Talk:Israeli apartheid: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:54, 1 November 2012 editBus stop (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,012 edits →Encyclopedic incoherence?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:25, 30 December 2024 edit undoSean.hoyland (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers34,585 edits Undid revision 1266110114 by 38.52.251.126 (talk) depatsy - not an edit requestTag: Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{pp-move-indef}}		{{Pp-move-indef}}
	{{~~skip~~ to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes\|search=no}}
	{{notice\|{{find}}
	<br>
	<b>]</b>
	}}
	{{Calm talk}}
	{{Round in circles\|search=yes}}
	<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->		<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
	{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}		{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
			{{Controversial}}
	{{sanctions\| Discretionary sanctions: ]}}
			{{Round in circles\|search=no}}
	{{not a forum}}
			{{Be calm}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|text=Article history and WikiProjects \|1=
	{{WikiProject Law\|class=C \|importance=mid}}
			{{Old XfD multi
	{{WikiProject Israel\|class=C \|importance=low}}
			\|date=3 June 2006<!-- oldid 56729010 -->
	{{WikiProject Palestine\|class=C \|importance=mid}}
			\|page=Israeli apartheid (phrase)
	{{WikiProject Discrimination\|importance=high\|class=C}}
			\|result='''No consensus'''
	}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=AFD
	\|action1date=3 June 2006
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)
	\|action1result=no consensus
	\|action1oldid=56729010

			\|date2=15 July 2006<!-- oldid 64035264 -->
	\|action2=PR
			\|page2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination)
	\|action2date=17 June 2006
			\|result2='''Speedy keep'''
	\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Israeli apartheid/archive1
	\|action2oldid=58811773

			\|date3=11 August 2006<!-- oldid 69110851 -->
	\|action3=AFD
			\|page3=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
	\|action3date=15 July 2006
			\|result3='''No consensus'''
	\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination)
	\|action3result=speedy keep
	\|action3oldid=64035264

			\|date4=4 April 2007<!-- oldid 120120303 -->
	\|action4=AFD
			\|page4=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
	\|action4date=11 August 2006
			\|result4='''Keep'''
	\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid
	\|action4result=no consensus
	\|action4oldid=69110851

			\|date5=24 April 2007<!-- oldid 125667783 -->
	\|action5=AFD
			\|page5=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
	\|action5date=4 April 2007
			\|result5='''No consensus'''
	\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
	\|action5result=keep
	\|action5oldid=120120303

			\|date6=26 June 2007<!-- oldid 140841349 -->
	\|action6=AFD
			\|page6=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
	\|action6date=24 April 2007
			\|result6='''Speedy keep'''
	\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
	\|action6result=no consensus
	\|action6oldid=125667783

			\|date7=4 September 2007<!-- oldid 155568006 -->
	\|action7=AFD
			\|page7=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
	\|action7date=26 June 2007
			\|result7='''No consensus'''
	\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
	\|action7result=speedy keep
	\|action7oldid=140841349

			\|date8=11 June 2008<!-- oldid 218733282 -->
	\|action8=AFD
			\|page8=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
	\|action8date=4 September 2007
			\|result8='''No consensus'''
	\|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
	\|action8result=no consensus
	\|action8oldid=155568006

			\|date9=21 August 2010<!-- oldid 380158466 -->
	\|action9=AFD
			\|page9=Israel and the apartheid analogy (9th nomination)
	\|action9date=11 June 2008
			\|result9='''Keep''' per ]
	\|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
			}}
	\|action9result=no consensus
			{{Old moves
	\|action9oldid=218733282
			\|title1=Allegations of Apartheid in Israel

			\|title2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
	\|action10=AFD
			\|title3=Apartheid in Israel
	\|action10date=21 August 2010
	\|~~action10link~~=~~Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/~~Israel and ~~the~~ apartheid ~~analogy (9th nomination)~~		\|title4=Israel and apartheid
			\|title5=Israel and the apartheid analogy
	\|action10result=keep
			\|title6=Israel and the apartheid analogy allegations
	\|action10oldid=380158466
			\|title7=Israeli apartheid
			\|title8=Israeli apartheid (epithet)
			\|title9=Israeli apartheid (phrase)
			\|title10=Israeli apartheid (term)
			\|title11=Israeli apartheid allegations
			\|title12=Israeli apartheid analogy
			\|title13=Israel and apartheid
			\|list=
			* Israel and apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Moved''', 20 July 2024, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Moved''', 24 July 2022, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid allegation, '''No consensus''', 4 December 2021, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Withdrawn''' per ], 3 May 2021, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 8 June 2017, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy, '''No consensus''' due to procedural issue, 29 May 2017, see ].
			\|oldlist=
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → ''?'', '''Not moved''', 12 January 2017, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 13 January 2011, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid '']<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', '''No consensus''', 20 August 2010, see ].
			* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 3 May 2009, see ].
			* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 28 August 2007, see ].
			* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 17 August 2007, see ].
			* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 16 March 2007, see ].
			* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 14 December 2006, see ].
			* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 6 October 2006, see ].
			* Israeli apartheid → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''Move''', 26 June 2006, see ].
			}}
			{{Old peer review \|reviewedname=Israeli apartheid \|archive=1 \|ID=58811773 \|date=17 June 2006}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|collapsed=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Discrimination \|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Israel \|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Law \|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Palestine \|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Ethnic groups\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject History\|importance=high}}
			}}
	}}		}}
	{{press		{{press
	\| author=Haviv Rettig Gur		\| author=Haviv Rettig Gur
	\| title=Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages		\| title=Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages
	\| org=The Jerusalem Post		\| org=The Jerusalem Post
	\| url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660		\| url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660
	\| date=16~~/05/~~2010		\| date=16 May 2010

	}}
			\| author2=Omer Benjakob
	{{archive box \|auto=no \|index=/Archive index \|search=yes \|root=Talk:Israeli apartheid/{{!}}Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/{{!}}Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|
			\| title2=On Misplaced Pages, Israel Is Losing the Battle Against the Word 'Apartheid'
	<center>
			\| org2=Haaretz
	],
			\| url2=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-on-wikipedia-israel-is-losing-the-battle-against-the-word-apartheid-1.9330590
	],
			\| date2=26 November 2020
	],

	],
			\|author3 = Hava Mendelle
	],
			\|title3 = The World Jewish Congress investigates Misplaced Pages
	],
			\|date3 = March 23, 2024
	],
			\|org3 = ]
	],
			\|url3 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/the-world-jewish-congress-investigates-wikipedia/
	],
			\|lang3 =
	],
			\|quote3 =
	], </br>
			\|archiveurl3 =
	],
			\|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
	],
			\|accessdate3 = March 23, 2024
	],

	],
			\|author4 = Yaakov Menken
	],
			\|title4 = Misplaced Pages hates Israel and Jews
	],
			\|date4 = August 6, 2024
	],
			\|org4 = ]
	],</br>
			\|url4 = https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-hates-israel-and-jews/
	],
			\|lang4 =
	],
			\|quote4 =
	],
			\|archiveurl4 =
	],
			\|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
	],
			\|accessdate4 = August 6, 2024
	],

	],
			\|author5 = Aaron Bandler
	],</br>
			\|title5 = Misplaced Pages Editors Title Article “Israeli Apartheid”
	],
			\|date5 = September 26, 2024
	],
			\|org5 = ]
	],
			\|url5 = https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/375347/wikipedia-editors-title-article-israeli-apartheid/
	],
			\|lang5 =
	],
			\|quote5 =
	],
			\|archiveurl5 =
	],
			\|archivedate5 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
	],</br>
			\|accessdate5 = October 7, 2024
	],

	],
			\|author6 =
	]
			\|title6 = Misplaced Pages Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State
	</center>
			\|date6 = September 19, 2024
			\|org6 = The Misplaced Pages Flood
			\|url6 = https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/2024/09/wikipedia-decrees-israel-is-apartheid.html
			\|lang6 =
			\|quote6 =
			\|archiveurl6 =
			\|archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate6 = October 7, 2024

			\|author7 = Shraga Simmons
			\|title7 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists.
			\|date7 = November 11, 2024
			\|org7 = aish
			\|url7 = https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
			\|lang7 =
			\|quote7 =
			\|archiveurl7 = https://web.archive.org/web/20241113082217/https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
			\|archivedate7 = November 13, 2024
			\|accessdate7 = December 1, 2024
	}}		}}
			{{Mbox \|image=] \|text=For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see ''']'''.}}
			{{Archives\|banner=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 39		\|counter = 44
			\|algo = old(60d)
	\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|archive = Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive %(counter)d
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index		\|target=/Archive index
	\|mask=Israeli apartheid/Archive <#>
	\|mask=Allegations of Israeli apartheid/Archive <#>
	\|mask=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#>		\|mask=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#>
	\|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes \|template=		\|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes \|template=
	}}		}}
	__TOC__

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

	== melanie phillips ==

	marokwitz and malik feel that the following is not related to the article (and i do, of course). she specifically refers to tutu's comparison of israel and apartheid south africa. how does that not fit here? help me understand it.

	::British journalist ] has criticized ] for comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa, in article which appeared in ''The Guardian'' in 2002, where Tutu stated that people are scared to say the "]" in the ] is powerful. "So what?" he asked. "The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust." Phillips wrote of Tutu's article: "I never thought that I would see brazenly printed in a reputable British newspaper not only a repetition of the lie of Jewish power but the comparison of that power with Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants. I never thought I would see such a thing issuing from a Christian archbishop."<ref>]. "Apartheid in the Holy Land, ''The Guardian'', April 29, 2002, cited in ]. "Christian Theology and the New Antisemitism" in Iganski, Paul & Kosmin, Barry. (eds) A New Anti-Semitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st century Britain. Profile Books, 2003, p. 196.</ref>

	thanks. ] (]) 06:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	: Dershowitz calls Phillips' views "extremist", which is quite amazing, coming from him. --] (]) 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	::Please read ]. The paragraph is an attack on Tutu that has nothing to do with Israel or the apartheid analogy. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::I agree. ] (]) 08:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::How can you defend Tutu, when at the same time, you are assaulting entire nation? Melanie Philips just described, what Tutu did. That does not constitute an attack on him.--] (]) 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

	== Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley ==

	The opinions of Adam and Moodley are massively overrepresented in the current article. The exposition of their opinions needs to be trimmed and put into the appropriate section (criticism of the Apartheid analogy) where it belongs. ] (]) 07:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
	:This is wrong. They are not critics of the analogy, rather analyze the analogy in their book, pointing to similarities and dissimilarities. Read their book. They are as closer to a "secondary, reliable source" than the vast majority of the sources used in this article.] (]) 08:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	::They are certainly highly qualified to comment on the topic and are an excellent source for the article, but they are largely critical of the analogy, although as you rightly point out there criticism contains many reservations and they do find similarities between the two regimes. It is wrong to frame the whole article based on one book that has come out largely against the analogy, just as it would be wrong to frame the article purely on the basis of one publication that has supported the analogy - Say Jimmy Carter's book. This material is criticism of the analogy and should be put in the appropriate section. ] (]) 08:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::It would be highly inaccurate to label them as critics or supporters of the analogy. In fact, if you look at the history of this article, they were for a very long time in the "supporters" section until I fixed that. The state of this article is extremely poor, judging by academic criteria. I think it is crucial that we reduce the amount of op-es cited in this article and focus on what balanced, reliable secondary sources say, even if this means trimming down this article dramatically. That is why I feel that this book is an extremely important source that should be emphasized, along with other , academic-level, reliable publications on the topic. I really don't feel it is a good idea to give op-eds the same weight that we give reliable secondary sources. Don't you agree? ] (]) 08:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::No one is saying that an academic level publication should be treated the same as an op-ed, but framing the whole article with an extended exposition of the views of two authors from one cited publication, who largely came out against the analogy, is not neutral. ] (]) 08:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Can we at least agree that labeling them as either "supporters" or "critics" of the analogy would be against their own views, and original research? I don't see why simply moving this section outside of the "supporters" vs "critics" debate would result in "framing the whole article with an extended exposition of the views of two authors". In any case, I will look for additional reliable sources that give a balanced overview of the topic and try to incorporate those as well. ] (]) 10:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not willing to concede the points about Adam and Moodley. But your proposal on how to move the article forward seems reasonable. If the ''Analysis by Adam and Moodley'' section can include the viewpoints of (at least) several other academic level sources so that it is more of a general overview of scholarly opinion on the topic, rather than just a detailed exposition of the position of 1 cited work then my objections would disappear. ] (]) 13:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Ok. I am searching for additional reliable secondary sources in order to provide a more general overview of scholarly opinion on the topic and hopefully make this article rely less on op-eds/primary sources. Already found one good source, looking for more. Let's see how that works out. ] (]) 13:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

	== Dialog poll ==

	I reverted the edits regarding the Dialog poll because they stated opinions as if they were facts (''e.g.'', "the significance was difficult to assess due to the question's formulation", "the conductors admitted that the term 'apartheid' may not have been clear enough"). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:Initially, an article from Haaretz that reported on a poll was put into the article, including the lead. I added some more information from another RS (Times of Israel article) which discussed some of the methodology of the article (it was not an op-ed) and had some additional information.

	:This was by RolandR, who said he was reverting POV edits, because they “attempt to hide this survey and remove evidence of positive support for apartheid.” This edit summary itself is a POV - any info that goes against the poll and does not show "positive support for apartheid" should be removed. Hence, a removal of reliably referenced info, in order to hide any flawed methodology or controversy over the poll to make it seem as though the results show most Israelis believe Israel is an apartheid state, which itself is POV. ] is not a valid reason to remove reliably referenced info. Then a revert, a revert...

