Talk:Israeli apartheid

Not only "Hafrada"

The page should mention that there are different teminologies regarding the barrier. While some rather calling it "seperation wall", Israeli officials prefer to use the term "security fence" instead. Well perhaps we could use a better 'terminology' and 'analogy' about the 'nature' of Israel's 'occupied territories', an abstract neutered concept, as defined in Oxford dictionary; con·cen·tra·tion camp. /ˌkänsənˈtrāSHən ˈˌkamp/ "A place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities..."

Use of Julie Peteet

Julie Peteet is a scholar on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Julie Peteet is cited in paragraph #2 of the lead. The citation reads: Julie Peteet, 2016 p.249 also argues that that there is an Israeli narrative of exceptionalism which works to 'exempt' it from such comparisons. Should this remain in the article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please use the labeled sections accordingly (votes, discussion, and other commentary).

Votes (Please keep your votes concise.)

• No Julie Peteet is a WP:BIASED source on the debate surrounding the Israel-apartheid analogy. The thrust of her work is that she is a proponent of the analogy and she has taken other partisan positions. She is currently used as a citation to describe the views of her ideological opponents. In a dual-sided debate, the most reliable sources on either side are scholarship that may represent that particular point of view. Opponents in any debate are inclined to misrepresent the positions of the other side, and her summary that critics of the analogy rest only on "Israeli exceptionalism" does not jive with available sources on the topic from the other side of the debate. Julie Peteet is a valuable cite for the article generally, but this specific usage is questionable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll also just add a point of agreement with some "Yes" votes, who claim that "personal feelings" or "personal dislike" of Peteet's conclusions shouldn't be a factor. I absolutely agree, and the same applies for a personal preference or agreement for Peteet's work, ideas, or conclusions. The notion that bias may exist is an objective assessment usually indicated by whether the author has sharp views on the issues in question. This is why it is concerning that we are using a source to describe the views of their ideological opponents, as opposed to a source representing those particular views, with the flimsy excuse that it is "reliable," a sweeping statement that glosses over this problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and obviously so. The source at issue here is Peteet, Julie (2016), "The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid", Anthropological Quarterly, 89 (1): 247–281. Now, looking at WP:SCHOLARSHIP it is so obviously clear that this is a reliable source that I honestly am not sure how this is even in question. Peteet is a professor of anthropology at the University of Louisville, chair of the Middle East and Islamic Studies Program, author of Space and Mobility in Palestine and Landscape of Hope and Despair: Palestinian Refugee Camps published by University of Pennsylvania Press and Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement published by Columbia University Press, author of a number of peer-reviewed works that have been widely cited. She is an established expert in the field. Anthropological Quarterly is a widely respected peer-reviewed journal published by a university press. The specific article in question is not, as claimed above, one of an involved party of a dispute, it is a study of the analogy, the reasons supporters use to make it, the reasons opponents use to refute them. It is unquestionably a reliable source. And RS/N could have confirmed that if it had been used, but oh well. So we have an established expert in the field writing a peer-reviewed article in a widely respected journal. WP:RS is clear on this. This source is undoubtedly reliable and undoubtedly properly used in this article for this material. Disliking what scholarship says is not cause for removing scholarship in an encyclopedia article. To be more blunt than I probably should be, in my honest opinion, any user saying no here is waving a giant WP:NOTHERE flag and should be shown the door as their purposes and Wikipedia's are fundamentally at odds. nableezy - 00:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. This is no-brainer. A relevant attributed statement from a qualified academic in a peer-reviewed journal can't be discarded just because an editor thinks that the statement or the academic is biased. Peteet has an established record of research on the use of words in the conflict. Zero^talk 02:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – an academic source from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, it's an ideal source for a topic like this. Per WP:BIASED, a personal belief that the source is biased is not grounds to exclude it (reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective). Even though Peteet's an expert with a strong reputation, I think it's good practice to attribute expert sources in a subject area like this, as is currently done with the Peteet source. Jr8825 • Talk 12:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per reasons provided by editors above. Idealigic (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• No As she not neutral observer we cannot use her source to discuss he political opponents --Shrike (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• 'Yes. This is getting ridiculously pathetic. Everytime a large consensus con firms the obvious, we have one editor grasping as bureaucratic straws by resorting to an RfC to try to overthrow that consensus. No passing editor can be expected to have the sitzfleisch or patience of Job to read diligently through the tediously repetitive discussion that ended in a 4/1 verdict that Peteet is undoubtedly a first-rate source.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Julie Peteet writing explicitly on this issue in Anthropological Quarterly is quite obviously a reliable source. And, in the absence of any reliable source describing her or her research as "biased", editors here are not competent to make such an assertion. Indeed, to do so is arguably a breach of WP:BLP. RolandR (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per reasons provided above. She is a reliable and established expert in this field, publishing in a reliable and established academic journal. Also, the presence of bias doesn't automatically make a source unusable. As per the same WP:BIAS that was quoted in the OP's vote, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." On a more general note, I'm curious as to how this article would even work if every source with a shred of bias were to be taken out, seeing how it's an article that deals with a controversy between two opposing opinions. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously, a Professor of Anthropology writing in a peer-reviewed journal; seriously: I would question the judgement of anyone who does not find that WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, reliable source, correctly attributed and relevant to the topic of the article. The fact she is a proponent of the analogy surely makes her an excellent source when describing the arguments for it. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - clearly reliable - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Qualified Yes -- Proposed revision to sentence to give reader the POV of Peteet: Julie Peteet, an American academic who has written on how "Palestinians comprehend, experience, narrate, and respond to Israeli settler-colonialism", 2016 p.249 also argues that that there is an Israeli narrative of exceptionalism which works to 'exempt' it from such comparisons. (quote is from here) (NOTE: Editor is a volunteer for the WP:Feedback Request Service which randomly selects volunteers to give feedback to WP:RfC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Peteet is an expert on the subject, published in a peer-reviewed journal; neither is what she saying particularly exceptional or fringe. The argument that she is WP:BIASED to the point of unusability merely because she has expressed an opinion on the topic is absurd and could be used to disqualify any academic who takes a position on anything - by that logic no sources could ever be cited to support anything at all, no matter how high-quality, because by weighing in they would immediately disqualify themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

