows this scale -- the study has five scholarly citations so far according to Google Scholar (it has been 16 months since its publication, about the lag time for academic journal publications, so more may emerge soon). It also drew very wide attention from scholars and fed into several scholarly conferences, as noted earlier.

I suggest that Icewhiz's comments are unsupported, racially biased and politically driven and have no merit here. Tafkira2 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The report's content is both valid and pertinent. It is of no consequence whether it appears on the UN's website. The report exists. The UN is a reliable source. An WP:RfC can be opened on this if editors don't reach a consensus. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

User:Icewhiz has added who and dubious tags to the claim that Israeli statesmen have used the term "Israeli apartheid". I agree this formulation is problematic, because (a) that precise phrase doesn't appear in the cited article, nor in the article cited to support the claim that UN investigators use this term; and (b) as currently phrased it could equally apply to people who claim there is no "Israeli apartheid" — as long as they utter those words. I propose changing the wording to:

"Israel has been described as an "apartheid" state by some scholars, United Nations investigators, Israeli statesmen, human rights groups critical of Israeli policy and those supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel."

That would resolve the who and dubious tags and be clearer and more to the point. This article is about the apartheid analogy, not about only one specific phrasing of it. Fuzzypeg★ 22:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Some Israeli statesmen warned of future apartheid if the two state solution were to collapse (and a one state were to emerge). They did not use the term in the present sense. You may find some far left Israeli individuals (who may have formally held a position in the past) that have made such a present stmt. Israeli statemen, in general, reject this tag to the present state.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Good call. The people who "have suggested that apartheid is not a future risk but a present reality", according to that article, are not current statesmen. They are: former education minister Shulamit Aloni, former environment minister Yossi Sarid, former attorney general Michael Ben-Yair and former Foreign Ministry chief Alon Liel. I suppose it should be "former Israeli statesmen". Fuzzypeg★ 04:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
In most other countries, such people are referred to as "elder statesmen and -women". But we can refer to them as dead politicians. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Statesmen would be puffery (and none of those you mentioned did foreign relations so wrong on that, all 3 referred to the West Bank specificially). You could qualify this as "a few former far left politicians".Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, "far left" is a highly disputable label. Quote some reputable source for this opinion, by all means, but the article itself shouldn't adopt such a point of view. The term "far left" is typically used in a derogatory and highly imprecise way — and in this case I highly doubt any of these politicians qualify as "[Far-left politics|far left]", if you read what far left actually means. Nor are these politicians all dead. I have looked up "statesman" and I agree that isn't the right description for these people. They are former senior Israeli politicians. Fuzzypeg★ 09:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I've changed the wording. I'll let you remove the dubious and who tags once you're satisfied that the wording is accurate. Feel free to expand it with whatever else you think is important, as long as it is well-cited, neutral and not original research. Fuzzypeg★ 09:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Better, but senior is puffery (heading Meretz is not particularly senior), and one typically identifies the leaning of the politicians involved - in this case members of the farthest left Jewish party, which at the time the stmts were made held 5 of 120 MKs.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That's bullshit. First, we should include either "senior" or "former", as it's descriptive, not puffery. Second, tagging everybody who has said that as "left-wing" is a smear, not a "leaning". (Ben Gurion was "far left" only perhaps with respect to Jabotinsky and Begin.) If a reader is curious, she or he can click on the link to read more about the politician or the party she or he was associated with. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Ben Gurion said nothing of the sort (he warned of a possible future). The "senior" former politicians referred to are all from Meretz which proudly self identifies as left wing, and is often described as far left. Left or right wing is not a smear - but a description of political position (inside the US one usually says liberal or conservative - but this labelling does not fit non US politics and Israel in particular).Icewhiz (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Addendum, this is their homepage, the big green banner on the top reads "Left is Meretz", which was their campaign slogan. This is not something they are shy of (Labor (Zionis Union) sometimes tries to portray itself as center or center-left, but never Meretz).Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This has not been adequately resolved. The article states "The description has also been used by several Israeli former politicians," as if any 'Israeli former politicians' described Israel as a current apartheid state. The article doesn't make that claim, nor do any Israeli politicians - former or current - that I am aware of. This should be changed to "Several Israeli former politicians have warned of a slow transition to apartheid," or something similar.Lord daemonar (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2018 (EST)
The article has had those sources too, but they seem to have been removed at some point. You can find them in earlier versions of the article and restore here. Fuzzypeg mentions some above --Dailycare (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Some context needed

In the intro, it says "Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.". In order to maintain NPOV, it needs to be noted in the sentence that supporters of apartheid in South Africa made identical claims about Bantustans, and that Israel restricts the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, not the State of Palestine.