	:So now what are we left with? Well, instead of fixing any POV that editors felt there was, we now have the polar POV. We have a poll in the lead that purports to show that Israelis, using a sample of 500 people out of 6 million, believe their country is Apartheid. There is not any mention of the additional information provided in the Times of Israel reference, which discussed its methodology, the fact that the questions weren’t clear, etc. It gives a completely wrong impression in favor of a POV. Firstly, it shouldn’t even be in the lead, which just gives general overview of support/against arguments, rather than specifics.

	:Instead of removing reliably referenced information, why don’t instead fix any POV problems? As it stands right now, a POV has been created in order to provide “evidence of positive support for apartheid,” to quote RolandR.

	:Mr. Shabazz, specifically what is wrong with those two sentences you cited? They are ''both'' directly from a reliable reference, which is not an op-ed but a news piece. I can see an issue with the word "admitted," but why not just change that to "said" instead of simply pushing revert and removing this? Critical information has been covered up that is incredibly misleading. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:(ec)The first example might need attribution, the second seems to be a fact? It's in the 5th paragraph of the ToI article. The way the article is left now is certainly an NPOV violation though. ] (]) 03:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:The part in the lead is also obviously UNDUE. ] (]) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	::{{ec}} Part of the POV in your edits is the effort to attribute the facts you don't like to Haaretz or Dialog, and state the facts you do like in Misplaced Pages's voice. Also, what does the NIF have to do with anything?
	::The number of people polled is a red herring. Statistical sampling always involves a small number of people (''e.g.'', usually a few thousand or less for the United States, with its 300 million population).
	::I'm going to remove everything about the poll from the article until we can agree on how to present it in an NPOV fashion. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Mr. Shabazz, I appreciate simply removing the poll entirely from the article while we're discussing, as that takes POV issues into account.
	:::Mr. Shabazz, I would appreciate it if good faith is assumed. I only have good-intentions, and I wanted to balance out the way this information was presented here. I did that to the best of my ability. Criticize it if you'd like, and improve it, and remove any POV that you find. That's part of Misplaced Pages, and I don't object to it. Obviously, just saying though that I attribute facts I don't like to Haaretz and facts I do to Misplaced Pages's voice doesn't help, as this was not my intention. If you can provide concrete examples and what is wrong with them, like the two you gave above, then we can work on fixing it all. I have no objections to that. What do you think of mine and NMMNG's comments regarding the two examples you gave? --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	::::I apologize for the assumption of bad faith, Jethro.
	::::I've drafted a paragraph that I think summarizes the salient points. Please let me know what you think. Feel free to edit the draft paragraph as you'd like. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	===Draft language===
	In September 2012, Dialog polled Israeli Jews regarding anti-Arab attitudes. The poll revealed that 38% favored annexing an unspecified amount of land in the ] with settlements and 48% opposed annexation. In the event that Israel annexes the West Bank, 69% of those surveyed favored preventing Palestinians from voting.<ref name="Dialog">{{cite news\|last=Levy\|first=Gideon\|title=Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel\|url=http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-would-support-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644\|accessdate=23 October 2012\|newspaper=Haaretz\|date=23 October 2012\|authorlink=Gideon Levy}}</ref> '']'' wrote that the significance of this response was "hard to assess" due to the question's formulation.<ref name="Dialog1">{{cite news\|last=Fisher\|first=Gabe\|title= Controversial survey ostensibly highlights widespread anti-Arab attitudes in Israel\|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/survey-highlights-anti-arab-attitudes-in-israel/\|accessdate=23 October 2012\|newspaper=The Times of Israel\|date=23 October 2012}}</ref> 39% agreed that "there is apartheid in Israel in some ways", 19% agreed it was there "in most ways", 31% said "there is no apartheid at all", and 11% said they did not know.<ref name="Dialog"/> The pollsters said that the term "apartheid" may not have been clear enough to some of those interviewed.<ref name="Dialog"/> 24% believed that the existence of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank was "a good situation" and 50% believed it was "a necessary situation".<ref name="Dialog"/>

	{{reflist-talk\|close=1}}

	Mr. Shabazz, all is fine in regards to the good-faith bad-faith. Don't worry about it. As for the draft, on a first glance I think it looks good, although it is late here and I'm too busy to spend a lot of time on it tonight, so I'll leave it open to others if anyone wants to comment and then respond afterwards when it's not that late and I have time. But thank you for being very responsible here and doing a good job, I admire that. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 04:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	:Please, you can call me Malik. {{=)}} — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	Ok Malik, I've looked it over, and your draft seems fine. What will happen below, I don't know... --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 23:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	:Looks good. ] (]) 04:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	::I object to the complete removal of any reference to this from the article. On israeli matters, Haaretz is as reliable source as we can get, and it reported this as a major story on its front page; it is certainly notable, and should be included.
	::Nor do I agree with the proposed edit above, which suggests that the attitudes expressed only related to annexation of the 1967-occupied territories. The poll showed that a majority also favoured discrimination against Arab citizens of the state of Israel, with one third wanting to ban them from voting for the Knesset. 49% believe that the state should discriminate in favour of Jewish citizens, and 47% wanted to remove at least some Arab citizens from Israel to the PA. This is not dependent on annexation of the occupied territories, but relates to withdrawal, or a continuation of the status quo. I also think that this editt gives unndue weight to the alleged unclarity of the term "apartheid"; what is clear is that, according to the findings, "e interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories".
	::So I propose reinstating my original edit, and using that as the basis for further improvements, rather than omitteing any mention or using the version proposed above. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 10:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::You made bold edit and you was reverted now we discuss per ] the apropriate language in Malik proposal is very reasonble and I agree with it but you may propose you own draft if you like--] (])/] 10:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::I see nothing wrong with the succinct original edit made by RR.
	:::*There can be no question this belongs to the page.
	:::*The proposed draft is too long and detailed for a lead, indeed automatically by its length prejudices the question as to the inclusion of this into the lead. It assumes this datum cannot be put into the lead, but must be included lower down. No doubt there should be expansion lower down (including the differential data regarding religious and ethnic breakdowns of voting patterns)
	:::*The text reverses the order of prominence in the main source, downplaying what the news was focused on. Both the title, and the opening paragraphs of Levy's article highlight an Israeli majority for an apartheid regime in the case of WB annexation, and discriminatory practices against Israeli Arabs.
	:::*Having reversed the article's focus, it rewrites its language:
	:::*'Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object,' is rephrased as
	:::*'The poll revealed that 38% favored annexing '''an unspecified amount of land in the ]''' with settlements.
	:::Therefore, clarification is required why the brief sentence covering the essence of the polls two points (apartheid/West Bank and discrimination in Israel) cannot go in the lead, as is being assumed by the proposal.] (]) 10:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::The proposed "draft language" violates ]. On the pertinent points it only gives the view published in TOI and not the different view (from the original news report) published in Haaretz, i.e. that "''Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.''" As nishiadani rightly points out, the proposed text totally downplays the focus of the news story, which also happens to be the topic of this Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 11:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::this wiki article is about 'apartheid' and israel. hence, the poll and review thereof should only discuss the direct apartheid references - anything else is just not relevant here (as per other wiki articles with malik and dlv and others who feel very strongly - rightly so - that if the RS doesn't say 'x', then 'x' is not relevant). so, i think we can only include: "39% agreed that "there is apartheid in Israel in some ways", 19% agreed it was there "in most ways", 31% said "there is no apartheid at all", and 11% said they did not know. The pollsters said that the term "apartheid" may not have been clear enough to some of those interviewed." ] (]) 11:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	::::::After some consideration of the matter, I think I agree with you, Soosim. Unless sources specifically tie some of the other poll results to apartheid, I think it would be OR to include them. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

	Did a quick search for English language news reports on the poll. The reports I have seen support the Haaretz coverage, which means unless there is further evidence (which I haven't seen), we should report this view as the majority view, with the TOI view as the minority (unless other RS are also found which support this position). - For sources see Nishidani's list bellow ] (]) 11:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	:Has anybody considered that the Israelis might just be making a rational response to a difficult situation? Just because they see a situation which is logically equivalent to apartheid as the least bad outcome does not mean that they are evil or that we should label them as such. Can we have some balance please? ] (]) 14:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:That's not true at all, there are a good many which note the results aren't what they seem. But the fact that Harriet Sherwood writes in The Guardian something hardly makes it more of a fact - it means that she based it off the Haaretz article. There are two main bodies of information regarding the poll - the Haaretz article, and the Times of Israel RS reference which discuss certain flaws in the polling. We don't report stuff as "majority" or "minority" because that's how we like it. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 23:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	::Editors opining on the morality of Israelis support for apartheid policies is not appropriate discussion for this talk page and is likely to be highly counter productive. ] (]) 15:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Wise words from Dlv999 there but Hcobb makes a point that may be relevant to this article in terms of perceived causes and their effects, if suitable sources can be found. by ] and Dikla Antebi is an interesting paper in this regard but it doesn't really go into the kind of details that might make it useful for this article (although there may be more recent papers from the same authors available that could be useful). ]'s 2010 lecture at the ] "" may be of interest. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::: I don't think the coverage here ought to be so heavily based on the Times of Israel's article. The subject of the article is apartheid, looking at e.g. the Guardian and Independent sources we have the main points: 1) most of the respondents said Israel practices apartheid, 2) most said Palestinians should be denied the vote if the WB were annexed and 3) 30% said Israeli Arabs ought to be denied the vote. This poll has received quite a lot of coverage in RS, so it should obviously be discussed in the article. Cheers, --] (]) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::A poll is worthless without knowing the methodology used, as anyone who's learned statistics will tell you. If the pollsters admit that people may not have understood the questions, or if, as the Globe and Mail tells us, Haaretz said that the "questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists", that stuff should go in the text otherwise you have an NPOV violation. I'm surprised nobody published the margin of error, which is also important. ] (]) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Ie, results of a poll reported in a major Israeli newspaper are worthless unless we investigate the methodology of the poll itself? By the way, no one seems to have objected to the substantial use of polls at ] where surveys of support were amply cited. Official Israeli government sources are cited all over the I/P area, as are IDF reports on violence, all written by groups of people '''who are not peace activists''' or academics and therefore neutral. B'tselem and Human Rights Watch data is written by peace activists, and included unproblematically. At ] I don't think we plied the worry beads when ] there from the , whose founder is a 'democracy' activist. What makes this article any different? It's simplest to follow standard procedure, i.e., since this will cover at least a paragraph when more sources over the next week and month arrive, to write (a) what Haaretz said (b) the various follow-ups, and keep RR's summary sentence in the lead, because leads have to sum up sections.
	::::::According to Pollard, the poll's results repeat what polls have found in the past, similar figures for Israeli public support for ''separation'', and the only 'shock' was to find the same results repeated when the original word, apartheid, which of course means 'separation', happened to be used in the polling questions. (Pollard smh)] (]) 20:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::If other polls have their methodology questioned by RS, that should go in articles where they are cited as well. Is there any particular reason you want to obscure pertinent information about this poll from the readers of this article? If Noam Shelef (I assume you know who he is) questions the methodology of a poll like this, why should we not include that?
	:::::::I doubt there will be "more sources over the next week and month". Gideon Levi has pushed this to all his contacts already. ] (]) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Very peculiar. Nowhere here have I suggested any RS information be excluded. Indeed I have listed as many RS, some quite critical yet missed, that I am familiar with, as a basis for the section draft. I always argue for complete coverage, of all sides. 'Is there any particular reason you want to obscure pertinent information'!!. I only wished you applied that principle on the] talk page! That's the first time anyone has accused me of excluding pertinent information from wikipedia. My whole problem with wikipedia I/P articles is dealing with the strength of opposition to my inclusionist principles. And, by the way, using a talk page to impute or insinuate that ], note the spelling, is manipulating world-wide the media take-up of his story sounds uncannily like a topsy-turvy spin of the mapcap Jewish conspiracy theory, and is a ] violation, It should be struck out.] (]) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::OK, maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you said "results of a poll reported in a major Israeli newspaper are worthless unless we investigate the methodology of the poll itself?". I await your proposed text.
	:::::::::That Gideon Levy promotes his articles to the foreign press is not imputing on anything. It's a well known fact amply documented in the Israeli reality show "connected" in which Levy participated. ] (]) 21:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::You are making an inference. Even were it true, it is not documented the way Mearsheimer and Walt comprehensively provide the evidence for massive lobbying in all media (they ignored wikipedia though) that skews all Western reportage to the Zionist narrative. So the point you made is pointless.] (]) 06:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::: There's no reason to not apply NPOV like we always do. Namely, see what most of the sources say and weight accordingly. Most of the sources said in fact what I listed above with 1) and 2). One source as far as I can see questioned methodology, so that aspect can be mentioned and given that weight. Making the whole text about Times of Israel's criticism would be giving ToI undue weight. That Guardian and Independent report what Haaretz said of the poll and not what ToI said of the methodology reflects an editorial choice which we need to take into account, since it affects the weights given to various aspects of this information in reliable sources. Cheers, --] (]) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::Actually, most sources said that Haaretz reported those numbers. None of them seem to have independently verified them. The Guardian and Independent are not bound by NPOV (obviously). We are. ] (]) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	Meanwhile, 40 hours after the text was reverted, there is no mention in the article about this significant development. Unless there is agreement soon about a replacement text, I intend to restore my original edit; it is ridiculous to omit any reference to this. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	:Your text was an obvious NPOV violation and included irrelevant material. Please don't restore an edit that was objected to by multiple editors without first gaining consensus for it. ] (]) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::Where was the NPOV violation in my purely factual and conmpletely accurate summary of an article in Haaretz? I don't think I added even one adjective. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::If anyone can find an NPOV violation there, document it. Most of the argument concerns how the sentence rightly included by RR in the lead, should be developed in a section below. Many seem to have forgotten that this article is about 'Israel and the apartheid analogy'. We have polling evidence, it has generated much comment, the poll was conducted under the purview of Camil Fuchs (please check his credentials, he's one of Israel's foremost experts on statistics), and appeared in a mainstream Israeli paper. I support the restoration of this one sentence to the lead. I would call on all editors to develop a section to explain the poll's details, criticisms in sources, and its impact abroad. ] (]) 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::The NPOV violation, as has been documented above, is that it did not include any of the criticisms that appear in RS. And we don't put something in the lead and then develop a section. We first develop the section and then, if appropriate, summarize it in the lead. ] (]) 20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::No. The section was written, by Jethro, after Roland's edit. It was badly done, but expanded that lead sentence. Just restore both in their respective sections. All Roland need do is write:-
	::::::<blockquote>According to a September 2012 opinion poll, a majority of Israeli Jews expressed support for discriminatory measures in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and for an apartheid regime if Israel were to annex the West Bank. 58% said Israel already practiced apartheid there. The results have been challenged.<ref name="Dialog"/>+ref to Times or Israel/HonestReporting.</blockquote>
	::::::And, in the same edit, add the Malik/Jethro expansion in a separate development section below, and your objection drops. The expansion is in a sorry state, but rather than talk infinitely, we should simply restore both, in their respective sections, and ask all to read the sources and improve the section, which hasn't been touched since it was proposed.] (]) 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::If you look at the article history, you will see that I first added information about the poll in the body of the article, and only then added a sentence to the lead. I know better than to put potentially contentious article in the lead without adding a substantive edit to the body of the article. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::My comment about the lead was addressed to Nishidani.
	::::::::As for the lead text, first of all I don't think that one poll that will maybe get a short paragraph in the body actually belongs in the lead. Second, even it if did, it should be attributed to Haaretz since every single source (except Haaretz itself) attributes it to them. Third, the poll didn't ask if they supported "an apartheid regime if Israel were to annex the West Bank". That omits both the fact that the question didn't actually use the term "apartheid" and the fact that most respondents said Israel shouldn't even annex territory with settlements on it, not to mention the whole thing. Third it omits the fact that the pollsters admit that people might not have understood what "apartheid" means. There's more, but we can start with these. ] (]) 23:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Definitely does not belong in lead. Results for a hypothetical scenario with a vague question whose conductors said was vague. Gideon Levy opens up sensationalist journalism with writing "Israelis support the establishment of an apartheid state,"i ignoring again this isn't supported by the #s, which discuss a hypothetical scenario which ''most Israelis oppose'' and uses a vague term (which Levy said the word "apartheid" was unclear in the question regarding the current situation), and most likely the issue regarding voting, which again was in a hypothetical scenario that ''most Israelis oppose'', was out of a natural tendency not to support the political suicide of a country via changing its foundational character. Again - the poll says most Israelis oppose annexing the West Bank - which makes all the following stuff fantasy. Why would they perhaps oppose annexation? Because if they don't want to commit political suicide, they'd likely be forced to be associated with apartheid - something that they show they do not support.

