Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8

Title change suggestion: Religious segregation in Israel-Palestine

How about we go with the title "Religious segregation in Israel-Palestine". It uses the more appropriate term "religious segregation" and it mentions both "Israel" and "Palestine". I recently created a Racial segregation in the United States -- I find it is more accurately termed than the alternative "Apartheid in the United States".

In such an article, I would imagine that one can describe the many ways in which the two cultures tend not to mix, whether by design (in some cases) and by self-organization (in many of the cases). I would even go so far as to say that the term "apartheid" shouldn't be prominently used throughout most of the article, although a section should probably still deal with the use of the term by some critics of Israel.

BTW I just today created an article called crime of apartheid - very interesting history and a good place to centralize that research. --Ben Houston 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents, not a good title. Based on what I have read here, it is not only religious. But maybe I am completly wrong on this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree, albeit with different reasons. The new title would inherantly imply that religious segregation is in fact occuring, when in reality it is higly disputed and controversial. It would be too inflammatory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Title, merge and mediation

First, mediation only works if people are willing to seek consensus, and I have strongly the feeling that several editors do not want to find that, but remain at their little political islands. As such, I do not think expanding this mediation to other articles is going to work either.

Before I protected this article, I had heard of the term Israeli apartheid in passing, but never spend a second forming an opinion about it. To me, it is one of those many terms that are used within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I welcome your involvment. You words here are an example of what takes place: People generally accept things that are said about Israel without thinking too much about it. At that point of acceptence, any attempt to neuterlize the unfounded allegations is seen as "extreme". This is the problem, we can not accept something as given and only react to attempts to NPOV it. Zeq 07:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, based on Wikipedia policies, I am of the opinion that the only right title for the article is Israeli apartheid. Words in parentheses are used for disambiguation, to distinguish between different meanings of words that are used in different ways. The current usage is to add a loading to it that is either emotional, political of whatever, and as such in violation with WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOR and WP:ISNOT, of the latter specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I have not seen any authoritative source that explicitly stated that Israeli apartheid is only an epithet. I have actually not seen any reliable source saying that. Wikipedia only describes things, and the lead can and should make clear what the general usage of a term is, not the title.

As such, the outcome of the straw poll is relative unimportant, as we in the first place make an encyclopaedia, which conforms to policies and guidelines. As for the straw poll, 3 editors agree with the move to Israeli apartheid (found under the straw poll as well as under the ‘original research’ header), 3 want to move it to Israeli apartheid (phrase) of which two indicate that it might be an acceptable compromise and based on the remaining commentary, would prefer moving it to Israeli apartheid. Four editors want to keep it at the title as is. This makes eight people who do not want to keep it at this title and 4 people who want to keep it here. The choice between Israeli apartheid (phrase) versus Israeli apartheid is less clear, but more editors prefer Israeli apartheid over Israeli apartheid (phrase). In context with the existing policies to use a qualifier only when needed for disambiguation, the page should be moved away from its current name to Israeli apartheid.

I agre that all the editions like: (phrase), (epithet) - do not add any value to solving the issue at hand. Zeq 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The content of the current page reads more as an indiscriminate collection of quotes than an encyclopaedic article, and is not worthy for Wikipedia. Most of the quotes could be moved to wikiquotes. I think the final version should be seriously trimmed down.

You have hit the nail on the head. WP:RS is the key to solving the issue. Zeq 07:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the merge, I think that it is beyond this article, and I think the whole series of articles might be best dealt with a complete different organisation. Based on the same criteria as above, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as well as other policies and guidelines, I would come to the following pages:

  • Apartheid: This is the term as used, and the page should describe the term, its history, its current usage and what it means in the various contexts it is used. Effectively: general introduction and all usages that do not warrant a separate page, and small intro’s to sections that do warrant a different page.
  • History of South Africa in the apartheid era: Proper article and name for the past tense situation, and warrants own article because of the scope and importance.

Maybe supplemented with:

  • Israeli apartheid: If and only if the amount of relevant information is sufficient to warrant a split of from the main article.
Why ? By doing this you endorse the view that aprtheid is indeed present in Israel. is that your intention ? is there an updtated, scholarly source that claims it ?
If we need a seprate article it is because the issue of apartheid in the context of Israel is only present as part of use of the trem "Israel apartheid" in the propeganda war in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This may be the prompt title. Zeq 07:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As here is no will to resolve the issue through consensus building and adherence to policies and guidelines by several editors, I do not see how I can contribute more to this at the moment. Furthermore, the fragmented discussion at various talk pages, with different groups of editors makes it sheer impossible to resolve the issue. This would be a clear-cut case for a content arbcom, which we do not have.

