Talk:Israel and apartheid

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

New version of proposed contribution

As part of the process of attaining an agreed text, and given that there will also be a suggested version from Ryan Paddy, I would like to present the results of my own further research on the issues raised in my original proposed contribution. That contribution attempted two chief things: 1, it focussed on "delegitimization" as a chief motivation for those advocating the "apartheid analogy," and 2, it sought to give a brief historical background to this sort of advocacy and the current "Israel Apartheid" campaign. The determined and often merely obstructionist rejection of consensus over the past several months has enabled me to pursue the research further on both these topics, and leads to the following much improved version. It raises many important and basic new points highly relevant to the topics, and they cannot all be summarized even partly in a single paragraph; moreover, these points are distinct and important enough in themselves, and generally come from such impeccable and leading political, diplomatic, and academic sources, both non-Jewish and Jewish, that they deserve the allocation of several paragraphs without any fear of giving "undue weight" to their viewpoints. They do considerably advance the case offered in the main article under "Differences in Motivations." I offer them here, with the hope that they might be helpful also to Ryan Paddy and he might want to draw upon them for his own suggested version.

The treatment of footnotes is always a problem in such matters. I have tried in earlier versions to include the footnotes as indented material; this breaks up the text too much, and would especially do so in this case, where there are 60 footnotes. I have taken care to support every statement with cited sources in footnotes, generally at the end of paragraphs but often after every sentence. So I have collected the footnotes as endnotes below the text, and to save space have put them one after another without line breaks. I have also tried to follow what appears to be general Wikipedia style for footnotes, which is to give a separate footnote for each cited source. In general, I have only included several sources in a single footnote when the sources comment on each other.

Here is the contribution:

Many other critics of the apartheid analogy have considered "delegitimization" to be a key motivation behind the "apartheid" and "racist" accusations, stigmatizing and demonizing Israel through the consistent application of double standards. As these critics argue, such accusations differ from ordinary criticisms of particular flaws, such as we find in and about any other country, by their essentializing and generalizing demonization of Israel and Zionism per se, to justify rejection and elimination of the Jewish state as such.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]10][11][12][13][13a]

The double standards are evidenced, it is said, in a perfectionist invocation of universal principles used solely to delegitimize Israel: it is argued that they are used to condemn Israel alone amongst all nations for social practices and flaws that are similar to and no worse than those found in all countries including liberal democracies. As a number of commentators have said, none of these standards are used to accuse the P.A. itself nor neighbouring states of what the critics say are the much worse racism and/or "apartheid"-like practices there, nor to advocate boycotts, ostracism or delegitimization of them.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

According to the analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison, close linguistic analysis reveals deeper philosophical and logical problems and even frequent self-contradictions inherent in such delegitimization discourse, and in the use of racism and apartheid charges against Israel, particularly when proclaimed from what he terms "messianic liberalism" left and secular relativist standpoints. What he sees as the indiscriminate rhetoric, logical incoherence and moral confusion of this discourse arise in part from the many sometimes self-contradictory sources and interests involved and often uncritically merged together, ranging from secular relativism to absolutistic Islamism, and from historical indebtedness to "fascist" antisemitic propaganda both of the far right and far left (Harrison defines "fascist" as including both the Nazi and the Soviet Communist totalitarian systems).[21]

Some leading authorities on modern history, the history of the Middle East and the history of antisemitism, concur that the language demonizing and delegitimizing Zionism as "racist" and "oppressive" predates the establishment of the State of Israel, and had sources in non-Palestinian antisemitic movements. The Nazi propaganda to this effect, its meshing with Islamist anti-Jewish traditions and modern outrage at any part of "the Muslim world" being ruled by non-Muslims, and its resultant impact on Palestinian nationalist ideology and practice even before the establishment of the State of Israel, is discussed in a number of publications by specialists in German history and the Middle East.[22][23][24][25][26[27][27][28][29][29a][30][30a]

Bat Ye'or, a specialist in the history of Muslim-Jewish relations, sees the Islamic role as central: the Palestinian and general Muslim emphasis on such accusations as "apartheid" is according to her part of a wider campaign by them to delegitimize the Jewish state: that this is a larger pattern is notably shown, she says, in their denial that there are any Jewish holy sites anywhere in the Holy Land (including on the Temple Mount itself).[30b]

But another important source, according to scholars of the history of the Soviet Union, of the history of antisemitism, and the modern history of the Jews, was Russian antisemitism of the Tsarist period, which was taken up and continued in the Soviet Union as "anti-Zionism," often equating it with Nazism and by the 1960s with apartheid South Africa, as one of the regime's main ideological enemies within the U.S.S.R.[31][32][33][34]

Two U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. during the 1970s and 80s, Daniel Patrick Moyniham (Ambassador during 1975-1976) and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (Ambassador from 1981 to 1985) have recounted and analyzed in similar ways the process by which the Soviet Union used the "apartheid" accusation against Israel in the United Nations and the wider international arena from 1967 on through the 1980s as a key part of a wider global attempt to legitimize Soviet client groups like the PLO as "national liberation movements," while delegitimizing self-defense against them by anti-Soviet "colonialist," "imperialist" and "racist" states that were liberal democracies or allied to the Western democracies.[35][36] Thus, they say, the delegitimization of Israel served wider Soviet geo-political goals against the Western democracies, of which Israel is one. The equation of Zionism to apartheid and racism, in a resolution by the U.N. General Assembly in 1975 was a major triumph in that U.N. campaign, involving the Soviet bloc and client states, the Arab bloc, the Islamic Conference, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), although the Western liberal democratic bloc voted overwhelmingly against it.[37][38][39][40][41]

Palestinian and other anti-Zionist sources made central use of such language for decades.[42][43][43a] However, after the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent rescinding of the "Zionism Is Racism" resolution by the U.N. General Assembly in 1991, this equation was discredited in most quarters for almost a decade. But following the collapse of the Camp David peace talks in 2000, some Palestinian leaders, such as Edward Said, a leading Palestinian intellectual, and Diana Buttu, then legal advisor to the Fatah Council, began to advocate renewal of the accusation, using the "racism" theme and apartheid analogy as part of what Said suggested should be a "mass campaign" in the West to gain support for replacing Israel with a single "bi-national" state.[44]

According to some commentators, the first full expression of this renewed mass campaign appeared at the UN’s World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.[45] At that Conference, as described by critics, Zionism was equated again with "racism," "apartheid South Africa" and even "Nazism," Jews felt intimidated by the hatred around them, and particularly in the parallel conference of NGO groups, those supporting Israel were shouted down, physically assaulted and driven from the Conference altogether, leading to the withdrawal of a number of Western states from the proceedings or from the follow-up "Durham II" conference.[46][47][48]

Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian political scientist specializing in international law and human rights, considers the delegitimization of Israel pursued at Durban to be part of a current campaign to legitimize Islamist and leftist terrorism as justifiable "popular resistance," not just against Israel but against liberal democracies and Western societies generally.[49][50]

The use of the apartheid analogy to delegitimize Israel has been a chief focus and justification for the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign pursued since 2004. Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian founder and coordinator of the global BDS campaign, elaborated at length and explicitly on the delegitimization motivation in an interview published in December 2007 having the title: "No to the apartheid 2 state solution: Omar Barghouti: 'No State has the Right to Exist as a Racist State."[51] He strongly criticises Palestinian leaders who support a two-state solution as betraying the Palestinian cause.[52][53] However, some PLO and Fatah Council leaders state that they have the same goal, just different tactics, for they say they have never recognized the legitimacy of Israel nor its right to exist.[54][55][56][57][58][59] Some prominent Palestinian BDS leaders use not only the "apartheid" analogy but that of the Nazis, and have explicitly endorsed terrorism as a legitimate method as part of their overall goal to eliminate Israel.[60]