	::::::::Feel free to access the poll results , and learn a few interesting things you won't encounter in Levy's article, such as 59% of Israelis opposing limiting the right of Arabs to vote. So when it says that most don't want Arabs to vote in the Knesset, based on some hypothetical scenario that would be split alon citizenship lines and not racial lines, this is simply contradicted by other answers.

	::::::::There is no reason to include the results of a survey that discuss a hypothetical scenario using a term that was confusing in the lead, which simply discusses for and against arguments. The current way the lead is is structured in 2 paragraphs - for and against. Including a hypothetical scenario isn't relevant to the lead. There is also no reason to remove the vital information regarding the flaws in its questioning and methodology, in favor of that it was simply challenged (the times of israel isn't an opinion piece btw, it's an actual newspiece, and they're simply reporting on the facts, not challenging it themselves), in favor of a heavily misleading passage. Note that Nishidani's draft includes in the event of annexation, but then fails to note that such an event is opposed by most. Note also that the results haven't been challenged, but rather the survey Levy's article has been criticized as not representing the true side of the survey, while flaws in the survey have been pointed out. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 00:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

	:'''Procedure'''.
	*:RR put text into the body of the article, and then added the lead sentence. No objections there.
	:'''Importance of item'''
	*:We now have a specific poll listing the results of an empirical study into Israeli attitudes regarding the topic of Israel and Apartheid. The poll goes to the meat of the topic argument. It is thoroughly relevant.
	:'''Analogy'''
	:*The priority of editors at ] was to insert poll results into the lead, indicating strong Israeli opposition to these attacks. No objection from me or anyone else.
	:'''Poll source'''
	:*Impeccable. It is run by one of Israel's foremost statisticians. Jethro and NMMGG are opposing this by questioning the poll (the primary source, and Haaretz's reportage). That's not our job. We look at the RS, and do not make editorial judgements about the source.
	:'''Hypothetical scenario'''
	:*Jethro. It is in the nature of polls to examine audience 'intentions' or 'attitudes'. See ] and the many correlated articles. Objecting to our use of one result because it deals with a response to an 'hypothetical' situation reflects subjective distaste, is neither here nor there, and not grounded in a policy argument.
	:'''Levy's report missed stuff in the original source''''.
	:*That applies to all reportage. Leads give a thumbnail summary, and the body of the article expands to point out everything related to the primary source and its media response, per the subsequent reportage of responses. This is not an argument.
	:So far all I have seen are ] opposition. Editors should not be seen opposing a poll on one page which they find distasteful, while polls that indicate results they like go unchallenged on similar pages. There is no coherence in approach in these objections.] (]) 08:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::as long as it includes the comments about the respondants not understanding what apartheid is, that's fine. also, btw, the new york times wouldn't even go near it, calling it a 'push poll'. ] (]) 09:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Do I have to repeat this? I am an inclusionist whose only criterion for exclusion is bad sources. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to this is probably using wiki rules to censor coverage. That's why I entered into the ] page his conviction for underage sex, though RR was understandably opposed given the POV pressure there to use it to smear him. We should stop fighting over this. Everything RS report goes into an article. Everything does not go into the lead, self-evidently. RR's laconic line is perfectly trimmed to give the essence of the poll. Three extra words, if editors agree, re 'contested' would satisfy NPOV holdouts. The New York Times, from my knowledge, usually waits some weeks, if not years, before anything controversial reported of Israel gets covered. The New York Times did not call it a push poll. Jodi Rudoren, one of their ME reporters, did in a tweet, according to Jonathan Hoffman in his instant blog comment, at ], 23 October 2012. Not RS, though certainly interesting, in the extraordinary suggestion implicit here that Amiram Goldblum, perhaps to make his deceased wife smile in her grave, managed to manipulate Prof. , so that he forgot his reputation and outstanding analytical gifts in order to 'influence or alter the view of respondents' and make Gideon Levy and the Haaretz jihadis happy? I'm sure the blogosphere's gone ballistic with conspiracy theories of this kind. Who cares? None of it is RS, unless you take RS to be code for 'ratshit'.] (]) 09:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::: NMMNG, are you inventing new requirements to sources? Weight is determined by the volume of coverage in reliable sources. Independent and Guardian are reliable, simple as that. "Reliable", by the way, means that we can rely on them without speculating on whether they did some kind of unspecified additional checks. I agree we should restore the text, to it can be added a short (per weight) mention of the ToI criticism. --] (]) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::You're kidding, right? Your last post was speculation on why the Guardian and Independent didn't cover the criticism and now you're telling me not to speculate? We don't need to speculate if they did additional checks or not. Every single one of them attributes it to Haaretz.
	:::::@Nishidani - so you're saying a single poll is lead material? There are all sorts of polls floating around. If this single poll that will get a few lines in the body goes in the lead of this article, I might feel compelled to put all kinds of single polls in other articles. They're not hard to find and some of them have all sorts of very unflattering results.
	:::::I'm also enjoying what you have to say about blogs. You freely include them when they advance your POV, but now they're "ratshit". Awesome. ] (]) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::I agree the inclusion of one specific poll would be ]] and against ]--] (])/] 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Nishidani, I never participated in a discussion on such an article so I can't control the results there. However, you need to distinguish between a survey that has ground results, and a survey that is simply about a hypothetical scenario that is ''opposed'' by most Israelis. If you asked an Israeli, "If a million dollars fell out of the sky, would you take it?" That doesn't make the results suitable to go into the lead of an article on Israelis. This is especailly true when we have RS, not just ourselves, questioning the accuracy and reliability of these polls, and the fact that the results can be very misleading (making it innacurate to put into lead).
	:::::::So yes, there actually are serious objections to what RolandR put into the article and the lead.
	:::::::If the survey was not a hypothetical scenario that was opposed by most respondents, and the questions were not confusing to anyone and everyone understood what it meant, it could be acceptable for the lead. But the nature of this poll just doesn't make it suitable. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Jethro, your personal opinions about surveys are irrelevant to this discussion. We represent what reliable sources say, not the personal opinions of editors. If you want to claim that there are different types of surveys that can be distinguished, find an RS that says so in the context of this article, otherwise its just your opinion. We have numerous RS that report the findings of the survey. We have one or two that question the findings. It shouldn't be a difficult task to put together a text with the majority and minority viewpoints covered. ] (]) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Except that even Levy admits that the term "apartheid" was unclear and that the question was asked only in regards to a hypothetical scenario, which another question found was opposed by most Israelis. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::No, that is not correct. Explain to me what is hypothetical about the following :''the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all." In contrast, 39 percent believe apartheid is practiced "in a few fields"; 19 percent believe "there's apartheid in many fields" and 11 percent do not know.'' ] (]) 20:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::That's the second case, where the pollsters explained that the term was unclear to respondents, and hence the results may not be accurate. While perhaps suitable for the body of the article, it's far too misleading and controversial to simply put into the lead. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 21:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::No. The survey conductors said: "''perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees''", however interviewees had the option to select "don't know" if they were unfamiliar with the term "apartheid", but only 11% went for that option for that particular question. Regarding your OR, as I have already requested, it would be more helpful if you just stuck to the sources instead of giving us your own theory. See eg the SMH report :''"When specifically questioned on whether there is apartheid in Israel, 58 per cent said there was – of those, 39 per cent said apartheid existed "in some respects" and 19 per cent said it existed "in many respects". Thirty-one per cent believed there was no apartheid.''" - which makes perfect sense, no need for original theories from editors. ] (]) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: NMMNG, so do you have any basis in policy for your allegation that those sources shouldn't be taken into account when determining weight, if they used Haaretz as their source? I sincerely doubt that you don't, as WP:NPOV says "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's ''prevalence'' in reliable sources" (my italics). If a story originates in one source and is immensely reported thereon, it becomes very ''prevalent''. Prevalent means "widespread" (), and spreading inherently in fact implies that is began somewhere and spread from there. Cheers, --] (]) 10:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::The story that is prevalent is that Haaretz reported something. ] (]) 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::: It seems we're sort of in agreement. --] (]) 17:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	The original front page article is now renamed by Haaretz. This, I think, should be mentioned, when citing the source, otherwise it look as if it was traveling under wrong flag.] (]) 08:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

	== Source List for the article section ==

	Probably this will become controversial over the following days and weeks, and will require a paragraph, with one sentence lead summary. For convenience, here is a source list. One can add to it. Please note (for far) how the article headings and lead paragraphs report the information.
	*Given the number of emerging sources this probably will end up in a separate article, to which this page will provide a link.

	*
	*], ] 23 October 2012

	*], at ], 23 October 2012, carried also in ]

	*Gabe Fisher at ], 23 October 2012

	*Catrina Stewart, at ], 23 October, 2012

	*Adrian Blomfield, at ]. 23 October, 2012

	*Noam Shelef, at ]/], 23 October 2012 ('claiming the poll demonstrates support for “apartheid” is spin at its worst.')

	*Natasha Lennard at ], 23 October, 2012

	* at ], 23 October 2012

	*Gianluca Mezzofiore, at ], 23 October 2012

	* in ], 24 October 2012

	*Ruth Pollard at ], 24 October, 2012

	*Paul Koring at ], October 24 2012

	*, at ], 24 October 2012

	*Joshua Lapide, at ], 24 October, 2012

	*Jack Khoury and Jonathan Lis, at ], 24 October 2012.

