Jump to content

Talk:Israel and apartheid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ravpapa (talk | contribs) at 05:40, 22 July 2023 (→‎Opening sentence 2: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

anti -Semitic message

Carlos Latuff considered to be anti-Semite and holocaust dinier by most Jewish organizations around the world. Not just Israel. This cartoon has an anti-Semitic message, that corresponds with the blood libel that Jews murder children. This message is a form of new anti-Semitism, based on the foundations of traditional anti-Semitism, and has no place on Wikipedia. It has no encyclopedic value, other than increasing hatred. Although this atricle is one-sided and promotes the Palestinian position, I do not argue about it. But even Palestinian propaganda does not have to be anti-Semitic. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You Zionists are funny how you accuse others of bigotry when it is in fact you guys that are the bigots. Latuff is fine. 216.209.181.111 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"The Israeli government" is accused of... "committing the crime of apartheid". This phrasing is misleading. Which Israeli government? And why committing, implying a past occurrence? I find a better, more descriptive phrasing, and more prominent in the sources is that the State of Israel is accused of maintaining a system of apartheid. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dump the "accused" part and just say is. Israel is committing the crime of apartheid 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some say they are not, or at least that they do not support the use of the word. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"some" who? israeli sources or western anti-palistine media? 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Is there an appropriate infobox for this type of article, or perhaps an idea for a picture which could be used in the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think there is an infobox, what would be in it? Any picture is either going to be tied to an accusation, Apartheid road for example or else some sort of denial of same tho I can't think of an example off the top of my head. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Accusation"

So when are we exactly stopping the use of words like "accusation" and portraying the situation as it is described by reputable human rights organizations? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The language varies throughout the page. The two landmark HR organizations do not claim to make any accusations; they assert, based on gathered evidence, that the actions of Israel constitute the state committing the crime of apartheid. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if the Armenian genocide article started with: "According to historians, the Ottoman Empire is accused of murdering its Armenian minority." Or Apartheid starting with: "According to the UN, apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation in South Africa." That's not how articles should start. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's pretend that the idea that Israel practices apartheid is universally accepted. We're not talking Apartheid here, and not the Armenian genocide. It is totally fine to have your own views, but promoting them while deliberately ignoring the complexity of issues related the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, raises concerns about one's suitability to contribute to ARBPIA topics. Do you wish to convince others that Israel is a "apartheid state", as you stated several times in the past? There are plenty other platforms for it, so don't tarnish Wikipedia's reputation for it. We're not here for WP:ACTIVISM. We should make it clear in the first sentences of this article that those allegations are not widely accepted worldwide, even if several "reputable" organizations make them. Tombah (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Israel is an apartheid and occupying state. It is not me who is saying that. It is Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN, who are all make the same assertions, and no major international human rights organization has contested their findings; their assertions are widely accepted worldwide among the scholarly human rights community. Not to mention Israeli human rights organizations and South African anti-apartheid movement leaders who agree. WP:ACTIVISM concerns users who "put the goal of promoting their views above that of improving the encyclopedia". And that definitely is more fitting to a user who engages in ad hominem rather than discussing the issue at hand. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assertions speak for themselves, and the opening statement as it stands is adequate. Individual readers can evaluate for themselves whether they accept the findings of the world's collective human rights apparatus or not. On most topics, Wikipedia accepts the likes of Amnesty as WP:RSP, and the rejection of the findings of human rights organizations is, here or anywhere, a product of politics ... and yet politics is a force to be reckoned with. As such, the world currently couches these particular human rights findings in the language of attribution, not absolutes, and will continue to do so until the political landscape changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issues are not 'complex'. No one here is saying Israel is an 'apartheid state'. The point is simply what everyone without a political investment in spinning reality out of sight knows that in the territories it occupies, it occupies one to the end of creating settlements whose 'security' requires that every Palestinian area affected must be cordoned off, isolated, and rendered effectively a bantustan, whose potentially 'terrorist population' can thereby pose no threat to Israel's territorial and demographic expansion. The policy is called 'hafrada' which means what the SA term 'apartheid means. The only difference is that the SA model promoted, on the bantustans, political autonomy, recognized a type of internal statehood and didn't constantly shoot and kill people within those areas' borders, something Israel rules out. So it is not quite apartheid, but something worse. Think of the Warsaw ghetto model multiplied. This is not what I think. It is what South African rabbis like Solomon Rappaport, Louis Rabinowitz and André Ungar, mindful of the holocaust, knew to be the case in the early postwar period until an accommodation was made: ignore the apartheid issue as applied to Blacks to ensure that the Nazi-style antisemitism which once ran through the fathers of apartheid, now friends of Israel, disappeared off their agenda (I'm paraphrasing several sources, so no need to reply about foruming off-topic for political reasons).Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

