Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli apartheid: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:29, 29 May 2006 editIZAK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,903 edits I am going to stop editing this article for a while← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:48, 10 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,105 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High), Politics (Rater
Line 1: Line 1:
{{expand}} {{Pp-move-indef}}
{{peerreview}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{Be calm}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Article history and WikiProjects |1=
{{Old XfD multi
|date=3 June 2006<!-- oldid 56729010 -->
|page=Israeli apartheid (phrase)
|result='''No consensus'''


|date2=15 July 2006<!-- oldid 64035264 -->
==POV tag==
|page2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination)
Would it be possible to make this more POV? I don't think so. ←] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|result2='''Speedy keep'''


|date3=11 August 2006<!-- oldid 69110851 -->
Ironically, you posted your pov notice while I was writing a "criticism" section. ] 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page3=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
|result3='''No consensus'''


|date4=4 April 2007<!-- oldid 120120303 -->
|page4=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
|result4='''Keep'''


|date5=24 April 2007<!-- oldid 125667783 -->
== Expansion Needed ==
|page5=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
|result5='''No consensus'''


|date6=26 June 2007<!-- oldid 140841349 -->
To avoid POV you may wish to focus more centrally on the history of the idea of Israeli apartheid and make sure that you distinguish Zionism and Israel because I think that the term is more often meant to be Zionist Israeli Apartheid rather than Israeli Apartheid. It is, however, a legit term but I think it needs to be presented is a different fashion. --] 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page6=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
|result6='''Speedy keep'''


|date7=4 September 2007<!-- oldid 155568006 -->
==Preposterous==
|page7=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
Even with the "criticism" section, this article is completely preposterous. So now every time someone calls something a name, there has to be an article about it? Between this, "Wall of Shame," "Apartheid Wall" and other "articles," Misplaced Pages is quickly becoming an Encyclopedia of Name-Calling. If I knew how to request the deletion of an article (yes, I know I should), I would do it with this one. It's ridiculous. ] 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|result7='''No consensus'''
:um. The concept of Israeli apartheid is not new. I've heard it since the early nineties. It is, however, controversial but the article does not claim to take a stance on it. The article seems to be improving and making itself to be more about the controversy surrounding the term. I still believe that it needs to do more research into the history of the term itself though because it would also be quite interesting. --] 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


|date8=11 June 2008<!-- oldid 218733282 -->
6SJ7, you would have a point if there were only a handful of instances where the term has been used. However, if you google "Israeli apartheid" you will get approximately '''240,000 hits'''. I would agree that "every time someone calls something a name" there needn't be an article about it but when 240,000 people use a phrase it's notable. ] 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page8=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
:Well there you have it. But please keep up your work in doing research into this article and improving it. The article should not stand on Google alone. Make the article one that stands on solid research. --] 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|result8='''No consensus'''


|date9=21 August 2010<!-- oldid 380158466 -->
6SJ7, you must be more specific. What, exactly, in the article is inaccurate? What, exactly, is NPOV? Please give specific examples. ] 04:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page9=Israel and the apartheid analogy (9th nomination)
|result9='''Keep''' per ]
}}
{{Old moves
|title1=Allegations of Apartheid in Israel
|title2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
|title3=Apartheid in Israel
|title4=Israel and apartheid
|title5=Israel and the apartheid analogy
|title6=Israel and the apartheid analogy allegations
|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
| author=Haviv Rettig Gur
| title=Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages
| org=The Jerusalem Post
| url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660
| date=16 May 2010


| author2=Omer Benjakob
And what, specifically, in ] is being violated?] 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
| title2=On Misplaced Pages, Israel Is Losing the Battle Against the Word 'Apartheid'
| 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
I'm reinserting the unencyclopedic tag, just because the name has a couple hundred thousand hits does not automatically mean there should be an article about it. It clearly represents a strong pov, just because it doesn't take an explicit stance on the subject doesn't mean it isn't doing it implicitly.- ] | ] 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|title3 = The World Jewish Congress investigates Misplaced Pages
:I agree that an article can take an implicit stance, however, I feel that an article which is taking a controversial but established term, such as this one, and presents both sides of the controversy is not violating POV. The point is, this article will have to present both sides clearly and equally and establish the history of the term in a well-cited well-researched manner that includes verifiable and reliable sources. --] 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|date3 = March 23, 2024
|org3 = ]
|url3 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/the-world-jewish-congress-investigates-wikipedia/
|lang3 =
|quote3 =
|archiveurl3 =
|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate3 = March 23, 2024
|author4 = Yaakov Menken
|title4 = Misplaced Pages hates Israel and Jews
|date4 = August 6, 2024
|org4 = ]
|url4 = https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-hates-israel-and-jews/
|lang4 =
|quote4 =
|archiveurl4 =
|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate4 = August 6, 2024


|author5 = Aaron Bandler
:: The qualification "established" should apply to academic community, rather than hateblog. ←] <sup>]</sup> 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|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 -->
|accessdate5 = October 7, 2024


|author6 =
::By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject. The term itself represents a pov, if it should be mentioned on wikipedia at all it should be on another article.- ] | ] 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State
|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
1) Moshe, can you give me a specific citation of what in ] is being violated? If you can't do this then the tag can't stay on. ] 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|title7 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists.
2)"By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject." That's absolutely preposterous. The term is widely used and merits definition and exposition. Just because you don't like a phrase doesn't mean you can ban it from wikipedia if it is in broad use. This looks like an attempt to censor a concept for POV reasons. The term is in wide use, your comments on NPOV should be directed at the article, not its title. ] 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|date7 = November 11, 2024
:: I don't think that anything has been established and if articles were required, in practice, to generally meet that requirement on Misplaced Pages then most articles here would be speedily deleted and I feel that the community is growing impatient with my AfD's. I don't think that this article even approaches hateblog right now. All this is why I requested a peer review so that the article will get the attention it needs. --] 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|org7 = aish
:: Because of the title it's taking a stance?? I could see that if the title was ] but it's not. It's presenting the term, which is a term which exists and is established. --] 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|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
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 44
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}


== Lede ==
I have now been edit-conflicted out of commenting four times, so some of this may seem out of place. My original explanations for my tags didn't make it to the page when I thought it did, and now the explanation is already moot and the tags have been changed back and forth several times. Humus and Moshe have expressed what I would have said, and I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it. After all, Misplaced Pages is the place where you can't have an article called "Palestinian terrorism" (something that undoubtedly exists and has existed for many years) without it being turned into "Palestinian political violence," and I and others have had to fight just to keep the word "terrorism" somewhere in the first paragraph -- and yet there can be an article "Israeli apartheid"? Ridiculous. ] 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
: You should be warned that it's going to be '''really really really difficult''' to ] with your edits when you've admitted to wishing to edit this article in order to destroy it. --] 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::And where exactly did I do that? Please notice that I have not touched one word of the text of the article, and I do not intend to. So how is that I have admitted wishing to edit it in order to destroy it? I am not editing it. There are procedures on Misplaced Pages for deleting, merging and re-naming articles, and if I do not get around to following one of those procedures, I hope someone else does. This article cannot become a proper encyclopedia article, and that is why I have put back the unencyclopedic tag. By the way, that tag is justified by Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ] 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


{{ping|GhostOfNoMan}} Can you explain your edits and its relation to your edit summary? ] (]) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
There's also an article called ]. ] 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:I hope the "Evil Empire" is in quotes. If not, it should be. I would say that a phrase that was a centerpiece of a major speech (probably more than one) by a president of the United States becomes encyclopedic all by itself. ] 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:Ah, my apologies – I realise now you were introducing the change and the diff in that discussion was your self-rv. I thought I was reinstating the agreed-upon wording; I should've read more carefully. I've undone my edit. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">]</span> 12:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
What about a phrase used by a Nobel Prize Winner like ]?] 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::{{ping|GhostOfNoMan}} Thanks. ] (]) 10:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Tags ==
: Or another deranged politician and Nobel Prize Winner Arafat? ←] <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


{{re|ABHammad}} Kindly explain the added tags (and why there are several for apparently the same thing)? ] (]) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
So you think fighting against ] in ] is deranged? ] 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