[1] The interaction of delegitimization, demonization, and double standards is analyzed at length, with bibliographical references, in "Building a Political Firewall Against Israel's Delegitimization: Conceptual Framework, Version A" The Reut Institute, March 2010, p. 11, et passim, http://www.reut-institute.org/data/uploads/PDFVer/20100310%20Delegitimacy%20Eng.pdf [2] Natan Sharansky sought to define how antisemitic criticism of Israel differs from legitimate criticisms such as those leveled against all other countries, in his "3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization," Jerusalem Political Studies Review, Vol. 16, nos. 3-4 (Fall 2004), available at: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm, also see his "Antisemitism in 3D: How to differentiate legitimate criticism of Israel from the so-called new anti-Semitism," at: http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/sharanskyAntisemitism.pdf [3] Dennis MacShane, et al., Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, September 2006 (London: The Stationary Office, Ltd., 2006), a report made to the British Parliament to guide government policy, lists five ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel (p. 6; also see further discussion pp. 16ff.): "1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour; 2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; 3. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to charaterize Israel or Israelis; 4. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; 5. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." See http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf This definition is repeated verbatim in the policy "Ottowa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism," November 11, 2010, by the Interparliamentary Committee on Combating Antisemitism, summarizing conclusions from a conference in Ottowa, Canada, of parliamentarians from 53 Western states. See http://www.antisem.org/archive/ottawa-protocol-on-combating-antisemitism/ [4] The demonizing delegitimization theme of "apartheid," and the use of double standards to support it, is discussed in Mark Silverberg, "The Delegitimization of Israel," March 7, 2010, http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3381 [5] Ben Cohen, "Boycotting Israel: The Ideological Foundations," September 2008, http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/boycotting-israel%253A-the-ideological-foundations.html (focusses particularly on ideological rationales for leftist anti-Zionist agitation, and links this to the Soviet Union's furious campaign in the U.N. following Israel's survival in the Six-Day War of 1967). [6] Robbie Sabel, "The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False charge of Apartheid," at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2009 Global Law Forum, at: http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=110 [7] David Matas, Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism (Toronto: The Dunburn Group, 2005), pp. 53-55. [8] Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace (New York: John Wiley, 2009), pp. 20-25, 28-29, 36, 44-48. [9] Brian Blondy, "Debunk of comparison between Israel, apartheid South Africa," Jerusalem Post, 07.19.10, at: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181845 [10] Gerald M. Steinberg, "BDS -- the New Anti-Jewish Boycott: Isolation as a tactic of Political Warfare," at http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12449&pageid=16&pagename=Opinion [11] Michael Herzog, "The Phenomenon of Delegitimization in the Overall Context of Attitudes toward the Jewish People," http://jppi.org.il/uploads/herzog_delegitimation.pdf [12] Leslie Susser, "Tide of Delegitimization," May 2, 2010, at: http://www.jpost.com/JerusalemReport/Article.aspx?id=174328, after describing the delegitimization tactics of Israel's enemies, criticises the Israeli government for not doing anything about it: present initiatives are almost all grass-roots responses. [13] The article "Debunking the Apartheid Comparison," at: http://www.gfantisemitism.org/aboutus/Pages/DebunkingtheApartheidAnalogy.aspx#why%20the%20apartheid%20analogy%20is%20false, states: "Labeling Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity, is not." [13a]Dennis Macshane, "'Kauft nicht bei Juden' will worsen the conflict," Jerusalem Post, 11.29.10, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=197280. He highlights double standards and demonization in the apartheid analogy advocates, and says that invocation of apartheid accusations is per se delegitimization of Israel, indeed "it is hard to see how peace can be made with an Israel that so many seek to brand an 'apartheid state.'" [14] Barry Rubin, "The Hour of Hanging Judges: Demonizing Israel and Pretending It Is Ordinary Criticism," GLORIA Center, November 13, 2010, at: http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/11/hour-of-hanging-judges-demonizing [15] Gerald M. Steinberg, "The war on de-legitimization," Yediot Aharonot, August 12, 2010, at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3935230,00.html [16] In terms of comparable practices in Palestinian society and elsewhere in the Middle East, and complaints about the double standards against Israel alone in this context, see Gil Troy, "The Double Double Standard," December 8, 2009, Jerusalem Post blog, at: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/the_double_double_standard_posted [17] Martin Regg Cohn, "Not all apartheid is created equal," The Star, July 6, 2010 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/832423--cohn-not-all-apartheid-is-created-equal [18] Khaled Abu Toameh, "What About The Arab Apartheid?" March 16, 2010, Hudson New York at http://www.hudson-ny.org/1111/what-about-the-arab-apartheid, on discrimination against Palestinians in Arab states, and "What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II," March 23, 2010, at http://www.hudson-ny.org/1120/what-about-the-arab-apartheid-part-ii; and the same author's, "Palestinians in the Arab World: Why the Silence?" July 20, 2010, at: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1422/palestinians-in-arab-world [19] Abraham H. Miller, "Enforced Misery: The PA and the Balata 'Refugee' Camp - Where are the Flotillas protesting the PA's version of apartheid?" Aug. 31, 2010, at:http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/enforced-misery-the-pa-and-the-balata-refugee-camp/?singlepage=true [20] Maurice Ostroff, "Ethnic Discrimination in Lebanon is not called Apartheid. Why?" Aug. 2010, at www.2nd-thoughts.org/id289.html [21] Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Philosophy and the Global Context) (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). Among many other points, Harrison distinguishes between "social or distributive anti-Semitism," the sort visited upon individual Jews for no other reason than that they are Jewish, but which is generally not a serious threat, and "political anti-Semitism," which is directed at the Jewish community and group existence as such, which is a major threat to Jews and to the world. The "apartheid" and "racism" accusations, and similar demonizations and delegitimizations of Israel, are in the latter category. [22] See Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim (London: Hutchinson, 1969), pp. 52, 60, 272-96, etc., and Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi Legacy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 8-10, 154-73, 213-15, etc. [23] Matthias Kuentzel, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press, 2009). [24] Klaus Gensicke, Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis: Amin Al-husaini: the Berlin Years 1941-1945 (London: Mitchell Vallentine & Company, 2010). [25] Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine (London: Enigma Books, 2010). [26] Jeffrey Herf, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) [27] For some of the consequences of such "delegitimization," as he terms it, and use of terms like "racism" and "apartheid," see Giulio Meotti, A New Shoa: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). [28] On the direct transmission of Nazi propaganda techniques and slanders to the Arab and Palestinian leadership, see Joel S. Fishman, "The Big Lie and the Media War Against Israel: From Inversion of the Truth to Inversion of Reality," Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 19, Nos. 1 & 2 (Spring 2007), at: http://www.danielpipes.org/rr/4465.php [29] On Islamist outrage at any part of the Middle East being governed by a non-Muslim state, and double standards and projection in their use of anti-Zionism discourse, also see the terminological analysis of Raymond Ibrahim, "Muslims Project Islam's Worst Traits Onto Israel and the Jews," November 17, 2010, http://www.hudson-ny.org/1673/muslims-project-on-israel-jews [29a]Julius Gould, "Impugning Israel's Legitimacy: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism," in: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in the Contemporary World, edited by Robert S. Wistrich (New York: New York University Press, 1990), pp. 178-194, esp. 188-91, and Yehuda Bauer, "Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism -- New and Old," ibid., pp. 195-207, esp. pp. 202-03 on the effect of Soviet propaganda since 1967, etc. [30] Robert S. Wistrich, "Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger," The American Jewish Committee, 2002, at: http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/WistrichAntisemitism.pdf [30a]Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1986). [30b]Bat Ye'or, "Delegitimizing the Jewish State," Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2011): pp. 3-14, at: http://www.meforum.org/2813/delegitimizing-the-jewish-state [31] Robert S. Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse, op.cit., pp. 194-235 (deals with the Soviet use of "Jewish Nazism" "racism," "apartheid," and associated themes). [32] William Korey, Russian Antisemitism, Pamyat, and the Demonology of Zionism; Russian Antisemitism, vol. 2, Studies in Antisemitism series (London: Routledge, 1995), cf. Chapters 3 ("Demonology of Zionism: International Dimension," pp. 30-45), 4 ("Zionism - 'The Greatest Evil on Earth'," pp. 46-59, and 9 ("Political Uses of the Demonology of Zionism," pp. 147-65). [33] Baruch A. Hazan, Soviet Propaganda, a Case Study of the Middle East Conflict (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1976). [34] Joel Fishman, "The Cold-War Origins of Contemporary Antisemitic Terminology," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 517, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2-16 May 2004, at: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp517.htm [35] See Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. from 1981 to 1985), "How the PLO was legitimized," Commentary, July, 1989, pp. 21-28, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20030829_KirkpatrickPLO.pdf [36] Daniel Patrick Moyniham, A Dangerous Place (New York: Little Brown & Co., 1978). [37] See the detailed analyses by Kirkpatrick and Moyniham, cited just above. Compare Bernard Lewis, "The Anti-Zionist Resolution," Foreign Affairs (October 1976), reprinted as Chapter 28 of Lewis's From Babel to Dragomens: Interpreting the Middle East (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2004), pp. 274-83. [38] Yohanan Manor, "The 1975 "Zionism Is Racism" Resolution: The Rise, Fall, and Resurgence of a Libel," May, 2010, No. 97 of Institute for Global Jewish Affairs Publications, at: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3670 (Manor documents the use in U.N. fora at this time of the "apartheid" analogy, and provides a breakdown of voting patterns on the resolution). [39] Ben Cohen, "Boycotting Israel: The Ideological Foundations," September 2008, at: http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/boycotting-israel%253A-the-ideological-foundations.html [40] Robbie Sabel, op.cit., p. 5. [41] Also see Gil Troy, "Fighting Zionism: Racism's big lie," Jerusalem Post blog, November 10, 2010, http://blogs.jpost.com/content/fighting-zionism-racisms-big-lie&newsletter=101118 [42] E.g., see the official declaration by the Fateh (PLO) movement in 1970, Fateh, "Towards a Democratic State in Palestine," reprinted in: Palestine: The Arab-Israeli Conflict, A Ramparts Press Reader, edited by Russell Stetler (San Francisco: Ramparts Press, 1972), pp. 205, 208. [43] Also see Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel (London: Mitchell Vallentine, 1973), passim. [43a]Raphael Israeli, "Anti-Jewish Attitudes in the Arabic Media, 1975-1981," in: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in the Contemporary World, edited by Robert S. Wistrich (New York: New York University Press, 1990), pp. 102-120, esp. pp. 105ff., and Antony Lerman, "Fictive Anti-Zionism: Third World, Arab and Muslim Variations," ibid., pp. 121-138, esp. pp. 127 & 135, etc. [44] Leon Hadar, "Two Peoples, Two States," January 19, 2010 issue of The American Conservative, at: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jan/19/00012/; Hadar cites Edward Said, "The Only Alternative," reproduced March 03, 2001 on MediaMonitors.net - http://www.mediamonitors.net/edward9.html, where the "mass campaign" is urged, and an interview on October 28, 2002, with Diana Buttu, conducted by BitterLemons.org, entitled "Security for freedom," http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl281002ed39.html. However, according to Hadar, even a single Palestinian state would not end "apartheid" accusations by those predisposed to make them. [45] Sobel, op. cit., p. 5 [46] For a more detailed and legally grounded account see Anne Bayefsky, "The UN World Conference Against Racism: A Racist Anti-Racism Conference," American Society of International Law: Proceedings, vol. 96 (2002), pp. 65ff. [47] Another such account is by Elihai Braun, "The UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa (August 31-September 8, 2001)" at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/durban1.html; "NGO Forum at Durban Conference 2001," at: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_forum_at_durban_conference_. [48]On Durban II, see "Analyzing the Durban II Conference: Interview with Gerald Steinberg," April, 2010, Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, at: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3446&TTL=Analyzing_the_Durban_II_Conference [49] Anne F. Bayefsky, "Terrorism and Racism: The Aftermath of Durban," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 468, 16 December 2001, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, at: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=1117&TTL=Terrorism_and_Racism:_The_Aftermath_of_Durban [50] Bayefsky's thesis is supported by the analysis by Eli Karmon, "International Terror and Antisemitism - Two Modern Day Curses: Is there a Connection?" February 16, 2007, International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/Articlsid/239/currentpage/7/Default.aspx [51] http://www.voltairenet.org/article153536.html There, Barghouti also connects the BDS movement he leads with the "Right of Return" demand, according to which all Palestinians have a right to "return" and set up residence inside the State of Israel, which he makes clear would necessarily mean the end of the Jewish state and of Zionism. [52] Ibid. Also see Barghouti's opinion piece in The Guardian of August 12, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/besieging-israel-siege-palestinian-boycott [53] See criticisms of this delegitimization motivation by Ricki Hollander, "BDS, Academic/Cultural Boycott of Israel, and Omar Barghouti," February 24, 2010, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=51&x_article=1803; Juda Engelmayer, "Palestinians Using Academics and Liberal Ideals to Promote an Extremist Agenda," at http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12443&pageid=&pagename; and Chris Dyszyski, "True Colours of the BDS Movement," 12 August 2010, at: http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-true-colours-of-the-bds-movement. [54]Dore Gold, et al., "Have the Palestinians Abandoned a Negotiated Settlement?" Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1 no. 2, 6 September 2001, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-2.ht [55] Khaled Abu Toameh, "Kaddoumi: PLO Charter was Never Changed," Jerusalem Post, 23 April 2004 [56] Khaled Abu Toameh, "'Fatah has never recognized Israel,'" Jerusalem Post, July 22, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=149571 [57] Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, "Fatah Official: Our Goal has never been peace. Peace is a means: the goal is Palestine," July 12, 2009 http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1032 [58] Also see, for a historical overview, Efraim Karsh, "Who's Against a Two-State Solution?" Jewish Ideas Daily and Middle East Forum, July 20, 2010, http://www.meforum.org/2689/against_two_state_solution [59] The PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, has stated that the peace talks pursued by the Palestinian Authority also have delegitimization as their motivation and make use of the apartheid South African analogy to this end. According to an article in the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, of September 9, 2010: "The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state." http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3188 [60] G. Steinberg and J. Edelstein, "Turning the tables on BDS," Jerusalem Post Op-Ed, November 6, 2010 at: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=194275 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempered (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tempered, thanks for your new version. I'm not sure however, how we're supposed to engage in a discussion concerning this since this is a long section with 60 footnotes. If other users have a total of, say, 25 objections to this text are we then to go through them one by one? To begin with, you have in the text the same old Buttu and Said documents, presented as supporting views that charging Israel with perpetrating apartheid would be motivated by "delegitimization". This is probably not the only issue I want to bring up concerning this, since I haven't read any of the other sources as of yet. You may like to consult WP:TLDR if engaging in discussion concerning this proposition proves difficult. --Dailycare (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tempered, I can tell you took this task seriously. Some notes:

• As these critics point out, such accusations differ from ordinary criticisms of particular flaws, such as we find in and about any other country, by their essentializing and generalizing demonization of Israel and Zionism per se, to justify rejection and elimination of the Jewish state as such. "point out" assumes the truth of the rest of the statement, rather than attributing POV. This sentence could be rephrased to make clear it's an argument.
• The double standards are evidenced in a perfectionist invocation of universal principles demanded solely of Israel: it is said that they are used to condemn Israel alone amongst all nations for social practices and flaws similar to and no worse than those found in all countries including liberal democracies Again frame as an argument put forward by a set of sources. As a point of fact, Western antiracist activists intensely concerned with "practices and flaws" of their own countries are frequent users of the analogy.
• P.A. itself nor neighbouring states of the much worse racism and/or "apartheid"-like practices there This is not a self-evident statement, and must be bracketed with a phrase like "what they claim are much worse..."
• Two ambassadors... sentence is just fine. The followup has similar issues (non-attribution) to earlier sentences.
• In general, the Anne Bayefsky sentence is a good example of attributed POV specifically related to the analogy.