@Tombah: The phrasing I chose clearly attributed the assertions to the human rights groups, you could have connected the two sentences instead of the current unappealing phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revisions Needed After US House Vote

On July 17, the US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of a non-binding resolution that says "the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state" [1]. The vote was 412-9-1. While the US has traditionally been a supporter of Israel, it has also frequently criticized Israeli policies, and for a resolution to pass so resoundingly across all major ideological spectrums of US politics is extremely notable and unquestionably needs to affect the tone of this article.

This article is currently written from the perspective that there is a vast consensus that Israel is committing apartheid and only Israel and its supporters "deny" this. Let me sum up the actual state of the debate.

The following summarizes those claiming Israel is committing apartheid:

  1. A number of NGOs, most notably Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem, all three of which made their claims within the last three years.
  2. A number of investigators at the UN who are not speaking on behalf of the UN as an organization, most notably Richard Falk and Francesca Albanese.
  3. Palestinian organizations
  4. The African National Congress in South Africa
  5. Various other individuals, typically those involved in left-wing politics or in the Arab world

The following have not claimed and have actively avoided stating that Israel is committing apartheid:

  1. The United Nations as an organization, whether via the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court.
  2. Every single government in the world speaking from an official capacity
  3. Every single reputable news organization in their news section, including The New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, BBC News, NPR, or CNN. I don't think even Al Jazeera (which Wikipedia editors generally consider a partisan source with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict) makes this claim in its news section.

The following have explicitly rejected the claim that Israel is committing apartheid:

  1. 95% of the US House of Representatives
  2. The Commission of the European Union [2]
  3. Various experts in international law and peace activists [3][4]
  4. The Israeli government
  5. Most Jewish-affiliated organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League

The consensus picture that emerges from this is very clear. Yes, two reputable human rights organizations (Amnesty and HRW) have argued in recent years that Israel is committing apartheid. But that conclusion has not been accepted, at least not yet, by the global community (i.e. global governments or the UN) or by any reputable news organization reporting on the subject. It is considered a controversial topic that has not achieved consensus, and is rejected by the EU and US governments. (If you excuse my editorializing, the reason for this is obvious - the crime of apartheid is an explicitly racial crime, while Israel's actions are clearly not racial in nature.)

Given the fact that the US House resoundingly rejected the claim that Israel is an apartheid state, and the fact that the Israel-apartheid link has not been embraced by reputable news organizations or the global community, I suggest the following revision to the first paragraph.

