Talk:Israeli apartheid

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33

The main discussion area for this series of articles is at: WP:APARTHEID

Why this article is NOT NEUTRAL

An article about an analogy should not attempt to prove the analogy, but to describe it. "A is to B as C is to D" Africa apartheid is to its black citizens as Israel government is to its Arab citizens. The article purports to be about the analogy but it doesn't compare Israel's behavior to that of South Africa. What happens is that the article is not about the analogy at all, but rather is used as a slur against Israel. The analogy should be presented fairly and honestly, instead the article seeks to prove the case, which is not neutral. To pretend that a few words of "Criticism of the Apartheid analogy" somehow makes the article neutral is silly.

Starting with the lead:

The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been likened to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. United Nations Special Rapporteur John Dugard has reported to the responsible treaty monitoring bodies alleging that a system of control including separate roads, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories is different from the apartheid regime, but resembles some of its aspects. Some advocates of Palestinian rights extend this analogy to include Arab citizens of Israel, who have the same civil and political rights as do Israeli Jews, describing their citizenship status as second-class. Others use the analogy in relation to the special status that Israel accords to Jews, or to Orthodox Jews, without reference to Palestinians. Palestinian advocacy groups have also accused Israel committing the crime of apartheid. An International Court of Justice judgment declared that the Israeli security fence violates the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territory and that "the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law".

Those who reject the analogy describe Arab citizens of Israel as having the same rights as all other Israeli citizens. They state that "full social and political equality of all [Israel's] citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex" is specifically guaranteed by Israeli law. They also argue that the State of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is driven by security considerations. They state that the comparison reflects a double standard applied to Israel but not to neighbouring Arab countries.

The UN Special Rapporteur says it is different but resembles it in some aspects? That makes it a weak analogy from the start, but with the "system of control" "separate roads" "inequities in infrastructure", "legal rights, and access to land and resources" implies the truthiness of the allegation --ie tries to suggest the truth of the analogy without having to go to the trouble of describing it or providing evidence. But, in fact, the analogy only "resembles it in some respects". "Some advocates of Palestinian rights" include Arab citizens of Israel as having 2nd class rights. Meanwhile "others" & "Palestinian advocacy groups have accused Israel of the crime of apartheid. Now we are no longer talking an analogy. Now we are talking law and the International Court of Justice. Does the ICJ refer to the apartheid analogy in their comment on the "security fence"? No? Then what are they doing in the lead right after Palestinian advocacy groups have accused Israel of the crime of apartheid? Are we trying to suggest that the ICJ has employed/ agrees with this analogy? Suddenly we are discussing the ICJ's verdict on the fence? What does that have to do with apartheid? But we do see, really. We are trying to suggest that Israel is guilty of a crime. Any crime at all will do to prove the case for the apartheid analogy. It is totally unrelated to apartheid analogy and is only used to do it by some side-smearing. If you want to make a case that the fence is similar to what was done to the blacks under apartheid you must compare them. And when I tried to expand the second paragraph to try to present Israel's view a teensy bit, I was reverted. That's why, in my view, the tag goes on. Besides being a poorly written, confused article, it is mainly "anti-Zionist" apologetics. Stellarkid (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Next section under Analogy:

Supporters of the analogy cite the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which says that the crime of apartheid includes similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as those that were practiced in South Africa under apartheid. According to this view, the legal standard doesn't require that the two systems be identical, only that they share certain similarities. Those who propose the analogy argue that the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law limits the citizenship rights of Arab citizens. They also point to differences in the political rights, voting and representation of the Palestinian population, the existences of differentiated national identification cards, difference in land tenure and access to education, infrastructure, transport, travel, and movement between Israelis and Palestinians.

Supporters of this analogy in their attempt to convict Israel of the legal crime of apartheid, are satisfied with citing similar policies and practices without of course having to actually compare those policies and practices with the actual facts on the ground in our WP article. For example, are these policies, whatever they are, undertaken because of racial reasons, or for security reasons? Were separate roads made to separate the ethnicities or to provide security? These separate roads are for Israeli citizens and non-Israeli citizens, is that not so? But of course with all the wikilinks it looks very truthy. Stellarkid (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And from there on in, scrolling down the article, it is one long (attempt at) indictment of Israel after another, until we get to the bottom of the article, should anybody care to get there after having read the rest. Stellarkid (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As you've only specifically criticised the lead, that's what I'll address in response. The article is replete with sources comparing "separate roads, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources" in Israel/Palestine to apartheid. If you push the issue, we could stack a selection of sources up after this sentence from the body of the article. However that would be inelegant, it's cleaner to just given one important source that supports the sentence, which is what the Dugard source current does. Dugard says "Although the two regimes are different, Israel’s laws and practices in the OPT certainly resemble aspects of apartheid, as shown in paragraphs 49-50 above, and probably fall within the scope of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid." Obviously (duh) the two regimes are not identical, no two regimes ever are. But the source is unequivocal that Israeli practices resemble some aspects of apartheid, even if they don't mirror every single aspect of it. And that's what an analogy is, it's a statement of resemblance. The phrasing of our text could perhaps reflect Dugard better in this respect. Furthermore, Dugard not only says that Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territories resemble apartheid (with some differences), he suggests that they resemble it closely enough that they are probably in violation of international laws regarding the crime of apartheid. So clearly he's not making a weak analogy. Which leads us to your next criticism. After outlining the analogy, the lead describes the more specific allegations of violations of the international crime of apartheid. To accuse Israel of violating the international law regarding apartheid is a very specific and strong form of the apartheid analogy. It's a "child" subject of this article, one that is currently embedded in the article. Even if there was to be a separate article on Israel and the crime of apartheid the subject would still have a section in this article, with a link to the full article. Therefore it should be described in the lead, and the only logical place to put it is where it is, after the general analogy is described.

So your criticism of the lead doesn't stand up. What you perceive as the lead attempting to prove the analogy, is actually a systematic approach to describing its use. First the lead says that some sources make a comparison to South African apartheid (i.e. the apartheid analogy), then it says that some sources go further and suggest the crime of apartheid is being committed. What you're perceiving as a polemic is actually about the only logical way to outline the public discourse comparing Israeli policy to apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it may strike you as "the only logical way to outline public discourse" but there are quite a number of people who disagree with you, as witness the huge numbers of AfD's for this article. [1] These people mostly feel the article is so far gone as to be unsalvageable. And granted it is close but if totally reworked, starting with the lead maybe we can introduce some neutrality to it. The first step is adding the POV tag. Now to address your points.

"The article is replete with sources comparing "separate roads, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources" in Israel/Palestine to apartheid." Well we were supposedly talking about the lead, but seeing how they are interrelated ok. Take the Land and Infrastructure section for example. How is the analogy to apartheid made in that section? How is it compared to the African system on which the crime of apartheid is modeled? How are the similarities described? Obviously an analogy is not an equation, only a correspondence, but how is the correspondence described?

• • an assistant college prof says "[m]any view these Israeli policies of territorial integration and societal separation as apartheid, even if they were never given such a name."
  • B'Tselem wrote in 2004 that "Palestinians are barred from or have restricted access to 450 miles of West Bank roads, a system with 'clear similarities' to South Africa's former apartheid regime".[57]
  • B'Tselem described this as a first step towards "total 'road apartheid'".[59]
  • a Palestinian legislator and former presidential candidate, said that apartheid was the only word to describe Israel's creation of separate roads for Palestinians.

To answer my question, it is not. We have one biased college professor, 2 quotes from a self-acknowledged Palestinian advocacy group, and a Palestinian politician and legislator who claim that parts of the road system are "the first step to" , "have clear similarities to" and that "many view it as" (even if they don't say so), and that "apartheid" is the only way to describe it. (Sounds like you above "the only logical way," lol) Of course no one describes the South African road system and its similarities to the Israeli system or shows in just what way these are similar. I guess we could say, because they say it is. But there are a number of points of difference, I think, though I am not quite sure what the road system was like in South Africa, certainly this article doesn't tell me. For one though, I would ask, did the Black South Africans have access to the Federal courts and sometimes get rulings in their favor over the Whites? Take for example Highway 443 which was closed to Palestinian traffic in 2002, during the second intifada, after terrorist attacks against Israeli vehicles which killed six people. In 2009 the Israeli court ruled in favor of the Palestinians, and opened the road to them again. While many in Israel did not like the ruling, (and cited an instance where a road was opened for Palestinians by the High Court and shortly thereafter "a girl was burned"), [2] how does the ability to have one's grievances redressed in court compare to the African system?. You see, there is no description of the South African side, no real comparisons of much of anything, no descriptions of the situation of apartheid which we are presumably comparing it to (showing those similarities you were talking about), no discussion or description or the parallels, just a lot of negative assertions and assumptions. In fact most of this article could be turned into a LIST List of people and groups that believe the apartheid analogy Stellarkid (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does strike me as the only logical way to present the discourse, and you haven't presented a suitable alternative. The many AfDs are irrelevant, except to demonstrate that the existence of the article has repeatedly been found to be in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines by community consensus, because all the AfDs failed. Curiously, when you list all those sources regarding land/roads (and bearing in mind the other sources on the topic in the article, including Dugard), I draw exactly the opposite conclusion to you. These sources demonstrate that the analogy is being made in relation to land/roads, which is all we need here. All the article should do is present the various positions held on this subject. It doesn't matter that you don't hold the sources in high regard, in relation to sources of opinion NPOV only asks that each side "be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material". You may be right that the article would benefit from more in-depth explanation for the reasons behind the specific analogy such as that regarding land & movement. However, that is not a POV issue. Nothing that you've present so far is a POV issue as defined in NPOV, all the article does at present is in keeping with the policy to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." You need to present your objection in a more specific manner, with reference to actual Wikipedia policy. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps what you are concerned by is parity? You may consider the apartheid analogy to be a fringe perspective, which should not be described on an equal footing with the view that there is no comparison. That's an assertion we could have an actual POV discussion about, because it raises the possibility of a violation of the actual Wikipedia NPOV policy, unlike your arguments to date. However, I'd have to warn you that I believe this assertion has also been raised repeatedly, and like the AfDs the community consensus is against it. When it comes to the apartheid analogy, there appears to be a very real division in the scholarship among political scientists - this isn't a question like Holocaust denial where the proponents are a tiny minority of clear crackpots. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede never defines the so-called "apartheid analogy". For some reason, which has never been explained, the definition of the crime of apartheid was removed from the article too. That fact, and the extremely poor choice of a title makes intelligent discourse almost impossible. If you make or draw an analogy between two things, you show that they are similar in some way. See the dictionary entry for analogy [3] Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid says that the crime of apartheid consists, among other things, of similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as those that were practiced in South Africa. In short, both the proponents and the opponents of the so-called "analogy" are saying that the policies and practices of Israel and South Africa are similar in some way.

The proponents of the so-called analogy have wasted a lot of space and effort without ever explaining what elements of similarity give rise to criminal responsibility, and what elements do not. For example, the "argument" that "the State of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is driven by security considerations" would not alter the legal responsibility or consequences, since Article 3 of the Apartheid Convention provides that "International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved". In the Namibia and Wall cases, the Court didn't even inquire into all of the possible motivations that might lay behind the violation of fundamental human rights, since international law does not permit their derogation.

I suggest that the article be moved to Israel and the prohibition of apartheid, because the UN reports and judgments do not mention any "analogy" and seldom, if ever, are based upon a mere comparison to South Africa. I'm not aware of any published authority who has identified his or her self as an "opponent of the analogy" either. In the HSRC study, John Dugard et al took great pains to explain that acts in potential violation of international law are correctly measured against the provisions and necessary elements of the legal instruments drafted to address them. Other cases where their violation occurred are merely illustrative.

