Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Roadmap for new editors

Because people going through several rounds of reversions seems to be a rite of passage to joining this article, and quite frankly, that serves as a deterrent to getting involved, I want to try and summarize what you, in theory, need to do to not be reverted. I admit that it is started with more usefulness for what I call below legitPOV editors, but its real purpose is to defuse conflict and promote work on the article. If people, especially Israel-is-not-apartheid-like in their POV could add to/edit this, I would genuinely appreciate it.--Carwil 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic

It's a difficult compromise, repeatedly reinforced by lack of consensus in moves. Two main POVs shape it: that the allegations are legitimate, hereafter legitPOV, or at least as reasonable as other wikipedia topics (and therefore Israeli apartheid would be a genuine topic), and that the allegations are legitimate and/or specious and/or antisemitic, hereafter illegitPOV, and thus Israeli apartheid is a flawed and POV topic.

Regardless of position, the fact that the article is Allegations of Israeli apartheid requires us to address primarily the nature of the allegations, rather than the nature of the reality. Further, presuming none of us are notable, and even if we are, we should publish first elsewhere (WP:OR), we need to address actual allegations, their supporting arguments and their refuting arguments.

[Personal note: This redefinition of the article makes for different content, which I think is worth keeping under the title Allegations of Israeli apartheid, even if Israeli apartheid comes into existence. ----]

The Intro

Currently a 1 sentence summary definition of "Allegations of", followed by several sentences describing opposing arguments. People who have tried to summarize the supporting arguments have been reverted by illegitPOV editors. Talk reflects that legitPOV editor think this makes the article violate WP:NPOV

Using the term

A description of notable users of the term. Edits are generally less contentious here, though new users must be notable. Descriptive text must be sourced, and at least WP:RS, especially as we have some academic sources describing the use.

Arguments

Must be by notable people or WP:RS who use the term apartheid or reference the system in South Africa in particular. Bantustans is sometimes contested, but refers to SA.

Arguments for

In general, this is where legitPOV editors seek to distinguish the allegations from specious propaganda and antisemitism. IllegitPOV are worried that this section will be a space for anti-Israel pontificating by editors.

Currently in sharp dispute is the question of whether partisan apartheid references can be substantiated by WP:RS that do not use the word apartheid.

Arguments against
Response to framework

Please put comments (instead of improvements or edits) to this guide here.

For a discussion of Reliable sources to use in this article see, Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS.


Hi. I saw this article, and noticed that several sections in the Arguments for sections have rebuttals in the same section. In that spirit I added to the first Argument against the following
Israeli law does, though, differentiate between non-citizens based on ethnicity. See the Marriage section of Arguments for this term, immediately above).
I was reverted twice, by Isarig (rm editorialzing) and then by 6SJ7 (Rv to last version by Isarig to remove excessive POV)
  1. My question: If factual rebuttals are 'editorializing' or 'POV,' should those in the Arguments for section be removed? Or were these two editors in error, and should my edits be restored? and
  2. My point was that arguments that Arab citizens do not face apartheid, right or wrong, are somewhat tendentious as Arab non-citizens (under PA de jure control, but facing issues of control from the Israeli state) are explicitly omitted from those arguments. If this point does not belong where I attempted to place it, where should it go? Jd2718 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The differences between what appears in the "arguments for" and 'arguments against' sections and your comment is that the arguments (for and against) are sourced to people making them, whereas your comment is your personal analysis and pinion , based on material you've read in the article. This is WP:OR and is not allowed. Isarig 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The interpretation is not mine: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel. As a result, therefore, the law is a violation of the right of Arab citizens in Israel to equality." Already cited, currently note 84 in the article. If you want more diffs, I can give them to you. But this is certainly not original research. Jd2718 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious reference removal

I added a reference to Mustafa Barghouti as an example of someone referring to the West Bank barrier as an "apartheid wall". This was fairly quickly removed, and I'm quite curious as to why. Can anyone explain? Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move proposal

Looks like there isn't enough support for it. I'm going to remove it from WP:RM. If someone wants to propose it at a later date, feel free. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

New title for this article

This article deals with "Critism of Israel" (or Critism of Israeli policy) - this should be the article proper name Zeq 12:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Barrier

Whether Israel started west bank barrier/wall in response to intifada or using intifafa as an excuse for stealing Palestinian land depends on your POV. So it is correct and NPOV to say that "Israel maintains that building of the barrier is response to the Intifada". --Magabund 10:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the "true" reason, it was the 2nd intifadeh that prompted it; until then successive Israeli governments opposed any barrier. Please stop trying to insert "revisionist" POV into this article as well; perhaps you can just stick to defending David Irving for a while. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Its simply your POV that second intifada prompted it. I don't really understand why my NPOV edit disturbs you so much that you start personal attacks? I am not going to revert, it is useless to fight such childish behavior. --Magabund 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, Jay, what is this crap about Irving? Magabund is tainted by Irving because of his position on the use of the word "historian"? Is there something I'm missing about Magabund, or is Jay just slinging mud?--G-Dett 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Marriage material

I've removed the following "Marriage" material to the Talk: page.

This is reminiscent of South African apartheid immigration laws, which adversely affected Indian practices of endogamy, in that they were forbidden from importing brides from their native country as they had done for generations prior to the apartheid regime.[1] but as the Israeli court explained these laws exist in every country in times of war with other countries and in general countries have many limitations on citizenship through marriage.

The first sentence misquotes its source, which does not make this analogy as regards the marriage law, and the second is unsourced. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pass laws material

I've removed this reference from the Pass laws sub-section: http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=225 ; the source is poor quality and propagandistic, and the point is already supported by the Farsakh source. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

West Bank barrier material

I've given the chronology and start of the barrier more or less exactly as described by Human Rights Watch, in an article that is highly critical of both the barrier and Israel. This should satisfy any NPOV concerns. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think something about the barrier not following the Green Line should also be in the summary. Catchpole 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before; your arguments are original research. You need to use the arguments of reliable sources that use the "apartheid" epithet. You can't insert unrelated sources that don't use the term, or even make the analogy; it may be your opinion that it is called an "apartheid wall" because it "diverges from the Green Line", but I think it would have been called that anyway. Stick to what the sources argue, not what you argue; we've been going through a process of cleaning out the original research, please don't take steps backward. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it did not say that it is called an apartheid wall because it diverges from the Green Line. It just states the fact that the barrier diverges from the Green Line and that land confiscation took place. Catchpole 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's not related to the "apartheid wall" argument, then why mention it in the first place? I'm afraid you're caught between the rock of original research and the hard place of irrelevance. Please find a relevant source that makes your point, or don't include it. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, praytell, is it WP:NOR to indicate something about the path of the barrier, but not to say that its construction was commenced "after a spate of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians"? --G-Dett 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that HRW was trying to POV the article in favor of Israel? If you're concerned about OR in articles, have you taken a look at the opening sentence under "Occupation of West Bank": Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, but are subject to the policies of the Israeli government. Israel has created roads and checkpoints in the West Bank that isolate Palestinian communities. Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem? Not a single reference to "apartheid", "bantustan", "apartheid", etc. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I think HRW was trying to POV their article? No. I think the Wikipedia editor who selectively quoted them was trying to POV this article. And I think that same editor is now trying to change the subject.

If mentioning that the path of the wall has cut Palestinians off from their land and each other (described at great length in the HRW document you're using) is original research, then mentioning that it was built as part of an offensive which in turn followed acts of terrorism is also original research. Period.

As for the opening sentence of the "Occupation of WB" section, those are basic facts, not disputed by anyone and ubiquitously available, which prompt those who use the apartheid analogy to do so. If your objection is that they are sourced to an article that doesn't use the word "apartheid," then they can just as easily be sourced to one that does.--G-Dett 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Different races??

There is no claim (at least in the article, that Arabs and Jews are different 'races.' Why should there be a rebuttal of a claim that is not made? I do not challenge that the sources that user:jayjg offered were real and were accurate, they seem both, but they do not belong. Jd2718 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your point. Apartheid was a system that based separation on differences between "races". Those who accuse Israel of practicing "apartheid" vis-à-vis Palestinians implicitly (and often explicitly) accuse Israel of racism. This article prominently quotes Yakov Malik as stating that Israel promulgates a "racist policy of apartheid against Palestinians." Others take issue with this claim, including the sources I have brought (one a professor of history, the other, the former head of the Canadian Arab federation) in articles specifically about "Israeli apartheid". It's hard to see what possible grounds you have for saying these claims do not belong. I'm willing to discuss re-wording, if you think there is a wording would work better, but I'm certainly not going to brook any deletion of this obviously relevant material. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. You are basing your argument on a single 35 year-old fringe quote.
  2. South African Apartheid used legal, not biological races. Colored?
  3. No one here, not in your quotes, not amongst editors, not in a volume on your shelf, claims Jews and Arabs belong to different biological races.
I don't question the quality of your source, but it doesn't counter anything that's actually been argued. Jd2718 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"Racism" is central to the apartheid analogy, and accusations that Israel's "apartheid" practices vis-à-vis the Palestinians are rife. The Leilah Farsakh article quoted here was originally titled: "Israel: A racist apartheid state?" [1] [2] At the Propaganda-fest in Durban Israel was branded "a racist apartheid state". Dozens of critics who fulminate against Israel identify "apartheid" with "racism". Apartheid does not exist in a vacuum and without a racist foundation... Israeli apartheid is actually worse and its impact is far greater and more perilous Israel is a racist apartheid state etc. Naturally, more clear-headed thinkers respond to and debunk this accusation. For you to claim that racism is not an inherent part of the "Israeli apartheid" accusation is disingenuous, and to remove the arguments against it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not racism that is central but rather the idea of "separateness" (between ethnic groups), which is the meaning of the Afrikaner term. --64.230.127.25 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be an interesting point, were it not for the fact that they all keep calling it "racism", and for the fact that the South African system was meant to separate races, not "ethnic groups". Indeed, the "white" grouping consisted of at least 3 significantly distinct "ethnic groups". Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
More informed commentators do not call it racism, although in fairness the whole concept of race is faulty (even your above suggestion of melanin content in skin is hugely contentious) thus any mention of racism is going to be relatively inaccurate. The term racist is usually used only where there is enough obvious genetic differences between the ethnic groups -- but a more accurate formulation is to talk in terms of ethnic groups (which includes religious groups, "racial" groups, and other culture-based identity groups.) Here is an article that deals with the idea of separateness without using the term race [3]. --64.230.127.25 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how your original research comments are relevant to what I've said, or to article content. I haven't commented on "melanin content in skin", apartheid was predicated on "race" (however inaccurate the concept), those who vilify Israel with the apartheid epithet often conflate it with "racism", and those who find the analogy absurd have responded to that, that response is captured in this article per WP:NPOV. What from all you have said is relevant to that? Also, why don't you just login when you make these comments? Why edit from an IP sometimes, and your userid other times? Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
My above assertion that race is a faulty concept is not original research, you may not be up to speed on the developments in academia. See Race#Current_views_across_disciplines. The term is being phased out across many disciplines and this trend started decades ago. It is good to correct people that the whole idea of race is faulty. --64.230.127.25 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, yes, but that's irrelevant to this page. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, you have found arguments that counter Arabs and Jews being separate races. You claim this belongs because of accusations of Israel being "racist." But even in South Africa, races were legally defined constructs, eg Colored, and not biological categories. I'll repeat what I wrote above: "No one here, not in your quotes, not amongst editors, not in a volume on your shelf, claims Jews and Arabs belong to different biological races." With nothing to rebut, the argument is a strawman. 148.84.102.192 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC) jd2718 editing from an IP
But the sources I have provided are making this argument specifically to rebut the claim that "Israeli apartheid" is "racist", an argument that is made all the time, so I'm still not understanding why this isn't a relevant argument. "Race" may be a dodgy concept, but the architects of South African apartheid took it seriously, and those accusing Israel of it are accusing Israel of the same thing. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Your sources rebut the argument that Jews and Arabs are different races, which is simply not made. There is a reason that no one is quoted saying that Jews and Arabs are different reasons. It is highly POV to argue against arguments that you think the other side should be making or really means. Stick to what is being said. When they call Israel racist, do they mean Arabs and Jews are different races? With references, we can evaluate, with your OR, we cannot. Jd2718 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No, they are rebutting the claim that Israel practices racism. Do you really think that the president of the Canadian Arab Federation is erecting strawman arguments on behalf of Israel? Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Raja Khouri isn't making a strawman argument. But more to the point, he isn't making an argument against the "apartheid" analogy at all. He's making the same distinction Carter does, saying in the Israeli case it's not about race. Khouri's distinction absolutely doesn't belong in a section called "arguments against the term," because he doesn't use it as such. Jay wants to draw out the implications of Khouri's distinction for the purposes of an "argument against the term" – an obvious case of original research. So that has to go. Gerald Stein's Jerusalem Post op-ed is fine here, on the other hand, though he's obviously after a strawman.--G-Dett 23:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O.K., well real apartheid was supposed to be about "race", regardless of the validity of the concept. Many of the people who allege "Israeli apartheid" insist that it is also about race, that it is racism. There are at least three sources (including Carter) who insist, however, that it is not about race. And please don't try to say that this article is only about the term "apartheid", because it if was, this article would be 1/4 the size, and any source mentioning "bantustans" or "South Africa" or similar terms, but not specifically the term "apartheid" would not belong here. The arguments listed there are not about the term at all, but rather about the validity of the analogy. We could remove every single one that didn't specifically discuss or use the term. Do you really want to go down that road? Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, you write: "Many of the people who allege "Israeli apartheid" insist that it is also about race..." Who? Where? You haven't answered that.
You may object that I've clipped your quote: "...insist that it is also about race, that it is racism". (italics mine). I can understand how you might deduce that, but it's not here, it's not in the citations, and as such constitutes OR. Please remove it. Jd2718 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've re-worded to address your objections. The allegation of "Israeli apartheid" = "racism" is commonly made, I've already provided examples. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I can't follow all the horsetrading of technicalities in your last post above; my point was only that Khouri does not belong in a section on "arguments against the term," since he doesn't make one.--G-Dett 04:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