A source may be reliable in some contexts but not others. WP:PARTISAN is one example one. By reference to Julie Peteet's own public statements and writings, she is 1) largely a proponent of the Israel-apartheid analogy, 2) a proponent of boycott efforts against Israel, and 3) a proponent of boycotting Israeli academic institutions, to which many of the critics of the analogy belong. Placing emphasis on her academic credentials and other typical WP:RS qualities while ignoring this crucial context and suggesting she is the best available source to summarize the views of her ideological opponents makes absolutely no sense and is completely inconsistent with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Again, simply declaring Julie Peteet is a reliable source is a shallow argument. It misses these nuanced arguments and the specific context in which she is being used here. I do not object to the use of Peteet generally, but her usage here in the lead, as the only source for views of critics of the analogy, is absolutely inappropriate, even with attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not an op-ed by some politician. This is the work product of an expert in the field of anthropology writing in a well respected peer-reviewed journal on that topic. Your disliking of her conclusions, in an article subject to peer-review by other experts in the field, does not make her a partisan, it does not make her an involved party, it does not make her unreliable for the statements that she makes. And beyond that, WP:PARTISAN simply does not allow for removing a source on the basis that you dislike the authors conclusions. This specific article has been cited in a number of other peer-reviewed journal articles. It is the work of a scholar writing in her area of expertise. And a random person on the internet's (you) personal politics should not factor into how Wikipedia treats that, as a reliable source, at all. nableezy - 01:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing about WP:PARTISAN sets any limit on what sources we are supposed to evaluate for bias. Just like it has nothing to do with you dislik(ing) the authors conclusions, another WP:PA that shows a complete inability to stay on track or understand the relevant policy. The views of Side A in a debate should not solely be characterized by Side B in that debate, regardless of the forum that debate is taking place in (academic articles, etc). Again, the RfC is not asking whether or not Peteet should be used anywhere in the article, but if it is appropriately to use her as the sole source, or even a source, for characterizing the views of those with whom she disagrees. The answer is clearly, IMO, no. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My answer is about the use of this peer reviewed journal article by an expert in the field of anthropology specifically focused on the comparisons of Israel and South African Apartheid and on the arguments made in support and against those comparisons for this specific statement. And, for the tenth time, the article doesnt even say the comparisons to Apartheid are totally valid, she finds important distinctions, so this make believe about her being used as a source for her ideological opponents is in addition to being irrelevant is unsubstantiated. It is, one more time, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not the personal opinion of some random partisan. It is the work product of an expert in the field, writing in a paper subject to the rigors of peer-review by other experts in the field. It is unquestionably reliable in this context. A random Wikipedia editor doesnt get to challenge actual scholarship based on their feelings. It is honestly insane to me that this is even allowed. nableezy - 02:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