: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)
:You seem to have a talent for hypebole and loaded questions. People with good international reputations take crazy positions all of the time. Tutu's support alone does not make it a neutral and mainstream term.- ] | ] 06:15, 29 May 2006 (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)
So Tutu is only "deranged" when it comes to Israel? Is that your NPOV assessment? Is he only deranged because he comes to a political conclusion you disagree with?
::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)
I never said the term was neutral or mainstream. My concern is that the article is NPOV. The term is used in political discourse on the Middle East, that is not contestable. That you are trying to ban an article on a term you dislike is POV. The NPOV position is to recognise that the term is used with increasing frequency and attempt to write an article explaining the term in an NPOV way. Are you willing or able to do this? Trying to ban a term you don't like is not NPOV. ] 06:17, 29 May 2006 (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)


== Interpretation ==
: It is not a "term". As I said elsewhere (you seem to crosspost a lot), maybe we should disambiguate ] and say that it "is a term used by some critics" to describe Jewish customs? ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


{{ping|xDanielx}} If I understood your correctly, you removed content sourced to the Guardian (an RS per WP) claiming it is not reliable, and replaced it with content sourced to "ejiltalk.org" and an Israeli organization? ] (]) 21:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
If there were an article called ''Jewish ritual murder'' than that article would need to be disambiguated. As it is the ] article is largely about the Jewish blood libel so diambiguation is not necessary.] 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:It looks like he is still using the source in a new paragraph below. He just added ejiltalk.org to replace the guardian in that second paragraph… what is ejiltalk? apparently the blog of the european journal of international law? ] (]) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:: You miss the point, and you are 31 year behind. The accusation of apartheid (along with other similar crap) was a part of 1975 "Zionism is racism" Cold War effort. Even the UN revoked it, so stop your propaganda. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:Seems ] is a 1.2 impact factor journal from oxford. Not necessarily bad, articles can be used from there, but blog seems more like a mix of a blog and a editted online magazine? ] (]) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Blog belonging to a journal is not the journal itself. Either way, this is a minority viewpoint contradicted by the majority of RS, including HRW and the Guardian (both RS per WP). ] (]) 21:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Actually it seems to be clearly by a recognized expert, so it takes on the reliability of the expert. ''{{tq|Dr David Keane is Assistant Professor in Law at Dublin City University, Ireland. He has published a number of works on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), including the authored book Caste-based Discrimination in International Human Rights Law, and the co-edited book 50 Years of ICERD}}'' That is actually quite reliable, and I think the last statement is one of the big misunderstandings on these articles. If the minority viewpoint is reliable and non-FRINGE, it needs to be represented here per ]. The other source is by Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer, Director of the Center for National Security and Democracy, presumably a think-tank, I'd say probably has a bias so attribution could be merited for anything other than simple facts. Just being Israeli is not in any way disqualifying of a reliable source. ''']'''<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> 21:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Eran Shamir-Borer is another Israeli author, so this is clearly a fringe viewpoint by individuals that is being given false equivalency with international institutions with worldwide authority, including the world's top court, the ICJ. ] (]) 10:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should all Israeli authors views be treated as and per ]?]] 10:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::All individual authors in the minority whose few opinions contradict the viewpoint of major institutions and RS should be treated as fringe, yes. ] (]) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, but could you confirm specifically that when you said the author was Israeli so their view is "clearly fringe" -- does that mean we should treat all Israeli sources for this subject as fringe? Just trying to drill down on the verification and weight relating to this discussion. Is that your proposal?]] 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The focus of the sentence is on the individuality of the author not their nationality. Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem also concluded that Israel implements an apartheid regime. I would prefer institutional rights groups and courts rather than individual ones, particularly when these individual sources contradict the majority institutional opinion. ] (]) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, the focus of your initial proposal clearly referred to nationality, which was puzzling. Bear in mind that minority views are not necessarily wiki-fringe.]] 15:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Minority views are not fringe views, true. Representing the minority view as the only view is misleading; representing the minority view as an equal view to the majority view is false balance; and representing the fringe view as anything is misleading. ] (]) 15:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::OK. So which of those do you find occurring in this article and what does it have to do with the nationality of the source?]] 16:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:The Guardian article was written by Haroon Siddique, who holds an ]. I would argue that it's inaccurate, but for our purposes I would just point out that it's a brief, shallow summary of the decision which doesn't get into the nuances of international law. It's still a reliable source as you said, but certainly not the ], since there are several law professors and other experts who have analyzed the ICJ opinion which much greater depth and precision.
:EJIL: Talk! is a blog with limited review, but it's well-known in the field and most of its content easily passes ]. If there are concerns about the particular sources I added though, there are several other expert analyses we could consider, all with a more nuanced explanation of the ICJ's position. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::the guardian is a news source with editorial standards. a blog by itself is not. we cannot discount an article from the guardian unless there is direct reliable evidence that it is significantly factually wrong ] (]) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::EJIL Talk isn't devoid of editorial standards. They have for contributing. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">]</span> 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::@]I have reverted your changes since you're suggesting that a single blog post belonging to a journal can overturn contrary reporting by numerous ]. It may well be the case, but such an extraordinary claim requires consensus.
::Can you also explain why ] was unlinked? It isn't linked anywhere else in the article.
::Please also note ]. ] (]) 22:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{yo|CoolAndUniqueUsername}} I was just following ]; we have two links to ] in the same section.
:::The Guardian is a RS, but so are experts regardless of publication, under ]. When we have multiple RSs to pick from, we pick the ], i.e. {{tq|the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources}}. Surely that isn't a brief news article which no practicing lawyers or legal scholars participated in, when several deep analyses of the opinion from legal scholars are available.
:::This is not an {{tq|extraordinary claim}} at all; consider
:::* The opinion itself says {{tq|apartheid}} three times, never as part of a statement like that.
:::* The court's own summary of the opinion says {{tq|without qualifying it as apartheid}}.
:::* Judge Nolte wrote that {{tq|the court open the question whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid}}.
:::* Law professor David Keane writes that the breach of Article 3 {{tq|could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both}}.
:::* Solon Solomon, another law professor, wrote that {{tq|by stating generally in paragraph 229 that Israel’s policies breach Article 3, the court opens the possibility for both views to be upheld regarding the question of whether Israel should be deemed guilty for the crime of apartheid or for the crime of racial segregation}}.
:::* Eran Shamir-Borer (another law professor) and Mirit Lavi said the court {{tq|did not specify which elements of Israel violated}}.
:::We can adjust the sources if you like, but legal experts seem to agree that the court found Israel guilty of apartheid '''and/or''' racial segregation, without taking a position on apartheid specifically. Non-experts' attempts to casually summarize the court's opinion don't seem very relevant in light of this expert consensus. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I think Daniel's is fine and reflects my reading of the sources, but ] should be linked in the subsection. I would replace "Some individual judges expressed various views on the apartheid claim in separate opinions" with names of judges who specifically found Israel guilty of apartheid and those that specifically didn't.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)