In 1995, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated that practices identical to apartheid, as defined by the statute, continued to exist in several parts of the world. See A/50/18, 22 September 1995. The Apartheid Convention is drafted in such a way as not to apply solely to the South African case, although South Africa was mentioned as an example. The prevailing view of international legal scholars is that the Convention is clearly universal in character and not confined to the practice of apartheid as seen in southern Africa. See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 19: Racial segregation and apartheid (Art. 3), 18 August 1995; Roger S. Clark, ‘Apartheid’, in M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Criminal Law, Volume I, 1999, 643, pp. 643-644; and Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law, Second Edition, (Cavendish, 2003), pp. 121-122. The fact that Dugard said that Israeli practices had a resemblance to those of South Africa hardly disposes of the mstter, since the same report contained a finding that elements of the occupation constituted colonialism and actual apartheid. harlan (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harlan. You seem to be viewing this solely from a legal perspective. As I see it, it makes sense to first discuss the comparison that many authors have made between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and apartheid South Africa, and then to discuss the legal implications of this comparison that have also sometimes been raised. It's not correct to say that nobody discusses the analogy: many of the other scholars are quoted in the article discussing the analogy without reference to legal implications, and Adam and Moodley explicitly refer to it as an analogy. Likewise, while United Nations sources are important and relevant, we also have many non-UN sources of information on the subject ranging from academics to journalists and politicians, many of whom aren't discussing legal implications. I think what you're wanting is an article about Israel and the crime of apartheid. This isn't that article, although it does contain a section summarises that subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Randy you missed the point. This article is cited using a {{main}} template in a subsection of the Human rights in Israel article. It is listed in the See Also section of the Crime of Apartheid article. Yet there is little, if any, evidence that this article has ever contained coverage of the provisions of the relevant conventions, responsible treaty bodies, country reports, and court submissions on the topic of Israel and the prohibition of apartheid. The title indicates that this is a POV fork representing the "Criticisms of" or "Reception of" viewpoint for which no main article actually exists (see WP:CRIT). It obscures the legal issues and official statements made by the government of Israel and other state parties to the CERD and ICJ. It gives undue weight to irrelevant arguments and editorials that completely ignore the prescribed elements of the offense and constituent acts of the crime of apartheid. harlan (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that would be a fine addition and it sounds like you would be well equipped to take a stab at writing such a section. Unomi (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't a POV fork, unless the POV fork you have in mind is that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians can be compared to apartheid South African treatment of non-whites as a general subject, with the legal ramifications being one aspect of that subject. I don't think that's a limited point of view, I think it's a fairly common approach to the subject matter that is taken by a number of the reliable sources in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course this article is a POV fork, the ARBCOM history shows there was a wheel war over titles based upon allegations of the crime of apartheid vs. the apartheid analogy. The fact is that many of the sources cited have nothing to do with any analogy. I cited links from Human Rights in Israel and the Crime of Apartheid to this article. Those are subjects of international law, not comparisons to South Africa. The analogy is irrelevant in that context and should only be mentioned in the "criticisms of" or "reception of" section of the article. The international conventions do not even mention South Africa. Although one of them mentions "southern Africa", the negotiating history indicates that it was simply cited for the purpose of illustration and has no connection to satisfying the necessary elements of the criminal offense. harlan (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The article still does not meet the standards of a neutral Wikipedia article. It still reads as an essay style (ie: I believe this theory, here is my proof). This is understandable: the main contributors have been anti-Israel warriors who have sought information to build their case against Israel. The small criticism section does not solve the NPOV issues. This article, to be an appropriate Wikipedia article about an analogy, needs a MAJOR rewrite to read more informatively and less preachily. It needs to be encyclopedic, describing only who compares Israel to apartheid and what their reasoning is. It cannot be so apparently one-sided. If people have ideas as to how to deal with this issue, I welcome discussion. PS: now that the discussion is no longer dormant, I am reinserting the NPOV tag. Breein1007 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please identify a specific passage in the article that you think has an WP:NPOV issue, and if there's consensus from the other editors we can fix it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess you didn't understand what I meant in my last message. I'll try to be more concise. The article needs a major rewrite. There is not one section posing a problem. The entire article is not written in an encyclopedic manner in a neutral tone. It presents one side as right and goes out of its way to prove it, and then gives a small section of "criticism" in a way that makes it seem as if the criticism is coming from a small group of people and is unfounded. Breein1007 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If the "entire article is not written in an encyclopedic manner in a neutral tone" then it will be easy for you to identify a specific passage that's not written in an encyclopedic manner in a neutral tone. As I see it, the article presents the analogy and the criticism in a neutral manner, each weighted according to the reliable sources we have available for them, per WP:NPOV. If you believe that the presentation of the analogy is too positive, then make suggestions of how it could be more neutral. If you think that there are more criticisms of the analogy that should be made or they should be presented differently, then let's see your sources and how you think they should be presented. Talk pages are for constructive discussion, not for hand-waving criticism with no movement towards solutions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA material removed for discussion

CAMERA is not a reliable source. The statements of Benny Morris cannot be included without making reference to his publicly acknowledged support and acceptance of ethnic cleansing and forced population transfers involving Palestinians.

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid was contained in General Assembly resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973. The resolution says that the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" contains certain acts which may also be qualified as acts of apartheid. The preamble of the Apartheid Convention observes that, "inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid" are included in the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Morris has attempted to justify the atrocities and ethnic cleansing committed by Israel in 1948, including the total destruction of hundreds of villages; the removal by force of several hundreds of thousands of the Palestinian inhabitants; the confiscation of the refugees private and communal lands; and the labeling of the possible return of the Palestinian inhabitants as a demographic threat. He has stated that sometimes ethnic cleansing is a good thing. See "Survival of the fittest", [4] A scheduled appearance by Morris at Cambridge recently resulted in an uproar. Ben White, who authored the book Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide, complained that “on different occasions, Morris has expressed Islamophobic and racist sentiments towards Arabs and Muslims.” See "Benny Morris talk stirs uproar at Cambridge", By Jonny Paul, 07/02/2010, Jerusalem Post [5] <snip>

New Historian Benny Morris told CAMERA:

"Israel is not an apartheid state — rather the opposite, it is easily the most democratic and politically egalitarian state in the Middle East, in which Arabs Israelis enjoy far more freedom, better social services, etc. than in all the Arab states surrounding it. Indeed, Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.) The best comparison would be the treatment of Japanese Americans by the US Govt ... and the British Govt. [incarceration] of German émigrés in Britain WWII ... Israel's Arabs by and large identify with Israel's enemies, the Palestinians. But Israel hasn't jailed or curtailed their freedoms en masse (since 1966 [when Israel lifted its state of martial law]).

Morris later added: "Israel ... has not jailed tens of thousands of Arabs indiscriminately out of fear that they might support the Arab states warring with Israel; it did not do so in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 or 1982 — despite the Israeli Arabs' support for the enemy Arab states."

"As to the occupied territories, Israeli policy is fueled by security considerations (whether one agrees with them or not, or with all the specific measures adopted at any given time) rather than racism (though, to be sure, there are Israelis who are motivated by racism in their attitude and actions towards Arabs) — and indeed the Arab population suffers as a result. But Gaza's and the West Bank's population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues, which itself is a function of the continued state of war between the Hamas-led Palestinians (and their Syrian and other Arab allies) and Israel."

</snip> harlan (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to break down into two issues. 1) Is CAMERA a reliable source for the opinions of Benny Morris? I would think it may well be, even though it's not a reliable source for facts. 2) Is Benny Morris a commentator whose opinions are significant to the subject of this article? Personally, I think that if Benny Morris's arguments are representative of those who argue against the apartheid analogy, and he is a public commentator who many people consider to represent their perspective, then we should include his opinions while making clear that they are opinions. NPOV only requires us to present opinions on both sides of an issue with weight relative to their significance, not to ensure that those opinions are "factual" or that the person holding the opinions is held in high esteem by all other commentators. Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA is "RS" only for its own opinions and nothing else, IMO. The notability of CAMERAs opinions is dubious. Currently CAMERA is mentioned in the lead of this article, which I'm presently going to rectify. --Dailycare (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The first finding in the ARBCOM case on this article prohibits the use of Wikipedia for propaganda.[6] I believe that rules out the use of CAMERA material that is verifiable, but known to be false or misleading. The Nelson Mandela quote mentioned in a subsection above can be sourced to the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Jerusalem Post, Commentary Magazine, and several books. Nonetheless, it has been left out because the consensus of opinion is that it may not be "factual". Randy mentioned that CAMERA isn't a reliable source for facts, but may not have noticed that the material above is only sourced to a CAMERA webpage which says "Benny Morris told CAMERA" & etc....

Several interested parties in the ICJ Wall case pointed out that state-supported ethnic cleansing is a constituent act of the crime of apartheid. The CAMERA article ignores Morris' own published reports and views regarding atrocities and ethnic cleansing operations that were carried out against the Palestinian people by elements of the organized Jewish militias. Those operations enlarged the territory controlled by the state of Israel well beyond the boundaries proposed by the UN, and have displaced the majority of the Arab inhabitants for more than 60 years. NPOV requires the inclusion of all the significant views that have been published on that topic. Morris disagrees with historians, like Ilan Pappe, who have concluded that displacement of the Arab inhabitants was one of the goals of Zionist policy. In any event, Morris' works detail actions taken by the State of Israel to capitalize upon and maintain the situations that were created on its behalf.

Morris' works were cited in the written statements that were submitted to the ICJ. See for example para 26 on page 172 of the Written Statement of Jordan, Annex 1, "Origins and Early Phases of Israel's Policy of Expulsion and Displacement of Palestinians" [7]. One of the Court's findings in the Wall case was that Israel had altered the demographic composition of the occupied territory by methods that contravene the prohibitions on displacement contained in article 49 paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See paragraph 122, 133,and 134 [8]

The Jordanian statement cited the guiding principles of international law reflected in UN doc. E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 [9]. It says that the prohibition of arbitrary displacement includes displacement when it is based on policies of apartheid, "ethnic cleansing" or similar practices aimed at/or resulting in altering the ethnic, religious or racial composition of the affected population. [10] The Security Council, General Assembly, and ICJ have each held that the State of Israel must provide a just settlement to the Palestinians that have been displaced since 1948, including either the right of return or compensation. Legal publicists and scholars, like Alexander Orakhelashvili, have stated that a "just settlement" can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians. Orakhelashvili said that it must be presumed that the Security Council did not adopt decisions that validated mass deportation or displacement, since expulsion or deportation are crimes against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime. See The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, by Alexander Orakhelashvili, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1, pp 59-88. harlan (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Benny Morris is a highly respected historian. You can't poison the well every time he is mentioned by accusing him of advocating ethnic cleansing because you personally dislike him. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it well poisoning? Read the interview ""There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing." Unomi (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Have made a couple of small changes to the 1st Para

...but nothing that changes the basic character of it. I did remove a line about Israeli supporters and their opinions, and will move that into the 2nd para as more appropriate there. I did want to say that I am bothered by this last sentence in para 1 --"An International Court of Justice judgment declared that the Israeli security fence violates the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territory and that "the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law". I don't object to the sentence, per se, but it hangs where it is. It appears to be making the case that the wall is apartheid, and even if it is true that the wall is illegal in the opinion of ICJ, it doesn't say anything about apartheid. I suggest removing it to the appropriate section on the fence below. [I haven't read that far yet, but I am assuming there is a section about the fence ;)]

You obviously haven't read John Dugard's report which recommended that another advisory opinion be obtained to "compliment" the findings of the earlier ICJ opinion. Several of the interested parties in the Wall case filed written statements which said that the construction of the Wall and the resulting situation fulfilled constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the ICERD, the Rome Statute, and Protocol I of the Geneva Convention. See for example the Statement of Lebanon [11] and the written statement of Syria [12] Other parties said that public records available in Israel show that from the earliest days of its existence Israel has been driven by an overriding policy to secure for the State of Israel the whole of the former mandated territory of Palestine, and to drive out of that territory the vast bulk of the indigenous Arab population in order to make room for an incoming Jewish population. They said that those demographic changes i.e. displacement, deportations, and population transfers constitute ethnic cleansing. See Annex 1 to the written statement of Jordan [13].

The Court found that the associated administrative regime that had been created by Israel in the Occupied territory was illegal and listed many of the constituent acts contained in article 2 of the apartheid convention as the basis of its rationale. Furthermore, the Court stated those practices had not impeded the rights of Israeli settlers and that they had contributed to demographic changes in the Occupied territory that contravene Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See paragraph 134 of the Court's opinion [14] The Court said the legal consequences for other states entailed violation by Israel of certain obligations erga omnes which all states had an interest in protecting. Apartheid is listed as a crime against humanity in which no individual state has an exclusive interest or jurisdiction. See the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity [15] harlan (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While John Dugard's report was probably meant to "complement" rather than "compliment" the findings of the ICJ opinion, I suspect your misuse of the term was in fact a more accurate assessment. I did in fact read the report, but I question whether you read my post above, since your soapboxing did not address the issue at all. My point is that if you read the policy of WP:LEAD you will find that the lead is supposed to have certain characteristics, one being that it summarizes the main points of the article. That sentence does not do that. In fact there is very little in the article about the fence at all, so its inclusion in the lead is misplaced. Stellarkid (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinsley on the lack of Mandela

I have removed this passage: Citing what he calls "the most tragic difference," Kinsley concludes: "If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?"

It is unclear how that relates to the concept of apartheid. Unomi (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Marwan Barghouti uses terrorism, which makes him a strange choice for "Palestine's Mandela". Hcobb (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mandela, too, was convicted of terrorism. In his famous speech from the dock, he said "I, and the others who started the organisation, felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the government. We chose to defy the law." [16] RolandR (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And indeed, the similarity ends where that begins, since not only is this not an issue of "white supremacy," but the Palestinians within Israel have access to the courts and representatives in the legislature, and with respect to the Palestinians in the disputed territories, Israel has always been open to negotiations as long as no preconditions are demanded. So this analogy fails miserably. Stellarkid (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That should read "Israel has always been open to negotiations so long as its preconditions are conceded, and there is no discussion of return of dispersed Palestinian, sovereignty over Jerusalem, or the Jewish nature of the state". RolandR (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pentagon called the ANC a major terrorist organization in the late 80's. But that is besides the point, my question is: what do personalities of the south african apartheid have to do with the analogy that the Israel government employs apartheid policies? Mandela and the ANC were a reaction to apartheid, not a fundamental aspect of the concept. Unomi (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it just shows how the analogists are choking on straws. Let's move the article to Israel and the lebensraum analogy. Hcobb (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb, I don't understand what you are getting at? Dershowitz holds that the ANC was practicing counterterrorism, but still.. Why are we discussing identifiable actors in South African politics in an article on the analogous nature of government policies? As for lebensraum, surely you mean ארץ ישראל השלמה? Unomi (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Another bright and funny editor! :D Stellarkid (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources making that comparison? We have hundreds comparing Israel's policies with apartheid. RolandR (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Try Googling "Greater Israel", lol -- Stellarkid (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, I agree with Unomi in that the deleted text doesn't seem notable, since surely no-one is claiming that without Mandela, there wouldn't have been apartheid in South Africa. --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished Synthesis - removed for discussion

For the purposes of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the term "the crime of apartheid", included similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, not just South Africa. The UN had condemned both South African and Portuguese governments as apartheid regimes, and refused to recognize Rhodesia after it adopted a constitution that reserved political rights for whites only.

The neutral voice of the encyclopedia cannot be used to publish original research which labels organizations, groups, and individuals as "supporters of the analogy" or "opponents of the analogy". I've made numerous talk page requests for the use of WP:RS sources for the so-called "analogy". In the "Analogy" subsection of the article, the terms of the Convention are misquoted - South Africa vs southern Africa - and none of the sources that are cited actually identify themselves as "Supporters of the analogy". In fact, one of the articles is actually titled "Not an Analogy: Israel under Apartheid". Another article (Znet) applies sections of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid "directly" to the JNF and ILA. The subsections of the Convention that are quoted contained no comparison to southern Africa, they only recite the constituent acts and elements of the criminal offense.

This is an example of deliberately presenting a subject in an unfair way through selective representation of sources. The NPOV tutorial describes it as an example of Information Suppression]: "Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors." Sources which cite Israeli violations of the relevant international conventions are not necessarily employing an analogy, they are describing Israeli policies and practices that violate international law.