One last word, I am at times appalled by the sheer amount of political posturing that takes place. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is very true but I refer you to the comment above: Don't confuse the attempt to NPOV the soapbox with a soapbox. One side is pushing political propeganda in and another side is pushing it out. Zeq 07:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS. Bring them on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Kim, WP:RS does not require us to keep suspect sources pending the identification of reliable ones, but mandates the elimination of material based upon the former. Afterwards, we can consider if what remains justifies the continued existence of the article.
If Encyclopedia Britannica stated "Apartheid has been practiced in Israel since 1967", we wouldn't be having this discussion.Timothy Usher 02:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
See the article abstracts below. Furthermore, I would love to just go through the text and remove eberything that does not fullfill WP:RS. Would give even a bigger firework I guess. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed the key. Zeq 05:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS - analsys of sources used for this article

Sources used to show it the phrase is used by these kind of groups:

To be continued....Zeq 11:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

my initial conculsion: other than Tutu, Davis and Btselem I would remove all the rest. Zeq 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that WP:RS is a good way to proceed. Zeq, I took the liberty to format your list. Feel free to undo if you feel this was inappropriate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid outside of South Africa to Apartheid (political epithet)

There is a proposal at Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa on moving that article to [[Apartheid (political epithet)]. Editors interested in this article may be interested in opining on that proposal.Homey 19:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Centralised discussion

I have made a subpage at my userspace to centralise the wider discussion on the apartheid articles. I have made a proposal at User:KimvdLinde/Apartheid, and I invite others to come with thei proposals, and discuss those at the talk page User_talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid. This fragmented discussion is not going to help us, so I invite everybody to come over and try to resolve this basic issue of which page with what content first. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I have:

  1. per large majority that epithet as qualifyer is unacceptable
  2. per small majority for no qualifyer
  3. per WP:DAB guidlines to use qualifyers only to seperate two articles with the same name

moved this page to Israeli apartheid. This as discussed in detail in my post from some days ago. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for the move. It was clearly improper of you to act as an administrator to move the article. It gives the appearance of using your admin privledges to gain an advantage in a content dispute.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There is no such consensus; and you clearly acted improperly. This has been reported as an incident --Leifern 23:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have responded there. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
By what count is there a "small majority" or any majority at all for no qualifier? I count a majority for some sort of qualifier, whether it be "phrase," "epithet," some "qualified" name like "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid," etc. 6SJ7 00:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Allegations" is a good way to describe it. Also since there is no apartyheid in israel a good name is use of the term "israeli apartheid" in the propeganda war against Israel. This is an NPOV description of whaty takes place. Zeq 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Topic vs rhetoric

It is quite common in political rhetoric for one party to coin a phrase that effectively hijacks the premise. For example, when Ann Coulter joins together the terms "liberal" and "treason," she is placing the burden on "liberals" to prove that they are not treasonous. One can come up with any number of such phrases to make life difficult for a political opponent, and the more they catch on the more they skew the debate. The term gets hits in Google not because it is a noteworthy topic, or even a noteworthy issue, but because it is a popular term among a certain group of people involved in the debate. If we are prepared to accept a phrase as a noteworthy article, we can take this any number of places. "Bleeding heart liberal" gets 225,000 hits, as an example; "welfare mothers" gets 200,000. We can keep coming up with terms like this until everyone on Wikipedia gets insulted, and rightly so.

Perhaps a comparison between Israeli policy and South African apartheid is a noteworthy topic, but it can't be accomplished with a title that accepts the premise that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid. --Leifern 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid" - Google hit counts

  • "Israeli apartheid" (as phrase) - 487 unique hits in Google
  • Israel apartheid (as two words) - about 5 million hits.

Even an article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency uses the phrase.[2]