"The claim that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid is an assertion debated by scholars in international law. This contention gained increasing prominence in the early 2020s following the release of reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, in which they allege that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the occupied Palestinian territories and, according to Amnesty International, in Israel proper. This claim has been rejected by Israel and its supporters as well as by the United States House of Representatives." Y2K-96 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US is the most obvious of Israel's supporters, so this isn't an update that adds anything to the existing sentence. The house in the US just held a vote on something that was already the government's standing policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah and it does not cross your head that US member of congress are paid of by AIPAC or other pro Israel lobbies, its just a political stance.
US is a stanct Israeli ally, more than how Al-Jazera is a partisian source.
adds nothing Proud Indian Arnab (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is up to debate among scholars too, as he laid out. It just cannot be portrayed as fact. 109.253.195.188 (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll secound this. the accusation of israel as an apartheid state cannot be portrayed as a fact in wikipedia
while it is up a fierce debate in the outside world. It is clear that this article was hijacked by propagandists. 109.253.195.188 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is ECP protected, so any IP editors contributing would be well reminded to remain constructive, and not disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zero revisions are needed. A lower house resolution where lawmakers vote based on political interests is not in the same domain as detailed human rights reports by leading reputable international organizations. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reports from the two reputable NGOs are definitely relevant, but this is also clearly a topic that is still under fierce debate by legal scholars and has not achieved any form of consensus. The stance of the global community is also unquestionably always relevant, and the US Congress is arguably the most important nation-level governmental body in the world. The resounding rejection by virtually all members of Congress is particularly noteworthy. The apartheid claim has also been rejected by the EU and is not accepted at this time by the UN as an organization. Two NGOs, even if generally respected, cannot be said to represent the neutral point of view on a topic that is subject to widespread disagreement. This is a topic that is contentious among experts in the field and you would be flagrantly operating in violation of WP:NPOV if you maintained the current form of the opening paragraph. Y2K-96 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions of the politicians of no individual country is particularly noteworthy. The only thing that really has any real world impact is the official policy or line of a country or organization on an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can argue what you like, but Wikipedia talk pages are not for advancing novel arguments. A non-binding resolution from one part of one countries legislature is not a, all that notable, b, all that reliable for a topic covered by academic sources. Beyond that, this article does not say as a matter of fact that Israel is guilty of apartheid. It says who says this and why, and it also says who disputes it. It already includes that Israel's allies, including the United States, reject the charge. The second sentence in the article is Israel and its supporters deny this. It later says Israel and a number of Western governments and other organizations and scholars have rejected the charges or objected to the use of the word "apartheid" In the body, in the section Israel and apartheid § Response, it goes to great lengths on the US response and the history of that response. Now I think the opening paragraph can be rephrased, mostly so it starts with who says it rather than ending with according to. But the claim that this article either states as a fact what it attributes to specific sources or that it does not include the responses it clearly does is a fabrication and needs no further examination. nableezy - 02:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My post specifically flagged the opening paragraph as something that needs to be completely rewritten. It was not intended to discuss the article as a whole in detail. The opening paragraph is intended to convey the overall picture of the article and it is crucial that it is written with the proper implications. I realize that I have not broken down in clear terms what is so flagrantly misleading about the opening paragraph so I will do so here.
Readers of the opening paragraph should be able to ascertain which of the following is correct:
  1. The consensus is that Israel is committing apartheid
  2. The consensus is that Israel is not committing apartheid
  3. There is no consensus as of yet regarding whether Israel is committing apartheid
My post explained in very clear terms why the third option is clearly the most accurate option. It is a fact that many legal scholars argue that Israel is not committing apartheid and that this is subject of open debate. The consensus of Western governments, as represented by both the EU and the US, is that Israel is not committing apartheid. The UN has not concluded as of yet that Israel is committing apartheid despite pressures to do so, and no reputable news organization has reported this as fact either. I think that when no governments have weighed in on this topic, and both the EU and 95% of a partisan-divided House rejected the claim, that for the wiki's opening paragraph to imply that the claim is the consensus is absurd. As I made very clear, this is not just about the resounding House vote - that is just one indication among the many I provided that this is a contentious and unsettled claim.