==Analogy== :Supporters of the analogy cite the [[International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid]], which says that the [[crime of apartheid]] includes ''similar'' policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as those that were practiced in [[South Africa under apartheid]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.caiaweb.org/node/1315|title=Not an Analogy: Israel and the Crime of Apartheid|last=Jamjoum|first=Hazeem|date=5 April 2009|publisher=Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid|accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zcommunications.org/a-campaign-to-challenge-israeli-apartheid-palestinian-campaign-by-kole-kilibarda|title=A Campaign to Challenge Israeli Apartheid Palestinian Campaign|last=Kilibarda|first=Kole|date=31 March 2005|publisher=ZNet|accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.caiaweb.org/southafricanconnection|title=The South African Connection|last=Kolliah|first=Zahir|date=25 February 2007|publisher=Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid|accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref> According to this view, the legal standard doesn't require that the two systems be identical, only that they share certain similarities. Those who propose the analogy argue that the [[Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law]] limits the citizenship rights of Arab citizens. They also point to differences in the political rights, voting and representation of the Palestinian population, the existences of differentiated national identification cards, difference in [[land tenure]] and access to education, infrastructure, transport, travel, and movement between [[Israelis]] and [[Palestinians]].

harlan (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Supporters is a very common term on WP, so reverting. List of integral thinkers and supporters List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States etc. Hcobb (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Sorry, but I've been asking for references on this for months now. Simply reverting and tagging is no longer sufficient, since this material is outright WP:OR and WP:Synth. The article asserts that authors of articles which say they are NOT discussing an analogy are "supporters of the analogy". That is utter nonsense that deliberately misrepresents what the sources actually say. harlan (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so where do we go? Apartheid policies of Israel? Unomi (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That would prejuding the issue before our sources have shifted to that position. For example if an international court found Israel guilty of Apartheid then we should rename from analogy to reality. Hcobb (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the solution here not to just add a "Critics of the analogy say that...." paragraph to try and present both sides of the argument? NickCT (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Lebanon did not utilize or criticize "the analogy". It filed a written submission with the ICJ saying "The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid [17]

The title Israel and the prohibition of apartheid would not prejudge anything, but Israel and the apartheid analogy is deliberately misleading. Many of the sources are discussing the crime of apartheid, not an analogy to South Africa.

The Statutes adopted by the UN Security Council for the Ad Hoc international criminal tribunals recognized the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I as customary international law that is binding on non-signatories. The Conventions designate population displacement or transfer, and apartheid as grave breaches and war crimes. See Article 85(4)(a)&(b), and 85(5) [18]. The contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions agree to adopt national legislation which addresses grave beaches. The jurisdiction of the ICC is "complimentary" to the jurisdiction of the national courts of its member states. Several states have either asked that Israel be investigated or have charged Israel with genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and persecution in written submissions that are pending before various national and international courts. For example, the League of Arab States recently submitted a report which cited the ICJ Wall case and requested that the ICC investigate and prosecute the responsible individuals. The written and oral submissions in the Wall case and the judgment itself contained evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, ethnic cleansing/displacement, and apartheid. [19]

South Africa was never found to be guilty of the "crime of apartheid". The ICJ rejected the request that it consider factual evidence submitted by South Africa. It simply determined the policy of apartheid as applied by South Africa in Namibia was not in conformity with the international obligations assumed by South Africa under the Charter of the United Nations. See paragraph 129 of the Nambia Advisory Opinion [20]. A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal does not require any further findings from the judicial organs before the international responsibility of UN member states is engaged. It was the political organs of the United Nations and the contracting state parties to the various conventions which determined that apartheid is a violation of international law; that it is a crime against humanity; and that it isn't subject to any statute of limitations. For example, the US adopted its Comprehensive anti-Apartheid Act on the strength of UN Security Council resolution 418, which was cited in the Act.[21] harlan (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with Israel and the prohibition of apartheid, I think the title is more becoming of an encyclopedia and is more in line with the quality of the discourse in serious sources. Unomi (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. A number of people have made an "analogy with apartheid" in relation to the current situation in Israel (e.g. Carter). It would appear to me that the "analogy" has been made so many times, that the viewpoint is WP:NOTABLE. This article is intended to discuss the analogy that's been made, regardless of wether or not it's valid.

If you're arguing that the title of this article is SYNTH b/c what's happening in Israel isn't technically apartheid, you're missing the point b/c the title doesn't suggest what's happening in Israel is appartheid.

I'm still a little confused about whether your issue is with the title of the article, or the content Harlan? NickCT (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, but I could be wrong, that the issue is that Crime of apartheid exists as a legal definition which is inspired by but separate from Apartheid in South Africa. There are sources that are in fact not making claims of analogy, they are making claims that extant policies do in fact fall under Crime of apartheid. Labeling those views as making claims of analogy is to do them a disservice. Unomi (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Unomi for a concise and clear explination. I get it now. I guess the point is that two groups of critics exist. Group 1 (analogy group) says "What is happening in Israel is like apartheid". Group 2 (legal group) says "What is happening in Israel is apartheid as defined by international law". Including Group 2 in this artcle is wrong because they are not making an analogy.

If that is an accurate description of the debate, my response would be that this article (with the current title) should only cover Group 1's view point, and maybe give brief mention to Group 2.

If you want to rename the article to so that both groups viewpoints might be described without doing them a disservice that's fine; however, Israel and the prohibition of apartheid is definately no-good becuse 1) It obfuscates the issue (which might be harlan's intent) and 2) It suggest apartheid has been prohibitted in Israel, which seems to poison-the-well and have serious POV issues.

Perhaps Allegations of Apartheid in Israel? Israel and Apartheid Allegations? Claims of Israeli Apartheid? Suggest Apartheid in Israel ? NickCT (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is the previous, very short, discussion. Unomi (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok.... perhaps take another poll of "allegations" to see if conensus has changed? I don't know. Do you have other suggestions? I just know Israel and the prohibition of apartheid ain't kosher. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about it either way, I agree that the current title is unsatisfactory though. At the moment I don't see a problem with Allegations of.. Harlan, how does that sound to you? Unomi (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Editors have correctly pointed out that Allegations of the crime of apartheid is a biased title, since many of the sources cited in the article merely make casual comparisons that aren't intended to be criminal indictments. Israel and the prohibition of apartheid allows for the incorporation of material from sources that make criminal allegations, use analogies, or sources that do both. An "analogy" article is not suitable for material that falls within the scope of the Human Rights or International Law projects. The usual practice is to have an accurate title with subsections that present opposing views, or "criticisms of"/"reception of" subsections. harlan (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't adress either of the concerns I'd listed above. I think Israel and the prohibition of apartheid is unacceptable. We can poll it if you like, but I largely suggest that will result in "no consensus". NickCT (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

An ordinary editor can use the move tab without obtaining consensus. You suggested that Israel and the prohibition of apartheid "ain't kosher" because it suggests that apartheid has been prohibited in Israel. I didn't respond because Israel is a signatory of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 3 provides that "States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction." Many of the sources cited in the article claim, or take as a "given", that discrimination in employment, public accommodation, civil rights, & etc. is prohibited under Israeli law. So, unlike "the analogy", there is an acknowledged published source for "the prohibition" of apartheid. harlan (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, ok, so we now know that Apartheid is prohibited in Israel. I do concede that at first blush Israel and the prohibition of apartheid seems a bit clunky. How about simply Israel and apartheid? That seems fairly neutral and open ended? Unomi (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan - This is an article about a widely expressed viewpoint concerning apartheid in Israel. You are clearly trying to select a title that dismisses that viewpoint out of hand. Now, as I assume good faith, I assume you're not simply POV pushing here, but I'd suggest you drop the legalistic antics and forget Israel and the prohibition of apartheid.

Unomi - I'm good with your suggestion, but at this point I wonder if we should poll it.... NickCT (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Nick, I don't think that Harlan wants to dismiss it at all, I myself am not quite clear on the specific value of the article name he ventured, but I am fairly sure that this comes down to a failure on my part. I do however think that Israel and Apartheid is short, concise and offers a good basis on which to compare and contrast. I wish we had some more editors involved in this discussion. Perhaps polling will bring them out of the woodwork. Unomi (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest and useless discussions I've witnessed. There's nothing wrong with the current title regardless of what legalese Harlan wants to throw in here. It seems Harlan has zero ability to try to look at things neutrally. The current title is completely sufficient given that an analogy can be true OR it can be false!!! Harlan is absurdly poisoning the well by trying to presuppose that Israel is guilty of "apartheid." Let's drop this pointless discussion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the above sentiments. Not sure how this discussion about synthesis meandered into a name change. The current name was the result of a long discussed consensus. Any change from the status quo would have to go through an official page move thread, lest anyone think this little chitchat is a consensus for a move.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler and Brewcrewer the written submissions of the state parties in the ICJ Wall case did not mention any analogy. They cited examples of the constituent acts of apartheid contained in the international convention that defines the crime of apartheid. In several instances, material about the crime of apartheid has been removed or synth'd into an analogy by editors who claim this article is only about the analogy, not apartheid. See for example [22] So, some editors insist that everything is an analogy, and that the analogy is not equivalent to apartheid. I think this little chitchat will result in a request for clarification from Arbcom.

NickCT I believe that POV pushing like that has resulted in there being no suitable Wikipedia article about anything but the so-called analogy. Several editors have explained the need for an article about the analogy on the ground that it represents a well-known POV. I've looked through the archives and ARBCOM decisions and can't find any evidence of there being an agreement to that effect. Wikipedia does allow "Articles whose subject is a POV", like Creationism and Evolution, but there is no corresponding article that actually reviews Israeli practices relative to the prohibition of apartheid in international law. The result is that articles about international law and human rights get linked to an article about the analogy POV. harlan (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, What are the downsides to Israel and Apartheid? Unomi (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. harlan (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, for my part I see it as short and simple with a neutral tone. I suspect that you have a few detailed arguments for why the current name is inadequate, I would suggest that it would be beneficial to the casual reader to also offer up a 'talking points' version. Unomi (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm OK with Israel and Apartheid too. The main rub with the present title, IMO, is that some editors have criticised some content of this article for not making an analogy to South African apartheid, which in my view isn't the purpose since the analogy refers to the crime of apartheid. So while I don't see this as a major issue, I do support move to "Israel and apartheid". --Dailycare (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not OK with the name discussed above. A much better name would be Propaganda regarding Israel and apartheid. That name is not POV, as it is now, and not another POV as it suggested here by Harlan wilkerson and unomi, and that name is much better represents the topics discussed in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I find myself in agreement with Plot Spoiler & brew. I think hell just froze over. I support no change. But I'm a little confused when PlotSpo says "Harlan is absurdly poisoning the well by trying to presuppose that Israel is guilty of "apartheid." I would have said the title tries to presuppose Israel is innocent of "apartheid". The word "prohibition" means to ban (i.e. prohibition of slavery). If I made an article called "America and the prohibition of slavery" does the title suggest america is guilty of slavery? In conclusion, to be clear I support no change or change to Israel and apartheid. Obviously Mbz's suggestion is unacceptable as it is a sensless attempt to inject POV (no surprise there). NickCT (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename article to "Israel and allegations of apartheid". This removes the analogy term without prejudging the nation or citizens therein guilty of a crime before this is found to be so in some court of law. Do I have a second for the motion? Hcobb (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes NickCT, believe it or not we can have some shared opinions as it should be. No change. This whole discussion is pointless and is an attempt by Harlan to presuppose that Israel is guilty of apartheid. What a waste of (virtual) ink! Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Could those against Israel and Apartheid please tell me why they find it problematic? Unomi (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

@Hcobb - read above. Your proposal already offered and discussed. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with how Israel and the apartheid analogy includes discussion of the crime of apartheid. I think discussion of whether the crime of apartheid has been committed is a subset of the analogy. Especially because this hasn't gone to the international court, so any discussion of whether a crime is being committed by Israel is speculation (speculation by UN figures, but still speculation), and that speculation necessarily involves a comparison, even if it's an indirect one. However, I would also be okay with Israel and apartheid, in fact that was my preferred title last time a move was discussed. Alternatively, I would also be happy with a split, with the legal discussion being split to Israel and the crime of apartheid and summarised here in the analogy article. I don't like any of the other suggestions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, the implementation of the Apartheid convention does not require that matters be submitted to the international court. The convention contains no compromissory clause which would make the jurisdiction of the ICJ compulsory in the event of a dispute between parties. General Assembly Resolution 60/251 (i) decided that the Human Rights Council would maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure; (ii) review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations; and (iii) that it would address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations. The Special Rapporteur already made a determination that the situation in the occupied territories constitutes apartheid. He merely suggested that an advisory opinion might be obtained regarding the separate question of the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States.

The political organs of the family of nations have declared that certain acts are prohibited at all times, regardless of motive. See for example Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. [23] They have also established international organizations and treaty monitoring bodies to peacefully settle disputes or suppress threats to peace and international order without the need to constantly submit matters to the international courts. The non-judicial organs of the UN routinely make determinations that a violation of international law has occurred within their areas of competence. See for example, HRC/RES/S-9/1, [24] which decided to dispatch an international fact-finding mission to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Those sort of determinations are in keeping with international jurisprudence. For example, the London Agreement regarding the establishment of the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings was based on earlier non-judicial determinations that crimes had been committed. It explained that the United Nations had "from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals shall be brought to justice". The Security Council followed that earlier legal precedent when it established the ad hoc international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It relied upon the reports of its own panels of legal experts and rapporteurs to determine that crimes had been committed, and then it ordered the establishment of tribunals so that the responsible parties could be brought to justice. General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13 determined that the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory violated international law. Resolution ES-10/14 merely requested an advisory opinion regarding the possible legal consequences that resulted from that situation. harlan (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename proposal - first steps

Notification

• I've notified WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Palestine, and WikiProject Israel about this discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified WP:APARTHEID about this discussion. Unomi (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Apartheid

Source Repository - Please review before commenting.