However, it seems you've veered deep, deep into essay-writing territory. This text amounts to a grand connection between Nazism, Islamism, Soviet Communism, Third World anticolonialism, and the accusation that Israel has racist, colonial, or apartheid practices. The point is to suggest that deluded and/or antisemitic views make this range of accusations. It may be fascinating to believe that, and it may contribute to Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_antisemitism, but it doesn't clearly focus on the topic at hand.

Please, let people read about other issues on other pages, and reference those issues only when they are raised by critics of the analogy, and then by reference. To take one example, the "Nazism influenced Muslim antisemitism" argument does not come from anyone critiquing the analogy (footnotes 22-30). Ditto "Russian antisemitism of the Tsarist period". If the point is to say that, "Some analysts claim that the use by the USSR of the apartheid analogy is a product of a tradition of antisemitism," then just say that, and link to Antisemitism in the Soviet Union.--Carwil (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Carwil's sentiment here. You've put a lot of work in Tempered, but there are major issues of both style and substance. In terms of style this doesn't read in an encyclopedic fashion, rather it reads like a political essay that is attempting to convince readers of a thesis. As such, the writing style violates a number of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:WORDS, and WP:NPOV. In terms of substance, as Carwil points out we must stick to sources directly relevant to the scope of the article. We must also present the content of sources in a manner that doesn't utilise original research or synthesis. Further, I would repeat my previous suggestion that given the wealth of academic reliable sources available on this subject we do not need to include advocacy sources that Wikipedia classes as questionable, as such sources are at the bottom of the hierarchy of preferred sources. I am, very slowly, attempting to put together a take on this subject. My draft will probably be much shorter, but I'll do my best to utilise material from your draft as appropriate. It's unlikely the two will resemble each other much, though. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought this proposed contribution would upset some editors, since it puts such strong arguments by critics of the apartheid analogy regarding the motivations behind the advocacy of such accusations, which is precisely what makes it suitable for the "motivations" subsection. I am not therefore at all surprised that the editors here find it unpalatable and are basically calling for deletion of the whole thing out of hand. But I am surprised at the weakness of the objections. I would suggest to the editors who want to attack the contribution that they might want first actually to read the cited sources, before characterizing them as written by "the bottom of the hierarchy of preferred sources," declaring them irrelevant or as tendentiously described with evident POV in my text. They will no doubt be dismayed, when they actually read the sources, to discover that my text reports accurately, fairly and objectively on the views presented therein. I don't need to add anything to the views in these sources: they speak for themselves quite effectively. The only objection of any substance, it seems to me, is the suggestion that I change one or two terms to indicate that this is what the sources say rather than to imply that this is the "truth," e.g., replacing "points out" with "argues," etc. I had actually tried to do that, but missed one or two sentences. So this suggested modification is a fair stylistic request and I have now done that.

Some specific responses: the number of sources authored by academic scholars, in the 60 footnotes here, is very large and well exceeds in percentage and number those in any comparable paragraphs accepted into the "proponents" of the apartheid analogy, in the main article. So complaints that there are not enough academic sources indicate that the notes and cited sources have simply not been read nor the authors' own expertise sought for or recognized. We do not want to apply double standards to the "critics of the apartheid analogy" section that we have not applied to the "proponents" section, of course. E.g., amongst academics teaching presently or formerly at universities, or published authors with Ph.D.s, are some of the authors of the Reut Institute report (footnote 1) and of the Ottowa Protocols (2), Mark Silverberg (4), Robbie Sabel (6), David Matas (7), Alan Dershowitz (8), Gerald Steinberg (10, 15, and many other citations), Michael Herzog (11), Leslie Susser (12), Barry Rubin (13), Gil Troy (15), Abraham H. Miller (17), etc. -- the picture should be clear. The roster of academics continues similarly through the citations. They include Leon Hadar, by the way. Many of the sources are book-length studies written by academics, unusually for this main article. Weighty works by leading political and diplomatic figures are also cited. Very few mere bloggers are cited. However, let us be clear: there is nothing wrong with presenting opinion pieces on such a topic which involves strong opinions. That, too, is part of the evidence of critics of the apartheid analogy, and is freely resorted to in the "proponents" sections.

As for the accusation that this is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, may I respectfully point out that any encyclopedia will hopefully feature articles that have a beginning, middle and end, and that make a coherent and logical argument not wholly summed up in any one of the sources cited but which sum up scholarship on the given topics -- without being original research themselves. This, in fact, is what encyclopedias are supposed to do. They do not consist largely of monotonous one-liners reiterating the same thing over and over again: X said Israel is an apartheid state, Y said Israel is an apartheid state if ..., Z said Israel might become an apartheid state when ..., etc., etc., etc. That means that the present "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" is a very substandard encyclopedia article; in fact, at present, it does not make the grade at all. Have a look especially at genuinely excellent encyclopedia history articles, or history of ideas articles, to see this. My proposed contribution presents a historical account of the evolution and context of the apartheid analogy terminology in regard to the Jewish state. As a result, it must survey a number of thematic streams and trace their development. It does this. There is no historical background given elsewhere in the article to the development and employment of the apartheid analogy; my contribution offers this. It is therefore a needed addition to the article.

What keeps it from being a "soapbox" is that it is properly researched and does indeed report as fairly as possible (and I am amenable to suggestions regarding style to maintain neutrality) on some major criticisms of the apartheid analogy, profusely citing impeccable sources. There is no need to strain the sources to make a point. They make the points all by themselves. My paragraphs merely report on what those critics have actually said.

Furthermore, all the sources cited are very relevant to the subject. Any fair-minded reader will discover this for him- or herself. Almost all, as a matter of fact, specifically bring the "apartheid" terminology into the discussion, so their relevance to this article must be granted even by the most carping critic. In the case of the Nazis, of course, there was no apartheid South Africa then to give specificity to the Nazi claim that Zionism was a radically inhumane, racist and oppressive ideology (or rather, the Nazis vehemently supported apartheid-minded racists in South Africa at the time), even though as the citations discuss the Nazi propaganda techniques and accusations were directly influential on the later Arab Zionism=racism propaganda and use of the apartheid analogy -- the cited sources explicitly argue this in detail. In the case of the Soviet Union, the anti-Zionism theme, with full racism tropes, often took the form of "apartheid" terminology and claims by the sixties, and from there became a heavy emphasis that influenced Muslim and Arab anti-Zionism, as the cited sources again argue in extensive detail. One needs only to read them to discover this. (Carwil's suggestion that the sentences on this just be replaced by a brief reference and a link to the article Antisemitism in the Soviet Union may seem OK at first glance but I am afraid overlooks that the Wikipedia article in question is very general and short, and does not point out as the specifically cited sources do here that the "Zionism equals racism" theme widened to include the "apartheid" label by the 60s, and as such became the much-hyped focus of the Soviet campaign in the U.N. from the late 60s on to delegitimize Israel. The Wikipedia article actually does not discuss international repercussions of Soviet antisemitism, the "apartheid" theme, or the U.N. campaign against Israel at all. So the sentences and sources here cannot be replaced by the Wikipedia article link.) As for Muslim antisemitic use of the same themes and terms, the article cited by Wistrich gives full historical and contemporary context to the current Muslim/Arab campaign, and according to Ryan Paddy above "Lists the apartheid label as one means used by "Muslims" to delegitimise Israel." The later political use of the apartheid theme in the U.N., and in other international fora such as the "Anti-Racism" Durban conference, is all documented properly by the sources and described objectively in the text. As for the citation of Said and Buttu, that is succinct and perfectly neutral. They are not made to say anything that they did not say; in fact the reference is quite concise. Hadar is not discussed in the text, but is cited as the source: he did cite them to this effect, so that is objectively true. No further views are attributed either to Hadar or to Said and Buttu that they could possibly have repudiated. The Anne Beyefsky article actually says what is presented as its argument; there is no attributed POV in the text description. I hope that this covers the objections to date. Tempered (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the use of poor sources in other parts of the article - I'm for removing such sources, especially where alternatives saying the same kind of thing are available. "Other parts of the article are crap" is not a good reason for adding more crap. In terms of the overall draft and our various points of disagreement about it, rather than trying to do some sort of point-by-point analysis of your draft, which would take us a long time, I think I'll try using it as a basis for a second draft and edit it down into what I think is an acceptable form, then we can discuss any differences you object to. This will also give me a closer familiarity with the sources with which to discuss them - because we've already found (with Hadar) that you read completely different things in sources than myself and some other editors. I will be removing all questionable and tangental sources from my version of the draft, and heavily redacting any wording that I find soapbox-like or problematic for style reasons. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your loaded language for the sources cited in my contribution, before you even look at them closely, betrays strong bias, Ryan Paddy. The sources are high quality, as I showed already -- you ignore that. And if you really object to "crap" sources employed by "proponents" in the main article, why have you not eliminated those sources or even challenged them specifically? However, let us proceed. I would also add to the first paragraph citations the very recent article by Dennis Macshane in the Jerusalem Post, "'Kauft nicht bei Juden' will worsen the conflict," 11.29.10, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=197280. He highlights double standards and demonization in the apartheid analogy advocates, even says that invocation of apartheid accusations is per se delegitimization of Israel, indeed "it is hard to see how peace can be made with an Israel that so many seek to brand an 'apartheid state.'" Too right. Macshane, just to rub it in, is a non-Jewish secularist former British Labor MP who served as minister of state for Europe. Another "crap" source to add to the list.Tempered (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the sources used shows that many of them are blogs and/or extremist sources. Are they really relevant? // Liftarn (talk)

It was a very quick look. There are no extremist sources, other than the cited Hitler source and the Palestinian ones. The comment on blogs has already been answered. Just to remind all the editors on this Talk page, very few of whom seem to have grasped this: there is no requirement that the sources and text must agree with their POV to be "relevant." The Wikipedia requirement is that they report fairly on positions held by responsible and representative sources. That is what is "relevant." Tempered (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

When everyone else is failing to "grasp" something you find obvious, you might just be wrong, which is the case here. Where possible, it's desirable to write Wikipedia articles using only heavily-cited reputable scholarly sources and reputable journalism. As we have some sources that may be of that sort available, there is no need for the rest. Op-eds, blogs, activist groups, etc. are (with some exceptions) somewhere between "less preferred" and "unacceptable" depending on quality and context. Your draft presents statements followed by long lists of sources of varying quality. It's undesirable to provide so many sources for statements, it's a disservice to the reader for us as editors not to control the quality and number of sources. Instead, we should choose a couple of the most reliable and appropriate sources for any given statement and just use those. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy, "everyone else" editing on this page is obviously to one degree or another a proponent of the apartheid analogy, which itself is a very marginal view in Western democracies, held only by a minority. There are none commenting on my contribution who are critical of the analogy. Naturally they object to the views expressed by critics of the apartheid analogy reported on in my contribution, and do not want a cogent presentation of those views to appear in the main article. I take that for granted. So do not get carried away with your majority, Ryan Paddy. It means very little. As for the quality of the sources, well, let us postpone the pro and con on that. But I am confident all my sources would be found acceptable if matters went to formal mediation. Let's hope that we can agree with what you come up with. Tempered (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I should added above that Ryan Paddy seems to have missed the point of the comment he dissents from, in his haste to differ. My comment was about Wikipedia policy on NPOV. Even if everyone else on this page thinks it is right to block any sources and text that does not agree with their own pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist POV, and I am the only one here that grasps that this is wrong, it is still the case that it is wrong, Ryan Paddy. The overwhelming majority of a highly partisan and one-sided population is usually wrong, as history teaches us. So I again remind editors that such editorial attitudes are explicitly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines regarding articles preserving NPOV; editors ought not to make any modifications or reverts at all to Wikipedia articles until they grasp and internalize what Wikipedia policies are all about.Tempered (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Western democracies", of course, represent only a small minority of the world's population. And I don't think you are right about the reliability of the majority of your sources, either. RolandR (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference between Western democracies and other states, and the views held in them, is that the news and information in those other states is thoroughly controlled by authoritarian regimes unsympathetic to Western democracies per se, which of course includes Israel, so the monochromatic views of most people there cannot be taken as even remotely independent, objective or knowledgeable. A brief lesson for RolandR.Tempered (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an automatic bot operative on this page that archives sections that draw no additional postings after three weeks (as is generally the case here as elsewhere, I believe), I would like to suggest to the page manager/administrator that this section "New Version of Proposed Contribution" should be preserved from that archiving until discussion on this proposed contribution concludes with a consensus.Tempered (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the text slightly, added a few sentences, and also added a few more citations (those with an "a" or "b" by their citation number). I would also welcome comments on specific sources cited. Generalizations criticising them as a whole are easy to make since no justifications need be provided, but specific criticisms can be assessed and the nature of the actual sources discussed. I welcome such constructive criticisms. In their absence, and since this is such an active page and the topic has already engaged many editors, we can provisionally assume consent, according to WP:SILENCE. Tempered (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Version 2: First Paragraph

I'm making progress with a draft. I think it might be best to make paragraphs available as I go, to get an idea of whether it's worth continuing, because running quality control on Tempered's draft (especially the sources) is very time-consuming and I don't want to waste my time if this is going nowhere.

Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palestinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel.[Cohen, Sabel, Matas, Dershowitz, perhaps others] Philosopher Bernard Harrison describes the apartheid label as "hyperbolic". He states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, or for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration of the situation in Israel intended to undermine its moral basis for existence. [Harrison] Historian Robert Wistrich has argued that the apartheid analogy and other claims of crimes against humanity by Israel are continuations of the historical vilification of Jews using accusations such as deicide, blood libel, and various Jewish conspiracies. He states that the apartheid label is similar propaganda to that used by Nazi Germany, except that it has now been taken up by the Muslim world. [Wistrich]

This paragraph incorporates content and sources from the first four paragraphs of Tempered's version, I haven't gotten to the rest yet. I don't make any claim that this draft is perfect, but I think it's an improvement in terms of a more encyclopedic style, keeping the content on topic, and avoiding original research. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The force of the characterization of the logic of the use of the apartheid analogy in my version might be revisited. I do think that a few more of the best sources that I already cited for this opening sentence should be added. The phrasing about applying universal standards perfectionistically only to Israel is worth retaining: it highlights the double standards issue very clearly as being basic to the entire discussion, although your phrasing can be taken to imply this too. But anyway, the suggested phrasing also signifies that normal criticism is not the issue. Harrison himself makes the same point about perfectionism and the double standards difference between that and normal criticism. Furthermore, the reference to Harrison omits that the entire focus of his book is on the incoherent logic behind "apartheid" and similar charges, when scrutinized by an analytical philosopher. Is that not a worthy essential point to include? Otherwise his specific contribution is misunderstood and loses much of its weight. Also, how about a less "truth"-oriented phrasing, "may be," as in "He states that while there may be reasonable grounds for criticizing ..."? And perhaps a "among others" can be added as follows: "Historian Robert Wistrich, among others, has argued ..." (and then citing some of those others, at least in the notes, as given in my draft -- it is not just a view of Wistrich's, but has even more weight since it is also maintained by other experts in the field as my citations indicate). Otherwise, the proposed version seems OK, although I withhold final judgement until we see the whole thing. But this does begin to look possible.Tempered (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll consider your suggestions while I continue working on the draft. I think we're coming from the same place in seeing "delegitimisation" as a significant perspective on the apartheid label that should be presented in the article, per NPOV, and if we keep that common ground in mind we'll be okay. My text is likely to be less promotional and flamboyant about this perspective than you might prefer. However, I take this approach because that's how Wikipedia is written, not because I'm trying to suppress the perspective, so please do assume good faith if we disagree on some wording. It's my opinion that the text will actually be more compelling in its presentation of the sources if it's neutral in its tone rather than promotional. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinionated scholarly article, so readers don't want it to sound like it's trying to convince them of something. Regardless of whether we reach agreement on exact wording, once we have agreement on the broad thrust of the text and there's a consensus for its inclusion in the article, finer details of wording and citation can be worked out via the usual wiki editing process. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On "delegitimation", editors may be interested in an article, For Israel, 'delegitimization' is becoming an excuse by Akiva Eldar in Haaretz last week: "A look at the "guidebook" the Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs is offering Israelis at the exit gates from the country reinforces the suspicion that the inflation in the expression "delegitimization" (formerly called "anti-Semitism" ) is not a random lexical construction.... Israel is basking in the light of the delegitimization. It will not allow the inexhaustible tin of olive oil to be defiled by any hint of legitimization. It is much easier to give the world the finger when the whole of it is against you. If we say "delegitimization" enough times the public will believe there is no connection between what the gentiles say and what the Jews do." [1] RolandR (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberal democracy is alive and well in Israel, as just such rhetoric by Eldar in an Israeli newspaper, many of whose writers are extremist anti-Zionists, proves. Nothing comparable to it would be permitted in any Arab state, nor in the media of the P.A. either: it would be seen as dishonorable or even treasonous and the author would have a difficult time, shall we say. However, Eldar's argument cannot be taken seriously. It appears to be yet another version of the militantly anti-Zionist view that Israel and its friends have no right to defend it, in this case even just verbally in open debate, against its enemies. Any defense at all is supposedly per se sinister, immoral and arrogantly inhuman. Eldar thus contributes to the delegitimization of Israel. In fact, this provides an opportunity to add a few more important sources to our proposed contribution criticising delegitimization and demonization of Israel, this time statements by non-Israeli world leaders pointing out the serious dangers to the whole of Western society of such hate-incitement against Israel. I propose that this theme of the danger to Western society generally and to its fundamental values needs a separate mention and even paragraph in the revised contribution:

José Maria Aznar, Prime Minister of Spain between 1996 and 2004, asserted that "If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down," as the title of his opinion piece in the London Times of June 17, 2010 put it. Israel, he said, is in the West's front line against extremism. He wrote: "For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

 Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined." See: http://www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org/article.php?c=48

Marcello Pera, President of the Italian Parliament from 2001 to 2006, put particular stress on this centrality in Judaism of human rights, making it the source and "Forefather" of Western values of human rights and democracy generally, so it is actually this heritage itself, and the future of liberal Western culture, that is being challenged by those apologists of fanaticism and authoritarianism or totalitarianism who delegitimize and deny the liberal democracy of Israel and who seek to legitimize hate-incitement and terrorist atrocies against it instead. "(A)ttacking Israel is tantamont to attacking Europe and the West." See: Marcello Pera's speech to the British Parliament, "Israel, our Forefather," available at: http://www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org/article.php?c=63

Aznar, Pera, former Irish Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble, former Czech President Vaclav Havel, former President of Peru Alejandro Toledo, and other world leaders have therefore created a coalition of Western politicians and powerful figures, almost all non-Jewish, entitled "Friends of Israel Initiative," to fight this defamation of Israel, as part of a fight for the preservation of the values of Western civilization itself. On this, see the Aznar citation above.

Another such group, made up of parliamentarians from over 50 countries, including all Western democracies, has also recently formed to fight what they have termed the antisemitic defamation of Israel. On this Interparliamentary Coalition for Combatting Antisemitism, see footnote 3 in the recently revised contribution above.

In his inaugural address to that Interparliamentary Conference in Ottowa this past November, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, said: "(H)istory shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tells us all too well if we listen to it, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us. ... We have a solemn duty to defend the vulnerable, to challenge the aggressor, to protect and promote human rights, human dignity, at home and abroad. None of us really knows whether we would choose to do good, in the extreme circumstances of the Righteous. But we do know there are those today who would choose to do evil, if they are so permitted. Thus, we must use our freedom now, and confront them and their anti-Semitism at every turn." The speech is at: http://www.cjc.ca/2010/11/09/statement-by-the-prime-minister-of-canada-on-the-ottawa-conference-on-combating-anti-semitism/

Another recent statement by a major Western political leader critical of the delegitimizing and demonizing of Israel, is Tony Blair's "Delegitimization of Israel is affront to humanity," at http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=185860.

There are many more such statements, e.g., by American politicians, Australian political leaders, European and elsewhere, but these will do.Tempered (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Akiva Eldar, or the people Tempered cites, making references to apartheid. --Dailycare (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As the proposed contribution itself indicates, citing many sources, and as logic and the "apartheid" terminology itself shows, the "apartheid" analogy consists precisely of the accusation that the state is as such based on an "illegal," "criminal" and "racist" structure, thus is an outlaw regime and illegitimate. So the delegitimizing referred to by all the above parties necessarily includes the "apartheid" accusation, just as it includes the "Nazi" analogy, the "racist" analogy, the "colonialist" analogy, etc. All these are self-admittedly attempts to erase the moral and legal justification for the Jewish state. Moreover, as the contribution again shows, the anti-apartheid campaign against Israel has been used precisely by those groups who deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state, just as its original model was explicitly aimed at attacking the legitimacy of the South African state. "Apartheid" advocates even state explicitly that just as the South African regime was overthrown by the anti-apartheid campaign, so too they want to work toward the overthrow of the Zionist state -- and replace it with something else. This is, to take only one example of the several given in the proposed contribution, the explicit goal of the BDS campaign, as described by its global coordinator, Omar Barghouti. It is noteworthy that the Jewish state is the only state to be subject to such a campaign; if the apartheid analogy proponents used it against other states too, about which no delegitimization could be implied, then it would be easier to disclaim (against the open logic and context of the terminology) a delegitimizing motivation in the case of Israel. But they do not. So reference to these statements against delegitimizing Israel can be cited in this connection.Tempered (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the state of this discussion is that RP is working on a text proposal. Let's discuss the text proposal once we see it, and keep these ruminations on other fora. --Dailycare (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there will be a period of perhaps a couple of weeks when there will be few posts here, due to the usual seasonal and end-of-year activities. I will certainly be away for a few days myself. However, I will try to keep an eye on this space.Tempered (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is now much more than a month since Ryan Paddy undertook to present his preferred version of the proposed contribution, and all we have gotten is one short paragraph. Ryan, are you still working on this matter? Could you tell us when we will be likely to see your results? Or have you ceased your effort, in which case you should make this clear and we can go directly into formal mediation on the contribution I wrote up. Thanks.Tempered (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's likely that I'll finish it at some point. Hopefully, it will get shorter rather than longer in the finishing; it takes more effort to make something concise than to produce something rambling. As I've said from the start you are welcome to litigate whenever you want, I could use a laugh. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your surprisingly unconcealed and strong hostility shows, Ryan Paddy, and is not promising for the actual write-up. It suggests that there is little or no likelihood of your version doing justice to the sources whose views (as is evident from your comments here and on my Talk page) you are very hostile to, or describing them in a fair unbiased way. It also suggests some possible reasons for the tardiness and paucity of your actual contribution. I would have thought it was obvious that I was not threatening you with litigation, but simply indicating that I wanted to move on with this, and foreshadowed my logical next option should you not be making an alternative version. How could that threaten you? That option need not involve you at all. Nor is it litigation in itself, merely recourse to Wikipedia mediation help. Amazing.