Another statement in the intro says: "With regard to the situation within Israel itself, critics of the claim argue that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa, which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex". It needs to be noted here that, according to the Basic Law [1], the right to self-determination is restricted to Jewish people. --Wiki885525 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/BasicLawNationState.pdf
I came here to make this edit myself, though discovered the page is protected. Glad to hear this issue has been raised. 137.50.144.193 (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Out of date

The page claims "Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex.[23]"

Well, it's not anymore. The explicit "race law" was passed recently, promoting "Jewish settlement" specifically (but not settlement by any other religious groups), giving "Jews" the right to self-determination (but not anyone else), etc.

The article needs to be corrected to reflect the current situation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-passed-arabs-segregation-protests-benjamin-netanyahu-a8454196.html

67.249.141.188 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Enclave law

@Icewhiz: your removal of the reference to enclave law was supported by your edit comment that "Enclave law applies to all Israeli citizens and residents - including Arab Israeli citizens and residents of East Jerusalem when they are present in the Area where this is in effect." Which ignored the point entirely - the system means that the West Bank operates as "one country two sets of laws".

Either way, our OR interpretations are not relevant here. There are sources in the Enclave law article explicitly connecting enclave law to apartheid, so it fits in here in the list of differentiated laws.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I see you have now added it back. It highlights a problem with the lede structure, which currently goes (by paragraph structure):
  1. Description
  2. Arguments for
  3. Arguments against
  4. Arguments against and arguments for
...with significant overlap between paragraph 4 and paragraphs 2/3. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Your placement of this was incorrect - you placed this in relation to the situation inside Israel - "enclave law" does not apply inside Israel. It applies in the OPT (and extends portions of Israeli law to portions of the OPT), and applies equally to all Israeli citizens and residents (and no - this is not OR). You should have placed this in the paragraph discussing claims about the regime in the OPT - paragraph 2. Two minutes prior to your talk page comment, I did exactly that - though phrasing could perhaps be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 is arguments for in the OPT. 3 is arguments against in the OPT. 4 is inside Israel. The claims regarding the OPT are more widespread (and generally stronger) than claims inside of Israel. Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. I have had a go at copyediting the paragraphs to make the structure much clearer. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Fake Ben Gurion quote

Goodman's fake Ben Gurion quote, which has previously been talked about in a abortive discussion and not corroborated by another source (try searching for it the mentioned book by Shourideh: 0 results), is still contained in this article. Camera, for all its supposed bias, actually researched the quote:

  1. It appears nowhere in Hebrew searches.
  2. They contacted:
    1. the Ben-Gurion Archives: "archivist we spoke to never heard of the quote"
    2. Benny Morris: "never heard" of it
    3. Martin Kramer: "extremely unlikely" and "nowhere in the war diary of Ben-Gurion"
    4. Zaki Shalom (Ben-Gurion scholar): "never heard of the quote"
    5. Anita Shapira (biographer): "implausible"

And meanwhile, they tried so much as to get a few more details from Goodman himself, who instead of providing any hints to his quote from personal memory

declined, when asked, to provide any further details on the interview, such as the name of the radio station or the name of the interviewer.