He makes an argument against the claim that "Israeli apartheid" is based on "race" or "racism". I've re-worded to address the objections, and cleaned up a bunch of other messes. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you wrote about me, just above: "He makes an argument against the claim that "Israeli apartheid" is based on "race" or "racism"" No. The claim is that is not based on race. Just race. Race. And you have not provided a single reference to someone making the "Israel apartheid" allegation who actually claims that Jews and Arabs are separate races. But you have added sources to dispute that which has not been claimed. Those points should be removed. Jd2718 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel has been accused many times of "racism" as regards the Palestinians and "apartheid", and "racism" implies race. Troy is clear that he is arguing against the concept of "racism" in relation to "Israeli apartheid". He says it quite explicitly. Let those who make counter-arguments have their say, even if you disagree with their arguments, think they are weak, whatever; that is, in fact, policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Jd is quite right about the difference here between "race" and "racism." "Race" is an old-fashioned and largely discredited concept; "racism" is not. To think that one depends on the other is to make a category mistake. The reality of racism depends only on social perceptions of race, not on any underlying biological reality. This is why I've removed the following OR phrase from the article: "...and even the basis for the argument, the concept that Jews and Palestinians constitute distinct "races", has been discredited."--G-Dett 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You're behind the times; I've already removed all of the controversial wording, and just let the source speak for itself. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It certainly helps make it look like I'm behind the times when you insert your later remark before my earlier one, LOL. Your latest edit is an improvement, but it creates a new problem, because it now misleadingly looks like Gil Troy is an example of a supporter of the apartheid analogy who stresses that race isn't however the core issue. This is what happens rhetorically when you summarize a position, then say "According to so-and-so..."
Anyway this little section is still misleading, because it's listed under "arguments against the term." But who's making an argument against the term here (besides Troy)? Certainly not Carter and Khouri. It seems pretty clear that it's Jayjg making the argument, using Carter and Khouri. Textbook case of OR.
Why don't we just say something like, "Though some proponents of the analogy allow that race isn't the underlying issue in Israel-Palestine, opponents maintain that those who speak of "Israeli apartheid" nevertheless invoke race in order to sensationalize their claims." Then you quote Troy, having accurately introduced his opinion. And we get rid of the references to Carter and Khouri, since they obviously don't belong here. I'll wait for input, then make the appropriate change.--G-Dett 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was Wikipedia that automatically inserted my comments before yours, it's been doing that a lot. It's actually helpful because it creates fewer edit conflicts, but it can make things confusing. Anyway, my edit came before your comment, which was my point, regardless of the time I made my comment. Regarding Carter and Khouri, not everyone has black and white views on this; thus they both agree in some ways with the analogy, but disagree that it is "racism", though other proponents of the epithet insist that it is indeed "racism". Similarly, some people (e.g. Farsakh) insist that Israel practices "apartheid" against Israeli Arabs as well, whereas others (e.g. Cole and Carter) insist that Israel doesn't. We can't remove all their arguments against some parts of the analogy, simply because they agree with other parts of the analogy. As for as the "little section" being misleading because it's listed under "arguments against the term", I've already pointed out that most of the "arguments for the term" are actually arguments for the analogy. If we remove this section because it's not really about "the term", we'd have to remove a large part of the article. As I've said before, we can make this article solely about the term, but I don't think everyone here would go along with that; would you? Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've also move the Carter and Khouri references to the end of the paragraph, to accommodate your objections. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It's ugly and awkward. But definitely improved. Enough? Hm. I'll take a short break from this page and let others discuss it a bit. Jd2718 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added some relevant stuff from Pogrund. I think you have to recognize that the accusation of racism in regards to "Israeli apartheid" is widely made. As I believe I've said before, it was at the World Conference against Racism that Israel was branded "a racist apartheid state". Not the "World conference against Apartheid". Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This distinction between Israeli apartheid as a "term" vs. an "analogy" is a total red herring; the point is that Jimmy Carter does not make an "argument against" either. We're getting into verbal gymnastics, tendentious and clumsy ones at that, when we declare that apartheid ipso facto means racism, and then go on to say that those who use the former without meaning the latter therefore are making "arguments against some parts of the analogy." For Carter and others, the salient feature of apartheid is the systematic and infrastructural subjugation of one population by another, not the racism that does or does not underlie this state of affairs. In Jay's eyes, Carter concedes a great deal when he says that racism isn't the motivating factor for Israeli apartheid. But if we build Jay's opinions into the structure of this article, which is exactly what we're doing when we list Carter's qualified use of "apartheid" as an "argument against the term" (or analogy or whatever, doesn't matter), we engage in original research, period.--G-Dett 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This distinction between Israeli apartheid as a "term" vs. an "analogy" is a total red herring? Utter nonsense; the distinction between "term" and "analogy" is key to many of the problems with this article, and, as has been pointed out, what makes this article differ so significantly from articles about other epithets like Islamofascism, which, of course, is careful watched to ensure that it only discusses the term itself, and never the analogy. Many sentences in the "Arguments for the term" section have no sources referring to the term itself, but rather to the analogy at best. Much of the stuff recently placed in the "Use of the term" section doesn't refer to the term at all, but are arguments for the analogy. I'm cleaning that up now. And please don't erect strawman arguments and then attribute them to what is going on "in Jay's eyes". Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My objections to the listing of Carter and Khouri in an "arguments against" section is that they don't make arguments against either the term or the analogy. That's why it's a total red herring for you to keep raising that distinction as if it somehow answers my objection. The postulated gulf between an analogy and a term may be important to your general beef with this article, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the subject we're disputing in this section. And there's no strawman, by the way: this dispute was exactly about what in your eyes Carter concedes by saying apartheid isn't racially motivated in the occupied territories. You claimed that this qualified use of the analogy amounts to an "argument against some parts" of that very analogy. The semantic juggling, pretzel logic, and original research belong to you, Jay, not any strawman.--G-Dett 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your rhetoric has become so thickly laden with pejoratives that it's hard cutting through to the meaning, so I'm not sure I'm able to respond to your point any more, whatever it is. I'll take a stab, though, and say that the bottom line is that many people who (and organizations which) use the "apartheid" analogy allege it is "racism" in the same way that real apartheid was racism, but others, including those who generally support the analogy, dispute that it is racism that drives it. Racism is a key component of real apartheid, it is a key assertion made by those who label Israel with the epithet, but many people dispute that it is part of epithet apartheid, and that critical point is brought out in this section. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag: POV or Totally disputed?

Lance6968 changed the POV tag to a Totally Disputed tag. WP:Accuracy Dispute suggests that this tag is for an article if:

  • it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
  • it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
  • in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
  • it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

I see that content in the article is hotly contested, but I don't see how any of these conditions fit. Jd2718 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The list above are not "points I raise." They are from the article that describes when to apply the Totally Disputed tag. Are you saying that none of those conditions fit? In that case, you should remove the tag. Jd2718 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What I am saying is that the article overshoots what the sources allow. At best all you can say is that Israel has been subjected to alot of crude name calling—that should be viewed within the context of Arab hysterical hyperbole and mendacity. Israel is also subject to religious hostility from those who contend to have replaced Israel and call themselves the "true"-Israel. This is the case with the Catholic church; and in an even cruder form by Islam. All this article does is give a mostly uncritical collection of name-calling the status of a commencement of proof, to use a civil law concept, that assumes what it intends to prove. It's logically circular: Israel is an "aparthied" state because its enemies call it so; as well as other names, that aren't included because they don't support the desired conclusion that outrageously conflates Israel with "apartheid."--Lance talk 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. The article is about allegations of Israeli apartheid. There is no article Israeli apartheid
  2. You may think it is a bad article. You are allowed (encouraged) to edit (not by me in particular, it's just what Wikipedia does, it encourages everyone to edit) to improve the article.
  3. You may think the article should not exist. There are procedures to ask to delete articles. Be aware, this article has survived three such requests.
But whatever you do requires specific reasons tied to the action. You added a tag; I pointed you to the article that explains when that tag is used. In addition, I copied the main reasons to this page. That tag should be applied for those reasons, not that you don't like the article or don't think it should exist. Please show how the article fits the "Totally Disputed" criteria, or remove the tag. Jd2718 15:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes this article completely unacceptable is that the mere association of Israel with "aparthied" is a victory for the propagandist enemies of Israel. The objective is that whenever Israel is read or uttered the reader or hearer would make the association with "aparthied"; thus deligitimizing Israel. It is a justification for genocide, since the murder of all of Israel's Jews is immoral; but the killing of "aparthiedists" is adjured to be the right and proper thing to do. Wikipedia is not a propagandist weapon to create an enviroment that wrongfully deligitimizes an entire indigenous people, Jews in the Land of Israel, who are defending themselves from overt calls for genocide. Curiously, the article fails to deal with the ultimate goal of Israel's enemies; where conflating Israel with "aparthied" is just one aspect of implementing their genocidal goal.--Lance talk 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

RS subpage

I have moved the sub-page for reliable sources that was previously at Talk:Israeli Apartheid to Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS. Catchpole 14:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

War against Israel propaganda should be labelled as such. There are no serious sources justifying this article; just hysterical wack-jobs—and I am being uncharitable to wack-jobs. No serious encyclopedia would have an article with such an outrageous enty.--Lance talk 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the hoax tag unless you can come up with some reasoning other than proof by assertion. Catchpole 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
We've gone over this issue many many times. It is indeed a fact that people compare Israel's policy with apartheid. The usefulness and veracity of these comparisons is debatable at best, and I tend to agree with Lance6968 that they are so outragous that it's hard to take them seriously. But since there is no disputing the fact that the allegations have happened, the article is allowed to stand. But then every once in a editors try to change the title so that it's no longer about assertions but instead about the alleged particulars of the alleged apartheid. --Leifern 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tags should be reserved for disputes about sources and editing, not moral or political outrage over subject matter.--G-Dett 15:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The template: {{Hoax}} should be returned to the article until it is either re-written from a form that fails to make clear that this is propaganda or it is deleted.--Lance talk 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tutu

Tutu says that the "situation reminds him" of South Africa, but that is a far cry from making an allegation of apartheid. Since presumably he weighs his words carefully, it would be unfair to attribute to him the precise meaning of apartheid in this context. If someone can find a quote in which he explicitly makes the comparison between apartheid and Israel's policies, feel free to reinsert. But I don't think we should be putting words in his mouth. --Leifern 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Leifern has a good point here; newspaper editors choose article titles, not writers. Do we have any evidence that Tutu actually used the term in reference to Israel? Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I reinserted this as the headlines of the Guardian piece and the Nation piece both reference apartheid. As for the precise meaning of apartheid, my Dutch friends tell me it means separateness. Catchpole
But did Tutu himself use the term? That's not clear. I'm not sure why you bring up the "precise meaning of apartheid". Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As an op-ed piece, it is doubtful that the editors rather than the writer chose it. Also, there is no record of Tutu objecting to it; no follow-up clarification. But most importantly, the article are partial remarks from a conference. ZOA has more quotes. Jd2718 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You have a point about op-ed pieces, but it's still not a certainty, and the fact that he didn't object to the headline is not the same as him using the term in the first place. I'd feel much more comfortable with a direct quote. Regarding the ZOA stuff, on other articles I recall those quotes being challenged as unreliable. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Virtually everything in this article is "a far cry from making an allegation of apartheid," but that just points us back to the silliness of the title we're using. As for Tutu, he's made his comparison crystal clear; obviously he stays. --G-Dett 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is from Tutu's piece in the Nation (coauthored by Ian Urbina):

These tactics are not the only parallels to the struggle against apartheid. Yesterday's South African township dwellers can tell you about today's life in the occupied territories. To travel only blocks in his own homeland, a grandfather waits on the whim of a teenage soldier. More than an emergency is needed to get to a hospital; less than a crime earns a trip to jail. The lucky ones have a permit to leave their squalor to work in Israel's cities, but their luck runs out when security closes all checkpoints, paralyzing an entire people. The indignities, dependence and anger are all too familiar.
Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the antiapartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience.

I'll go ahead and revert.--G-Dett 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is completely silly to be removing Tutu. It's appear disingenuous and smacks of game playing. I would like to think we all had better things to be spending our time and effort on. --70.48.71.15 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Game-playing is pretty routine for the would-be censors of this page. It usually takes the form of political/moral outrage masquerading as editorial objections. The thing to do is to double-check all disputed material; when a given dispute looks like trumped-up BS, it usually is.--G-Dett 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If you head down the violation of policy route, as you have done in the comment above, you'll eventually find it impossible to work with anyone here. Please reconsider your tactics. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I forgot to log in for my last two edits, both of which clean up sourcing problems in the "arguments against" section. Arguments made by Adam and Steinberg are now clearly marked as such within the text. A claim about what the Palestinian people want that was sourced to a flyer (!) distributed by a pro-Israel lobbying group has been deleted. Finally, the arguments about "petty apartheid" which emphasize the degree of social integration in Israel, though they may well be true, are not made by the cited source and so have also been deleted.--G-Dett 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to be marking Steinberg's piece as an "op-ed", you should certainly be marking Tutu's pieces as "op-eds". I've fixed this disturbing inconsistency on your part. Also, if you're including claims made by free-lance journalist Flore de Préneuf writing in Salon (!), you can certainly include claims made by StandWithUs - in any event, I've sourced the claim to Pogrund and Bicom as well, and I've also source the "petty apartheid" claims to Pogrund and Bicom. I've also cleaned up a bunch of other introduced problems; Example of "use of the term" should contain, well, examples of the use of the term, not arguments for its use, which are in the next section. Also, "Heribert" is Adam's first name, "Moodley" is his co-author; for some reason you thought "Heribert" was his co-author. I've also cleaned up a bunch of other formatting and footnote problems. Jayjg(talk) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is fine with me to stress the word "op-ed" with regards to the Tutu material – bold it and put it in all caps if you like (for G-d's sake, what else but an opinion would someone think was coming out of Tutu's mouth?).

Trying to slip a lobbying group's photocopied flyer into the same WP:RS category as an article in Salon is foolish, Jay. Pettifogging these losing points just depletes everyone's patience, as well as undermining assumptions of good faith.

Thanks for correcting the Heribert Adam and Adam Moodley thing. Their leapfrogging names invite confusion, and my inadequate mastery of in-line references compounded the problem.--G-Dett 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that StandWithUs chooses to publish its points in flyers is neither here nor there; the bankruptness of this allegation regarding "reliable sources" is shown by, for example, the heavy reliance you place on articles by freelance journalists writing in Salon, or on the words of Tutu, someone who was quite familiar with real apartheid, but who has no familiarity whatsoever with the situation in Israel. You should be relying instead on academics like Adams & Moodley, who have made this specific topic their area of scholarly expertise, or on people like Benjamin Pogrund, a leader in the fight against South African apartheid. Pogrund was put on trial several times, had his passport revoked, and even jailed for his activities in South Africa. He has now lived in Israel for almost 10 years, and is a leading left-wing "anti-occupation" voice; his views on the matter (as with those of Adams and Moodley) are actually intelligent, thoughtful, and fact-based, rather than the meaningless soundbites of Tutu, a man who sees "apartheid" in almost everything. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As for your edit summary – commentators who have used the term *term*, if we're noting all op-eds, who is Steinberg... – I'll confess I can follow neither sense nor syntax. Obviously the flyer isn't a reliable source. To avoid an edit war, however, I'll just insert wording to make clear where this is coming from. In the process of cleaning up "a bunch of other formatting and footnote problems," you juggled the Tutu quote right out of the article; I'll restore it.--G-Dett 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you're saying that since Tutu's words –

– It reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa" and that he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about" –

do not contain the word "apartheid" in them, and do not constitute strictly speaking (very strictly indeed) an "argument" but rather an observation, a reflection of sorts, that therefore they have no place in an article about "Allegations [sic] of Israeli Apartheid." Is that it? Or is the omission just an oversight?

Obviously Tutu's words will go back in. The question is where. I think the appropriate place is "use of the term." You have argued strenuously on this page that this article is not about a term but rather the analogy; then in this instance you seem to be saying the opposite. --G-Dett 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As is quite clear, the article is split into two main sections, the first of which discusses the use of the term, and the second which discusses the validity of the analogy. You keep inserting arguments regarding the validity of the analogy into the section dicussing the use of the term. If these arguments belong anywhere, they belong in the validity of the analogy section. I haven't "argued strenuously" that this article should be "about a term but rather the analogy"; on the contrary, it should only be about the term, but those who wish to use the article as a soapbox to bash Israel insist that the validity of what is a pejorative epithet must be examined as well. As I've pointed out many times, including on AfD discussions, this is where it differs significantly from the Islamofascism article, which rather sensibly only discusses the use of the epithet itself, and not whether the concept itself is "valid"; what would not be permitted in the Islamofascism article is seen as entirely reasonable here. This is a dichotomy that bears close examination, especially on the part of those who keep insisting on arguing for the validity of what is obviously a nearly meaningless term of opprobrium. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As for term only vs. analogy in the broader sense, I have no dog in that fight because it seems to me a non-distinction. When a controversial analogy has widespread currency among serious people, as this one does, we present their arguments for its use (theirs not ours is the key). This is as true for "Islamofascism" as it is for "Israeli Apartheid." If they're preventing that over at Islamofascism, as you say they are, then it's censorship and should be confronted as such. If on the other hand they're just preventing it from becoming another bloated, waddling excursion into tendentious original research like the ridiculous New Antisemitism, then good for them.

The fact that those who want this article to treat the term "apartheid" only (so strictly defined that even allusions to Palestinian "bantustans" don't count) also want this article to disappear entirely puts their suggestions for its improvement and general well-being in a certain light. Rather like offers of medical advice from someone who openly wishes you were dead and has in fact tried to kill you.

But the main point here is that when someone of Tutu's stature, with the moral authority he has to speak about what apartheid is, and how it is experienced by its victims (that is, as a very real system of domination and oppression, not an "epithet"), says that the situation in the Palestinian territories (not Israel proper) "reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa," and that he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about," then it very obviously belongs in an article on Allegations [sic] of Israeli Apartheid. When it's quietly slipped out under cover of a distracting flurry of minor edits (and a very misleading edit summary), that looks bad. You can decide where it goes back in, as you have strong feelings about the differences between terms and analogies and arguments, and arguments for terms and arguments for analogies and arguments for arguments, but go back is what it will do. --G-Dett 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with your points:
  • New antisemitism is a very good article that contains little or no original research, and sticks extremely closely to Wikipedia content rules. The fact that consider it to be the otherwise is a quite worrisome sign that you still haven't properly learned those rules.
  • The fact is that "apartheid" is a pejorative, nearly meaningless epithet these days, much like calling someone a "Nazi" (e.g."Soup-Nazi"). Those who recognize that obvious fact recognize the inherently non-encyclopedic nature of this article; those who prefer political soapboxing to encyclopedia building wish to expand the article as much as possible. Ideally this article should be a four or five paragraph discussion of the term itself, its use, supporters, and opponents, but those with agendas insist on creating a monstrosity. If this article could be restricted to an encyclopedic size and meaningful content, then those who "want this article to disappear" would no longer want that; given, however, the inevitable propaganda bloat engendered by those who feel a strong need to vilify Israel, the unfortunate options are to either to support deletion of the whole mess, or fill the article with NPOV counter-bloat, and insist the article strictly adhere to Wikipedia's policies.
  • Tutu's stature as an apartheid fighter is quite high, but his stature as a commentator on Israeli politics is quite low. He calls all sorts of things "apartheid" these days, and a couple of flybys of Israel doesn't make him an expert, or even somewhat knowledgeable, on what is going on there. Again, someone like Benjamin Pogrund is a vastly better source to discuss the parallels (or not) between Israel and South Africa; the fact that you play up Tutu, and ignore Pogrund, indicates a desire to replicate propagandistic sound-bites, rather than meaningful content.
  • I made exactly one edit (not a flurry of minor edits), nothing was "slipped in" but rather fully elucidated on the Talk: page, and the edit summary was accurate and complete filled, not "misleading" - there was simply no more room to enter text, which is why the Talk: page comment added more information. Please stop falsely revising history. Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Succintly put! Tutu quotes are clearly more relevant and worth keeping than some "critics" who have not lived under apartheid regime nor seen its alleged counterpart. --Magabund 19:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's possible they belong, but certainly not in that section, and especially not duplicated. In addition, if we restrict this article to those who have "lived under the conditions", then we'll have to exclude Tutu, since he has certainly never lived in Israel or the West Bank. Please read and think first before reverting. Meanwhile, I've added back the Tutu comments in the correct section; I left out one phrase that was neither a use of the term by Tutu, nor an argument for its validity. Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone describes the situation in Palestine – and that situation only – as reminiscent of apartheid, you accuse them of "singling Israel out for special obloquy." If they describe the situation in Palestine – and say, one or two other situations – as reminiscent of apartheid, you say they "see 'apartheid' in almost everything." If a journalist is cited, you say we should depend on academics. If an academic is cited who disagrees with you, you dismiss him as "some guy in a university" and suggest he's not a reliable source. If an icon of the movement to end apartheid travels to the occupied territories and likens what he sees there to apartheid, you discredit him for having "no familiarity whatsoever with the situation in Israel" (as if the situation in Israel were the subject of his observations), and then you quietly sift those observations out of the article. When another, less-renowned figure of the anti-apartheid movement – with no more (and possibly less) experience of the occupied territories than Tutu – agrees with you that "apartheid" is a hateful epithet, you present his experience as somehow authoritative. When an internationally renowned journalist for a world-class newspaper who actually lives in the occupied territories compares the situation there to apartheid, you challenge her credibility, present her first-hand experience as a liability, and suggest we should depend instead on fliers and photocopies distributed by lobby groups with "no familiarity whatsoever with the situation in" Palestine.