Pro

• Short, concise and offers a good basis on which to compare and contrast. Unomi (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see how this title presupposes that claims have validity.
• There are 3 main types of sources as far as I can see, some are comparing Israeli policies to those of the South African apartheid regime directly. Others are drawing directly from the text of Crime of Apartheid, and while those obviously were motivated by the South African scenario they remain distinct. While yet another contrasts Israeli policies with South African ones highlighting the differences. As such the title containing the word analogy misses the mark, it constitutes a false analogy if you will. Unomi (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is an accusation - Crime of Apartheid - not an analogy. This is one of the most distorted article titles in all of wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Analogy is a misleading term in respect of this article. Bjmullan (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• It is not merely an analogy it is an allegation of a crime, a violation of international law. Factomancer (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

An allegation by whom? If Israel was an apartheid, why hasn't the international community taken any steps over the last 40 years to end it? Israel is not in violation of any "international law" as far as apartheid allegations go. Please tell me what laws in regards to race-based institutionalized discrimination Israel is in violation of. I'm waiting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have not read any of the sources? Unomi (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this renaming bid is an entirely useless discussion. It took an extensive discussion to arrive at this title in the first place. This is the sort of useless WP:Battleground arguments that we should be avoiding, both for the sake of neutrality, our wellbeing and personal time. ::Sigh:: Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The crime of Apartheid was not codified as an analogy. The UN and the signatories deliberately included constituent acts in the general legal definition of the international crime of apartheid that were NOT applicable to the situation in South Africa. For example, most publicists note that Article 2(b) regarding the intended "physical destruction" of a group did not apply to apartheid policy in South Africa. Conversely, other practices which are NOT enumerated or analogous to the state of South Africa may also be relevant, since Article 2 mentions "similar policies and practices … as practiced in southern Africa", not just South Africa. Some examples of legal papers that mention those particulars are the HSRC legal study "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid", page 17: available at [25] or [26]; and "Apartheid", by Johan D. van der Vyver, regarding the lack of intent in South Africa to physically destroy any group: [27] Furthermore, Article III of the convention provides that "International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved" (see for example page 296 of the HSRC study). So, the large amount of material included in the article to "explain" the motivation for Israel's policies and practices is given WP:UNDUE weight. harlan (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Israel and apartheid is preferable to Israel and the apartheid analogy. WP:NAME lists five ideals for a Wikipedia title, and on all five points the proposed title is better.

1. Recognisable - the two words Israel and apartheid are recognisable, whereas the analogy is less so, as many relevant sources do not directly describe the discourse as an analogy
2. Easy to find - readers seeking to learn more about why some people decry "Israeli apartheid" may not recognise an article about an analogy as containing the information they're seeking
3. Precise - analogy is arguably over-precise to describe the diverse contents of the article, as the aspects concerning the Crime of Apartheid are arguably not about an analogy
4. Concise - the proposed title is clearly more concise
5. Consistent - titles using analogy for anything other than a clear-cut and explicit analogy are fairly rare on Wikipedia, whereas titles joining two subjects with and to discuss a controversial intersection are fairly common, see Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, Mormonism and polygamy, Christianity and alcohol, Christianity and homosexuality, religion and sexuality and race and intelligence for some examples. In none of these cases is a relationship between the two subjects implied, even if in some cases a relationship clearly exists. Christian cultures clearly have a history of antisemitism, but whether there is any link between race and intelligence is a highly controversial subject. Instead, the only implication of and is that discourse on the intersection of the subjects is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with each of your justifications as far as WP:NAME, and your analogies with Christianity and alcohol, etc. were especially apt. I too support the title Israel and apartheid Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Con

• Apartheid is an analogy. Apartheid referred to a specific situation in South Africa, the conditions of course which are not the same in Israel. The title "Israel and Apartheid" presupposes that Israel is guilty of apartheid. An analogy can be true or false. As other editors have noted, it took a long time to reach a consensus on this title. To find a means to change it now seems like a hostile takeover. Stop wasting everybody's time and drop this. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of published sources which explain that the crime of apartheid is not an analogy.

You should seriously drop it. You are entering into dangerous POV territory because you and Harlan want a more direct connection to Israel and Apartheid (just like that title!). Yawn. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm citing reliable published sources which make a direct connection. harlan (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The only other thing that could make sense is "Israel and the Apartheid Allegation." But since the current title was chosen after painstaking consensus, maintain keeping it as is. "Israel and Apartheid" is clearly prejudicial. So can we just drop this, please? A lot of veteran editors here from both sides of the figurative aisle know it's not going anywhere. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to changing the title of the article. It took a very long time to find a compromise title, and nobody has offered a compelling reason to upset the apple-cart. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: This article was named Allegations of Israeli apartheid for a long time, and it was repeatedly nominated for deletion in part because of its POV title. See the top of this page for the AfD history. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The current title is neutral. Shortening it to "Israel and apartheid" certainly gives readers the impression that there is a concrete connection between the two, which there clearly isn't. As Malik mentioned, there were long discussions to reach an agreement for the current title and this new suggestion is not satisfactory whatsoever. Breein1007 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• For starters, the article shouldn't be on wikipedia in the first place. Why it's still around is beyond me. This wouldn't pass in any other encyclopedia. If anything, the article should be renamed "Allegations of apartheid in Israel" or simply shortened (seriously!) and merged into Human rights in Israel. When I first joined wikipedia one of the first things I did was propose an AFD for the article. It had at least 4 or 5 AFDs up until that point. I gave up because of the POV-pushing and edit-warring, and I wasn't much of a help to begin with. There is zero evidence to support any form of South African-inspired apartheid in Israel. Minorities (Arabs specifically) have full rights, and yes there are inequalities and discrimination but nothing inconsistent with demographic conflicts in other developed nations, such as USA, Britain, and France. Post-Apartheid South Africa today is more of an apartheid than Israel. 1/5 (1,000,000) of the white minority has fled the country because of the racism, and 6,000+ white farmers have been killed since the early 1990s. Not to mention the disgusting treatment of Zimbabwe immigrants who are getting hacked to death by SA natives. But that's besides the point. Perhaps we should start an article like "Arab world and the apartheid analogy." Certainly more evidence to support. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The apartheid analogy, as the article states, mainly concerns the Occupied Territories (which rightwards leaning Zionists consider part of Israel) rather than Israel proper. Would you say that "there is zero evidence to support any form of South African-inspired apartheid" in the Occupied Territories and that, there, "minorities (Arabs specifically) have full rights" when compared, say, with Jewish settlers? -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand the apartheid libel extends to all of Israel, not simply the territories. For starters, Israel's presence in the WB/Gaza began 20 years after the establishment of Israel. Was Israel apartheid before the occupation began? 95% of all Palestinians live in cities governed by the Palestinian Authority. Jericho, Nablus, Bethlehem, Ramallah - all independent of Jews. In fact the IDF has to have approval from the PNA to even enter these cities. Like I said, there is zero evidence to support a racial-based mode of discrimination against Arabs in the WB/Gaza. Israel's war is predicated on politics, not race. The "Jewish" settlers live in towns independent of Arabs. Prior to 1967, there were no settlements - and the territories were occupied by the Arab states, Jordan and Egypt. Palestinian life expectancy of 40, malaria was endemic, and no calls for a Palestinian state. When Israel showed up, she eradicated malaria, tripled the standard of living and doubled the life expectancy, and even tried to move Arabs out of their refugee camps, but this was condemned by the UNGA. Analogies to Apartheid South Africa is offensive and unfair to those who truly suffered under the apartheid. Anyways, this really isn't relevant and is simply my POV. Again, I don't believe the article has a right to exist on wikipedia and it would be rejected by any other encylopedia. But, as far as names go, it shouldn't be changed. "Israel and apartheid" and "apartheid in Israel" turns an article that is essentially a laundry list of critics who make a living dissing ISrael, into an article that converts an illegitimate philosophy into an indisputable, definitive reality. "Analogy" is IMO far too generous. Fallacy would be more appropriate. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of Ha'aretz articles by Akiva Eldar concerning Ariel Sharon and his enthusiasm for a Bantustan solution to the Palestinian problem: Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope; Sharon's dream. "The 'Jewish' settlers live in towns independent of Arabs." Did you know that the word Apartheid translates to the word separation in English? "Analogies to Apartheid South Africa is offensive and unfair to those who truly suffered under the apartheid." Those who suffered under apartheid don't seem to agree.[28][29] A laundry list of critics who make a living dissing Israel? Perhaps a bit unfair?[30][31] -- ZScarpia ^talk 04:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the Jews wouldn't mind living with Arabs - as many Arabs work in the settlements (and get paid a hell of a lot more money than in Jordan or Ramallah), but the Palestinian land laws prohibit Jews from purchasing land from Arabs. Now that is certainly racist. Jews live independent of Arabs because they safety cannot be guaranteed in Palestinian-controlled areas. I imagine this is a no-brainer here? If you didn't know 100% of the Jews in the Arab world were expelled Nazi-style, so no need to separate. Just kick em' out to the Zionist entity. Also, Jewish presence in what is now the WB predates the Arab identity. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Perhaps we should call a halt now? -- ZScarpia ^talk 13:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also opposed to changing the title, what you proposed is more ambiguous and less accurate. It indicates to the reader that there is somehow a conclusive opinion that Israel practices "apartheid". - Epson291 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, any more than Christianity and homosexuality implies that Christians are gay. It is common practice on Wikipedia to use and in titles of articles that discuss the intersection of two subjects. The title Israel and apartheid indicates a discussion of the intersection of Israel and apartheid, including the discourse regarding a resemblence between Israeli policy/practice and South African apartheid, discourses denying any resemblence, accusations that the crime of apartheid is being commited, and defenses that it is not being committed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What are we? Junior lawyers doing mock court? I don't think so! Stellarkid (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. My point is that from what I can see the title format "X and Y" is used on Wikipedia to discuss the intersection of two subjects, and it doesn't prejudge the nature of the relationship, if any, between them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed It is the analogy being talked of here. It is simple enough to disambiguate "Israel and Apartheid" to this article so that argument has little merit. I think one or two people here would like to start an "Israel and the crime of apartheid" article, but that would be a polemic, not an encyclopedia entry. Stellarkid (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

*Opposed - Israel and Apartheid implies that Israel is Apartheid. Most readers won't notice the slight difference. Actually this article deals with allegations on behalf on states and political organizations that have ongoing disputes with Israel for decades. The proper title for this article is "Allegations of Apartheid against Israel, and preferably it should be a paragraph in the article Human rights in Israel where these allegations be put in their right context. Nacnikparos (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)^{(Drork sockpuppet     ←   ZScarpia   10:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC))}

Neutral

• The current title is far from perfect; but the proposed alternative is little better. There is scope for an article on Israel's relations with apartheid South Africa, but this should be a separate article; the proposed title is too ambiguous to be of use. I would prefer "Israeli apartheid" or "Zionist apartheid", but I recognise that neither of these stands a chance of being accepted. I am more concerned to ensure that the article itself remains, even if under a less-than-perfect title, than to reopen the interminable stale discussion about the optimal title. RolandR (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Both titles seem equivalent. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure the suggested name is any better or worse than the current name. ← George ^talk 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• I sympathise with both^{(inserted 20:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC))} some of the Pro and Con arguments. To me the proposed title is a better one and doesn't imply that the practice of apartheid by Israel is a fact. If I didn't think that other editors would strongly reject that and later try to have the title modified again, I would record my opinion as a Pro. As a variant of the current title retaining the word analogy, I would prefer something like "Israel apartheid analogy". -- ZScarpia ^talk 13:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would second ZScarpia's proposal. Seems better than the "Israel and Apartheid" wording. Ultimately though I think all the proposed and the current title(s) are pretty similar. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

• 1. 1) Please do not let this discussion devolve into a fight over whether you believe Israel is or isn't guilty of "apartheid." If you're arguing that Israel clearly, that's clearly contentious (at best), so please don't go around yelling its incontrovertibly so (and don't fight back against these claims in this discussion).
  2. 2) This is the perfect example of this silly WP:Battleground mentality which is a huge waste of Wikipedia resources.
  3. 3) It seems pretty obvious that there is no way the article is being retitled to "Israel and Apartheid." The only possible title could be "Israel and the Apartheid Allegations" BUT ONCE AGAIN, the current title was formed after LONG consensus and there seems no valid reasoning to suddenly alter it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I find myself in agreement with PlotSp again. I think we all have to be honest and admit that this article is about a particular POV. A significant and notable group hold the POV, a significant and notable group hold the oppossing POV. Whatever the title is, it must not make any assertion as to whether Israel is or isn't guilty of "apartheid." Let's accept this, and not WP:Battleground.NickCT (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What we are arguing about is what is the content of the RS, as there seem to be editors among us who have not read the sources then clearly we need to bring it up. I don't see anyone arguing for a title which asserts that Israel is guilty of Apartheid, I certainly don't understand Israel and apartheid to do any such thing. At the moment it seems that it is quite possible that it actually will be renamed to just that. The thing is, almost none of the sources deal with any analogy, analogy has a specific meaning. Could you link to where consensus for this title was established? Unomi (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the right way to approach this is to discuss the relative merits of the titles in relation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and not to prejudge the outcome. An old consensus can always be overruled by a new consensus, if one should form. I recall that last time we discussed this I started out in favour of Israel and apartheid but ended up somewhat reluctantly accepting Israel and the apartheid analogy as a "compromise name". I still think it's an okay name, but I also still think the shorter form is even better for the reasons I outlined in the Pro section. I agree with Unomi that an understanding of the reliable sources that make this subject notable is vital to ensuring the name appropriately reflects the sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look for the previous discussions. I think the article was moved from Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israel and the apartheid analogy during talks in archive 29. At that time I speculated whether Israeli apartheid analogy would be more concise. The move was quite controversial and eventually done in a bold move. There was considerable discussion, but it can't be said that it was a group-hug moment or especially well-executed. Since then I see a couple of abortive attempts to change the title in the archive, but I can't see any attempt to change it to Israel and apartheid except for a brief mention of that title in archive 31, even though my recollection was that this was one of the options previously discussed extensively. So it seems that we may now be discussing the possible title Israel and apartheid in depth for the first time here, not repeating previous discussions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what are we doing? Unomi (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say. In terms of the straw poll we have 7 for, 5 against, and 4 neutral. Arguments for include the proposed title being more concise, that the content is not all about an analogy (particularly discussions about the Crime of Apartheid), and that the proposed title fits better with the ideals of WP:NAME. Arguments against include that all the content does describe an analogy, and that the proposed title implies that Israel is guilty of apartheid. While there is a majority in favour of the change, there doesn't appear to be a consensus. However, there also isn't a consensus to keep the existing title, and the existing title is likely to be a source of ongoing dispute. I think it might be worth trying taking this to the Mediation Cabal. That would provide a structured environment in which to discuss the various options. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good way forward, I was hoping that we would see more participation, but perhaps people will come out of the woodwork as mediation progresses. Unomi (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created a case here, if it's accepted then hopefully we'll hear from a mediator sometime. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

crime of apartheid

The topic is covered by high quality sources, see for instance:

• Quigley, John. "Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel'". Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. 2. Indiana University School of Law: 221.
• Quigley, John (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Duke University Press.