So unless somebody actually finds the primary source of the quote, it can safely be deemed a false one. -- 95.90.221.137 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If this relies on Goodman recollections of hearing this on the radio - it should be axed. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Did the IP describe CAMERA's bias as "supposed"? They might want to read about this.
CAMERA have attacked Goodman and his wife for some time.
This Ben Gurion quote is widely quoted in literature. I don't have certainty on it, but I am certain that we shouldn't let CAMERA dictate how we treat it. They cannot be trusted for NPOV.
On CAMERA's page they note: "Following our communication with Independent editors, the text of the article was revised to reflect the fact that it is only Falk’s claim that Ben-Gurion uttered these words."
That type of formulation is fine with me - the quote is well known, but everything I have seen sources it via Goodman, so so should we.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
If everyone sources this off of Goodman remembering hearing this on the radio - that's just dodgy, and we're amplifying a rather clearly false quote which is repeated for sensationalism. Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
As for sources - Independent says this quote is disputed. presspectiva (Hebrew) has a very detailed debunking - the original itself from Goodman is dodgy - he writes in a book, penned in 2005, how he remembers (from 1967) lying down exhausted on his bed and hearing Ben Gurion's chirping voice on the radio. Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious? The Hebrew "source" is a copy of the press release by CAMERA cited by the IP editor in the first post. And yes, as the Independent says, it is indisputable that the quote is disputed. Is that really the best you can do? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
So what if its camera .Do you think they faked the quotes by historians? --Shrike (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
So don't misrepresent it by suggesting it's got new information or corroborates what's been written elsewhere. Duh. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Interesting question. First, CAMERA is a nefarious organization that can't be trusted for the time of day, so it should be ignored totally, and the very poor article in Presspectiva is just a copy of it. So we don't actually have any reliable debunking. In particular, nobody seems to even looked in the most obvious place: the contemporary press. Personally I don't think our evidence for the quotation is very good. However, I believe that a minor variation of the quotation is very plausible. Ben-Gurion was opposed to annexation of the West Bank, and about June 18 he wrote to newspapers proposing an autonomous Arab state there (NYT, June 20, p15). The way to uncover his reasoning would be to visit File 1087 in the Ben-Gurion Archives where a manifesto he issued on June 18 is preserved (reference courtesy Segev, 1967, p503, who confirms the NYT description). To speculate on how Goodman's recollection came to be: the always-pragmatic Ben-Gurion would have correctly seen annexation as a step towards an Israel with a Jewish minority, and the South African Goodman would have understood that as apartheid whether or not Ben-Gurion used the word. Incidentally, Segev describes a cabinet meeting around the same time (not involving Ben-Gurion) where this demographic argument was invoked by several ministers. Zerotalk 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ben-Gurion saying this during the Six Day War (9-10 June) is implausible - things weren't decided at that point. The sole source for this quote is Goodman (others citing him / saying he said so) - from a book a few decades after the alleged Radio interview recalling hearing this when he was exhausted and lying in bed. Goodman himself doesn't cite a source - merely says he remembers this a few decades ago. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Funny you should write that just as I am finding a proof that you are wrong:
When the extent of Israel’s military victory became known, Ben-Gurion was among the few who realized its potential negative implications for Israel. He was particularly concerned over the demographic consequences in annexing a large Arab population. As early as the second day of the war he jotted down in his diary: We cannot forget that there are approximately one million Arabs in the West Bank. The last thing we need is to add them to the Arab [population] of Israel. There are also about two hundred thousand refugees in the Gaza Strip and it will not be easy to get rid of them. However, we will [solve] these problems after we successfully conclude our victory on all fronts. (Zaki Shalom, Ben-Gurion's Political Struggles, 1963–1967, pp110–111; reference to diary entry of June 7).
