Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44
ROUGH CONSENSUS TO EXCLUDE WIKILINK
In this discussion, editors discussed whether or not to insert a wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism under the text "often labeling the charge antisemitic" in the lead of this article, as was boldly done in this edit on 7 April 2024. Discussion focused around whether or not the wikilink comports with MOS:EGG/WP:EASTEREGG, the relationship between the sourcing and the link's contextual meaning, and the principle of neutral point-of-view (including the relationship between the link's inclusion and wikivoice statements). This discussion obtained a rough consensus to exclude the link from the lead under the text "labeling the charge antisemitic".

Those in support of including the link also provided several arguments. While some opponents of including the link argued that the link's inclusion would be an inappropriate wikivoice statement, some supporters or including the link argued that the weaponization of antisemitism by Israel is well-known and is not a sort of extraordinary fact in this context; therefore, they argue, the link should be included in a manner consistent with the 7 April edit. Several sources were proffered in support of this point. Others (such as Selfstudier and Gitz6666) proposed a change in wording for the relevant sentence, arguing that the link could be useful in some way if the text were rephrased; some supportes argued that the Gitz-Selfstudier proposal remedied issues brought up by opposers. And, indeed, some individuals who had supported removal of the text did comment in support of the Gitz-Selfsudier proposal (or, in one case, propose a different alternate phrasing that maintained the link to weaponization of antisemitism in a separate sentence).

Those in opposition to including the link provided several arguments. Opponents to including the link referred to MOS:EGG and WP:EASTEREGG as providing guidance against linking to articles that would be taken as surprising by a reader. The implication of having the link under that text, several opponents argued, would come off as Wikipedia interpreting Israel's label of the charges of apartheid as Antisemetic as itself a sort of weaponization of antisemitism; opponents argued that this would be both inaccurate (implying that all rejections of the accusations by Israel are merely for political purposes) and that this would be non-neutral. As such, supporters argue that the placement of the link would not be consistent with guidance about making statements in Wikipedia's voice. An alternative link (New Antisemitism) was floated in the discussion section as a potential replacement for the link to Weaponization of antisemitism, but consensus in favor of this did not emerge.

While the majority favored removing from the link from the lead as currently written, consensus is not the result of a vote, but is instead ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And, through that lens, there is a rough consensus to exclude a wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism under the text "labeling the charge antisemitic" in the lead.

This consensus should not be read, however, as an affirmative consensus to prohibit a link to Weaponization of antisemitism in the lead altogether—this was not the question asked in this RfC. It should be noted that there was significant support behind the Gitz-Selfstudier proposal, though not enough participants explicitly acknowledged the alternative proposal in order to ascertain an affirmative consensus regarding its implementation at this time. For the link to Weaponization of antisemitism be included in the lead in some form, future discussion and editing in line with the bold-revert-discuss method is suggested in order to hash out details, drill down to a specific wording, and obtain a consensus around whether or how to include the link in the lead section more broadly.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit simply ignores the fact that two separate sources with quotes supporting weaponization of antisemitism in the context of apartheid accusations were added in support of the statement made and that it is therefore entirely appropriate to wikilink that statement to Weaponization of antisemitism. The newly added refs were not reverted, if the reverting editor agrees with the refs then it is difficult to see what is wrong with the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The addition of attribution to an RS that does not require one made the issue even worse by distracting from the main topic at hand-Israeli apartheid. I have reverted and waiting for the opposing editors to join the talk page discussion here so we can reach a proper agreement. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Pinging האופה to make sure they're aware of this discussion. Do we feel the body of sources is strong enough that we can say in wikivoice that Israel is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism when it calls apartheid accusations antisemitic? If so, we should summarize those sources in the body of the article and make the claim explicitly in the lead. If not, then we need to attribute. I tried to get at the fact that it's not just Amnesty International, but I'm also sensitive to taking up too much space in the lead with this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I only looked explicitly for the specific phrase but we all know what it means and what it is referring to. If we don't require the use of the specific phrase, I think it should be quite easy to source the fact that allegations of antisemitism in relation to apartheid accusations are being made for political purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
So, in a nutshell, the first paragraph says this: Israel is accused of apartheid, which is really severe, a crime against humanity. Only its "Western allies" think it's wrong (... so it must be true), and Israel itself says the allegation is antisemitic, but according to the very groups making the accusation, Israel is weaponizing the term antisemitism, so why care. and that's supposed to be a neutral intro. Sorry for being sarcastic, but the state of this article is... ridiculous. The intro paragraph is a one big POV violation. I propose we team up to enhance the neutrality of this article. I agree with what Firefangledfeathers is suggesting above: The weaponization thing is taking too much space in the lead. IMO, it is totally one-sided, making this undue. HaOfa (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
If it had been left as I left it, it wouldn't be a problem. Take up issues with the neutrality of the article in another section if desired, this section is just about the Weaponisation thing. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This discussion went stale and now we're back to edit warring. I'm thinking to seek some outside opinions, maybe from WP:NPOVN. Anyone have a different preference? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It is a fact that reliable sources cover weaponized accusations of antisemitism in the context of apartheid and I cannot see why a wikilink is causing so much angst, well I can but it is of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. I don't think this is a question of attribution, after all, what else would you call it? "Politically motivated/bad faith accusations of antisemitism"? On WP, if editors went around doing that, we'd wheel out aspersions and blocks posthaste. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Let's assume for a second that I actually have NPOV concerns, and not just IDONTLIKEIT concerns. Given that assumption, would you rather I raise the question at WP:NPOVN or another location? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to your good self, other than in respect of attribution. I don't think it needs raising elsewhere, editors wishing to contest the lead as it stands can raise an RFC with this convo as RFCbefore. That's the most straightforward way to proceed as well as involve more editors. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I would also be fine with an RfC. How about a question like:
Should the lead include or remove the wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism in the line "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the lead include or remove the wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism in the line "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Remove. If the link is included, we'll be making a wikivoice claim that when Israel labels the apartheid charges antisemitic, it is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism. This claim is unmentioned in the body of the article. Two sources were added (to the lead only) to support the claim:
    1. This Amnesty International article, originally published as an opinion piece in Politico. Per WP:RSP, AI is a generally reliable source, though the summary goes on to say "in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion". It's not clear if AI itself supports the weaponization claim, since the source itself attributes the claim as an argument made by "12 Israeli human rights organizations".
    2. A tweet from Kenneth Roth. Though obviously self-published, Roth is a subject-matter expert, having led Human Rights Watch for many decades.
    I don't think this body of sourcing is strong enough to support a wikivoice claim. If we determine that it is, I would rather be clear about the claim and not make it via an eggy link, and I'd rather see it mentioned in the body and then summarized in the lead. If we decide attribution is needed, I think that's fine, as long as the additional wordage necessary for attribution doesn't overweight this aspect of the subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The additional sources provided below have not changed my view. kashmiri provides four opinion pieces, which lend some weight to the idea that this view should be mentioned in the body and perhaps summarized in the lead. They do not suggest that we should make a wiki-voice statement—which we should never do based on opinion sources—and certainly not a veiled one via wikilink.
      Simonm223 provides the highest-quality source available thus far, a journal article from David Hirsh, and it argues against the use of "they're weaponizing antisemitism" as a way of shutting down legitimate criticism of antisemitic discourse. A source like this is further suggestion that there are good reasons to present this claim with attribution, not in wikivoice, and not via implied wikivoice using an eggy link.
      I would be fine with proposals to explicitly state and attribute the weaponization claim. I'd prefer Crossroads' suggestion over Selfstudiers'. Both would necessitate being explicit in the body of the article about who the "critics" are.
      Finally, I've come to regret the wording of the options in this RfC, since "Keep/Remove" suggest that the link as currently presented is part of the stable version of this article. In the event of a "no consensus" closure, I'd encourage the closer to look into the history of the disputed content. For ease of reference, it was added on 7 April, removed nine days later, and added/removed nine more times before the start of this RfC. It was added/removed four more times during the run of this RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs)
  • Keep nothing extraordinary about the linking and is supported by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, a well-known fact, let me know how many RS are needed, because they are aplenty at the fingertip.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia can state well-published facts in its own voice. — kashmīrī TALK 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove The premature attempt to shoehorn this term in this article appears to be a part of a soapboxing effort to promote a potentially WP:FRINGE and WP:POVTITLE use of a term whose actual definition is currently being debated on the parent article's talk page. Should remain off this page until that debate is concluded.Mistamystery (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove. Wikilinking would essentially mean that the rejection of these accusations is always done for political purposes. Obviously no sources make this claim. It's better to not try to make a point by wikilinking but rather to write it explicitly "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic (in the lede, no wikilinking) "X, Y and Z consider the accusations of antisemitism to be an example of weaponization of antisemitism (not in the lede, because the lede should summarise the article). Alaexis¿question? 20:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove per the arguments made above, particularly by @Alaexis and @Firefangledfeathers. It either goes beyond or improperly simplifies the body, in a way that is at best not fully supported by a due weight of RS. I strongly doubt that there is enough content to allow a complete explanation, and a link to a page would be improper as well. FortunateSons (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Firstly, no-one is arguing with the sentence per se, only whether the wikilink is appropriate. I would also support the revised wording as suggested by @Gitz6666: in the discussion section

    Attempts by Israel and some of its Western allies to dismiss accusations of apartheid as antisemitic have been denounced as a way of silencing legitimate criticism.

