Talk:Israel and apartheid

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

Change "Opponents of the analogy claim it is intended to delegitimize Israel." to "Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually and historically inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel." 148.87.19.218 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Very good suggestion, I just added it and provided reliable sources. Yambaram (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Yambaram: Please review WP:Identifying reliable sources. What makes those sources reliable? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

These sources are used to supposedly say what "opponents" think about the analogy. The Jewish Federations of North America is undoubtedly a reliable opponent to use their opinion for it, and the same thing goes for NGO monitor. Yambaram (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there evidence in the form of secondary source coverage to demonstrate that these opinions have more than zero weight from a WP:DUE perspective ? The world is full of opinions. I'm especially concerned at the direct citation of NGO Monitor as if their opinion is automatically a 'significant viewpoint' and based on a reliable assessment of the facts. This is an organization that has used its staff to infiltrate Wikipedia and engineer content. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland I understand that you demand I meet the highest requirement standards for citing the sentence "Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is morally, factually and historically inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel", so the challenge was accepted:

• Academia.edu: Israel/Palestine and the apartheid analogy: critics, apologists andstrategic lessons - Ran Greenstein, University of the Witwatersrand
• The Apartheid Analogy: Wrong for Israel, by the Anti Defamation League
• History News Network: "On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy" by Gil Troy of McGill University
• Israel National News - The Top 5 Fatal Flaws of the Israel Apartheid Analogy
• "South African Watchdog Declares Israel an Apartheid State", by Honest Reporting.

Yambaram (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination sidebar

This has been a part of the article for ~5 years now, and should not be subject to flippant removal. Users are free to begin a new discussion as consensus can change after all, but i nthe meantime it should not be removed. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this sidebar was there for five years doesn't justify its use in the article and doesn't make it right. And there was never an "official" consensus to include it, which your comment seems to imply.

Just the article's name is a sufficient reason not to include this sidebar. Unlike Apartheid South Africa, this article is not called "Apartheid Israel", and rightly so. This article is about the comparison between Israel and the apartheid analogy, a comparison which is highly disputed, criticized and denied, not only by Israel itself. So we cannot present it as a fact and link to that discrimination sidebar, as this violates WP:NPOV in the most serious way possible. Yambaram (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If one was to delete all of the article's text that dealt with discrimination we would be left with a blank article. Sepsis II (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to the perennial misconception that just because the Wikipedia has an article about the Israeli apartheid analogy, that means that the project is saying that the analogy is true. The Wikipedia is not making a judgement or determination that what Israel does is apartheid or is discriminatory; the sidebar simply provides navigation to similar topics and discussions. Tarc (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm glad you acknowledge that. So according to your last sentence, I could add the sidebar Template:Antisemitism as this analogy as well as many of its believers are very often regarded as antisemitic by official sources. Also, according to you, another "similar topic" to link to would be Template:Anti-cultural sentiment, which should also be included in the article since it links to the "Anti-Zionism", a term often very closely associated with those supportive of the Israeli apartheid analogy.

So either the discrimination sidebar be removed or these two templates be added (and other ones, if needed, to balance the article). Because as it is now, it clearly violates Wikipedia's core principles. -Yambaram (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Apartheid, the subject of the article, is discriminatory. If we're going to start adding templates by degrees of relation then let's add a Kevin Bacon template as well. Sepsis II (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As such additions would be an exercise in WP:POINT-making rather than adding legitimate content to the article, they would likely be reverted, with sanctions on the editor to follow. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis, of course apartheid is discrimination, but you're missing the point again. Apartheid is not the subject of the article - "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is the subject, and there's a huge difference. By including the discrimination bar, the article implies that there's really apartheid in Israel. If the article' name was "Apartheid in Israel" or "Apartheid Israel", then that would be fine, but this isn't the case here as the analogy is disputed more often than not, and since many officials say apartheid does not exist in Israel (some argue that the opposite is the truth and that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is better than what they get in Jordan, or that they live better than most Muslims in the Arab world) and therefore we cannot use that bar, which clearly advances a certain point of view. And I wasn't saying I'm going to add these two other template, I was explaining why by Tarc's logic they should be added to the article as well. Yambaram (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "By including the discrimination bar, the article implies that there's really apartheid in Israel...". No, it does not. Again, a perennial misconception about what navigation templates are and what purpose they serve. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