What's not allowed are endless WP:PAs and total disregard for civility/decorum etc. Differing opinions are allowed, including those coming from editors who properly understand that bias in any source can limit its usability in some contexts and not others. Perhaps you are so enamored with Peteet and her wisdom that you think we should use them in any possible way, but to use her as the primary source for the position of her opponents is ludicrous. That you cannot grasp this basic logical proposition, or refuse to, doesn't mean other editors are required to do the same. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You think my calling you a random Wikipedia editor is a personal attack? And then follow that up with you cannot grasp this basic logical proposition? Jesus christ. And for the love of anything you hold dear, Peteet is not a primary source. This is not that difficult a concept. No more replies please, would rather not see you bludgeon another discussion to death. nableezy - 03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop saying things that are false and then we're done. 1) your assertions about personal views, personal feelings are clear WP:PAs. Do not comment on what you presume to be another editors views to be. 2) I clearly was not calling her a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, I said she was the primary source for the "supporters" line in the lead of the article, i.e. the sole or only source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is thataway if you think so. WP:BLUDGEON is going to be my only response to you for the duration of this RFC. nableezy - 05:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 05:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Disliking what scholarship says is not cause for removing scholarship in an encyclopedia article. This is yet another laughable statement that misses the point entirely. Again, all WP:RS are to be evaluated in context. WP:PARTISAN specifically requires we account for viewpoints. An adequate response would address these points, not gloss over them by calling names and restating journal names. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an old saying, of a mother watching a cadet parade: 'Everyone is out of step but my Johnnie'. I've never seen an+d editor repeatedly insist that everyone but themselves has misinterpreted policy and the sources.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I would suggest you not pick up Nableezy's bad habit of speculating about or attributing judgments to editor's "personal beliefs." She has publicly expressed a position on the issue. Acting as if the potential for bias has zero grounds is either uninformed or willfully ignorant, and then remarking on editor's "personal" views takes it into WP:PA territory. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: you are reading a criticism/attack into my comment where there is none, not least because I wasn't addressing anyone specifically. All I was saying is that an editor's belief that a source is biased (having an "inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group") in the absence of a secondary source arguing this is inevitably a personal judgement/assessment, and per our policies, this individual assessment is not grounds to remove a source. I doubt anyone disputes that Peteet is highly critical of Israel's policies in the occupied territories, but that does not make her work published in RS less valid here. Jr8825 • Talk 15:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, I appreciate the clarification, but if you don't want to be misread, you shouldn't be mentioning any "editor's "personal" views. You also fundamentally misunderstand WP:PARTISAN and the arguments being made here. Editors are indeed allowed and required to assess bias. There are countless threads at WP:RSN where certain sources were deemed to be of limited reliability in some contexts because of perceived bias as a matter of editorial consensus. I suggest you read up on those before remarking on, and dismissing, what you describe as editor's "personal views." We don't need a "secondary source" to do what WP:PARTISAN and WP:RS explicitly require us to do. Second, the argument here is not and never was that Peteet is generally unreliable. It's that she should not be considered a preferred source for describing the views of her ideological opponents, since anyone doing so in a debate is liable to misrepresent, even if only slightly, the views of their opponents for rhetorical advantage. Her statement that Israeli rejections of the analogy rests only on notions of Israel being "special" does not jive with other available sources on the subject from the opposing view and reeks of strawmanning. So again, I appreciate the clarification, and you don't need to agree with me for us to be cordial, but don't dismiss these arguments as "personal." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That isnt her statement, please stop making things up. nableezy - 17:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what the summary reads, I'll quote it in full: Julie Peteet, 2016 p.249 also argues that that there is an Israeli narrative of exceptionalism which works to 'exempt' it from such comparisons.. So either go correct it, or check the source again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does that say the only reason supporters of Israel reject the comparison is a narrative of exceptionalism. It says there is that narrative. Not that all arguments are based on it. nableezy - 17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "you shouldn't be mentioning any "editor's "personal" views": I didn't mention and wasn't referring to any specific editor's personal views in my comment above, as I just clarified. The decisions taken at RSN are not individual/personal because they are based on a consensus of multiple editors' judgements, as you pointed out – it's an entirely different situation. I'm not arguing that editors shouldn't assess bias, of course it should be taken into account. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that I "fundamentally misunderstand" BIASED/PARTISAN (the section of RS I originally quoted in my !vote above), which explicitly states that an individual assessment of bias isn't grounds in itself to remove a source. The precise wording (with my emphasis) is: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources ... Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate". We're not talking about an activist publisher like Pluto Press here (not that Pluto doesn't publish good sources), we're discussing a source which clearly meets the requirements for RS: it's a subject matter expert's work in a long-established, peer-reviewed academic journal. As I stated in my original comment, as the source is now (appropriately) attributed I fail to see any policy objection to including it in the article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, "fundamentally misunderstand" perhaps isn't the most diplomatic way to put it. Nonetheless, you seem to acknowledge that editors are allowed to assess for bias. Yes, consensus can determine bias exists in a source. A secondary source does not need to conclude bias. That other source may itself be susceptible to bias, so that's where editors come in to determine it. Consensus is formed by a multitude of editors expressing their views. By you suggesting these are "personal views" and adopting the language of Nableezy/Nishidani, big mistake, you are suggesting the arguments are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is false. You also keep restating that "reliable" means reliable in all contexts, and I frankly don't know how to address this except to point out it's a misunderstanding of how WP:RS works. Finally, don't say you "fail to see any policy objection" -- the policy objection here is clearly stated. Just say you don't agree with it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"I fail to see" = an expression of my viewpoint, nothing more. Jr8825 • Talk 18:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with a sprinkling of WP:IDHT and a spoonful of WP:BLUDGEON. nableezy - 18:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we baking a cake? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• (1:5 days ago) Peteet as a proponent of the analogy should not be our chief source to describe the views of the opposing "party." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• (2)'She is a proponent of the Israeli-apartheid comparison Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Fact check.'Well, that is just the nth proof that Wikieditor not only has not read Peteet, unlike you and the rest of us, but even skims or ignores the fact that her arguments (are) against the Bantustan analogy, duly given in the synopsis above, have no impact, or simply drop from memory. . . the behavioural flaw of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Wikieditor’s response to this factual description of Peteet’s paper and his misunderstanding of it, is to claim I don’t understand policy, I should step back, stop insulting him, else AE. I.e. threats. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC).
• (3)The notion that Julie Peteet who is a 1) proponent of the Israel-Apartheid analogy, [1) supports boycotting Israeli academic institutions [2=the link is to a resolution where Peteet’s name does not appear). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note 1 links to Peteet's which denies the adequacy of the Bantustan analogy. I.e. wikieditor persists, despite being notified of his error, in mischaracterizing her views.