So I guessed right. And from p114 of the same source, describing a meeting with Shapira and Begin on the following day: We must not hand back the West Bank to Hussein even though annexing it to Israel means an addition of million Arabs. This is a grave danger. Zerotalk 11:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Not proof that I am wrong - speaking publicly on radio (particularly on the radio back then) during the height of euphoria is different from writing privately or discussing privately. I will also note that I believe that Galatz and Kol Yisrael broadcast tapes from the Six Day War (which per Goodman - is when he heard this) are available in archives - if this speech took place on radio - one would expect to have a specific program and time verified. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I provided proof that BG's fear of the demographic threat began during the war and continued after it. Actually he never changed that opinion for the rest of his life (which I can also source). I can't prove Goodman's recollection is true, but it is perfectly plausible. Zerotalk 12:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Demographic issues in the conflict are long standing (and hark well before this) - BG discussing demographics does not mean he used the term apartheid. Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess you really had to reply something. Zerotalk 12:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Kindly don't make sarcastic bad-faith taunts when you're shown moving the goalpost.
The whole reason this fake Ben-Gurion quote is in the article is his supposed use – to directly quote the article's sentence – of "apartheid state", not his thoughts on demographics. Exactly as Icewhiz wrote. So again, as for that "apartheid" quote we have:
Pro:
1. one person, Goodman, quoting entirely from memory multiple decades after the supposed radio program
Contra
1. said person failing to provide any further details of this supposed radio program for its verification
2. nothing alike appearing in Hebrew searches by CAMERA
3. likewise, not one separate source for it that doesn't just refer to Goodman's hearsay
4. five independent authorities on Ben-Gurion and/or Israeli history opposing its authenticity
To which your counter is "CAMERA is a nefarious organization", which for any of these points is at most relevant for their capacity to manipulate results from Hebrew Google. -- 95.90.221.137 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as long as there are no high quality sources we must not say in wikipedia voice that Ben Gurion made the statement. We can attribute the quote to Goodman's recollection and note that its authenticity is disputed, or better yet remove the problematic quote altogether. If indeed Ben Gurion made the statement surely a record of it exists somewhere else beside Goodman's memory. “WarKosign” 07:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Another site (Hebrew, translation) tried to track down the quote and came to the same conclusions. They quote a few more authorities on Ben Gurion that also are not aware of this quote and call it "unreasonable". “WarKosign” 08:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I'm honestly not trying to start a discussion irrelevant to article improvement, but it seems quite obvious to me that North Ireland is a much closer and more relevant analogy than South Africa -- Northern Ireland being another area where often antagonistic groups are defined by religious affiliation (not really race), there's a bitter legacy of irregular violence directed at civilians (absent in South Africa) etc. etc. etc. -- not to mention the fact that Ulster Unionists are generally pro-Israel, while Irish Nationalists are much more likely to be pro-Palestinian [19][20](see also Northern Ireland Friends of Israel). I wonder if there are any reliable sources about this overall comparison? (I'm mainly turning up just random opinion pieces with Google.) AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally have not heard that comparison made. nableezy - 19:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There used to be all sorts of comparisons (as well as actual connections - also during the mandate (though Jews were anti-British at the end- so the alignment waffled a bit in the late 40s/50s) and through to the 70s when the IRA trained with the PLO in Lebanon [21])- however they have faded since the end of the troubles.Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There was, of course, the famous 1917 comment by Ronald Storrs, the first British military governor of Jerusalem, that Britain's aim in issuing the Balfour Declaration was the creation of a "little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism". Although the comment has often been cited, I haven't seen any detailed analysis of it, or of the comparison. We could also note the opinion of Moshé Machover, that a better parallel than South African apartheid is the extirminatory practice of US settlement, and that the most appropriate guide is Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. RolandR (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: perhaps that feels right on the chessboard, but it is nonsense on the ground. The reason for the global strength of feeling on Palestine is about human rights. In South Africa, different populations lived under the same rulers but with different sets of rights. The rulers of South Africa were not accountable to the majority of the population. For both of these, as this article explains, the same is true today in the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