According to you, it's okay to add the template Nazism to the article 'Arab nationalism' because of the established ties between the two, right? See WP:NAV - "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them". Many (if not most) of the reliable sources in this article claim that apartheid/discrimination and Israel are not related, and that Israel is not an apartheid state. So placing it like that in the lead is is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and I'll report it at the proper board if needed. Yambaram (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

• Keep the sidebar. I think that the navigation template is appropriate. This article contains multiple undisputed reliably sourced statements about various kinds of discrimination in Israel against Palestinians. Some say there is discrimination, some say there is not. Some say the putative discrimination is like apartheid, others disagree. Whether or not there is discrimination, and whether or not that discrimination, if it exists, is like apartheid, are not relevant. Obviously the article is about discrimination, so the navigation template is appropriate. How can anyone seriously deny, based on the sources in the article, that the article is about discrimination, even if there is no discrimination for it to be about? Thus the suggested guideline for template inclusion in the essay WP:NAV is satisfied: If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. Actually, now that I think of it, the converse of that statement is satisfied, as there are reliable sources in the article that establish the relationship. It's just an essay, though, so I suppose we can assume that the statement is meant as an if and only if rather than an implication.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the sidebar. In addition to what has been already written, please notice that the discrimination bar includes "manifestations" such as Antisemitism, Arab supremacy and reverse discrimination; so even if the sidebar were read as implying discrimination (and it does not imply that, as already staed), one could see it as discrimination by Israeli towards Arabs, but also as false allegations by Arab supremacists to justify their antisemitism. Therefore it is ambivalent, and hence neutral. -- LNCSRG (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral I see no actually reason to have it but I can find no objection to keep it. There certainly is information about Discrimination in the article but...Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: Which question is being posed in this RFC? Assuming it is "should the sidebar be kept?", I'd say yes, the sidebar should be kept since apartheid and the various discriminative policies (preferential access to judicial systems or natural resources) are, well, discriminating. --Dailycare (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Apartheid is discrimination so the sidebar is justified. It does not imply anything. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the sidebar It's pretty obvious that all sides of this issue circulate around the idea of discrimination. It really should stay in. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - As apartheid is a form of discrimination, it is helpful to navigate to similar topics. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - but if the sidebar is included shouldn't this article also be listed in the template itself? Downwoody (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Article

Recent piece in Expressen (major daily newspaper in Sweden), by Göran Rosenberg, http://www.expressen.se/kultur/goran-rosenberg/en-apartheidstat/ . A key piece which could be used in the article, translated, "When three Jewish youths were kidnapped and killed recently by an dubiously identified Palestinians, the Israeli army launched a military operation, arresting hundreds of Palestinians and killing five. When a Palestinian boy a few days later was burned alive a regular police operation was launched. When the Israeli military believed they had identified some suspected Palestinian perpetrators their family residences were blown up. When the Israeli police apprehended suspected Jewish perpetrators nothing was blown up. The Palestinian perpetrators will be convicted by an Israeli military court under military occupation laws. The Jewish perpetrators will be tried in a civil court under civilian Israeli law.

Different laws for different groups of people is the definition of apartheid, not to talk of separate territories. Since the two-state solution in practice is run over (or overbuilt), it is therefore the state of Israel that solely responsible for two and a half million severely discriminated inhabitants." --Soman (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious Mandela reference

It would appear that the recently entered Mandela reference was from a mock memo that has turned into something of a hoax. See Mandela memo:How it started?. I'd delete the reference myself if I found something more authoritative than a tumblr page. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The text figures here http://books.google.com/books?ei=PZTFU8-UAcbG0QWS5YGwDw&hl=en&id=bOMhAQAAIAAJ , p. 41, with the source given as Sowetan Sunday World, May 19, 2002, p. 18. Notably, whilst the tumblr account says it started in 2001, this text (which is not entirely clear who published it either) given 2002 as year of publication. --Soman (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

One State Solution vs Two State Solution

Where does the one-state vs two-state argument come into play in this analogy? While the the phrase Apartheid is accurate in describing the de facto situation in Palestine those who want to see a two state solution to this crisis would object to the usage of the apartheid analogy because it implies that the two entities in question, Israel and Palestine, ought to be one state.