::::"The court's own summary of the opinion says without qualifying it as apartheid." and "Judge Nolte wrote that" seems like your personal opinion and interpretation of the summary and the ruling is being prioritized (aided by viewpoints of few individuals), over the interpretation of RS such as HRW and the Guardian of the majority viewpoint supported by the world's most prominent authorities and institutions.
:::Actually, the 2001 World conference against racism adopted resolution labelling Israel as such. Also nearly 30,000 to 50,000 people turned up to protest Israel's alleged apartheid.. This term is a 21st century one.] 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::::The major problem is that this minority viewpoint was not added as a secondary viewpoint that gave false equivalency; more troubling, it was added as the main viewpoint (with an editorial "however" or "but"), which is completely misleading and does not represent RS.
::::, an RS, is explicit: "Though the court’s language is a '''compromise''', limited to separation, the finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid." A compromise wording supporting a certain conclusion is different from a non-conclusion.
::::] (]) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::
:::::"The court found Israel’s measures in the West Bank that impose and maintain separation between Palestinians and Israeli settlers are a breach of Article 3 of the UN treaty prohibiting racial discrimination. Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid." and
:::::
:::::“The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid." and
:::::
:::::"The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
:::::Why this formulation is a problem for stipulating apartheid as a fact is explained in Keane.
:::::It is perfectly clear from the sources what the situation is, the simplest way to say it is something like:
:::::"Israeli apartheid is the violation by Israel of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), specifically the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
:::::Then this all needs to be explained in the body. ] (]) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Did the Court state or did its opinion define that Palestinian and Israeli are "races"? This would need explanation, as you say.]] 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Just to make sure I'm following, it sounds like you're agreeing that, as Keane puts it, the court's finding {{tq|could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both}}? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::People have said different things about that but we can't go wrong with just using the phrase as many sources do. Details can be left for the body. ] (]) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I strongly oppose centering this topic on a violation of a law. This topic exists regardless of any law. Theft is an autonomous action with its own abstract definition even if it occurs in a country that doesn’t have a law criminalizing theft, or on Mars where no laws exist. HRW and AI reports have existed long before there was an ICJ ruling so this does not reflect RS, and they made their independent conclusions based on the evidence they reviewed. ] (]) 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Then you need, as was done at the genocide article, a plethora of sources from scholars, academics, lawyers and so on asserting apartheid as a fact, good luck with that. ] (]) 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don’t think they are analogous. Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid, a decades-old occurrence with at least two decades of extensive documentation from numerous RS, even agreed upon by multiple prominent Israeli figures such as former Mossad head Tamir and former prime minister Olmert. We already have that plethora of sources for apartheid, even before the ICJ ruling. ] (]) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq| Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid}} Where do you get this from? ] (]) 16:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::See ]. ] (]) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Our discussion here is within the context of IP conflict. ] (]) 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I’m referring to the Gaza genocide, which started 370 days ago. ] (]) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::See ] ] (]) 16:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{yo|Makeandtoss}} the HRW source you restored was explicitly corrected by law professor Marko Milanovic, who wrote {{tq|This led to some commentary that the Court had reached a finding of apartheid, with Human Rights Watch quickly headlining that the “World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid”.}}
:::::I really struggle to see how you could think that HRW is the ] here, considering that
:::::* It's a brief, casual summary for a lay audience, which doesn't get into the nuances of the court's opinion at all.
:::::* It was corrected by several experts, one explicitly mentioning HRW, and there was no followup where anyone tried to defend the interpretation being corrected.
:::::* It was written by a non-expert (Clive Baldwin, who has some limited legal education, not comparable to the aforementioned experts).
:::::In case there was any doubt on what the expert consensus is, here's one more by law professor Marko Milanovic: {{tq|So, the Court finds a violation of Article 3 CERD, but it does not use the term apartheid or conduct any analysis of what the constitutive elements of apartheid are. This question is canvassed extensively in some of the separate opinions, but the bottom line of the Court’s approach seems clear – at best Israel’s actions amount ‘only’ to racial segregation, but they could also be apartheid. And the reason for this ambiguity is again the need to maintain consensus within the Court; the Court thus did not call Israel an ‘apartheid state’, but it did find a violation of an article in which apartheid is one of the two available options.}} — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::The subsequent HRW source I gave above is correct, not the original HRW which was just a press release. ] (]) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::As per above, interpretations of what the phrase might mean are best left for the article body (along with where the ball is now, next steps, etcetera.] (]) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::First of all, I disagree that the ICJ ruling is the decisive source here. There are enough sources before the ICJ ruling, confirming that there is apartheid. ICJ ruling is only the cherry on the top, and the interpretations of that ruling are made by Human Rights Watch, a RS per Misplaced Pages. An article written on a blog that disagrees, not “corrects,” does not change that. ] (]) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::HRW uses the phrasing I gave. As do most of the RS and that we can stipulate as fact with no argument. The interpretations are a different issue, 2 judges say apartheid, 2 others say not, blah blah. ] (]) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I thought we were only discussing the section on the ICJ opinion. Why would sources about separate claims of apartheid, predating the opinion, be relevant?
:::::::There's a consensus among international law experts that the court's finding {{tq|could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both}}, as seen in the analyses of law professors Keane, Solomon, Shamir-Borer, and Milanovic. If you disagree, can you identify any experts who have substantively analyzed this and arrived at a different conclusion? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There's that but there are other interpretations and details besides just that. You are doing the same as MaT, picking up what is arguable, instead of what is a fact. ] (]) 16:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::What other interpretations do you mean? I haven't seen any international law experts express a different view on this particular point. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Judges are law experts, right? The ICJ chief justice, same information, says it's apartheid. ] (]) 16:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::To be pedantic, Judge Salam says it's {{tq|tantamount to}} apartheid. But more importantly, his doesn't say anything about a court finding of apartheid; rather it argues his personal views on the matter. Here I think we're just discussing how to summarize the court finding, not the broader issue of how to frame claims of apartheid. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::And all the other views are also personal views. Iirc, it was you who wanted to make a meal out the previous chief justice (Donohue) personal opinion re "plausible" genocide? This does not really matter because none of this should be in the lead anyway. ] (]) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Let's keep this discussion scoped to interpretation of the ICJ opinion, rather than getting into other questions of how to frame apartheid or genocide in general. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I am addressing the tag in the lead, or one of them. The body hasn't been done properly as yet so there is nothing to discuss about that. ] (]) 17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Worth mentioning is for the difference between the two things:
:::::::::::::"...segregation has essentially been regarded as a concentrated form of discrimination through exclusion and the implicit or explicit ranking of populations. Apartheid represents a further concentration of the segregation phenomenon, possessing additional characteristics in terms of domination, imposition of hierarchy, assignment of racial identity by fiat, all holistically integrated into a determinate public policy. While segregation is the broader concept, neither it nor apartheid is defined in the Convention." ] (]) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{yo|Makeandtoss}} given this consensus among at least five international law experts, are you willing to self-revert here? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Not yet, I will need time to evaluate the sources you provided, and check for other sources online. ] (]) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The sources we've discovered so far indicate that the text you restored is problematic. If you suspect that other sources might be discovered later which could change things, it would be good form to hold off on reverting (or self-revert now that it's done) until then. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If there is no problem with the sentence I proposed for the lead, I am willing to add that in as a replacement Line 1. ] (]) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I see your point. I agree we should adhere to ] to pick the ]. The logical best source here will be the ICJ judges themselves who have provided individual statements due to the nuanced nature of the case.
::::Here's a suggested draft:
::::: In its ], the ICJ found that Israel was in breach of Article 3 of the ] (CERD), including "racial segregation and apartheid". The advisory opinion is not directly binding on UN member states, but is seen as an authoritative statement of law that the UN and its agencies will follow. The opinion also identifies possible obligations for third states in regard to certain identified violations.
:::::
::::: CERD defines neither apartheid nor racial segregation and the ICJ judges looked at two international instruments - the ] and the ] for guidance, both of which Israel has refused to ratify. Some legal experts have opined that the court did not specify whether the breach pertained to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. 5 out of the 16 ICJ judges have addressed the claim of apartheid in their separate opinions. Judge Tladi has been the most direct saying "I interpret this finding to be an acceptance that the policies and practices of Israel constitute a breach of the prohibition of apartheid, which itself is a ] of international law.".
::::] (]) 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::That would be a ] source. ''']'''<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> 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::And? ] (]) 02:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The best source would be a ] source. We shouldn't cite the primary source directly. ''']'''<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> 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You're right that ] sources are preferred. ] makes it clear when a primary source can be used. Namely, we can use high-quality primary sources that have been reputably published, to make straightforward statements of facts. I have quoted Judge Tladi verbatim, so it is a statement of fact. ] (]) 02:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It would have to be attributed to him directly, and it can't be used for interpretation or analysis. And it's not a statement of fact for the content of his quote, but merely that he said the quote. ''']'''<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> 02:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree. Do you think the version I offered falls short of any of those requirements? ] (]) 03:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The one attributed to ICJ? Attribution to ICJ isn't the same as to a specific judge unless he is writing for the Court ''']'''<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> 03:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think it might be ''permissible'', but it doesn't seem ideal to use primary sources when very good secondary ones are available, with at least four analyses by law professors explaining the aspects of the opinion that are most relevant to this article. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Setting aside any concerns about primary sources, there seem to be some neutrality issues with {{tq|Israel has refused to ratify}} and with the emphasis on Tladi's declaration in particular (which she frames as a personal interpretation of sorts, not a clarification of a collective court opinion).
:::::I think some of the detail also doesn't seem important, IMO we should just briefly summarize the court's opinion as it relates to apartheid claims. That was what the older text aimed to do, and my edit kept that focus, just with small revisions to accurately match the authoritative sources. Can you explain what the concern is with my version? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::What is the neutrality issue with {{tq|Israel has refused to ratify}}? ] applies. Here's a saying it refuses to ratify the Apartheid Convention instrument because "the UN is not the right place to be making these laws".
::::::I offered the first draft with Tladi's declaration because it was the most direct. I am happy to summarize the position of the other judges as well. From memory, Xue indirectly agrees with Israel committing apartheid by quoting Desmond Tutu on Israel. One of the other judges says "Israel is definitely committing racial segregation and it's an open question of whether it has crossed over into apartheid". The other judges go into the mechanics of the various laws. Tladi's declaration is important because of the direct call out of the ] of International law.
::::::I think the summary you provided loses nuance. Keane mentions both Judge Tladi and Judge Nolte, but editorializes Tladi's statement and leaves out the peremptory norm argument. He gives a lot of space to Nolte's argument, indeed almost rehashing it. Is this truly an exhaustive summary of ] sources? ] requires {{tq|when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.}} ] (]) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