RolandR It would be helpful if you would indicate what is "contentious" about my changes to the article after performing a complete revert, which are mostly to tailor the language to reduce editorializing and reflect more balance, as well as conform with the traditional format of restating the article's name in bold at the introduction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. You can't make such changes, especially to the intro to a highly contentious article, and then demand that others explain why you should not make them. The onus is on you to explain in what way your edits are necessary and an improvement, and if reverted you should certainly open a discussion before reinstating your changes. Your edit is in breach of Wikipedia's editing principles, and although not technically a breach of the special restrictions on this page, it is clearly in breach of the spirit. I will not myself re-revert your edit, but I urge you to justify your changes here. RolandR (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

South Africans on the analogy

The last two paragraphs of the section "Comments by South Africans" do not appear to be about South Africans, but rather about people of South African descent or birth. I'm not sure if they should be in that section. The rest of those mentioned have had a bit more prominence in modern South African affairs. Perhaps they should be moved? Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to add a reference to the recently deceased Denis Goldberg's views on Israel as an 'apartheid state', not sure how to request but please add this reference after the name 'Denis Goldberg' in this section: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish-freedom-fighter-calls-israel-apartheid-state-1.5380379 Selimap (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

History seems to be missing

I will not edit the mainspace, only shortly comment here.

This article seems to be much related: Hebrew labor: 

Around 1920 Ben-Gurion began to call for Jewish labor in the entire economy, and labor Zionism started striving for an absolute segregation of the Jewish and Arab national communities. In this way 'Jews and Arabs [...] would live in separate settlements and work in separate economies.

In many cases the removal of Arab workers 'took the form of ugly scenes of violence'.

etc.

Let us mention it in the History and the See Also sections. Zezen (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

actual WP:BIASED sources

The bit on the Washington Post says the laws are the same is incorrect. The sources for that are two op-eds, one by Richard Cohen (columnist) and one by Michael Kinsley. Neither of those are experts in the field, making their opinions unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia, and the claim that the Washington Post reports what am op-ed claims is a straightforward untruth. I am removing that line and those sources, will find something to replace it with. nableezy - 17:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally, this article's content has massive scholarly and book coverage, pro and con. The use of such sources just indicates quick googling. The sources here are copied and pasted everywhere because of laziness. It's the obdurate problem of Wikipedia, editing quickly without deliberation, or reading anything substantive but just getting a few useful google results.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally I don't think it's worth worrying about. That point of view is obvious and even mediocre sources suffice to note it. Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree, Im still going to remove the crappier ones and the ones that dont support what they are supposedly supporting though. nableezy - 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted sources

When somebody edited out a few lines, they removed two refs, 24 and 26, which now cause errors in the 'References' section.

The refs in question are: [1] and [2]

122.178.54.51 (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the catch, it should now be fixed. Jr8825 • Talk 10:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I broke them moving things around, silly me. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Palestine files complaint against Israel under anti-racism treaty". The Guardian. 23 April 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2019.
  2. ^ "Report: UN anti-racism panel to probe claims of Israeli apartheid in West Bank". The Times of Israel. 24 December 2019. Retrieved 26 December 2019.

Fails RS

A High Holidays Resource Guide The Jewish Federations of North America/ Israel Action Network

This is an encyclopedia. How does this pathetic activist source get past the RS principles? Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Its reliable for the opinion of the critics of the analogy --Shrike (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That is an assertion, not an argument. I asked about its RS status. So please reformulate. By the way neither of the links, one dead, and one way back machine, work, for me. If they don't work, a link that does the job has to be provided, or the source goes out. Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That doesnt mean it is usable as a source in an encyclopedia. Removing it. nableezy - 15:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This source is usable for exactly what Shrike said: as a primary source that is reliable for the opinions of pro-Israeli groups, because that's precisely what this is. Nishidani description of this as a "pathetic activist source" is nauseating, given how much it reflects on Nishidani's points of view rather than the validity of this source for limited purposes (noted above). Such language should not be used to describe any cause, no matter our personal beliefs on it. If an editor called a Students for Justice in Palestine brochure "pathetic" or some other derogatory name, I'm sure the reaction would not be good (nor should it be). Let's try to be a bit more careful in how we describe sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
We dont typically use low quality primary sources in encyclopedia articles. We use reliable secondary sources. Every source is reliable for their own opinion. But the opinion of a random advocacy group lacks the WP:WEIGHT to be included unless it is shown that reliable secondary sources consider their opinion noteworthy. nableezy - 23:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And stop messing with the section headers. That isnt anywhere close to the type of header that merits being changed. That source emphatically fails RS. If you want me to challenge it at RSN cool. Ill be happy to take it there if you really want me to. nableezy - 23:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The person who's "messing with headers" is the one who keeps putting arguments or opinionated statements/conclusions in the header. Take a look at WP:TALKHEADPOV for once. "Fails RS" is a conclusion and a meaningless statement. Put the NAME OF THE SOURCE under discussion and be done with it. People will draw their own conclusions.
Reading the rest of your comment is like responding to someone who didn't even glance at the points we've raised here. At the risk of over-explaining basic policy, I'll try to be as succinct as possible. No one said this is a "reliable source" as in a secondary source for any statements of fact. It is a usable source as a primary source, for statements attributable to either 1) the Jewish Federation of North America or 2) the views of prominent Jewish-American Israel advocacy organizations. Preferably accompanied by a secondary source if relevant, because, as you said, there are weight concerns as well. That's the crux of it and no one has suggested otherwise. If I hear you say one more thing about "it's not reliable" or "I'm going to RSN," I'll just know with 100% certainty that you're not listening to anything rational here and we'll end up in another 5-page argument that goes nowhere. Let's try and avoid that this time, for everyone's sake. I'm starting to question why you're so up in arms about a PDF brochure and what drew Nishidani to call it "pathetic activi(sm)," but I'd rather avoid the answer to that question.
Oh, and this particular organization is frequently the subject of other sources critical of Israel or lobbying efforts on behalf of Israel; in cases where those articles are cited, this would be an example of a primary source we have the option of including alongside the secondary citation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