The phrase has enough hits to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. --John Nagle 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But a phrase doesn't constitute a topic. --Leifern 23:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It does if it's a significant phrase. We have articles on hundreds of phrases, in fact. Consider curiosity killed the cat, read my lips: no new taxes, etc. -Silence 00:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I get 247.000 hits for "Israeli apartheid" at google [3] -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but only about 500 of those sites are unique. Which is still a decently large number. -Silence 00:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a known bug in Google. You can't trust Google hit counts on a phrase; you have to page through the listing out to the last entry and see how many were real. Getting that number right would run up the cost of phrase searches considerably, because they'd actually have to run the join to completion when returning the first page of results. --John Nagle 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, learned something new today. :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A phrase only becomes significant if its used by reliable sources; otherwise, you have nothing to cite. As has been pointed out, Dirty Jew gets 56,000 Google hits. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As for other "notable" epithets: Dumbass gets 5.3 million Google hits, and dumb ass gets 2.8 million more, which seems mighty notable, but the Wikipedia article simply re-directs to "insult". Is it original research to claim "dumbass" is an insult? Piece of shit gets 2.5 million hits, but this uniquely pungent phrase has, for some reason been redirected to "feces". It's hardly coming clear to me why Israeli apartheid needs its own article, when it could be quite justifiably included in the Apartheid outside of South Africa article, or even more justifiably be re-directed to List of political epithets, or Anti-Zionism. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us not forget cocksucking motherfucker and bitch ass douchebag.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that Israeli apartheid should not be redirected to Anti-Zionism -- that implication is, at least for individuals such as Desmond Tutu, incorrect and can serve as a basis to create a straw man argument. In general, your above comment (which starts off with "As for other notable epithets") is based on the believe that the term is only used as a epithet. I do not believe that is a correct characterization of the more reliable source based usages of the term -- thus again from my perspective you appear to be making a straw man and then shooting it down. --Ben Houston 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
But there aren't very many reliable sources which use the term; there are many unreliable sources which use it, and some reliable sources which refer to unreliable sources using it, but not much about it in the peer-reviewed literature, and even then it's mostly from extremely biased sources (e.g. Israel Shahak, notorious anti-Zionist). From what I can tell, it's almost exclusively used as an epithet, and reliable sources never use the phrase. As for Tutu, his one off-the-cuff statement is neither here nor there; while he may know a lot about apartheid, he's mostly a figurehead, and is no sort of expert about Israel or the Palestinian situation. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Desmond Tutu is a single person that does not have any experience dealing with the Israeli-palestinian conflict, he only really gets his information from people that he is aligned with, the result is that his opinion can be just as bias as others but he is used as a sort of proof that "peace-loving christians" cannot support the Israeli government.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for move?

Sorry, I'm not seeing one. Why has this article been moved from Israeli apartheid (epithet)? Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the count at the WP:AN/I report. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have commented on the count here, bottom line is I don't there is a valid majority for having this title without a qualifier. 6SJ7 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Because there isn't another article named "Israeli apartheid" for us to have to disambiguate this article from. Which is all that's required for parentheses to be unnecessary. Would we need an elaborate straw-poll or something to move Wikipedia (website) back to Wikipedia? Of course not, for the same reason. We have articles on tens of thousands of things that don't exist: to have an article on the topic "Israeli apartheid" in no way implies that there is an Israeli apartheid, anymore than having an article called "Loch Ness Monster" implies that Nessie really is out there. -Silence 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is not to disambiguate, but to maintain NPOV. Wikipedia should not be asserting that this epithet refers to something factual. Everyone knows the Loch Ness monster is a mythical beast, but many assert that "Israeli Apartheid" is reality. Wikipedia should not be reinforcing that view, but should take a more neutral stance. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, "Everyone knows the Loch Ness monster is a mythical beast" is simply false; Nessie-believers are a minority, but they certainly exist, just as Israeli apartheid-believers are a minority, but exist! Second of all, reread what I just said. The reason the parenthetical statement is unacceptable is exactly the one you just stated: "the point is not to disambiguate, but to maintain NPOV". That is misuse of article-title parentheses. As such, no matter how biased the title is, the parentheses-bearing title is unambiguously incorrect. If you really want to make it more explicit that this article is about a certain type of accusation, not about a real apartheid government, then at least try changing the article to something that could conceivably work format-wise, like Allegations of Israeli apartheid; but even that would be much more biased than the current title is.
Consider the simple fact that we have articles like homosexual agenda and Zionist Occupation Government, which nowhere in their titles state that they are just a fiction created for rhetorical purposes to attack a certain group of people. That's because it's completely unnecessary to make such a thing clear, even though those terms aren't as common as the Loch Ness Monster: the article text itself is what should make that clear. Never has any article gone out of its way to specify, with its title, whether it is a real thing or an imagined thing; starting that trend here is clearly out-of-line and unnecessary. The article's contents already make it extraordinarily clear that this is a neutral page analyzing a certain type of accusation made against the Israeli government; it is totally unnecessary to take any title-warping bending-over-backwards steps to further demonstrate that fact, as it's beyond obvious to anyone who reads even a couple of words in this article. So, until we change homosexual agenda to homosexual agenda (phrase) or Zionist Occupation Government to Zionist Occupation Government (fictional organization) or anything of the sort, it is unacceptably POVed and biased to add such provisions to the title of this article. You are, ironically, advocating for the version of this page which would be unacceptably biased, while assuming, incorrectly, that the default version is the biased one. In reality, it's overwhelmingly the standard, and bears absolutely none of the implications you claim. -Silence 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I hear your arguments, though I don't fully agree. In any event, it's fairly moot, since this article at best should simply be a re-direct to List of political epithets or Anti-Zionism, and at worst belongs as part of a larger article (e.g. Apartheid outside of South Africa). See above. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm glad I at least got through on the parentheses and "epithet articles" issues. We can agree to disagree, now that at least we understand one anothers' reasoning. If this article gets trimmed down to, say, half of its current size, I'd certainly support merging it into its parent article, "Apartheid outside of South Africa" (or just "Apartheid", after it's moved). For now, though, it's sufficiently detailed and large enough to merit its own article. Other apartheid-related articles, in fact, I'd be much more likely to advocate eliminating: sexual apartheid and gender apartheid, for example, are largely redundant stubs, and thus much less useful than this page. -Silence 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
People keep bringing up the fact that parenthesis can only be used to disambiguate, however, I have not seen this policy anywhere. It might be a suggestion, but I really do not think there is a guideline that states we are not allowed to include a parentheical statement in a title to make an article more npov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that almost none of the uses cited in the article are from reliable sources, it's way too big as it is. Does anyone credible really assert that Global Exchange or Arjan El Fassed or Middle East Times or Sabeel or Dollars & Sense magazine or Znet are reliable sources when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Because that pretty much exhausts the "sources" used in the article to support the use of the phrase (and, in fact, some, like Global Exchange, rely on others, such as Arjan El Fassad). It's an epithet used by propagandists, little more. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