Jay, your interpretations and applications of WP:RS are as protean as your ideology is fixed. If you're thinking now of going into I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I mode, and parroting these words back at me,[4] forget it. There's no partisan symmetry here. I'd never, ever invent objections to try to scrub Pogrund from the article; or dismiss Moodley as "some guy in a university"; or suggest that Salon is not an RS if someone writing in it disagrees with me; or play a rhetorical shell game with the situation within Israel and the situation in Palestine; or try to insert claims about what the Israeli people want (presented as fact) sourced to an MPAC leaflet scanned onto the web.--G-Dett 21:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, to begin with, it's rather absurd for you to complain that "Israel within the 1949 Armistice lines, or all of the territory currently controlled by Israel" is "misleadingly phrased", and then create a paragraph filled with the misleading and unclear term "the situation in Palestine". As for the rest, most of this article is garbage; it should be quoting almost exclusively from Adams & Moodley and Pogrund, who, as far as I can tell, are the only sources actually qualified to comment. Soviet politicians like Yakov Malik and Zbigniew Brzezinski? Propagandists like Davis and Farsakh? These are proper sources on the subject? And yet, they, and others equally bad are used, so then, in the interests of NPOV, views from the "other side" must be brought to balance. And then you complain about "flyers" from "StandWithUs". If you really wanted to create a proper article you'd cut out all the crap, and focus on the best sources. Instead, you bicker about minor wordings (e.g. "in Israel" vs. "within Israel itself"), and use the Talk: page for a full-scale insultfest directed at me. I've told you not too long ago on a different Talk: page that if you can't make your comments in a civil way, I'm simply going to ignore them from now on, as if they didn't exist. If you want to have a meaningful say in this article's content, why not try to edit collegially and within policy instead? Believe me, that's the only way it's going to happen. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It is certainly not G-Dett who is doing insultfest here. We've seen this modus operandi earlier [5]. And Zbigniew Brzezinski is Soviet politican? Is it only me or does it seem that most apartheid arguments deal with occupied areas and most "criticism" deals with Israel proper? --Magabund 00:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about you, Jay, only insofar as you've been the main proponent of increasing the quality of sources, yet as I've demonstrated in some detail, your criteria for quality are always shifting, improvisatory, and sometimes ridiculous. Blogs are out, fliers are in (unless, of course, you need something from a blog). Academics are qualified, unless you're Juan Cole (in which case you become "some guy in a university") or Zbigniew Brzezinski (in which case you become, bewilderingly, a "Soviet politician"), and so on. First-hand experience is good if you're Benjamin Pogrund, bad if you're Amira Hass – that is, bad if your firsthand experience happens to be of the place where apartheid conditions are said to exist. Nobel laureates Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu are not "qualified to comment," and if they are introduced they must be "balanced" by pamphlets from lobby groups. Consistency is to be found only in the results: sources that agree with you are "qualified"; those that don't, aren't. Are you really contesting this?--G-Dett 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole's views are well known, but his blogging about Israel is not the same as his area of expertise, which is not Israeli-Palestinian politics, and certainly not apartheid. I meant to write "Soviet and American politicians like Malik and Brzezinski". Pogrund is good because he's fought against Apartheid in South Africa and he's fought for Palestinians in Israel; Hass has merely identified with Palestinians, which is hardly well-rounded. Carter's and Tutu's qualifications, or lack thereof, have been discussed here and elsewhere at length - suffice it to say that "Nobel laureate", however much you brandish the term, does not equate with "expert in Israeli-Palestinian issues". I've been quite clear about what I consider to be good sources, which on this inherently non-academic and non-encyclopedic topic, are few and far between. Keep in mind that I introduced Pogrund to this article, not StandWithUs. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Israel itself"/"Israel proper"

G-Dett, you keep inserting qualifiers for Israel like "Israel itself"/"Israel proper". As far as I can tell, the sources themselves do not make this qualification. In addition, the point is true whether you mean Israel within the 1949 Armistice lines, or all of the territory currently controlled by Israel. Why do you insist on inserting this qualification? Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on this qualification are: some commentators are using apartheid to cover Israel, some confine themselves to the situtation in the West Bank. I think G-Dett is using these qualifiers to distinguish between the two. This difference in use is one of the problems with this article. For instance the arguments against section regarding race and from Pogrund are very good for arguing against apartheid as experienced by Arabs living in Israel within the 1949 Armistice lines, but not so good for Arabs living in the West Bank. The problem as above as that the sources themselves seldom explicitly state what definition of apartheid they are using. Catchpole 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I wanted to say: the arguments against "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" simply do not deal with most allegations. Most of the allegations deal with West Bank, barrier, settlements, settler-only roads, etc. which is also under Israeli control. I personally would like to hear the "allegations" mostly from Israelis and arguments against the term from Palestinians. We cannot have better arguments against these allegations than flocks of Israeli Arabs who buy cheaper housing in settlements there. --Magabund 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel within its internationally recognized borders vs. Israel within its internationally recognized borders plus the Jewish-only settlements in Palestinian territory (or as it is misleadingly phrased above, "Israel within the 1949 Armistice lines, or all of the territory currently controlled by Israel") is obviously not an important distinction here. Israel vs. Israel + the occupied territories, however, is an extremely important distinction, and one this article has a habit of obscuring.--G-Dett 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You've strayed into violations of WP:CIVIL again; could you please re-word your answer so that it meaningfully addresses my question, rather than just insults me? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Happy New Year.--G-Dett 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Not quite; see "misleadingly phrased" above. Want to try again? Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No. That's not personal. It is misleading to imply that Israel doesn't control the occupied territories.--G-Dett 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That implication was in your mind only. And, of course "misleadingly phrased" indicates intent to deceive, so of course it's personal. See where constant violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF lead you? Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I was under the mistaken impression that Jews no longer constituted a demographic majority between the Jordan and the sea. I realize this is not yet the case. Several other errors germinated from this one, including my claim that your phrasing was misleading, as well as my insistence that references to a Jewish majority in the article itself should specify "Israel proper." I apologize. Having conceded the point here, I won't edit my comment above, but if you wish to delete it you have my permission.

My larger point, however, about this article's lamentable tendency to blur the distinction between in Israel and the occupied territories when discussing "apartheid," still stands. And this becomes a serious matter when you evaluate the authority of people like Pogrund and Tutu. Residence in Israel does not count as first-hand knowledge of the situation in the occupied territories, yet you write as if it did, puffing Pogrund's authority because he lives in Israel, and faulting Tutu for having "no familiarity with the situation in Israel" as if that were relevant to his observations about Palestine. The article itself reads as if people like Pogrund are rebutting people like Tutu, when in fact they are writing about two completely different things. Pogrund is talking about the degree of social integration of Arabs who have Israeli passports and live within Israel's internationally recognized borders; Tutu is talking about Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank whose lives are completely controlled by a state of which they aren't citizens, and which doesn't grant them access to the same rights, resources, and infrastructure enjoyed by the Jewish settlers in their midst. The idea that Pogrund's picture of egalitarian harmony in Israeli restaurants and hospitals is somehow an answer to – or even at odds with – what Tutu has described is ridiculous; it's the equivalent of imagining that a description of the freedoms enjoyed by Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Michigan somehow rebuts allegations of human-rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay. And yet, amazingly, we've structured the article so as to obscure this most basic and central of distinctions. --G-Dett 00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology; thank you. Regarding Pogrund, let me make the point more clear. Pogrund's authority does not need to be "puffed". Not only was he, for decades, a key fighter in the battle against South African apartheid, but he moved to Israel to found and run an organization devoted to Israeli-Palestinian dialogue; speakers at the center have included, by the way and among many others, Desmond Tutu and Amira Hass. He has not only written books about apartheid, but also been the editor of this book. This is vastly more than just "living in Israel", and attempts to minimize his authority on the particular subject of this article do no-one any good. In addition, Pogrund talks not just about the situation of Israeli Arabs, but also about Palestinians in the West Bank; here is one relevant, if lengthy quote:

The word “Bantustan” is often used to describe Israel’s policy about a future Palestinian state. It might look like that, superficially. But the root causes — and even more, the intentions — are different. White South Africans invented the Bantustans to pen blacks into defined areas that served as reservoirs of labour; blacks were allowed to leave only when needed to work in white South Africa’s factories, farms, offices and homes. The Israeli aim is the exact opposite: it is to keep Palestinians out, having as little to do with them as possible, and letting in as few as possible to work. Instead, workers from other countries are imported to do the jobs that Israelis will not do.

If Israel were to annex the West Bank and control voteless Palestinians as a source of cheap labour — or for religious messianic reasons or strategic reasons — that could indeed be analogous to apartheid. But it is not the intention except in the eyes of a minority — settlers and extremists who speak of “transfer” to clear Palestinians out of the West Bank, or who desire a disenfranchised Palestinian population. The majority of Israelis — 60 to 70 per cent, opinion polls consistently show — want to get out of the West Bank, with divergences of opinion only on where the final borders with a Palestinian state should be drawn.

The separation barrier/wall/fence currently being built is part of this scheme. Its immediate purpose is to prevent Palestinian suicide-bombers from entering Israel. That aim enjoys popular Israeli support. Had it been confined to that and had the barrier run along the Green Line it would have been an ugly blot on the landscape as well as a statement of the failure to achieve peace. However, the barrier has gone further: the Israeli government is using it as a land grab, intruding into the territory that everyone knows should be the future Palestinian state. About eight per cent of that Palestinian land is inside the barrier, on the Israeli side. One of the effects is gross disruption of the lives of thousands of Palestinians who face extreme difficulty in gaining access to jobs, hospitals, schools and their fields.

The barrier/wall/fence, as it now is, is a repugnant aspect of Israeli policy, and all the more so because it is also meant to protect scores of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. But it is not apartheid. Calling it the “Apartheid Wall” is a debasement of the word for the sake of slick propaganda.

“Apartheid” is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand: it is a lazy label for the complexities of the Middle East conflict. It is also used because, if it can be made to stick, then Israel can be made to appear to be as vile as was apartheid South Africa and seeking its destruction can be presented to the world as an equally moral cause.

As is clear, he is no supporter of "occupation", "the wall", etc. He is not some right-wing Israeli apologist, but rather a nuanced, and most important, knowledgable expert on exactly this subject. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't wish to minimize Pogrund's authority or relevance, and I think more of what he says here should be included, in paraphrase, in the article. And I certainly would ascribe to him far greater authority than, say, Juan Cole. It was Tutu whose authority was challenged and words edited out; I don't agree with the stark and invidious comparison you set up between the credibility of these two figures.--G-Dett 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"Invidious"? When it comes to the allegations of "Israeli apartheid", there is no comparison between the two. Pogrund's informed and reasoned analysis is relevant, Tutu's emotional soundbites based on flybys are not. If we're going to get serious about this article, then we have to accept that although Tutu's stature in general is quite high, he is not a good source for this article, based both on the fact that he has no real expertise in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and on the fact that he hasn't written anything particularly fact-based, argued, or meaningful on the subject. Seeing a Palestinian at a checkpoint, and having it "remind" him of what happened in South Africa, is, as Pogrund points out, superficial. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, as you have indicated in the past: [we don't] do our own analysis of the veracity of comments made in reliable sources based on their use of "primary sources", we simply repeat what reliable sources have said. Regards. --Uncle Bungle 04:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not examining the veracity of sources, we're trying to use the best quality, most meaningful sources. WP:RS is quite clear that not all sources are equally good, that there are vastly different degrees of reliability even among "reliable sources". In an article like this we should strive to use only the best sources possible, not what any journalist or semi-notable happens to have blurted out in an op-ed. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's an article about an allegation (and I think it is a strange thing), then prominent people making the allegation belong, not because they are good sources of information, but because the article is about exactly that, the allegations themselves. Jd2718 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, noting that they have used it is fine, but there's no point in trying to delve any further into their thoughts, which are typically nothing more than the sound-bite itself, and even when not, are typically no more than a quarter-inch deep. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
And Desmond Tutu is a less prominent person than Benjamin Pogrund? This is what I object to, Jay: this slippage between personal/very subjective evaluations of the credibility of sources ("rounded," "nuanced, "knowledgable," etc.) and objective criteria like prominence. Let us try to be very clear, at every moment, what sort of criteria we are invoking.
We can say, objectively, that Pogrund is a South African journalist and anti-Apartheid activist who emigrated to Israel to found the Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem, which is devoted to dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. These are good credentials to establish him as a relevant voice for this page, along with the voices of other relevant journalists and activists. Moving now to subjective evaluations, I'd agree with you that, based on the op-ed you link to, Pogrund sounds like a reasonable, humane man. I find some of what he says coherent and argumentatively compelling, and some of it specious. I do not see evidence, in that op-ed at least, of depth of expertise regarding the occupation, but perhaps he demonstrates that elsewhere. To be very clear, I'm not "minimizing" his authority, the way you minimize Tutu's. Pogrund belongs here, and I've never challenged that. But to say that he is one of only three people "qualified to comment," none of whom have much (or any?) direct experience of the occupation, is puffery.--G-Dett 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Is "direct experience of the occupation" now the measure of the quality of the source? Well, then, why not simply give the article over to solely Palestinian views, and be done with it? By the way, Tutu has far less "direct experience of the occupation" than Pogrund. Alternatively, is "prominence" now the measure of the quality of the source? Well, then, let's just quote Jimmy Carter, and leave out the rest. I'll repeat this as many times as necessary; winning a Nobel Prize, or fighting real apartheid, gives you absolutely no inherent expertise on Israel-Palestinian issues or on epithet apartheid. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't the measure. Otherwise people like Pogrund and Adam and Moodley wouldn't belong, and I've been pretty clear that I consider them centrally relevant. But you want to use them to the exclusion of all other views, including those of Palestinians. My point is that there are different kinds of relevant credentials for an article like this. A journalist who runs a center for dialogue has one kind; a scholar of comparative nationalisms has another; an icon of the anti-apartheid movement has another; a scholar or journalist with direct experience of the occupation has yet another.--G-Dett 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
And what if you fit more than one category; e.g., leader of the anti-apartheid movement and run a center for Israeli-Palestinian dialogue? Moreover, I would argue that scholarly credentials are almost always preferred to journalist or man in the street credentials. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the man in the street has appeared here yet, though I expect he'll arrive in a cloud of leaflets and fliers when he does. But seriously, are you ready to prefer the scholar Sara Roy to the journalist Benjamin Pogrund? Why do we have to "prefer" one category of source to another? We have to be discriminating, yes, and Jd is quite right that the article has become too lushly foliated with quotations. But do you deny my point that there are different categories of important voices for an article like this one, and hence different types of relevant credentials? And that one type of relevant credential would be firsthand experience of the occupation?--G-Dett 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily prefer one "category of source", I just want to use the best possible sources. Obviously subject matter experts, or people who have experience with both situations would be best. In addition, people who make reasoned, two-sided arguments would be best. There are innumerable partisans, propagandists and pontificators willing to give sound bites or shallow statements, but the article does not benefit from their views, nor is the reader better informed after reading them. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, I agree that the article goes back and forth between talking about Israel and the occupied territories, and blurs the distinction. However, Jayjg makes an interesting point: there are an awful lot of minor sources. Would you consider taking out section 2 in its entirety (The Issues), where most of the iffy stuff crops up? The actual issues could well be linked to articles that more fully describe each one. I'm not positive that this is a great idea, but I thought it would be worth tossing around. Jd2718 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, Jd2718. I'd be happy to reduce the proliferation of quotes, and I'd be happy to do away with the artificial distinction between the term and the issues. Ideally, I think the best way to structure the article would be historically: the first instances of the comparison by Zionists before the creation of Israel, its reappearance after 1967 to describe not Israel but the occupation, its appropriation by antisemitic fringe groups, etc. Then we could have arguments against it, organized by kind (not issue): the comparison may hold in the territories but surely not in Israel; the comparison is ahistorical, and serves a rhetorical rather than analytical purpose; the metaphor derives specious moral clarity from its race-charged connotations, even as it disowns the centrality of race in Israeli policies; the comparison is an epithet used only by antisemites, etc. There are editors here who want the article not to describe this last objection (i.e. that the analogy is just an antisemitic epithet) as one part of a subject we're treating encyclopedically, but rather to accept its truth and adopt it as the guiding assumption of our treatment. There are editors here who have made clear they'd like the article to present its subject after the manner of feminazi or nigger, so I'm wary of saying let's cut the article so that it only lists "the term." But I'm all for leaner use of quotation, and I'm all for eliminating false distinctions while registering real ones.--G-Dett 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Arab apartheid, the real thing