the points we've raised here

Avoid the plurale maiestatis. All we have all over this page is your singular views, discordant with policy and the comments of most editors. As Adorno noted, to say 'we' when one means 'I' is offensive. That's as far as I got.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The usual, then. I agree that the appending of "we" to nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Lol, the section header got changed again, must be an allergy.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Somebody objects to your change of section title, dont do it again. This header isnt "POV", and repeatedly attempting to enforce your view on this is beyond annoying and going in to disruptive. Try WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, especially the part where it says Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. Not demand that you alone get to decide what the section heading should be. Your change was objected to, and forcing it in here is edit-warring just as it would be in an article. nableezy - 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

And yes, Ive looked at your points. As with the section on Peteet, the points are entirely specious and go directly against our policy on RS, V and WEIGHT. So excuse me for not caring about how strongly you want to violate those policies, I dont. nableezy - 13:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep your arguments in the discussion text and out of the headers. I'll cite the policy exactly as it reads: Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.. Claiming a source "fails RS" is a non-neutral heading. UJA is a prominent advocacy organization, not "random" or necessarily "low-quality," so this source is useable in those instances where secondary coverage may also exist. That is exactly in line with policy. Other opinion pieces on the subject mention the lobbying efforts of the organization who produced this brochure.
The article currently includes other primary sources like interviews and opinion pieces from Al Jazeera, so this arbitrary line you've drawn has absolutely nothing to do with the use of primary sources. If and when a secondary article or primary opinion piece comes up and is worth citing in the article that mentions the organization above and its position on the topic, then would be an time to cite this alongside whatever other citation provides the "weight." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
That is solved by removing other poor sources. Not by adding additional ones. Go to ANI if you want to, I legit do not care. But you dont decide what the header is, sorry. nableezy - 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

And the idea that this section header criticizes editors is just another in a series of hysterical lies. Kindly stop doing that. nableezy - 23:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