Yet it is very clear that the opening paragraph is implying that the false first option is correct. It does so in the following ways:
  1. The paragraph opens with the statement "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." It then qualifies that this is according to as yet unnamed human rights groups, but when a paragraph opening with such a statement, the emphasis is that this is generally considered a fact. We must not only remove that opening line, but also make clear in the first sentence that the link between Israel and apartheid is subject to disagreement.
  2. The paragraph falsely implies there is a consensus among neutral parties (and even neutral Israelis) by, other than a snarky reference to the Israeli position, only stating that this position is embraced by "international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups." The sum of experts on this subject clearly do not only include two NGOs, but also legal scholars, government officials working on and mediating the conflict, peace activists, and of course the UN as an organization. The fact is that there is widespread disagreement among those experts, and the most notable expert (the United Nations) has not taken an official stance. This implication is thus a lie, as there are many neutral parties (as far as anyone can be neutral) that reject this claim. (The reference to Israeli human rights groups is also odd, considering B'tselem is not a human rights group that represents Israelis, but simply a group based in Jerusalem that is funded by non-Israeli governments and individuals.)
  3. The paragraph says Israel and its supporters "deny" this, which usually means "refuses to admit the truth or existence of," again implying there is a consensus. The correct term would be "reject."
I honestly do not know how anyone can defend this opening paragraph. It is openly ideological and extremely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article that should be adhering to NPOV. And I have not heard a single objection to my proposed revision. Y2K-96 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed opener is mealy mouthed and gives undue weight to political positions over the views of scholars and experts in the field of international law. So while I agree the opening paragraph can be improved, and Ill try to do that, no, your proposal is substantially worse. nableezy - 04:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong. The word accusation gives the implication that this is yet to be investigated, which is factually wrong. These organizations are not just accusing out of thin air, they are announcing their detailed findings over decades of work in the territories. A lower house resolution does nothing to change that. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is an accusation, and just like the US Congress does not determine The Truth neither do the human rights organizations cited. You have to present contested views as contested views, that goes for all sides of an issue. nableezy - 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
§Government reactions already has a major WP:PROSELINE problem, which I hesitate to worsen, but I do think a short mention of the US congressional vote is due. Something like "In 2023, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution stating that Israel is not an apartheid state." It could be cited to this NYT piece. I don't think the whole article needs reworking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the lack of consensus presented by the sorces brought in the comment above I want to suggest a structural change.
The structure of the article should reflect the character of the discourse which resembles a debate between prosecutor and defendant. Namely, there should be a response paragraph in any section instead of a section of responses. Currently, the structure implies that there is a consensus that israel is an apartheid state.
Moreover, the last sentance in the opening paragraph should be changed: it can be inferred from the sources in the comment above that Israel and its supporters are not the only ones rejecting the accusation. Moreover, major organisations and governments rejecting the claim should be mentioned by name (very much like the accusers), and not collectively as "supporters of Israel", even if this is indeed the case (and what does that even mean?) as it implies that all supporters of israel are not reliable sources.
Similar edit suggestions I made were erased for "lack of sources", I hope that now It is clear on which sources I base my suggestions. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus that no major changes are needed. Also, if one reads the article carefully, the opposition as often as not is a) political and b) rejecting the use of the word 'apartheid' rather than engaging with the specific charges. If there were to be any changes, then this would need to be brought out as well. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list of sources/organisations that Y2K-96 brought that disputes apartheid accusations or simply doesn't make the accusation are enough to disprove the existence of consensus. If you think otherwise you should deal with the points he made before declaring consensus in the opening paragraph. 109.253.180.4 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