" Sorry, I'm not seeing one. Why has this article been moved from Israeli apartheid (epithet)? Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)"

Jay, where was the consensus to move the article to (phrase) or (epithet) in the first place? Why was it ok to ignore the lack of consensus then? In any case, there is a clear 2:1 (at least) consensus against calling the article Israeli apartheid (epithet). Anyway, I hope that with your new found respect for consensus you'll stop trying to merge this article into others without it. Homey 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who moved it to epithet and I never implied that this decision was based on consensus: not everything in WP is. If you were able to disconnect your political agenda from your edits, Homey, you would not use unqualified pejoratives as an article title and stick it into disambig as if it is a legitimiate term. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Homey, moving an unprotected page and moving a protected one require very different levels of consensus. It's explained quite clearly here: [4]. Su-laine.yeo 06:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Web-of -Science search

I did a search at web-of-science, which only contains regular journal, that are peer-reviewed, and as such, fulfill WP:RS. In the social sciences, many publications of scholars are published in edited books and related. This was part of the result:

Farsakh, L. (2005). "Independence, cantons, or bantustans: Whither the Palestinian state?" Middle East Journal 59(2): 230-245.
The Palestinian state remains an internationally endorsed project, yet an increasingly difficult one to implement. By analyzing the territorial, legal, and demographic developments that took place in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over the past ten years, this article assesses the extent to which the prospective Palestinian state has become unattainable. A comparison between the South African apartheid experience and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is made to shed light on the ways in which the Palestinian territories are becoming analogous to Bantustans. While historical comparisons are never exact or prescriptive, they raise interesting parallels whose implications need to be considered, if not altered, in any attempt to materialize the project of viable Palestinian independence.
Glaser, D. J. (2003). "Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison." Ethnic and Racial Studies 26(3): 403-421.
This article subjects to normative-theoretical scrutiny the common claim that Israeli Zionism is 'like' South African apartheid. Drawing on a range of historical and sociological evidence, it shows that this claim (or accusation) is substantially justified in two senses. Firstly, Israeli Zionism is, in many areas, morally bad in the same way as apartheid; secondly, where it is different from apartheid in character, it is in some respects anyway as bad - that is, the difference is not invariably morally favourable to Israeli Zionism. 'Israel proper' (within its pre-1967 borders) is neither much like nor as bad as apartheid. The justification of the analogy only becomes clear when we view Israel and its occupied territories as a single political entity. The article argues that we are justified in so viewing them.
Johnson, P. and E. Kuttab (2001). "Where have all the women (and men) gone? Reflections on gender and the second Palestinian intifada." Feminist Review(69): 21-43.
The authors ground their reflections on gender and the complex realities of the second Palestinian intifada against Israeli occupation in the political processes unleashed by the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian rule, noting that the profound inequalities between Israel and Palestine during the interim period produced inequalities among Palestinians. The apartheid logic of the Oslo period - made explicit in Israel's policies of separation, seige and confinement of the Palestinian population during the intifada and before it - is shown to shape the forms, sites and levels of resistance which are highly restricted by gender and age. In addition, the authors argue that the Palestinian Authority and leadership have solved the contradictions and crisis of Palestinian nationalism in this period through a form of rule that the authors term 'authoritarian populism', that tends to disallow democractic politics and participation. The seeming absence of women and civil society from the highly unequal and violent confrontations is contrasted with the first Palestinian intifada (1987-91), that occurred in a context of more than a decade of democratic activism and the growth of mass-based organizations, including the Palestinian women's movement. The authors explore three linked crises in gender roles emerging from the conditions of the second intifada: a crisis in masculinity, a crisis in paternity and a crisis in maternity.
Roy, S. M. (1993). "Joyless in Gaza - Apartheid, Israeli-Style." Nation 257(4): 136-139.
Shahak, I. (1988). "Israeli Apartheid and the Intifada." Race & Class 30(1): 1-12.
Zreik, R. (2004). "Palestine, apartheid, and the rights discourse." Journal of Palestine Studies 34(1): 68-80.
Since the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa, the oft-made analogy between the South African and Israeli cases has been extended to suggest the applicability to the Palestinian quest for justice through the rights discourse, arguably the most effective mobilizing tool in the anti-apartheid struggle. This essay explores the suitability of the rights approach by examining the South Africa-Israel analogy itself and the relevance of the anti-apartheid model to the three main components of the Palestinian situation: the refugees, the Palestinians of the occupied territories, and the Palestinian citizens of Israel. It concludes that while the tights discourse has many advantages, it cannot by its very nature-the focus on law at the expense of historical context-address the complexity of the Palestinian problem.