But thank you for pointing out the AJE opinion piece. I removed it. nableezy - 23:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
{tq|Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.}} Do I need to repeat? "Fails RS" is an opinion or conclusion and not a neutral header. I'm not going to keep going back-and-forth on this with you. You are both edit warring and repeatedly restoring a header that violates basic TPG. Learn to make your points without going across the line. There is room for common ground. You don't need to make it this difficult. You also could've left the AJE piece. There is a time and place for primary sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. This heading is neutral. That article does fail RS. Do you even pretend to challenge that? nableezy - 23:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
You are creating controversy for the sake of creating controversy. This is silly. I have directly challenged that, as has Shrike, for the reasons stated above. "Fails RS" is not a neutral header and I'm sure this is not lost on you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, so you are saying this is a reliable source? Because I can go to RSN if youd like. Shrike didnt actually say that, he stated a tautology, that a source is reliable for its own opinions. Which of course is true, that however does not make it a reliable source for our purposes here. nableezy - 23:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What about Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. is unclear here? You made a change, it was challenged. Stop trying to force it through. Whether on a talk page or an article that is disruptive behavior. I will absolutely continue reverting as vandalism those edits. You are not the arbiter of what is or is not an acceptable section heading. And while your need to enforce your own warped view here is not entirely surprising given your behavior in literally every other place Ive seen you, it isnt going to get you anywhere. nableezy - 01:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That "tautology" is pulled directly from policy: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.. See WP:RSOPINION. A source can be reliable in some contexts and not others, and we have made explicitly clear which context this source could be considered reliable in. If you want to bring that to RSN, feel free, but your notion that this subheader must reflect your assessment of this source is misguided. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, as for controversial changes to the header, which I'm only going to address this last, your argument is that to acknowledge yes, you are clearly changing it to reflect your opinion about the source, in violation of WP:TALKHEADPOV, but at the same time, you are willing to make a fuss over changing it to just about anything else, which you believe places you back in the right. This self-serving logic may make for a fun hypothetical, but it's extraordinarily disruptive to the talkpage. This is also the second header on this page that you've created or restored in violation of TALKHEADPOV, including this one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Four editors, and no one is ganging up, have told you you are wrong. The point re headers is piddling pettifoggery. The text is not acceptable. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, everybody is reliable for their own opinion. Whether or not that opinion is suitable for an encyclopedia article is another question. And on that question there is wide agreement that this one is not. As with Peteet, I see no need to continue to humor you. WP:IDHT is not a winning argument and thats the only one you got. And stop saying we lol, its just you. nableezy - 14:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
"We" means anyone editing the article. And, I'll restate it again, if we use a secondary source like this one discussing commentary on the nation state law by this organization, it would also be appropriate to include a citation to their position on the apartheid in general, since it is supplemental to this secondary coverage. Nishidani, what you call "pettifoggery" is your repeat misuse of headers to attack editors and make declarative statements. If you want to avoid creating issues, learn to follow WP:TALKHEADPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk)
That source makes no comment on this organizations view on comparisons of Israel to apartheid. The only place "apartheid" is mentioned is High level talks with the Druze community aimed at finalizing a concession plan over the legislation fell apart in the evening after Druze army officer Amal Assad told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel has become “an apartheid state.” This is why just googling JCPA apartheid isnt a suitable substitute for reading sources. I legit dont understand why you are making this a thing. Somebody says get a better source to me, you know what I do? I get a better source. nableezy - 19:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond that, this is entirely pointless. Youre just arguing without a point. The two sources left for the part on Israel's supporters are Alan Dershowitz, and hello, a JCPA paper on apartheid. Jesus Christ what a complete waste of time. Just cus you want to retain another crap source on top of two fairly crappy sources. This is beyond silly. Though I am going to look for secondary sources to replace JCPA, Dershowitz I guess can stay as even though he is very much not an expert in the field he is a noteworthy critic of the analogy. Will need to be better attributed though. nableezy - 19:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Dershowitz fits RS, so no one will quarrel with that. I think there are better sources than him (I can't quite recall one specifically other than the date, 2011, for the moment, but the author actually knows the topic, unlike Dershowitz, and would lend some substance to the latter's notoriously weak (if influential) claims.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
No he doesnt, he's an expert on American criminal law, not international law or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or South Africa or Apartheid or apartheid for that matter. His book is popular, not academic. It is noteworthy though so it can be included as an attributed opinion. nableezy - 21:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Like the linguist Chomsky? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes. nableezy - 01:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Israel proper"