    . I frankly do not understand such misplaced comments such as shoehorning, soapboxing, fringe in the given context, it is a perfectly valid wikilink for the given sentence (or for the suggested one or for any other consensus wording). Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove. Wikilinks should not be surprising to the reader per WP:EASTEREGG; when they click on "labeling the charge antisemitic", I bet they are not looking for an insight into weaponization of antisemitism. That wikilink would add meaning to the sentence by offering an interpretation and critique of Israel's official discourse. As explained below, I would instead agree to include the wikilink to weaponization of antisemitism if the sentence were phrased a bit differently. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove It is unneutral to dismiss Israel's response as weaponization, even if some sources say so. Wikipedia simply should not take sides in the conflict. Galamore (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to the sources cited above there are additional sources such as David Hirsh [5] that discuss Israeli weaponization of antisemitism quite explicitly. Simonm223 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    Do you believe the existence of this source (and several others) means our article can use Wp:voice to label Israel's response to the apartheid claims as a case of weaponization? This view exists, but it doesn't mean we should present it as a fact. Galamore (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Wikilinking an article is not presenting the claim as fact, this is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Currently the article says "with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic", which is a true statement. Now some are arguing that wikilinking that means that we are stating that those accusations are a weaponziation. But that's not correct, it is a wikilink to an article where that is discussed. The wording can be tweaked a la Gitz to make that more clear "Attempts by Israel and some of its Western allies to dismiss accusations of apartheid as antisemitic have been denounced as a way of silencing legitimate criticism", the wikilink can equally be inserted there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Precisely. Frankly it's a neutral and balanced approach to the issue. Simonm223 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep the wikilink Other editors have provided more than sufficient WP:RS to demonstrate that it's supported. TarnishedPathtalk 13:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep a link and reference to it in some form, since it's a central part of the discussions over that aspect of the topic and is at least as significant as Israel's position itself; however, I would be open to rewording it ala the suggestion by Gitz6666 below - something that makes it clear that it is a response or descriptor, possibly describing it as attributed / described opinion or just generally describing it as a response, presuming more specific attribution exists in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per above GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove, because such a link is itself a claim that Israel's labeling it that is an example of said "weaponization", while that claim is not in the text. If such a claim is actually supported by a large majority of RS, it should be in the text, not just a link; conversely, if it is significantly disputed, then such a claim cannot be smuggled into the encyclopedia via linking as though it is the sole mainstream position, but should be described with in-text attribution (e.g. Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic. Critics of Israel argue that this constitutes a weaponization of antisemitism.) There is no scenario whatsoever in which linking can properly be used to make factual claims aside from what is in the text. Crossroads -talk- 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove due to neutrality - but the link should be kept in a different context. The usage of the link in that context violates NPOV, but it should still be mentioned. I agree with Alaexis that both Israel's and others' points of view should be included, to say that Israel alleges antisemitism, and that others accuse Israel of weaponizing antisemitism, without giving precedence to either allegation.. RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 18:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove, this clearly violates NPOV. The very suggestion of using this link in this context, in an encyclopedia intended to maintain neutrality is concerning, to say the least. ABHammad (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove This link violates EASTEREGG because most readers would not expect to go to weaponization of antisemitism from a link that says labeling the charge antisemitic. It also violates NPOV by taking a side on whether it is weaponization in wikivoice. I support the alternate version shown by Crossroads, if it appears in the body. As a side note, it probably should appear in the body, since the sources definitely exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    Easteregg is a valid argument, what if it is reworded? Say "Israel and some of its Western allies reject the accusation. Critics accuse Israel and others that label the charge as antisemitic of weaponizing antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I would support that wording. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    The proposal by Selfstudier is a very good solution. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Provided that there are good sources - and indeed there are - I also agree with Selfstudier's proposal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove. "with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic" is NOT a reference to Weaponization of antisemitism. A claim by the state of Israel (or others) that something was antisemitic may be true or not, and can frequently be disputed. By making such link we say in WP voice that the claim was definitely false as an example of the "weaponization" rather than merely providing a claim that we can not make and should not judge ourselves here. However, including link to the New antisemitism would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)ourselves. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    And the proposed rewording above? Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Selfstudier's proposal at 11:06, 22 May 2024 above solves the problem. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Skitash (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove. People may pretend that there is widely and scientifically accepted apartheid which is not the case, there are only allegations. Since when we should even discuss adding NPOV? Wikipedia presents well-known facts but avoids controversial opinions that might manipulate readers or suggest a particular viewpoint. To add links it should have mainstream scientific support for this claim, be neutral and not marginal. Proposed link will directly imply the point which it untrue, trying to make a point that Israel is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism. Such highly controversial statements should not be done in Wikipedia which should be unbiased. Adding sources to the lead to try to support unneutral point already shows that the point is weak to begin with. Wikipedia may state facts which are well-known in its own voice, but not some marginal controversial weak views and opinions. A few opinions wouldn't be sufficient to include a contentious claim. Strong arguments require well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific studies. There is an attempt to indirectly manipulate readers opinion in such a way that denial of such accusations is always done for political purposes which is not true. Wikipedia presents well-known facts, not marginal or manipulative opinions. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove. The wikilink in question would be blatantly POV. Whoever added it should get a topic ban from the subject area. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The link was first added on 7 April 2024 (diff), followed by many back-and-forth reverts and the above discussion. Pinging editors involved in the editing or discussion: @GLORIOUSEXISTENCE, ElLuzDelSur, Makeandtoss, Alaexis, Selfstudier, האופה, RolandR, Galamore, and Kashmiri. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment 'Twas I that added the two sources to the lead only, in response to the wikilink being removed. At the time, I had thought that a resolution of the matter but clearly I was mistaken. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wouldn't New antisemitism be a more appropriate (and less contentious) wikilink? Quoting from our dedicated article:

    Proponents of the concept generally posit that in the late 20th and early 21st centuries much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that [...] such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs. Proponents argue that anti-Zionism and demonization of Israel, or double standards applied to its conduct [...] may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism, particularly when emanating simultaneously from the far-left, Islamism, and the far-right

    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Well, if there is an explanation how characterizing apartheid allegations made by the likes of Amnesty and HRW (and many other notables, including Israelis) as antisemitic is not a misuse of the allegation for political purposes I would be interested to hear that. What does PM Netanyahu mean when he says that Amnesty (and its report) is antisemitic? I am pretty sure he is not accusing them of new antisemitism or else I have the completely wrong idea about what that is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    I believe that Netanyahu means that the allegation of apartheid is based on hatred towards Israel, and that hatred towards Israel is the contemporary form of antisemitism. To interpret hatred towards Israel (criticism of Israel) as antisemitism is what defines "new antisemitism". I am not endorsing Netanyahu's point of view, I'm just trying to explain it. I think that if we want to add a wikilink in the line with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic, that link should point to the way Israel understands "antisemitism" (criticism of Israel = antisemitism), not to the way Israel's critics understand the charge of antisemitism (charging AI of antisemitism = weaponizing antisemitism). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, he is saying that Amnesty, HRW and the rest "hate Israel"? And that criticism of Israel (or, more precisely, of the policies of successive Israeli governments) is antisemitic? In no way is that "new antisemitism" as I understand it. It is simply a way to avoid having to deal with the facts, which he carefully does not address at all. In other words, a weaponized accusation of antisemitism for political purposes.(there is an ongoing RM to change the wikilinked article to Weaponization of antisemitism accusations) Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Accusations of antisemitism or "new" antisemitism when saying Israel is an apartheid state are two sides of the same coin; attempts to slander critics of Israel as bigots. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    I understand your argument, but even assuming it, it does not follow that the wikilink should be to "Weaponization of antisemitism". In that sentence of the article, we are talking about Israel's point of view. I woudl be in favour of having the wikilink to "Weaponization of antisemitism" if the sentence was modified in this way:

    Attempts by Israel and some of its Western allies to dismiss accusations of apartheid as antisemitic have been denounced as a way of silencing legitimate criticism.

