Talk:Israel and apartheid: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Threaded Discussion: Oppose — descriptive title that is suited for both sides
→‎Threaded Discussion: Involved editors can't remove other editors' comments. Closing admin can determine whether or not to accord any weight to a new editor's comments.
Line 347: Line 347:


*'''Oppose''' — A descriptive [[WP:NPOVTITLE]] that is suited for both sides. That, ideally, is what the entry should be about: ''Israel and the apartheid'' [the policy] ''analogy.'' [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' — A descriptive [[WP:NPOVTITLE]] that is suited for both sides. That, ideally, is what the entry should be about: ''Israel and the apartheid'' [the policy] ''analogy.'' [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Allegations of Israeli apartheid''' - in popular vernacular and in rhetoric and outside of the courts the term "allegations" has popularly become the equivalent of using scare quotes and is often used to cast doubt on a claim. That title would be like calling it [[So-called Israeli apartheid]], [[Israeli "apartheid"]] or [[Israeli apartheid (sic)]]. '''Support Israeli apartheid''' as this is the most commonly used and plainly understood term. Defining or discussing a concept does not imply endorsement and we should not be looking for weasel wordsmith [[User:Islington Bloor|Islington Bloor]] ([[User talk:Islington Bloor|talk]]) 12:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:27, 9 February 2017

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 15, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 11, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
April 4, 2007Articles for deletionKept
April 24, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 26, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
September 4, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 11, 2008Articles for deletionNo consensus
August 21, 2010Articles for deletionKept


Israeli apartheid title

Given the fact that the uuse of the term "Israeli apartheid" has been widespread in the years since this article was created and that the use of "analogy" is original research I propose that the article title be changed to "Israeli apartheid". 209.171.88.35 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-occupied vs. Israeli-controlled

I edited Israeli-occupied to read Israeli-controlled, but my edit was reverted. Below are the justifications why Judea and Samaria should not be considered occupied. Thus, based on the below, I ask that my corrections [1] be retained. Ronbarak (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike, say, Turkey in Cyprus, Israel isn’t an “Occupying Power.”

Here is a generally accepted definition of ‘military occupation’:

Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4]

So who is the “actual sovereign” in the case of Judea and Samaria?

Let’s look at history.

The territory called ‘Palestine’ was controlled by the Ottoman Empire until the Empire was dissolved after World War I. In 1922, the League of Nations issued a Mandate to Britain to hold the land of Palestine, from the river to the sea, in trust for a national home for the Jewish people. The Mandate explicitly guaranteed the rights of Jews to live anywhere in its territory and called for “close settlement of Jews on the land.” This guarantee is independent of whatever meaning is attached to the expression “national home.”

In 1948, the Mandate was terminated and the British withdrew from its territory. The League of Nations had been replaced by the UN. However, Article 80 of the new UN Charter carried forward to the UN obligations created by trusteeships like the Mandate, such as the obligations to the Jewish people.

On the same day, the State of Israel was declared in eretz yisrael, the Land of Israel. Although the Declaration of Independence stated that the new state would cooperate with the UN in the future implementation of UNGA resolution 181, the partition resolution, no borders were explicitly delimited.

The State of Israel was immediately recognized by a majority of the member states of the UN. It was also immediately invaded by the armies of several Arab nations, whose intent was to destroy the Jewish state and take its territory for themselves (not to create a ‘Palestinian’ Arab state). Note that the state was not ‘created by the UN’. Its legitimacy as a sovereign state rests on its effective control of its territory and population, its ability to enter into relations with other states, and its recognition by them.

Resolution 181 was a nonbinding recommendation in the first place, was rejected by the Arabs and never in fact implemented.

When an armistice agreement with Jordan was finally obtained in 1949, the so called Green Line which marked the final positions of the armies was delimited. Both sides agreed that the lines were not ‘borders’ and had no political significance:

Art. II, 1: The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognised;

Art. II, 2: It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

Art. VI, 9: The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V And VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

However, in 1950, Jordan violated both this agreement and arguably the UN Charter (which forbids acquisition of territory by force) and annexed Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. Judea and Samaria were henceforth called “The West Bank” as opposed to the rest of Jordan, which was east of the river. The only country that formally recognized the annexation was Britain.

In 1967, after Jordan participated in yet another war intended to destroy the Jewish state, the land was retaken by Israel, leaving it in possession of the area of the original Palestine Mandate, more or less. Jordan’s 19 year occupation was neither legal nor recognized. The only legitimacy it had was that of a temporary military occupier. Therefore, when in 1988 King Hussein finally ended all Jordanian ties to “the West Bank” in favor of the PLO, he had nothing to give them. Jews living in the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria, were granted the right to do so by the Mandate.

This right has never been revoked, although it was denied during the illegal Jordanian occupation. In fact, the UN is obliged to support it today!

In conclusion: the only legitimate sovereign power in the Land of Israel since the end of the Mandate is Israel. And therefore, Israel cannot be an occupying power. As Naftali Bennett (current Israeli minister of education) said, “you can’t occupy your own land.”