For the past few weeks there has been ongoing changes to the opening sentence relating if it should start with "International, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups say that Israel is" or start with "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid... according to". I have never ever seen an opening sentence to an article that starts with an attribution and then the information. Information first then attribution. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid the is/accusation/allegation stuff at the outset. Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again use of words "accusation/charge/allegation/say" implies baseless claim being thrown around, as if the organizations making them haven't been observing the conflict for decades nor providing detailed studies and analyses. Simple, "Israel is committing... according to..". This is what majority of reputable, reliable and independent sources are saying. No reasons or meaningful counterarguments have been provided on why we should rephrase otherwise, especially in an usual way that starts an article by stating the attribution first and then the information. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier and I independently arrived at the same initial wording. I think the actors making the assertions is the right way to start this, since certain actors (albeit extremely weight actors) making assertions is indeed the subject here. We could perhaps add a majority of Middle Eastern scholars to that mix too. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me one single article whose first sentence starts with an attribution. There is none because it doesn’t make sense. This article isn’t an exception. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me a policy or guide or anything that says we can't do that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, all of the quoted sentences emphasize how the lead sentence should start with the title as subject, and should start with it as early as possible.
WP:LEADSENTENCE:
  • The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
  • If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
  • Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
MOS:BOLDTITLE:
  • If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.
MOS:DONTTEASE: Wikipedia leads are not written in news style.
An article named "Israel and apartheid" should start with this title as the subject (not necessarily literally). If anyone believes the subject is controversial, then maybe their problem is actually with the title (scope) of the article. An article that starts with "According to.." would be an article named "Allegations of ....". You get the point. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
It does.
The title is Israel and apartheid not Israeli apartheid as the latter is not yet a thing. We should not bold a descriptive title in general but say we did start the article using the words Israel and apartheid, what follows then? Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not to use a bold descriptive title in the first three words. My point is that Wikipedia guidelines clearly emphasize that the subject (the first few words of the lead sentence) should explain the title (scope of the article). When reading an article about Israel and apartheid one would expect to read first words about Israel and apartheid, and that occurs when we write the lead sentence in this way "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the... according to...". This way identifies Israel as the perpetrator, apartheid as a crime, and a crime according to what law (that is what the title/article scope is about anyway), and then mentions by whom were the investigations and the designations made by (not allegations and claims). In short: title decides scope decides subject; if you find the subject problematic, then fight the title.
Furthermore, although as mentioned earlier there is a difference between journalistic and encyclopaedic writing, even this New York Times article follows the same aforementioned logic in the title, in the abstract and in the lead sentence. Facial Recognition Powers ‘Automated Apartheid’ in Israel, Report Says Makeandtoss (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leading human rights group calls Israel an ‘apartheid’ state AP doing it the other way around and also putting apartheid in quotes like the NYT, I'm guessing you don't want to do that, right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read the AP title: "Leading human rights group calls Israel an ‘apartheid’ state". This is how they chose the title, thus the article scope, thus the first few opening words. The AP article is about what this specific Israeli human rights group is saying; more than about the apartheid regime/situation in place; unlike the NYT article and unlike this Wikipedia article. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to read the AP title, I put it up for you to read. We don't pay attention to WP:HEADLINES for a reason and headlines are not equivalent to article titles. The opening sentence does say what the article is principally about, does it not? Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current opening sentence places the focus on the consensus rather than the crime. This opening sentence belongs to an article titled "Analogies and designations of Israel as apartheid". Makeandtoss (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say analogies, analogy or designation anywhere. It does mention Israel and apartheid though and that there are two sets of views about that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reliable set of views and that is of Middle East scholars and international human rights organizations. The opposing view is of the Israeli government and its western governments supporters. Was the latest Congress resolution based on any study or just wishful thinking and political considerations? And see? Now we are discussing the scope and the article title, and that seems where your objections to this lie. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Human right organisations are prosecutors and one side to the debate among many-not the ultimate judge. the article should indeed reflect this. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. The global political consensus is clearly against the use of such terminology (if only by omission), so it is currently human rights groups + scholars versus politicians. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"60 percent of respondents (the scholars) described the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories as a “one-state reality with inequality akin to apartheid.”
this is citation from the source you provided for your addition. As you can see, they did not claim that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but only that the situation resembles apartheid. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added that source for the "broad consensus" and I think that is a fair summary of what the article says, viz:
"A flurry of reports by Israeli and international nongovernmental organizations documenting these inequalities have driven the term “apartheid” from the margins of the Israeli-Palestinian debate to its center. Apartheid refers to the system of racial segregation that South Africa’s white minority government used to enshrine white supremacy from 1948 to the early 1990s. It has since been defined under international law and by the International Criminal Court as a legalized scheme of racial segregation and discrimination and deemed a crime against humanity. Major human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have applied the term to Israel. So have many academics: according to a March 2022 poll of Middle East–focused scholars who are members of three large academic associations, 60 percent of respondents described the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories as a “one-state reality with inequality akin to apartheid."
How else would you summarize it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus among scholars is not about "the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" as the opening paragraph states, but about "one-state reality with inequality akin to apartheid." Only akin to apartheid, not the crime of apartheid itself. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a summary of what's in the article, I don't actually need the cite in the lead so I removed it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you claim there is a consensus among middle east scholars if not the mentioned survey? 109.253.180.4 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to WAPO in the article (or to the cite I removed, which I can add to the article). Do you think the survey was asking the question about South African apartheid? (rather than the crime). Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source for a broad consensus does not support that. The source supports that there is a consensus that there are "abiding and severe inequalities", and it supports that the word apartheid has been moved from the fringes to the center of the debate on Israel and its practices, but it does not support there is a consensus for the charge. nableezy - 17:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Apartheid Means for Israel may also do:
"All of this work owed much to decades of tireless Palestinian advocacy to achieve wider recognition of Israeli apartheid. To acknowledge that underlying effort raises the question of why it took the endorsement by Israeli and international organizations, reiterating what Palestinians had long been telling anyone inclined to hear it, in order to make headlines in mainstream Western media. Nevertheless, that qualification does not detract from the power of this moment: the emergence of a broad consensus that has made it much harder to deny either the singular character of the Israeli regime or the essential unity of the Palestinian people." (my italics). Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or a scholarly source "But it is clear that international law’s definitions and prohibitions of apartheid, and the positions now increasingly being taken by major human rights organisations, have been a core driver of the broadening consensus on Israeli apartheid." Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone claims that there is a consensus does not necessarily mean that one indeed exists. Also, you are expected to provide a source with evidence for a consensus among human rights organizations or erase the notion. 109.253.180.4 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just did that, above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source with evidence for consensus should contain a review of the official stands of all major human right organizations. One scholar that claims that a consensus exists is not enough. 109.253.180.4 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are at liberty to include a source saying there is no consensus among human rights organizations if you wish. The official stances of the major orgs are described in the article. It is easy to source themselves saying there is a consensus eg Human Rights Consensus Around Crime of Apartheid Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That latter one supports that there is a broader consensus emerging, but a. that is not saying one exists today, and b. this is still a very poor way of introducing the topic. nableezy - 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a March 2023 source, perhaps the consensus has evaporated since then but I don't think so. I am open to different ways of introducing the topic, suggest something else since people seem to have some different views about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two key points of discussion here.
  1. Is there currently consensus among experts that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid or has no such consensus yet emerged?
  2. How should we characterize the opponents of the apartheid designation in the opening paragraph?
Let me tackle the consensus question first in light of the new sources that were provided. While there is no source I am aware of that explicitly states "there is no consensus," I believe the weight of the evidence is in favor of the argument that there is no consensus yet. Three sources were raised to support this claim that there is already a consensus: the book by John Reynolds, the Tareq Baconi opinion article, and the article from the Washington Post. I think they all point to the exact opposite, that consensus does not yet exist.
Here is why I say this:
  1. Both of the two sources that used the word "consensus," while written by activists, are careful to avoid stating that a consensus exists. Both use qualifiers - the Reynolds book refers to a "broadening consensus" and the Baconi opinion article refers to "a growing consensus." The use of the qualifiers "broadening" and "growing" indicate that consensus has not been established, but the author believes that we are on a path towards achieving consensus and that consensus will ultimately emerge. In other words, there is no consensus yet. It is particularly notable that the current paragraph in Wikipedia goes much farther than even the most ostensibly pro-consensus sources, stating not only that the consensus already exists, but that it is a broad consensus. This is not supported by any sources.
  2. Both of the two sources that use the word "consensus" refer to a vague growing consensus surrounding Israel and apartheid, but they do not state what they believe this growing consensus to be. They do not state that there is a growing consensus that Israel is committing apartheid in a colloquial sense, and they definitely do not state that there is a growing consensus that Israel is violating the crime of apartheid.