Jews are forbidden from Gaza, Saudi Arabia, the Temple Mount, Syria, Jordan, Lebannon, and most significantly, the proposed "palestine" state. Comments?--Lance talk 10:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources regarding allegations of apartheid, feel free to add it to the relevant article. Catchpole 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Just echoing Catchpole, could the "lance" please source its OR. --Magabund 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Feed the Troll

--Uncle Bungle 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's no question that Palestinian, Jordanian, and not to mention Saudi Arabian policies are far closer to apartheid than anything Israeli, but that's not the subject of this article. --Leifern 21:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither Palestine, nor Jordan, nor Saudi Arabia have anything resembling apartheid or apartheid law. It is always interesting how some partisans feel free to say that "of course" the other side is as bad or worse, without evidence.
A much better target of that allegation would be Syria, whose ruling Alawai minority mirrors Israel's ethnocracy. But it is hard to see apartheid outside the context of a democracy for the ruling class; in a tyranny, the hypocratical dance of apartheid is unnecessary.
Even if the "other side" is worse, so what? These kind of arguments are false on two bases: 1. even if my neighbor is a murderer it DOES NOT lessen my sins. These things are absolute, not relative. (And the "other side" does not receive billions of dollars in weapon and aids, and unconditional support.) 2. Israel stands as the "only true democracy in the Middle East". Therefore it should be judged as one. The fact that some totalitarian regimes have worse human rights abuses does not mean anything. If you want to be a "bringer or light", to "stand for freedom", and all that BS, than you'd better act like it. If you compare yourself to a crazy dictator's regime, then don't complain if people don't see you the way you want them to. You can't have both ways. This is true for everything, by the way. All the hypocrisy of the Western World. Torture, kidnapping, illegal wars - not very good things if you're standing for high values. Saddam did all these too -only he didn't say he was the last hope of humanity, freedom and democracy.
The discussion about "Israeli apartheid" is really a discussion of political rhetoric; there is no factual basis for claiming apartheid. The "other side" does in fact receive billions of dollars in weapon and aid - well, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian authority from the US, and Syria and Iran from other benefactors. Israel has not engaged in illegal wars, torture is illegal there, I don't know where you get the kidnapping idea from. And it's provable that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and though it isn't perfect (no country is).--Leifern 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Expertise

Jay, can you point me to evidence of Pogrund's "expertise" on the occupation? As I've said, his bio suggests a unique and valuable comparative perspective on South Africa and Israel (though not the occupied territies), and the op-ed you quote and link to suggests that he is a decent, humane, thoughtful and morally serious fellow. But when I think of expertise on the occupation, I think of scholars like Sara Roy (The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development) or journalists like Danny Rubinstein and Amira Hass. I realize these latter may be described as partisan, but rhetorical "balance" and subject expertise are very different things. Do you have any recommended reading, either by or about Pogrund, that attests to the depth of his knowledge and is not in the form of a casual op-ed?--G-Dett 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't actually claimed Pogrund is an "expert" on "occupation", and for good reason. You seem to want to frame this as being all about "occupation", which, in my view, is narrow and simplified; I think the issues are bigger than that. Nevertheless, does being "active in the pro-peace, anti-occupation movements in Israel" give someone any expertise in the area? Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, what you said was: "he is no supporter of 'occupation', 'the wall', etc. He is not some right-wing Israeli apologist, but rather a nuanced, and most important, knowledgable expert on exactly this subject." I understood the grammatical antecedent of "this subject" to be "occupation, 'the wall', etc.," but I now gather it referred to the subject of this article taken more generally. But there we are, see: in the overwhelming majority of instances where someone makes the allegation [sic] of Israeli apartheid, they're making a comparison between the situation in South Africa and the situation in the Palestinian occupied territories. Almost nobody employs the comparison for the situation in Israel. If Pogrund is not an expert on the occupied territories, how on earth can he be one of the top experts – one of only three people "qualified to comment" – on the controversial question of "Israeli apartheid"? I don't want to make this article about the occupation; that article exists elsewhere. But this is one of those situations, not at all unusual, in which expertise in one thing requires expertise in another. Agreed?--G-Dett 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, even from the article, the accusation has also been made as regards Israeli Arabs. In addition, creating and running an organization devoted to Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, and being "active in the pro-peace, anti-occupation movements in Israel" would indeed give someone at least some expertise in the situation. Certainly more than Desmond Tutu; or, for that matter, Jimmy Carter, the Syrian government, pro-Palestinian student groups in the UK, U.S., and Canada, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, David Duke, Paul Grubach, Ali Abunimah, Hendrik Verwoerd, Yakov Malik, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Farid Esack, Ronnie Kasrils, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Arun Ghandhi, Dennis Goldberg, Breyten Breytenbach, Ian Buruma, Melanie Phillips, Lee Bollinger, David Matas, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Jean-Christophe Rufin, Irshad Manji, Chris McGreal, Juan Cole, Alex Safian, Flore de Préneuf, Gil Troy, Colin Powell, and Gerald Steinberg. In addition, his South African experience makes him more of an expert on this subject than Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Jamal Zahalka, Azmi Bishara, Meron Benvenisti, Ami Ayalon, Amira Hass, Shulamit Aloni, Tommy Lapid, Michael Tarazi, Leila Farsakh, Zehava Gal-On, Ahmed Qureia, and Meron Benvenisti. I've probably missed a few opiners there. The point being, his experience in both conflicts makes him fairly uniquely qualified to talk about the subject of this article, which compares the situation in South Africa to the situation in Israel. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So should we construct a league table of expertise, or is that original research? Catchpole 08:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Jay, I can't see from the article that "the accusation has also been made as regards Israeli Arabs." What am I missing? Are you referring to the little section "Land Policy Within the Green Line," where no one actually mentions apartheid?
As regards Pogrund: He has a unique perspective which should be included here. To the extent that the I/P conflict is about intractably opposed narratives, the fact that he can fold both humanely into his discourse is not an insignificant thing; this, more than expertise, seems to distinguish his contribution. But I don't agree with you that his being a South African emigré and peace activist who runs a dialogue center constitutes a set of credentials that overwhelm those of everyone else you list above. That seems like special pleading.--G-Dett 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The Land policy inside the Green Line, Employment, Identity cards, Pass laws and Marriage sections are all about Israeli Arabs - four of the seven sections outlining arguments for the analogy. That's a majority. And if your arguments is "no one actually mentions apartheid" there, then what is it doing in this article? Regarding your statement that I don't agree with you that his being a South African emigré and peace activist who runs a dialogue center, that's a disappointing straw man argument, so I'm not going to respond. Please state my case accurately, and deal with it. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Chris McGreal was in a reporter in South Africa for ten years, and then Israel for four years before writign the 2006 article cited. If the dual perspective is what you are shooting for, I personally would cross him off the rather long list above. -- Kendrick7talk 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg writes: "...creating and running an organization devoted to Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, and being "active in the pro-peace, anti-occupation movements in Israel" would indeed give someone at least some expertise in the situation..." and he is absolutely right. But IMHO he misses the point that someone, who is quite involved in some sort of real political contingency, is actually not free in his expressions. So he has to play by the rules. Outside spectators are by definition somewhat more free, they have no need to calculate the consequences, living securely beyond the ocean or so. And if we have article about "allegations of whatever apartheid", then we have to cover all allegations, unfortunately. On the other hand, were we to make article about "whatever apartheid", we should consider only facts, which are probably scare. --Magabund 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you're right that the short subsections on employment, marriage, and identity cards deal with Arab Israelis, though as far as I can see you're wrong about the "pass laws." The obvious fact remains that in the overwhelming majority of instances where journalists or scholars compare Israeli policies to "apartheid," they're talking about the occupied territories. Pogrund's opinion on the aptness of these comparisons is interesting and should be included, but I'm still at a loss as to why you regard it as definitive and authoritative, and why you think his credentials make him one of only three figures "qualified to comment" on this topic. As for your complaint that I strawmanned you when I wrote the following –

But I don't agree with you that his being a South African emigré and peace activist who runs a dialogue center constitutes a set of credentials that overwhelm those of everyone else you list above

– can you clarify? It left out "anti-apartheid journalist," is that the problem? I'll rephrase: I don't agree with you that his being an anti-apartheid journalist, a South African emigré to Israel, and a peace activist who runs a dialogue center together constitute a set of credentials that overwhelm those of everyone else you list above.

There now. You've been answered by me and others, and the ball's in your court.--G-Dett 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Pass Cards" thing was in there by accident, I was clear it was only 4 of the 7 sections, which is still a majority. Clearly the article is dealing with more than Palestinians, and you can't have it both ways; remove the Arab-Israeli stuff, or accept that the article deals with both issues. Regarding Pogrund, the issue is not that Pogrund's opinion is the only relevant one, but that the vast majority of people quoted in this article really have almost no authority to opine on the matter. In fact, there are a very small number of people who can speak with real knowledge and authority on this subject, including Adam&Moodley and Pogrund. McGreal may be another. Tutu is definitely and quite obviously not, regardless of his stature otherwise. And you continue to strawman; for example, you now deign to call him an "anti-apartheid journalist", when he was a leader in the anti-apartheid movement, an anti-apartheid activist, and was even jailed for his activities. There are more such examples relating to Pogrund. Describe him accurately and fairly please (see my comments in other sections for a more reasonable description), or we won't be able to move on. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "have it both ways," for G-d's sake. That the article deals with both issues is fine with me; it just needs to be clearer about differentiating them, because the situation of Arab citizens of Israel is categorically different from that of the stateless citizens of Gaza and the West Bank. This "4 of 7" business is just gerrymandering; as I've said above, "the obvious fact remains that in the overwhelming majority of instances where journalists or scholars compare Israeli policies to apartheid, they're talking about the occupied territories." This article, and the comparison it describes, has its center of gravity in the occupied territories, period. The situation of Arab-Israelis is relevant but secondary, and it's the only part of the issue that Pogrund can be said to be fitter to comment upon than someone like Tutu is . As for your notion of a strawman argument, you're either a) misusing the term by applying it to a mere difference of rhetorical emphasis ("anti-apartheid journalist" vs. "leader in the anti-apartheid movement" who was "actually jailed for his activities"); or b) actually suggesting that time in jail is an important credential we should take into account as we sift sources, in which case Marwan Barghouti ought by rights be bumped up the ladder.--G-Dett 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What I take issue with is your consistent attempts to downplay Pogrund's qualifications. Pogrund was a leader in the anti-apartheid movement - he was arrested several times, even jailed for his activities, yet you dismiss that as a South African emigré. He moves to Israel to create a Center for Israel-Palestinian dialogue and reconciliation, he is an anti-"occupation" activist (which has nothing to do with Arab-Israelis), he is a co-author and frequent co-speaker with Walid Salem, a Palestinian activist on exactly this topic, etc.; yet you dismiss that as a peace activist who runs a dialogue center. How long has Tutu spent in Israel, or examining these issues, a week? Pogrund has been doing nothing else for over 10 years. Yet you have the nerve to say that Pogrund is only a good source on "Arab-Israeli" issues, and that Tutu is equivalent to him as a source, or add on various other specious arguments, such as "time in jail is an important credential", therefore Barghouti should be "bumped up the ladder". Pogrund's jail-time is relevant to the degree of his activity in the anti-apartheid movement, which you consistently downplay or dismiss. Barghouti's jail-time testifies to his involvement as a Palestinian activist, but it gives him absolutely no expertise whatsoever regarding real apartheid. The point I've been making is that Pogrund is an expert in both conflicts, which you continue to ignore. This article is not about real apartheid, nor is it about the situation of Palestinians or Arab-Israelis. Rather, it is about the comparison between real apartheid and the situation of Palestinians and Arab-Israelis, and experts in both situations are, quite obviously, much better sources, than people who are familiar with just one conflict (or worse, are just propaganda mouthpieces). It's this kind of deliberately obtuse argumentation that makes forward progress impossible. If you were willing to honestly admit that people with expertise in both conflicts are vastly preferred sources, then we could move forward. Until then it seems hopeless. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone standing in Darfur waste deep in dead Sudanese shouldn't need to say to himself, "Is this genocide? Gee, if only there was an Armenian around, only then could we say for sure." An octogenarian Armenian would be helpful in making that allegation more definitive, but shouldn't someone know genocide when they see it? Apartheid allegations, certainly, are somewhat fuzzier, and it's perfectly worthwhile to refer back to the system in South Africa everyone can agree was apartheid, but its unrealistic to declare there's no generic idea of apartheid beyond that one defunct real version. With the advances in technology, such as biometrics, there's no need for a modern system to have anything to do with race (i.e. skin color), for just one example -- something the U.N.'s definition doesn't even consider. In a hundred years, when the last South African who lived under apartheid dies, does the idea of apartheid just lose all meaning? -- Kendrick7talk 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hyperbole isn't helpful; the situation in Israel and the West Bank is nothing like genocide or Darfur. In fact, a more important issue is why this conflict, and particularly the Palestinian cause, get so much press-play and U.N. time when Darfur is almost completely ignored. Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That, of course, wasn't my point. I just don't see how living through one alleged crime against humanity necessarily makes a person any more an expert on another alleged crime against humanity, even if it is of the same nature. These paragraphs which I for some reason have to show up here once a month to restore, pretty much answer your second question from my point of view. -- Kendrick7talk 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't lose hope, Jay. Pogrund is a good source, and I don't think anyone wishes to downplay his qualifications. He just isn't the definitive authority you make him out to be. His voice adds much to the discussion, but it doesn't trump every other voice here the way you would have it do. The specious idea that time spent in jail is an important credential for sources cited in a Wikipedia article is your specious idea, not mine; Barghouti was brought in as a reductio, not as a suggestion for the next phase of editing. You keep saying Pogrund is an expert in the situation in the occupied territories, but you make use of a very elastic notion of "expertise" on this page. Usually you mean academic credentials. I can't think of any example other than Pogrund in which you use "expertise" to signify credentials as an activist. Indeed, it seems that your usual position is to discount someone's credentials if he or she is involved in activism. This is the kind of thing I mean by special pleading.--G-Dett 13:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wishes to downplay his qualifications. Um, that's exactly what you've been doing, for a long time now. If you're saying you'll stop doing it from now on, then I appreciate that. Regarding your broad generalizations about what my "usual position" is, I'll just point out that rather than being an "activist" for one side or another, Pogrund attempts to facilitate dialogue and find middle ground between extremes. And finally, I haven't tried to have Pogrund "trump every other voice here", I just think we should stick with a small number of good sources, rather than the 30 or so mostly garbage sources that are currently used. A small number of good sources are all that is required, and the rest can be relegated to some footnote somewhere. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I opened this section because I wanted to know what objective evidence there was of Pogrund's "expertise" regarding Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, especially in the occupied territories. You have always stressed the primacy of scholarly work over journalistic work, and the primacy of journalism over anything that smacks of activism; I wanted to know where Pogrund fit into this hierarchy. And I wanted to know if he'd written anything more in-depth than an op-ed; if he was recognized by other prominent scholars as a significant authority, etc. Your responses to me have avoided all of these questions; instead you've focused on his bio. I have acknowledged Pogrund's strengths, while stressing that a) those strengths have mostly to do with his unique perspective, rather than "expertise," and b) that he has no particular knowledge of the situation in the occupied territories, which is what this article is mostly about. Because I have failed to swoon to your satisfaction over Pogrund's supposed authority, you accuse me of "downplaying" or "minimizing" his credentials. The fact is, I have graciously acknowledged these, such as they are. Would that you were capable of such "minimizing" when it comes to those prominent persons you disagree with; it would be a refreshing change from your usual attacks and bitter denigrations.
Unless you have objective evidence of the sort I asked for at the outset, then I am finished with this section. My question has been answered, clearly and categorically, in the negative. --G-Dett 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Shulamit Aloni

Can an older user place the footnote?

http://counterpunch.com/aloni01082007.html This Road is for Jews Only Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel January 8,2007

By SHULAMIT ALONI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siortega (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Nelson Mandela calls on Israel to pull out of occupied lands

Mandela also addressed a special session of the Palestinian assembly, telling legislators that "the histories of our two peoples correspond in such painful and poignant ways that I intensely feel myself at home amongst my compatriots."