Note 2 links to an Anthropological Society resolution on boycotting Israeli academe. No where does Peteet's name appear.

• (4) 'Julie Peteet is a WP:BIASED source on the debate surrounding the Israel-apartheid analogy. The thrust of her work is that she is a proponent of the analogy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• (5) 'By reference to Julie Peteet's own public statements and writings, she is 1) largely a proponent of the Israel-apartheid analogy, 2) a proponent of boycott efforts against Israel, and 3) a proponent of boycotting Israeli academic institutions, to which many of the critics of the analogy belong. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I.e. this is a palmary case of WP:Bludgeon, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. A deliberate refusal to (a)read a source (b) amend a mistaken view once it is pointed out (c) and a repetitive hammering of the same remarks throughout these threads. Where, as repeatedly, there is a single editor characteristically distorting evidence and arguments, refusing to listen to their interlocutors on the page, and indulging in repetitive rants, there is sufficient warrant to ignore their presence, since they are ignoring both other editors' points and the sources themselves. Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Julie Peteet in her work "beyond compare" describes the distinctions between Apartheid South Africa and the current situation in Israel as largely superficial. She asserts that the analogy is largely accurate. To suggest that she opposes the analogy is preposterous; she is clearly an advocate for it and makes repeated use of this rhetorical device in her work. From "Beyond Compare:"

The international community, or at least the precincts of it that call the shots, also continues to view the apartheid-like practices of Israel in the Occupied Territories through the prism of security. The US harshly rejected the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice against the wall in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, then on the presidential campaign trail, hastened to concur, lest anyone find partisan daylight between him and Bush on this score). The US sees the wall as a legitimate means of deterring Palestinian attacks on Israel, a defense it extends to checkpoints, restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement, home demolitions, extrajudicial executions and other violations of international law. Most dramatically, the US, with the tacit backing of European and Arab allies, has eagerly enforced the years-long siege on Gaza and acquiesced in several Israeli assaults upon the territory, including the egregious Operation Cast Lead over the winter of 2008-2009. The international community appears to see no contradiction between its simultaneous support for a “viable Palestinian state” and the physical and virtual amputation of Gaza from the Palestinian body politic. The siege of Gaza is an apartheid measure, if ever there was one.

To characterize her and her writings as opposed to the apartheid analogy is questionable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Sigh, take a deep breath, write).

It is not a question of whether she is opposed or in favour of such an analogy. There is nothing problematical in either making such a comparison, or in drawing a distinction, as does Peteet here and elsewhere, between the two.