  3. The Washington Post provides some useful numbers: 65 percent of the scholars agree with the statement that the current situation can be described as “a one state reality akin to apartheid." The remaining scholars do not agree with the statement. Let us first discuss the prompt. As has already been stated, the prompt uses the phrase "akin to apartheid," which is another source of evidence that experts discussing the issue often avoid directly labeling it as apartheid and use the word as an analogy instead. (Not that it matters in this discussion, but I personally think you can make a solid argument that Israel's actions are "akin to apartheid," but the arguments are fatally flawed if they try to claim that Israel acts are literally apartheid, meaning they are racial in nature and constitute a system of intentional racial domination.)
  4. Now let's discuss that number accepting the analogy - 65 percent. For Wikipedia's internal policies, it is very clear that consensus is not a majority vote - see wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus In general, there is no defined number for consensus, but if a number is placed, that number is generally 75 percent [5]
While the views of scholars are not the only factor, I am glad that we are taking a closer look at the evidence on this. The evidence is clear: When describing views of other scholars and experts on the topic, all sources refer to growing support for the apartheid designation but imply that a consensus does not exist.
Now let me tackle the second question: How should we characterize the opponents of the apartheid designation?
Right now, the article describes the opponents as "Israel and its supporters" and uses the word "deny."
As mentioned, the opponents include both the EU Commission, a wide consensus of Western politicians, and a relevant minority of legal and topic experts. While some of these organizations may or may not "support" Israel (I don't think the EU for example has taken such a position), you definitely cannot reduce them and their views to "Israel and its supporters." The EU Commission, for example, is one of the world's most highly respected governmental bodies. In describing those rejecting the apartheid designation, we should gesture to the consensus of Western governments and to the minority of legal experts, not reduce all opponents to "Israel and its supporters."
Lastly, the use of the word "deny" is clearly inappropriate. The word "deny" is intended to convey an editorialized viewpoint that those rejecting the claim are unequivocally wrong. It is appropriate to be used in contexts such as "Holocaust denial," where the rejection is of facts that are clearly and overwhelmingly true. In this case, there is no question that the word "reject" is more appropriate for a Wikipedia article adhering to NPOV. If you are writing an opinion article, the word "deny" might be a useful rhetorical turn of phrase, but it is wholly inappropriate in a Wikipedia article about a topic that remains controversial among experts. Y2K-96 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is with a heavy heart that I must agree with @Y2K-96. Heavy because personally, there is no doubt in my mind that what is happening in the West Bank is apartheid in its most heinous form. But to call 65% a "broad consensus" and to dismiss the EU Commission and the US government as "Israel's supporters" is a low form of yellow journalism that only undermines Wikipedia's integrity. Ravpapa (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really know how anybody is arguing otherwise here. Im going to re-edit the lead, and Makeandtoss kindly dont just blanket revert based on "no consensus". There doesnt appear to be a consensus for how things stand here either, and look at who youre arguing against. nableezy - 12:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be confusing separate things here, the broad consensus is among hro's primarily, all the major ones agree that Israel meets the bar for the crime and have backed it with detailed legal and other reporting. If we want to nitpick the Middle East scholarly consensus, it can be removed from the lead sentence (done), its in the article anyway.
If we want to name the Israel supporters in the lead, that's fine by me as long as we name the opponents as well. The result will be a more lengthy opening sentence or sentences. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at a rewrite of the opening paragraph. This article had been previously an attempt to obfuscate the topic, but it is turning in to a one seeking to prove some truth. Human rights organizations, politicians, all of these things are sources. They are not The Truth, and as with all things our job is to try to represent the sources and give them their due weight. That does not mean saying HRW, AI, and Btselem said this so its true and everything else is bullshit and can be ignored. nableezy - 13:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to @Nableezy for an excellent rewrite. Ravpapa (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestion

"...have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population amount..."

apartheid is not defined by "total and severe" human right violation. It has unique characteristics (mainly segregation). Therefore I would suggest instead:


"...have said that the segregation maintained by the Israeli authorities in the Palestinian territories/west bank amount..."

This is the opening of the "apartheid" article,as you can see apartheid is defined using the word "segregation", which justify the change.

"Apartheid was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 to the early 1990s."

Moreover, Israrel does not reject the charge just as "inaccurate" but as false. I think we should soften the "antisemitic" part to "sometimes antisemitic", neither all critics of Israel's policies are antisemitic nor Israel claim so.

109.253.195.172 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bit on totality and severity is based on HRW: In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. and Amnesty International: The totality of the regime of laws, policies and practices described in Amnesty International’s report demonstrates that Israel has established and maintained an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination of the Palestinian population for the benefit of Jewish Israelis – a system of apartheid – wherever it exercises control over Palestinians’ lives. The antisemitic bit is based on CNN: Amnesty International has become the latest human rights organization to accuse Israel of apartheid for its treatment of Palestinians, prompting an angry response from Israel, which has denounced the report as anti-Semitic. I can change inaccurate to false. nableezy - 18:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_apartheid&oldid=1166532694"