	* Christa Case Bryant, at ], 24 October 2012-10-29

	*], at Haaretz, 25 October, 2012. (op-ed)

	*Ilene Prusher , at ], 25 October 2012

	*Jenni Frazer, at ], October 25, 2012

	*Benjamin Pogrund at ], 26 October, 2012 ( The original headline of this article, "Israel is hostile towards Arabs, but it is not an apartheid state", was changed at 17:46 on 26 October 2012 at the request of the author) (op-ed)

	*Yehuda Ben Meir , at ], 28 October, 2012 (op ed)

	*] at ], 29 October 2012

	*], at ], 29 October, 2012 (op-ed)

	*Shany Mor, at ], 29 October, 2012

	*, at ], 30 October 2012 •
	*Elhanan Miller , at ], October 30, 2012,
	*Alex Ryvchin at ], 1 November, 2012

	* at ], I November 2012

	*Gideon Levy, , at ], 2 Novem,ber 2012

	**Sources that bear on the topic but which some might query as RS-compatible.
	*The proposed paragraph reprints essentially the reorganizing of the data in, and reflects the priorities of Simon Plosker, at ], October 23, 2012

	* at ], October 25, 2012

	*Noam Sheizaf, , at ], 23 October 2012 (Sheizaf is often cited in the RS above, but may legitimately be challenged here)

	See also
	* ], at ], 24 October 2012] (]) 13:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

	: and see how quickly the 'new israel fund' has distanced themselves from the poll: http://www.timesofisrael.com/survey-highlights-anti-arab-attitudes-in-israel/ "The NIF later denied any tie to the poll. “The poll released today by the Goldblum Fund/Dialog was not commissioned or sponsored or in any way related to the New Israel Fund,” Naomi Paiss, NIF Vice President, Public Affairs, wrote in an email. “The Goldblum Fund gets some funding from Signing Anew, a non-related organization with whom we sometimes jointly sponsor projects, but this wasn’t one of them.”
	::The equivocation of the NIF does not invalidate the data. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 14:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
	:How many of those sources are just reporting that Haaretz reported something? Seems like all of them. Did I miss anything or are these not exactly independent sources reporting on a poll they actually read? ] (]) 01:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	::Well in that case lets just use the Haaretz report and forget all the rest. Or do you just want to just forget all the reports that support Haaretz coverage and only include the one or two reports that do not support Haaretz coverage. If so that is bias and certainly not compatible with our NPOV policy. ] (]) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Pretty sure he's saying that we can divide these into two (I say three really) groups - the Haaretz article and reports that were based on this article, and reports that discussed the Haaretz article/survey/issues, rather than simply just using the article itself. My third category would be opinion pieces, some of which there are above. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 00:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::That is a misrepresentation of the sources. All of the reports use the initial Haaretz report as the basis of the story. All of the reports add there own further reporting to the story. ] (]) 08:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::They commented on the story as published in Haaretz. They all attribute it to Haaretz (or in other words, do not take responsibility for the data) and add no data from the poll itself that doesn't appear in Haaretz. What we have here is A reporting "B said C" and other sources saying "A said B said C". It should not only be attributed to Haaretz like all the sources do, it should also be attributed to Gideon Levy since he's the only actual source for the data. ] (]) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::No, this is a news story not an opinion piece by Levy, and as far as I can tell the story contains no editorial comment at all. Haaretz is reliable for reporting the results of a poll. It can be attributed the Dialog Group, but not to Levy, and not to Haaretz either. Unless you would like to challenge the reliability of a news article in Haaretz to report the results of a poll at RS/N that is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
	:::::::It should be attributed to Haaretz because that's what every other source does. And of course it contains editorial content. It's ''interpreting'' poll results, not just publishing them. In fact, it is very light on actual quotes from the poll and very heavy on interpretation. ] (]) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)</small>

	== Newbie's draft wrongly placed in article mainspace. Relocated here ==

	I've added two newbie or anon suggestions from the article (A) and (C). I've edited C for NPOV, but haven't checked the refs. What is lacking is reference to the criticisms. The section requires (a) the data of the poll direct (b) its publication in Haaretz and the way it was taken up by several newspapers (c) comment by sources on both the poll, Gideon Levy and the apartheid issue. ] (]) 14:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

	(Propoal B) “Most of the Jewish public (58 percent) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs”, according to an opinion poll of Israeli Jews in Oct. 2012 published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and analysed by Israeli human rights activist and journalist Gideon Levy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Gideon_Levy</ref>.

	“The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees. The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.

	The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don't want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don't want their children in the same class with Arab children.
	A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

	A <s>sweeping</s> 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter - 24 percent - believe separate roads are "a good situation" and 50 percent believe they are "a necessary situation."
	Almost half - 47 percent - want part of Israel's Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.
	Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.”<ref>http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-would-support-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644</ref> Added from the article where it was prematurely proposed ] (]) 13:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

	(Proposal C)
	===Polling evidence===
	According to an October 2012 opinion poll (sample 503 Israeli Jews) commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and published in Haaretz, a majority of the Israeli Jewish public (58 percent) believes that Israel already practices apartheid against Arabs, and 59% wants Jewish Israelis to be given preference over Arab Israelis in the selection of personnel for jobs in government ministries.

	The poll found that almost half Israeli Jews, 49%, want the state to treat its Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42% do not desire to live in the same building with Arabs and 42% do not want their children to share classes with Arab Israeli children. It emerged also that a third of Israel's Jewish public would support a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset. A large majority of 69% was found to object to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote were Israel to annexe the West Bank.<ref>http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-would-support-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644</ref>

	:To be fair, it is getting a bit silly now, we are 4 days after the original edit and there is still nothing in the article describing this widely reported poll that is clearly relevant to the topic of the article. ] (]) 13:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::I agree. The situation is ridiculous, and, irrespective of intentions, looks like filibustering. It's normal to have such information promptly added to the page as news reports it. I suggest RR just do as suggested above, though I'd like to hear Malik on this beforehand. A short hint in the lead, and either draft proposal A or C into the relevant subsection. It doesn't matter that the latter is wholly inadequate. We can then work on it there, and here, to make it faithful to the articles. ] (]) 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	:What a poll has to do with science?. Nowhere conclusions are drown from a polls. For example the poll carried out by Palestinians in 2010 found that more East Jerusalem Palestinians would like to live under Israel, than under Palestinian rule. More so 40% of East Jerusalem Arab residents would prefer to loose their homes than to be left under Palestinian rule. So polls are never scientifically established facts, they have margin of error and in many cases are used for political manipulations.--] (]) 15:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::If you wish to challenge the use of polls in wikipedia articles, please take the complaint elsewhere. They are all over hundreds of articles and their legitimacy for article construction has never been questioned. This is not a forum for such discussions.] (]) 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::Can you try to keep your personal opinions off the talk page and instead apply the content rules to the reliably sourced information available. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 15:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::as i had written earlier - the views that the interviewer said about the respondants not understanding the questions must be included. i don't see that up above. ] (]) 16:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::Both the statement that respondents didn't understand the question and the breakdown which says that people think there is apartheid "in some areas" should be included. The things about living in the same building etc do not belong in this article since they don't mention apartheid. ] (]) 17:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::It's not that they did not understand the question, more that the pollsters said perhaps some of the interviewees may not have understood the term "apartheid". But of course they had the option to say "don't know" to that question, an option only 11% of the interviewees selected in that question. ] (]) 17:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Your opinion is very interesting. Let me give you my opinion in return. There's no such thing as "apartheid in some areas". The information that the pollsters themselves thought people might not have understood the question is important, as is the somewhat misleading question they asked. ] (]) 17:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I indicated above that I support including poll results for questions directly related to apartheid. But I think it would be OR to include questions about separate roads, Arabs voting, etc., unless RS use the word apartheid to describe those results.
	:::::::In summarizing the poll results above ("Draft language"), I quoted directly from ''Haaretz''. There is no "apartheid in some areas"; it is "apartheid in some ways". — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I agreed with what Soosim wrote above (and which you're writing here regarding certain questions). As for the latter statement, the original poll itself says "in certain fields" or "certain areas" or "certain topics," depending how you want to translate it. But the question did not say "in some ways." --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 00:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Look at the graphic, where the question is translated properly as "in some ways". — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::My point still stands with "some ways". Since how the question was framed has been criticized in RS the text should note this. ] (]) 03:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::Lost in translation, perhaps? It can't be disputed what the poll question says. They can only ''literally'' say one thing, their literal interpretations aren't open to interpretation. There are numerous cases of "lost in translation" throughoug reliable media, even newspapers like The New York Times have a section where they post errors they made, and here we have the primary source directly contradicting what a secondary source said the primary source asked. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 04:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::We're not going to solve that here without another RS that gives a different translation, so there's no point arguing over it. ] (]) 06:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::@ NMMNG, it's not my opinion, read the source: it states that the pollsters said, ''"perhaps '''the term "apartheid"''' was not clear enough to some interviewees"''. You are giving me your opinion Vs what is said in the cited source. Also the read the SMH report of this question: ''"When specifically questioned on whether there is apartheid in Israel, 58 per cent said there was – of those, 39 per cent said apartheid existed "in some respects" and 19 per cent said it existed "in many respects."'' - Which makes sense, to my mind at least. I think you are latching on to an awkward translation and making something out of nothing, in any case unless you have a source it is just your opinion as you freely admit. ] (]) 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::If they didn't understand a term used in a question, they didn't understand the question. But ok, it should say they didn't understand the term. It should also show what exact wording was used, since we have that information. ] (]) 18:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

	:Providing misleading information's delegitimatize the entire poll and the use of non scientific tools(as the insertion of linguistically foreign political terminology) discredit entire poll and its findings. As far as I see the results as presented by Guardian are in fact constructed manipulations by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. Also the overall public nowhere on world is politically educated, so the usage of linguistically foreign political terms, without detailed explanation, can not bring any neutral or relevant results. Polls can be neutral or biased, scientific or non scientific. In this case there are many evidence that the combination of bias and non scientific can be applied here, even in the formulations of the questions(we can not check the results)--] (]) 18:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::Your mistake here is that you think some people wouldn't use a poll they know is biased or non-scientific. You're new here. You'll learn. ] (]) 18:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	:I wanted to point out that there are other opinions on this issue. Here is the articlkle from CAMERA-Committee for accuracy in Middle East reporting that states "Unsurprisingly, Levy’s article was full of omissions and distortions. He apparently ignored the data that did not suit him and emphasized those that were in accord with his own well-known anti-Israel world view. At times, he completely reversed the survey’s findings. The sensational headline represents, at best, Levy’s interpretation of the survey and does not represent objective, factual reporting. " Goldflam further explaines manipulations with both the results and with the question itself. Beyond Levy’s ignoring of the survey’s nuance, with his blanket assertion that Israel "practices apartheid against Arabs," are the problems inherent in the survey question itself – which Levy similarly ignores. What is "apartheid in some areas" or "apartheid in many areas"? The term "apartheid," contrary to its superficial use in the survey, and contrary to the concept of "discrimination" has a very clear and precise meaning: According to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it refers to "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."There is no such thing as "some" apartheid. There is either apartheid or no apartheid. Apartheid is not simply discrimination – the sort that exists in almost every country around the world including Israel, which is precisely why the term was created specifically to describe South Africa’s regime." In fact average people nowhere on earth have political education and the usage of foreign political terminology is always avoided in polls which are intended to be neutral. Considering the results ,Goldflam accuse Levy with serious manipulations and with direct misquoting of the results "Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs."
	So the question is now, should Misplaced Pages quote an article which was described by other articles as misquoted and manipulative, present it as "absolute fact" without balancing this in order to achieve NPOV with the opinion from other sources like CAMERA. Or should this newspaper article which present entire nation as racist be avoided due to very serious allegations against the main editor of this source--] (]) 18:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Please desist from blogging. Talk is pointless about what may be the case. Thje procedure is to survey sources, agree on RS, and then write the results, confirming or tweaking by collegial discussion. So far the tendency has been to avoid even looking at Malik's version or editing it towards improvement. We simply require a comprehensive survey of the poll results and commentary as reflected in RS. If no one else does it in the meantime, I will present a systematic synthesis of all the available source tomorrow, periodized and thematized, with each point tightly linked to its source, and will post it for comment, trimming. Something has to go into the article, and endless, often filibustering or opinionizing talk is not the purpose for which we come to edit this encyclopedia.] (]) 18:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::Beware of ]. There is no need for each and every media outlet that reported on it to go in, as the vast majority of those are foreign outlets that simply reported what Haaretz said. Thus, using the Haaretz article which they used is sufficient to get what they reported. The Times of Israel, on the other hand, as an Israeli media outlet has more resources and was able to add additional information about the poll, not in an op-ed but in a reliable article. Thus, such a reference is distinguished from the others. If there is another reference that doesn't do either but something else or adds something else, then that can be used as well. But just because various outlets picked up on the story, doesn't mean that the factual contents of the story change from one article to the other. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Jethro, what on earth are you talking about? There is nothing in Nishidani's comment relevant to to ]. Please familiarize yourself with ]. Particularly: ''"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, '''in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.'''"'' Thus, as Nishidani points out, we survey the sources, agree on RS, then write the material. Per ], the weighting we give each viewpoint is based on its prominence in RS. That is why we survey '''all''' sources. I would have thought this would be uncontroversial stuff, yet you are disputing it. Your labeling of non-Israeli sources as "foreign outlets" is odd. This is not an Israeli website. We survey all English language sources, we do not divide them into Israeli and "foreign" sources. Also I think your speculation about ToI having more resources than the other sources is off the mark. ] (]) 07:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

	:::::Yes, as Dlv999 says, we're required by policy to make sure that the information we present to readers is weighted in a way that reflects its relative prominence in reliable sources. If we don't, readers may be misled and believe for example that the information from Haaretz and the Times of Israel has been given equal prominence by other reliable sources, which is clearly not the case here. The fact that, as you say, "the vast majority of those are foreign outlets that simply reported what Haaretz said" is very significant for us because that is exactly the kind of metric required to decide, in an objective way, how much weight to assign to a piece of information in order to comply with NPOV. The information in an AP or Reuters report for example will almost always have far more weight than information from a single local outlet (if editors had time to do a systematic survey of all RS for every piece of information everytime) because the likes of AP and Reuters have so many subscribers. Consequently their reports are published by thousands of outlets, giving the information they publish prominence in reliable sources, and prominence in RS is a determining factor for us. So, I think your "The Times of Israel, on the other hand" argument is inconsistent with core policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 08:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::There's a difference between just taking what another media outlet said and reporting it without doing any reporting yourself, and actually doing some more reporting. A lot of the media outlets cited here that allegedly can make a misleading fact into an uncontroversial fact are simply parroting what Haaretz wrote. And for foreign media outlets, it may not be worth the time to do some investigative reporting into the poll and harder to double check the results, which is certainly easier for local media outlets. There are two types of reports that we have here - those who took what Haaretz said simply, and those that did something else. And I'm talking about the ones in English, the fact that they're Israeli doesn't disqualify them, and they are in English the ones I brought (hence, accessible internatinoally)... A look at the media outlets that actually did further investigation and further reporting shows that they are quite critical of what Haaretz wrote. A look at some other polls shows very different results. A look at even some of what Levy wrote shows there is a lot of misleading in this poll, which makes it tough to use as evidence. Then there's the clarification they just wrote today, which I posted below. Neutrality requires that we don't be misleading and that we think logically, not based on what we like or don't like. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 15:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::The method we use to weight viewpoints in articles per our ] policy is to assess how prevalent those viewpoints are in RS and then use that to determine how much weight we give those viewpoints in our articles. You have given us your own personal opinion several times now. Unfortunately it is not relevant to any Misplaced Pages policy and is not going to determine how the article is weighted, which will be down to consensus based on Misplaced Pages policy and the RS evidence. ] (]) 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