Some of the articles might be scrutinized because they are by palistinian authors, but several of them are by authors from the UK and US. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

5 Articles, many from Palestinians or notorious anti-Zionists? That's not much, is it? Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
In web-of-science, which is utterly biased to the low end for social studies. But regardless of their beliefs, it does show that the term is discussed among scholars. Maybe we should build an article about these scholary contributions, with the rebuttals that probably can be found as well. I actually have found some more articles at different places discussing this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
What makes these scholars? Shahak, for one, was a controversial propagandist, much loved by the extreme left and extreme right. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How do they get it than published in peer-reviewed journals, and past the peer-reviewers and editors? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed? The journals still have their biases, and are of highly varying quality, often not publishing in areas about which they have any expertise, and even then there are very few. Feminist Review? What is this magazine, and what does it know about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Journal of Palestine Studies? The mouthpiece of the Institute for Palestine Studies, an Arab "thinktank"; its work is not complete garbage, but it is certainly highly biased. The article in the Middle East Journal by L. Farsakh? It's quite open that its purpose is to "materialize the project of viable Palestinian independence". You're working with very, very little here, because serious academics don't throw around political epithets like "apartheid". Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The only goal I had is to show that there is some, albeit limited discussion in the scientific literature. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Concerned. It is a concern for me that the mediator of this articvle, instead of looking at the list (above) of sources used for this article is instead starting to review biased sources that are not even in this article, including on on Gaza settlments from 1993 while Israel just dismentllled these settlmentes last year.
  • Kim: We need your analsis for the sources in this article not a fishing expodition for new ones. As a mediator you are not supposed to help one side in this dispute but to be fair. Zeq 03:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As a mediator, My end goal is a solution for the conflict. That can require discussion, providing new information, etc. And yes, I will have a look into the current available sources. But I am willing to step back as a mediator, if needed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging only from the abstracts, Farsakh, L. (2005), Glaser, D. J. (2003), and Johnson, P. and E. Kuttab (2001) argue that the condition in the territories is in some ways like apartheid, not that it is Apartheid. This is an important distinction: a source which draws comparisons between John Ashcroft's Department of Justice and the Nazi secret police - even if it's entitled "Gestapo, American Style"- doesn't justify an article, American Gestapo or American Nazism, or even American Nazism (epithet), as Wikipedia is not a guide to contemporary political discourse.

We've not been given abstracts for Roy, S. M. (1993) or Shahak, I. (1988). Zreik, R. (2004) appears to be asking whether the use of this term is appropriate and/or beneficial to the Palestinian cause, which is an acknowledgement that it's activist propaganda.Timothy Usher 05:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is no room for an article "Israeli apartheid" if no WP:RS claim there is such thing.
If there are those (who are not WP:RS) who claim that there is the article should follow on their alegations and why they use this phrase. Zeq 05:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me also go on record as finding these sources thin, at best. I'm not sure what "peers" are reviewing these... IronDuke 05:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, these "peers" have advanced degrees in relevant fields, unlike most of the editors here. -- 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See the book The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid edited by Roane Carey, published by Verso (October 2001) ISBN: 1859843778

Publisher's blurb: An incredible collection of scholars, experts, and those directly involved from the frontlines of the conflict trace the course of the uprising, its consequence for the Palestinian people and the Israeli State, and its likely impact on the future of peace in the Middle East. The big names you'll likely recognize include Noam Chomsky (who provides a lengthy foreword), Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Amira Hass, and prize-winning novelist Ahdaf Soueif—but it's the contributors from the refugee camps and Palestinian schools that provide the searing testimony so very much needed.