References

1. ^ A Roberts. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli Occupied Territories Since 1967 - Am. J. Int'l L., 1990, p. 47.

2. ^ a b Eyāl Benveniśtî. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 200 ; ISBN 0-691-12130-3, ISBN 978-0-691-12130-7, p. xvi

3. ^ Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Sociopsychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59

4. ^ During civil wars, the districts occupied by rebels are considered to be foreign. Military Government and Martial Law LLMC, p. 21. [1]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Article Name Change

Fellow Editors, I have gone through the talk page archive finding numerous edit requests for a name change to this article - Israel and the apartheid analogy. The most common response to these requests was to start a new RfC. Consequently, I have taken it upon myself to do just exactly that. Surely, we can do better in giving a more accurate title to this article; one which reflects common usage. Its current form is wordy and awkward. Personally, I would even go further in saying that it is disingenuous. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

To additionally support the proposal for a title change, I put forward the following statistics gleaned from Google search results. They can be reproduced by entering the same key search terms. Obviously, the results may not be the only factors in choosing a better name, but they certainly do shed light on how the rest of the English speaking world, outside of Wikipedia, labels this issue.

Key Words Google* Google Scholar Google News
"Israel and the apartheid analogy" 7,240 results 7 results 6 results
"Apartheid Israel analogy" 332 results 1 result 1 result
"Israeli apartheid analogy" 217,000 results 1 result 1 result
“Apartheid Israel" ** 94,200 results 384 results 3,730 results
"Israeli apartheid" ** 373,000 results 964 results 11,100 results

*Note - Google main page results also include blogs, facebook pages, unreliable sources, and sites which mirror Wikipedia's own article.

**Results that also contain the word “analogy” have been excluded from these results.

Through the process of this RFC, I invite editors to make their suggestions for a better name. I would ask those who participate to refrain from basing their recommendations solely on personal feelings and bias, but rather to support the titles they put forward by supplying solid examples of how this topic is already addressed by the mainstream. Wikipedia should not endeavour to create or manipulate the name of this article. It should simply use the title that is being used by the status quo. Thanks to all those who decide to participate. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I demonstrate in "Threaded Discussion" below, this is a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A blatant example of unfair statistics. A specific 5 word combo (here: Israel and the apartheid analogy) will naturally be much rarer than a 2 word combo (Apartheid Israel). So this table should only contain 2 word combinations, else you are comparing apples to oranges.
The google news hits for the lemma are 90% advocacy and opinion pieces and therefore have no relevance to our neutral WP articles. Quoting those is futile.
--37.211.55.128 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia mirrors in the search "Israel and the wikipedia analogy" seem to be significant (?) a search with {"Israel and the apartheid analogy" -wikipedia} give about 5 thousand results. Still pretty significant and much better than my previous suggestion "Description of Israel as apartheid" I believe it was, with less than 10 results. "Allegations of israeli apartheid" give a surprising result of 17,000 results, and I think it is the best candidate - still supported by WP:NPOVTitle, but not as weasely as the current "analogy".--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Titles

(Format: Please begin with your proposed title in BOLD, then followed with your reasoning. You may include the word 'Keep' if you don't think it should be changed.)

  • Israel Apartheid - I believe this title best reflects what is used elsewhere, particularly amongst the scholarly community. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Israel spells Apartheid - I believe this title best reflects what is thought generally. --37.211.55.128 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC) IP are not allowed to participate in the RFC per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 -- Shrike (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Description of Israel as Apartheid - I believe the word "analogy" disqualifies the comparison, description might be more NPOV.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allegations of Israeli Apartheid explicitly allowed by WP:NPOVTitle, and removes "analogy" when today it is defined in law. 17,000 results in google search means it is in wider usage than "analogy" as well.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