Mandela, who fought against white minority rule in his homeland, and Arafat, the Palestinian leader, say they nurtured each other through some of their most difficult times as each worked toward the goal of self-determination for their peoples.

Mandela recalled a time when both movements were treated as pariahs by the international community -- a period that saw the forging of close bonds between the Palestinians and his African National Congress.

"The long-standing fraternal bonds between our two liberation movements are now translating into the relations between two governments," Mandela said.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9910/20/mandela.arafat/


Regarding the new introduction disputes

Before attempting to shorten or modify the lead in this article, please be sure to review Wikipedia:Lead section. One sentence lead descriptions for large complex articles rarely provide enough information for a viewer to develop an overall picture of the issues, especially in controversial articles such as this one where deletion of information can be construed as pushing a skewed point of view.

Guy Montag 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the term should not be removed from the lead again. It is a highly controversial term that's rejected by the majority of academics and journalists who have commented on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Criticism in the intro should be kept to a minimum. By no means should the criticism itself be given far more attention that the idea of "Israeli Aprartheid" itself. Thus the criticism shoudl be summed up in a sentence.Bless sins 14:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against having opposition up front, but I think this opposition is stated rather strongly. "No basis in fact," followed by "It's necessary" followed by "Other countries do it worse," sounds pretty lawyerly. I'd suggest something like "Those who reject the analogy contest the factual basis of the allegations, adding that legitimate security needs necessitate Israel's practices, [1] and that the practices of many other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid.[2]" Ideally, some other neutral-like sentence could then follow this to close out the lead.
Calling any and all comparisons slander seems rather fringy for a lead (while the point is still made re: other countries are worse), but I think "necessitates" is also better than "justifies." Mackan79 14:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, does your assessment that the term has been "rejected by the majority of academics and journalists who have commented on it" reflect a numerical count or a general impression?--G-Dett 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's taken from Heribert Adam, and he doesn't specify, except that the numbers against are overwhelming and obvious, so I doubt he actually had to count them. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Slim. Can you give me the reference?--G-Dett 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A reference to what? Are you attempting to evaluate the veracity of the statements made by experts in this area? Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Relax, Jay. A "reference" just means a full citation. I want to see the context of the claim, not evaluate its veracity.--G-Dett 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the context is interesting indeed. Scroll down to the new section, "What the 'foremost experts' actually say."--G-Dett 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley

I just came back to this page after a long absence. The first thing I encounter after the usual preamble is a long section of apologetics from a couple of obscure sociologists - before scarcely a word has been said about the nature of the allegations themselves!

Viewers of the page would be wondering what the heck the page is supposed to be about after a start like that. If Adam/Moodley are to be included at all, surely it should be after the allegations have been detailed, not before.

Oh, I note the same thing has been done further down the page - the "Criticism of the term" section comes before the "Arguments for the term" section. Is somebody trying to play "poison the well"? That's certainly what it looks like. Gatoclass 17:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Heribert Adam is a well-known and respected academic who is very well-placed to write about this issue, which you'll see if you read his bio. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's bizarre how people who know nothing about a subject feel qualified to dismiss the foremost experts in the field on that subject. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Gatoclass, downplaying them as "sociologists" is a nasty little bit of well poisoning. Adam, for example is actually "professor emeritus of political sociology at Simon Fraser University, specializing in human rights, comparative racisms, peace studies, Southern Africa, and ethnic conflict." Perhaps we should put that in the article, what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim and Jay, have either of you actually read Adam and Moodley? It sometimes sort of seems like you haven't.--G-Dett 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the info Jayjig, but you can hardly describe my identification of these two as "sociologists" to be "poisoning the well". The point is that there was absolutely no information about Adam and Moodley at all, they might have been a couple of street sweepers for all the reader would know. And last time I looked, "sociologist" is not a derogatory term. Gatoclass 11:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction - I just realized that I missed the reference to Adam and Moodley in the paragraph above the one I edited last night, I guess because it was late at night and I was tired. All the same, I still think they should be a bit better identified in the article itself rather than requiring the reader to hit the hyperlink, so I've included a mention that Adam is a Professor of Sociology. Gatoclass 11:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I don't know how long you've been gone, but criticism of the term now comes after the first sentence, before the table of contents. A sure sign that what we're dealing with is not a controversial subject, but rather a taboo subject. --G-Dett 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states that the lead should "include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Note that it says "should include criticism," rather than "should consist primarily of criticism." Which do you think our lead does now?--G-Dett 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, I think it signifies that we are dealing with a very controversial subject, which we are. You say "taboo", someone else says "extremely offensive and unencyclopedic." It is probably worth keeping in mind that in the two AfD's on this article (I'm not counting the one that was open for about a half-hour, and there were serious problems with the other two, but that's not the point here), a majority favored deleting this article. The deletion did not get a consensus, so it didn't happen. But, given the number of people (including me) who do not think this article should even exist, because the term is an offensive and unjustified slur, it should be no surprise that many of the same people think the criticism of the term should receive prominent mention. 6SJ7 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion, again, was this: "Those who reject the analogy contest the factual basis of the allegations, adding that legitimate security needs necessitate Israel's practices, [1] and that the practices of many other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid.[2]" Following this, I would put another neutral sentence to close out the lead. My reasons were 1. This is a better balance between theory and criticism, 2. Critical points are all still there, 3. Specific accusation that it's inherently to slander and malign Israel is left out, while general point is still implied (saying other countries are worse), 4. "Justifies" is changed to "necessitates," which strengthens the criticism while being slightly less passionate, 5. Inconsistency of hyper-intensive "no factual basis" vs. "but it's justified" and "and other countries are worse" is removed. (If there's no factual basis, what exactly is justified?) Any thoughts? It really seems like an improvement to me.Mackan79 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to me. Catchpole 08:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion.--G-Dett 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I think the deletion of what is now the second sentence of the intro would slant the article in favor of the "apartheid" allegation. I do not think NPOV-ness of an intro can necessarily be determined simply by counting sentences or words. This is an article where all of the most "visible" elements are highly controversial -- the article's very existence, the article's title and the intro. (The body of the article has to be part of the mix also, but I don't believe that consideration of that text would change the outcome of what I am saying.) I think that determining "balance" requires that all of these elements be taken into account and weighed together. While I still believe that this article, on the whole, is slanted against Israel, if (for the sake of discussion) we are to take as given the article's existence and current title, then the current intro achieves a sort of rough balance, in a "big picture" sense. The proposed change would destroy that balance. 6SJ7 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Do I understand you to be saying that a biased intro is necessary for overall balance?--G-Dett 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from discrimination against non-Whites in South Africa's apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel. Critics of the analogy call it inaccurate and illegitimate, adding that Israel's security necessitates its practices, [1] and that the practices of many other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid.[2] In recent years, the analogy has become a prominent and highly contentious component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

This calls the accusation illegitimate, which is the main point, rather than using impassioned language to show it. Still, I think it gets all of the points in. I also changed the first sentence to try to make it a little clearer. Is that any better, 6SJ7 or others? I feel like this is an extremely strong statement of opposition in the lead paragraph, and lets people know there's criticism of the allegation to come. (Of course I by no means wish to imply either side would accept this compromise, or that it couldn't be improved). Mackan79 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we write a solid, accurate, serious, and dispassionate article on the subject at hand, but every time we use the word "apartheid" we write NOT! in parantheses, to satisfy the censors.--G-Dett 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What the "foremost experts" actually say

It's time to get serious about this article. I mentioned above the importance of context. Adam and Moodley write that ""The majority [of academic and journalistic commentators] is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." SlimVirgin glosses this by saying, "it is a highly controversial term that's rejected by the majority of academics and journalists who have commented on it," and cites Adam and Moodley's observation as authority for writing a lead that consists mostly of criticism from those "incensed by the very analogy." She stresses that the author "is a well-known and respected academic who is very well-placed to write about this issue, which you'll see if you read his bio." Jay backs her up, arguing that Wikipedia editors are in no position to question Adam and Moodley: "It's bizarre how people who know nothing about a subject feel qualified to dismiss the foremost experts in the field on that subject."

What do you find if you actually read Adam and Moodley's work? For starters, you find that they absolutely do not endorse the position of this majority that is "incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." Adam and Moodley write:

Most university administrations in North America, from Concordia to Harvard, would like to declare the controversial issue taboo and ban all discussions among agitated students and activist faculty. Such a position shirks rational, analytic debate where it should be encouraged.

And they go on to write:

"We are puzzled as to why morally sensitive individuals react allergically to the slightest condemnation of Israeli behavior. People who rightly celebrate the Jewish overrepresentation in the anti-apartheid resistance react uncomfortably when the possibility of Israeli apartheid is merely queried."

It is striking that the very editors here who uphold Adam and Moodley's unassailable authority on this topic do not seem to be aware what Adam and Moodley's position is. Ironies abound when these same editors move repeatedly to delete this article, or declare that its subject matter consists entirely of a defamatory epithet, and so on. Adam and Moodley explicitly disdain this kind of response to comparisons between apartheid South Africa and the situation in Israel-Palestine.

There is something genuinely bizarre about heaping praise on Adam and Moodley for their unparalleled expertise in this subject, then saying at the same time that this subject itself is unworthy of an article in Wikipedia. In any case, Adam and Moodley make very clear that they think the comparison is a problematic but partially valid and decidedly valuable one; and they say so, in plain language, in the very work the authority of which Slim and Jay say we mustn't question.

It is not my position that the authority of Adam and Moodley (much less that of lesser figures like Benjamin Pogrund) is not to be questioned. This article should include the views of a range of notable figures. But given the degree to which this article has foregrounded A & M, it would be helpful if editors here would actually read their work and represent it accurately (as it stands now, all of the A & M quotes in the article come from one section of one chapter – a section which happens to have been scanned onto the internet). At the very least, A & M's work tells us that this subject is a serious one which transcends any alleged "epithet," and is indeed worthy of a serious Wikipedia article. And as regards this last, I think we should move immediately, following Mackan79's lead, to rewrite the incredibly loaded and well-poisoning intro. --G-Dett 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are stuck in this strange debate that on the one hand, some editors want an article about the rhetorical device of the comparison, on the basis that the comparison is widespread; but then immediately afterwards want to enter as a premise their own conclusion of the comparison, namely that Israel, that manifestation of evil in their imaginary world, is fully guilty of apartheid. This article must either be about the rhetoric itself or about the alleged crimes. If it's the latter, it has a tough burden to meet NPOV standards, as any reasonable person could only conclude that Israel is not guilty of the crime of apartheid; if it's the former, it has to stick to a narrow focus. --Leifern 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is responsive, but I'd expect an article that discussed the accusation, the background of the accusation, and criticism of the accusation. Having changed the title to "allegations," I don't see a danger of implying WP's endorsement of the accusation. At the same time, I also don't see a sufficient concensus to treat the article as some sort of completely senseless slur, as you seem to be advocating. I think your statement of "any reasonable person" is largely a straw man, since this is much more than a legal debate, but when Carter and Tutu and so many others have made the comparison, it seems pretty clear that an encyclopedia would have to treat it as a legitimate debate, even if there is a large majority on one side, if that's true. Mackan79 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting meta-commentary, Leifern, though I don't see what bearing it has on the present discussion. Mackan79, your changes to the intro so far are a remarkable improvement.--G-Dett 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If people take the time to read the Adam and Moodley report, they would find them more "balanced" on the issue than this article represents them. This Wikipedia article cherry-picks quotes from their report to support a POV.

For instance this (as only one example of many) should be included for neutrality:

Adam and Moodley write "that a difference between Israel and apartheid South Africa lies in sufferage for Israeli Arabs. However, if Palestinian territories under more or less permanent Israeli occupation and settler presence are considered a part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the 3.5 million stateless Palestinians under Israeli domination gains more validity." Siortega 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I added that this morning.--G-Dett 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel's relationship in support of Apartheid in South Africa

There is text in section "Other Views" in this article that states: "noting that the anti-Apartheid resistance that formed against South Africa was disproportionately Jewish" and "many liberal Zionists were active in the antiapartheid struggle", etc. But this could be balanced and less POV if it also noted the following:

Israel had a cosy relationship with the racist South African apartheid regime in South Africa. Israel had a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South Africa. Israel had a fruitful and deep military relationship with that racist regime too. In April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South Africa - one of the architects of the system of apartheid - paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin.

Let's not try to allow Israel to painted as only an ANTI-Apartheid entity, as the form of the Adam and Moodley text currently is positioned. That wouldn't be accurate. Let's work to make this article NPOV.Siortega 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Israel's close relations with apartheid South Africa is relevant. To include it, however, you'd need to find a reliable source that discusses those relations in the context of the main subject matter of this article. It would be great if you could find something of that sort. Otherwise it's OR, as you probably know.--G-Dett 18:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New eyes

I've been asked if I'd review the debate here. I'm happy to do that, but before I look at the issues and the article, I need to make sure that disputants are happy to have me do this — I don't want simply to add another voice to the argument. If you do agree, then I'll do my best to assess the different views and the article dispassionately and disinterestedly. My conclusions won't be binding on anyone, of course, but I hope that they'll help to resolve any impasses. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I'd guess people would very much welcome any fresh look at the article, but perhaps aren't ready for formal type mediation. Best, Mackan79 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that my question has been ignored, I suspect that whatever I say will be similarly treated, as people here aren't interested in an outside view. If things aren't resolved, and it does come to formal mediation, I'll be happy to return if I'm needed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realise you wanted an explicit invitation, any outside view is welcome from me. Catchpole 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Me neither, and me too.
Is it your plan to be on call for informal resolution of disputes as they arise, or rather to go through the disputes that make up the history of this article? In any case, yes you're welcome and I look forward to working with you.--G-Dett 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to just pitch in, which would be probably be seen as taking sides, and thus as just another editor joing in the argument. If I review the article and debate, I'd want people to know from the outset that I was coming to it fresh, from an outside, neutral point of view — and for what I eventually say to do any good, it needs to be something that all sides want. That's why I asked the various parties if they agreed to my reviewing the page. Sorry if I seem to be demanding an invitation; it's not that — just that, for practical reasons, all parties' support is essential for a review (even an informal review) to do any good. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel, your input would be most welcome. This has been a troubled article since day one, and a fresh pair of the eyes from a good editor is just what's needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome Mel. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My hesitancy in responding was due to the fact that the last time someone showed up in this discussion and said "I'm a neutral party and I'm here to help," and I had had no prior interaction with the person (which is also the case here), and I agreed to the person's mediaton efforts, it turned into a major debacle which included the person voting in highly contentious polls and later becoming the prosecutor-in-chief against me and others in an arbitration. So perhaps a little caution is understandable.  :) However, in light of the recent comments above, I am satisfied that we are not dealing with a similar situation here, and I would welcome your review and comments. 6SJ7 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I stepped back from discussing this article about a week and a half ago, but have been following. I think that slowly, individual items are being improved. It's not wonderful, and editors clearly sharply disagree, but there is progress being made. Since everyone is talking (except me who disappeared), fresh eyes could help accelerate the process. This is a good moment, and I too welcome Mel's comments. Jd2718 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli vs. Israeli-Palestinian

Re: Leifern, I think Israeli-Palestinian is better simply for being more specific. In the end, this could implicate all kinds of things, but the specific relevancy is to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is also where people would most likely want to look for additional information.