	:Nishidani You wrote down the procedure par excellence. You only forget to mention that the opinion of others regarding the subject have to be included in order to avoid POV and CAMERA is not a blog but a highly specialized institution with a defined aim to promote journalistic accuracy.--] (]) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

	::Please reread what I said. I forgot to mention nothing (2) familiarize yourself with RS/N on Camera's status as a source. Good night ] (]) 19:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

	:::As I'm aware, CAMERA can be included with attribution if necessary. I think it's fine and easiest to just stick with Haaretz and Times of Israel, and any other reliable sources that add something different. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::No, CAMERA is not a reliable source, and unless a reliable source makes note of their view they cannot be used. And somebody making both comment and the above is rather odd. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)</small>

	:::::and here is some more information, in case you missed it: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-gideon-levy-and-the-israel-apartheid-canard/ --Soosim
	:::::<blockquote>*Ben-Dror Yemini, at ], 26 October, 2012. (Ben-Dror Yemini is a senior journalist with the Hebrew daily Maariv who ''lectures about the anti-Israel lie industry'')</blockquote>
	:::::No, Soosim. That's dreadful crap, hardly better than what you get from I/P editors on talk pages. I'm not, according to context and quality, opposed to the use of blogs, but cite Yemeni and you'd only have thrown back at you the response by
	:::::Jonathan Zausmer at the same newspaper, ], 26 October, 2012. (Yemini ‘he writes as an “enlisted” journalist dabbling in hasbara for a regime that is leading the country into a danger zone of neo-apartheid that is very real indeed’). ] (]) 09:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Is it crap? OR is it just you don't like what Yemeni wrote (did you read it?), and thus rush to label him some hasbarist, because you disagree. Do you know who Yemeni is? He's one of Israel's most respected journalists and is a senior journalist at Maariv, a major Israeli publication. Part of what he wrote is exactly what I've been explaining here, for example, "The real reason that most Israelis oppose the annexation of the territories, however, is, most likely, that they would like to avoid a bi-national state or the risk of an apartheid one." Yemeni also uses the full poll to compare what Levy wrote and the actual results - just showing how much more misleading it is to use this Dialog poll as put in Haaretz.

	::::::Then there are other polls, as he brought, which are hardly right-wing, and show completely different results. is just one of those results - a 63 page comprehensive report. Much more thorough than the one in Haaretz, which created so much controversy and even Levy admited there were some errors with it (not understand the questions for one).

	::::::Personally, I don't think we need to use opinion pieces if we actually include this poll. I think it'd constitute ] weight. But these are good for discussion on the talk page, and showing how misleading the Dialog poll really is, and how we can't necessarily take its results as accurate. You want to put in polls? Go ahead. Use any number of the reliable, comprehensive reports that we have, not the controversial misleading ones.

	::::::Now who is this Jonathan Zausmer you describe? He describes himself as part of a coalition that is "dedicated to the upholding of the liberal spirit of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, who seek to actively oppose ultra-nationalist and anti-democratic forces." And when the Times of Israel linked to it on the bottom of Yemeni's piece, they wrote to click here to see a rebuttal by "blogger" Zausmer.

	::::::Interestingly, Haaretz a clarification today, pushed towards the bottom of their paper, but still a clarification. The clarification writes, "The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: 'If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million Palestinians be given the right to vote for the Knesset?'" Interesting, considering there was a revert over "attempting to cover up the positive support for apartheid." Don't want to believe Arutz Sheva? I didn't even know it from there. I have a picture of the clarification I'm happy to upload and show you. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 15:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::No blogging, dear. Desist. I said both Yemeni and Zausner were not sources. Zausner, not me, said Yemeni was a hasbarist. In my draft, the clarification was added first thing this morning. It's just that I eat huge amounts of food one Sunday, and the Formula1 race, and other things, slowed my work down.] (]) 16:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::I'm not "blogging." If I wanted to blog, I'd get a wordpress blog and publish it to a different audience. I'm really happy for Zausner, but it's irrelevant to me what he thinks of a senior editor at one of Israel's widest and most respectable publications. You're very into having a misleading inaccurate poll in this article? Maybe we should start with comprehensive accurate reports, like the one given above, that don't have such controversy and aren't misleading. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 18:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::: "CAMERA" isn't reliable so what they think of anything is completely irrelevant. Times of Israel is RS and their take on the poll, published according to their editorial policy does deserve to be represented. As discussed above, however, since the Haaretz material is more widespread in reliable sources it should have more weight. Cheers, --] (]) 17:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::It's not about being "widespread." It's about just taking a report and copying it, or doing further reporting. If a few outlets publish something misleading, that doesn't mean we can give the misleading information more weight, and mislead our own readers. That's part of the reason the poll has been so heavily criticized. We know what the poll questions said and what the results were from the poll itself, we know what the people in charge of the poll have said, we know that a part of this discussion is to insert material regarding some hypothetical scenario. And we also know what other polls say. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 18:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Jethro. You don't seem to be getting this into your head. ] is a core policy of the encyclopedia. You cannot argue your way around it. We represent viewpoints according to their prevalence in RS. If a viewpoint is widespread, then it will be given significant weight in the article. If a viewpoint is not widespread it will be given less weight in the article. If a viewpoint does not appear in RS it will not appear in the article. What you are doing is giving us your own personal opinion (per your own reasoning) about views that have been published in RS. Your personal opinion on these views is irrelevant to the article. Please try to remember our task is to objectively represent viewpoints that have appeared in RS in proportion to their prevalence in RS, not advocate our own interpretation of what the facts are. ] (]) 18:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:I have just red from Haaretz "CLARIFICATION: The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll."
	Also there is an article from Arutz Sheva "After falsely accusing Israelis of supporting apartheid against Arabs, radical leftist paper publishes tiny clarification-Ultra-leftist newspaper Haaretz, which is partially owned by a German publishing family with a Nazi past, has published a "clarification" to an article it ran as its main front page story, in which it accused Israelis of supporting an apartheid regime against Arabs.....Goldlfam writes: "Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs.""
	As Israel National News is RS, this opinion has to be added to the article due to WP:NPOV. --] (]) 18:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:Here's the full clarification Haaretz put on the article:
	<blockquote>CLARIFICATION: The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: 'If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million... </blockquote>
	:] (]) 18:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::: (and continues) "Palestinians be given the right to vote for the Knesset?'" (and that's the full statement). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::The headline may have changed, but not the content. The article still begins: "Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank. A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state's Arab citizens, a survey shows." <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 19:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

	::This raises question of ] as in addition to Levy conceeding the question's misleading nature, the results are also dependent on a hypothetical variable and cannot be considered particularly applicable, especially when we have other polls such as the 63 page comprehensive report. The proposal in inaccurate, the poll was inaccurate; surely we have higher quality material? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::: AnkhMorpork, this poll has received extensive coverage in RS, so there's no question it must be included. That's all that WP:DUE is about. --] (]) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::And after that "extensive coverage", the original source issued a clarification. Why do you think that was; because everyone was reporting the findings accurately? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 20:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:: Although Haaretz named the admittance of its inaccurate edition-clarification, from the text provided we can see that it is in fact admittance of serous manipulation.'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' '''did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll.''' The admittance of non accurate reporting which is equal with misleading reporting fully delegitimize this source. Also the admittance of non accurate reporting can not be clarified, it can only be admitted, as in this case. Something which is auto-labeled as '''non accurate''' by the author of the source cant be added to Misplaced Pages as RS. --] (]) 23:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::again, i strongly feel it is ok to use only those questions which mentioned the word apartheid, and then make it clear that gidon levy and haaretz felt it wasn't quite right. (using the real quotes, of course). ] (]) 06:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

	:: Haaretz publicly admitted that not just the title but in fact the whole '''reading of the polls''' by Gideon Levy was poor with other words fraud. The article is titled '''Errors that traveled round the world''' So it is clear now that the focus of our edition should be this word-'''error''' as this is the term used by the author of claim to attribute its claims, after certain verification .--] (]) 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::This is an opinion piece, written by a person identified as the "Senior Research Associate at the ]"; ie, a paid propagandist for the state of Israel. Haaretz is a reliable source, and a front page article by Haaretz journalist ] cannot be discounted because a propagandist has been given the right to reply. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::Those are some serious accusations. Do you have anything that backs this up? And is that any reason to exclude the opinion of someone that Haaretz felt to publish? I mean, after all, it's well-known and clear that Gideon Levy has far-leftist views, and his columns could easily be considered propaganda (whether factual propaganda or not), so I guess we shouldn't bother with him, right? Of course not.
	::::To repeat, in the original article Gideon Levy made numerous statements showing how dubious and inaccurate the results were of this misleading poll. A few days later, after already picked up by some other outlets shown above, Haaretz published a clarification, showing that their title was inaccurate, and that the poll results didn't actually show Israelis wanted to create an apartheid regime, as it was a hypothetical scenario they opposed. We can't turn the clock around, but what those outlets picked up was before this clarification. Even Gideon Levy, a few days after some outlets already picked it up, another piece, explaining there were some errors with what he wrote (he defended this by saying there were "time constraints"). So while we can't turn back time, we do see that the version that some outlets picked up was misleading, inaccurate, and incorrect, and before the whole clarification came about. The most comprehensive reports, analysis, and op-eds that we've seen regarding this has been centered in the area where the resources for this information is most likely - in the local outlets themselves, which publish internationally, and which do not contain the same glaring errors as picked up by some other outlets, and now shown to be false. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::: Looking at the points mentioned above, namely 1) most of the respondents said Israel practices apartheid, 2) most said Palestinians should be denied the vote if the WB were annexed and 3) 30% said Israeli Arabs ought to be denied the vote, these can be sourced at least from the Independent, and Telegraph sources. (The Telegraph doesn't have the last one, but does say most support preferential treatment to Jews in Israel). As far as I can see these can go in the article now simply on the force of these three sources, with the criticism of the poll being handled as a separate manner when it's settled which criticism sources are reliable and which are opinion pieces. Point 2) is in-line with the new headline of the Haaretz piece too. Cheers, --] (]) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::No it can't, since as Malik and Soosim said above, this article is about claims of apartheid, and so we can only use questions specifically about apartheid. And the two qusetions that were about them were misleading and yielded inaccurate results. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::A question to Malik. Could you quickly review the sourcing for the page, and see if the impression I at least have that we are placing exceptionally restrictive conditions on what can be used from the Levy report ('specifically about apartheid') that have not been applied to the most of the sources for the rest of the article, many of which do not specifically address the technical issue of 'apartheid' or not, but document the elements of 'discrimination' which, if touched on by Levy, must not be utilized according to some editors? Thank you.] (]) 10:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm afraid it's impossible to "quickly review" the sources that make up the article's 300 footnotes, but isn't it OR to apply the term apartheid to an "element of discrimination" if the source doesn't use the word apartheid? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, Malik. Yes, that was a tall order. I was told by Jayjg years ago that ] occurs, in articles with two topics joined by '''and''', when both topics are not treated in close approximation in the source article or book. Positively, that works out, again following that guideline, to mean that in a book or article where 'apartheid' is mentioned, and 'discrimination' or 'separation', occurs in contextual association, that one can refer to everything dealing with the latter two, while discussing apartheid. I don't think this rule has been widely followed in sourcing, but if that interpretation is correct, then the Levy article cannot be selectively winnowed to deal only with those parts that specifically mention 'apartheid'. ] (]) 11:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
	Here is two sources that criticize poll results they should be included to comply with ] ,--] (])/] 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::: Jethro, no, since all three sources disclose the three points in connection with "apartheid". The Guardian's article title is "Israeli poll finds majority would be in favour of 'apartheid' policies" (this was amended after the original one), The Independent says "The new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination against Arab minority" and the Telegraphs says "A majority of Israeli Jews (...) would support an "apartheid" system in the West Bank if it were ever annexed". We edit based on what our sources say, there is no need and no basis for making this more complicated than that. Cheers, --] (]) 20:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

	* A follow-on piece to his original article by : Haaretz - , 29 October 2012.
	* A companion piece to the original article: Haaretz - , 23 October 2012.
	* Article on the poll from ''The Independent'': Catrina Stewart - , 23 October 2012.
	<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←  ]  </span> 23:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Haaretz poll is a fake. . On the other hand, several polls conducted in the Palestinian territories show a majority of Palestinians having genocidal intentions and favoring discrimination against Jews.--] (]) 11:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	:Posting links to an activist organization like honest reporting in an attempt to discredit a Reliable Source is not adding anything to this discussion. ] (]) 10:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

	:::here is a new article (not opinion piece) from an RS about the whole thing. doesn't bode well. but as i said many times, just put in two sentences. one about the apartheid question responses, and one about how the author and others felt it wasn't quite understood. http://www.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-changes-tack-on-major-story-that-alleged-widespread-apartheid-attitudes-in-israel/ ] (]) 12:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

	==Haaretz acknowledged mistake==
	This mess is spreading to other articles -> ]. Can editors please help keep it under control and make sure everyone participates in discussions rather than edit warring in their preferred text here or anywhere else. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 11:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:The discussion there is about Haaretz acknowledged mistake, which was censored by you from the article there. It is not substantially connected to this article in any way.--] (]) 21:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