• The normal courtesy, to provide for other editors the precise source details and a link, is, once more, missing. I.e.
• Julie Peteet, Beyond Compare, Middle East Report, Winter, 2009, No. 253 (Winter, 2009), pp. 16-25
• Note the date, 2009. We are using her considered summation of her research in 2016, seven years later.
• It is wholly irrelevant what Peteet's personal views are, as several editors have noted, and which you ignore.
• The older source has little if anything which is not in the paper we are considering: the analogy is raised, and its defects outlined. Labour practices differ (pp.22ff)

The Israeli system of rule over Palestinians can be credibly described, and to some extent analyzed, as something akin to apartheid as it was practiced in South Africa until 1994. But as a framework for activism and advocacy, the language of apartheid is heavily freighted with history, to wit, its indelible association with one particular historical experience. The international community eventually rejected and sanctioned apartheid in South Africa, whereas it has been difficult to mobilize international support for Palestinian rights. Apartheid South Africa had little external support comparable to Israel's and defenders of its ideology and practices were precious few...Another critical difference is that the UN and the inter national community gave South African apartheid the cold shoulder; the world body and other nations (except, again, Israel) refused to recognize the bantustans as independent political entities. In Israel-Palestine, there is a long history of warm world support for the concepts of territorial partition and ethno-religious separation

No one would deny that hafrada (separation) policies bear comparison to apartheid (separation) practices. The problem in theory is whether the similarities are sufficiently substantial to warrant the imbrication of analogy, or whether they, while overlapping in several regards, evince sufficient differences in kind to deny the congruency, or heuristic utility, of the analogy.

To draw an analogy between South Africa's Bantustans and the West Bank/Gaza enclaves is not immoral, forced, intrinsically biased, partisan, political. The similarities are detailed, and comparativist historians, anthropologists, sociologists draw those similarities - in Israel (Oren Yiftachel and scores of others) and abroad. It is not the fault of analysts that such similarities exist: it would be a serious fault were they not to note them. The major point she makes is that what the world branded as repulsive in SA and therefore warranting a boycott, it accepts as a fair outcome in Israel/Palestine. This too is obvious, and no cause for scandal.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The first half of your comment patently misrepresents Peteet's views on the matter, not only in her body of work but in the very text you cited. She is clearly a proponent of the analogy — your assessment that this is somehow only a natural conclusion, without recognizing the ongoing real-word dispute on this matter, raises questions about your editorial judgment.

The second half of your comment is transparent POV-pushing and WP:FORUM-like commentary. Your analysis of why she is correct and, again, why the comparison "makes sense" is utterly and completely irrelevant to this discussion. The other condescending statements peppered in are equally irrelevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

She is clearly a proponent of the analogy.

That is the sixth time you quote your own disproven claim, in the face of four editors.

To quote Ronald Reagan in his second presidential debate with Jimmy Carter in 1980,There you go again. 'Nuf sed.'Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, you blindly argue that she disassociates herself with the analogy even as you quote paragraphs and her works where she praises and promotes it. You justify this by arguing that the analogy, in your personal view, makes sense and should be uncontroversial. I also suggest you actually read the arguments by those you perceive as supporting your every word, because Peteet being opposed to the analogy is not what editors are saying. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest you actually read the arguments

Teachen grandpa to suck eggs.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You nailed the dynamic. I'm going to end by saying 1) it's obvious the consensus is to keep the citation 2) my only suggestion is to add additional arguments via cite to that sentence to provide broader context. IMO that mitigates the issue with using Peteet as the only source for that position. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In general bringing alternative/contradictory citations is usually better than trying to cancel existing rs. I haven't commented in that RFC, do you object if I close it?Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

An aunt once said, 'teach grannie to suck eggs and you'll end up with goog on your dial'Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The RFC doesn't really need to be closed, the result is clear cut and there is only a possible residual question dependant on anyone bringing sufficient contrary rs to the picture.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

International Criminal Court jurisdiction determination?

Are you following the International Criminal Court jurisdiction determination story? I do not plan to edit the article but want to ask the experienced editors here how they plan to include it. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:430:C568:DDAB:5A11 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not relevant at the moment (for the analogy). There is International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It is included now following the HRW report calling for ICC investigation.Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

POV editing

Besides the basic violation of WP:ALLEGE, can somebody explain why the specific parts that resemble apartheid south africa was removed? I see somebody thinks Proponents of the analogy say that "a system of control" exists in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, ..., resemble some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid is proper writing. No genius, if one were to include the word "that" prior to resemble it would be proper grammar, but without that it is not an actual sentence. There really should be a basic understanding of English to edit these pages. I cant revert this latest tendentious edit right now, but will later if nobody else gets to it first. nableezy - 17:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see this before analyzing the actual article changes. The items are necessary to the lead, and they are duly expanded on below. So lead summary style. The lack of attention to the niceties of grammar is, from my editing experience today, becoming quite frequent. I have modified the lead to balance the paragraph lengths, cover the items of the analogy briefly, and relocate the some debatre for and against stuff in a distinct paragraph.Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions

A. Why does this opener have no refutations such as https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/why-israel-is-nothing-like-apartheid-south-africa.html "critics say the idea erases Arabs inside Israel, demonize the state, and erase the history of Apartheid South Africa". Also, the nation state bill being controversial should be in its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:F832:5D94:E296:9A19 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

But it does. The second paragraph is entirely about the criticism, and notes "Critics of the analogy argue that the comparison is factually and morally inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel itself". RolandR (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested addition

There is currently no reference in this article to a fairly relevant development in the form of a report released in 2017 by a UN agency, the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-report-idUSKBN16M2IN Jabambridge (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right, I am thinking how to do that, the difficulty is that it was deUN'ed, to coin a phrase. However, the report is "out there"/available and mentioned in rs, so it is a question of how to include it, precisely.Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There, I added it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible page move

The debate has shifted and it is no longer just a matter of analogy. Two recent reports are alleging the crime of Apartheid as defined by the Apartheid convention, for which SA apartheid is an example but not the definition. So at a minimum the title should say allegation rather than analogy. There is also a case for a maximalist approach as the only thing missing now is a definitive UN statement and there was one of those (ESCWA) in 2017, kicked into touch by the UN at the time but still extant nonetheless while the CERD investigation is ongoing.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

True, but what would it be?

• Apartheid in Israel: although it's not only in the Israel state but also in the West Bank and Gaza.
• Apartheid by Israel
• Israel and Apartheid
• Israeli Apartheid

-- Maudslay II (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch, long critisized for anti-Israeli bias, is not a final arbiter of who is and who is not committing acts of apartheid, so no, there is no basis for an article name change. Their opinion is relevant enough to note in the article, if attributed. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And some critisize it for pro-Israel bias. So what? HRW is the number one human rights organization in the world. And it's not only HRW who said that. For example, you have Israeli B'tselem, Israeli Yesh Din, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Palestinian Al-Haq... This is not a simple "analogy" -- Maudslay II (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. To say that Israel has only been accused of apartheid as an "analogy" is at this point just whitewashing. Human Rights Watch (or B'Tselem, etc. for that matter) isn't merely using apartheid as an analogy, it's alleging they committed the crime of apartheid – not something that it is "akin" to. I'd support a move (and probably a rewriting of the lead). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk)

Is it better to start a RM so we don't repeat the discussion over and over? -- Maudslay II (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is useful to have some prior discussion and see where that leads, there isn't any hurry to do anything and the article could do with a bit of sprucing up in the interim.Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Other options to consider for a name:

• Zionism and Apartheid
• Zionist Apartheid
• Apartheid in Palestine Tiamut^talk 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Those are... overly specific, to say the least. I think I would support something like Israel and apartheid, though I'd be open to other suggestions. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Disagree. NGOs do not have the authority do declare any state an apartheid state. We need, at the very least, an statement from the UN's security council. Not all UN organs have the same importance. (The ESCWA is comprised almost entirely by Islamic countries, declared enemies of Israel, and many of those countries are dictatorships that enforce actual apartheid policies towards their female population; and commit genocide towards their LGBT population; etc. So I would take their report with a grain of salt) - Daveout(talk) 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You have fundamentally missed the point entirely here. You do not need to believe that because NGOs have accused Israel of the crime of apartheid that that makes it so, this article describes what people have accused Israel of, we don't take sides in disputes in wikivoice. The "analogy" this article was originally describing was an accusation, too. Now, after all those years have passed, this article documents accusations of the crime of apartheid, as well accusations of apartheid more loosely as an analogy (to South Africa, mainly). We never stated in wikivoice that either of these accusations are true, it's just that while both of the accusations are in this article the title no longer makes any sense. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was mostly responding to ppl who are suggesting titles like "Israeli Apartheid" or "Zionist Apartheid" as if it were a fact and not an accusation. I do prefer the title as it now stands bc in many cases people simply compare Israel (or some of its policies) to the apartheid; this is different from acussing Israel of being an apartheid. There's a difference of stress. - Daveout(talk) 16:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2021