Re: 6SJ7, I think the sentence is important for the reasons stated in history, to provide context, and so it doesn't simply close out on the harsh criticism. The issue seems to have flared up recently, particularly with Carter's book, which I think warrants a comment. Otherwise I was just going to put a truly meaningless neutral statement, like "Support and opposition to the phrase is discussed below," but I thought this was better. If you don't like the wording, I'd certainly welcome something better. I also called it contentious in deference to your wish, however, to make it clear that there is strong opposition to the phrase, which will be discussed below, so people know this isn't just something that everybody accepts. Mackan79 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"so it doesn't simply close out on the harsh criticism"... it sounds to me like you are trying to make the criticism less prominent in the intro. There is no need to "sandwich" the criticism between other stuff. The criticism should be at least as prominent as the phrase itself, since the whole thing is preposterous anyway. 6SJ7 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Less prominent than it originally was, perhaps, but not as a means of minimizing it. I'm simply of the belief that an encyclopedia should discuss subjects dispassionately, and not to favor sides. Here, the criticism is indeed at least as strong as the idea; in fact, no support for the allegation itself is even given, whereas three arguments for the opposition are given at the outset. At the same time, I think it's good not to give either side "the last word." I also think the context is relevant. You've referenced the need for broad balance, though, so you certainly understand it, and I agree with you that this type of broad balance is necessary. So that's what I'm going for. Mackan79 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never quite understood why certain editors want to link to Arab-Israeli conflict over Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The was at one point a sentence where Adam & co. mention the relation to Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically, and I had to revert changes back to the conflict the ref was actually talking about like 4 or 5 times. Strange groupthink.... -- Kendrick7talk 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, comments like the one about "groupthink" have a really good chance of helping to resolve the disputes over this article. 6SJ7 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why you would find that diagnosis offensive; I'm hard pressed to think of a more innocent explanation as to why different editors would each repeatedly introduce the same error into a sentence (thought there was a fourth one): [6], [7], [8]. Then Leifern the same edit thing [9] in the lead (though of course, this doesn't pertain to a reference). Then, your last edit deleted the sentence from the lead entirely. And I see this in other articles too. It just strikes me a completely odd. -- Kendrick7talk 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Two additional commentators

Here is another Israeli making the comparison:

Yoram Kanyuk, "an intellectual hardliner and former liberal"[2] wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli daily newspaper, that "Israeli action in the Territories corrupts the Zionist dream, and is no better than apartheid. . . . I have not been a leftist for years, because I do not believe the Arabs would agree to share this country with us, and I believe in the Jews' right to a home and a state in our historic homeland. Yet what we have been doing in the territories borders on the criminal. When President Carter, who was never a friend of Israel, writes that what we are doing in the territories is similar to apartheid, everyone cries out in protest. Yet he wasn't far off from reality: our behavior is worse than that prevalent in South Africa at the time. It's unpleasant to say this, but this is the way it is."[2]

And here is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National_Security_Advisor_(United_States), comments on the matter, which appear to fall into the "The debate on the two-state solution" section:

"the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid: i.e., two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation."[3]

--70.48.240.99 17:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Uses and Misuses of Adam & Moodley

The introduction of Adam & Moodley's work, when we write that they

"state that in the "ideological battle" of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, "frequent references to apartheid are made wherein Palestinians are equated with black South Africans." [5] They write that academic and journalistic commentators on the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" can be mainly divided into three groups..."

– is extremely misleading. Their subject is not "the term". The sentence about people equating Palestinians with black South Africans comes from the first paragraph of their book. It is followed immediately by a sentence about other people equating Jews with black South Africans, and then a sentence about how both comparisons are problematic. Their main topic is not either of these comparisons, but a broader one that includes both: "Above all we are interested in the lessons one can glean from South Africa's negotiated settlement that can be applied to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." End of paragraph one. Statement of thesis/trajectory of book.

Eleven pages later and in the next chapter, when they write about dividing "journalistic and academic commentators on the topic" into three groups, they're not talking about "the use of the term 'Israeli Apartheid'," as our article so inaccurately suggests. "The topic" is their topic – that of broad comparisons between peacemaking in South Africa and peacemaking in Israel-Palestine. This will be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the passage. It is also very clear that Adam & Moodley count themselves among the third group that they list, and that their very book ranges itself as a rebuttal to the first group – the group that is "incensed by the very analogy." The analogy they're talking about is not between Israel and apartheid, exactly; it's between the South African impasse and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, and between the conditions of peacemaking and moral accounting that framed the former and now frame the latter. The analogy that incenses the first group they list – and incenses so many editors and administrators on this page – is one endorsed by Adam and Moodley, who have made it the central theme and guiding logic of their book.

Obviously, the introductory paragraphs of our article need to be radically rewritten.

I assume the good faith of all involved here. But the sloppiness and opportunism with which Adam & Moodley's work has been used here has set a bad precedent for standards of quality in Wikipedia articles with contentious subject matter. We should move quickly to undo the damage.--G-Dett 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

One should always move slowly and seek to avoid direct confrontation otherwise it just leads to more problems than it solves. It may be useful to water down end final paragraph of your comment and get Mel Etitis's thoughts on the matter. Mel has a great reputation. But if this page deteriorates into extreme hostilities, then it precludes any reasoned arguments. --70.48.240.99 17:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've edited my last paragraph to remove even oblique references to specific editors. I've left in the references to sloppiness and opportunism because I think those two things (and not ideology per sé) are the chief quality-control problems besetting this page. I appreciate your tactful blow of the whistle, and I look forward to Mel's work here.--G-Dett 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Catchpole's correction of "the term 'Israeli apartheid'" to "the analogy" in the opening section on Adam and Moodley is welcome. However, there are still at least two major problems that stem from our use of the Adam and Moodley quote, and the centrality we have ascribed to their tripartite division of "academic and journalistic commentators on the use of the analogy":

1. It is incredibly misleading to put the quote at the top of a section on "Use of the Term." They are not talking about commentary on the use of the term "Israeli apartheid," or really the use of any specific term at all. They're talking about commentary on the South Africa/Israel-Palestine analogy as it's employed more broadly. They do not attempt here to classify and diagnose a "political epithet"; their explicit goal is rather to refine, limit and qualify the analogy so as to make it as useful and enlightening as possible, so that lessons from South African peacemaking can be effectively applied to the Middle East conflict. We have a big problem in our article because some editors want it to frame its subject matter as a political epithet, and they imagine that these cherry-picked and misrepresented phrases from Adam and Moodley, our "foremost experts," support that framing. The subheading here – "Use of the Term" – reflects that framing. Unless, however, we are going to decide that our article's subject matter should consist of the broad analogy pursued by Adam and Moodley, rather than any narrowly conceived "allegations of Israeli apartheid," then Adam and Moodley's tripartite division doesn't belong here.

2. The other problem relates to the introductory paragraph of our article. As has been pointed out, the intro consists almost entirely of criticism of the article's very subject. This anomaly has been justified (see the section "Regarding the new introduction disputes" above) by appealing to Adam and Moodley's authority in saying that "the majority [of academic and journalistic] commentators are incensed by the very analogy and deplore what they deem its propagandistic goals." As has been shown, however, Adam and Moodley (a) aren't talking about "allegations of Israeli apartheid," but rather a broader analogy; and (b) far from deploring this analogy themselves, they pursue it over the course of a book. In short, they cannot be cited as authority for the well-poisoning introduction we've been using. --G-Dett 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the introduction to the material in question. My goal in doing so was to preserve quoted material important to my 'opponents,' while ensuring that it's framed and presented in a way that isn't misleading.--G-Dett 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've tweaked it to get rid of all the quotes, which made it look as though we're not capable of understanding plain English. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the streamlining very much, Slim; only now it looks like Adam and Moodley are discussing "whether" lessons learned from South Africa can be applied to Israel-Palestine, whereas that is in fact their premise, and detailing those lessons is their purpose. Your excellent editing needs another tweak.--G-Dett 23:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine as it is — or "whether" could be replaced with "the extent to which," if you feel that's clearer. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd already tweaked it before seeing this. A & M do say that "the main focus of this study" is to "draw strategic lessons from the negotiated settlement in South Africa for the unresolved conflict in the Middle East," and they make very clear that this is the analogy that provokes the three types of commentary they list. That's the general analogy that is the centerpiece of their book. There is a more specific analogy which is the centerpiece of our article, between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and Afrikaner policies toward black South Africans during apartheid. They deal with that too, but that's not what the tripartite classification refers to. My current tweak makes clear these distinctions, while preserving the brevity of your edit.--G-Dett 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent edit, Mackan79.--G-Dett 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an idea: The "Other Views" section should be retitled if it's all about Adam and Moodley. Plus, I thought people were going to balance out the Adam and Moodely POV that has been picked out from their report, and showcase their work in a more balanced fashion. Has anyone read it? This Wikipedia article, as is, doesn't represent their report accurately.Siortega 08:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are the critics?

This article deserves a {{weasel}} tag on account of its mentioning "critics" of the allegation without ever saying who those critics are.

The "arguments for the term" section does not mention that, quite simply, Israeli law makes distinctions between persons who are racially jewish and those who are not, and this in and of itself is (by definition) racist.

Well, I hear you, but the criticism is discussed throughout the article. We simply didn't cite it all at the top. Basically, it was a compromise. Mackan79 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I find the article spends more time discussing the criticism than the actual apartheid issue. Even the section about proponents of the term is basically mostly about the criticism. I don't think it's POV entirely, but it has a certain degree of bias in trying to not sound pro-use of the term. I completely agree that the term "critics" needs to be made more specific. For example, if the critic is the Israeli government, I doubt that should be even considered! 64.194.250.99 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you would find it unusual that there is more about the criticism than the allegations -- assuming that is actually the case, I haven't measured the article recently. If one person says "the sky is yellow", I would expect that there would be more people saying "no, the sky is blue (at least sometimes)", and some of them would provide you with proof that the sky is blue, and some would provide detailed explanations of why the sky is blue. Meanwhile, the person who said the sky is yellow can do little but say, "no, the sky is really yellow, and here are a few other people who agree with me." The discussion of how the sky is blue will always be longer than the part about how the sky is yellow, because the sky is, in fact, blue. (And yes, I realize that the analogy is imperfect when dealing with something that is mostly a matter of opinion, like whether something should be called "apartheid", but it is close enough.) As for excluding the reaction of the Israeli government to these allegations, that is ridiculous. Doesn't someone who is accused of something, even informally, have the right to defend themselves? 6SJ7 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Carter: Apartheid completely appropriate (term) for Palestine

Please, any older user who can edit, have the article reflect this source and quote:

"Carter also responded to the severe criticism he has received for using the term "apartheid" in the book's title, calling it "completely appropriate for Palestine"

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-carter12dec12,0,524214.story?track=tothtml

Carter made his remarks in a brief session with reporters before a book-signing appearance at a jammed Vromans bookstore, which attracted an overwhelmingly supportive crowd estimated at nearly 2,000. Siortega 05:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I haven't read this entire debate, but I have studied this issue. I do not see that this topic warrents this length of debate. It is a matter of fact that Israel passes laws that restrict the rights of their Arab citizens, they have been critised all over the world for it, including in the UN. Edward Herman makes a valid point when he writes "If Jews in France were required to carry identification cards designating them Jews (even though French citizens), could not acquire land or buy or rent homes in most of the country, were not eligible for service in the armed forces, and French law banned any political party or legislation calling for equal rights for Jews, would France be widely praised in the United States as a "symbol of human decency" (New York Times) and paragon of democracy? Would there be a huge protest if France, in consequence of such laws and practices, was declared by a UN majority to be a racist state?". There can be no 'allegation' of whether Israel passes racist laws similar to those of South African apartheid because it does, it is not a matter of opinion. The only debate is wether or not they are justified in doing so or if there is ever any justification.

--G-Dett 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)--G-Dett 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to take a good hard look at this

[10]

A controversial name redirect to an article by an NPOV name. This article is no diffrenet and should renamed accordingly. Zeq 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the use of the term "apartheid." It appears almost 100 times, as it is exactly what the article discusses. Criticism of Islam covers much more ground, and the word "apartheid" is a relatively small part of that article. There really is no comparison. Jd2718 12:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is no less and no more about Critism of Israel as the article about crtisism of Islam is about Cristism of Islam. The issue is to come up with an NPOV title that does not endorse a specific ephitet. There for redirection of "Israeli apartheid" to "Critism of Israel" seems the correct course (just as done here: [11] ) Zeq 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This comment has been up for few days. If no objection we shoukld move to new name. Zeq 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
quite honestly, this makes a great deal of sense. I think that Zeq has finally come up with a title that is truly NPOV and fitting for Wikipedia. And if people search in google or whereever under "Israeli Apartheid" they will find this article. Bravo. Elizmr 11:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection The article is about quite a bit less than Criticism of Israel. Hundreds of edits to restrict its content have been made on that, very fair, basis. For the existing laundry list of criticism see instead Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Carwil 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Zeq. This article should actually be titled: "Israeli Apartheid". There are too many reliable sources provided to try to diminish or delete the article. Siortega 18:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Zeq, as per Siortega and Carwil. There is nothing like a comparable wealth of RS material on "Islamic Apartheid," the strong feelings of Wikipedia editors notwithstanding; so the very premise of the comparison is faulty.--G-Dett 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Zeq, same reasons. Mackan79 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagre with Zeq, as above. Arker 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I still did not hear one word why Islamic apartheid redirects to where it does and why Israeli apartheid should not be re-directed the same way. All those above who objcetd seems to do so from political reason not encyclopedic reasons. Zeq 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, each response gave practical, not political reasons. Jd2718 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, bottom line is there has to be a thick enough stratum of RS-material to justify treating "Islamic Apartheid" the same as "Israeli Apartheid." You need comparable bibliographies to justify treating the subjects in the same way. Let's say I think the subject of "New Islamophobia" is as serious or more serious than "New Antisemitism." That is, I think there has been a serious and spreading cancer of anti-Muslim bigotry in the last ten years; that while it borrows from classical Orientalist tropes it has become a new and virulent strain; that it often manifests itself in discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and takes rhetorical "cover" in seemingly legitimate criticism of "terrorism" and "Islamism"; and that in this new strain we see a rhetorical convergence of the discourses of American neoconservatives, Enlightenment universalists, Likudnik expansionists, and old-fashioned colonial racists. Fine. There's surely a case to be made, and to my mind could be made at least as plausibly as that made for "New Antisemitism." But the fact remains that at the moment there isn't much material on this, and what there is is often very crankish and marginal. --G-Dett 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In my terms, "Israeli Apartheid" is a very common allegation, which has been made all over the place, and is a huge controversy. It has many sources, and thus justifies a page of its own. "Islamic Apartheid" doesn't. The ultimate question, I think, is simply whether it would be helpful to combine this with a generalized page on criticism of Israel; I don't think it would, that's probably an overly broad topic already.Mackan79 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Islamic Apartheid" should be deleted, it isn't an encyclopedic entry (at this point), whereas "Israeli Apartheid" is a topic of world discussion and specifically encyclopedic, as the many RS's indicate.Siortega 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Again and again, everyone here argue from their political POV instead from the encyclopedic one.
Encyclopedia should have similar standards. This is what policies are for. Similar terminology should be applied to similar type of articles.
If "Islamic apartheid" (Islamic apartheid) redirects to "Allegations of Apartheid" so should Israeli apartheid. If it redirects to Criticism of Islam so should Israeli apartheid redirects to Criticism of Israel.
The use of NPOV titles is an issue of policy, not of your own political views. This is an encyclopedia and should be consistent in the way it uses language - especially for titles. Zeq 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Consistent in the way it uses language" – really? No matter what the state of available RS material? Should we write New Islamophobia for consistency's sake? How about Stoning to Death in Judaism? What will be put in these articles?--G-Dett 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, I think a "Criticism of Israel" page would actually be opening a can of worms. Is that really a good page to have? There don't seem to be pages generally on criticism of specific countries. Mackan79 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel? So will this page include criticism by the ultra-religious that the state is too secular, criticism by the secular that the state is too religious, criticism by Russians, Shephardim etc of the way they are treated? Criticism by union groups that the state is too liberal? Criticsm by liberals that the state is too socialist? In short, the name "criticism of Israel" is too broad and would result in an article that is a hodge-podge of complaints by numerous groups that have nothing in common. That's why we don't have "Criticism of France", "Criticism of Germany", "Criticism of Russia" or "Criticism of USA" articles.

Mel?