*As a way to move forward, is there a way to rejig the wording of the first sentence to something like {{tq|Israeli apartheid is '''a term used by some commentators''' to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel.}} The only doubt within the ICJ judgment is whether Israel's violation of Article 3 constitutes apartheid or a lesser crime.] (]) 08:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not condoning the phrase, I simply recognize that it's in use and merits a wikipedia article. Please set your POV aside. ] 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::] likely rules that particular "some commentators" solution out. This is an issue that editors have struggled with for over a decade. ] (]) 08:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::Not sure that "doubt" is the right way to say this, there is not any doubt that the ICJ found a breach of Article 3. After that we are in opinion territory. I dislike having an expression like "some commentators" as the lead in when there is a finding of fact available. It is not as if the ICJ could find one way or the other if neither is defined by ICERD.
::Para 229 says "that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD." ] (]) 08:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::] is absolutely not an issue here as it says {{tq| may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.}}. Weasel words are very often the best option in cases of disputed interpretations.] (]) 08:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I still maintain that we do not have to deal with different interpretations at this point, the ball is now back in CERD's court, the case (Palestine v Israel) has already gone on for 6 years and now, following the failed attempt to conciliate, need to decide what to do next. In the meantime, we do have a finding of fact and imo we should be leading with that. ] (]) 09:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Although the sources have concentrated on the Article 3 breach, that is not all of it, the Court, in relation to whether Israeli practices are "discriminatory", that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD" and then on to Article 3. ] (]) 10:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


*Ok, so how about {{tq|Israeli apartheid is '''a contested term used''' to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel.}} The existence of the system of institutionalised segregation and discrimination is a legal fact, the definition of this as apartheid doesn't yet seem to be.] (]) 11:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:We obviously have articles about notable fringe organizations, Your basically arguing that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is notable enough in of itself, however the term is not some organization, it is a pov term that other fringe organizations use. For example, it would be fine if we wanted to write articles about those same groups themselves, just not about every single claim or charge they make. Would we write an article about some of the horrible things that the KKK believe in?- ] | ] 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
*:I think one of the problems here is that, take Amnesty for example, it is perfectly OK for Amnesty to hold the view that there is apartheid (including in Israel) and the ICJ opinion's reference to an article 3 breach allows that, at least for the OPT (it says nothing about Israel because they weren't asked for an opinion about Israel). Ditto HRW, etc. But the AO also allows others to hold the view that it is "only" segregation (it's really just a question of degree) or neither of them (eg Nolte).
*:So if in the lead we are going to try and juggle both the preexisting opinions and the AO/interpretations at the same time, then we need to consider what weight to give to the respective opinions and/or AO interpretations. MaT would (I think) like to stipulate that the weight of the former completely outweighs the latter. I would say that the preponderance of opinion is that there is apartheid but that there is a not insignificant minority view that there is not.
*:Perhaps tackle it this way rather than getting tangled up only in interpretations arising by virtue of the AO, it's not just about segregation versus apartheid, in other words. ] (]) 11:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Stepping back from the wording, would you agree that neither viewpoint should be stated in wikivoice? Since {{tq|not insignificant minority view that there is not}} would mean we're in opinion territory, as well as meeting the standard for viewpoints that NPOV tells us to represent. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::xDanielX, you are edit warring a POV (and restoring wrong information at the same time). 1R is not an allowance. ] (]) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::It doesn't seem like anyone is continuing to defend the old inaccurate wording, which was based on non-expert summaries of the opinion and contradicted by at least five expert analyses. Makeandtoss who reverted appears to be undecided now, pending more research. I thought this was more or less settled. Are you defending the old summary? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Why are you calling ICERD CERD? I explained that in edit summary, did you even bother to read it? And no, it is not "settled". ] (]) 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I made the CERD -> ICERD correction. If you don't think it's settled, I invite you to reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus that this is the correct interpretation. (Well you sort of did reply, but your replies seemed to be about mostly-unrelated lede issues rather than how to properly summarize the ICJ opinion.) — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|xDanielx}} My comment in no way suggested I have dropped my objections to the disputed content which you have just reinserted for the second time despite an ongoing discussion. Please immediately self-revert and stop edit warring. ] (]) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Well, I'm awaiting a reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus (based on analyses from four law professors and a judge) that my edit reflects the proper interpretation of the ICJ opinion. If that didn't resolve your objections, please explain why in that thread above. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::This thread is called "Interpretation" while the other is called "Tags" so if it's all the same to you, I will continue to deal with the questions around interpretation (and some other related matters) in this thread. ] (]) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::It seems that You merely picking out from sourcing that which matches your POV (which I assume is something along the lines of "It might not be apartheid"). This is a very simplistic way of looking at the matter, I already gave above a more nuanced version of affairs, for example are interpretations of the interpretations and more here as well. And there is more, never mind, we will get there in due course. ] (]) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I wasn't cherrypicking based on a POV at all, please assume good faith. It's just the reality that all expert analyses agree on this point: the ruling implies racial segregation '''and/or''' apartheid, not apartheid specifically.
*:::::::Bastaki's analysis focuses on whether Israel is guilty is apartheid, not whether the ICJ finding implies that. She acknowledges that {{tq| disagreed on whether the mens rea requirement was fulfilled}}, which roughly supports my edit although it's not the most clear and direct source for it.
*:::::::Jeßberger and Mehta are more clear: {{tq|the Advisory Opinion itself is silent on whether discriminatory policies satisfy the constitutive elements of apartheid}}. Not sure how you could read this as anything other that corroboration of my revision. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::That is correct, the AO is silent on the matter and judges gave individual views. Btw, the material you edited was already in the article in another section above, anyway I have fixed things up now to properly reflect the full findings and current situation. ] (]) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I agree with xDanielx that his version was an improvement. ''']'''<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> 18:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Good to know, not really a surprise tho. ] (]) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::So, I think maybe the problem here is that we need to make clear that it is now accepted in law that a system of racial oppression exists, but although I think it is pretty self-evident that Israel is an apartheid state, this is not yet fully acknowledged. So we could try this {{tq|Israeli apartheid is '''a contested term used''' to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination '''which exists''' in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel.}}] (]) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is not a contested term among the most relevant qualified expert organizations and scholars that have rendered their judgment on the matter: The world's leading human rights organizations, including Israel's, who have done so in detailed reports: , , , and . Then there are the countless subject-area legal experts, also listed on that page, and .
:::::::::::So I agree with @], @], @] that consensus among high quality RS and topic-relevant experts warrant the lede to remain as is.
:::::::::::There will always be some dissent on highly contentious topics, but when there is strong consensus on the matter from every leading human rights organization, it is frankly absurd to pretend like dissent from that is a serious view that has to be given equal space. We wouldn't consider doing that in any other context, and we shouldn't do it here either. ] (]) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::Can you please clarify who is contesting the term? There are 3 stances - yes, we don't know, and no. From the comments so far, it's clear that there are human rights organizations and lawyers (notably Judge Tladi of the ICJ Advisory Opinion) who have said "yes".
::The examples shared by xDanielx seem to be firmly in the "we don't know" category. They focus on the legal technicalities. Daniel's example of professor Milanovic's essay is particularly revealing:
::: {{tq|As always, there was a price for obtaining that consensus: ambiguities and silences in the Court’s analysis on some important points (for example, on whether Israel’s practices in the OPT amount to apartheid, or whether Palestine has already achieved statehood). }}
::Is there an RS that firmly says "no"?
::If a secondary RS says there is ambiguity and silence by design, it doesn't mean the term is contested. We cannot use the term contested unless there are strong RS' that say "no". ] (]) 02:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Here are some sources that clearly and explicitly endorse the ruling, designating it as apartheid:
* - {{tq|The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid}}, and 35+ human rights experts said {{tq|“Laws and policies that penalise opposition to or impede advocacy against Israel’s occupation and apartheid must be rescinded,”}}
* - Munir Nuseibah, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ examination {{tq|led to a finding that Israel is indeed violating its duty to avoid racial segregation and apartheid. The advisory opinion concluded that Israel practices racial segregation and apartheid}}
* - {{tq|Jessica Peake, an international law professor at UCLA Law, said the ruling basically made a finding that Israel is creating a situation of apartheid against Palestinians within Israel}}
* - Mai El-Sadany, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ {{tq|describes the situation as racial segregation and apartheid}} and that {{tq|“The majority of countries across the world agree with the ICJ’s advisory opinion”}}
* - Erika Guevara Rosas, a human rights lawyer and senior director at AI, said {{tq|The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid The occupation is a key pillar of the system of apartheid that Israel uses to dominate and oppress Palestinians}}
* - Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Advisor at HRW said {{tq|the finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid}}
* - (International Commission of Jurists) {{tq|Echoing many Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations, the ICJ draws the Council’s attention to the fact that Israel has perpetrated the crime of apartheid}}
* - {{tq|the Court, while reproducing Article 3 of the CERD, added emphasis only on the word “apartheid”. This assertion is also confirmed by Judge Tladi, who asserted that the “Court was correct to find that the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are in breach of the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid” in Article 3 of the CERD}}
Some other sources preceding the ruling:
* - Tamir Pardo, former head of the Mossad, said {{tq|“There is an apartheid state here In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.”}}
* - {{tq|the former Northern Commander of the Israeli army described the situation in the West Bank as one of “total apartheid.”}}, {{tq|former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and former UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson highlighted the “ever growing evidence” they found that “the situation meets the international legal definition of apartheid”}}
* - (human rights organization) {{tq|the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met}}
* - (human rights organization) {{tq|we urge the UN General Assembly to take urgent and effective actions to end Israel’s occupation, its regime of apartheid over the Palestinian people as a whole}}
* - {{tq|Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid}}
* - {{tq|Ban Ki-moon, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, wrote in 2021 that the intent of Israel to maintain “structural domination and oppression of the Palestinian people through indefinite occupation … arguably constitutes apartheid”. Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu stated in 2014: “I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation.” The Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Naledi Pandor, spoke in 2022 about her country’s “significant dismay at the continued apartheid practices of Israel against the long-suffering people of Palestine”. Michael Ben-Yair, a former Attorney General of Israel, said in 2022 that Israel had become “an apartheid regime … a one state reality, with two different peoples living with unequal rights”. Ami Ayalon, the former Director of Shin Bet, wrote in his memoir: “We’ve already created an apartheid situation in Judea and Samaria, where we control the Palestinians by force, denying them self-determination.” Furthermore, two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa – Ilan Baruch and Alon Liel – stated in 2021 that the systematic discrimination of Israel “on the basis of nationality and ethnicity” now constituted apartheid}} etc etc
* - Michael Sfard, Israeli lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law, said {{tq|the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime}}
* - {{tq|Michael Lynk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 concluded that Israel’s policies in Palestinian territory amount to apartheid}}
Also compiled by CJPME includes a list of notable figures and organizations supporting the apartheid denomination (pre and post ruling). I'll echo CoolAndUniqueUsername question. Do we have a similar compilation of organizations/experts stating the opposite? - ] (]) 04:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