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: not moved – I'm withdrawing this because it's clear this is snowing in the oppose direction. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid – As per the discussion above, this article no longer merely documents comparisons that have made between apartheid and the practises of Israel, it now also documents accusations that Israel has committed the crime of apartheid, particularly the most recent accusation by Human Rights Watch. The title no longer makes sense when the article is documenting both accusations of apartheid as an analogy and as a crime against humanity, so it should be changed to reflect that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The current title is neutral enough the proposed title imply that there is apartheid in Israel.I might be OK with Israel and the apartheid accusations --Shrike (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Accusations of apartheid in Israel would be better way of phrasing the above suggestion? But again, that's not what this article is exclusively about, it also documents criticisms people have made regarding apartheid as an analogy. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Not to mention that this article is highly biased. The accusation of apartheid are flimsy and farfetched as always, and they do not come from any minimally authoritative organization like the UNSC. NGOs not rarely engage in unethical practices and unreliable investigations, HRW is no different. (example). Yes, the proposed title implies that the apartheid in israel is real. - Daveout(talk) 05:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose NGOs, esp. one with a history of a certain bias, are not arbiters of what is or is not a crime of apartheid. They get a footnote in this and related artcles regarding their 2021 statement, and that is that. Zaathras (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Per NPOV, mainstream sources and common sense. Most serious studies classify Israel as a flawed democracy. There is no racial segregation and all citizens have equal rights, regardless of race, religion and ethnicity. Sure, plenty of left-wing NGOs and individuals accuse Israel of apartheid for political reasons, because they oppose the occupation but don't see any other way to pressure Israelis to relinquish their partial control of the West Bank without the threat of a binational state (which neither Palestinians nor Israelis want, by the way). B'Tselem admitted this was their "biggest scary weapon", which they released in January of this year. But it's all there is and will be: an accusation or analogy that makes most people yawn. Not an established fact and it would be against Wikipedia policy to pretend this is the case.--SoaringLL (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't have any fixed view as to the title other than that it should reflect the article content which the current title does not. Historically, the article mainly referred to the analogy with South Africa as regards Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory. Now, due to more recent developments, the article is covering in addition the crime of apartheid which is not a question of analogy but of qualification via the Apartheid convention. The alleged crime is under investigation by CERD and has as well been reported to the ICC as a potential war crime.Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the current proposal. I understand the issue with the current title that Selfstudier expresses, and I don't have a strong preference for keeping the existing name. The question I'm concerned about is whether it could be inferred that by entitling an article "Israel and apartheid", we're saying in wikivoice that Israel has a relationship to/is perpetrating apartheid (rather than as an attributed statement). I think this concern would be irrelevant if there was wider use of the term, but although its usage appears to be growing it's still mostly limited to groups and individuals campaigning on the issue, or comparisons by academics specialising in the field; this could obviously change in the future. There's a similar discussion occurring at Uyghur genocide; there, a consensus was previously found for maintaining that article's name on the basis that it's the WP:COMMONNAME for the human rights abuses being carried out, and the current RfC is about whether the article should open by saying "The Uyghur Genocide is..." as this would be defining the events as genocide in wikivoice (I'm against this). COMMONNAME obviously doesn't apply here at the current time (people generally refer to the West Bank as "occupied" rather than being under "apartheid"). Things are also complicated by the fact that this article is explicitly about a notable criticism (critique/allegation/accusation etc.), rather than factual events by themselves (which are covered in Israeli-occupied territories, and to a lesser extent Human rights in Israel, Racism in Israel#Racism against Arab citizens by Israeli Jews etc.), and I think expressing this in the article title is helpful. I think I'd be in favour of renaming the article to something along the lines of "Israel and allegations of apartheid", but I'd like to see more discussion on this first to evaluate the arguments that others put forward. Jr8825 • Talk 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per Shrike and all the others. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (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.

The opening line

Was brutal, grammar-wise. If someone has better ideas, feel free, but please don't just blindly revert to a grammatically-bad version. Zaathras (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted for the reasons given in the edit summary (and the grammar is fine).Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh...knee-jerk response... "Israel and the apartheid analogy is criticism of the Israeli government charging that Israel has practiced apartheid against Palestinians..." is grammatically-torturous, and would make any high school English teacher cry. Work on something better, then, rather than just slapping the undo button. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that change was a clear improvement @Zaathras:, particularly as the new piped link made it unclear where it was directing readers to (MOS:PIPEDLINK). I think the biggest problem grammatically is restating the awkward title, which looks to me like WP:BOLDITIS/MOS:REDUNDANCY. The problem is that there isn't an obvious way to fix this without completely reworking the sentence, and even then it's difficult. Jr8825 • Talk 04:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The primary problem thing that should rub any English-speaker the wrong way is the double-drop of Israeli/Israel, i.e. a criticism of the Israeli government charging that Israel) in a single sentence. Looking a ways back to 2019, the opener was The Israeli apartheid analogy compares Israel's treatment of Palestinians to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era within the context of the crime of apartheid, which flowed quite nicely. Is the restating of the article title a requirement? Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I dont think thats a problem and I am a native English speaker. I think the problem is in trying to include the title of the article in the opening line. Something Like Israeli actions in the occupied territories and in Israel have resulted in comparisons to South African Apartheid and in accusations that Israel has committed the crime of apartheid.' would be better imo. nableezy - 22:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am an unrubbed native English speaker as well. Normally we do set off with the article title absent a good reason for not doing so. I'm fine with what Nableezy proposed if that will put this to bed. I'm also fine with just leaving it alone.Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually quite like the old version that Zaathras has dug up, I agree that it reads far more clearly and think it could be a good basis for a new sentence if adjusted. What about this variant:

• Israel's treatment of Palestinians, particularly in its occupation of the West Bank, has been compared to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era within the context of the crime of apartheid in international law.

some alternative wordings:

• {{xt|Israel's treatment of Palestinians, particularly in the occupied West Bank, has been compared to [[South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. In recent years, this comparison has increasingly been made within the context of the crime of apartheid in international law.}}
• Israel's treatment of Palestinians has been compared to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era within the context of international law and the crime of apartheid.

Superseded by proposals below

Where specifically do you think this wording falls short, Selfstudier & Nableezy? Is there some combination/adjustment to these that you'd be happy with? Jr8825 • Talk 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One thing this does drop is the link to Criticism of the Israeli government, but I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off in order to avoid restating the title. It could instead be linked to with a tweak to the current third sentence (beginning "Proponents of the analogy..."), or with a reworked second sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 23:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of Criticism of the Israeli government is great, I never liked it. Otoh, I really don't want to debate this relatively minor point for ever and a day.Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about it, I doubt there'd be a consensus for removing it. What about the following options:

• Israel's treatment of Palestinians, particularly in its occupation of the West Bank, has been compared to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. The comparison has been made both as a descriptive analogy and as a criticism of the Israeli government charging that it has committed the crime of apartheid against Palestinians.
• Israel's treatment of Palestinians, particularly in its occupation of the West Bank, has been compared to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era by critics of the Israeli government. The comparison has been made both as a descriptive analogy and as an accusation within the context of the crime of apartheid in international law.

Jr8825 • Talk 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: courtesy ping, as I know you'll have a view on this likely differing from others here. I believe the above is an accurate and neutral opening statement, and it addresses the current MOS:REDUNDANCY – what's your view? Jr8825 • Talk 23:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, bowing out, whatever Nableezy is happy with, I am happy with and if he is unhappy, so am I. And the article title still needs changing.Selfstudier (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

1. 1 looks alright. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

I would like to undo the last edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&diff=prev&oldid=1024882746) which added too much information.

In the article itself (and also in many other places on the web) it was criticized by others as well, so why is the need to single out only one of the critics (Itay Milner) and state his title? Either we state every critic's title or of none of them.

Thanks. Damnboiiiii (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I understand, Kontorevich has a wiklink for his criticism, but Itay Milner does not so needs more description else people won't know how to assess the value of the criticism. Is there some other criticism (in the article, the web is irrelevant) that has not been attributed? Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are other critics of the report, listed in the same article, which either need to be added specifically just like Itay Milner, or be treated collectively as *critics*:

1) Israel: "Israel adamantly rejects the term, saying the restrictions it imposes in Gaza and the West Bank are temporary measures needed for security."

2) Alon Pinkas: "Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York, rejects the term. “Occupation, yes. Apartheid, absolutely not.” "

3) Rabbi Rick Jacobs: "Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, which estimates its reach at more than 1.5 million people in 850 congregations across North America, says the situation in the West Bank and Gaza is a “moral blight” and an “occupation,” but not apartheid."

4) Another addition I think should be added (that can be viewed as self-criticism, but is a worthy addition none the less), is B'Tselem's own quote from the same article: “We are not saying that the degree of discrimination that a Palestinian has to endure is the same if one is a citizen of the state of Israel or if one is besieged in Gaza,". Which means they think the level of "apartheidness" is lower inside Israel proper.

Thanks Damnboiiiii (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand, all the critics have been attributed ("Israel" is just generic so doesn't need anything).Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not all critics have been attributed: #2 + #3 from my previous reply are not attributed. Damnboiiiii (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. I'm going to let someone else deal with this because I don't have more time to go back and forth explaining what attribution means.Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of counter argument?

Err the has legitimacy of this article has totally disappeared, as I see the entire side arguing against the analogy has been removed (since the time I last checked this article). There was even a paragraph in the first section stating what critics believe. This has disappeared. Is this a joke - are the admins sleeping? Or was this done deliberately? Durdyfiv1 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)