You write, "It's likely" you will finish it. But it is not certain, according to you. And you add, "at some point." But you give no idea of when. I think we need something a bit better than that, Ryan. Please laugh if that tickles your funny bone. But after you sober up be so good as to supply a probable end-date.Tempered (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Perspectives, they're marvelous things. From my perspective, I'm generously (if very slowly) working to write up a point of view that doesn't particularly interest me. I'm not exactly writing for the opponent, because I'm not especially hostile to this perspective (I even think it has some merit), but my only motivation here is to help you add a significant perspective to the article, because I believe strongly in WP:NPOV. So from my perspective your snide comments, discussing me in the third person and referring to my efforts by saying "all we have gotten is one short paragraph" and making demands on me to provide an ETA are rude. Hence my terse but honest answer: I don't know if and when I'll finish it, and I don't care what you think or do about that. I mean to finish it, and I mean to do so to the best of my ability and without influence from my personal opinions on the matter (because that's my modus operandi, I love neutrality) but this piece of work is not a priority for me. You could of course have another go at it yourself. The real pity of this situation isn't my slowness at producing a careful and neutral version of your contribution, it's your inability or unwillingness to do so yourself. If you could take a step back, and attempt to write a more brief and non-promotional account of what the most reliable of your sources have to say, without adding any interpretation or spin of your own, a version that meets the approval of the other editors who've generously give their time here to assess your work to date, then you wouldn't need me to do it for you. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy, I am afraid that that is a non-answer. At least you are in fact doing something, "very slowly," as you admit, because as you say it has a low priority for you. "Very slowly" gives no time frame that I can make out. Will you be finished within this month? By the end of March? June? September? As for my version being unacceptable to editors here, that, I put it to you, has to do not with my version but with their own fixed and adamant bias which would be satisfied only with zero contributions dealing with these matters, as just recently indicated below in almost as many words by one of those editors in the section entitled "John Dugard article." As for the rest of your comments, perhaps they should be reconsidered by you. My version describes a very significant and massive amount of commentary and scholarship relating to the topic that has not been dealt with in the main article but which is highly pertinent to it, and describes them objectively and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. If any sentence is insufficiently objective, "careful and neutral," then it is open to any editor to suggest an alternative. Similarly with the sources. I again request you to give us a time-table. There is nothing rude in such a request, seeing that I have patiently waited for over a month already.Tempered (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a timeline isn't rude (I don't mind you asking, but the answer is "there isn't one"), but your demanding and entitled tone is. Your attitude is making me regret trying to help you. Your suggested text was rambling, full of original research and synthesis, and promotional in tone, but I sensed that there is a significant perspective buried in your unacceptable presentation of it, that should be present in the article per NPOV, which is why I offered to help. I never promised anything, certainly not a timeline, and I can't give one now, because this is a voluntary project and my contributions here are on a "can I be arsed with this?" basis. I was hoping we could cooperate on this piece of content, despite our differing perspectives, and it might lay a groundwork for future cooperation on this article. But your attitude is making the whole experience unpleasant, so that seems doubtful at present. You need to bear in mind that it's your own responsibility to produce text that other editors find acceptable, they are entirely entitled to reject your text (with good reasons provided) without going to the trouble of re-writing it for you. I'm not sure what your grand plan is in pissing off the one person who's actively trying to help you write content, as well as unfairly branding as "biased" all the other editors who are trying to help you understand what's wrong with your suggested text, unless perhaps you enjoy a sense of persecution. All I can suggest is that you should either 1) be quiet and hold your horses for a while, while I do my best to finish my suggestion, or 2) stop bugging me and do whatever you feel is necessary if you don't believe that I'll produce something of use to you. I genuinely don't have a timeline, so continuing to demand one is just silly. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than answering in kind, I will turn to more constructive areas. You say that there is "original research" in my proposed contribution. Could you point that out to me? Where is it? If it is there, I will modify it. You also claim that my version is "promotional," and needs rewording to be more neutral. Please give specifics. I have already made modifications to the style as suggested by Carwil (see his/her comments immediately following the text of the contribution, above) and am willing to make any others I am persuaded are needed. By the way, I should call attention to the fact that I have added some more sentences and a few more citations (with "a" or "b" added to their endnote number) to the proposed contribution itself, above. As far as I am concerned, my contribution is still viable as a text in the main article, but again I am willing to consider your alternative.Tempered (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Telling that not only is there nothing contributed further, Ryan Paddy, but also that despite all sorts of empty generalizations no specific criticisms have been offered by you regarding my contribution, in response to my invitation, even ten days later. It certainly begins to look like none will be given. The whole discussion of my proposed contribution, of course, began in August last year, and only obstructionism and stalling has kept it in the Talk page limbo that it has been in for so many months. Of course, even here on the Talk page it is read by all who bother to have a look at the Talk page after having read the main article. The contribution has already made a difference in terms of the information available to Wikipedia readers, and that is why I have been patient. However, I think that it is time to move on. So I turn to address other editors and welcome critiques of specific items by any one. Vague generalizations are meaningless, but specifics can be usefully discussed. Keep in mind that silence implies consensus.Tempered (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said all along, you're welcome to attempt to progress as you see fit (I doubt you'll have much luck unless you take a more critical view of your own writing, but there's nothing to stop you trying to write something that editors here will find appropriate to add to the article, or trying to take this to some formal or informal process - although I'm dubious that you'll be happy with the outcome). My slowness in attempting to help needn't be a barrier. I haven't had time for close reading and assessing of sources of late, so I've just been doing administrative edits rather than trying to progress my draft. Part of the reason that the process is slow is that it's hard to get motivated to wade through the screeds of low-quality sources you provided, weeding them out to leave the reliable sources, so if you could trim your source list down to the best sources that would be a good contribution. If you prefer, I can just post what I have (not a huge amount more than last time), and leave you to it. That may be the best option, as it seems like you're no longer assuming good faith in me, so it seems unlikely that our collaboration will bear fruit. Having said that, if I don't hear otherwise from you I'll continue working on my draft at my own pace. As for your original draft - the issues that other editors and I had with it were addressed at great length previously, and I see no benefit in rehashing them. In this case, silence indicates a lack of interest in repeating myself, especially as your response to constructive criticism is basically "my text is perfect, you're just biased." Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC) On second thought, I'll just post what I have now. Any further work on it can be done here on the talk page, if desired. I'll start a new section called "Delegitimization" for it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Although you say that the issues other editors and you raised were addressed at great length previously, this is not evident in the actual discussion above: there were very few specifics, just a lot of vague generalities. Requests for specific amendments to the text or references of the proposed contribution were only answered by Carwil, and I was responsive to them and made most of the suggested changes to the text to render it into a more neutral narrative. Otherwise, there were only expressions of editorial dismay at the dissent in the text and sources from apartheid accusations. A number of editors attacked all the sources, saying they were "extremist" or not reliable, etc., but the "extremism" was unspecified and in fact simply untrue (but even if true they were irrelevant, since our only concern here must be with accurate presentation of what significant and notable critics say), and the reliability of the sources was not challenged in any particular case. This includes your own generalizing reference to "crap" sources (content or specific sources unnamed), even though you had to admit that similar sorts of sources abounded elsewhere in the "proponents of the apartheid analogy" sections. So it was impossible to know just what precise items needed consideration. It is easy, if one does not like a text documenting any criticisms of the use of the apartheid analogy, to make vague and essentially lazy generalizations repudiating that text and its references, holus bolus, but these, perhaps quite purposely, do not move the discussion along. They are just emotive indications of one's ideological bias, without specific content that can be checked and tested. Similar comments apply to your response immediately above. Lots of negative generalizations about my proposed contribution, but nothing useful or specific. If you want to demonstrate lack of bias and genuine neutrality, then prove it with specifics rather than unhelpful and essentially empty dismissive phrases.Tempered (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Version 2: First and Second Paragraph

In response to your "second thought" (just above, 23:21, 6 February) I think a new section is not needed, since we already have a sub-section format for discussion of "version 2" as given above. It also splits the version 2 away from its previous entries, making checking versions against each other a chore. Moreover, your first paragraph, Ryan Paddy, is already in the sub-section immediately above. The only novelty is that you have added more detailed footnotes, although these are all taken from my original proposed contribution and could have merely been indicated, not reproduced in full, by using just the number of the original footnote, e.g., [12][32a] etc., without further text, to save space. Anyone interested in the cited source would be able to locate it in my original proposed contribution. I would suggest that you enter your two paragraphs just before this post, Ryan Paddy, and eliminate the "Delegitimization" section below.

In any case, the two paragraphs now presented by you, Ryan Paddy, at least give us something to discuss. That is a welcome development.

In regard to the first paragraph of version 2, I will make only a preliminary comment here. It is noticeable that there is no integration at all of the comments I made back on the second of December to it. It is given again entirely unchanged. If we are to arrive at consensus there must be some give and take. I will present a modified version of your paragraph one in coming days. The discussion of Bernard Harrison's book, in particular, raises questions. It does not reflect the logical and linguistic analysis angle he brings to the book as a professional philosopher, which is his especial contribution, and the way in which he explicitly shows that apartheid criticisms are unjustified and incoherent, and betray antisemitic traits, whether intentional or not. In fact, his analysis of what he calls an antisemitic "climate of opinion" on the left, to which even leftists who do not intend antisemitism contribute through their double standards, is one of the most significant points he makes. He emphasizes it and comes back to it frequently throughout his book. That point should be in our summary of his contribution to the discussion. It is directly relevant to the topic of the article and of criticisms of the apartheid analogy.

The second paragraph is not as polished as the first, as you acknowledge. It leaves out a lot. Above all, there is practically nothing on the historical background and evolution of the application of "apartheid" terminology to Israel, which is given in my original proposed contribution.

Some crucial examples follow. Although the accounts of U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Moynihan are mentioned in the text and footnotes, the historical setting and relevance is underplayed, and this is not satisfactory. There is no mention of the Soviet campaign to delegitimize Israel with the racism and apartheid accusations following the 1967 war Israel won, climaxing in the "Zionism = Racism" resolution of 1974. Yet Kirkpatrick and Moynihan specifically stress the global ramifications of this anti-democracies campaign, and show just what the wider agendas were that dictated the emphasis on "apartheid" and "racism" accusations in the international arena. For some critics of the apartheid analogy this is a crucial matter, if not the most crucial issue of all. To gloss it over or omit historical context from the text is not to do justice to the critics' views nor our task in a NPOV article. So simply by omission and commission the account is weakened. (To the citations made in my proposed contribution I would add the very detailed and extensive chapters by Robert Wistrich, "Chapter 13: Bigotry at the United Nations," dealing with a lot of the debate in the U.N. over the years, from the 40s on, and with numerous explicit references to the "apartheid" terminology, in A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random House, 2010), pp. 465-493, also see pp. 494-6.)

Similarly, just to relegate the eruption of "apartheid" accusations at the Durban Racism conference to a footnote or two, but not to refer to it at all in the text, prevents readers from getting any satisfactory historical context for this sort of accusation. This goes beyond the excision of even the slightest reference to Hadar as a source for mentioning Edward Said's and Diana Buttu's call for an "apartheid" campaign in the West to isolate and delegitimize Israel (thus eliminating the references to Said and Buttu altogether, relevant and important though they are to the discussion). It wipes out any historical context at all, however well documented and justified. How can such a sweeping indifference to such relevant topics and sources be justified?