	== The Blood On The Hands Of This Article ==
	{{hat\|This page is for article discussion, not for general criticism of the topic itself. New editors are reminded that having an article on a topic does not equate to advocacy for said topic. ] (]) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)}}
	This article is simply disconnected from the reality in the Middle East. It completely ignores security challenges in Israel and in neighboring states. Not only there are almost purely Jewish cities in Israel. There are numerous purely Arab cities in Israel, in PA and in neighboring countries. And there are Arab countries completely free of Jews, which have been cleansed from Jews.
	This separation is on several places good for the security of both Jews and Arabs. There are also purely Arab buses, because Arabs like it and are ready to fight for their purity. They even killed several thousand Jews, some of them in public buses, you know?
	By supporting the claim, that Israel is an apartheid state (when there is no similar claim about apartheid in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Palestinian Authority, Hamas ruled Gaza Strip, Cyprus, Turkey, Iraq etc.), the article is trying to challenge these security barriers, which literally save peoples lives. This article is not only slanderous and deeply inaccurate, it also has literally blood on its hands. <span style="text-decoration: line-through">Its contributors are accomplices to murder.</span><noinclude> --] (]) 22:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::Could some administrator look at this. It's hard enough working on the sources carefully without having to cope with disruptive blather.] (]) 22:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::There's nothing really wrong here. It should be hatted for ], otherwise that's about it. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 22:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Nishidani, what I am trying to say, is, that you have responsibility for these public statements, which will ultimately have an impact on the security of both Jews and Arabs. When contributors simply copy paste here this parallel (which has clear political agenda to diminish security barriers) with complete ignorance regarding the security and the facts on the ground, they are endangering lives of both Jews and Arabs. Is this what we want? You can say: But we followed the rules! Ok, but does that strip you the responsibility you have for this article and its consequences?--] (]) 22:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::So, human lives are now publicly irrelevant on Misplaced Pages? And the same applies for the facts on the ground? --] (]) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

	Jethro mate, considering you spend so much time at ANI against editors you disagree with for soapboxing fringe theories, it's very amusing to see you so relaxed about this particular editor's soapboxing of fringe theories, ranting and raving and accusing other editors of being "accomplices to murder". ] (]) 23:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:Dlv mate, your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per ] and ], "Comment on '''content''', not on the '''contributor'''." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::So, "nothing really wrong" with accusing fellow editors of being "accomplices to murder". But, I've overstepped the mark with my comment? ] (]) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::: I got "At least you cannot gas me" at . This sort of behavior is unacceptable. I would block this user forthwith if I came across him/her in a part of Misplaced Pages I'm not involved in. Jethro, Div's suggestion that you are not being consistent is one you should take to heart. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Comments not pertaining to article content can be addressed to editors on their talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 23:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	:::Dlv99, I've suggested this discussion be hatted above. As someone heavily involved here, I can not do so myself, per ]. So that is why I am "relaxed" over here. I advocated for a strong punishment on an editor who made repeated blatant anti-Semitic conspiracy theories over months/years on various talkpages, hardly comparable here. This is a terrible lack of ], and I'm quite horrified. Did I not jump to respond that this should be hatted right above? Of course. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''] ]'''</small> 23:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
	::::I know human live has no place in Five Pillars Of Misplaced Pages. But I at least thought, this value is somehow shared by the users here. I understand, the word ''accomplice'' was not appropriate, since accomplice is doing the deed knowingly.--] (]) 00:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

			== Tags ==
	== The article is about accusations against Israel ==
	{{hat\|Same reason as the section above. ] (]) 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)}}
	At the very beginning of this article, State of Israel is being accused: "The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid." Yet, the same or worse accusations may be easily drawn against most ME countries and certainly against PA.
	Moreover the accusation is based on a very narrowly selected group of documents, making it detracted from the situation on the ground and even reverting causal chain of events, as if accused security establishments were cause and not the result. The accusation is not even named accusation, the word ''compared'' has been used instead.
	If the article was about a living person, it would have to be deleted. But, as it stands now, living state may be accused here as anyone wishes.--] (]) 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	:Again, this is blogging, and has nothing to do with concrete issues of editing this page, and therefore should be hatted and the editor reminded (or remaindered) not to be distractive and disruptive. ] (]) 10:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	::The article itself looks like blog and is based on blogs from the very start. Only country contributors keep singling out this way and keep accusing of apartheid is Israel (not for example Sudan or South Korea). The informational value of the accusations in the article and the assertions it was build on are baseless. They have no connections to the reality.--] (]) 14:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

			{{re\|ABHammad}} Kindly explain the added tags (and why there are several for apparently the same thing)? ] (]) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
	== The article is describing accusation without calling it accusation ==

			:I reverted @]'s changes as the phrasing is backed by RS and has long-standing consensus. Ideally they should discuss this change here before applying that label. ] (]) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
	To compare any state to apartheid is sort of accusation, not a mere description as it appears in the article. --] (]) 08:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
			::<s>I reverted the tags, I agree there is a major problem with the current wording. This article is written like apartheid is a fact in Israel but this is obviously contested. Why is Misplaced Pages the only mainstream source in the west that says this like a fact? ] (]) 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:::Apartheid is fact per every international human rights organization including ] (]) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::<s>Using human rights watch interpretation of the ICJ does not mean that "the world's foremost court" have decided such if they didn't say it clearly. And any way there's much to the world beside the ICJ. Give me one Western liberal country that adopted this usage? thanks ] (]) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:::::Why are "Western liberal" countries the authority? It's the consensus of human rights organizations. ] ] 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::<s>Human rights organizations have their own (deep) biases. It is not only there isn't consensus among western liberal democracies and main media sources, I don't think any of them has ever endorsed this claim. I think it shows that the usage of apartheid in regards to Israel is primarily a talking point of activists, politicians, and progressive groups, and except those, the allegations are viewed as extremely fringe. ] (]) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:::::::Governments are not reliable sources. Human Rights Watch is a . There is no equivalency. ] (]) 11:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::An article wide tag is not necessary if the complaint is adequately addressed by inline tags so I removed that.
			:::::::The opinion of any {{tq\|Western liberal country}}, in other words, politicians, are noted but not relevant.
			:::::::The ICJ has concluded that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention and "Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid".
			:::::::Subsequently the UNGA has passed a resolution (this is not yet in the article afaics) stating "Calls upon all States to comply with their obligations under international law, inter alia, as reflected in the advisory opinion.." and "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin in violation of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention,3 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 4 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights5 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination6 and customary international law".
			:::::::If there is anything left to decide, it is how exactly to summarize the cumulative opinions of NGOs such as Amnesty, the ICJ/UNGA view, and potentially, the ICC view "Salam’s discussion of the crime should be studied by relevant criminal justice authorities, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, as it outlines the legal framework needed to investigate the crime of apartheid." ] (]) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Framing the current situation as apartheid in WP:VOICE, solely based on the views of human rights groups whose worldviews increasingly diverge from Western mainstream perspectives, is problematic and has no real impact on the ground. There is a clear reason why the Western world, the only part of the world that actually cares for human rights, including not just governments but also major news outlets, has not endorsed these apartheid allegations—and that is what truly matters in reality. The only countries that endorsed the claims of apartheid (and genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and all the other terms commonly used in recent propaganda) are, ironically, countries like Iran and Syria, which are not very known for their human rights record. ] (]) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::You completely ignored the point we just discussed about governments not being reliable sources. ] ] 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::You completely ignored the point that the entire western world rejects the claims, rendering the views of (politicized/radicalized) human rights organizations irrelevant for many. If we want to comply with WP:NPOV, as we're supposed, we cannot use WP:VOICE to make claims that are rejected by all the vast majority of those who actually care for human rights. ] (]) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I'm ignoring your personal feelings that this article should reflect the opinion of countries, and not RS because those RS are in your opinion "radicalized"? Yes. That's my duty as a Misplaced Pages editor. ] ] 12:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::<s>I agree mostly wtih ABHammad and Oddnahlawi above. The most correct and encyclopedic presentation of the issue should be something like: {{tq\|Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have claimed that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation."}} ] (]) 12:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:::::::::::::I think this would be the perfect opening paragraph to an article titled ]. We should ensure the inclusion of South Africa and Jordan along with Iran and Turkey.
			:::::::::::::Plus, this is illogical: "framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Israel's actions being justified by "security concerns" has nothing to do with the nature of these actions. I can construct a wall based on security considerations, but that doesn't change the fact that a wall exists. ] (]) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::<s>The usage of 'apartheid' is, similarly to genocide, closely related to the aims of a policy, apartheid is conducted for reasons of racial segragation. Walls can be built for various reasons, not all of them related to apartheid. Does anyone claim that the Berlin Wall was apartheid? this claim is empty. ] (]) 12:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:::::::::::::::No, the usage of apartheid has been documented by an increasing number of detailed reports over the past decade. The usage of genocide is new and no conclusive reports nor an ICJ ruling have been issued. So, again, there is no equivalency. I was not trying to compare walls with apartheid; I was refuting the idea that a justification negates the existence of reality. As another example, you can steal a car and market it as "logistical considerations"; nevertheless, a theft still occurred. Justifications are a marketing strategy and do not negate reality. ] (]) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::First of all, the world does not revolve around the western world, and the western world does not revolve around western governments. That being said, the ICJ is based in the Netherlands; the UN is based in the US; HRW is based in the US; Amnesty International is based in the UK. These are western institutions, so the argument that "the entire western world rejects the claims" does not hold up to any scrutiny, and is irrelevant anyway. ] (]) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::The composition of the ICJ and the political process by which judges are selected is much more relevant than its physical location. But anyway, it's not accurate to say that the ICJ agreed with the apartheid characterization.
			::::::::::::HRW's misleading summary dances around the fact that the opinion itself never made such a statement, only alluding to it with {{tq\|the court’s language is a compromise}}. They then mention that two of the less-neutral, non-Western judges, Salam (Lebanon) and Tladi (South Africa), did clearly take that position.
			::::::::::::Everyone seems to agree that there was no such court finding. The unofficial summary says {{tq\|without qualifying it as apartheid}}. Judge Nolte wrote that the court {{tq\| open the question whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid}}.
			::::::::::::If anything, this is weak evidence that asserting this in wikivoice is inappropriate. (Weak in the sense that the court didn't reject the claim either, though some individual experts do, such as ] and ].) — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I'm struggling to see either Dershowitz (who I recall advocated using torture in criminal investigations) or Kontorovitch (who I'd never heard of but who appears to be an Israeli lawyer who disapproves of sanctions against Israel) as a human rights expert. What makes you think they are more reliable on this subject than an international human rights organisation? ] (]) 16:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::There may be better sources, those are just a couple I'm aware of. Dershowitz's position on torture isn't extreme though - it mimics Israel's Supreme Court decision which banned torture except in ticking time-bomb scenarios.
			::::::::::::::Human rights organizations have political agendas, and at best are only as reliable as the individuals behind them. For example the HRW content being discussed was written by Clive Baldwin, who has some relevant education but doesn't appear to be a LLM/PhD holder or a practicing lawyer. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::It should be noted that Misplaced Pages's article on ] does list Alan Dershowitz as a source for the pro-torture side, while providing ] by pointing out that multiple "human rights organizations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders" are anti-torture. Governments or individuals making statements, as notable non-expert biased observers, should of course be mentioned, but more weight should be given to human rights organizations and experts. And that's exactly why the pro-torture section of that article is shorter than the anti-torture section. This article should follow the same standard. ] (]) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			<s>Clearer here: I would like to suggest the next option which I think is much more balanced and encyclopedic than recent changes: {{tq\|Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have said that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation."}} ] (]) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>