(there are a few more by this same author, a professor of law at OSU published by Oxford, Harvard, Duke, and so on. Yall get the point) There were some primary sources here, but primary sources may be used. The information removed is clearly relevant to the topic. nableezy - 01:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also several legal studies which are based upon an analysis of the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention:

• The HSRC "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid",[32] or [33];
• Badil, "Applicability of the crime of apartheid to Israel", [34];
• Luciana Coconi and David Bondia, International Public Law and International Relations at the Universidad de Barcelona, "Apartheid against the Palestinian people" [35] or [36] harlan (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. We don't really need to rely on primary sources. The report from the Barcelona group above is under Creative Commons License. It provides analysis and overview based upon the latest reports from each of the UN treaty monitoring bodies, for each human rights instrument, and for each special rule or Rapporteur. harlan (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Quigley is not a reliable source about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, since he is highly associated with Palestinian PR groups. I would gladly hear his opinion on other subjects, but he is way too biased on this one. As for Badil, this is a Palestinian organization that have clear interest in presenting Israel as a criminal country. That's like asking a nationalist Georgian organization to give their opinion about human rights in Russia. What kind of report would you expect? The HSRC document talks about the WB and Gaza, not about Israel itself, so I fail to see its relevancy here, unless you claim these territories are part of Israel after all. Nacnikparos (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC) ^{(Drork sockpuppet     ←   ZScarpia   10:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC))}

Israeli nationality

Possibly of interest: Supreme Court to decide if there is an ‘Israeli nation' - a new attempt to establish an Israeli nationality. Currently the Israeli Interior Ministry list has more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens on it, including Jewish, Arab, Druse, Circassian, Samarian, Hong Konger, German, Albanian and Lichtensteinian, but not Israeli. Probably, neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality.^{(16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC))}     ←   ZScarpia 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When was the last time the United States established a "Black Village"? What would be the reaction if we did? Here's the confession to the crime of apartheid:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953568.html Israeli Arab minister Ghaleb Majadele said on Tuesday that Israel's plans to construct a new Arab city - the first since 1948 - would strengthen the sectors' "sense of belonging" in Israel.

Hcobb (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh? You are drawing conclusions that do not exist. Nothing in the article suggests anything even resembling apartheid policies. In fact, the "city" is being pushed by the Left and Arab parties. Hopefully your inference does not make it to the article. User POV should stay out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You two are obviously incapable of NPOV edits on this article. Your silly opinions have no place on this talk page. Keep this up and we're going to AN/I -- though I'd like to avoid it because the admins are harried enough w/ all this I/P battleground nonsense. And Wikifan, just stay away from engaging these bozos -- Wikipedia policy is against them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't be here anyways. I have no intention of editing the article at this point. Thanks for the comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ZScarpia, if these sources don't mention apartheid then you're engaging in original research by drawing conclusions about a comparison to apartheid from them. Any conclusions described in articles must come directly from reliable sources, they cannot be the product of editor interpretation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. The reason I mentioned the newspaper piece is because the subject of nationality is discussed in the article. I thought that it may be relevant that Israeli groups have made several attempts to have the current classification system changed.     ←   ZScarpia   11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, "I thought it may be relevant" but I decided to add this hateful editorializing: "neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality." You best not do that again. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I struck-out my comment. If you can give me a convincing explanation of why it was hateful, I'll try to avoid writing something like it again (though I've noticed on your talk page that you have been warned not to make hate-speak accusations without good reason, so I do hope that you can give a convincing explanation). Apologies for the offence caused.     ←   ZScarpia   16:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler (talk - considering the constant accusations of antisemitism levelled at non-Israeli editors and the failure of admins to protect them, your attack on, and threats against, Zscarpia, look quite uncalled for. -- Urbane23 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support Urbane23. In this case, Plot Spoiler, though perhaps overreacting a bit, does have a point. The struck out sentence was something that came in to my head just before hitting the Save button which doesn't really belong here. I would quite like to know why Plot Spoiler thinks its "hateful", though (perhaps I'm being obtuse). As for calling me a bozo and so on, it has no affect on me. Hopefully Plot Spoiler feels a bit better for having "laid down the law". He or she will know nothing about my ethnic origin so wouldn't know whether to accuse me of being antisemitic or self-hating. I suppose that the course of action taken would be to accuse me of being antisemitic unless given reason to think otherwise.     ←   ZScarpia   22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anybody of anti-Semitism yada yada. What ZScarpia said was just unnecessarily inflammatory. Thanks for your understanding. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To return to the subject at hand, the HSRC study and the Barcelona University study both cite the nationality law as a violation of article 2 of the Aparheid Convention. Comparisons of the State of Israel's legal system to the Nuremburg race laws have been published by reliable sources, e.g. Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil", and described as a status quo of apartheid, e.g. see Amnon Raz Krakotzkin, Chapter 10, pp 171-172 in "Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem", Steven E. Aschheim ed. [37]

During the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt commented on the 'breathtaking naiveté' with which the prosecutor claimed "We make no ethnic distinctions," while he denounced the Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 1935 on the grounds that it had prohibited intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans. She felt it was rather ironic, since rabbinical law legally governed the personal status of Jewish citizens, so that no Jew could marry a non-Jew. She explained that it had nothing to do with respect for the faith, but rather that religious and non-religious Jews seemed to think it was desirable to have a law that prohibited intermarriage. She observed that children of mixed marriages were legally bastards, and that if a person didn't have a Jewish mother he could neither be married nor buried. She said that government officials admitted to her privately that they were agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which that sort of thing would have to be spelled out. See Eichmann in Jerusalem, by Hannah Arendt, Published by Penguin Classics, 1992, Page 7, ISBN 0140187650 harlan (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, a book I should have read by now. I'll get myself a copy. A relevant current article: Amira Hass, IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank.     ←   ZScarpia   02:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of POV tag on this page

The continuing misuse of the POV tag on this page is a clear breach of the usage guidelines. This tag should not be used as a badge of shame. Its purpose is to draw attention to a current discussion on the talk page regarding how perceived breaches of the WP:NPOV policy on the page should be fixed. There is no such current discussion, the last discussion on this topic ended nearly two weeks ago. The editor removing the tag with the comment "the discussion is not dormant" might as well be saying "day is night", it's complete doublethink. I encourage all editors to either remove the tag in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines for its use, or to engage in a good faith discussion about how their NPOV concerns can be addressed through changes to the article. And not to just talk about it, but to reach a consensus and make the changes. In the absence of such constructive discussion, the only reasonably conclusion is that the tag is being mis-used as a badge of shame. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one treating the tag as a badge of shame by insisting that it be removed. There is a discussion ongoing on this talk page, scroll up to see it. The tag is not there to be a badge of shame, but to inform other interested editors that if they would like to help, they can come to the talk page and improve this article. I don't know why you are denying that this discussion exists. The last post before mine was on April 1, and for some reason people gave up on it. I made another post today and hope that others will participate in the discussion, because so far it has not led to any improvements of the article, which still suffers BADLY from POV issues. If you encourage other users to remove the tag while the discussion is ongoing, you are encouraging other editors to violate Wikipedia policies and continue the edit war that you started. Now instead of wasting all of our time with this nonsense, why don't you rejoin the discussion above? Breein1007 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I see now that you added a comment to the two-week-dormant discussion before you most recently re-added of the tag. However, your previous re-addition of the tag was inappropriate for the reasons I've outlined above. Given the order of events, it appears that you've continued an old POV discussion purely so that you can have the tag, especially given that your comments are very vague and therefore not conductive to actual editing to fix the issues your perceive. It's hard to assume good faith in such situations, it smells like some sort of filibuster to give this article a perpetual tag, contrary to the temporary purpose of the tag. Nevertheless, let's try to make some progress on your concerns in the talk section above. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments in the "Why this article is NOT NEUTRAL" section amount to a vague "the whole article is broken". If you won't engage in a constructive discussion of any issues you perceive with the intention of fixing them, then it's clear that meaningful discussion is in fact dormant, and in keeping with the spirit of the policy such stalling maneuvers should not prevent the removal of the tag. Bear in mind that the purpose of the tag is not to inform readers that some editors think the article is not neutral, rather it is to draw attention to a constructive discussion about how to fix any issues. If the discussion is unconstructive, the tag is pointless. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let it sit until and unless both sides can agree that it is a neutral article. When I read Wikipedia and I see the POV tag, I think that I had best take what I read with a possibly large grain of salt, and think for myself. That is what I see it as about, and to remove it is to be telling readers that Wikipedians agree that this article reflects reality. We don't, and it doesn't. If it never does, that's OK too. So it always has the tag. Maybe it's a "badge of shame" that the world can't solve the situation to make both sides happy either, but that's the way it is and pretending that its otherwise is unencylopedic fiction. Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If editors don't articulate what they take issue with then we can't know to what degree it is real or imagined and if real, how to resolve it. Unomi (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This discussion is dormant. The tag should be removed. If anyone disagrees please point to exact language that you think has POV issues.

@Steller - Re"Let it sit until and unless both sides can agree that it is a neutral article". The onus is on people who support the tag to point at what they feel is non-neutral. NickCT (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agreed that it should be removed. Bjmullan (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, your reasoning is the exact opposite of the usage guidelines for this tag. We don't get to invent reasons to put a tag on an article, we follow the guidelines. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an on-going discussion about the title of this article and there is a POV template that was developed to address those situations {{POV-title|date=April 2010}}. I don't really care, so long as this moves along to Moderation or a request for clarification of the ARBCOM decision. The "analogy" isn't even mentioned in much of the available material the article sources and is simply inapplicable. If we are going to prohibit the use of sources that don't mention the term apartheid, then what is the justification for the mischaracterization of sources which do not use the term "analogy"? If it has limited application then it should be kept to sources that actually discuss "the analogy". Those should be located in a "reception of" or "criticisms" subsection, or alternatively split into a separate article whose subject represents that POV, like Creationism and Evolution. What is not acceptable is the continued use of the well known propaganda technique of refactoring a viewpoint's "world-view" into the words of its detractors. [38] harlan (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The editors adding the POV tag (apart from yourself) seem happy with the existing title. It's true that you've been raising concerns about the neutrality of the title in talk and attempting constructive dialogue, and technically you could apply the POV-title tag. However, given that we're probably about to enter mediation regarding the title I'd urge that we try to reach a consensus there first.
• We're not prohibiting sources that don't mention apartheid, several such sources are used in the article. But such sources should be used in moderation, and care is required to ensure they provide context without being WP:OR.
• I agree that we should be careful about describing sources' positions in relation to "the analogy" if they do not express their position as an analogy. I agree that if a source is describing a perceived breach of international law then we should not describe their position as an analogy. We should work to fix any passages that mischaracterise statements from sources in this way. Where I possibly differ from you is that I feel if a source is clearly making a comparison or analogy to apartheid in Africa, even if the source are not using the word "analogy" explicitly, then I don't feel it's misleading or OR to include them among "proponents of the analogy". If they're making a comparison/analogy, then it's not OR to describe it as such.
• I understand your position that you would like the term "analogy" purged from the article because you feel it's a term of propaganda. If you can provide substantial reliable sources demonstrating that it's a propaganda term, then those sources might be of use in the hopefully upcoming title mediation, and in future discussions about the use of the term in the article. However, if this is more of a personal opinion of yours then it's not something we can really take into account. Personally, I don't find the term "analogy" to be misleading so long as a comparison is being made to apartheid in Africa. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The article cites several sources, including John Dugard, Hazem Jamjoum, and HSRC which explain that, in terms of law, describing Israel as an apartheid state does not revolve around levels of difference and similarity with the policies and practices of the South African Apartheid regime, and that the definition of the crime of apartheid contains acts that were never attributed to the South African regime. I've added that information to the lede. The rest of the article needs reorganization that can wait on clarification or moderation.

UN organs can make legal determinations within their area of competence that are NOT allegations. There are separate procedures for communications regarding complaints, allegations, fact finding reports, and reports regarding violations of international law under the rules regarding special questions and Rapporteurs.