See articles by Israeli political scientist Meron Benvenisti such as Bantustan plan for Apartheid Israel,

see also his May 19, 2005 Haaretz column titled Apartheid misses the point which beings:

The use of the term apartheid and the comparison between Israel and South Africa under minority white rule are taking over public discourse.
In the past week alone, the comparison has been made in at least five instances: the separation fence was described as an "apartheid fence"; the amendment to the Citizenship Law limiting Palestinian family unification was described as worse than the apartheid regime; the academic boycott of Israeli universities and faculty members was compared to the boycott of South Africa, which contributed (or not) to the collapse of apartheid; the disengagement plan and establishment of cantons under Palestinian control were referred to as "bantustans," like the homelands that South Africa established in the macro-apartheid era; and an academic discussion on the "demographic threat" was accompanied by loud rallies against "racism and apartheid."[5]

There's also " APARTHEID ISRAEL: A Critical Reading of the Draft Permanent Agreement, known as the "Geneva Accords" (Provisional Title), by Uri Davis" - Paper submitted before the Institute of African and Arab Studies of the Russian Academy of Science, December 2003[6] Homey 12:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So Davis is against even this accord that was agreed to by many palestinian leaders as well as israelis such as Aloni and Gal-on . Why should we use him as source then ? he is just against anything and tries to be popular in some segments of the extreme left by attaching the sufix aprtheid every time he discuss any thing that has to do with israel. Zeq 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As for Uri Davis' academic credentials: URI DAVIS is an Israeli scholar and author of numerous books focusing particularly on citizenship, apartheid and democracy in Israel and the Middle East. His newest book is Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the struggle within (Zed, 2004). Dr Davis is an honorary research fellow at the Institute for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at the University of Durham and at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter in the UK. He was born in Jerusalem in 1943 and currently lives in Sakhnin, in northern Israel.[7]Homey 14:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He also has a Wikipedia article here: Uri Davis. I point to this so that one can collect relevant facts on who he is here instead of arguing about it from first principles everytime he is mentioned. --Ben Houston 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on these sources

1.These sources (every single one of them) are not in use in the article - so why are we even discussing them.

2.Anyone who would bother to read the text (such as benbenisti text in the guardian) will see that he tals about the future. Should an encyclopedia be enagaed in sopeculation ? clearly benbensiti just added the prefix/sugffix word "apartheid" to every time he discuss the state of Israel. No real proof is offered in the article that Israel has apartheid laws. There is even the speculation that the failure of Sharon's plan (what is it ) will cause Washington to push Sharon toward an aprtheid state - what utter nonsense.Is this what you want to based an article on ? let's dicuss the poor sources used in this article (instead of bring poor new sources)

3. The benbensosti text can indeed be used to show that "Israeli paratheid" is an ex[pression voided of any meaning (other than being used in propeganda agaisnt israel) Zeq 14:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

".Anyone who would bother to read the text (such as benbenisti text in the guardian) will see that he tals about the future. Should an encyclopedia be enagaed in sopeculation "

Zeq, we are not engaging in speculation as an encyclopedia, the sources are as scholars, experts or politicians. The article should reflect that usage of the "Israeli apartheid" concept and you should favour this since it reflects better on Israel to speak of apartheid as something that may happen rather than something that is. Homey 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Title proposal

I'm willing to go with something like "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" or "Israeli apartheid, accusation of" which I think addresses both the POV/OR concern of using a term like "epithet" and the concern that calling the article just "Israeli apartheid" is pov (though, as Silence points out before, given our practie with other phrases there's no reason why it would be as long as the article itself is neutral). Homey 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such a title would be a big step up from "Israeli apartheid (epithet)", and there's a more solid argument to be made for such a renaming. However, I will still oppose such a page name for as long as hundreds of other articles about "allegations" are not named the same way: move homosexual agenda to allegations of homosexual agenda, Zionist Occupation Government, allegations of Zionist Occupation Government, etc. and I'll reconsider. Otherwise, we're showing preferential treatment towards Israel's government, which is more biased and loaded than the current title. -Silence 12:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Israeli apartheid," "homosexual agenda," "Zionist Occupation Government" and probably many others that are about disputed phrases, epithets, pejorative terms, etc., all should have some sort of qualifier. Personally I think a parenthetical at the end is probably better than a phrase like "Allegations of..." at the beginning, but that is a secondary issue. I also think that terms such as these would not necessarily have the same qualifier, but that also is secondary. As for what the qualifier should be in this particular case, I have said before that something "stronger" than phrase would be best -- actually it would be best if the article were merged elsewhere so that "Israeli apartheid" was not in an article title at all -- but the fact is that for now, this article is here with no qualifier at all. On a temporary basis, "(phrase)" would be better than what is there currently exists. If Silence or somebody else then wants to go around to other articles putting in qualifiers, the editors involved in those articles can discuss whether they are appropriate. 6SJ7 15:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Several pages on Wikipedia use the "Allegations of..." style: Alleged North Korean human experimentation Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials Allegations of Satanism in popular culture. If we use this style for allegations of apartheid in one country, we should do the same for others. Su-laine.yeo 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Su-laine.yeo, we seem to be in general agreement on this subject, but I am wondering if there is a distinction to be made here as far as titling goes. "Allegations of" makes sense for articles about allegations of particular conduct such as human experimentation or war crimes. I think articles that are about phrases, not conduct, should perhaps have a different qualifier that specifies that it is about a phrase, such as "phrase," "political epithet" and the like -- but that it would be even better in many cases, including this one, if there were no separate article at all. Let's try this example: If the title of this article were "Ethnic discrimination by Israel" or "Relgious discrimination by Israel," or substitute the word "segregation" for "discrimination," then the "Allegations of" qualifier should be added to the beginning. It is the use of the word "apartheid" instead of racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation that creates the biggest problem. Saying someone is engaging in discrimination or segregation is an "allegation." Saying they are engaging in "apartheid" is just name-calling and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, or if it has a place in an article, it doesn't deserve its own article. 6SJ7 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Saying someone is engaging in discrimination or segregation is an "allegation." Saying they are engaging in "apartheid" is just name-calling and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, or if it has a place in an article, it doesn't deserve its own article"