    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    I will admit that this phrasing is better than previously suggested ones. But bear in mind that this phrasing would make more sense in the body, since this is the opening paragraph we are discussing here. Phrasing it this way would distract from the main point. That's why the link exists without elaboration, so that the focus isn't pulled away to other things. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment As per discussion on article talk page, there is significant argument that the term in this usage fails basic POV test, and should only be used in context of academic critical use and analysis.Mistamystery (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    a) It's not a term, it's a descriptive title, therefore b) it doesn't have (or need) a definition. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, removers are essentially saying that the wikilink is not a "relevant connection to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" and that the wikilink is not to an "article with relevant information", when the wikilink obviously is that. In addition, the linked article exists, is therefore neutral and notable, it is on topic and the statement being linked in the article is sourced (with other sources easily available) so there is no neutrality question, on the contrary it is NPOV Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove per the arguments made above, particularly by @Alaexis and @[[User:Firefangledfeathers| מתיאל (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A misleading quote in the end of the article

in the last Paragraph, Israel was quoted "calling Palestinians "the modern heirs of the Nazis"." it is sourced from a JPost article where it is stated: "In speaking with reporters, Levy said, “History will judge South Africa for abetting the modern heirs of the Nazis. We assure South Africa’s leaders: history will judge you, and it will judge you without mercy.”"

A bit later in the article, Levy is quoted saying: "Levy said that Hamas had “a clear mission to murder as many Israelis as possible – as sadistically as possible. It was an act of genocide perpetrated with Nazi-like cruelty and Nazi-like efficiency, in the service of a Nazi-like ideology." I think it is from here appearent that when Levy refered to "the modern heirs of the Nazis", he meant Hamas, and not the Palestinians. I suggest this quote should therefore be removed Stone fridge (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Added [Hamas] next to Palestinians since Hamas members are Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Erm ... Isn't none of this section (other than the part about Cyril Ramaphosa's specific comments on apartheid) actually about apartheid? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
OK with me if removed. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed it. This page is long enough without including off-topic material as well. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Are there any objections to this edit? [6] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
No, that looks like an improvement to me. Flagging this in case someone has the time and inclination: we need those sources to be presented and summarized in the body of the article somewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I readded and did the body summary. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

ICJ verdict

I just read that today's icj verdict states that Israel's policies in the oPT amount to apartheid—can anyone confirm this in a reliable source? (t · c) buidhe 14:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am listening to French bit right now, said to be a breach of CERD articles 2 and 3 (apart from that, pretty much everything Israel is doing is illegal and illegal use of force/illegal annexation) Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Cease all settlement activity, evacuate settlers, dismantle wall in OPT, end occupation asap, repeal all illegal laws in OPT, reparations/restitution, etcetera since 67. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
And of course, the occupation is itself illegal, third states obliged to bring about rectification. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
GA/UNSC to decide how to bring about an end to the illegal occupation. Threat to international peace and security reiterated. Self determination for Palestinians a must. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Reparations. Wow. — kashmīrī TALK 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, I would wait for the RS (it will take them some time to absorb it, methinks). Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Here: [7] — kashmīrī TALK 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
And a summary: [8] — kashmīrī TALK 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Graz, if you want to watch the whole thing https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k13/k136ri1smc Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks like confirming the accusation of apartheid without saying it explicitly (page 14–15 of the Summary). — kashmīrī TALK 14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It's because Israel is a party to CERD. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
the ICJ summary seems to me like the judges disagree on whether they decided that Israel's actions amount to apartheid.
so far, the sources I am seeing are not talking about whether the decision means Israel committed apartheid AP NBC Washington Post Rainsage (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Haaretz: "The world court said Israel has been committing apartheid and should make restitution over its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem" Rainsage (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Not quite sure where Haaretz is getting its quotes from, this one "systematic discrimination, segregation and apartheid.". Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
yeah I don't know. "systemic discrimination" (not "systematic") is included in the summary and the opinion but in a separate paragraph from "Segregation" or "apartheid" Rainsage (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The Beeb goes with "Among its other far-reaching conclusions, the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin"" Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, we have another Haaretz but this time written by expert Aeyal Gross and this is rather different:
""While it held that Israel's actions amount to systematic discrimination, and violate the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [CERD] prohibition on "segregation and apartheid," the ICJ stopped short of determining whether the situation constitutes "only" segregation or, in fact, amounts to "apartheid." Presumably this ambiguity was deliberate, allowing as many judges as possible to join the majority – regardless of their view on this point." Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Amnesty goes with ""The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."" which ties in with Gross but then the rest just assumes apartheid, unsurprisingly, given their earlier report on the subject. Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
HRW "In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid."(Tirana Hassan, Human Rights Watch Executive Director) Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The Intercept "The court also notably declared Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians to be a form of segregation and apartheid." Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(FT) "The court said these policies were in breach of an international agreement against racial segregation and apartheid, called the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination." Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
aljazeera only mentions: "discriminatory policies"
aeyal gross also said on his twitter: "It won’t surprise me if this ambiguity is a compromise. We can see differences of opinion on it between some of the judges." Rainsage (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


Much of this threas sounds as if editors are transcribing play by play piecemeal. It is highly confusing who said what and what is fact, ICJ finding or editor opinio . Please delete or rephrase and summarize with clarity. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, everything Israel is doing in the OPT is illegal. How's that for a summary? The opinion is linked right there, read it yourself, or just wait for the RS. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
An RS: The Guardian. "In a historic, albeit non-binding, opinion, the court found multiple breaches of international law by Israel including activities that amounted to apartheid." --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the RS are starting to analyze it a bit now. Might take a day or two for it all to come through in RS. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
That is more constructive, thanks. What seemed clear to you up top apparently did not lead to much discussion. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

new article

A new article which focusses on the Israel-South Africa comparison is here. Zerotalk 03:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting article, if not the time or feeling lazy, the last two sections mostly cover it. Also casts SA, IP and NI in the "settler colonial" paradigm along the way. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After many argument, there is a clear consensus to move this article to Israeli apartheid. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid → Israel's apartheid against Palestinians – This move should have been implemented years ago, when the world's most prominent human rights organization were in consensus that Israel's practices and policies in the OPT and within Israel constitute systemic discrimination against the Palestinian people, aka apartheid. The ICJ ruling yesterday by the world's highest court that this occupation constitutes apartheid was the cherry on the top. This move is long overdue, it is time to call a spade a spade.

. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

We are getting ahead of ourselves here. I just added my !vote to the Israel RFC on including apartheid in the lead, as follows:
Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Now if after some time has passed, the consensus of reliable sources is that it is nevertheless, unequivocally apartheid, then we can do this but I don't see that atm, per above. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
We only have Haaretz with this view; the Guardian, Financial Times, HRW, and the Intercept - all RS without a conflict of interest in contrast to Haaretz - report that the court had indeed found Israel to be committing apartheid. Either way, this is long overdue as the ICJ is not the only entity to make this claim, but the latest one. I would have supported the move long before this ruling, which is only the cherry on top. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Not just Haaretz, Amnesty as well (see quote) and EJIL. The BBC didn't even mention article 3 only article 2. I am almost certain that there are going to be more like this once the RS figure out how to report it, anyway we shouldn't jump because of WP:RECENT. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Amnesty disagrees in the quote you provided: "...against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid." Also, Amnesty's other quote is explicit: "The occupation is a key pillar of the system of apartheid that Israel uses to dominate and oppress Palestinians, and which has caused suffering on a mass scale." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The BBC has faced a staff revolt over its pro-Israel bias. That they won’t even acknowledge the judges did broach this subject in their ruling only goes to show its unreliability in covering issues that are damaging to Israel's image. (Comment made under anonymous IP). Rafe87 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I think they probably will address it in due course. Wait for a bit, it was only yesterday. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
There's basically been no coverage of the ICJ ruling the day after. Hihghly likely there's a conspiracy of silence between western governments and media to soften the blow on Israel and their own policies. Rafe87 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
It's also been the weekend. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think coverage of the ICJ will increase four days after the ruling as opposed to the day after, no. We need to work with the coverage that has already been done, and much of it already acknowledges Israel is in violation of the racial segregation and apartheid convention. Rafe87 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Give it time, the analysis will come, it is not just about apartheid, there is a lot of heavy duty stuff in that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
We're on Monday, it's night in Britain, but there are no signs of a new interest in the ICJ ruling on the BBC's website. They've had a grand total of one story abou the ICJ ruling, the very incomplete one they published on the day of the ruling. It's very probable there's an order in place not to give subjects that are unflattering to Israel too much air, as has been repeatedly denounced by the BBC's own staffers. We must work with the coverage that has already been made, which is fine as a link between the ICJ ruling the subject of this entry has already been acknowledged in several reliable sources. Rafe87 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree, there is absolutely no rush. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not run a news ticker service. Besides which, there are already edits in relation to this subject at various pages and those will continue, but care is needed that we properly represent the sourcing that there is, even if limited. Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I've just checked the BBC website btw -- and, again, there's nothing new on the ICJ ruling. Our work editing political or geopolitical entries is anchored in what reliable sources say, and here a reliable source is practically synonymous with news outlet. But news outlets don't tend to publish analyzes of an event a month or a year after it happened. So there is nothing to "wait for". And even if there was and the BBC dared days later to touch on this subject, though its own employees think the BBC is avoiding it to stay aligned with Israel and the west's propaganda needs, we can simply add the new material into the entry. That's what the edit button is for, so that incomplete information can be provided with new content etc. We don't have to "wait" for anything. Rafe87 (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
There are already several new sources, we don't need the BBC, they are being listed/discussed at the case article. There will be more, I'm sure. If you want to edit the article, I can't stop you. Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid I don't have a problem with this, that's what the court said, they just didn't say whether it was one or the other or both.
Actually, declaring the occupation as illegal is really the big deal with the opinion, that is going to have a lot of impact. In a sense, the apartheid issue is secondary, a consequence of that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
"violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid" => 'and' means both.. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think it is both but the court didn't say and the RS are picking up on that, it remains to be seen what view the RS will come to, I would drop the RM for a week or so, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
If the court said Israel's violated the convention against segregation and apartheid without specifying which, then the most intuitive interpretation is that Israel's in violation of both. Rafe87 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
We need RS to make that interpretation, not editors. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Several reliable sources have already made that interpretation. If the ICJ explicitly rules that Israel is in violation of its convention against racial segregation and apartheid, the most intuitive explanation is that it's committed both and not just racial segregation. Rafe87 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I thought an informal discussion about this was merited and I wish that had been started rather than jumping straight into an RM – it never hurts to mull some options over before taking the RFC plunge. But here we are. The ICJ ruling has some import, in that it confirms the presence of systematic discrimination and racial segregation – affirming the findings of the numerous human rights bodies. However, given the last RM was in July 2022, of somewhat greater import is the scholarly literature that has been produced since: the reams on Israel and apartheid in general, works calling it "Israel's apartheid", and works discussing "Israeli apartheid". All appear plentiful, and that is a matter worthy of discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Syntax discussion

  • Unconvinced for syntax reasons: apartheid against somebody doesn't sound like good English to me (but no native speaker here). Apartheid describes a system, not an act. So, Israeli apartheid or Apartheid in Israel would work better IMO. — kashmīrī TALK 13:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    It is a shortcut for a system of racial segregation, i.e. apartheid, being used against someone, used by RS: Amnesty International ISRAEL’S APARTHEID AGAINST PALESTINIANS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    As I pointed out already, we have some RS saying that racial segregation is not the same as apartheid, although what exactly the difference might be I am none too clear. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, and we don't say segregation "against" somebody. The Amnesty link is unconvincing, the text is full of mistakes (e.g, contrary to their writing, apartheid doesn't have to involve race, not even mentioning that most of the world [except for the US] no longer uses the outdated concept of race to describe a person's ethnic background or heritage; or the way they describe human rights, it's very imprecise). I wouldn't be comfortable following it, and Google doesn't show many other examples of the phrase apartheid against. — kashmīrī TALK 19:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Kashmiri: It has also been used by HRW and AP, both reliable sources. I think this is the most concise way to describe it without going into details of whether this is in Israel or the OPT. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    The only thing that has changed since the last go round on the title is the ICJ opinion, right? The ICJ opinion was only asked to consider Israeli policies and practices in the OPT (and not Israel). The relevant paras in the judgement are 224 to 229 (the only places where the word "apartheid" is mentioned afaics):
    At 229, it says "The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD." and
    At 225 "This provision [Art 3] refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid" (two different things?).
    Atm I am not really seeing the basis for a title change unless we are now saying that the balance of all sources favors calling it apartheid, which might be possible for the OPT but not elsewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned before, the ICJ opinion is only the cherry on top. This move could have been proposed months ago and moved forward successfully as relevant RS (int. human rights org.) are unanimous in saying this is apartheid, with some saying it extends to Palestinians citizens of Israel. Thus, the proposed title is "Apartheid against Palestinians" without going into details. We can treat the apartheid within OPT as a fact per ICJ, which would be the main scope and focus of the article; and the apartheid against Palestinian citizens of Israel as a side note that was endorsed by some RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Apartheid can be used both for an Apartheid System and for the Crime of Apartheid, which is what ICJ judges on. A crime is an action, so "Apartheid against" is a correct application of the term. Conspiracy Raven (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC) striking per WP:ARBECR Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm really not sure there's a distinction to be made there. You can't have an apartheid system without committing the crime of apartheid against someone. The latter is just the legal description of the former. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    It would have to be "Apartheid in the Palestinian Territories" or something like that. Some say there's apartheid in Israel proper too, but the ICJ and most groups say its in/is more prevalent in the West Bank and Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    Afaik, Palestinians are not practicing apartheid on anyone. If it was Apartheid in Israel, at least that could be Israeli on Palestinian citizens of Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe a descriptor would be better, like "Israeli apartheid in the Palestinian Territories" or something. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Wait WP:RECENT. More RS needed to clarify matters.Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think the title needs changing (at least not yet), but the lede needs rewriting so that the ICJ judgment is in the first paragraph.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Sure but the body needs writing up first, right? Probably the CERD section. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely convinced with the formatting of the suggested title, but would think Apartheid in Israel or Apartheid in Israel and Palestine would be great titles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    The most logical arrangement is probably just "Israeli apartheid", for consistency with South African Apartheid, and since it's not "in Israel", as it were, so the first of the above doesn't work. Meanwhile, phrasing it adjectivally in terms of the maintainer of the regime instead of the geography in which it is applies smoothes over the varying opinions on the geographical specificity. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. It's consistent with the South African article and doesn't leave ambiguities to which party is accused of being an apartheid state. Cortador (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced about the adjectival form. We don't say "American discrimination" but Discrimination in the United States; not "French communism", but Communism in France; etc. If apartheid is to be used as a common noun, then we need only to specify geographic area, and not propose variations. Also, "Israeli apartheid" would fail COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī TALK 19:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    I rarely, if ever, invoke a claim of common name, for fear of instant backlash, and I have not done so here. All of these proposed titles are descriptive. But "Israeli apartheid" is very much rooted in scholarly usage. The geographical specificity to which I refer is the issue presented by the fact that depending on the source, the Israeli practice of racial segregation and discrimination is sometimes only deemed to amount to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank or occupied territories, and at other times to both Israel and OPT. Given that there are these competing assessments, it is problematic and possibly inappropriate to assign a definitive geographical identifier in the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    "Apartheid in Israel" would be extremely misleading; as this more generally refers to the occupied territories, which are not a part of Israel in any way. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    I believe it applies to both, and includes the systemic discrimination faced in Israel by its Arab citzens[9] (e.g., home ownership issue in East Jerusalem [10]). — kashmīrī TALK 12:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    I believe so as well that it applies to both, although to a greater degree of course in the occupied territories, of which East Jerusalem is part of. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The end setup could be as follows:
This setup would allow consistent use of Apartheid in X for future articles.
— kashmīrī TALK 13:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Apartheid should still redirect to Apartheid in South Africa as it’s the primary topic due to an abundance of RSs Kowal2701 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Disagree; a quick Google Scholar search for "apartheid" shows piles and piles of papers using "apartheid" outside of the South African context.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Certainly not the case for me Kowal2701 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Really? While about half the papers I get are discussing South Africa, there are plenty of ones even on the front page that aren't.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It’s about 80/90% South Africa for me Kowal2701 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The 30 year anniversary skews it a bit, use the Google thingy and select a time period excluding 2024. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It's still 70% SA, 20% other, 10% I&P for me Kowal2701 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The trend is more the thing, maybe, not very scientific but
apartheid drops off sharply late 90s/2000 and
Israeli apartheid rockets after that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
While there have been attempts to contract Israeli Apartheid with other apartheid regimes, South Africa remains both the most prominent example and also reference point for Israeli apartheid. Apartheid should still redirect to Apartheid in South Africa and can include a hat note if necessary.
I do like Apartheid in X for the other reason, that we avoid ambiguity over the adjective form. Israel apartheid and Israeli apartheid are both grammatically correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move

So how does this work now? Can I have the honor of moving the page? @SafariScribe: Makeandtoss (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Needs admin to move it, requested. Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss, Selfstudier has answered you. Also, you can't move the page because you are WP:INVOLVED, hence it must require another editor in a good standing (also not involved) to move the article. The move was delayed because it is a contentious topic that will only require an admin to move the article. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Social stratification