The ICJ is the primary, not the only, judicial or arbital organ of the United Nations. The ICERD convention explicitly states that the CERD members are elected and serve in a personal capacity and that they do not represent any particular state. The convention says the committee of CERD experts shall deal with a matter referred to it in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law and establishes rules for the election of Commissions to handle the resolution of cases. Israel is bound by those terms as a result of its signature on the convention. The convention also addresses disputes between states. The compromissory clause regarding the jurisdiction of the ICJ in the ICERD only applies to disputes arising between states, not to disputes with the CERD. In any event, Israel entered a reservation which says it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the article which invokes the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

The General Assembly also gave the Human Rights Council a general mandate to operate a complaints system, conduct fact finding missions, and report on violations of international law. harlan (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the basic fact is that whether what is happening in Israel is actually appartheid is POV. Whereas everybody generally agrees that South Africa had apartheid, not everyone agrees that this is the case in present day Israel. When there are major disputes on subjective issues(political,religous or otherwise) WP must be very cautious about taking sides in the debate. I think the current title is good, b/c it leaves open the question as to whether the current situation is actually apartheid. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Several published sources explain that contracting state parties to the human rights conventions have agreed to accept the legal competence of the committees which are incorporated in the treaty monitoring bodies. It is their job to report on violations and deal with them in conformity with international law. See for example VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE TREATY COMMITTEES, page 15, in Luciana Coconi and David Bondia, International Public Law and International Relations at the Universidad de Barcelona, "Apartheid against the Palestinian people" [39]

Article 104 of the UN Charter provides that "The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes." Israel has adopted the practice of arresting, detaining, and expelling or otherwise preventing UN Rapporteurs from fulfilling their missions in the occupied territories. If you have a published source which says those aren't the basic facts, then you should cite it as an opposing viewpoint and stop temporizing. harlan (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll get much support if you're suggesting that one body exists that definitively determines what is, and what is not in contravention of international law. NickCT (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan - that's a strange response to the dialogue we were having. It would help if you were clearer about the relevance to the article. If you're elaborating on your point that some of the article's content is not about an analogy, and therefore the title is incorrect, then I can only say that you've made the point in sufficient detail previously, it's something I for one am open to considering as a valid point, and that my last remarks were not contrary to that point. I'm hoping that mediation will help us resolve the question of a suitable title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've redacted your edit. You need a source for that, and it should appear in the body of the article and then be summarised in the lead. I'm not at all sure why we're discussing it here, in a section about the POV tag, but there you go. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it you've never read the UN statute for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The reported violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that the Security Council acted upon came from special questions procedures, Rapporteurs, and panels of experts, NOT from the ICJ. [40] The Security Council has created several of its own subordinate organs which have reported that Israel's actions to establish settlements and alter the demographics of the occupied territories are a flagrant violation of international law. The General Assembly has made similar declarations. It can also create ad hoc and general criminal tribunals. The General Assembly established the International Law Commission which drafted the Rome Statute, and it convened the Rome Conference which established the International Criminal Court.

The review of Israel's report by the CERD panel of experts stated that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories violated article 3 of the ICERD: "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 [41] The ICJ ruled that Palestinians had been displaced by illegal settlements in violation of international law - the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Conference of Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention also reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements in the occupied territories. harlan (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I've re-added my comments above that you deleted. Please be more careful. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if I deleted your comments it was unintentional. The information I added to the lede actually was a summary of information contained in sources that are discussed in the article. I had already pointed out a few of them here on the talk page, and the positions they expressed on matters of law were not challenged at the time.

The other comment isn't stange at all. I was pointing out the various international bodies which have made binding determinations regarding the establishment of Jewish-only settlements. The CERD has pointed out that the practice violates article 3 of the ICERD convention and many other international conventions.

It is POV to say that it is merely "alleged" that Israel is violating international obligations erga omnes in which all states have a legal interest. Most human rights and international humanitarian law treaties do not confer jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice for the commission of internationally wrongful acts committed by States under such conventions. See for example para 31-33 of the Report of the Independent Fact Finding Committee On Gaza [42] The ICJ has affirmed on several occasions that UN organs have the capacity to make binding legal determinations within the areas of their competence under the terms of the applicable treaties. States can prosecute human rights offenders in their national courts on the basis of complimentary or universal jurisdiction. The Arab League report is one example which illustrates that states are pursuing solutions along those lines. harlan (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for using references in your article edit. It's still a bit awkward in how it fits into the opening paragraph, but it does seem like it may be a relevant point that needs to be covered somehow. In your comments above, are you saying that there has been a determination by the relevant UN body(s) that Israel is in violation of the crime of apartheid, so that in essence the official UN position is that the law is being violated? Do you feel this position is adequately covered in the article? Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the General Assembly determined that apartheid was a crime against humanity on its own behalf, without the need for any ICJ opinion, e.g. A/RES/3068 (XXVIII). The General Assembly resolution mentioned in the title of Dugard's report, and treaties like the ICERD, contain mandates for the appointment or election of qualified experts to find facts and report on violations of international law. Some of the International Conventions gave the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction to determine "State responsibility". For example, Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide says:

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and ICERD (which has its own elected panel of experts) are cited in the preamble of the Apartheid Convention. The Apartheid Convention contained a voluntary, or Comprommisory clause, that does not include ICJ jurisdiction to determine State responsibility in Article XII:

Disputes between States Parties arising out of the interpretation, application or implementation of the present Convention which have not been settled by negotiation shall, at the request of the States parties to the dispute, be brought before the International Court of Justice, save where the parties to the dispute have agreed on some other form of settlement.

Dugard suggested an advisory opinion (not a contentious case) be obtained. The question he proposed was based upon the existing findings in his report that elements of the occupation constitute apartheid. The question did not require a determination of apartheid from the court, other than an opinion regarding the legal consequences arising from such a situation. In practice this would not be a case involving a dispute between two states, because all states have a legal interest in apartheid and other crimes against humanity. harlan (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to know why my stipulation that "Some" Israeli Journalists refer to this analogy was removed. It is definitely not true that all of them support this analogy as you currently imply. This form of historical revisionism leads me to contest the entire validity of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.205.145 (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed in accordance with long standing wikipedia policy (see WP:WEASEL). NickCT (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this an article about Israel?

Topic of a banned sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reading this article, I find out that I don't read about Israel, but about the Palestinian territories, a territory that have never been defined as part of Israel neither by the Israeli authorities nor by the international community. Considering that the area has been subject to ongoing harsh conflict for decades, a conflict that reached new peaks of violence during the early 2000s, I fail to see where the apartheid analogy exists at all. Most sources mentioned in this article are pro-Palestinians. Palestinians have said over the years that there was no Jewish nation, that Israel should be wiped up and all kind of statements which they late revoked (at least their mainstream leadership). So today the buzz word is "apartheid", so what? What does it have to do with conveying reliable information? Do we have a special article about anti-women apartheid in Saudi Arabia and Iran? Do we have articles about anti-White apartheid in Zimbabwe? Do we have an article about the Iranian allegations that the US is a satanic nation? This article mislead its readers twice: first it present the WB&G as part of Israel, then it brings pro-Palestinian resources as if they were neutral. Sorry to say that, but that's a really bad work. Nacnikparos (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) The article is about the assertions that many have made regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians and the subject of their rights (or lack thereof) as compared to Israel's Jewish population, and the comparisons of said treatment to South African apartheid. Anything more you read into it is a product of your own bias. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Nacnikparos has been blocked as a sock of Drork. nableezy - 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

International law section

I noticed that the article had two sections both covering international law with some duplication of points, so I merged them together into a new section called "International Law". However, I think the content of this section needs work.

• At a superficial level, the formatting of the references needs improving. We don't need comments in the footnotes say "see article X and Y". We should have a properly-formatted reference for each source, and cite them both in the article.
• I also think that some passages in this section may have issues with WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. For the article to say that the Crime of Apartheid is not limited to a comparison to previous apartheid regimes, we need a source that says exactly this. Preferably, the citation should give a quote saying this, so it's clear to editors that this is not OR. It's possible that I'm mistaken about the OR, but it's hard to tell because the way the sourcing is done without quotes or even page numbers.
• The whole first paragraph appears to be making only a single point, and should be shortened. The second paragraph then appears to make exactly the same point all over again. Presumably, this background point can be made in just a couple of sentences rather than two paragraphs, leaving more room for describing sources that suggest that Israel is in violation of the Crime of Apartheid. Overall, the WP:WEIGHT of the parts of this section is all wrong. It should very briefly lay out the background regarding the Crime of Apartheid (preferably in only a 2-3 sentences), and then spend much more time on sources that actually discuss Israel and apartheid, the topic of this article, going over their reasons for why they think a violation is happening. Less background, more point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'd add that we should avoid too much detail and naming of particular points of the law, as these are fairly impenetrable to lay readers. We should favour readable overviews based on secondary sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked through all the sources cited in this section. The good news is that most of the points made in the section, including those that look at first blush to be OR, appear to actually be made in one source or another. So the material does not need to be scrapped wholesale. The bad news is that the sources are very poorly matched against the text, so that statements in any given passage may not be supported by the reference given against it, but may be supported by another used elsewhere. So it's a mess. Additionally, all the other criticisms that I made above still stand, it's an unwieldy and poorly weighted section with bad formatting, and some of the references are totally borked. At least one reference lists one source, but then links to another source by the same author, and the relevant content is in the linked source not the named one. I'm hoping to find time to rewrite this whole section, I think it's badly flawed but redeemable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is really pretty simple, the crime of apartheid was not originally defined as an analogy to South Africa. The convention included similar policies and practices as those that were practiced in the whole of Southern Africa. Nowadays it can include almost any inhuman act imaginable and its definition is devoid of any geographical connotations. Many of the the sources cited in the article do not use the terms "analogy" or "Africa". Many of them explicitly state that they are discussing violations of international law. The section on international law would be completely unnecessary except for the stubborn insistence of a few editors to employ the WP:COATRACK "uses of the analogy" to inappropriately re-frame the worldview of an entire article.

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (30 November 1973, A/RES/3068 (XXVIII) always stipulated that certain acts of genocide also qualify as apartheid (if they are committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.) At one point in time, a panel of UN experts considered declaring apartheid as a special instance of genocide for general procedural purposes. However, no UN organ ever reported violations of the genocide convention or its parallel, article 2(b) of the Apartheid convention, in South Africa or Southern Africa.

The Additional Protocol I to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 says that apartheid can be considered a war crime when the required connection exists to an armed conflict. For example, on page 20 of his report (A/HRC/4/17) Dugard said "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report." Some of the "actions described in this report" were military incursions, shellings, and war crimes: "The indiscriminate use of military power against civilians and civilian targets has resulted in serious war crimes." (page 2) and "Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale. While individual criminal accountability is important, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the violation of peremptory norms of international law in its actions against the Palestinian people should not be overlooked." (page 3)

Since 1994 prosecution of crimes against humanity no longer requires a connection to an armed conflict. Inhuman acts similar to, but not specifically listed in the Rome Statute, can be included in an indictment for the crime of apartheid under Article 7, Crimes against humanity, 2.(h). harlan (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the meaning of the content of this section that's problematic, it's the way its written and the problems with misplaced and incorrect referencing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section to better reflect the sources, be more readable, and have better referencing. For those interested, my drafting is available here and my review of the sources is here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New section

This article is clearly bad-written from many aspects. I introduced some minor changes to make it more accurate, but they were repeatedly reverted. Is that the way you normally treat fact accuracy on WP? Quesilophonosis (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your wording seems very WP:POV, that's why it's getting reverted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please don't use jargon. It is not appropriate to send me to read long articles, while you can use simple words like "politically biased" or "opinionated". Secondly, I find it really hard to understand how you reached your conclusions. The article does not discuss the situation in Israel proper. There are Israeli Palestinians and non-Israeli Palestinians, depending on whether they live in Israel proper or in territories it took over in 1967. This distinction is endorsed by the international community, otherwise the annexation of East Jerusalem would not have been regarded as a problem. Secondly, the article expresses an opinion that East Jerusalem should be deemed part of the West Bank. This is not acceptable on many countries like Israel, the UK, the US and others. Israel deem East Jerusalem as part of its territory. The UK and the US regard Jerusalem as a territory that does not currently belong to any country. Thirdly, the apartheid analogy is a habit of pro-Palestinian organizations. Only few neutral observers ever made this analogy. This is also not clear from the article. Quesilophonosis (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This link [43] does not discuss Israel at all, so it is hardly relevant. This [44] links to a pro-Palestinian site that campaigns against Israel. It quotes pro-Palestinian organizations. The fact that they convened in a UN building in Geneva does not make them neutral. Quesilophonosis (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Uses of the Analogy" subsection

This section presents multiple WP:OR and WP:Synth issues. It cites sources which do not mention "Africa" or "the analogy" as examples of "uses of the analogy". For example, the former Attorney General of Israel, Michael Ben-Yair, is discussing violations of treaties, but doesn't mention the analogy or Africa

"We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."[45]

This subsection uses a magazine article that mentions Ronnie Kasrils and quotes Salim Vally to introduce "the analogy", but they are discussing Israel's violations of international law. That fact is trimmed-off of the cherry-picked portion of the "This Magazine" article used in the summary. Here is the whole quote:

The idea of Israeli apartheid emerged in the final years of the white South African regime. According to Vally, ex-patriot Palestinians supportive in toppling that regime drew the link between Israel and South Africa, which intensified in the early 1990s. “There was a widespread view,” he recalls, “that Israel needed to be isolated in the same way apartheid South Africa was and for the same reasons-its intransigence, its violation of international law.”

That is not a casual comparison. Here is an article that mentions Ronnie Kasrils, Salim Vally, the HSRC study, and John Dugard in connection with the filing of formal charges, including the crime of apartheid, against a South African IDF officer who provided legal advice in target selection during operation Cast Lead "Charges Laid against Israeli Officer in South Africa"[46] harlan (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That link no. 60 is dead. BTW, are these three people and one organization the only ones accusing Israel of apartheid? This is hardly a large group. Quesilophonosis (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Palestine Chronicle link works for me. According to the article the officer had been credited with giving the Israeli army the go-ahead for the use of white phosphorous. The case was filed by Professor Farid Esack, and Palestine Solidarity Committee members with the Police in Brixton based upon the Rome Statute of 2002 and South Africa’s Criminal Court Act 27 of the same year. The HSRC is the statutory research organ of the South African Parliament. The article mentions several organizations including the Palestine Solidarity Alliance, the Media Review Network, and the South African NGO initiative. The article says that the NGO Initiative hired Professor Dugard and Professor Max du Plessis to assist with the case.

Dugard has served as a Judge on the International Court of Justice, as a Special Rapporteur for United Nations on Human Rights, and as a Special Rapporteur on the International Law Commission. Here is a Tikun Olam article which explains that the ICC is interested in the IDF officer's case. "International Criminal Court to Investigate IDF Officer" [47] + the Newsweek article cited by Tikun Olam [48] harlan (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that an organization is South African does not contradict the fact that it is pro-Palestinian. Usually it is okay to bring one-side's opinion, but you have to properly attribute it, and bring the other side's reaction/opposing opinion next to it. These are basic rules of fair writing. As for the white phosphors, what does it has to do with anything? You are talking about possible violation of the laws of war during exchange of fire. This is a bit like saying that the Palestinian policy of using suicide bombers is an apartheid against Jews. Quesilophonosis (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - Link no. 60 works for you probably because you have subscription. It is a privilege not enjoyed by everyone here. Quesilophonosis (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The link works for me, and I am not a subscriber.here must be soething in your settings, or at your server, that is blocking it. RolandR (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible."