:You seem to be conflating {{tq|racial segregation and apartheid}} with just {{tq|apartheid}}. Nobody disagrees that the court found a breach of the prohibition on {{tq|racial segregation and apartheid}}, implying one or the other (or possibly both). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think we should call it a night with this article. It's getting heated and needs new voices and opinions. I feel that we're headed to polarized arguments here. --] 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::The court did not imply anything, they found systemic discrimination and then in view of that, a breach of article 3 and left it to individual judges to comment beyond that.
::The point of these refs is to address whether the lead is correct, which is not solely about the AO. ] (]) 15:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


{{yo|Selfstudier}} the topic of the article is Israeli apartheid. Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid, and expanding the section to focus on less-relevant aspects of the opinion? {{tq|It was left to judges in their individual opinions}} also seems like odd wording - the court simply didn't address it, it's not as if they requested that judges personally opine on it (and most did not). My wording was closer to that of the expert analyses mentioned above. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should be moved to ], like ] adn ].] 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:{{tq|Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid}} The AO doesn't discuss apartheid, it is silent on the matter. Most of the available RS (again I can add it in specifically if you wish) specify that the reason the material re apartheid was not addressed in the AO was in order to get a maximal consensus in the AO eg "nor did it explicitly specify whether it considered Israel’s policy to be apartheid or racial segregation or both – presumably an outcome of the collective nature of the decision-making process of the Court." Your editing as well left out all the precursor material about the finding of systemic discrimination, for example, hardly surprising, as I already indicated that you appeared more interested in those parts of sources supporting a rather simplistic non-explanation of the actual AO findings, instead concentrating on lawyerly navel gazing about what exactly Article 3 means (not a new debate either). ] (]) 17:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::In fact since it seems to me that the section "2024 ICJ advisory opinion" which was and is now again, duplicated at "The legal standard" section, does not really belong there exactly because the AO is silent on the matter of applicability and so I have deleted it and moved the first sentence up to the properly relevant section. ] (]) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, it's likely that the opinion's silence on apartheid was intentional, in the interest of consensus. We can mention that if you like. The issue with your edits is that they focus on court findings which sound similar to apartheid to a casual reader, while obfuscating the fact that the opinion contained no finding on the matter of apartheid. My edit didn't give undue attention to systemic discrimination because that's not the topic of the article, and not the primary focus of the ICJ opinion either. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Systemic discrimination is the precursor to the article 3 finding, one leads to the other:
:::"As part of this step , the Court then turns to assessing whether Israel's "legislation and measures" related to its "policies and practices" in the OPT are "discriminatory" (Opinion, paras. 180-184). For this, it necessarily turns to IHRL, without abandoning the overall context of the jus in bello within which that law must be interpreted given Israel remains an occupying Power in the territory. Applying this framework, the Court determines that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD" (Opinion, paras. 192-223). Not losing sight of the foundational problem of the settlements, the Court observes "that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities", ''' leading it to conclude''' "that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD" by which States parties – including Israel – "particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction (Opinion, paras. 224-229)"
:::We can per the above quote, try to make the connections clearer if you like. The thing with this part (in fact the entire AO) is that it is all of a piece, with each part linked to every other part, directly or indirectly:
:::"The Court emphasizes that its reply to the questions put to it by the General Assembly rests on the totality of the legal grounds set forth by the Court above, each of which is to be read in the light of the others, taking into account the framing by the Court of the material, territorial and temporal scope of the questions (paragraphs 72 to 83)" .
:::] (]) 10:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)


== ICJ sources ==
That would suggest an article about the relationship between Israel and South Africa's apartheid regime.


{{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 for the new title of "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" that would make sense if we were trying to disambiguate from other "Israeli apartheids" as we aren't its a meaningless change. ] 18:23, 29 May 2006 (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.
== This article is less valid than ] ==


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)
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Iranian+genocidal+intentions&spell=1


: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)
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Iranian+OR+iran+%22genocidal+intentions%22&btnG=Search
: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 ==
People should really review ] ] 14:23, 29 May 2006 (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)
:What? How do Iranian genocidal intentions factor into this discussion? What are you talking about? What part of ] are you claiming that this article does not meet? Please provide constructive comments so that the article may be updated accordingly. --] 14:28, 29 May 2006 (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)
Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought
::Fyi {{ping|AlsoWukai}} since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. ] (]) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Misplaced Pages for any of the following:
:::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 ==
Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Misplaced Pages has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day!
Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction.
Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Misplaced Pages is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Misplaced Pages are welcome at Meta. There is a Misplaced Pages fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
For a wiki-like site that will publish your original thoughts, see Everything2.