Do we have any content on the social stratification; the hierarchal rights of Palestinians of GZ, EJ, WB, Israel, and the diaspora? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Try the Amnesty report Section 5 p61 et seq. Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2024

This is a racist and antisemitic account not rooted in history or fact. The United nations has decided against this accusation. 66.44.14.225 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2024 (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. Cannolis (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Separate roads

@Ehgarrick: The separate roads and natural resources exploitaiton is mentioned in HRW's report, to cite one example. [11] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Old moves template

I noticed that the most recent move is noted in its own banner at the top of this Talk, separated from the list of other moves several banners above it. Would someone be willing to rectify this? (Or is this intentional? for some reason I'm not grasping?) I would do it myself but I don't quite understand how the {{old moves}} template works. It also looks like the discussion links all need to be updated. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Half done. Thanks. There is still work to do regarding the links. Template:Article history should be used. —Alalch E. 09:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

ICJ and apartheid

The issue of what the ICJ opinion really means regarding racial segregation versus apartheid is unclear from the opinion itself and this is why so-called RSs can't agree on it. However, the matter is discussed at length in the separate opinions. See in particular the opinions of Brant, Iwasawa, Nolte, Salam and Tladi. I read somewhere the suggestion that the lack of elucidation on this point in the official opinion was so that more judges would sign up to it. None of the judges argued against the ruling that Israel is in violation of Para 3 of CERD, but they did not agree on exactly what that means regarding apartheid. Hopefully we will soon get learned articles in law journals that we can cite. Zerotalk 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Germany’s Reaction to the International Court of Justice’s Palestine Advisory Opinion: 'The Opinion Confirms Our Positioning in Many Points' On the particular point:- "The International Court of Justice has established that certain human rights obligations apply to Israel, including in relation to the occupied territories. It has established a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. However, … the ICJ has not decided on one of the two options." Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

'Racial Segregation and Apartheid' in the ICJ Palestine Advisory Opinion We now have some more detailed legal analysis. Confirms "a breach of Article 3 [of CERD] could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. This is seen in the Separate Opinions, some of which considered the finding of a breach of Article 3 as a finding of apartheid; others believing the Court had not made such a finding." Also, as regards the still ongoing CERD proceedings "CERD has yet to reach a final decision in this case. With a strong finding of a breach of Article 3 from the ICJ and several judicial opinions interpreting this as a finding of apartheid, this may well create a platform for CERD to determine the issue." & "The questions put by UNGA to the Court ‘concern[ed] Israel’s "discriminatory legislation and measures" under international human rights law and not apartheid as an international crime." "the Opinion considered that the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute 'can inform the interpretation of Article 3 of CERD'". Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of Israel's Policies and Practices in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" "For example, regarding whether Israel’s policies and practices amount to apartheid, the Court stated that Israel violates the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid set in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), but did not specify which elements of the article Israel violated. In separate declarations they published, some of the majority Judges explicitly state that Israel is implementing an apartheid policy, while others assert that the Court did not make such a determination or that there is no basis for such a claim. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would personally deprioritize German and Israeli sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
These aren't direct government sources, but legal professors, thinks tanks – the usual commentators. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The German source above is an official statement by the German spokesperson for the Federal Foreign Office, while the other Israeli source is the Israel Democracy Institute which has every interest in downplaying the ICJ ruling. Just as I wouldn't trust a South African think tank or US government in the 1980s to comment on apartheid in SA. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it's reporting and commentary on it by a professor. Check it. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Though specifically quoting the German government on page obviously wouldn't be particularly useful. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying they are good sources, and there are certainly caveats that would be worth discussing in their use, but your initial statement was cavalier. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
True, but since these two examples hold fringe opinions they should not be taken as seriously as the rest of the sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The "best" one (in the sense of having the deeper analysis, not just the opinion but how it relates to the ongoing CERD case) is the second one but the others are not "bad". What we are seeing is a slow but steady accumulation of material explaining the advisory opinion as it relates to this particular article. There are two salient points I would say, the first being that only certain of the ICJ judges have said that the breach of Article 3 constitutes apartheid and that what the various judges have said may well have some impact on the ongoing CERD case and the outcome there.
At any rate it is quite clear that some commentators jumped the gun, notably HRW, altho it was only a press release. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
A more authoritative update from HRW. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
What may turn out to be more important as time goes on, is the attitude of third states to the advisory opinion and whether they consider themselves bound to act on it. Opinion formers such as Archbishop of Canterbury urges nations to respect ICJ opinion on Israeli occupation have a role to play there, see as well UK should stop arming Israel after ICJ advisory ruling, top lawyer says. Also see Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion for the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Diakonia summary gives quotes from some of the judges on the subject. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The ad hoc conciliation commission has produced its report/appendices, available Report, App 1 and App 2. We will have to wait for secondary reporting filtering it all but the recommendations look a lot like giving up and passing the buck to CERD/UNSC, that's just my opinion tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Report seems to also say that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention in both its apartheid and racial segregation aspects: "44. The commission, having considered the serious allegations raised by the State of Palestine under article 3 of the Convention regarding discriminatory practices and policies of racial discrimination and apartheid committed by Israeli authorities, recalls that in recommendations addressed to Israel, the Committee has urged the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate such policies or practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and which violate the provisions of article 3 of the Convention." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I did notice that slightly ambiguous wording, I think CERD itself, (rather than the conciliation commission, whose job really was to get the sides to reconcile), needs to step up here and clarify the state of play having regard to ICJ AO. We'll see. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@GhostOfNoMan: Can you explain your edits and its relation to your edit summary? [12] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies – I realise now you were introducing the change and the diff in that discussion was your self-rv. I thought I was reinstating the agreed-upon wording; I should've read more carefully. I've undone my edit. GhostOfNoMan 12:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@GhostOfNoMan: Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Interpretation