There is a big difference between being anti-Apartheid and being pro-Palestinian. Neither has any direct relationship on the reliability of a source. Michael Ben-Yair is trained in law, and he is not Pro-Palestinian. His views are certainly not properly described or attributed. He is simply a member of a fabricated Wikipedia list that labels him as a person who uses the analogy.

Any inhuman act, including the use of white phosphorus can be included in the crime of apartheid. John Dugard wrote an article at the UN Treaty Organization which explains that Additional Protocol I to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 recognized apartheid as a “grave breach” of the Protocol without any geographical connections. The same protocol defines grave breaches as war crimes. [49] In Dugards report on the situation in the OPT, A/HRC/4/17, of 29 January 2007 he described the shelling of civilian areas in Gaza, and military incursions there as a form of collective punishment, and war crimes. He concluded his overall observations by asking "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report." harlan (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, are you preparing a lawsuit against me? If not, do without these lawyer-like phrases. If you want to convince me you're right, bring me a source I can read. If what you say is true, than "Apartheid" practically means anything. This means that Hamas is engaged in Apartheid against Israelis, Iran is engaged in Apartheid against Sunni, Baha'i, Christians and Kurds, French is engaged in dress-Apartheid against Muslim women, and the list is long. Dugards reports do not reflect the UN position (according to the UN rules). He preaches for a multinational state in lieu of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He clearly has a political agenda. You cannot cite him as if he were a factual source. He has his opinions. Okay. People have opinions. Opinions are not facts, even when preached by South African judges. Quesilophonosis (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

About Michael Ben Yair's article - (1) It is an opinion, it doesn't cite facts. It is not written a legal opinion or factual report, it reflects its writer's opinion. (2) The fact that a former Israeli senior civil servant writes such an article, and publish it on one of the three major Israeli newspapers, is a prove of freedom of speech and self criticism on the Israeli arena. Not exactly the dark regime you described above. (3) When a parent tells his son "If you'll do it again I'll kill you", he doesn't really mean he's going to kill his offspring. Therefore, you should be very careful about the conclusion you draw from such an article. It is very likely that Ben Yair exaggerated his words on purpose in order to enhance the public impact. To sum it all up - don't use this source for this article. It does not add anything. Quesilophonosis (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Your analysis of Michael Ben Yair's statement is an example of the WP:Synth problem that I'm discussing here. Of course the opinion of an Attorney General of Israel is relevant whenever he says Israel has ignored international conventions and imposed a cruel and injurious regime that in effect amounts to apartheid in the occupied territories. Get real.

Dugard's report says that it was submitted in order to implement a UN mandate contained in A/RES/60/251 [50] That resolution requires the Human Rights Council to maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure. It also contains a decision which says that the Council should act to prevent and address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. Can you provide a source which says the findings in Dugard's report weren't considered official? harlan (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[Link no. 60 -> I've archived the page in WebCite: transparent URL: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpalestinechronicle.com%2Fview_article_details.php%3Fid%3D15348&date=2010-04-24; short URL: http://www.webcitation.org/5pEhoYu6o. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)]

In this interview with Al-Jazeera [51] Dugard admits his reports were not endorsed by the UN. He also talks about the legitimacy of Hamas rule in Gaza and other issues that reveal the inherent bias in his reports. Quesilophonosis (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked if you could provide a source which said Dugard's report wasn't official. The Al-Jazeera article doesn't mention that; the need for additional UN endorsements; or the lack thereof. The CERD panel of experts concluding observations a few months later cited a half dozen areas where Israel's policies and practices where not in line with its obligations under article 3 of the ICERD.[52] Dugard seems to be commenting at length about the Quartet's legitimacy. But I didn't see any comments regarding the legitimacy of Hamas in the interview. He says that the Quartet fails to communicate with Hamas in Gaza and that Hamas has to be included in the negotiations.

On page 6 of his report Dugard explained that his mandate did not include the violation of human rights caused by the PNA or the political conflict between Fatah and Hamas. That is no accident. The UN has blocked Palestine's attempts to accede to the relevant human rights and humanitarian rights conventions which form the legal basis of the HRC's own mandate. In addition, the Security Council has not recommended Palestine's admission as a UN member state. In the recent Kosovo case several interested parties, including permanent members, expressed the view that the Security Council cannot legally bind non-state entities as a matter of principle. See footnote 37 on page 44 of Court Record CR 2009/24 [53]

Dugard did report on the violations of applicable customary norms that apply to non-contracting or non-state parties when they engage in armed conflicts. For example, he mentions the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel on pages 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 21 of his report. He said "Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel." harlan (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversions

RolandR reverted my edits which I explained here in details. On his talkpage he says: "This user recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return." and "This user is an anti-Zionist." I don't argue with his opinions, nor deny his freedom of speech. I even admire him for being honest and fair. I am, however, entitled to wonder whether his insistence to reject my edits has to do with his political opinions. I would like to point out again that my edits has to do with facts and facts only: (1) All allegations in this article refer to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza which are not recognized as part of Israel. (2) Almost all people and organizations that use the term apartheid in their criticism against Israel are either Palestinian or pro-Palestinians. This is asserted in the article itself (look at the sources!). Quesilophonosis (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There are sources cited in the article which say that Israel is an apartheid state. Your argument about the West Bank and Gaza doesn't hold much water either. South Africa created Transkei, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana in order to remove blacks from the South African population registry. Israel used the Oslo process in an attempt to legitimize its colonization of the West Bank and Gaza. It has settled hundreds of thousands of its citizens there and absorbs the land, but not the people in a process Ariel Sharon described as Bantuization. harlan (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL Harlan of all the things I have seen you say... this is one of the highlights. Israel made huge concessions in Oslo and removing/freezing settlements was not one of its requirements. What promise did the Palestinians fulfill in Oslo? Starting the 2nd Intifada? An attempt to legitimize colonization... hahaha such bullshit it's not even worth discussing. This is your own WP:OR and in fact a violation of WP:SOAP because it has nothing to do with the article at hand. That is, unless you are proposing we enter that text in the article. Do you have a source? The same thing goes for your claim about Sharon and Bantuization, which is categorically false. Breein1007 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from above) A couple of Ha'aretz articles by Akiva Eldar concerning Ariel Sharon and his enthusiasm for a Bantustan solution to the Palestinian problem: Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope; Sharon's dream.     ←   ZScarpia   11:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC) (has someone attempted to put a template:hab collapse template on this section?)

Your interesting analysis is YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION. Somehow you have some difficulties to differentiate your personal opinions from those of other. It also reflects on the way you interpret other people's opinion, see the case of Ben Yair. Interestingly enough, your direct the blame at me, probably in order to distract other editors' here from your manipulation. Now, are you claiming that the Palestinian Authority is a Bantustan? Are you claiming that Yaser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad were/are all Israeli puppets? Interesting thought, only I saw a claim of yours arguing that Palestine was a state led by these very leaders. Interesting indeed. Apparently, being consistent is not a rule well kept on Wikipedia. As for Dugard, he reported about Apartheid without submitting any factual ground to his claims (unless you regard Apartheid as any act of violence, which is nice, but not very helpful). I am not surprised then, that there is no single document that says the the UN actually endorsed his report. The whole discussion here is a bit fishy. Your edits on WP are almost entirely anti-Israeli, with a lot of personal analyses and misquotes. Other editors here declare themselves to be anti-Zionist and seem to ignore any suggestion to make the tone of this article less argumentative and more to-the-point. Quesilophonosis (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 and Quesilophonosis, there is no original research involved. "No to apartheid, to save Zionism", Le Monde, 1 February 2002 explains that Ben Yair's position is pro-Zionist, not pro-Palestinian. The former editor of the New York Times, Joseph Lelyveld, cited the use of the term apartheid as a plausible if somewhat contentious way of characterizing the occupation of the territories: "a description of what the occupation already was or might become." He mentioned Ben Yair's use of the term as an example which described the occupation regime that he said began on “the seventh day” of the Six-Day War. See Jimmy Carter and Apartheid in the New York Review [54]

Henry Siegman's article in the Nation [55] says that Israel has crossed the threshold from "the only democracy in the Middle East" to the only apartheid regime in the Western world. It also recounts a helicopter ride with Ariel Sharon over the West Bank where the plans to use settlements to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state were spelled-out in great detail.

Pages 76-80 of the HSRC report contain a section which analyzes whether or not the Oslo Accords pass muster as "special agreements" governed by Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Geneva Convention. The HSRC concludes that they do not because they recognize unlawful prior practices and, through the allocation of jurisdiction and authorities, attempt to enable or ratify a continuation of those violations. Here is a relevant extract:

Article 2(d) of the Apartheid Convention and the history of South African Homelands (Bantustans) raise the question of whether establishing an ‘independent’ state (homeland) for the Palestinian people in only part of the OPT could be corollary to the racial enclave policy for which apartheid South Africa was notorious. Nominal independence in the Homelands was presented by the South African government as expressing and satisfying the right to self-determination of black Africans. Yet the international community determined that the Bantustans were tools of apartheid and denied them recognition on this basis. The criteria for determining when occupation has ended therefore cannot consist solely of claims by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority (as local authorities under occupation) that Palestinians have assumed sovereignty in a nominally independent State. Whether nominal statehood improves the condition of protected persons and fulfils the right to self-determination must be determined. In order to conform with Article 47, any agreement that leads to the creation of a Palestinian state must not merely perpetuate Israeli occupation under another guise.

Those sources merely scratch the surface of the available material on the subject. harlan (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. Extremely interesting... You've been preventing editing for certain articles for a long time claiming that Palestine was a state and no one could deny it. You even said the UN treated Palestine as a state. Now you say Palestine is not a state, especially not in the UN view. Integrity is not your best trait, is it? The Oslo Accords were signed by Mahmoud Abbas on behalf of Yaser Arafat, witnessed by the US and brokered by Norway. I know you're not fond of the US, but are you suggesting Norway, Arafat and Abbas supported Apartheid? Against the Palestinian People? How very interesting. Did I mention the problem you have with integrity? Oh, I did. Good. As for the authority of Dugard, read this (that's simple English): "Special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. They are advisers and do not decide UN policy." [56]. So, unless you find a UN endorsement, his report is of little value, just another paper. And Dugard is affiliated with the Arab League, acting on its behalf, which puts him in conflict of interest. You are right that there is plenty of information about Israel and Apartheid. Most of it condemns it as poor Palestinian propaganda. You take one or two articles using these terms as a exaggerations and build a whole theory upon them. Did I mentioned your lack of integrity? Oh twice. Good. Won't hurt to say it again, though. The article from Le Monde Diplomatique that you mentioned says the following: "The applicability of the South Africa model to Israeli-Palestinian relations is problematic. The first issue is the geographical delineation of Israeli "apartheid": does it cover all of Israel or only the WBGS? Palestinians living beyond the Green Line are Israeli citizens, while Palestinians in the WBGS are not. The former are not confined to specific geographic areas out of which they cannot move, nor are they excluded from the Israeli political process - they vote and can be elected, though they are discriminated against. The latter are an occupied population awaiting a political solution (...) While not specific about the boundaries of the land that Israel occupied or about Palestinian national rights, reso lution 242 affirmed that the way to peace in the Middle East had to be through returning land and recognising all states. The Oslo process was based on resolution 242." [57] Did I mention you lack any integrity? Oh yes... quite a few times. Okay, let's move on. How about this source? [58] It talks about Israel and Apatheid but says the connection between the two is a lie. Good to know Wikipedia promotes lies. I though it promotes truth, but I must have been wrong. How about this article by Khaled Toama? [59] and this one [60] (the same author, which unfortunately is just an Arab Israeli, not a South African While judge). Have I mentioned you lack of integrity already? Dhafda3 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Drork, you always misrepresent your opponents actual statements, and the post above is no exception. I've been saying that no one could deny the PNA claims that Palestine is a state, that the UN says they are entitled to their territory and their state, and that many other states already recognize the existing institutions as a state. That is a notable published fact, but it does not mean that there has been an acceptable and final territorial settlement between Israel and the Palestinian authorities in accordance with resolution 242 and the Geneva Conventions. The UN does does not recognize states. Israel and the US have used threats and procedural measures to block Palestine from acceding to human rights treaties and from becoming a UN member state. So they cannot demand that Palestine be held accountable under the terms of most international conventions. Nonetheless, there are customary rules that still apply to non-state belligerents. You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. harlan (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you are pathetic. After writing thousand of megabytes about how Palestine is a state as a fact that cannot be denied, and conducting endless wars with people asking to write "political entity" or "geopolitical entity" for the sake of precision, suddenly you back off and claim you were misunderstood, because your current attack on Israel is dependent on the idea that the Palestinians don't have a state. In short - your job here is to write anti-Israeli propaganda masking it with pseudo-scholar language and misuse of references. Did I mention you lack any drop of integrity? Have I mentioned you were pathetic? The problem is that you turn Wikipedia pathetic with you. I don't expect you to change, I just wonder why people who do value Wikipedia cooperate with you. Dhafda3 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork, for the last time, I've said that Wikipedia editors play no role in the recognition of states. Abba Eban said "The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State." See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12 [61] Lots of individual states have recognized Palestine as a state. That is just the way the cookie crumbles.

I did not say that the UN Special Rapportuer made policy, I said they have a mandate to report violations of human rights law. Dugard's report cited GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251 OF 15 MARCH 2006, and said 5. "At the outset it is necessary to stress the scope and limitations of my mandate. "I am required to report on violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by Israel in the OPT. (page 6). Those reports are official and require no endorsement. They may contain recommendations that can only be implemented by other organs.