Does anyone know what's happened with Mel's informal mediation? I've been refraining from editing pending his intervention, whatever form it was going to take...--G-Dett 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain if this is still pending. CJCurrie 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No anti-semitism

I've removed the anti-semitism links because there is no proof that the sources that use the term to describe the situation use it as a form of anti-semitism. Siortega 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've returned these, as the issues are related in the opinion of some reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them, please show the evidence. Was "apartheid" anti-White racism? Of course not. The main sources for Israeli Apartheid are: Israelis themselves, South African blacks, 2 Nobel Prize winners. There is no proof that the sources that use the term to describe the situation use it as a form of anti-semitism. None of these are anti-Semites and they should not be slurred as such. Siortega 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Siortega, I'm going to revert in a moment, but I'd like to explain things first. First of all, the "allegations" as we're phrasing it, take many different forms and different degrees. Some say that the specific events that occur (checkpoints, etc.) are reminiscent of apartheid, others are concerned that the trajectory might lead to something like apartheid, and a very few actually equate the two. Second, the issue isn't whether those who are making these comments are antisemitic - we have no way of knowing what's going on in their heads, anyway - but rather whether they contribute to antisemitism. As for your rhetorical question whether South African apartheid was anti-white racism, you're missing the point altogether. --Leifern 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any proof there, and I'm not sure you addressed the issue adequately. Let's not poison-the-well with accusations of anti-semitism. Again, there is no proof for saying that the many Israelis, South Africans, Nobel Peace Prize winners are anti-semitic or that their use of the term is meant in anti-Jewish fashion. On the contrary, the term is used to highlight the situation/treatment of the Palestinians, that's the subject of the article, not deal with anti-semitism. I ask you to review the list of users and use of the term, and show where the "anti-semitism" is. Otherwise, a direct link to it is not appropriate and it only operates as a slur. Siortega 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the "criticism" section of the article, where there are many links and references that point out that the comparison is offensive. Please also read my comment above where I make it clear that users of such a term need not be antisemitic to make statements that have an antisemitic effect. The term is arguably not used to highlight the condition of the Palestinians, but rather to isolate Israel - put another way, it is more about vilifying Israel than helping Palestinians. So we are in a situation here where those who want to slur Israel consider themselves above similar accusations. A fairly common double standard, but still not an acceptable one. --Leifern 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Leifern is right. David Duke,[12] Maher Hathout,[13] and Noam Chomsky[14] are all anti-Semites who referred to Israel as an apartheid. There is a very strong correlation between the anti-Semitism and accusations of an apartheid-like situation in Israel. --GHcool 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's well-poisoning to refer to David Duke alonside Israelis themselves, Desmond Tutu, and South Africans that lived through apartheid. Using that reasoning, let's add the link Racism to every subject that Avigdor Lieberman ever comments on because he's racist [15]. The Israeli Apartheid term is used by credible people like Tutu and Carter to highlight the treatment and condition of Palestinians, it not part of a conspiracy theory against Jews, and it's well-poisioning and a smear to link them, when the support for the link is so terribly weak.RogerRover 21:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the allegation of Israeli apartheid have been championed by prominent anti-Semites and continues to be used along with anti-Semitic rhetoric, it is only fair to keep links to anti-Semitism-related topics within this article. Yes, I understand that there are some "legitimate" critics of Israel that use the allegation, but there is a large percentage of anti-Semitic criticism as well. On this, I am sure we can all agree. --GHcool 20:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I do agree about that "large percentage," GHcool. That you throw Chomsky in with Duke suggests hazy distinctions on your part about the bounds of legitimate opinion. In any case, the antisemitic contingent has contributed nothing to this debate except ignorant cheerleading; they post to fringe websites and are dismissed with equal contempt by both sides of this issue. Their support is completely irrelevant; they'll support anything that could be misconstrued as evidence of "Jewish guilt" by an ignorant mind.

You might be interested to know that David Duke also voices support for the recent work of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. After this in Putnam's Wikipedia article –

In 2006, Putnam was awarded the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science. In recent years Professor Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community can mean less trust both between and within ethinic groups.

– should we add, "Putnam's findings have been echoed by David Duke, PhD and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan"? [16]

Let's resist the rhetorical temptations of well-poisoning and guilt by association. They're considered fallacies for a reason. Cheers,--G-Dett 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not well poisoning because of what I said earlier about a large percentage (I'm guessing 30% or more) of the critics who use this slur uses it in the context of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, this is not guilt by association because the anti-Semetic 30% are much more vocal and repeat this slur more often than the 60% who use it for legitimate (albeit highly debatable) criticism of Israeli policy. --GHcool 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My answer to your question about whether there should be a mention of David Duke in the article about Robert Putnam's study of diverse communities (not necessarily worded as you have it), is, yes, there should be. Having just read the Robert Putnam article, it would not be "well-poisoning" at all. The last sentence of the article (before the lists, etc.) says that Putnam himself was concerned that his findings would be seized upon by people like David Duke, though Duke is not specifically mentioned. A sentence could easily, and properly, be added about Duke to show that Putnam's concerns were justified. In any event, I do not think there is a valid analogy between that situation and this article. While mentioning David Duke in that article would be justified, it would be more justified in this one. The Putnam article is about a serious social scientist and his scholarly studies, a field in which David Duke does not fit comfortably. This article is about name-calling, where Duke fits right in. I can readily understand why people who believe that Israel is an apartheid state would not be comfortable that David Duke agrees with them, and they shouldn't be comfortable with it. That doesn't mean it should be sanitized from the article. 6SJ7 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Your take on the Putnam article is interesting; I'll give it some thought but I'm pretty sure I'd disagree. Serious work on controversial subjects will always draw crankish followers, and I don't know that we should load the cranks into a serious article just because they bray with enthusiasm at what they take to be the drift of the idea. GHcool's statistics strike me as singularly uncompelling. Raw percentages (especially unsourced and impressionistic ones like he offers) mean next to nothing; what matters is influence and notability. The question of "sanitizing" is a red herring; WP:Undue weight is the relevant guideline. Men on barstools the world over opining about intellectual differences between the sexes almost certainly are greater in number and more "vocal" than scientists researching the subject, but that doesn't mean our articles on neuroscience should start quoting the consensus of my uncles at last year's fourth-of-July party. And yet here we are quoting Jew Watch and David Duke's blog – websites produced by two or three cranks and read by five. Why do we do that? The same reason GHcool throws Chomsky and Duke into the same sentence: to poison the well, to spread guilt by association, and to smuggle aboard a heavy cargo of quackery in the hopes of sinking a serious subject.--G-Dett 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha :) Well my thought, for what it's worth, is that discussing Duke actually could be appropriate, as long as we took care to explain exactly why he's being presented. As G-Dett points out, the reason is not that Duke is actually a notable opinion. He's not; nobody of any repute would ever quote David Duke for support, or place him at a roundtable. The reason he's quoted, of course, is not for his opinion, but as a specific argument by critics. If we would simply make that clear, then, I wouldn't really see a problem. For example, "Alan Dershowitz points out that the allegation is also used by antisemites such as David Duke, suggesting that others who use the term may have antisemitic motivations as well." Following that would then be a response to this allegation. What isn't appropriate, however, is to make Dershowitz's argument for him (if he has indeed said this) by making the association ourselves, which we do by presenting Duke as a notable opinion and reliable source along with Carter and the rest. Mackan79 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the "men on barstools the world over" analogy is a red herring. Consider the article on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy paper by Mearsheimer and Walt. There is a large section that quotes praise from notable individuals and then a couple of paragraph's on David Duke's support. In the David Duke section, there is a statement that reads "Juan Cole, a historian at the University of Michigan writing in Salon.com in support of the paper, characterises the association of the paper with Duke made in the New York Sun and elsewhere as 'guilt by association'." Would this kind of information be unwelcomed here with reguards to Duke and other anti-Semitic critics who use this slur? I think not. --GHcool 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll confess to having a little difficulty following this point. You're saying the best way to deal with the insertion of quackery into the article is not to edit it out, but rather to quote a reliable source dismissing the quackery? Articles that follow this advice often spiral into irrelevance – a verbose kind of irrelevance, lushly foliated with symmetrical quotations but devoid of a point. I may well have misunderstood your suggestion, in which case please forgive me and explain. But I should point out right away that the fact that there are "a couple of paragraphs" on David Duke in an article about a foreign-policy research paper from Harvard is a complete travesty, a gross violation of WP:Undue Weight. Thanks for alerting me to it.
Mackan's suggestion about how Duke should fit into this is excellent. That's the path we should follow.--G-Dett 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, 6SJ7, I think this isn't yet an article "about name-calling." It's about the conditions of separation, inequality, domination, and exploitation that characterize life in the occupied territories, and the resemblance between these conditions and those of apartheid South Africa. This is still what it's about, despite the remarkable efforts of some editors to turn it into something as trivial as what you describe.--G-Dett 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

These pages are not provided to discuss the subject, but to discuss the article. I would appreciate it if you could please stop making assessments on the motives of others and focus on improving the article instead. Our opinions on the matter are inconsequential to this article.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is not a discussion of the living conditions within the occupied territories or in South Africa during the apartheid period. There are seperate articles on those subjects. This article is about different views and applications of a specific controversial political epithet.
That said, I'll accept Mackan's suggestion as long as any such statement is worded so that the argument is does not fall into the guilt by association fallacy. Here is the gist of the argument as I see it:
(1) If the Israeli apartheid allegation has been used with anti-Semitic effect and intent, then under certain circumstances, the Israeli apartheid allegation can reasonably called anti-Semetic.
(2) The Israeli apartheid allegation has been used with anti-Semitic effect and intent.(cite relevent sources here)
Therefore, (3) under certain circumstances, the Israeli apartheid allegation can reasonably called anti-Semetic.(cite relevent sources here)
The argument that we should not put into the article because of the guilt by association fallacy is the following:
(1) If known anti-Semites make the Israeli apartheid allegation, then the Israeli apartheid allegation is anti-Semitic.
(2) Known anti-Semites make the Israeli apartheid allegation.
Therefore, (3) the Israeli apartheid allegation is anti-Semitic.
So again, I'll accept Mackan's proposal as long as it is worded with accordance to the first arguement (modus ponens) and not the second argument (guilt by association). --GHcool 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, GHcool, the point is not what "argument" we are to put into the article. We're not supposed to put any argument into it; see WP:OR. We're supposed to cite reliable and notable sources. David Duke isn't a reliable or notable source; he's a marginal crank, ignored by all except a few opportunistic ideologues and a handful of Wikipedia editors. If those ideologues are themselves notable, such as Alan Dershowitz, then we should quote Duke insofar as Dershowitz makes use of Duke to advance his argument. That's Mackan's point as I understand it, and it's a good one. But when we throw in a marginal voice like Duke's in with the serious sources who reject or ignore him, it's well-poisoning and a gross violation of WP:Undue Weight.--G-Dett 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me or, perhaps more likely, I did not explain myself well enough in my last comment. I don't disagree with anything you just said. My last comment was about how to interpret Dershowitz's, etc. arguments so that we are not putting words into their mouths by saying that they are committing the fallacy of guilt by association. Asserting that they are would be OR and POV. --GHcool 06:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, GHcool. Rereading your previous post after this clarification, I understand your point and it's a good one.--G-Dett 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide events mark ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’

Relevant to article, please include:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362888,00.html

http://www.endisraeliapartheid.net/

According to the organizers, the week’s goal was to “push forward the analysis of Israel as an apartheid state and to bolster support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign in accordance with the demands outlined in the July 2005 Statement: full equality for Arab citizens of Israel, an end to the occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza, and the implementation of the right of return and compensation for Palestinian refugees pursuant to UN resolution 194.”

Maybe we should have a section popular culture. The term "Israeli aparthied" is becoming increasingly prevalent on university/college campuses who call for divestment etc. Also, it's not just students, but groups of profs as well that do this. There is even art and possible some music devoted to the concept.Bless sins 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to hold off on this until an event akin to the Tibetan Freedom Concerts happens. Way too much cruft possibility as things stand. -- Kendrick7talk 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the art gallery could also include some photos of Israeli young mothers and their babies who were blown up by Palestinian terrorists, to remind people of what all this is really about. 6SJ7 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I don't mean to turn this into a debate, but there's no running away from the fact that this term is steadily gaining popularity amongst students in teh West. I can pull up local university/college newspapers to show this. But do users on this page object that a section covering this would be irrelevent to the article?Bless sins 04:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the Us media`s reaction to the use of term Apartheid

Personally, I believe that the article should include how the US media has portrayed the issue. For Example, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, who also appears on CNN, has commented time and again that using that term is not justified. See his CNN program transcript here [17] He has a considerable following among conservatives, so his views and way he handled the issue is going to affect American public`s view on the issue.

Also, I suggest the the article should contain detailed comparative account of life as an Arab Muslim and as Jew in Israel. It will show the people the level of injustice against Palestinians. I emphasize on Israel and not on Palestinian and occupied territory because people living outside Israel believe that even though things are bad in Palestinian and occupied land, within Israel it is better.


Ghimirebhumika 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Ghimirebhumika

Such an account would be considered a primary source, and probably not merit inclusion into this controversial article. However, reliable secondary sources are more than welcome.Bless sins 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Title bias

You can see the bias at Wikipedia in the fact that this article is entitled "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid," whereas there are no "allegations" of New Anti-Semitism. Why not Allegations of New Anti-Semitism, or simply Israeli Apartheid? --172.193.13.134 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the bias (in the opposite direction) is found in the fact that this article exists at all. The "qualified" title was part of an uneasy "compromise" (not exactly the right word but fairly close) that, evidently, remains uneasy. 6SJ7 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Step by step, here are the reasons:

  • it distorts the equal status of Arab citizens of Israel's democracy This is true that critics say that, and provided in the article as well as the StandWithUs.
  • Azmi Bishara is an Arab member of the Knesset, if you call Uri Davis a "Jewish member of the PLO" then Azmi Bishara can be noted as an Arab
  • "usually on the left side of the political spectrum": Carter (Democratic), leftist members of the knesset (every single one, per the political party AND the source), Congress of South African Trade Unions (socialist), Canadian Union of Public Employees (socialist)
  • Uri Davis alone is not "Israeli academics" besides the fact that Davis does not identify as Israeli
  • If Tutu says that they are not exactly similar, that MUST be noted
  • Carter's book was not meant to criticize per his own words (I have not changed that though). In his book he says the system in the West Bank is not like the apartheid in South Africa. In interviews, he repeats that he chose the title very "carefully" and stresses not apartheid. That is besides the point. In the sourced interview Carter rejects the idea that the apartheid like system in the West Bank is based on racism, he rejects that. He also notes that it does NOT refer to Israel. He says that in specific and says it is because Arab citizens have equal rights. Do not shy away from facts.
  • Davis is not Israeli-born

--Shamir1 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Response:

  • You write: "it distorts the equal status of Arab citizens of Israel's democracy". Opponents of the term may in fact argue this point, but we can't use a phrase like "the equal status of Arab citizens" as though it were an uncontested fact.
  • some UN officials (who are not necessarily left-wingers) have made this comparison as well
  • I've already changed Carter and Tutu
  • I don't have a strong opinion about the Bishara and Davis sections CJCurrie 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, but that is a main and very much repeated argument. It says what critics say.
  • OK, keep in mind it says usually, but ok. also forgot to add that one was the Soviet ambassador to the u.n.
  • ok

--Shamir1 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Response:

  • The problem is that your wording uses the phrase "equal status of Arabs" as though it reflected an uncontested fact. A bit of rewording might make the point acceptable.
  • You may have also forgotten John Dugard, to say nothing of that notorious Soviet scholar Zbigniew Brzezinski. CJCurrie 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it says that *The critics argue that.* If that even were the case then how at all is it different from "that security needs necessitate the cited policies and practices" OR "that the practices of many other countries, to which the comparison is not made, more closely resemble South African apartheid." There is no wording problem, it is worded in the exact same manner that the other two are written in. Exactly the same manner. Doesn't "security needs necessitate the cited policies and practices" have the same effect? Does it reflect an uncontested fact? Of course not. It says specifically that *the critics* argue that. Period.
  • I do not know about John Dugard's party or ideological affiliation.