@XDanielx: If I understood your recent edit correctly, you removed content sourced to the Guardian (an RS per WP) claiming it is not reliable, and replaced it with content sourced to "ejiltalk.org" and an Israeli organization? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like he is still using the source in a new paragraph below. He just added ejiltalk.org to replace the guardian in that second paragraph… what is ejiltalk? apparently the blog of the european journal of international law? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems European Journal of International Law is a 1.2 impact factor journal from oxford. Not necessarily bad, articles can be used from there, but blog seems more like a mix of a blog and a editted online magazine? [13] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Blog belonging to a journal is not the journal itself. Either way, this is a minority viewpoint contradicted by the majority of RS, including HRW and the Guardian (both RS per WP). Makeandtoss (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Actually it seems to be clearly by a recognized expert, so it takes on the reliability of the expert. Dr David Keane is Assistant Professor in Law at Dublin City University, Ireland. He has published a number of works on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), including the authored book Caste-based Discrimination in International Human Rights Law, and the co-edited book 50 Years of ICERD That is actually quite reliable, and I think the last statement is one of the big misunderstandings on these articles. If the minority viewpoint is reliable and non-FRINGE, it needs to be represented here per WP:NPOV. The other source is by Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer, Director of the Center for National Security and Democracy, presumably a think-tank, I'd say probably has a bias so attribution could be merited for anything other than simple facts. Just being Israeli is not in any way disqualifying of a reliable source. Andre🚐 21:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Eran Shamir-Borer is another Israeli author, so this is clearly a fringe viewpoint by individuals that is being given false equivalency with international institutions with worldwide authority, including the world's top court, the ICJ. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Should all Israeli authors views be treated as and per WP:FRINGE? SPECIFICO talk 10:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
All individual authors in the minority whose few opinions contradict the viewpoint of major institutions and RS should be treated as fringe, yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but could you confirm specifically that when you said the author was Israeli so their view is "clearly fringe" -- does that mean we should treat all Israeli sources for this subject as fringe? Just trying to drill down on the verification and weight relating to this discussion. Is that your proposal? SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The focus of the sentence is on the individuality of the author not their nationality. Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem also concluded that Israel implements an apartheid regime. I would prefer institutional rights groups and courts rather than individual ones, particularly when these individual sources contradict the majority institutional opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, the focus of your initial proposal clearly referred to nationality, which was puzzling. Bear in mind that minority views are not necessarily wiki-fringe. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Minority views are not fringe views, true. Representing the minority view as the only view is misleading; representing the minority view as an equal view to the majority view is false balance; and representing the fringe view as anything is misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
OK. So which of those do you find occurring in this article and what does it have to do with the nationality of the source? SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian article was written by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. I would argue that it's inaccurate, but for our purposes I would just point out that it's a brief, shallow summary of the decision which doesn't get into the nuances of international law. It's still a reliable source as you said, but certainly not the WP:BESTSOURCE, since there are several law professors and other experts who have analyzed the ICJ opinion which much greater depth and precision.
EJIL: Talk! is a blog with limited review, but it's well-known in the field and most of its content easily passes WP:EXPERTSPS. If there are concerns about the particular sources I added though, there are several other expert analyses we could consider, all with a more nuanced explanation of the ICJ's position. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
the guardian is a news source with editorial standards. a blog by itself is not. we cannot discount an article from the guardian unless there is direct reliable evidence that it is significantly factually wrong Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
EJIL Talk isn't devoid of editorial standards. They have guidelines and rules for contributing. GhostOfNoMan 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielxI have reverted your changes since you're suggesting that a single blog post belonging to a journal can overturn contrary reporting by numerous WP:RS. It may well be the case, but such an extraordinary claim requires consensus.
Can you also explain why Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem was unlinked? It isn't linked anywhere else in the article.
Please also note WP:HOWEVER. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@CoolAndUniqueUsername: I was just following MOS:LINKONCE; we have two links to ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories in the same section.
The Guardian is a RS, but so are experts regardless of publication, under WP:EXPERTSPS. When we have multiple RSs to pick from, we pick the WP:BESTSOURCE, i.e. the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. Surely that isn't a brief news article which no practicing lawyers or legal scholars participated in, when several deep analyses of the opinion from legal scholars are available.
This is not an extraordinary claim at all; consider
  • The opinion itself says apartheid three times, never as part of a statement like that.
  • The court's own summary of the opinion says without qualifying it as apartheid.
  • Judge Nolte wrote that the court [left] open the question [of] whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid.
  • Law professor David Keane writes that the breach of Article 3 could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both.
  • Solon Solomon, another law professor, wrote that by stating generally in paragraph 229 that Israel’s policies breach Article 3, the court opens the possibility for both views to be upheld regarding the question of whether Israel should be deemed guilty for the crime of apartheid or for the crime of racial segregation.
  • Eran Shamir-Borer (another law professor) and Mirit Lavi said the court did not specify which elements of [Article 3] Israel violated.
We can adjust the sources if you like, but legal experts seem to agree that the court found Israel guilty of apartheid and/or racial segregation, without taking a position on apartheid specifically. Non-experts' attempts to casually summarize the court's opinion don't seem very relevant in light of this expert consensus. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I think Daniel's edit is fine and reflects my reading of the sources, but Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem should be linked in the subsection. I would replace "Some individual judges expressed various views on the apartheid claim in separate opinions" with names of judges who specifically found Israel guilty of apartheid and those that specifically didn't.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"The court's own summary of the opinion says without qualifying it as apartheid." and "Judge Nolte wrote that" seems like your personal opinion and interpretation of the summary and the ruling is being prioritized (aided by viewpoints of few individuals), over the interpretation of RS such as HRW and the Guardian of the majority viewpoint supported by the world's most prominent authorities and institutions.
The major problem is that this minority viewpoint was not added as a secondary viewpoint that gave false equivalency; more troubling, it was added as the main viewpoint (with an editorial "however" or "but"), which is completely misleading and does not represent RS.
HRW, an RS, is explicit: "Though the court’s language is a compromise, limited to separation, the finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid." A compromise wording supporting a certain conclusion is different from a non-conclusion.
Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
HRW 19 Sep
"The court found Israel’s measures in the West Bank that impose and maintain separation between Palestinians and Israeli settlers are a breach of Article 3 of the UN treaty prohibiting racial discrimination. Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid." and
Amnesty 19 19 July
“The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid." and
UN experts
"The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
Why this formulation is a problem for stipulating apartheid as a fact is explained in Keane.
It is perfectly clear from the sources what the situation is, the simplest way to say it is something like:
"Israeli apartheid is the violation by Israel of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), specifically the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
Then this all needs to be explained in the body. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Did the Court state or did its opinion define that Palestinian and Israeli are "races"? This would need explanation, as you say. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm following, it sounds like you're agreeing that, as Keane puts it, the court's finding could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both? — xDanielx T/C\R 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
People have said different things about that but we can't go wrong with just using the phrase as many sources do. Details can be left for the body. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I strongly oppose centering this topic on a violation of a law. This topic exists regardless of any law. Theft is an autonomous action with its own abstract definition even if it occurs in a country that doesn’t have a law criminalizing theft, or on Mars where no laws exist. HRW and AI reports have existed long before there was an ICJ ruling so this does not reflect RS, and they made their independent conclusions based on the evidence they reviewed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Then you need, as was done at the genocide article, a plethora of sources from scholars, academics, lawyers and so on asserting apartheid as a fact, good luck with that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think they are analogous. Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid, a decades-old occurrence with at least two decades of extensive documentation from numerous RS, even agreed upon by multiple prominent Israeli figures such as former Mossad head Tamir and former prime minister Olmert. We already have that plethora of sources for apartheid, even before the ICJ ruling. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid Where do you get this from? Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
See List of genocides. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Our discussion here is within the context of IP conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I’m referring to the Gaza genocide, which started 370 days ago. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
See Palestinian genocide accusation Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: the HRW source you restored was explicitly corrected by law professor Marko Milanovic, who wrote This led to some commentary that the Court had reached a finding of apartheid, with Human Rights Watch quickly headlining that the “World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid”.
I really struggle to see how you could think that HRW is the WP:BESTSOURCE here, considering that
  • It's a brief, casual summary for a lay audience, which doesn't get into the nuances of the court's opinion at all.
  • It was corrected by several experts, one explicitly mentioning HRW, and there was no followup where anyone tried to defend the interpretation being corrected.
  • It was written by a non-expert (Clive Baldwin, who has some limited legal education, not comparable to the aforementioned experts).
In case there was any doubt on what the expert consensus is, here's one more analysis by law professor Marko Milanovic: So, the Court finds a violation of Article 3 CERD, but it does not use the term apartheid or conduct any analysis of what the constitutive elements of apartheid are. This question is canvassed extensively in some of the separate opinions, but the bottom line of the Court’s approach seems clear – at best Israel’s actions amount ‘only’ to racial segregation, but they could also be apartheid. And the reason for this ambiguity is again the need to maintain consensus within the Court; the Court thus did not call Israel an ‘apartheid state’, but it did find a violation of an article in which apartheid is one of the two available options. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The subsequent HRW source I gave above is correct, not the original HRW which was just a press release. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
As per above, interpretations of what the phrase might mean are best left for the article body (along with where the ball is now, next steps, etcetera.Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I disagree that the ICJ ruling is the decisive source here. There are enough sources before the ICJ ruling, confirming that there is apartheid. ICJ ruling is only the cherry on the top, and the interpretations of that ruling are made by Human Rights Watch, a RS per Wikipedia. An article written on a blog that disagrees, not “corrects,” does not change that. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
HRW uses the phrasing I gave. As do most of the RS and that we can stipulate as fact with no argument. The interpretations are a different issue, 2 judges say apartheid, 2 others say not, blah blah. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought we were only discussing the section on the ICJ opinion. Why would sources about separate claims of apartheid, predating the opinion, be relevant?
There's a consensus among international law experts that the court's finding could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both, as seen in the analyses of law professors Keane, Solomon, Shamir-Borer, and Milanovic. If you disagree, can you identify any experts who have substantively analyzed this and arrived at a different conclusion? — xDanielx T/C\R 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
There's that but there are other interpretations and details besides just that. You are doing the same as MaT, picking up what is arguable, instead of what is a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
What other interpretations do you mean? I haven't seen any international law experts express a different view on this particular point. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Judges are law experts, right? The ICJ chief justice, same information, says it's apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
To be pedantic, Judge Salam says it's tantamount to apartheid. But more importantly, his separate declaration doesn't say anything about a court finding of apartheid; rather it argues his personal views on the matter. Here I think we're just discussing how to summarize the court finding, not the broader issue of how to frame claims of apartheid. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
And all the other views are also personal views. Iirc, it was you who wanted to make a meal out the previous chief justice (Donohue) personal opinion re "plausible" genocide? This does not really matter because none of this should be in the lead anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's keep this discussion scoped to interpretation of the ICJ opinion, rather than getting into other questions of how to frame apartheid or genocide in general. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I am addressing the tag in the lead, or one of them. The body hasn't been done properly as yet so there is nothing to discuss about that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Worth mentioning is 10. Article 3: Segregation and Apartheid for the difference between the two things:
"...segregation has essentially been regarded as a concentrated form of discrimination through exclusion and the implicit or explicit ranking of populations. Apartheid represents a further concentration of the segregation phenomenon, possessing additional characteristics in terms of domination, imposition of hierarchy, assignment of racial identity by fiat, all holistically integrated into a determinate public policy. While segregation is the broader concept, neither it nor apartheid is defined in the Convention." Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: given this consensus among at least five international law experts, are you willing to self-revert here? — xDanielx T/C\R 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Not yet, I will need time to evaluate the sources you provided, and check for other sources online. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The sources we've discovered so far indicate that the text you restored is problematic. If you suspect that other sources might be discovered later which could change things, it would be good form to hold off on reverting (or self-revert now that it's done) until then. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
If there is no problem with the sentence I proposed for the lead, I am willing to add that in as a replacement Line 1. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I see your point. I agree we should adhere to WP:EXPERTSPS to pick the WP:BESTSOURCE. The logical best source here will be the ICJ judges themselves who have provided individual statements due to the nuanced nature of the case.
Here's a suggested draft:
In its advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel was in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), including "racial segregation and apartheid". The advisory opinion is not directly binding on UN member states, but is seen as an authoritative statement of law that the UN and its agencies will follow. The opinion also identifies possible obligations for third states in regard to certain identified violations.
CERD defines neither apartheid nor racial segregation and the ICJ judges looked at two international instruments - the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute for guidance, both of which Israel has refused to ratify. Some legal experts have opined that the court did not specify whether the breach pertained to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. 5 out of the 16 ICJ judges have addressed the claim of apartheid in their separate opinions. Judge Tladi has been the most direct saying "I interpret this finding to be an acceptance that the policies and practices of Israel constitute a breach of the prohibition of apartheid, which itself is a peremptory norm of international law.".
CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That would be a WP:PRIMARY source. Andre🚐 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
And? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The best source would be a WP:SECONDARY source. We shouldn't cite the primary source directly. Andre🚐 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
You're right that WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred. WP:PRIMARY makes it clear when a primary source can be used. Namely, we can use high-quality primary sources that have been reputably published, to make straightforward statements of facts. I have quoted Judge Tladi verbatim, so it is a statement of fact. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It would have to be attributed to him directly, and it can't be used for interpretation or analysis. And it's not a statement of fact for the content of his quote, but merely that he said the quote. Andre🚐 02:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Do you think the version I offered falls short of any of those requirements? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The one attributed to ICJ? Attribution to ICJ isn't the same as to a specific judge unless he is writing for the Court Andre🚐 03:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it might be permissible, but it doesn't seem ideal to use primary sources when very good secondary ones are available, with at least four analyses by law professors explaining the aspects of the opinion that are most relevant to this article. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Setting aside any concerns about primary sources, there seem to be some neutrality issues with Israel has refused to ratify and with the emphasis on Tladi's declaration in particular (which she frames as a personal interpretation of sorts, not a clarification of a collective court opinion).
I think some of the detail also doesn't seem important, IMO we should just briefly summarize the court's opinion as it relates to apartheid claims. That was what the older text aimed to do, and my edit kept that focus, just with small revisions to accurately match the authoritative sources. Can you explain what the concern is with my version? — xDanielx T/C\R 04:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
What is the neutrality issue with Israel has refused to ratify? WP:SPADE applies. Here's a statement from Israel saying it refuses to ratify the Apartheid Convention instrument because "the UN is not the right place to be making these laws".
I offered the first draft with Tladi's declaration because it was the most direct. I am happy to summarize the position of the other judges as well. From memory, Xue indirectly agrees with Israel committing apartheid by quoting Desmond Tutu on Israel. One of the other judges says "Israel is definitely committing racial segregation and it's an open question of whether it has crossed over into apartheid". The other judges go into the mechanics of the various laws. Tladi's declaration is important because of the direct call out of the peremptory norm of International law.
I think the summary you provided loses nuance. Keane mentions both Judge Tladi and Judge Nolte, but editorializes Tladi's statement and leaves out the peremptory norm argument. He gives a lot of space to Nolte's argument, indeed almost rehashing it. Is this truly an exhaustive summary of WP:SECONDARY sources? WP:BALANCE requires when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • As a way to move forward, is there a way to rejig the wording of the first sentence to something like Israeli apartheid is a term used by some commentators to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel. The only doubt within the ICJ judgment is whether Israel's violation of Article 3 constitutes apartheid or a lesser crime.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
MOS:WEASEL likely rules that particular "some commentators" solution out. This is an issue that editors have struggled with for over a decade. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure that "doubt" is the right way to say this, there is not any doubt that the ICJ found a breach of Article 3. After that we are in opinion territory. I dislike having an expression like "some commentators" as the lead in when there is a finding of fact available. It is not as if the ICJ could find one way or the other if neither is defined by ICERD.
Para 229 says "that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD." Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
MOS:WEASEL is absolutely not an issue here as it says [phrases of this type] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.. Weasel words are very often the best option in cases of disputed interpretations.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I still maintain that we do not have to deal with different interpretations at this point, the ball is now back in CERD's court, the case (Palestine v Israel) has already gone on for 6 years and now, following the failed attempt to conciliate, need to decide what to do next. In the meantime, we do have a finding of fact and imo we should be leading with that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Although the sources have concentrated on the Article 3 breach, that is not all of it, the Court, in relation to whether Israeli practices are "discriminatory", also determined that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD" and then on to Article 3. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, so how about Israeli apartheid is a contested term used to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel. The existence of the system of institutionalised segregation and discrimination is a legal fact, the definition of this as apartheid doesn't yet seem to be.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think one of the problems here is that, take Amnesty for example, it is perfectly OK for Amnesty to hold the view that there is apartheid (including in Israel) and the ICJ opinion's reference to an article 3 breach allows that, at least for the OPT (it says nothing about Israel because they weren't asked for an opinion about Israel). Ditto HRW, etc. But the AO also allows others to hold the view that it is "only" segregation (it's really just a question of degree) or neither of them (eg Nolte).
    So if in the lead we are going to try and juggle both the preexisting opinions and the AO/interpretations at the same time, then we need to consider what weight to give to the respective opinions and/or AO interpretations. MaT would (I think) like to stipulate that the weight of the former completely outweighs the latter. I would say that the preponderance of opinion is that there is apartheid but that there is a not insignificant minority view that there is not.
    Perhaps tackle it this way rather than getting tangled up only in interpretations arising by virtue of the AO, it's not just about segregation versus apartheid, in other words. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Stepping back from the wording, would you agree that neither viewpoint should be stated in wikivoice? Since not insignificant minority view that there is not would mean we're in opinion territory, as well as meeting the standard for viewpoints that NPOV tells us to represent. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    xDanielX, you are edit warring a POV (and restoring wrong information at the same time). 1R is not an allowance. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem like anyone is continuing to defend the old inaccurate wording, which was based on non-expert summaries of the opinion and contradicted by at least five expert analyses. Makeandtoss who reverted appears to be undecided now, pending more research. I thought this was more or less settled. Are you defending the old summary? — xDanielx T/C\R 15:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Why are you calling ICERD CERD? I explained that in edit summary, did you even bother to read it? And no, it is not "settled". Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I made the CERD -> ICERD correction. If you don't think it's settled, I invite you to reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus that this is the correct interpretation. (Well you sort of did reply, but your replies seemed to be about mostly-unrelated lede issues rather than how to properly summarize the ICJ opinion.) — xDanielx T/C\R 17:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    @XDanielx: My comment in no way suggested I have dropped my objections to the disputed content which you have just reinserted for the second time despite an ongoing discussion. Please immediately self-revert and stop edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well, I'm awaiting a reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus (based on analyses from four law professors and a judge) that my edit reflects the proper interpretation of the ICJ opinion. If that didn't resolve your objections, please explain why in that thread above. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    This thread is called "Interpretation" while the other is called "Tags" so if it's all the same to you, I will continue to deal with the questions around interpretation (and some other related matters) in this thread. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    It seems that You merely picking out from sourcing that which matches your POV (which I assume is something along the lines of "It might not be apartheid"). This is a very simplistic way of looking at the matter, I already gave above a more nuanced version of affairs, for example here are interpretations of the interpretations and more relevant stuff here as well. And there is more, never mind, we will get there in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I wasn't cherrypicking based on a POV at all, please assume good faith. It's just the reality that all expert analyses agree on this point: the ruling implies racial segregation and/or apartheid, not apartheid specifically.
    Bastaki's analysis focuses on whether Israel is guilty is apartheid, not whether the ICJ finding implies that. She acknowledges that [judges] disagreed on whether the mens rea requirement [for apartheid] was fulfilled, which roughly supports my edit although it's not the most clear and direct source for it.
    Jeßberger and Mehta are more clear: the Advisory Opinion itself is silent on whether discriminatory policies satisfy the constitutive elements of apartheid. Not sure how you could read this as anything other that corroboration of my revision. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    That is correct, the AO is silent on the matter and judges gave individual views. Btw, the material you edited was already in the article in another section above, anyway I have fixed things up now to properly reflect the full findings and current situation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with xDanielx that his version was an improvement. Andre🚐 18:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Good to know, not really a surprise tho. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
So, I think maybe the problem here is that we need to make clear that it is now accepted in law that a system of racial oppression exists, but although I think it is pretty self-evident that Israel is an apartheid state, this is not yet fully acknowledged. So we could try this Israeli apartheid is a contested term used to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination which exists in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It is not a contested term among the most relevant qualified expert organizations and scholars that have rendered their judgment on the matter: The world's leading human rights organizations, including Israel's, who have done so in detailed reports: HRW, Amnesty, B'Tselem, and many, many more. Then there are the countless subject-area legal experts, also listed on that page, and it's the consensus view among Middle-East scholars.
So I agree with @CoolAndUniqueUsername, @Makeandtoss, @Bluethricecreamman that consensus among high quality RS and topic-relevant experts warrant the lede to remain as is.
There will always be some dissent on highly contentious topics, but when there is strong consensus on the matter from every leading human rights organization, it is frankly absurd to pretend like dissent from that is a serious view that has to be given equal space. We wouldn't consider doing that in any other context, and we shouldn't do it here either. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you please clarify who is contesting the term? There are 3 stances - yes, we don't know, and no. From the comments so far, it's clear that there are human rights organizations and lawyers (notably Judge Tladi of the ICJ Advisory Opinion) who have said "yes".
The examples shared by xDanielx seem to be firmly in the "we don't know" category. They focus on the legal technicalities. Daniel's example of professor Milanovic's essay is particularly revealing:
As always, there was a price for obtaining that consensus: ambiguities and silences in the Court’s analysis on some important points (for example, on whether Israel’s practices in the OPT amount to apartheid, or whether Palestine has already achieved statehood).
Is there an RS that firmly says "no"?
If a secondary RS says there is ambiguity and silence by design, it doesn't mean the term is contested. We cannot use the term contested unless there are strong RS' that say "no". CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources that clearly and explicitly endorse the ruling, designating it as apartheid:

  • OHCR - The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid, and 35+ human rights experts said “Laws and policies that penalise opposition to or impede advocacy against Israel’s occupation and apartheid must be rescinded,”
  • Jacobin - Munir Nuseibah, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ examination led to a finding that Israel is indeed violating its duty to avoid racial segregation and apartheid. The advisory opinion concluded that Israel practices racial segregation and apartheid
  • The Intercept - Jessica Peake, an international law professor at UCLA Law, said the ruling [...] basically made a finding that Israel is creating a situation of apartheid against Palestinians within Israel
  • AJ - Mai El-Sadany, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ describes the situation as racial segregation and apartheid and that “The majority of countries across the world agree with the ICJ’s advisory opinion”
  • AI - Erika Guevara Rosas, a human rights lawyer and senior director at AI, said The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid [...] The occupation is a key pillar of the system of apartheid that Israel uses to dominate and oppress Palestinians
  • HWR - Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Advisor at HRW said the [court's] finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid
  • ICJ - (International Commission of Jurists) Echoing many Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations, the ICJ draws the Council’s attention to the fact that Israel has perpetrated the crime of apartheid
  • Research Society of International Law - the Court, while reproducing Article 3 of the CERD, added emphasis only on the word “apartheid”. This assertion is also confirmed by Judge Tladi, who asserted that the “Court was correct to find that the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are in breach of the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid” in Article 3 of the CERD