			:The recent UNGA vote on the ICJ opinion can be seen so it is just not true to say that the Western world is "against", only 14 countries (Argentina, Czech Republic,Fiji, Hungary, Israel, Malawi, Micronesia Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States) voted against the resolution. ] (]) 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
	== Encyclopedic incoherence? ==
			::How this or that politician chooses to talk about it is completely irrelevant. As per above, their countries are now bound by UNGA resolution. They may choose to ignore it but that has consequences too (UK/Chagos Islands refers). ] (]) 13:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Having said that, I'm not that keen on the Easter egg in Line 1 tho. ] (]) 13:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::: is the official publication. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{re\|Makeandtoss}} "a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination" seems to be a quote from Amnesty report? I don't think we want wording tied only to one source? ] (]) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::That's the textbook definition of ], that was : "a system of institutionalised racial segregation." So it's a basic definition that cannot be rephrased much. ] (]) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::It's also not in the body so we might want to have a think about that. ] (]) 14:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::If we want a recent RS, there is mentioning both ICJ and UNGA in one place, and referring to the situation as apartheid, will see if I can find some more. ] (]) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Lede is a summary so it doesn’t have to be in the body verbatim. ] (]) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::So what is it a summary of? ] (]) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::, says "racial discrimination and segregation or apartheid" and expounds at length on third states responsibilities. ] (]) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::: "its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
			::::::::I think this (the article 3 breach) is the most relevant wording that we need to be using. ] (]) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I would think human rights organizations are the best qualified regarding human rights issues, instead of countries with a clear political agenda. On one hand you have the ICJ, UNGA, HRW, Amnesty, etc, and on the other hand you have a bunch of countries asserting otherwise. Those countries are actually a minority as Self noted, not "the entire Western world" - and even if that wasn't the case, human rights organizations are clearly the authority here. We do not add POVs from unqualified parties regarding what does and doesn't constitute a war crime (we wouldn't cite a, idk, architect giving his opinion), but are supposed to give equal weight to political institutions? - ] (]) 13:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Countries voting to endorse the ICJ decision did not vote on whether there's apartheid or not, that's a wrong reading of the vote. I haven't seen a single government in the West that officially recognizes the situation in Israel-Palestine as apartheid. You are welcome to prove otherwise. Anyway, the current use of voice to describe the situation is clearly biased and adopts one view over that of countless other sources and governments that do not use this term for Israel-Palestine, because they reject it. ] (]) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::In the document Zero shared:
			:::::::::::{{tq\|Affirming in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, that:}}
			:::::::::::{{tq\|(e) Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near- complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction”}} ] ] 15:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Bitspectator already covered part of your argument. And borrowing from what they have said before, governments are not reliable sources. Nor do they have the same weight that human rights organizations do, when talking about human rights violations. You want to dismiss their conclusions because, in your opinion, they are "politicized" - are we supposed to believe that governments are not? They are not objective institutions, on the contrary, they all have political agendas that influence their assessments. - ] (]) 18:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Thing to do here is get into all the detail in the article body and what individual judges did and didn't say and what is apartheid/Convention or apartheid/Rome Statute compared to what all the judges signed off on, the article 3 breach. is likely the top rated source for all the details as of right now. To be clear, we do not have a proper conclusion as yet on apartheid. So I don't agree with Line 1 of the lead as is currently, this situation is a bit like the Genocide article just because the title says a thing, that doesn't mean that that it is an incontrovertible fact, even though the case here is much stronger than in the genocide case. We do know that there is an article 3 breach but ICERD does not specifically define apartheid so... ] (]) 11:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::: ] (]) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Reminder this article is about Israeli apartheid, not the ICJ decision; as stated previously, the ICJ ruling is the cherry on top, and not the decisive source. We already have numerous major RS such as HRW and AI. ] (]) 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Both of whom have updated their positions to reflect the ICJ ruling? ] (]) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::HRW in its most recent report said the language was a compromise, but that the finding was apartheid; not that there was no finding of which of the two (apartheid or segregation). ] (]) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*Agree with ] that international human rights organisations are likely to be better and fairer judges of matters to do with human rights than governments are. ] (]) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			* Even non-authoritarian governments are not necessarily reliable sources. For example, the Japanese government reguarly downplays war crimes it committed against the historical consensus. The Israel-Palestine conflict is so partisan on the global stage that we really shouldn't rely on what governments say on the issue (this goes for both for both pro and anti-Israel states), but instead what non partisan courts, human rights organisations and NGOs have said have about the topic. The consensus among non-partisan sources does indeed seem to be that Israel is committing crimes either of or equivalent to apartheid, and Misplaced Pages should reflect that. ] (]) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:<s>Part of the issue is, that the human right sources are not always non-partisan. Specifically in the case of Israel, Amnesty has been long accused for harboring anti-Israel biases. A major staffer once stated that Israel was similar to the Islamic State, the secertary general falsely said on Twitter that Shimon Perres admitted Arafat was murdered, and Amnesty International USA Director stating that "We are opposed to the idea ... that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people." That's one reason why many people don't see Amnesty a non-partisan source.<br>The question here, anyway, was whether the status in Israel and the West Bank can be described in Wiki voice as apartheid (the status in the last months here) or not. The fact that the West did not endorse this framing in major sources is, I think, an answer. ] (]) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
			*::These arguments have already been addressed by multiple users in this thread. I have removed the tags. ] ] 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::@] the tags should be removed when consensus is reached, and it's clear we're not there yet. I don't want admins to get involved but if weren't going be to constructive here we may need to do it, especially since this is the second time an involved party removed the tags in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Kindly restore the tags. Thank you. ] (]) 07:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I'll revert, but you have to address the points we're making. Making an argument that's already been responded to (multiple times, by multiple users) isn't constructive and doesn't justify the tags. ] ] 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::The tags are justified as long as we haven't reached consensus ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::It's your responsibility to justify the tags. I self-reverted solely to encourage you to do that. Consensus is not uninamity and if WP:IDONTLIKEIT justified a tag, every word of every CT article would have a tag. ] ] 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::You seem to have understood what consensus is. Read WP:CONSENSUS: "When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (], ], ]), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (], ]). " Your edit summaries, "''consensus against the tags formed"'', and ''"allow opportunity to justify tags"'', goes against good faith, I am afraid. Since you are part of this discussion, it is not for you alone to decide what the consensus is. There are many editors here who do not agree with the current framing. If we cannot reach a compromise, we should try other ways, not just decide to remove tags on your own in the middle of the discussion. That is disruptive. Let's try to work together and reach a compromise for Misplaced Pages's good. ] (]) 17:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Most people here are actually working on the problem and not arguing about tags so if you had something useful to contribute to that effort, have at it. ] (]) 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Please do not defend the disruptive removal of tags, done again and again in the middle of discussion. Someone experienced like you should understand the importance of good faith discussion. ] (]) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Non responsive. ] (]) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I self-revert at your request and you accuse me of bad faith. ] ] 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::IMO, you were right to remove the tags. I have re-removed them. This discussion has gone on for ages, and you're right to point out that arguments against these tags are extensive. Not having them is backed by RS and long-standing consensus. ] (]) 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::I agree that there's a bit of a balance issue here. ] would suggest that we need to cover a minority POV that questions whether apartheid is the appropriate term to describe this. For example, the book by ], {{Cite book \|last=Pogrund \|first=Benjamin \|title=Drawing fire: investigating the accusations of apartheid in Israel \|date=2014 \|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield \|isbn=978-1-4422-7575-1 \|location=Lanham, Md.}}, isn't cited, even though his 2023 Haaretz editorial is cited. That evolution might be worth going into, even though he changed his perspective more recently. Another book that might be useful and isn't cited AFAICT is {{Cite book \|last=Ariely \|first=Gal \|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/israels-regime-untangled/945A8FB1ED60EE6F5F6B1C352FEED8B1 \|title=Israel's Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid \|date=2021 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|isbn=978-1-108-84525-0 \|location=Cambridge \|doi=10.1017/9781108951371}}, which describes Israel as a "disputed regime." From the blurb, {{tq\| Some regard the country as an apartheid regime that can only be challenged through boycotts and sanctions. Others believe it is a stable liberal democracy, created under extreme conditions}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Detailed hundreds of pages report published by the world's most prominent rights organizations such as HRW, Amnesty International, and the ICJ have obviously more weight than a sentence sourced to Israeli authors Gal Ariely and Benajmin Pogrund. Given these two groups of sources equal weight would be ]. ] (]) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Actually, HRW and Amnesty should be attributed as advocacy groups, per ] (''in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion'' for the latter, I don't see a listing for the former but should be easy to see why), and ICJ is a primary source that hasn't ruled yet, whereas the books I just offered are reliable sources. While they may have some bias, ] tells us that this just means we need to balance and attribute them, not exclude them. And in fact as I said, we already cite Pogrund, just his editorial in Haaretz, not his book. That makes no sense. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::That is incorrect, HRW is not considered an "advocacy group" on WP:RSP. Also, this is not a controversial case because this viewpoint is the majority viewpoint supported by HRW, AI, and ICJ; and contradicted seemingly only by two unknown Israeli authors. ] (]) 21:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::HRW is definitely an advocacy group similar to and should be treated the same as Amnesty, and it's been discussed many times in the RSN archives, though I do not know what the consensus is because I haven't checked if there was a recent RFC on its reliability or bias; but I definitely disagree that this is not controversial. It's obviously very controversial and I'm sure there are quite a few other sources that argue these points. It's almost farcical to claim this is settled and not a controversy. Anyway, those authors aren't unknown at all. As mentioned, we already cite one, and the other is {{tq\|Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev where his research focuses on democracy and national identity}}. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::I totally agree, and I want to add that some editors here saying governments are just politicians and therefore should not be considered is completely wrong. Governments are much more complex than individual politicians. If, right now, most Western nations—those who actually care for human rights—do not endorse HRW's and Amnesty's claims of apartheid, it says much more about these advocacy groups than it does about the governments, who more or less agree that the situation, bad as it is, is not apartheid. This should be made clear in the lead, that the Western world has not endorsed these allegations. The current use of Misplaced Pages's voice to present claims not widely accepted in the West but supported by failed states and totalitarian countries, is bad. ] (]) 08:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Countries are not reliable sources. The idea that this article should not only reflect the view of countries, but of a select minority of countries (124 vs. 14) has no merit. ] ] 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I don’t understand where the number 124 comes from, as I don’t think there is a list of 124 countries that have endorsed the claim of Israel-Palestine being a case of apartheid. Also, the Western world has different standards for defining human rights, so the views of the EU carry more weight compared to countries like North Korea and Iran, which, let's admit it, may support these claims for political reasons, rather than out of genuine concern for human rights. ] (]) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::That was already discuss3ed above, by voting for the resolution, the 124 countries endorsed this part of the resolution:
			*::::::::::Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction
			*::::::::::and we have plenty sources for that as discussed below.
			*::::::::::Countries that abstained in effect took no position and 14 objected, including the US and Israel. ] (]) 17:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::As on many CT pages, our readers would be better served with description and detail, not controversial labels which tend to evoke emotion and over-generalize the facts.]] 17:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::If we removed every part of this article that could cause an emotional reaction in someone, there would be no article at all. ] ] 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::While I agree that readers should be provided with description and detail, I don't think editors should concern themselves with the emotions evoked in readers by any of the 10 billion Misplaced Pages page views per year or whatever the number is nowadays. It's not relevant to content decisions. ] (]) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::"emotional" in the sense of knee-jerk reactions to labels as substitutes for factual detail.]] 02:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

			:The security concerns part should be stated in the context of what critics have called "a pretext" for racism. HRW that "{{tq\|denying building permits and demolishing homes that lack them, have no security justification}}" and "{{tq\|blanket denial of long-term legal status to Palestinians from the occupied territory married to Israeli citizens and residents, use security as a pretext to further demographic goals.}}" ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
	While there is no similar article about most African countries, ], ], ], Hamas ruled Gaza Strip, how does it come just Israel has been singled out to discuss this kind of accusations? Is this behavior at the very least ] enough for an encyclopedia? --] (]) 09:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
			*Support removing the tags. This discussion was over a while ago and no new arguments are being made. All points have been thoroughly answered. Tags in themselves do not improve an article. Many of the arguments seem to be late comments on the RM discussion from a couple of years ago. ] (]) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

			== ICJ sources ==
	:Can you please keep this to one discussion? We are aware that you are not happy with the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state, but it is not us that is making this accusation. Our articles are created because of notability. Israel being compared to apartheid South Africa is a notable subject. Other states are not notable for this topic (and, in the case of states like North Korea, I'm not even sure that's true). – '''''] ]''''' 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			{{yo\|Black Kite}} regarding your , this was discussed above. We have at least five secondary analyses by law professors (I hadn't included per overcite), as well as a judge, confirming the clarification I made.
	::As I think, these are two different issues, I have opened two threads. What is wrong with that? I think, any encyclopedia should be coherent. Apartheid, as it was defined in South Africa, had no minorities in parliament, no minorities between the doctors in the hospital and so on, no minorities between the judges. This problem is actually visible from the selection of the sources, from which the accusation is drawn. These sources have little or no connection with the reality. You may argue, that any word may be redefined by notable speakers. That is true. But will be the language, which is being now "redefined" even by this very article, anymore useful then the previous one? --] (]) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			The source you restored is an article by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. It's also written for a lay audience and lacks depth, particular in relation to apartheid claims. Surely this isn't the ] given the available alternatives.
	:::In answer to the first question, there are no articles on such because "apartheid"-like systems in other countries do not actually exist, or the criticism that those countries' human rights issues are apartheid-like do not exist. Many people have spoken out about the situation with Israel though and compared it to South African apartheid, which is why this article exists; ] discussing a topic makes it ], so we as an encyclopedia create an article about the notable topic. Over the years in the Misplaced Pages, pro-Israeli editors have tried to force the creation of such articles to ] about the fact that they do not like this one. One example off the top of my head was ]. The editors who usually pushed that stuff back then were eventually blocked form editing for persistent disruption. ] (]) 14:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			Also while ] calls itself a blog, it has a team of and a . Their review process carries much more weight here than that of the ''The Guardian'', whose editors generally have no relevant credentials. But even if these were self-published, all five analyses would easily pass ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::Tarc, what you are actually saying, is that if enough notable people would say, that the World Is Flat, it would constitute a necessity to make an article World and Flatness Analogy? The notable speakers here are at the very start: Uri Davis and Gideon Shimoni. ] (]) 14:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			:Agree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I don't deal with nonsensical analogies, sorry. There are many reliable sources to show that people have made allegations that Israel's situation is analogous to apartheid. There are no reliable sources that discuss Jordinian/Bahraini/Saudia Arabian/North Korean/Chinese situations as being analogous to apartheid. That's really all there is to it. ] (]) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
			:There is nothing wrong with the sources (except the one part authored and "served for over 20 years in various positions in the International Law Department of the Military Advocate General's Corps in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including as the head of the department, and retired at the rank of Colonel), I have more accurately summarized the article body and balanced the one sided source selection. ] (]) 11:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Recent lede edit ==
	::::::But that practically speaking means, there is no demand for ] and indeed no demand for truth. --] (]) 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation {{strikethrough\|of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and}} is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. {{strikethrough\|The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue}}" ] (]) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Precisely. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that ] was born in Hawaii in 1961, yet ] exists, because the crazy theories about his Kenyan birth and forged birth certificates has been the subject of much discussion in reliable sources. ] (]) 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			:I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim {{tq\|while individual judges were split on the issue}} though which is a non-essential detail. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't regard the above as good example for the effect I wanted to describe, since these theories are described as conspiracy theories in the name of Misplaced Pages. Hence, the Misplaced Pages states there, that it does regard these theories rather unproven or untrue. In this article it is different. ] (]) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
			::Fyi {{ping\|AlsoWukai}} since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. ] (]) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Racism and Zionism in lede ==
	::::::::I don't think there is substantial support in good quality sources for Israel being an apartheid society. Those who wish to criticize Israel ''compare'' Israel to an apartheid society. But that is different from identifying Israel as an example of apartheid in a present day, politically sophisticated state. That is merely a ''comparison.'' Do most good quality reliable sources consider that comparison to be an apt comparison? I don't think so. One can always find some sources to support almost any view. To that extent this article attains ''notability.'' But it should be made clear in this article that the notion of Israel being an example of an apartheid social system is a distinctly minority view that is not generally found expressed by good quality sources. ] (]) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			Hi @],
	:::::::::Indeed. The existence of the article does not condone or condemn the analogy; it simply notes notable people and organizations who have made the analogy and who have opposed it. ] (]) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and ]. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. ] (]) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::I think that sources can be found that liken the comparison of the Israeli social system to apartheid to little more than an antisemitic canard. . ] (]) 19:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			:I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. ] (]) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::I understand the above-mentioned approach would be unacceptable for ], since the president Barack Obama is a living person. Merely putting there different views into one article without stating where Misplaced Pages stands would be a personal attack on him. Hence we call it '''conspiracy theories''', which makes the article consistent with the article ] born in ]. But in this article, although ] is not a living person, the stage was given to the accusers of Israel from the very start without even calling their propositions as theories, seems to me at the very least inconsistent with the article ]. (Not to mention that some of these notable speakers at the basis of this article, are not exactly cool heads. ]) ] (]) 19:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
			::It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:
			::{{blockquote\|In 1975, former ] ] voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the ] that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". ], executive director of the ], said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.}}
			::Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, ]. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. ] (]) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Israeli civil law ==
	:::::::::::You would have a point if the article were called ]. But it isn't. The current title reflects the subject matter of the article; that notable people have made an analogy of Israel's treatment of Palestinians to how South Africa once treated blacks. The veracity of the analogy is not relevant, only that the analogy exists, and exists in reliable sources. Is there anything to be gained by discussing this further? ] (]) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			{{ping\|Makeandtoss}} In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by ], misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship.
	::::::::::::Oh yes, it is. At the case of ] the lack of veracity is important, because it is the root cause for calling it '''conspiracy theories'''. But this article is not called ], not even ] and not ] but ], which for people, who know Israel, is exactly so wise as ]. ] (]) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			(which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that ]. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? ] (]) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}} This has been argued before. Please review the Talk page archives. And the article's title is a compromise as well. You can find that in the archives as well.
	Finally, if you believe this article's existence violates Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, please nominate it for deletion. It's only been nominated and kept nine times in the past. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

			:WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. ] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	The comparison to birther and flat earth conspiracies is poor. In those cases there is a near universal consensus among experts, and those in disagreement can clearly be described as holding "fringe" beliefs. The experts who discuss the apartheid analogy/accusation are much more evenly divided between those who agree with it, those who disagree with it, and those who think it has some merit but is not the most accurate or useful way to describe the Israeli/Palestinian situation. That's why the title of this article is not definite about the status of the discourse as either fringe or mainstream. While the structure and semantics of the article and the title are something of a compromise and aren't perfect, they do reflect the state of the sources relatively well. ] (]) 22:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
	:] is not a conspiracy, unless little children are seen here as conspirators and ] is not an ], unless we consider some very narrowly selected sources more real then the reality on the ground. I am not going to nominate ] and not even this article for deletion. But as it stands now, it should remain disputed unless it is very clear from the article, that the article distances itself from the analogy as in the case of the birther movement and ]. The theories about apartheid in Israel are fringe theories. There are even incentives for employment of Arabs in Israel. And by the way, if you state, the article has been nominated for '''deletion''' nine times, it most probably means, it was disputed even then. --] (]) 10:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	:: Hi, I'm just dropping in here briefly. If the chairman of the ANC, Israel's attorney general, Israeli cabinet ministers and most Israeli citizens say that Israel practices apartheid, how does it become a fringe theory? ] has some definitions of fringe theories as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, and this doesn't meet them. Cheers, --] (]) 19:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	::It was also kept nine times. What exactly do you want to have happen with this article? You want it deleted. You can try, but that aint gonna happen. You want to ignore that Israel's policies in the occupied territories has been compared to Apartheid, or that it has been accused of committing the crime of apartheid? That aint gonna happen either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</small>
	:::Maybe not; but meanwhile, a week after my original edits were removed, the stonewalling and filibustering have ensured that ther4e is still no mention in the article of this significant report. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 19:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	::::Meanwhile, RS have criticized the original report, Haaretz has posted a correction and Gidon Levy has responded to the criticism. If you'd like to propose new text taking all this stuff into account, feel free to do so. ] (]) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Haaretz issued a correction for the title. And the poll still exists, and is still relevant, and should be included. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</small>
	::::::With the relevant criticism, the opposition to which is what's stopping the text being put in the article, apropos filibustering. ] (]) 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	:and the fact that the questions were formed by high ranking members of Israel's foreign policy elite, and defended by one of Israel's foremost statisticians, in the face of the hysteria Levy's article aroused.] (]) 22:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	::The questions were formed by a group of left wing activists and funded by the former spokesperson for Peace Now, and were criticized by possibly the leading pollster in Israel, not to mention that Levy himself admitted he got some stuff wrong. Also, all except one foreign publication that reported on this specifically note they got all their information about the poll from Haaretz. ] (]) 22:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	:Read the sources instead of mouthing cliches about 'left-wing activists'. The questionnaire was written by a group of including former director general of the Foreign Ministry and Israel ambassador to Turkey , former ambassador to South Africa , former chief of education in the IDF ], and human rights lawyer ]. Camil Fuchs is one of Israel's foremost statisticians, and ran the poll and found nothing wrong with the questionnaire.] (]) 22:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
	::I've read the sources. Have you? Other than Haaretz, which sources are basing their reporting on the actual poll results rather than on an article by Gideon Levy who has already admitted his reporting contained "a few mistakes"? I know who these people are. Having held positions in the Israeli government or IDF does not preclude being an activist, as they indeed are. Mina Tzemach, who has at least the same level of credentials as Fuchs if not better, has criticized the poll. ] (]) 22:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

			I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at ]. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of ],<ref name=Haklai2015>{{cite book \| last1=Haklai \| first1=O. \| last2=Loizides \| first2=N. \| title=Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts \| publisher=Stanford University Press \| year=2015 \| isbn=978-0-8047-9650-7 \| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xeyACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 \| access-date=2018-12-14 \| page=19 \| quote=the Israel settlers reside almost solely in exclusively Jewish communities (one exception is a small enclave within the city of Hebron).}}</ref><ref name=Dumper2014>{{cite book \| last=Dumper \| first=M. \| title=Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City \| publisher=Columbia University Press \| year=2014 \| isbn=978-0-231-53735-3 \| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E8nbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA85 \| access-date=2018-12-14 \| page=85 \| quote=This is despite huge efforts by successive governments to fragment and encircle Palestinian residential areas with exclusively Jewish zones of residence – the settlements.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news\|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207\|title=Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements\|newspaper=Reuters\|date=7 December 2014\|via=www.reuters.com\|access-date=21 February 2023\|archive-date=30 July 2015\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150730104133/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/07/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207\|url-status=live}}</ref>
	AsiBakshish, I think we've now cut to the precise concern you have with the article in Misplaced Pages terms: you believe the Israeli apartheid analogy is a ] theory and should be presented as such in the article and its title. That's a reasonable debate to have here, especially because Misplaced Pages has clear definitions of what is and isn't fringe. I believe we've had this discussion in the past, but that doesn't preclude having it again. Here are the relevant parts of ]:
	# "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view, with the two caveats that not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and that the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight."
	# "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."
	# "when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."
	The first two points enable us to identify whether the Israeli apartheid analogy is a fringe theory by Misplaced Pages standards. Regarding point 1, there are many academics who specialise in Israeli-Palestinian relations, in the politics of apartheid and closely related political and legal fields. Therefore we shouldn't have any problem identifying scholarly opinions from scholars whose expertise is in an appropriate field. The criterion in point 2 can be determined from these sources, i.e. if qualifying sources overwhelmingly deny a resemblance between Israeli practice and apartheid, then the Israeli apartheid analogy is a fringe theory. Regarding point three, even if the Israeli apartheid analogy isn't precisely fringe but is a minority viewpoint among scholars, the article should still reflect that it is a minority view. Do you agree that these are the relevant criteria for how the article should present the significance of the Israeli apartheid analogy in a manner in keeping with Misplaced Pages guidelines? ] (]) 22:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

			: The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Ryan Paddy—This article and its title have less to do with the concept of that which is fringe and more to do with that which is ''comparison.'' We should not be attempting to write articles whose subject matter and title are comparisons. The entire article is in fact original research. It is a little funny that this page has a template reading: ''"Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting."'' Of course there is going to statement and restatement of arguments because this is not a cogent article but rather a comparison between two countries at two different points in history. What is circumscribed by the article's title is an area for discussion. There are in fact no truly reliable sources because comparisons are by nature highly opinionated. Prior-held political positions are obviously going to determine the stances that any source takes in the comparison posed in the title. This is not a valid area for an encyclopedia article. ] (]) 22:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

	::~~Your~~ ~~opinion~~ ~~on its validity~~ is a ~~distinct~~ ~~minority,~~ ~~unfortunately,~~ so ~~the~~ ~~traction~~ ~~you~~ ~~are~~ ~~going~~ to ~~get~~ on ~~that~~ is ~~precisely~~ ~~zilch.~~ ~~While~~ ~~this~~ ~~whole~~ ~~tit-for-tat~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~fun...we~~ ~~haven't~~ ~~had~~ ~~one~~ of ~~these~~ ~~for~~ ~~a year~~ or ~~so,~~ ~~I'd~~ ~~say...this~~ ~~really~~ ~~isn't~~ ~~leading anywhere at all.~~ ] (]) 23:42, 1 ~~November~~ ~~2012~~ (UTC)		::Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. ] (]) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent. By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel."
			:::This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. ] (]) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of . The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. ] (]) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. ] (]) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			{{reftalk}}
	:::I don't think so. I think it is patently obvious that the term "analogy" is virtually identical to the term "comparison". The notion of writing an article on the topic of ''comparison'' is quite frankly ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia. It isn't a discussion area. ] (]) 23:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:25, 30 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli apartheid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Article history and WikiProjects

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep per WP:SNOW, 21 August 2010, see discussion.
No consensus, 11 June 2008, see discussion.
No consensus, 4 September 2007, see discussion.
Speedy keep, 26 June 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, 24 April 2007, see discussion.
Keep, 4 April 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, 11 August 2006, see discussion.
Speedy keep, 15 July 2006, see discussion.
No consensus, 3 June 2006, see discussion.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Israel and apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Moved, 20 July 2024, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, Moved, 24 July 2022, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid allegation, No consensus, 4 December 2021, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, Withdrawn per WP:SNOW, 3 May 2021, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 8 June 2017, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy, No consensus due to procedural issue, 29 May 2017, see discussion.

Older discussions:

Israel and the apartheid analogy → ?, Not moved, 12 January 2017, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 13 January 2011, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid , No consensus, 20 August 2010, see discussion.
Israel and the apartheid analogy → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 3 May 2009, see discussion.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, No consensus, 28 August 2007, see discussion.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, No consensus, 17 August 2007, see discussion.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 16 March 2007, see discussion.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 14 December 2006, see discussion.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 6 October 2006, see discussion.
Israeli apartheid → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Move, 26 June 2006, see discussion.

Israeli apartheid (final version) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which on 17 June 2006 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Israel Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Haviv Rettig Gur (16 May 2010). "Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages". The Jerusalem Post.
Omer Benjakob (26 November 2020). "On Misplaced Pages, Israel Is Losing the Battle Against the Word 'Apartheid'". Haaretz.
Hava Mendelle (March 23, 2024). "The World Jewish Congress investigates Misplaced Pages". Spectator Australia. Retrieved March 23, 2024.
Yaakov Menken (August 6, 2024). "Misplaced Pages hates Israel and Jews". Jewish News Syndicate. Retrieved August 6, 2024.
Aaron Bandler (September 26, 2024). "Misplaced Pages Editors Title Article "Israeli Apartheid"". Jewish Journal. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
"Misplaced Pages Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State". The Misplaced Pages Flood. September 19, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
Shraga Simmons (November 11, 2024). "Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists". aish. Archived from the original on November 13, 2024. Retrieved December 1, 2024.

For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS.

Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

ICJ sources

@Black Kite: regarding your revert, this was discussed above. We have at least five secondary analyses by law professors (I hadn't included per overcite), as well as a judge, confirming the clarification I made.

The source you restored is an article by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. It's also written for a lay audience and lacks depth, particular in relation to apartheid claims. Surely this isn't the WP:BESTSOURCE given the available alternatives.

Also while EJIL: Talk! calls itself a blog, it has a team of 14 editors and a review process. Their review process carries much more weight here than that of the The Guardian, whose editors generally have no relevant credentials. But even if these were self-published, all five analyses would easily pass WP:EXPERTSPS. — xDanielx /_C\ 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Andre🚐 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sources (except the one part authored and "served for over 20 years in various positions in the International Law Department of the Military Advocate General's Corps in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including as the head of the department, and retired at the rank of Colonel), I have more accurately summarized the article body and balanced the one sided source selection. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent lede edit

The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation ~~of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and~~ is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. ~~The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue~~" Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim while individual judges were split on the issue though which is a non-essential detail. — xDanielx /_C\ 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Fyi @AlsoWukai: since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Racism and Zionism in lede

Hi @Allthemilescombined1,

I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and WP:UNDUE. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. Lewisguile (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:

In 1975, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the General Assembly's resolution that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". Vernon Jordan, executive director of the National Urban League, said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.

Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, WP:UNDUE. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli civil law

@Makeandtoss: In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by the principle of relevance, misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship.

Your edits (which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that false implication. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? Dotyoyo (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at Israeli settlement. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish identity or ethnicity,

The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. Zero 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. Dotyoyo (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent. By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel."

This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of this page. The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. Dotyoyo (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Haklai, O.; Loizides, N. (2015). Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts. Stanford University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8047-9650-7. Retrieved 2018-12-14. the Israel settlers reside almost solely in exclusively Jewish communities (one exception is a small enclave within the city of Hebron).
Dumper, M. (2014). Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City. Columbia University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-231-53735-3. Retrieved 2018-12-14. This is despite huge efforts by successive governments to fragment and encircle Palestinian residential areas with exclusively Jewish zones of residence – the settlements.
"Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements". Reuters. 7 December 2014. Archived from the original on 30 July 2015. Retrieved 21 February 2023 – via www.reuters.com.

Categories:

Latest revision as of 04:25, 30 December 2024

Tags

ICJ sources

Recent lede edit

Racism and Zionism in lede

Israeli civil law