Further to this point, the treatment of the Nazi background to the application of a "racist apartheid" accusation against Israel is a very serious flaw. You write, "Historian Robert Wistrich has argued that the apartheid label is a continuation of the historical vilification of Jews using accusations such as deicide and blood libel, and that it is propaganda used by the Muslim world resembling that used against Jews by Nazi Germany." What is missing there? Simply the point that Wistrich argued. He even gave major emphasis to this point in his books and even in the cited article, which is that the propaganda used by the Muslim world did not just "resemble" that used against Jews by Nazi Germany, but that it was actually drawn from that used by the Nazis, under their direct influence. I also think some reference to the articles by Joel Fishman and Raymond Ibrahim on just this point (see my [28] and [29] citations), either in the text or at least in a footnote, would be appropriate. By the way, why is Wistrich's much more authoritatively detailed and documented book on this subject, which is cited in my proposed contribution, namely Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi Legacy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 8-10, 154-73, 213-15, etc., (see my footnote citation [22]), not referenced? Only the article is given, which is much less satisfactory for anyone wanting to follow this subject up in any depth. And to this we should add Wistrich's discussion in his magnum opus, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random House, 2010), chapter 20: "Hitler and the Mufti," pp. 662-683, and the subsequent chapters 21 through 24, pp. 684-829, giving very full and precise documentation of Nazi influences on Muslim anti-Zionism and the Palestinian movement up to the present day, including providing the sources for the accusations that Israel is itself a "racist" country.

In general, the indifference in this version to many authoritative and high-quality sources, including academic books and articles that make major contributions to our subject, is quite obvious. Tempered (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to your decision, Ryan Paddy, to conclude your efforts at your own version, below, I want first to thank you for your efforts. Naturally, we will not agree on everything, but I believe my specific comments indicated that the general text was a good start and we can build on it. Your impression (as expressed below under the section heading "Delegitimization") that there is no prospect of useful dialogue on the text is wrong at least from my side, and your excuse for ceasing efforts to write up an alternative version is unpersuasive. However I am not surprised at that decision given the tone of our exchanges, and it may be for the best, in the light of your own adamant refusal to seek consensus with me or take any account whatsoever of my suggestions and comments for improvement of your version. It really does need balancing, and correction, as indicated just above. My main objection is not that it is light on detail, since I agree that a briefer version is necessary, but rather a more serious deficiency: it omits or slurs over some really essential points and phrases others incorrectly or tendentiously. However, thank you again, your contribution is useful as a first start at condensation of text, and I will not need to make too many modifications to it. A revised version will follow in due course. Meanwhile, with your permission I hope since you say I can make use of your proposed text, I will insert the second paragraph of your proposed text here:

"Historian Robert Wistrich has argued that the apartheid label is a continuation of the historical vilification of Jews using accusations such as deicide and blood libel, and that it is propaganda used by the Muslim world resembling that used against Jews by Nazi Germany.[18] Arguments have also been made that historical Russian antisemitism later manifested in the Soviet Union as accusations that Israel's policies resemble apartheid, a discourse that was designed to help Arab states allied to the USSR.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian political scientist specializing in international law and human rights, considers that delegitimization of Israel was pursued at Durban as part of a campaign to legitimize Islamist and leftist terrorism as justifiable "popular resistance," not just against Israel but against liberal democracies and Western societies generally.[27][28]"

I will modify as soon as I can get to it the footnote citation numbers in this text to fit the sources and the footnote numbers for them given in my original contribution. Any editors who have any comments on this version or its sources, please feel free to add your views. Tempered (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

propose eliminating the lists of names

I propose eliminating the lists of names of supporters and opponents of this analogy. (I'm not talking about the prose sections where we quote from different people or explain their viewpoint in detail, just the lists of names and titles). These don't really add much to the article, since they don't explain why these individuals feel the way they do. As the article explains, there are many nuances to this analogy. Some people believe Israel is an apartheid state, other people believe Israel is not an apartheid state but practices policies in the Palestinian territories that resemble apartheid, etc. When we just list people's names we don't get any of this nuance - and we run the risk of committing OR by lumping together people who might consider themselves in complete disagreement. Further, the lists are completely superfluous. We already deal with a TON of different people in prose and the rest are probably not that crucial. GabrielF (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, with the proviso that there are probably several notable people in each list that need to be mentioned in the body of the text. The whole 'list' structure seems to be based on the dubious premise that the number of (notable) people who 'agree' with something is more significant than what their opinions actually are. The issue is clearly a lot more nuanced than any crude headcount could ever suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see where your coming from, but I feel many of thiese people/organizations are critical, yet if we were to give a quote fom each one the page would be quite large and be even more filled with opinions on the what the situation is in Israel rather than what actually is going on in Israel. So, I propose we make the list hideable, to save room on page, yet it would still be a valueable resources for people to find even more opinions given by notable people on the subject by following the references. Passionless -Talk 04:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that hideable lists are discouraged in articles. More to the point though, either these peoples opinions are notable, in which case we should indicate what they are, or they aren't, in which case we can manage without them entirely. We can't list everyone who's ever expressed an opinion on the matter, and many of those listed don't on the face of it seem to be notable in relation to the article topic - they are presumably included because (a) they've expressed an opinion, and (b) they are notable for other reasons - not really very good grounds for inclusion on a list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we could move both hidden lists to the end of the article, though I think it would look fine hidden where they are. Passionless -Talk 04:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point it would be best to wait for input from others. AndyTheGrump (talk)

This whole issue reminds me of Project Steve. Listing the names of supporters or opponents of something is a tactic of advocates rather than serious scholars. Scholars shouldn't be deciding questions based on how many famous people are on each side, but on the merits of the arguments. GabrielF (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I support your proposal wholeheartedly. Many are also mentioned in the text. Numbers in themselves mean very little, even if compiling a list of witnesses since they provide little encyclopǣdic know;ledge on the subject. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The lists of people pro and con should go. They are contrary to WP:EMBED, which says that prose is preferable to lists. But more importantly they are contrary to WP:NPOV which says articles should address significant views. It's the significant views in reliable sources that are the content, the people who happen to hold those views is secondary and can be expressed in prose. Hiding the lists is no solution, they should be removed. However, we have to be careful to ensure that each item that is removed still has appropriate representation in the article. Some sources may not warrent a mention, and some may already be covered. But the others, the ones that should be covered because they're significant views in reliable sources, but currently aren't covered elsewhere in the article, need to be added to the prose text of the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lists can be deleted, with the proviso that AndyTheGrump mentions above that we should make sure that the information content of the article doesn't decrease overall. Views should be inserted in the text if some persons are currently only mentioned in lists.--Dailycare (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As everyone seems to be in agreement on this, I've started this process by removing one supporter and one critic from the lists, here. Some things to note:

• I think taking this slowly is a good idea, as we need to assess each item.
• We need to make sure that if the view expressed is significant and described in a reliable source, it should be covered elsewhere in the article in prose. If there is disagreement on an item, we can discuss it here in talk.
• Be careful when removing reference tags. If a ref tag has a name and other tags are using that name, then the content of the tag needs to be moved. See my edit for an example where the content of the ref named "UriDavis" had to be moved to another instance of that ref.

It may be fastest to first remove all the people whose views are already described elsewhere in the article, and then move onto the harder ones where a decision has to be made afterwards. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a good approach. I suggest that we remove Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley. They don't seem to be proponents of this analogy so much as scholars who are interested in studying it. For example, here are two quotes from their article:

Although Israel and apartheid South Africa are often equated as "colonial settler societies," we argue that the differences outweigh the similarities. (Pg. 19)

The Apartheid analogy is mainly employed to mobilize people and motivate action. The moral comparison, however, yields little insights into specific circumstances that have to be evaluated in their own right. Even commentators who diagnose Israel's human rights abuses realize this. (Pg. 24)

Article is at: link GabrielF (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remove John Mearsheimer as well. His argument seems to be that apartheid in Israel is likely if the country doesn't change its course, which is different than what others listed as supporters say.

"He [Mearsheimer] hypothesized that the most likely result of the current conflict will be an apartheid state in Israel in which the Arab population will be denied full political rights. He said he believes this will be "similar to white-rule in apartheid Africa." [2] GabrielF (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that we are removing people from the lists because we don't want lists and the people's views are already covered elsewhere in the article if appropriate. We are not removing them because they are not "pro" or "con", which is the reason you've given. In the case of Adam and Moodley, their views are already covered elsewhere in the article so your edit fits with the current process, but the particular reason you've given for removing them is a separate concern that we're not addressing here. We don't want to get into discussions here about who is really pro or con, that's would needlessly complicate the relatively simple administrative task of removing the lists. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can save those issues for a separate discussion. GabrielF (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Am carrying on with this. At my slow rate I'll be done by mid-2012, so feel free to join in. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now finished removing all the easy items that are covered elsewhere, unreferenced, etc. Next comes removing the other more involved items. I'm going to approach these one at a time, so that I can give my reasoning for each item in the edit comments. I've had a close read of WP:1RR, and my understanding is that I can make as many of these edits per day as I have time for, as they don't appear to qualify as "reverts" because no-one else has recently edited this content in the article. However, if anyone has an issue with any of my coming edits to remove items from the list, I invite them to revert the edit in question and then we can discuss it here. I will not be getting into edit wars over this, and I encourage others not to either. Just revert me, we'll reach an agreement here, and then we'll implement whatever we agree on. If anyone else wants to join me in removing items from the lists, with appropriate related edits to other parts of the article and reasoning given, then please do so. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

FW De Klerk should be in the list of those who oppose

He says: "I think comparisons are odious. I think it’s dangerous." "Odious" is defined by Merriam Webster as "arousing or deserving hatred or repugnance : hateful <an odious crime> <a false and odious comparison>.

Now yes he continues on:

"It’s not a direct parallel, but there are some parallels to be drawn. Why did the old vision of so many separate states in South Africa fail? Because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. Why will it fail, if it fails in Israel and Palestine? Because Palestine is maybe not offered an attractive enough geographical area to say 'this is the country of Palestine.

Consider the definition of odious. If you use that definition, FW De Klerk is saying "I think comparisons (of Israel/Palestine to apartheid South Africa) are (arousing or deserving hatred or repugnance : hateful). Thats a pretty strong statement, especially when you see Merriam Webster's example sentence for odious as <a false and odious comparison> The last part is only a hypothetical, because he said "why WILL (future tense) IF (hypothetical, hasn't happened) it fails in Israel and Palestine."

I move to have FW De Klerk to opponents of the analogy.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of looking up "odious" in Merriam Webster, maybe you should look up "original research" at Wikipedia. There are at least two editors who think de Klerk's statement was not clearly opposed to the analogy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry, but odious only has one clear and concise definition.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what odious means, thank you. I also know the plain meaning of "It's not a direct parallel, but there are some parallels to be drawn." That has only one clear and concise meaning: There are some parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa. As I wrote, de Klerk's statement—taken in its entirety—is not clearly opposed to the analogy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malik, it is not clear he fully disagrees with the analogy. The source only provides a quick statement in support of neither side. You also misquoted him, he said "I think *all* comparisons are odious"-this may mean he thinks comparing two things in general is odious. Also, if you go to 4:23 you will see F.W. de Klerk compare his SA apartheid to present day I/P. Passionless -Talk 07:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Malik. It appears from what is said above that De Klerk explicitly disapproves of applying the apartheid terminology as such to Israel and its policies to the Palestinians, but thinks that there are "some parallels." Now which ones would he be thinking of? That both are inhabited by human beings? That is a parallel. That both have conflict between two peoples? That is a parallel. That both are attacked by people trying to delegitimize one of the parties to the conflict, by using the "apartheid analogy"? That too is a parallel. But none of this goes to the substance of what apartheid is. Merely saying that there are parallels says very little. Certainly it does not say enough to justify including De Klerk in the "Proponents of the Apartheid Analogy" ranks. Passionless says "it is not clear he fully disagrees with the analogy ... the source only provides a quick statement in support of neither side." If this is so, he does not belong in the "Proponents" side either, and ought not to be listed in either side. For Passionless, anyone not totally repudiating any possible application of the apartheid analogy is a supporter of that analogy, even if that possible application really does not relate to apartheid as such. (Similar "criteria" on behalf of the defense of Israel would swell this article into a multi-volumed book.) This sort of loose thinking tends to destroy any coherent meaning to the apartheid analogy at all, and to suggest that mere wishful thinking and bias is the governing standard in it. Perhaps there need to be better and clearer criteria for including anyone in any side.Tempered (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

His full quote seems to place him among those who think Israel may be in danger of getting itself into an apartheid-like situation. He says "Why did the old vision of so many separate states in South Africa fail? Because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. Why will it fail, if it fails in Israel and Palestine? Because Palestine is maybe not offered an attractive enough geographical area to say 'this is the country of Palestine.'". So he's talking about apartheid/separation at the geopolitical level, not at the personal level (separate bathrooms etc). He's comparing the Bantustans of South African to lands that the Palestinians may be allowed to have for a future state, and saying that if such land-allotments fails it will be because those lands may be insufficient. This puts him among those who regard Israeli apartheid as a speculative possibility, rather than a definite reality. There are a number of such sources in the article, but unfortunately the current structure of the article forces us to shoehorn them into either the "pro" or "con" camps. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea that demographic pressures will force Israel into a situation where they can choose to be either a Jewish state or a democratic state, but not both, is fairly common amongst Israeli thinkers. I think that when we quote Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert, that's the position they are taking - and I think that non-Israelis like Zbignew Brezinski or John Meersheimer would make the same argument. In fact, IIRC the point of Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was not that Israel is currently an apartheid state, but that it faces a choice between peace or apartheid in the near future.