Hi @],
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not:


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)
Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Misplaced Pages was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.
Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Vanity, and Misplaced Pages:Notability.
Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Misplaced Pages does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.
Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Misplaced Pages may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. 1 Misplaced Pages articles are not:


: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)
Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Misplaced Pages:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines.
::It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:
Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles.
::{{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.}}
Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources.
::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)
Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Misplaced Pages:Images with missing articles or Misplaced Pages:Public domain image resources.
Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site

] 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy the entirety of a WP policy into the talk page. Please see ]. Also see ]. You were asked to point out the '''specific''' areas of the ] policy which you feel this article does not comply with. Please see ] as your actions may be construed as hostile. --] 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not one iota of original research in the article. ] 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Reliable sources ==

Two comments below have been copied from user talk pages:
#
# 13:09, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Usage - neither is informationclearinghouse.info)
# 13:08, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Analogy - globalexchange.org is not a reliable source)

They may or may not be reliable sources for facts about Israel. They are, however, reliable sources for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing. ] 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:No, unsigned articles or articles by a random writer from random websites cannot possibly be reliable sources on any matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::InformationClearingHouse.info, as I understand it, does not publish original material, but rather republished material from other sites. Also, as I understand it, InformationClearingHoust.info, is one big copyright violation. Thus if you find material on ICH.info, I would recommend trying to find the original source and use that. (I've never heard of GlobalExchange.org) --] 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

''Economist'' and ''BBC'' articles are unsigned as well as a rule. Please don't make up non-existent wikipedia rules. GlobalExchange is a reliable source for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are saying.] 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:The website does not give any indication that these proponents are somehow notable so that their opinions are worthy of being included into Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

GlobalExchange is a reliable source only as far as one article: ]. See ] ] 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather tortured argument. The phrase renders over 200,000 hits so it meets our standards of notability. Global Exchange is a widely recognized pro-Palestinian site so their publications are recognizable as representative of pro-Palestinian views. Moreover, their pages are amply footnoted. If the Jewish Virtual Library, which also has unsigned articles, is a credible representative of the pro-Zionist view then Global Exchange is a credible representative of the opposite. I don't see you objecting to the use of JVL as a source in this article. Why would that be?] 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is nice but does not meet ]. ] 18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How doesn't it? Zeq, by your argument Jewish Virtual Library doesn't meet WPRS either. Shall we now remove all factoids from wikipedia that are credited to JVL?] 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, yes. material from JVL was in the past removed in some cases. ] 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


And Zeq, one more revert and I'm going to prepare to take you to the ArbComm for POV vandalism. Given you editing history I'd strongly caution you to cease or desist lest you face a longterm ban. ] 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So far you are the only one violating policy here. read ] . ] 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Merge ==

] not only repeats some of the ideas in this article but also seems that it would be a very good section of this article as the topics are very similar but this one seems to be more of an umbrella title which Apartheid wall would fit under. --] 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:I tentatively agree, for slightly different reasons: One preposterous name-calling article that should not exist is better than two preposterous name-calling articles that should not exist. (See my comments, going back several months, on ]). ] 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::Merge would be a good idea. --] 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Disputed content ==

I dispute this paragrpah (it is not NPOV):

'''Israeli apartheid''' is a controversial phrase used by some ] and ] rights activists to draw an ] between the policies of the ]i government towards Palestinians to those of the ]-era ]n government towards its ] and mixed-race populations. The analogy has been used as early as ] by ], an Israeli-born academic and ]ish member of the ], in his book ''Israel: An Apartheid State'' (ISBN 0862323177) which provided a detailed comparison of Israel and South Africa. The highly controversial ] in ] adopted resolutions describing Israel as an "apartheid state". ] winner and South African anti-apartheid activist ] wrote in some articles that the situation in Israel reminded him about Apartheid.

and this was is based on a source which does not meet ]:

===Analogy===
- Proponents of this term argue that while Israel grants some rights to Arabs living in Israel ], it routinely discriminates against Arabs living in the ]. Proponenets present a number of reasons for this.
- *Palestinians (as opposed to ]s) do not have voting rights as do citizens of Israel, but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and its military. (Ibid)
- *Israel has constructed ] in the ], where Israeli settlers enjoy high standards of living with respect to the local Palestinian population. These colonies also expend large amounts of resources (especially ]), at the expense of the local inhabitants, who are forced to make ends meet. (Ibid)
- *Israel has created roads and checkpoints that isolate Palestinian communities and have effectively formed an Israeli version of the South African ]s. (Ibid)
- *Israeli road plans in the West Banks have been condemned as "apartheid" as some roads would be reserved for Palestinians while others would be reserved for Israelis.
- Proponents of this term often claim discrimination against Israeli Arabs.
- *Jews can easily enter ], under the ], yet Palestinians who fled or were driven out, may not have the ].(Ibid)
- *Arab municipalities receive less than one fifth the funding that is given to their Jewish counterparts. (Ibid)
- *The Government of Israel often refuses to grant permits to build or repair homes, and fails to provide electricity, water, health services, education, roads, or any other infrastructure. One of the consequences is that 70% of ] Bedouin (Arab) infants are not fully immunized and one third are hospitalized within their first year of life. (Ibid)


Please keep in mind what wikipedia is ] and don't turn this article into a political attenpt to delegitimize Israel. The place to argue about the rights and wrongs (there are mnay) of Israel policies is not in this encyclopedia. ] 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:There a few claims which seem factually incorrect, yet to change them would undermine the reasoning behind making them to begin with:
*With exception to the "Law of Return," Arab citizens of Israel don't have ''some'' rights, but equal rights (legally, at the minimum).
*Palestinians have voting rights in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas
*Both settler and Palestinian standards of living fluctuate, and don't necessarily correlate to political status (There are poor settlers and rich Palestinians - rich settlers aren't rich because they make Palestinians poor). While some resources (like land) are expended by the settlements, I believe that the vast majority of water is piped in from Israel's own grid.
*I'm not overly familiar with the Bantustan concept, but the isolation is not dejure, and isn't part of a strategy of labour capitalisation (in the past, at least, when checkpoints and travel-restrictions were minimal or nonexistent).
*To the best of my knowledge, the Israeli built road system (bypass roads) are the main arteries for Palestinian travel, while their use is sometimes restricted to mass-transit, and curtailed altogether at times. The Guardian article refers to a proposed plan.

:Again, I don't take issue with the claims per-se, but rather I'm unclear as to what the best method of remaining faithful to facts without compromising the pro-"apartheid" POV may be. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Phrase vs. a fact ==

This article is about a ] not a ]. ] 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:The article is about propeganda <u>useage of a phrase</u>. ] 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with you, but it's still a phrase. ] 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Guys, this move is not properly done. Please discuss it further. Cheers -- ''] 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)''

It should be Israeli "apartheid" (use of the phrase) ] 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) we do not put words in quotation marks when rendering article titles.
2) see above about adding (phrase), that would be needed if we were disambiguating from other forms of Israeli apartheid, as we aren't it's a ridiculous add-on. ] 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:I am not sure about that Zeq as i am not an expert but my comment is about the unilateral move and decision. Cheers -- ''] 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)''

::Homey seems to have confused quotation marks with parentheses. We frequently put words in parentheses on Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing anything - I was referring to Zeq's suggested title of ]. ] 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== I am going to stop editing this article for a while ==

It is impossible to conduct a fair discussion here since Homey has blocked me while placing this edit:

]


The facts here are very clear:

Homey starts a POV article, put in disputed content from a non ] source.
He edit war 5 times with anyone who disgree with him.

When he suggest that if "his" source is not ] also other sources should be disqulafied as well I agree with him that both sources could be disputed under ] he just continue his edit war.

Other users point out that the "facts" he quotesd are simply wrong but he prefer to block (misuse of admin power) instead of discussing the issue. ] 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you for three minutes for vandalizing the article after being warned not to. I unblocked you after three minutes because I thought it would make more sense either for someone else to block you or to take you to ArbComm. ] 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
*Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have ''never'' heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighetn and intimidate?). The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then ''they'' should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as ''they'' can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as ''both'' advocate and editor of the article ''as well as'' the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also ''appear'' to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. ] 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:48, 10 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.
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
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.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
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.