--Shamir1 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your preferred wording is: "Critics of the analogy call it inaccurate and illegitimate, arguing that it distorts the equal status of Arab citizens of Israel's democracy". The first part of the sentence is NPOV; the second is not.
Consider the following sentence: "Critics of Hugo Chavez call his views on the United States inaccurate and illegitimate, arguing that he distorts America's historical support for democracy and freedom".
The last part of this sentence is clearly POV, as it presents "America's historical support for democracy and freedom" as though it were an undisputed fact. "The equal status of Arab citizens of Israel's democracy" is, I think you might agree, in much the same category.
I'm going to change the last edits back -- there's clearly no agreement on this point. CJCurrie 03:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I dont see anything POV with the Chavez example, BUT i took in your alteration. A few notes is that residents was changed to citizens and the word democracy was re-added as a majority of the critics use that term somewhere (killing 2 birds with 1 stone). I also switched Carter's spot. The title is not the content of the book, be careful of that. In the book, Carter never uses the term "Israeli apartheid" as it is suggested here. That does not mean that the Carter book blurb should be removed, of course not. That is why I moved it (in the same section, but) below. I have no clue why some guy just reverted to you but in either case he was oblivious to both sources and the talk page. The page will be reverted. --Shamir1 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Manji's argument should be stated as concisely as possible for the sake of NPOV:Due_weight. She is nether a prominent figure in the the Israeli Palestinian conflict, nor is this her specialization. Her arguments are taken from a book not related to the issue at hand (namely apartheid).Bless sins 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your original research criticizing Manji's book. The critics of Manji's book certainly aren't talking about "Israeli apartheid", and this article is not about Manji's book. We don't have any of the many criticisms of Carter's book listed immediately after it. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My edit began with "Manji's book has been criticised as...". What follows is clearly sourced. Thus your allegation of OR is completely baseless. The critics are talking of Manji's book as a whole, esp her allegation of Muslim attitudes towards Jews. Feel free to rpovide criticism of Carter's book. NPOV requires that we put all perspectives in the article.Bless sins 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Manji's book has been criticized; however, this article is about "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", not reviews and criticisms of Manji's book. WP:NOR is quite clear about this: "Material counts as original research if it introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article". None of the material you have brought is about the topic of the article, which is Allegations of Israeli apartheid, not The Trouble with Islam Today. You know this, you've made the same argument yourself on other articles. No more arguments that the material is "sourced" please, it must not violate WP:NOR regardless of whether or not it is sourced. Find sources which talk about "Israel apartheid", and leave the general criticisms of Manji's book for the proper article, The Trouble with Islam Today. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If this article is not about Manji's book, then why have a quote from it anyway? The critics are criticizing Manji's book in its entirety, that includes her views on the Israeli apartheid, and anything else in the book.Bless sins 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
She comments about "Israeli apartheid", therefore we quote her in this article. Her critics don't refer to her views on "Israeli Apartheid", so they don't belong in this article. Feel free to add them to the article on her book. There's a reason WP:NOR keeps putting in relation to the article in bold. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If not putting in criticism, it must atleast be stated that her book, as a whole, is criticized by notable persons.Bless sins 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, on the contrary, we can't put that criticism in, because it's not about Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Please review WP:ATT. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and her book includes the concept of Israeli aparthied. Also, the criticism is very minimal, just enough to convey the idea that her book is not approved of by many commentators.Bless sins
But those other sources do not discuss the subject of "Israeli apartheid". Perhaps they agree completely with Manji on that particular subject, and just hate the rest of the book. In addition, you've only included criticism of the book not praise, of which there is a great deal; and there's not point either, because this article is not about the book, it's about Allegations of Israel apartheid. Thus, it doesn't matter whether or not the criticism is "minimal", because WP:NOR forbids inserting arguments that have not been made in relation to the topic of the article. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, why do we include crticism of the UN conference on racism? I thought this article was about Israeli aparthied, and not the United Nations.Bless sins 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the source used discusses it in relation to the use of the term apartheid, and its use as applied to Israel. Get it? That's the topic of the article, so the references all have to refer to that, to avoid original research. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be rude. I have been polite towards you and expect a similar tone. But the "source" you refer to doesn't exist. Please add it, before the line is removed for bieng unsourced.Bless sins 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
After repeating policy a dozen times, and still seeing you add policy-violating material, I think it's quite reasonable for me to get a bit exasperated. Regarding your issue, you can hardly justify adding original research in one areas simply because you claim there is original research in another. As for sources for the criticism in relation to its apartheid claim, there are plenty of them; see, for example this (including the many links at the bottom). Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The source you quote doesn't mention American criticism of the conference.Bless sins 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, those reviews hardly belong in the article, and by hardly I means its inclusion sewhy ? we should have at least carter own words that apartheid is not in israel but in the occupied terrotories only. and we should have critics of Carter. Zeq 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)ems questionable. Not a single one of the reviewers are a) notable people, 2) book reviewers, 3) writing for anything similar to the Washington Post Book World of the NY Times Book Review. And I dont see where "Islam-bashing" plays into this. There is not a single word on the unanimous opposition to Carter's inclusion of the word apartheid in the title by the Democratic Party. --Shamir1 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You can include criticism if you like.Bless sins 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The article's lead needs to be revised in compliance with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. As it is now, it consists almost entirely of criticism from those who deny the concept the article is about. --G-Dett 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

untrue. it sais this which is one sided aginst israel: "analogy from South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel". In doing so it accepts the false claims made by those who use the term.
A better lead would talk about the term, who uses it and why (insteda of repeating their claim) Zeq 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'd suggest:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era and Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and, to a lesser degree, Israel. Proponents of the analogy liken the cantons of the West Bank to the Bantustans of South Africa, draw parallels between the system of separate roads, infrastructure, rights and privileges for Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank and the policies of racial separation in apartheid South Africa, and point to allegedly second-class citizenship of Arabs living within Israel proper. Critics of the analogy call it inaccurate and illegitimate, arguing that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights and equality under the law, that the cited policies and practices in the West Bank are based on security needs[1], and that the practices of many other countries, to which the comparison is not made, more closely resemble South African apartheid.[2] In recent years, the analogy has become a contentious component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It would be good to get feedback so we can move forward. As it stands now, the lead is not in compliance with WP:NPOV or WP:LEAD.--G-Dett 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal, per past discussions. The article as a whole, taking into account its existence, title, lead and text is, if anything, biased against Israel. This proposal would only worsen the situation. Even looking just at the lead, there is one sentence describing the allegations, one describing the criticism, and one (the last one) that is, in my opinion, meaningless blather and probably OR as well. That final sentence replaced a previous sentence that contained criticism of the allegation. I personally thought the old lead (1 sentence of allegation and 2 of criticism) was better, but it seemed that enough people could live with the lead in its current structure that I just let it go. (This discussion is either above or in the archives.) The "criticism" sentence seems to have developed further since then, which is probably what has led to this issue being raised again, for what seems to be the hundreth time -- but in my opinion the growth of that sentence (if any) has brought the lead closer to NPOV status. I suggest that we just live with the previous compromise, in its current version, at least for now. 6SJ7 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the approach you're suggesting has created a stalemate. If various parts of the article are unbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed in those individual parts? The idea that we should balance an unbalanced article with a counter-unbalanced lead seems to have locked us into a mediocre article. Mackan79 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Setting aside the "meaningless blather," right now there 30 words describing the subject itself, and 55 describing the notable controversy. In other words, about two-thirds of the intro (~65%) is devoted to "briefly" stating the case against the concept. For the sake of comparison, the article on "New Antisemitism" has 200 words describing the concept, and 24 words describing the controversy, for a ratio of 89% to 11%.

At any rate, those two-thirds are, you will notice, far more specific and detailed than the 1/3 given over to defining the concept. Indeed, one of the oddest things about our lead now is that it offers in summary a point-by-point rebuttal of an argument whose points haven't even been introduced. So we're told that critics of the concept say "Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights and equality under the law," without even being told that advocates of the concept allege that Arabs have 2nd-class citizenship within Israel. And we're told that "the cited policies and practices [in the West Bank] are based on security needs" before those policies and practices have even been cited (!), much less presented in concise overview. I think the violation of WP:NPOV is quite clear here, and unanswerable.

As for WP:LEAD, the lead in its current state is demonstrably incapable of "standing along as a concise overview of the article." It is, rather, a concise overview of the views of those who reject the concept we're supposed to be presenting. Big problem there, guys.

6SJ7, do you have any suggestions for revising the lead so as to address these problems?--G-Dett 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points here:
  1. The term "apartheid" itself denotes the nature of the allegations for anyone familiar with apartheid, i.e., a form of systematic discrimination enshrined in racist laws. Indeed, that is the nature of the allegation itself - it evokes a number specific images and ideas that (thankfully) most of the civilized world rejects. So the point by point rebuttal isn't that out there.
  2. By the same token, the comparison with NAS isn't entirely apt. The charge of antisemitism is much more categorical than the charge of apartheid. There are other differences, too.
  3. The problem with this article from the very outset has been that some editors want to somehow "prove" that the analogy is justified and somehow helpful in Wikipedia, that we should all somehow accept the premise that just because some people say so, it must be true. But the article is supposed to be about the controversy at most and ideally really about the rhetorical device.
  4. I am inclined to agree that the lead needs to be reformulated, but I don't think this can be successfully done until we agree what this article really is about. --Leifern 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Leifern, I'm happy you agree it needs reformulating. Let's work together on this. As to your numbered points, I don't find them very responsive. Here's why: 1. Yes, most people know what apartheid is. Most people also know what pickles and polar bears are, but those articles still take their perfunctory little trip through the familiar. Furthermore, it's not apartheid that needs more definition here; it's the comparison people are making. 2. Too vague to make out what you're getting at. 3. The controversy, yes, but in the broadest sense. It's not just about a "rhetorical device," any more than "New antisemitism" is just about a rhetorical device. 4. Great! Let's get to it.--G-Dett 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the thing: Nobody would say that shooting with an automatic rifle at the synagogue in Oslo is anything but an antisemitic act. And nobody would argue that putting up the separation barrier increases the interactions among Jews and Arabs in the territories or in Israel. And I think very few would claim that hostility to Israel couldn't possibly be a pretext for hostility toward Jews. What's disputed about NAS is whether the term "new" is justified, and the extent to which (what should be a razorsharp) line between anti-Israeli sentiments and antisemitism are blurred. There are parallels, for sure, but there is an important but not immediately apparent distinction between NAS and this article, which is that apartheid is by definition a governmental policy that is a subset of racism and/or bigotry. The comparison between apartheid and Israeli policy is about intent, whereas the fear of antisemitism is about effect. I realize that some people - such as Jimmy Carter - qualify their use of the term apartheid endlessly, saying that some of it is reminiscent of it, or that it could lead to something like it, but that brings us back to the fact that it's a rhetorical device. The comparison is used to make a point. It is not for us to decide whether it's a valid comparison (which to my mind it isn't), but it is our job to write about its use in the debate, and how it's justified.
Let me mull over ways to reformulate the lead. I'll post it here before I change the article itself. --Leifern 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is not "israeli apartheid" article
  • This article is about the allegation: Who makes it, why, where and how. Zeq 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, can't we go back to the way the lead was? I thought we had reached a good detente here. G-Dett's right, if we are only introducing the analogy per se in the lead, we should only have rebuttal criticism of the analogy per se in the lead. Having rebuttal about the rights of Israeli Arabs doesn't make sense when that hasn't even been introduced yet. -- Kendrick7talk 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate about whether the article's about a term only or the comparison more broadly is immaterial here. The lead still needs to specify its subject, which it doesn't do now. In its present state it alludes to its subject, and then specifies all the criticism. Here once again is the sentence I propose inserting to fill this need:

Proponents of the analogy liken the cantons of the West Bank to the Bantustans of South Africa, draw parallels between the system of separate roads, infrastructure, rights and privileges for Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank and the policies of racial separation in apartheid South Africa, and point to the allegedly second-class citizenship of Arabs living within Israel proper.

Followed by what the critics say.

Jay has made a strong case over at "New Antisemitism" that the lead for an article about a controversial concept needs to describe the concept in the terms of its proponents. Hopefully he'll chime in with the same logic here. I wouldn't go as far as he does on this principle, but it seems clear that a proper lead should at least describe the concept before detailing its rebuttal. --G-Dett 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this for another day or so, so people can make adjustments or suggestions, and then I'll put in.--G-Dett 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

what you propose is far from NPOV. The word apartheid is by itself so negative that the moment you use it all that you can do now is trying to mitigate the streagth of it. So NPOV would demand us to explain it from the other side. Zeq 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "apartheid" is the central term to the theory/concept this article covers. If we make it our task to "mitigate" its effect it we're violating NPOV. The fact that reliable sources (not Wikipedia editors) have described it as offensive, inaccurate, etc., is relevant so we quote them or summarize their points in the appropriate places. But we don't suppress discussion of the topic or translate it into euphemisms because we find it offensive, as if we were prim Victorian editors blacking out the naughty bits of Chaucer.
Let me know if you have specific suggestions, Zeq, and we can hammer out a compromise.--G-Dett 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus to change the lead. Trying to find a compromise is a noble goal, but I don't think it has much chance of success here because, for many of us, the current lead was the compromise. I agree with Zeq, the word itself creates a bias that needs to be balanced. Such balance does not violate NPOV, it is NPOV. 6SJ7 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
6SJ7, with respect I think you've misunderstood WP:NPOV. It doesn't make any sense to say the subject of our article itself "creates a bias that needs to be balanced." NPOV in controversial articles means an even-handed presentation of the views of reliable sources. It doesn't mean using our moral intuitions and opinions to declare certain subject matter intrinsically "biased," or offensive or whatever, and then handicapping our presentation of reliable-source material in order to register and express those intuitions.
The trial sentence has been up for several days now on the talk page; seeing as no one's made any suggestions or additions to it, I'm going to go ahead and add it to the article. --G-Dett 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, don't. It asserts as fact many items that are disputed. Get consensus first. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Read it more carefully. It asserts as fact only that "proponents liken" a to b, x to y, etc. I haven't seen anyone question that proponents do this.--G-Dett 00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The proponents claim these things exist in the first place. Also, it asserts there are "cantons" in the West Bank. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I don't know of anyone on this page or in the real world who's questioning these things – separate roads, infrastructure, etc. for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank. Can you point me in the right direction?
In any case, however, I'm not sure it makes any difference. Bear in mind the precedent you've set over at NAS by insisting that a sentence beginning "proponents of the concept argue" must then use the very terminology favored by those proponents, no matter how controversial ("demonization of Israel," etc.).--G-Dett 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What precedent have I set? I see nothing in the lead of NAS about "demonization". Please avoid WP:POINT; if you do insert "demonization" into the NAS lead, let me know, then we can talk. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the question is how specific the lead should get. In particular these phrases "arguing that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights and equality under the law, that the cited policies and practices are based on security needs[1] and that the practices of many other countries, to which the comparison is not made, more closely resemble South African apartheid." lend a level of specificity to the opposing argument that is not matched by the level of detail of the argument in favor. G-Dett has suggested adding to the pro- argument. Another solution might be to reduce the anti- argument:
'Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel. Critics of the analogy call it inaccurate and illegitimate. In recent years, the analogy has become a contentious component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'
I am not certain which is better, but G-Dett is correct that the lead, as it stands, is unbalanced. Jd2718 01:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I want it to be very clear that I'm not making a WP:POINT, though I can understand why it might seem that way. You argued strongly that the lead for an article on a controversial theory/concept should incorporate the language of its proponents. I and others accepted that argument; our only reservations were that we shouldn't just quietly assimilate and naturalize a controversial vocabulary; we should make clear that it's controversial, rejected by certain RS's, etc. As I understand it, "demonize" will be going into NAS, along with its implicit contestation in the final sentence alluding to the controversy. The critics' view of the "Israeli Apartheid" analogy is amply represented here, and if you want to add to or modify it I'm receptive. What isn't represented is the advocates' position.
You've articulated an important principle about the treatment of controversial subjects; let's apply it consistently, and let's work together on this. Cooperation between us may even set a salutary precedent. We're going to be opposed on many if not most things, but we don't need to be opposed in everything.--G-Dett 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd, why do we discuss the critics' POV in the lead, but not the proponents' POV? —Ashley Y 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The proponents' POV is right there in the title and the first sentence of the article. 6SJ7 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really. The first sentence states that an analogy is being drawn, but doesn't provide any of the reasons that the proponents give. However, we do get the reasons the critics give against the idea. And given that the title is "Allegations of...", it can hardly be considered the proponents' POV. —Ashley Y 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ashley Y. Infact, we need more of the "allegation" than criticism of the "allegation". After all this article is about "Allegation of Israeli aparthied", not "Criticisms of allegation of Israeli apartheid".Bless sins 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking we have rough consensus on this now. —Ashley Y 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't, not really. There is not a rush. Let Jg/SV come back to the talk page and look for some middle ground. Jd2718 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is an ongoing thing; people can make adjustments as they see fit. What's clear however is that we need at least one sentence summarizing the position of the concept's advocates, so the one sentence that's been written to this end should be our default for now.--G-Dett 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. But if Jg/SV comes back and wants to reduce both the proponents' and opponents' material in the lead, I would be ok with that, as long as it is done in a balanced way. Jd2718 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with the change, if no other compromise is offered, as well as feel that the continuing unexplained reversions are inappropriate. Mackan79 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My initial thought was that perhaps the part about the cantons should simply be taken out, which is a bit detailed for a lead section. Perhaps if that were removed, concensus would be achievable? We'd then have "Proponents of the analogy draw parallels between...." Just a thought. Mackan79 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to Mackan, Ashley and others: When someone suggests a change and someone else objects to it, and the change is made anyway, I don't see the point in describing the inevitable later reversion as "unexplained." It is explained, and should be expected. And it doesn't make any difference if, after the objection has been posted, a proponent of the change says there is a "consensus" anyway. You can't just wish the objections away or pretend they don't exist because you don't agree with them. 6SJ7 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I just explained on your talk page, the problem is that we're trying to avoid a revert war. This doesn't work if editors keep reverting without contributing to the discussion. Having just responded in more detail on your talk page, I won't repeat myself here, but can I ask what in your estimation is the correct way here to proceed? Should we simply revert back and forth up to our limit of 3? Should we go to mediation? Is there something else? The thing is, even if we go to mediation, it seems we're still in a position where we need to come to some sort of agreement. That's why I suggested that if you want to keep reverting, you should at least keep contributing to the discussion here, and the attempt to reach a compromise. Isn't this necessary? Mackan79 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The solution is for everybody to stop wasting their time on this stupid article, which should not even exist. 6SJ7 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two sides

There are those whio claim israel is an aparheid state and there are those who don't.

the attempt to call this article "allgations of...." and come up with NPOV resulted in arguments that can not be sourced such as :

"Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel"

we need to stick to the facts:

  • The term used is "Israeli partheid"
  • we can say for sure who uses it

this is where agreed upon facts end and the controvesy starts.

Zeq 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference adam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Arnaud De Borchgrave, Commentary: Carter's echo in Israel, United Press International, reprinted by Middle East Times January 11 2007
  3. ^ Ask the Expert: US policy in the Middle East, Zbigniew Brzezinski, London Financial Times December 4, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_19&oldid=1238717285"