Some other sources preceding the ruling:

  • ToI - Tamir Pardo, former head of the Mossad, said “There is an apartheid state here [...] In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.”
  • HRW - the former Northern Commander of the Israeli army described the situation in the West Bank as one of “total apartheid.”, former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and former UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson [...] highlighted the “ever growing evidence” they found that “the situation meets the international legal definition of apartheid”
  • B'Tselem - (human rights organization) the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met
  • AlHaq - (human rights organization) we [...] urge the UN General Assembly to take urgent and effective actions to [...] end Israel’s occupation, [...] its regime of apartheid over the Palestinian people as a whole
  • AI - Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and [...] It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid
  • UN - Ban Ki-moon, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, wrote in 2021 that the intent of Israel to maintain “structural domination and oppression of the Palestinian people through indefinite occupation … arguably constitutes apartheid”. Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu stated in 2014: “I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation.” The Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Naledi Pandor, spoke in 2022 about her country’s “significant dismay at the continued apartheid practices of Israel against the long-suffering people of Palestine”. Michael Ben-Yair, a former Attorney General of Israel, said in 2022 that Israel had become “an apartheid regime … a one state reality, with two different peoples living with unequal rights”. Ami Ayalon, the former Director of Shin Bet, wrote in his memoir: “We’ve already created an apartheid situation in Judea and Samaria, where we control the Palestinians by force, denying them self-determination.” Furthermore, two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa – Ilan Baruch and Alon Liel – stated in 2021 that the systematic discrimination of Israel “on the basis of nationality and ethnicity” now constituted apartheid etc etc
  • Yesh Din - Michael Sfard, Israeli lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law, said the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime
  • Research Society of International Law - Michael Lynk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 [...] concluded that Israel’s policies in Palestinian territory amount to apartheid

Also this list compiled by CJPME includes a list of notable figures and organizations supporting the apartheid denomination (pre and post ruling). I'll echo CoolAndUniqueUsername question. Do we have a similar compilation of organizations/experts stating the opposite? - Ïvana (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating racial segregation and apartheid with just apartheid. Nobody disagrees that the court found a breach of the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid, implying one or the other (or possibly both). — xDanielx T/C\R 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The court did not imply anything, they found systemic discrimination and then in view of that, a breach of article 3 and left it to individual judges to comment beyond that.
The point of these refs is to address whether the lead is correct, which is not solely about the AO. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: the topic of the article is Israeli apartheid. Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid, and expanding the section to focus on less-relevant aspects of the opinion? It was left to judges in their individual opinions also seems like odd wording - the court simply didn't address it, it's not as if they requested that judges personally opine on it (and most did not). My wording was closer to that of the expert analyses mentioned above. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid The AO doesn't discuss apartheid, it is silent on the matter. Most of the available RS (again I can add it in specifically if you wish) specify that the reason the material re apartheid was not addressed in the AO was in order to get a maximal consensus in the AO eg "nor did it explicitly specify whether it considered Israel’s policy to be apartheid or racial segregation or both – presumably an outcome of the collective nature of the decision-making process of the Court." Your editing as well left out all the precursor material about the finding of systemic discrimination, for example, hardly surprising, as I already indicated that you appeared more interested in those parts of sources supporting a rather simplistic non-explanation of the actual AO findings, instead concentrating on lawyerly navel gazing about what exactly Article 3 means (not a new debate either). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
In fact since it seems to me that the section "2024 ICJ advisory opinion" which was and is now again, duplicated at "The legal standard" section, does not really belong there exactly because the AO is silent on the matter of applicability and so I have deleted it and moved the first sentence up to the properly relevant section. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's likely that the opinion's silence on apartheid was intentional, in the interest of consensus. We can mention that if you like. The issue with your edits is that they focus on court findings which sound similar to apartheid to a casual reader, while obfuscating the fact that the opinion contained no finding on the matter of apartheid. My edit didn't give undue attention to systemic discrimination because that's not the topic of the article, and not the primary focus of the ICJ opinion either. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Systemic discrimination is the precursor to the article 3 finding, one leads to the other:
"As part of this step [Occupation/annexation], the Court then turns to assessing whether Israel's "legislation and measures" related to its "policies and practices" in the OPT are "discriminatory" (Opinion, paras. 180-184). For this, it necessarily turns to IHRL, without abandoning the overall context of the jus in bello within which that law must be interpreted given Israel remains an occupying Power in the territory. Applying this framework, the Court determines that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of [I]CERD" (Opinion, paras. 192-223). Not losing sight of the foundational problem of the settlements, the Court observes "that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities", leading it to conclude "that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of [I]CERD" by which States parties – including Israel – "particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction (Opinion, paras. 224-229)" [My bolding]
We can per the above quote, try to make the connections clearer if you like. The thing with this part (in fact the entire AO) is that it is all of a piece, with each part linked to every other part, directly or indirectly:
"The Court emphasizes that its reply to the questions put to it by the General Assembly rests on the totality of the legal grounds set forth by the Court above, each of which is to be read in the light of the others, taking into account the framing by the Court of the material, territorial and temporal scope of the questions (paragraphs 72 to 83)" [74 discusses the discrimination issue].
Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_44&oldid=1265372005"