Lede

@GhostOfNoMan: Can you explain your edits and its relation to your edit summary? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies – I realise now you were introducing the change and the diff in that discussion was your self-rv. I thought I was reinstating the agreed-upon wording; I should've read more carefully. I've undone my edit. GhostOfNoMan 12:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@GhostOfNoMan: Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Tags

@ABHammad: Kindly explain the added tags (and why there are several for apparently the same thing)? Selfstudier (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted @ABHammad's changes here as the phrasing is backed by RS and has long-standing consensus. Ideally they should discuss this change here before applying that label. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
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? OdNahlawi (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Apartheid is fact per every international human rights organization including the world's foremost court, the ICJ. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
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 OdNahlawi (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Why are "Western liberal" countries the authority? It's the consensus of human rights organizations. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
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. OdNahlawi (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Governments are not reliable sources. Human Rights Watch is a reliable source per WP. There is no equivalency. Makeandtoss (talk) 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 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." Selfstudier (talk) 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. ABHammad (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
You completely ignored the point we just discussed about governments not being reliable sources. Bitspectator ⛩️ 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. ABHammad (talk) 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. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree mostly wtih ABHammad and Oddnahlawi above. The most correct and encyclopedic presentation of the issue should be something like: 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." Galamore (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I think this would be the perfect opening paragraph to an article titled Governments' views on Israel and apartheid. 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. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
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. Galamore (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
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. Makeandtoss (talk) 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. Makeandtoss (talk) 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 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 without qualifying it as apartheid. Judge Nolte wrote that the court 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 Alan Dershowitz and Eugene Kontorovich.) — xDanielx /C\ 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? John (talk) 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. — xDanielx /C\ 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that Misplaced Pages's article on Ticking time bomb scenario does list Alan Dershowitz as a source for the pro-torture side, while providing WP:BALANCE 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. JasonMacker (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Clearer here: I would like to suggest the next option which I think is much more balanced and encyclopedic than recent changes: 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." Galamore (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The recent UNGA vote on the ICJ opinion can be seen here 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. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
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). Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Having said that, I'm not that keen on the Easter egg in Line 1 tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Here is the official publication. Zero 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@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? Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
That's the textbook definition of apartheid, that was adopted from the Apartheid Convention: "a system of institutionalised racial segregation." So it's a basic definition that cannot be rephrased much. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It's also not in the body so we might want to have a think about that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
If we want a recent RS, there is DAWN mentioning both ICJ and UNGA in one place, and referring to the situation as apartheid, will see if I can find some more. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Lede is a summary so it doesn’t have to be in the body verbatim. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
So what is it a summary of? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
UN experts here, says "racial discrimination and segregation or apartheid" and expounds at length on third states responsibilities. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Amnesty "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. Selfstudier (talk) 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? - Ïvana (talk) 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. ABHammad (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
In the document Zero shared:
Affirming in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, that:
(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” Bitspectator ⛩️ 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. - Ïvana (talk) 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. Keane 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... Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
More here Selfstudier (talk) 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. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Both of whom have updated their positions to reflect the ICJ ruling? Selfstudier (talk) 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). Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ïvana that international human rights organisations are likely to be better and fairer judges of matters to do with human rights than governments are. John (talk) 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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    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.
    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. Galamore (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    These arguments have already been addressed by multiple users in this thread. I have removed the tags. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Bitspectator 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. ABHammad (talk) 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. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    The tags are justified as long as we haven't reached consensus Galamore (talk) 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. Bitspectator ⛩️ 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 (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). " 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. ABHammad (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 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. ABHammad (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Non responsive. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    I self-revert at your request and you accuse me of bad faith. Bitspectator ⛩️ 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. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that there's a bit of a balance issue here. WP:NPOV 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 Benjamin Pogrund, Pogrund, Benjamin (2014). Drawing fire: investigating the accusations of apartheid in Israel. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-7575-1., 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 Ariely, Gal (2021). Israel's Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108951371. ISBN 978-1-108-84525-0., which describes Israel as a "disputed regime." From the blurb, 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 Andre🚐 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 WP:FALSEBALANCE. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, HRW and Amnesty should be attributed as advocacy groups, per WP:RSP (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, WP:RSBIASED 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. Andre🚐 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. Makeandtoss (talk) 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 Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev where his research focuses on democracy and national identity. Andre🚐 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. ABHammad (talk) 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. Bitspectator ⛩️ 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. ABHammad (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 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. SPECIFICO talk 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. Bitspectator ⛩️ 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. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    "emotional" in the sense of knee-jerk reactions to labels as substitutes for factual detail. SPECIFICO talk 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 points out that "denying building permits and demolishing homes that lack them, have no security justification" and "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." VR (Please ping on reply) 07:27, 10 October 2024 (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. John (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Interpretation