Lumping people like Ehud Barak in with activists who believe that current Israeli policy constitutes apartheid is very problematic. Instead of one support section, we should break it up into two, namely: proponents of the idea that Israel is currently an apartheid state and proponents of the idea that Israel is likely to become an apartheid state in the future. This is a far more relevant means of sectioning that the occupation or nationality of the proponents. GabrielF (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sectioning the article based on broad categories of opinion regarding the analogy seems like a good idea. The current categories of only "pro" and "con" are too crude to represent the subtle varieties of opinion on this subject. I agree that a good first step would be to separate the sources who are speculating that Israel is at risk of apartheid into their own top-level section, as that perspective is glaringly different to both the perspective that Israel already has apartheid-like aspects, and the perspective that Israel does not resemble apartheid and is in no danger of resembling apartheid. It can then be left up to the discretion of the reader whether a source that says that Israel is in danger of apartheid is agreeing with the apartheid label or criticising it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. However, things might get complicated when we get to specifics. There are some who think that a two-state solution is per se "apartheid" -- e.g., Omar Barghouti, for one, and with him many others on the Palestinian side who repudiate a two-state peace deal. These argue that any "separation" at all equates to "apartheid" (according to them the word simply means "separation," i.e., separation of any kind, even into two separate states). So we hear a lot about the so-called "apartheid Wall," for example. Then there are others who think that a one-state solution is per se "apartheid" or at least "apartheid"-like, and that would include some of the Israeli politicians who are trying so hard to promote a two-state solution and to discredit any other option. So this proposed section should have distinct sub-sections for the two different sorts of polemic. What is perfectly clear from all this, however, is that the "apartheid" charge has no objective substance, since it has been made to mean one thing and its opposite. Like many metaphors, it is very cloudy. It also follows from this that there is nothing in the real world that Israel could do to avoid this charge by its enemies: it is not susceptible to refutation because it has no fixed objective content.Tempered (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Will think about your on-subject first point. As for the rest: article talk pages are for discussion of changes to the article, so please stop wasting people's time with your soapboxing of personal opinions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh oh, I wasted your time. A split second running the eye through a sentence. Sorry. The citations of Wikipedia policy show how keen you are to deal solely with substantive issues, and that is all to the good. Now will you in turn please follow your own admonitions, stop wasting people's and my time and respond one way or another to the request I put to you over two weeks ago actually requesting constructive criticism and discussion specifically related to substantive "changes to the article"? See the last entry under the sub-section "Version 2: First paragraph," part of the section at the top of this Talk page entitled "New version of proposed contribution." Two weeks plus is really a waste of our time. By the way, responses from any other editors to this request are also welcome. I invite specific comments and constructive criticism. Thanks.Tempered (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the idea of a new top-level section dealing with those sources who state that Israel is at risk of apartheid, as opposed to saying that it is currently implementing apartheid? As Tempered points out there may be some variation in the reasoning that each source uses to reach this conclusion, but that could be addressed using sub-sections. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Delegitimization

Further to previous discussions with Tempered around the content he wished to introduce based on sources who regard the apartheid label as an attempt to "delegitimize" Israel, here is my draft re-working of his text.

Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palistinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel. Philosopher Bernard Harrison describes the apartheid label as "hyperbolic". He states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, or for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration of the situation in Israel intended to undermine its moral basis for existence.

Historian Robert Wistrich has argued that the apartheid label is a continuation of the historical vilification of Jews using accusations such as deicide and blood libel, and that it is propaganda used by the Muslim world resembling that used against Jews by Nazi Germany. Arguments have also been made that historical Russian antisemitism later manifested in the Soviet Union as accusations that Israel's policies resemble apartheid, a discourse that was designed to help Arab states allied to the USSR.

Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian political scientist specializing in international law and human rights, considers that delegitimization of Israel was pursued at Durban as part of a campaign to legitimize Islamist and leftist terrorism as justifiable "popular resistance," not just against Israel but against liberal democracies and Western societies generally.

I don't consider this draft anything like finished, if I worked on it longer it would become more concise and I'd take a closer look at the references. In particular, there are two long lists of references that should each be culled down to the 2 or 3 best references that support the preceding statements, but I'm not able to go through them all assessing which are the most relevant and reliable sources at the moment. So my inclusion of those long lists of references in this draft doesn't mean I'd want them in the article, I just haven't finished culling them. These two paragraphs don't need more than about 10 references, as opposed to the 28 it currently has. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One or two references per sentence should be sufficient. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that this section be moved to the actual section above that it is responding to and commenting on, called "New version of proposed contribution," as a sub-section entitled "Version 2: First and Second Paragraph." The source text and all the footnote references are from and reflect the contribution from that section. In fact, rather than repeat anew every citation reference, it would be sufficient just to use the citation number of the footnote given in the original source text. I will respond to the specifics of this version 2, both the first and the second paragraphs, above under the rubric title suggested.Tempered (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That would stop those sections being archived, and it's quite a lot of text. Large amounts of text on the talk page make it unweildy to download and edit, especially for people on slower connections, which is the reason for archiving, so new sections are desirable for long-term conversations on a busy page. People can still refer to that text when it's archived. As for the refs, I wanted editors to be able to easily see and choose among them.Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, people are less likely to read that section because it's at the top of the page so doesn't look "new". Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you're replying to this contribution way up in an old section. I'm not going to reply up there to discussion about my contribution that is down here, it's confusing. In any case, your response suggests we're going nowhere fast on this, rather you're going back to old arguments that you already know there is a consensus against, your interpretation of Hadar being the most obvious. If you'd like to move your comments about this contribution down here (in the logical place, under the contribution), and discuss it without endlessly making the same points that there is a consensus against, then I'll continue helping with this. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

One would almost think you did not read the response, Ryan Paddy. Your characterization of it is incorrect, to such a degree that anyone just relying on it would have no idea of what it contains. Moreover, you simply reject the suggested modifications I put to your first paragraph when it first appeared, without even discussing any one of them either then or now, and as for the second paragraph and its flaws, you are not willing to consider any of my points, which are all entirely new and arose in response to them. Effectively, then, all this is special pleading to allow you to reject any serious or critical discussion at all. As an essay in seeking a "consensus" text that is laughable. As for your creating this section here rather than in the sub-section you yourself originally created just for this purpose, you indicate that your chief reason is to force the archiving of my original contribution, so that it is not available for immediate reference or reading, even though it is the source for all of your own text and citations. You actually bring nothing new of your own research to this, but solely rely on the research contained in my proposed contribution. This is not fair-dealing. I therefore do not want that contribution to be archived until a consensus document is reached. The contribution is the standard against which your own version must be measured, whether pro or con. To seek its removal from this page prematurely is already rather a suspect and prejudicial motivation. Neither is it true that the text would be unwieldy to download and edit, especially for people with slower modems, etc. That is because when a sub-section is created, only text in that sub-section is downloaded for editing, if you click on the "Edit" link for that sub-section. So the excuse is not a valid one. Tempered (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Further point: you say the entries there might be missed by editors because it is not in a "new" place, here at the bottom of the page. However, almost all sections have entries added well after they are started. And any editor not aware of the new discussion at the sub-section "Version 2: First and Second Paragraphs" will be aware of it now from this discussion at the bottom of the page, and can easily check on it above. If you want any feedback at all from me, it will only come at the sub-section I mentioned.Tempered (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that there appears to be no prospect of successfully helping you with this, so I give up. Good luck, feel free to use any aspects of my contributions that you like, or discard them, as you see fit. I may comment here and there, but I won't be driving this with you. My suggestion, which you are free to disregard, is that if you take my contribution and trim the long lists of references down to 1 or 2 per sentence, then you may be able to get consensus to add it to the article (I for one would support it, subject to consideration of other editor's objections). Once that core content was present, you could attempt to add further sentences and references to the article to build on it, as consensus allows. Given that your main objection to my contribution appears to be that it's too light on detail (not that the details it provides are inaccurate), this would allow you to have a partial success that you can build on. This softly-softly approach would be more likely to meet with success than a big-bang approach of trying to get consensus for a long, detailed and controversial contribution here in talk and then adding it all at once. All the best - I still think the "delegitimisation" perspective is significant and should be represented in the article per NPOV, it's just unfortunate we couldn't see eye to eye on how to write it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My response is above in the proper place.Tempered (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

It is incomprehensible that this article exists. This article has no topic. The article space merely provides an area to lodge complaints against Israel. In the absence of a topic there should be no article here. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Busstop: This seems like trolling. Look at the AfDs that have been attempted before (there have been nine AfDs). WP doesnt need this kind of drama. I'd suggest that you self-revert this Talk page section (feel free to remove my comment also). Instead, let's go work on improving articles and creating new ones, okay? --Noleander (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, the article is about the accusations that some notable people and organizations, from Jimmy Carter to the United Nations, have made comparing Israel's treatment of Palestinians to how South African treated blacks under their state of apartheid. These are numerous, in-depth, and reported by reliable sources. The article gives some historical background to the debate, notes who has made the comparison and the context in which it was given. It also details those who defend Israel's actions and reject the analogy, and why. I hope this clears up your confusion as to the article's subject matter. I realize that the Wikipedia's concept of "verifiability not truth" is a very difficult concept for new users to understand, but it really is quite simple. An encyclopedia does not take a position on what is true or false, it serves as a summarization or concise reflection of what others of note say on a subject. Just because a Wikipedia article exists, does not mean that said existence is a champion of or a supporter of the subject matter. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Stated" and "argued"