  • Comment Please keep in mind WP:NPOVTITLE, part of our policy on article titles, and WP:POVNAMING, part of our neutral point of view policy, both of which provide some guidance on naming articles about controversial topics. If I may summarize: Consider whether "the subject of [the] article is referred to mainly by a single common name" that may be non-neutral, or whether an invented, neutral descriptive phrase may be more appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title clearly describes the theme of the article, which is the analogy, without taking sides. The proposed title does not reflect the analogy, but references something else. To change the name, the article would need to be rewritten. Someone might like to count how many times the word analogy appears in the article, to better see what I am getting at. Disclaimer -- I have no dog in this fight. Moriori (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask you to respect the format of this RfC by stating Keep, or adding your suggested title. It's not clear which title you oppose. Thanks Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose any change of the current title to one that doesn't reflect the content of the article.Moriori (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Even if there is a preponderance of opinion in one direction or the other, we are still required to find a title that doesn't take sides. Zerotalk 04:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask you to respect the format of this RfC by stating Keep, or adding your suggested title. It's not clear which title you oppose. Thanks Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Oppose" here means oppose move, but the reasoning indicates against "Israeli apartheid", but not necessarily against "Allegations of Israeli apartheid".--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean that the existing title is better than any other title I have seen proposed. Zerotalk 10:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any move The current title was the result of years of conflict and agonising. We don't need to dredge this up again. Number 57 10:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there may have been years of agonizing. However, a quick look through the archives shows that numerous times since, editors have sought a change to the name. They are still not satisfied with it. It seems that the agonizing is not over. It is time we look at it again. People living in apartheid don't decribe it as an analogy but name it for what it is. Moreover, there are almost 1000 scholarly works which support calling it plainly and simply Apartheid without adding the analogy tag which is only used by a handful. A spade is a spade. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the "1000 scholarly works" you mistakenly cite actually advocate renaming this Wikipedia article? No, I didn't think so. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve got it backwards, my friend. Authors of published scholarly works don’t seek to correct Wikipedia - it is us who need to follow their example. Here, we have failed. Additionally, I cite no one. This repository of more than 900 links to scholarly literature, which do not apply the analogy label, speaks for itself. Your fight is not with me but with them. Finally, for clarity sake, are you the same editor who has already posted to this discussion under the name Malik Shabazz, or is it indeed just a remarkable coincidence? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're the only one who seems confused about Wikipedia policy concerning article titles, which are not supposed to slavishly follow sources in all cases -- this being a perfect example. Which you might know if you clicked on the blue links in my message above. Regarding your question, same answer: click on the blue links and find out for yourself. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have written to you on your Talk page concerning your use of multiple accounts to participate in this discussion. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Admin note: Personal attack suppressed.  Sandstein  19:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]


  • Support changing to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" Comment My comment is divided into four parts:
1) Am I correct in understanding that calling it an analogy is already taking sides against it being apropriate, against it being a descriptor?
2) Wahhabism is for example the name given by critics, proponents say it's derogatory. Alt-Right is the name given by those in favor, opposers call it whitewashing. I think those names despite taking sides, being POV, are okay as names. (I personally helped with Gold digging which is kindof a pejorative term.) I think the idea of moving it is legitimate, is reasonable.
3) Despite the word "analogy" being used repeatedly in the article, I think it could be easily replaced by "description" or "usage of the term". Fascism is an interesting case I think of how it can be an analogy to compare to Italian fascism, but to call someone "Fascist" or "an Apartheid State" is not, I believe, necessarily to make an analogy. I read a bit of the article, and it seems international law defined apartheid as part of a "prohibition of apartheid", no longer from then on an analogy, but defined in law.
4)Please be civil. Please act in good faith, be respectful, state your reasoning, offer your viewpoint and go no further when a ettiquete forbids it. Do not try to force your point of view. Come on people!--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from "comment" to Support for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection to Shrike's voteI quote from there "Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law" - seems WP:NPOVTITLE would support a change to "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel" as Apartheid is illegality under law.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit Objection to reasoning]--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike:--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I was invited here by a bot. RFCs like this that bias the request are rarely successful. It's very important to start with a simple neutral question that isn't accompanied by the originator's POV. I suggest closing this and starting over, closely following the recommended structure on the RFC page (simple unbiased request, !Vote section, separate Discussion section that's not preloaded with originator's opinion). Jojalozzo (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" - Relevant quote from Neutrality in Article Titles: "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations"." The academic sources that I am familiar with don't make comparisons between apartheid South Africa and Israel (although a lot of activists and journalists do); the academic sources discuss whether or not Israel has ever or currently commits the Crime of apartheid in the occupied territories or within its 1948 borders. That's an allegation, not yet tested in a court of law, so it seems perfectly in line with WP:POVNAME TrickyH (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose move - summoned by bot. No horse in the race, but have read President Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. I think the analogy is a good one, but more importantly, the way the article is written suggests that the current title is better than any of the proposed alternatives. So I oppose the move/renaming. Timtempleton (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and conditional support: The problem with this article is not only the title, but the entire focus of the article as it is currently written. The article currently focuses on a comparison between Apartheid in South Africa and the status of Palestinians in Israeli occupied territories. But the real subject of the article is whether Israeli policies constitute the crime of Apartheid as defined by international law. While this is covered in the article, it is not the main focus - and it should be. So I suggest that the article be reorganized, and then the name change to "Israeli Apartheid" would certainly be justified. Ravpapa (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Οppose renaming the article. The title as it stands is informative and sufficiently neutral, i.e. it cannot reasonably be interpreted as "taking sides," as has been suggested above. The fact that the title contains more than one or two words is not a cause in itself for changing it. It's a fine title. Methinks we are nitpicking. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — A descriptive WP:NPOVTITLE that is suited for both sides. That, ideally, is what the entry should be about: Israel and the apartheid [the policy] analogy. El_C 13:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Allegations of Israeli apartheid - in popular vernacular and in rhetoric and outside of the courts the term "allegations" has popularly become the equivalent of using scare quotes and is often used to cast doubt on a claim. That title would be like calling it So-called Israeli apartheid, Israeli "apartheid" or Israeli apartheid (sic). Support Israeli apartheid as this is the most commonly used and plainly understood term. Defining or discussing a concept does not imply endorsement and we should not be looking for weasel wordsmith Islington Bloor (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_apartheid&oldid=764532621"