As has been shown the crime of apartheid is a crime under international law. It is also an accepted term for a certain type of segregation. For instance, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language gives the following definition:

a·part·heid (-pärtht, -ht) n.

1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation[8]

(please note the word "epithet" or a synononym for it does not appear in the definition).

In other words, it's not "name-calling" and is, in fact, a synonoym for segregation though I think reading the literature it's being used to describe the sitution of state-sanctioned segregation. 6SJ7 saying apartheid is "name-calling" is POV as is Jay and Moshe saying it's an "epithet". Homey 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort has been shown, except via your own original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
First, we should be using the most standard definitions wherever possible, this being definition one. Further, Israel does not have a policy of seperating groups, beyond the trivial one in which any nation engages in having a national border. Much or most of the time, this also seperates ethnicities. What makes Apartheid and segregation different is that they occured within the nations' own sovereign territories (and in both cases were accompanied by a number of other legal inequalities).Timothy Usher 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not to wikipedia and its editors to make those kind of choices, that would be original research. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The standard definitions point is not original research. As for the rest, I wholeheartedly agree. That's exactly why I've not created an article entitled "Israeli lack of Apartheid".Timothy Usher 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, why only definition one when there are alternate definitions given and we can show they are widely used? You can't exclude or dismiss alternate definitions just becuase you don't like their implicatinos.

Timothy, what do you think of the Economist's usage of the term apartheid as further down in this Talk page? Homey 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, wikipedia accepts the uses of alternate defintions for a number of terms. If we only accepted the primary definition we'd have no need for disambiguation pages. Homey 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look through the lengthy posts below in a bit. As for the alternate definition, as Kim pointed out, for us to parse ambiguous or debatable applications constitutes original research.Timothy Usher 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim actually doesn't point that out. The Economist's use of the term apartheid in an Israeli context is quite clear there's no original research needed. Homey 21:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, the Economist clearly uses the phrase "apartheid state" in an Israeli context. I don't see the justification for your "original research" comment. Homey 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'll take a look through the lengthy posts below in a bit.Timothy Usher 22:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) I've summarized your Economist cites on the reliable sources subpage. Thanks for your hard work.Timothy Usher 04:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Only allegations?

Question, do all reliable sources agrees that this are only allegations? Or is there a difference of opinion about this among sources? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In which case? 6SJ7 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say some reliable sources (eg some academic sources) say Israeli apartheid is a fact. But, I believe the term "allegation" does not exclude the possibility that what is being alleged may be a true (for instance "allegations in court"). My understanding is that an allegation is an accustion that may or may not be true so the term should cover those who say Israel is an apartheid state as well as those who say it is not. Homey 16:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It cannot be a fact. As stated in my comment in the previous section, discrimination or segregation would be a fact, if it is true, and if it is disputed as to whether it is a fact, then it is an allegation. "Apartheid" is a name, and its use instead of discrimination or segregation (outside of South Africa, where it was the government's official label for a policy) is just name-calling. 6SJ7 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

""Apartheid" is a name, and its use instead of discrimination or segregation (outside of South Africa, where it was the government's official label for a policy) is just name-calling."

That is factually incorrect given the Statute of Rome. See crime of apartheid. I'm sorry 6SJ7 but the assertion that the term apartheid is just "name-calling" when used outside of South Africa is an opinion, not a fact. Homey 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider the Statute of Rome a reliable guide to standard English usage.Timothy Usher 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think Homey needs to differentiate between two diffrent terms:
  1. discrimination
  2. apartheid