There's an edit war brewing over whether a source "stated" something or "argued" it. According to WP:SAY, the word stated is "almost always neutral and accurate." Stated is used 26 times through this article in relation to all points of view. Argue is not mentioned in WP:SAY, but it is also a neutral term that's widely used on Wikipedia (and also happens to be used 26 times in this article). The two terms are fairly interchangable and equally neutral with regards to the accuracy of what the source is saying. They are used together with said and wrote to provide variety in the writing. My suggestion in this case is that the editor who made the first revert self-reverts the text back to using stated. The argument given for not using stated that "its an opinion not a fact" is clearly not relevant, given that stated is given as a prime example of a desirable neutral term by WP:SAY. Going forward, either term should continue to be be acceptable in this article so long as they fit well into the paragraph in question. When in doubt, "stated" is the preferred term because it's given as an example of a preferred term by WP:SAY. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"argue" is worse then "claim", which the aforelinked guideline specifically says to avoid. I don't know why "argue" is not included therein, but it's quite obvious that it should be avoided.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel "argue" would be a poor choice? --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

see the manual of style guideline linked linked right here in this section.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone, and I think it's clear from your comment Ryan that the section of WP:SAY to which you refer is in need of a tweak, because "state" is clearly not "almost always" a neutral term. It certainly isn't a neutral term when applied to a tendentious argument, because it implies neutrality where there is none. The bottom line of WP:SAY is that expressions should be avoided that "may introduce bias [or which] lack precision". Foxman's comment is more accurately described as an argument than a "statement", therefore we should avoid the more imprecise term which introduces the possibility of misreading, per the guideline. Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's precisely because of comments like these that we have the guideline in place. It's your opinion that the statement of the National Director of probably the most famous organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism is a "tendentious argument." Whilst your entitled to your opinion, most reasonable editors would not describe his statement as a "tendentious argument." This is why we have the guideline in place - so that we don't have these silly arguments.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I argue that the term argue is very precise in this case, 'states' makes it seem like he is stating facts when really he is giving an opinion. And brewcrewer please stop the personal attacks, do not call me and other editors unreasonable and silly because we do not agree with you. Passionless -Talk 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

hmmm. as this is your first comment here, it is unlikely (or is it impossible?) that I called you "unreasonable and silly." i suppose falsely accusing me of personally attacking you is itself a personal attack. but don't worry my friend, you're not being unreasonable and you are certainly not silly. if someone ever tells you otherwise you tell me right away.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your insults are aimed at all who oppose you, whether they have opened their mouths yet or not, you have split all editors into two groups all those who oppose you are irreasonable, and those who agree with you are reasonable. Passionless -Talk 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

good night, my friend. let the record speak for itself.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly brewcrewer, argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Secondly, like Passionless, I hardly think it appropriate to begin a discussion in this topic area by immediately labelling the other POV "silly".

In regards to your objection to the word "tendentious", there is little point in having a debate about whether Foxman's argument qualifies as such. It's not really the word I was looking for anyway, so for the sake of discussion I will substitute the word "contentious". The point is, Foxman has made a highly debatable assertion here that I'm sure would be repudiated by Carter. We should not employ "neutral" language for such an argument, but rather employ a term which accurately reflects the contentious nature of the statement. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

argument from authority may be a logical fallacy, but it is squarely within our NPOV and RS policies. Those polices teach us that the statements of National Directors of notable and widely respected organizations dedicated to fighting one of this world's worst evils should not be considered a "tendentious argument."

i did not label another POV is silly, i labeled the argument as silly. just look - we have all these strawmen and other false accusations of personal attacks (in of itself a personal attack) for what, for a simple change consistent with WP:SAY of "argue" to "state." I'll say it again, its a silly argument.

now i'm really going to sleep.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, hopefully when you come back to this discussion it will be without the red herrings and dismissive comments. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

To state something is to say it. There's no argument that the source said (or wrote) the statement, so stated is an appropriate term. To argue is to make a statement using logic. The source also did this, so argued is also appropriate. They're both appropriate words, which is why they're the most common terms of attribution both here and throughout Wikipedia. Both sides are engaged in needless pedantry on this point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. To "state" something implies that it is an irrefutable truth; to "argue" implies that it is a reasonable and tenable assertion, but not necessarily the sole possible interpretation. It implies neither the truth nor the falsity of the assertion. It is a neutral term, and in this instance it is preferable as our verb to describe Foxman's comment. A non-neutral, weasel term would have been "claimed", which strongly implies the unreliability and likely falsity of the assertion so described; nobody has used or suggested using this term. RolandR (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There, a perfect explaination from RolandR. Passionless -Talk 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can:

• State a point correctly
• State a point incorrectly
• Argue a point successfully
• Argue a point unsuccessfully

A statement can be false. An argument can be correct. Both are neutral. In particular, there is a strong consensus on Wikipedia "state" is neutral, as it means to "say". That consensus is reflected by WP:SAY, which is not some backwater guideline, it's on one of the most frequently referenced pages in the Manual of Style, especially when it comes to neutral wording (and especially under its old name of words to avoid). Editing this highly contentious page with reasoning in contradiction to the Wikipedia consensus on this word, and specifically reverting a use of the word "stated" because you want to emphasise the unreliability of a source, is very weak sauce, and I can't see any admins seeing this in your favour should this edit war continue. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can state "The Moon is cheese", which a statement. I can also argue that since the Moon is cheese, it's the best solution to the global food shortage. That's an argument. Those terms don't cast the material in a positive or negative light, which lets the material speak for itself (which is perfect for Wikipedia). In my opinion, the phrase where it's easiest to go wrong is "point out" which at least in my mind creates an assumption of correctness and a possible NPOV breach. --Dailycare (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia consensus on this matter.So all editors should act according to it.--Shrike (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are we even having a discussion about this? Ryan has stated that both terms are neutral. He has pointed out that both are used in the article 26 times. So what objection can there be to the use of the term here? I've laid out my reasons for opposition to use of the term "stated" in this context, and Roland has expanded on the theme. There are several users here who object to use of the word "state" in the given context on the grounds that it is potentially misleading; no-one has supplied any good reason why "argued" is not a valid alternative. This is beginning to look increasingly like a dispute for the sake of having one. If there are no objections to use of the word "argued" in 26 other instances in this article, why the fuss over this one? Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Before this edit war started the wording was "stated", which is a recommended term in the Manual of Style. The real question is therefore why people are edit warring to change it to "argued" on the basis that that is a more accurate term? I see that you were the editor who made the original revert that started this edit war, and provided a reason that was contrary to the Manual of Style recommendation. So the real question is why don't you revert your original edit and admit that your reasoning was contrary to the broad community consensus on "stated" as put forth in the Manual of Style? Both terms are acceptable, but "stated" is preferable and considered entirely neutral (as a synonym for "said"), so your reversion that started this mess was misguided. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style never says state is better than argues, so I'm not sure what your talking about. It does say "Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Though I think its obvious that this case is why it says "almost" instead of always. Argues is a much more accurate and equally neutral word in this case than is stated. Passionless -Talk 09:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly Ryan, I must reject this notion that I somehow "started an edit war", I am not responsible for what other editors choose to do. Thus far I have made a single edit to this article, which was to change a single word in one of your many recent edits. If somebody has been "edit warring", it's not me.

Secondly, you still haven't answered my question. Why are you objecting so strenuously to this iteration when there are another 26 on the same page - iterations of a word which by your own admission is "equally neutral" with the word "stated"? Your only response so far is that "stated" is a word "recommended" by WP:SAY - but you yourself concede that "argued" is "equally neutral" and acceptable as a means of introducing "variety" into the text. If that is your only concern, then why not simply agree to the use of the word "argued" here, as you have tacitly done in the other 26 cases, in order to avoid prolonging this disagreement? I put it to you that by your own testimony you have no substantial objection to use of the word "argued", and that your opposition to its use in this one particular instance is both inconsistent with your own stated position and needlessly disruptive. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with either word to be used in most cases. What I'm not happy with is for editors to change text from one use to the other while giving reasons that are contrary to the consensus in MoS. This page makes extensive use of both terms. If we followed your logic, we should go through all these usages change them to "stated" if the sources are '"accurate" in their statements, or to "argued" where we want to imply that their statement is merely the source's opinion. Who is to be the judge of which sources are accurate in their statements? You? This article covers a highly divisive subject and is subject to highly partisan editing. The partisan nature of your edit and the partisan reasoning given for it was likely to start an edit war, and lo and behold it did. Any further struggles over "stated" and "argued" - which are in fact used in an almost interchangeable manner throughout Wikipedia - will be equally partisan in nature, with those wishing to denigrate sources (as you do in this case) pushing for "argued", and those wishing to promote sources pushing for "stated", if your reasoning about their implications is accepted by other editors. This will only cause to inflame an already difficult article, for absolutely no benefit. For this reason, I am suggesting that the text be returned to its original state before you kicked off this mess (because it doesn't matter which term is used, so you shouldn't have changed it), and we all back away from this can of worms before it becomes necessary to involve admins. I wrote the text, and I wrote "stated" because I knew that it's a preferred term in the MoS. I can assure you there was no partisan intention on my part in using this term, or in suggesting that it be put back, becauseI personally find the source's statement not terribly convincing. My initial thought when this turned into an edit war was that we could change the text to read "wrote", which no-one could deny is accurate. However, to allow for a flowing writing style it's important that we don't get into a situation where every attribution term in the article must be "wrote" or "said" and can't be "stated" or "argued", synonyms are necessary for variety. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Stated, argued, wrote, said, all are fine, synonymous and neutral, and for style keep switching between them. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, there are so many self-contradictions in your response, it's hard to know where to start. But this is as good a place as any: it doesn't matter which term is used, so you shouldn't have changed it is just plain illogical. If it doesn't matter which term is used, then why object to the change? Oh, because my change was "partisan". Apart from the gratuitous bad faith assumption, how could it be partisan when by your own admission "it doesn't matter which term is used"?

But then in another part of your response, you contradict yourself again by conceding that there is a difference between "stated" and "argued", I quote: If we followed your logic, we should go through all these usages change them to "stated" if the sources are '"accurate" in their statements, or to "argued" where we want to imply that their statement is merely the source's opinion. Okay, but we don't need to deal with hypotheticals, least of all ones based on bad faith assumptions about the motives of other editors. We have a particular case here, so please let's stick to discussing that. Foxman claims that Carter has contradicted himself. Surely you would agree that that can only be at best an argument, rather than an established fact? If so, then there can be no question of unfairly implying it "is merely the source's opinion". We are simply stating a fact, ie that it is "merely an opinion". That's not partisan. It's simply accurate. Which, in a nutshell, is precisely the aim of WP:SAY. Can you now agree to drop your opposition? Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution is being consistent either we use in the article word "argue" in all cases or we will use the word "stated" in all cases.--Shrike (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary, but does no particular harm except for reading dully. When the article has been improved it can be submitted for copyediting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We don't need such draconian solutions. All we need to do is exercise a little common sense. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the edit summary of your original revert was "its an opinion not a fact". That reasoning is partisan. Wikipedia is driven by verifiability, not truth. We, as editors, should not be attempting to differentiate the "facts" from "opinion" via our wording in articles, we should merely be describing the significant perspectives on the subject. You continue to express the view, that is in contradiction to the Manual of Style, that "stated" implies a statement of fact, and you wish to apply this logic to the article in relation to source statements that you consider to be "merely" opinion. This approach contradicts WP:SAY, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and incites the POV-warrior approach to the article that we have seen in the edit war following your reversion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not partisan at all, it's a fact that Foxman is expressing an opinion. It's not "partisan" to ensure the reader understands this. What would be partisan would be to intentionally employ language which obscures this fact, or which opens the possibility of misleading the reader.

We, as editors, should not be attempting to differentiate the "facts" from "opinion" via our wording in articles

I'm sorry, but this is simply a misreading of policy. On the contrary, we are enjoined to "differentiate facts from opinion". NPOV states clearly that editors should avoid stating opinions as facts and avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. On the other hand, users should also avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. NPOV, in effect, insists that users "differentiate facts from opinion", because to do otherwise is to mislead the reader.

You continue to express the view .... that "stated" implies a statement of fact .... This approach contradicts WP:SAY

No, it doesn't contradict WP:SAY at all. WP:SAY does not state that the word "stated" is always neutral, the phrase it uses is almost always, which I think is an exaggeration, but which nonetheless admits that some instances may not be neutral. Several users have expressed the view on this page that this is one of those instances where the word "stated" is misleading; no-one has yet explained why "argued" would be an inappropriate substitute. Gatoclass (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)