The reported violations don't require any endorsement. For example, the Secretary General included the report by the Special Rapporteur, Jean Ziegler E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2, 31 October 2003 in the dossier he provided to the ICJ. It said "The building of the security fence/apartheid wall through Palestinian land is also threatening the right to food of thousands of Palestinians, leaving many Palestinians separated from their lands or imprisoned by the winding route of the fence/wall or in the closed military zone along the edge of the fence/wall." and "The Special Rapporteur is also particularly concerned by the pattern of land confiscation, which many Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals and non-governmental organizations have suggested is inspired by an underlying strategy of “Bantustanization”." The Court cited the findings in that report (para 133) as violations of the human rights the Court outlined in paragraph 134. [62] harlan (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, don't play innocent. You edit only I/P articles on Wikipedia, and you constantly push an extremely controversial political opinion based of feeble sources. When people tell you this is wrong, you answer: you have to bring source that proves I'm wrong. Trying to contradict your claims is like contradicting the claim that the moon is made of cheese. You won't find sources because no one actually take this claim seriously. However, even when sources are provided to you, your brutally reject them. You are not afraid to insult other editors, to humiliate them, to revert their legitimate edits etc. You get away with it because you have friends that bail you out and because you are a lawyer who knows how to plead before the pseudo-courts of Wikipedia. As for your claims here: Dugard's report has little value as a source. First of all, as you indicated, he himself claim they are limited and one-sided. That's actually enough to disqualify them as reliable source. Secondly, he is a person of extreme views. He calls for legitimization of Hamas rule in Gaza. He calls for the UN to step out of the quartet, and most importantly, he agreed to work for the Arab League during the recent war in Gaza, i.e. he took side in this conflict. His reports do not reflect anything but his own opinion. The fact that they are written on a UN official paper is not significant. This article cites Dugard extensively as if he were some kind of authority. He is not. If you want to write about human rights violation in the Palestinian territories, then the proper name for the article would be "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" and you will have to include all violations, of Israel, Hamas, the PA and even UNRWA. You will also have to provide the background, namely the fact that this region was a source of harsh terror attacks on Israeli civilians for years. Currently this article is merely a collection of references to propaganda against Israel. When you are confronted with this fact you say: yes, but Israel is bad so we might as well condemn it. Fair enough, but do it on your personal blog, not on Wikipedia. 79.176.16.63 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I added material to the State of Palestne article which said Robert Weston Ash and Secretary General Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the State of Palestine does not exist. You got into trouble for trying to remove all of the opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia has a project on international law, Wikipedia:WikiProject International law. I edit articles on international law, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations organs and their functions, diplomatic recognition, and statehood that have nothing to do with the Israel Palestine conflict.

Prof. Dugard isn't conducting a propaganda campaign. His reports on the situation in the OPT have been filed with the ICC Prosecutor and he is assisting Palestinian groups in South Africa that have filed criminal charges against IDF officers there. He reported to the UN that military incursions and shelling of civilians together with Israel's other actions constituted collective punishment and apartheid. The Goldstone Fact Finding Mission also reported on discrimination based upon race or national origin, collective punishment, persecution, and war crimes. Goldstone made several recommendations that were endorsed by the HRC, General Assembly, and the EU. The United Nations recognizes the League of Arab States as a regional group. Prof. Dugard was asked to serve on an Independent Fact Finding Committee by the Arab League with the tasks of investigating and reporting on violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law during the Israeli operation Cast Lead. The Committee was comprised of Professor John Dugard (South Africa: Chairman), Professor Paul de Waart(Netherlands), Judge Finn Lynghjem (Norway), Advocate Gonzalo Boye (Chile/Germany), Professor Francisco Corte-Real (Portugal: forensic body damage evaluator) and Ms Raelene Sharp, solicitor (Australia: Rapporteur). Their report, which cited the findings in the ICJ Wall case, was delivered to the ICC Prosecutor On 9 May 2009 by Secretary General Musa. Arab League members, like Jordan, are also members of the ICC. The Prosecutor met with the members of the investigating Committee to discuss their report on 15‐16 October 2009. See para 8 of the ICC Letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, dated 12 January 2010 [63] That report raised the issue of Israel's state responsibility to prevent incitement to genocide. It cited reliable reports in the press of rabbis advising soldiers that they had a duty to rid the holy land of gentiles. harlan (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about puppets, is anyone investigating?     ←   ZScarpia   11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean you are a puppet or just a politician? Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those.     ←   ZScarpia   12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC) -- (By the way, referring to edits as vandalism unless they clearly are vandalism breaches WP:CIVIL)

Good for you, then you don't need any inquiry. BTW, denying truth is not very civil either. Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As for your remark above - you blame the whole world about Original Research and Synthesis, but this exactly what you are doing in this article. You take a series of opinionated articles from Israel, you couple them with a UN envoy whose reports were never endorsed by the UN due to their bias, you take some Palestinian propaganda, and you compile an indictment against Israel. Then you present this indictment as if it encompass all Israel (while in fact it is relevant, if at all, only to a specific territory that has been recently a war zone). You also present opinions as facts and call it an encyclopedic article. People, wake up from your political dream. At least allow less impartial people to correct your errors, it is not a shame to admit mistakes. Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken, you've gone way over the WP:3RR bright-line.     ←   ZScarpia   12:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How good it is to discuss bureaucracy rather than facts. You know this trend was very popular in the Soviet Union. It is still common in N Korea. Quesilophonosis (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Usr received a template warning for this two hours ago, and still persisted. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I will bet good money that lustright == Quesilophonosis. Unomi (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And several other users could be added to the equation with little risk to your money I think.     ←   ZScarpia   13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged them all for sock-puppet investigations, and the most recent one as a username violation as well, as it is a munging of 3 of your usernames into one, for harassment purposes. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Tarc, you've just reverted verified information, namely that an Arab Israeli journalist wrote against the Apartheid analogy with strong word, and that the UN rapporteur was affiliated with the Arab League. Being mad at some guy is not an excuse for deletion of important verified information WatchFrog (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you're actually fooling anyone here? Tarc (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No Tarc, I merely try to show you how low this project has deteriorated making itself a political forum and adhering to bureaucracy like a Soviet regime, rather than to the pursuit of facts. Will you finally learn the lesson? Dhafda3 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the tools that the bureaucracy makes available becomes necessary when editors engage in idht and refuse to accept what is in the sources. Unomi (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, are you willing for once to step outside your political views, your bureaucracy, your anger, read the article and think: does it benefit anyone? Does it convey information? The Internet is full of propaganda, opinions, debates. Wikipedia is redundant if it's just another forum like these. Put "Betelgeuse" instead of Israel and "Martians" instead of Palestinians, and tell me if this is a good article. Be honest with yourself. Once you're honest with yourself about the content, you'll see that the bureaucratic measures become meaningful rather than just weaponry against people whom you don't like. 79.176.16.63 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of journalistic opinion regarding analogy and its flaws

This is the opinion of a notable Arab journalist, why is it being removed? Is the issue the source? -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was removing it from the lead because

1. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, and this source doesn't appear in the article. It appears that editor(s) are adding it to the lead in order to give it special prominence, which strike me as a POV warrior approach to editing.
2. It appears to have originally been added by an editor using multiple sock-puppets to evade a ban on editing Israel-Arab articles.
3. It was introduced using highly WP:weasel language
4. The quote given from the source merely re-iterates points made further down in the lead. Adding this source in the first paragraph in the lead, directly after a contrary statement as if it was a rebuttable, creates a tit-for-tat writing style that would be unsupportable if applied to the article as a whole.

My objection is to how the source is being used, not the source itself. I've only just read the source. Now that I've read it, I'd say it seems like an opinion piece that has a place in the article in the context of the dialogue for and against the analogy. It still doesn't seem to merit special prominence in the lead, as it simply repeats points made in other sources already cited. I have added it as a source against the point it supports, and it could also be added to the body of the article with the quote in-line.

On a personal note, I think this source is unconvincing because it only discusses the analogy in relation to "Israel proper", with no mention of the role of the State of Israel in wider Palestine. That's rather weird, given that most proponents of the analogy make it chiefly in regard to how Israel treats wider Palestine. However, this is just a personal (i.e. OR) concern, not something that will affect my editing in regard to this source. The source itself seems to be an RS for the opinion of the journalist, and relevant to the dialogue regarding whether there is apartheid in Israel proper. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, you say in your talk page: "Contraversial political pages are where (...) the systemic Western bias of an English-language wiki emerge." Do you edit this article to make it more informative, or are you battling against "systemic Western bias"?

1. If this article is about the WB&G, then why does it say that Israel treat "Palestinians" like SA treated non-white people? Mr. Toameh is an Israeli Palestinian and he says he didn't experience Apartheid in Israel. When I tried to add "Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza" I was condemned for spreading unreliable information. Now you say I was right. Are you going to be consistent about it?
2. The lead says: "Other advocates of Palestinian rights extend this analogy to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class." The fact that this analogy is false, according to renowned Israeli Arab journalist, is left to one of the inner paragraph. It is like writing in bold letters "the man is a murderer" and then below in small prints "but most people say he is not".
3. The entire article is a collection of opinions. There is no factual information in this article. Dugard is quoted extensively, though he merely offered his views, and he himself said these views are one-sided (he blames the UN for not granting him a wider mandate, but when it comes to criticizing the UN itself, Israel and the US, suddenly he forgets about the limits of his mandate). If this article is about opinions, then ALL opinions about the issue should be presented equally.
4. You use of the term "wider Palestine" is inappropriate in this context, and suggest your motives here are problematic. Am I wrong? 79.180.25.39 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello anonymous user. Yes, I'm concerned about systemic bias. But I don't oppose it through activism, I oppose it by trying to carefully follow Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NPOV. As you can probably imagine, this article is a magnet for "point of view warriors" of all stripes, but I'm not one of them. I don't have strong opinions on the subject, I just think it's a sensitive subject meriting a good article that explains the issues clearly and follows policy. I'm not a saint, and I surely get things wrong sometimes, but my motive is to edit in a neutral fashion and improve articles without pushing an agenda - even when I have an agenda, which in this case I don't.

1. I said that the apartheid label is chiefly applied in regard to "wider Palestine", by which I meant the geographic area encompassing both Israel proper and "Palestine" (and especially the relations between them). However it's also used in regard to Israel proper, although I think to a lessor degree. So it seems weird to me when those arguing against the apartheid label only argue against its use in regard to Israel proper, and ignore its more common or stronger use. I suspect they're deliberately ignoring the bigger issue, and writing for an uninformed audience that won't realise what's missing from their analysis. Of course, their may be a more innocent reason - I can think of a couple, but they're not very convincing.
2. The rebuttals to this point are presented in the second paragraph of the lead. Which is where I moved the source to. It's much more readable to state the case for in one paragraph, and then the case against in the next one, rather than a sentence-by-sentence manner that would be harder to follow and likely to result in a toxic editing environment as POV editors take turns expanding the tit-tat-tit-tat exchange.
3. The article is not entirely "opinion", it also covers some background information about the existence of certain international laws and "facts on the ground" like checkpoints that are not really contentious as points of fact. But yes, it's mostly about opinions. There is nothing wrong with having a Wikipedia article that presents opinions from reliable sources, so long as it follows WP:NPOV.
4. It's quite possible that my usage is inappropriate, feel free to mentally adjust it to the terms of your choice. I'm using it to mean the combined area that encompassed both Israel and "Palestine", and I thought that something like "wider Palestine" was a geographic term that would fit that, but could well be wrong. I'm not a geographer or a political analyst. It's not a term I'd use in my editing - I'd use whatever term the relevant sources used.

If you happen to be the editor who has been banned from editing Israeli-Arab conflict articles and is using sock puppets, can I suggest that your approach to editing is self-defeating and you may want to reconsider how you go about this? You seem articulate and somewhat informed on the subject, which are good attributes in an editor, but strong POV editing will just result in frustration. I would humbly suggest that you internalise WP:NPOV before trying again. There is plenty of space for opinionated editors to bring reliable sources to this article that support your personal opinion on the apartheid label, so long as you introduce the material in a neutral manner. I can only speak for myself, but I will strongly support any edits that introduce material that's against the apartheid label if it's done in a way that follows the NPOV policy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This IP clearly is another Drork sock. His only edit notes "When I tried to add "Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza" I was condemned for spreading unreliable information. Now you say I was right". This is the same edit that Drork has been warring on for weeks. I have reported the IP to SPI. RolandR (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY. It would be best to either strike or outright revert any further edits to this page by this sock. All this has devolved into now is trolling, and responses just feed this person's attention needs. I am hopeful that we will soon see the IP range of that ISP blocked for a good while. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just block all of Tel Aviv while you're at it? Breein1007 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As you have supported and restored this troll's comments and edits over the last day or so, forgive me if I do not place a high value on your opinion of the matter. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you knew Breein1007 better you likely would place any value on his opinion of the matter. Meat puppetting for a sock puppet now Bree? NickCT (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor of this article have just proved they are biased, and that they are not concerned about the content of the page, but rather at condemning Israel and other users. The comments above are more nails in Wikipedia's coffin. Those who wrote them should be very very ashamed of themselves, but they won't be, because they know not what they are doing. 79.180.25.39 (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Boaz Okon

This may be of interest for the article. Judge (retired) Boaz Okon, former director of the Israeli Court System, Yedioth Ahronoth (ynet) legal affairs editor, Milestone in right direction. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This article proves that there is no policy of Apartheid. Boaz Okon, just like the acting judges, says the army's decision was illegal. He says the acting judges should have said it more clearly and with more determination in their ruling. So be it. If you are convinced of a certain propaganda you will read it everywhere, and you clearly go along this way. As for the specific case described in the article - Palestinian militants used to shoot at passing cars on this road. This road begins inside Israel proper, passes through the West Bank and enters Jerusalem from north. The road has been always opened to Israeli residents, Jews, Arab or anyone else. West Bank residents used the road until militants started shooting at passing cars. Now the Supreme Court ruled that the measures taken by the army to protect Israelis' life were exaggerated. I wonder if a SA court, or even European one, would have ruled the same considering the circumstances. 79.180.25.39 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)