One of them exist in israel is some forms and the other is not. Zeq 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that discrimination and apartheid are distinct. Apartheid is described fairly accurately in Crime_of_apartheid#Original_definition. --Ben Houston 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
But interpreting by us of the current situation in light of that would be WP:OR. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that when agencies and scholars accuse Israel of practicing apartheid this cannot be dismissed as simple name-calling or epithet throwing since, in fact, there is such a thing as a crime of apartheid under international law, a crime not limited to South Africa. It is not our job to determine whether those who make the allegation are correct or even try to infer their motivation.Homey 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Has Israel been charged with this crime? Are they a signatory to the treaty that defines it? I know they are not a party to the Rome Statute that gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over charges of apartheid, then again the only Middle Eastern country that is, is Jordan -- and the U.S., Russia, China and India are not signatories either. I looked at that treaty and I see the word "racial" but no definition of that term. Does it also include discrimination based on ethnicity? Does it include discrimination based on religion? If so, then the U.K. (which did sign the treaty) might be considered an apartheid state as well, see Act of Settlement 1701. 6SJ7 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the abstracts shown above, it would seem that authors are comparing Israeli policies to South African apartheid. That's different from asserting they are apartheid.Timothy Usher 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This might be reason to very carefully word the lead and the remaining article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Uri Davis, has a chapter in his latest book (he has two it seems on the topic) called "Israel and South Africa: Two Forms of Apartheid". This isn't a comparison statement but rather an assertion on his part. --Ben Houston 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw this. That's the only good example I've seen so far, and it's not enough to warrant an article.Timothy Usher 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I might be not available in the coming days due to power outage as Hurricane Alberto is expected to hit us full force. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A key issue

Ben wrote: "You are correct that discrimination and apartheid are distinct. Apartheid is described fairly accurately in Crime_of_apartheid#Original_definition. --Ben Houston 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)"

KimWrote: "But interpreting by us of the current situation in light of that would be WP:OR. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)"

Kim is almost corect. Of course it is not up to us to interpret the Crime_of_apartheid#Original_definition but it is up to us to take into account scholarly source who interpretsed it for us in the context of Israel.
If there is a int'l law professor who wrote a peer reviwed article accussing israel according to the Crime_of_apartheid#Original_definition. we should include it in the article but if people are only calling Israel an apartheid state without pointing where it fits the definition in Crime_of_apartheid#Original_definition than it is only a name calling Zeq 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
and there is a grey area between having a full blown internatioal law prof claiming it, and just name calling. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that academics with Middle East expertise can also act as reliable sources. In the best of all possible worlds, we should cross-posted international law and Middle East studies professors. ;-) --Ben Houston 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit absurd to try to limit references to ones made by international law profs, particularly since the term apartheid has also been adopted by various academics with an expertise in Mideast politics or history. The point I'm making with the reference to international law is not that apartheid is only a legal concept but that it's obviously not only an epithet as some are claiming. The term has entered international law, the media, the activist community, academia etc. Anyway, he's an international law prof for Zeq:

14 to 1 against the wall - the world is knocking on Israel's door [9]

Dr. Richard Cummings, an international law professor with degrees from Columbia Law School and Princeton who has a Ph.D. from Cambridge and taught international law at the Haile Sellassie I University and formerly was the Attorney-Advisor with the Office of General Counsel of the Near East South Asia region of USAID, where he was responsible for the legal work pertaining to the aid program in Israel, Jordan, Pakistan and Afghanistan has made similar observations regarding the UN and Israel in his essay, Human Rights, International Law and Peace in the Middle East (Tikkun, Jan 2004). Dr. Cummings notes,

"At this juncture, we are faced with a choice. Do we lapse back into the primitive balance of power approach that has always broken down and led to wider wars, or do we accept the legitimacy of Woodrow Wilson's vision of a just international order under the rule of international law? I would suggest that it is time to revive Wilson's legacy and turn to the International Court of Justice, which was brought into existence at the birth of the United Nations." ...

"Failure by a United Nations member or entity with observer status to adhere to the advisory opinion on any matter of law could specifically give rise to a suspension by the General Assembly of its voting rights" Such an example is when South Africa was in violation of an advisory opinion of the World Court and lost its voting rights. ...

"An opinion from the Court would be sufficient to override such a [Security Council] veto, under the provisions of Article 14, which provides that "the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."

"Indeed, the United States would be hard-pressed to object to this strategy. When, during the Korean war, the Soviet Union ceased its boycott of the Security Council and vetoed resolutions that would have continued United Nations support for the multinational force, the United States successfully obtained a "Uniting for Peace" resolution in the General Assembly to support the force, under Article 14 (UN General Assembly Resolution 377A, November 3, 1950). In this case, because the initial action had been authorized by the Security Council in the Soviet Union's absence, the subsequent Uniting for Peace Resolution had sufficient force in law. As the United States would continue to veto any peace keeping force in the Security Council, the advisory opinion would remedy the deficiency of a previous Security Council resolution, which, unlike General Assembly resolutions, have a quasi-legislative nature."

"Armed with an International Court of Justice advisory opinion, the General Assembly could once and for all move to make its opinions binding on the parties involved, thus bypassing the Security Council that is perpetually blocked by the veto of the United States, which it invokes in pursuance of its own agenda unrelated to the needs of the rest of the world."

Homey 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, the only connection between apartheid and the ICJ decision is that some people ahve tried to connect the word "apartheid" to the word "wall". The ICJ is a court of int'l law - As unbalanced as it is - it did not use any apsect of "apartheid" to describe the wall. Zeq 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)