In what universe is "Israel proper" a "loaded term"? It means Israel not including the occupied territories. Its a term found in any number of sources, like NY Times, BBC, Jerusalem Post and an uncountable number of books and journal articles and news sources. How is that a loaded term that must be stricken from the pages of Wikipedia? What is this nonsense? nableezy - 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Israel Proper," like its cousin terms "colonialism," "settlers," "occupation," etc. are terms loaded with political insinuations. What is generally known as "Israel" is called "Israel Proper" as a watered-down version of one of the above terms. See here a history of how Israel Proper became part of the PIA lexicon. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Look. Most editors here have English as their native tongue. 'Israel proper' is neutral, and obligatory. The word 'proper' here never means, as you appear to take it, 'authentic, correct'etc.: its placing in the phrase absolutely rules out any ambiguity. There's far too much confusion 'out there' between Israel as a legally constituted nation, whose right to existence is governed by international law, and Israel as a reality annexing or acting as a belligerent occupying power (the technical term) beyond its recognized borders. That confusion is typical in all sorts of fanatic or slipshod public arguments, where anti-Semites, Israel-denialism, or greater Israel aficionados contaminate lucid distinctions. Drop it. To confuse a simple adjectival distinction because of a flawed confusion about distinct usage, is tantamount to downdumbing what is an encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Did you read that article? Because it doesnt say anything about how the term became part of the "lexicon". It uses "Israel proper" repeatedly to differentiate between Israel proper and the occupied territories. eg p 332: Lured by these incentives, the number of settlers in the Territories has grown 5-6 percent per year since the mid-1980s, whereas the population in Israel proper has grown only 2-3 percent per year. Or The land per capita in the settlements is much larger than in Israel proper. You do realize we have access to the sources right, and just baldly asserting they say something when they dont is not exactly going to go over well? Settlers and occupation are likewise standard terms with widely understood meanings that are widely found in reliable sources, and as such we use them. It's why we have an article Israeli-occupied territories, Israeli settlements, Israeli settler violence, Israeli occupation of the West Bank. These are standard terms found in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources and so we use them. That some person doesnt like that is cute but unimportant. nableezy - 01:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Because colonialism is a loaded term, a colonial interpretation of this conflict—in which Israel is the colonial ruler, or metropole, the Territories are the colony, and the Palestinians are the native or colonial people—must first be substantiated. The author then, in reference to this "colonial territory," goes on to say: If before June 1967 the Arab nations had offered to sign a peace treaty with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 border, defining what is hereafter referred to as Israel proper, Israelis would most likely have accepted it. In other words, "Israel Proper" is a substitute, and a transparent one, for implications of colonialism, settlerism, and other politically charged terms. There isn't even necessarily agreement over what "Israel Proper" constitutes, so this not only is this a POV-charged term, it's inadequately descriptive and changes depending on who you ask. Titles are a poor place to provide context and such terms should be avoided in headers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Um, what? Israel-proper is universally understood to Israel within the Green Line. You take this academic text confirming the definition being Israel within the Green Line to mean that there are transparent implications of colonialism and settletism whatever that means? And by the way, settler isn't a politically charged term either, it is a standard description for Israeli civilians living outside of Israel proper. Youll find it in a million sources. Again, you just saying something is POV does not mean that it is, especially when the term is part of the standard "lexicon". If you want to take this to NPOV/N feel free, but that change is very much disputed and we'll be keeping the consensus version absent a new one to change it. nableezy - 01:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Even what you just said (Israel Proper is within the Green Line) is something that is the source of disagreement. It is a loaded term that is meant to imply what parts of Israel are "valid" and which are not, and, surprise, that's an area of ongoing dispute. That term can be appropriately presented with context in the body, not in the header, where it is not necessary to convey what the following paragraphs cover. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not a source of disagreement. You dont get to just assert a controversy. Sorry. Validity has nothing to do with it, it means the portions of Israel that are in what is recognized as Israeli territory as opposed to the occupied territories. It is widely understood, except maybe for the first time on this page now by one person. And as evidence of the wide usage of the term "Israel proper", with a very well understood meaning, see the following examples:

It is completely made up that this is a controversial term. nableezy - 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason that this term exists is because Israel has not officially declared it's own borders and because it has purported to annex territory (eg Jordanian Jerusalem + parts of WB), said annexes not being recognized and the territory remaining occupied. So this term can be taken to mean territory not generally considered as occupied ("67 borders") and is a simple short form way of saying so. Note that the term is used in the Israel article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The term is used everywhere lol. I legit have never even seen somebody try to pretend that the term is "POV" until right now. Its honestly amazing how things can be made up like this without consequence. nableezy - 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_41&oldid=1238717320"