@XDanielx: If I understood your recent edit correctly, you removed content sourced to the Guardian (an RS per WP) claiming it is not reliable, and replaced it with content sourced to "ejiltalk.org" and an Israeli organization? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like he is still using the source in a new paragraph below. He just added ejiltalk.org to replace the guardian in that second paragraph… what is ejiltalk? apparently the blog of the european journal of international law? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems European Journal of International Law is a 1.2 impact factor journal from oxford. Not necessarily bad, articles can be used from there, but blog seems more like a mix of a blog and a editted online magazine? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Blog belonging to a journal is not the journal itself. Either way, this is a minority viewpoint contradicted by the majority of RS, including HRW and the Guardian (both RS per WP). Makeandtoss (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Actually it seems to be clearly by a recognized expert, so it takes on the reliability of the expert. Dr David Keane is Assistant Professor in Law at Dublin City University, Ireland. He has published a number of works on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), including the authored book Caste-based Discrimination in International Human Rights Law, and the co-edited book 50 Years of ICERD That is actually quite reliable, and I think the last statement is one of the big misunderstandings on these articles. If the minority viewpoint is reliable and non-FRINGE, it needs to be represented here per WP:NPOV. The other source is by Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer, Director of the Center for National Security and Democracy, presumably a think-tank, I'd say probably has a bias so attribution could be merited for anything other than simple facts. Just being Israeli is not in any way disqualifying of a reliable source. Andre🚐 21:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Eran Shamir-Borer is another Israeli author, so this is clearly a fringe viewpoint by individuals that is being given false equivalency with international institutions with worldwide authority, including the world's top court, the ICJ. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Should all Israeli authors views be treated as and per WP:FRINGE? SPECIFICO talk 10:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
All individual authors in the minority whose few opinions contradict the viewpoint of major institutions and RS should be treated as fringe, yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but could you confirm specifically that when you said the author was Israeli so their view is "clearly fringe" -- does that mean we should treat all Israeli sources for this subject as fringe? Just trying to drill down on the verification and weight relating to this discussion. Is that your proposal? SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The focus of the sentence is on the individuality of the author not their nationality. Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem also concluded that Israel implements an apartheid regime. I would prefer institutional rights groups and courts rather than individual ones, particularly when these individual sources contradict the majority institutional opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, the focus of your initial proposal clearly referred to nationality, which was puzzling. Bear in mind that minority views are not necessarily wiki-fringe. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Minority views are not fringe views, true. Representing the minority view as the only view is misleading; representing the minority view as an equal view to the majority view is false balance; and representing the fringe view as anything is misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
OK. So which of those do you find occurring in this article and what does it have to do with the nationality of the source? SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian article was written by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. I would argue that it's inaccurate, but for our purposes I would just point out that it's a brief, shallow summary of the decision which doesn't get into the nuances of international law. It's still a reliable source as you said, but certainly not the WP:BESTSOURCE, since there are several law professors and other experts who have analyzed the ICJ opinion which much greater depth and precision.
EJIL: Talk! is a blog with limited review, but it's well-known in the field and most of its content easily passes WP:EXPERTSPS. If there are concerns about the particular sources I added though, there are several other expert analyses we could consider, all with a more nuanced explanation of the ICJ's position. — xDanielx /C\ 21:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
the guardian is a news source with editorial standards. a blog by itself is not. we cannot discount an article from the guardian unless there is direct reliable evidence that it is significantly factually wrong Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
EJIL Talk isn't devoid of editorial standards. They have guidelines and rules for contributing. GhostOfNoMan 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielxI have reverted your changes since you're suggesting that a single blog post belonging to a journal can overturn contrary reporting by numerous WP:RS. It may well be the case, but such an extraordinary claim requires consensus.
Can you also explain why Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem was unlinked? It isn't linked anywhere else in the article.
Please also note WP:HOWEVER. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@CoolAndUniqueUsername: I was just following MOS:LINKONCE; we have two links to ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories in the same section.
The Guardian is a RS, but so are experts regardless of publication, under WP:EXPERTSPS. When we have multiple RSs to pick from, we pick the WP:BESTSOURCE, i.e. the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. Surely that isn't a brief news article which no practicing lawyers or legal scholars participated in, when several deep analyses of the opinion from legal scholars are available.
This is not an extraordinary claim at all; consider
  • The opinion itself says apartheid three times, never as part of a statement like that.
  • The court's own summary of the opinion says without qualifying it as apartheid.
  • Judge Nolte wrote that the court open the question whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid.
  • Law professor David Keane writes that the breach of Article 3 could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both.
  • Solon Solomon, another law professor, wrote that by stating generally in paragraph 229 that Israel’s policies breach Article 3, the court opens the possibility for both views to be upheld regarding the question of whether Israel should be deemed guilty for the crime of apartheid or for the crime of racial segregation.
  • Eran Shamir-Borer (another law professor) and Mirit Lavi said the court did not specify which elements of Israel violated.
We can adjust the sources if you like, but legal experts seem to agree that the court found Israel guilty of apartheid and/or racial segregation, without taking a position on apartheid specifically. Non-experts' attempts to casually summarize the court's opinion don't seem very relevant in light of this expert consensus. — xDanielx /C\ 01:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I think Daniel's edit is fine and reflects my reading of the sources, but Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem should be linked in the subsection. I would replace "Some individual judges expressed various views on the apartheid claim in separate opinions" with names of judges who specifically found Israel guilty of apartheid and those that specifically didn't.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"The court's own summary of the opinion says without qualifying it as apartheid." and "Judge Nolte wrote that" seems like your personal opinion and interpretation of the summary and the ruling is being prioritized (aided by viewpoints of few individuals), over the interpretation of RS such as HRW and the Guardian of the majority viewpoint supported by the world's most prominent authorities and institutions.
The major problem is that this minority viewpoint was not added as a secondary viewpoint that gave false equivalency; more troubling, it was added as the main viewpoint (with an editorial "however" or "but"), which is completely misleading and does not represent RS.
HRW, an RS, is explicit: "Though the court’s language is a compromise, limited to separation, the finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid." A compromise wording supporting a certain conclusion is different from a non-conclusion.
Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
HRW 19 Sep
"The court found Israel’s measures in the West Bank that impose and maintain separation between Palestinians and Israeli settlers are a breach of Article 3 of the UN treaty prohibiting racial discrimination. Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid." and
Amnesty 19 19 July
“The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid." and
UN experts
"The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
Why this formulation is a problem for stipulating apartheid as a fact is explained in Keane.
It is perfectly clear from the sources what the situation is, the simplest way to say it is something like:
"Israeli apartheid is the violation by Israel of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), specifically the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."
Then this all needs to be explained in the body. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Did the Court state or did its opinion define that Palestinian and Israeli are "races"? This would need explanation, as you say. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm following, it sounds like you're agreeing that, as Keane puts it, the court's finding could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both? — xDanielx /C\ 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
People have said different things about that but we can't go wrong with just using the phrase as many sources do. Details can be left for the body. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I strongly oppose centering this topic on a violation of a law. This topic exists regardless of any law. Theft is an autonomous action with its own abstract definition even if it occurs in a country that doesn’t have a law criminalizing theft, or on Mars where no laws exist. HRW and AI reports have existed long before there was an ICJ ruling so this does not reflect RS, and they made their independent conclusions based on the evidence they reviewed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Then you need, as was done at the genocide article, a plethora of sources from scholars, academics, lawyers and so on asserting apartheid as a fact, good luck with that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think they are analogous. Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid, a decades-old occurrence with at least two decades of extensive documentation from numerous RS, even agreed upon by multiple prominent Israeli figures such as former Mossad head Tamir and former prime minister Olmert. We already have that plethora of sources for apartheid, even before the ICJ ruling. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid Where do you get this from? Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
See List of genocides. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Our discussion here is within the context of IP conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I’m referring to the Gaza genocide, which started 370 days ago. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
See Palestinian genocide accusation Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: the HRW source you restored was explicitly corrected by law professor Marko Milanovic, who wrote This led to some commentary that the Court had reached a finding of apartheid, with Human Rights Watch quickly headlining that the “World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid”.
I really struggle to see how you could think that HRW is the WP:BESTSOURCE here, considering that
  • It's a brief, casual summary for a lay audience, which doesn't get into the nuances of the court's opinion at all.
  • It was corrected by several experts, one explicitly mentioning HRW, and there was no followup where anyone tried to defend the interpretation being corrected.
  • It was written by a non-expert (Clive Baldwin, who has some limited legal education, not comparable to the aforementioned experts).
In case there was any doubt on what the expert consensus is, here's one more analysis by law professor Marko Milanovic: So, the Court finds a violation of Article 3 CERD, but it does not use the term apartheid or conduct any analysis of what the constitutive elements of apartheid are. This question is canvassed extensively in some of the separate opinions, but the bottom line of the Court’s approach seems clear – at best Israel’s actions amount ‘only’ to racial segregation, but they could also be apartheid. And the reason for this ambiguity is again the need to maintain consensus within the Court; the Court thus did not call Israel an ‘apartheid state’, but it did find a violation of an article in which apartheid is one of the two available options.xDanielx /C\ 15:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The subsequent HRW source I gave above is correct, not the original HRW which was just a press release. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
As per above, interpretations of what the phrase might mean are best left for the article body (along with where the ball is now, next steps, etcetera.Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I disagree that the ICJ ruling is the decisive source here. There are enough sources before the ICJ ruling, confirming that there is apartheid. ICJ ruling is only the cherry on the top, and the interpretations of that ruling are made by Human Rights Watch, a RS per Misplaced Pages. An article written on a blog that disagrees, not “corrects,” does not change that. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
HRW uses the phrasing I gave. As do most of the RS and that we can stipulate as fact with no argument. The interpretations are a different issue, 2 judges say apartheid, 2 others say not, blah blah. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought we were only discussing the section on the ICJ opinion. Why would sources about separate claims of apartheid, predating the opinion, be relevant?
There's a consensus among international law experts that the court's finding could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both, as seen in the analyses of law professors Keane, Solomon, Shamir-Borer, and Milanovic. If you disagree, can you identify any experts who have substantively analyzed this and arrived at a different conclusion? — xDanielx /C\ 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
There's that but there are other interpretations and details besides just that. You are doing the same as MaT, picking up what is arguable, instead of what is a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
What other interpretations do you mean? I haven't seen any international law experts express a different view on this particular point. — xDanielx /C\ 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Judges are law experts, right? The ICJ chief justice, same information, says it's apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
To be pedantic, Judge Salam says it's tantamount to apartheid. But more importantly, his separate declaration doesn't say anything about a court finding of apartheid; rather it argues his personal views on the matter. Here I think we're just discussing how to summarize the court finding, not the broader issue of how to frame claims of apartheid. — xDanielx /C\ 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
And all the other views are also personal views. Iirc, it was you who wanted to make a meal out the previous chief justice (Donohue) personal opinion re "plausible" genocide? This does not really matter because none of this should be in the lead anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's keep this discussion scoped to interpretation of the ICJ opinion, rather than getting into other questions of how to frame apartheid or genocide in general. — xDanielx /C\ 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I am addressing the tag in the lead, or one of them. The body hasn't been done properly as yet so there is nothing to discuss about that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Worth mentioning is 10. Article 3: Segregation and Apartheid for the difference between the two things:
"...segregation has essentially been regarded as a concentrated form of discrimination through exclusion and the implicit or explicit ranking of populations. Apartheid represents a further concentration of the segregation phenomenon, possessing additional characteristics in terms of domination, imposition of hierarchy, assignment of racial identity by fiat, all holistically integrated into a determinate public policy. While segregation is the broader concept, neither it nor apartheid is defined in the Convention." Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: given this consensus among at least five international law experts, are you willing to self-revert here? — xDanielx /C\ 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Not yet, I will need time to evaluate the sources you provided, and check for other sources online. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The sources we've discovered so far indicate that the text you restored is problematic. If you suspect that other sources might be discovered later which could change things, it would be good form to hold off on reverting (or self-revert now that it's done) until then. — xDanielx /C\ 19:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
If there is no problem with the sentence I proposed for the lead, I am willing to add that in as a replacement Line 1. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I see your point. I agree we should adhere to WP:EXPERTSPS to pick the WP:BESTSOURCE. The logical best source here will be the ICJ judges themselves who have provided individual statements due to the nuanced nature of the case.
Here's a suggested draft:
In its advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel was in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), including "racial segregation and apartheid". The advisory opinion is not directly binding on UN member states, but is seen as an authoritative statement of law that the UN and its agencies will follow. The opinion also identifies possible obligations for third states in regard to certain identified violations.
CERD defines neither apartheid nor racial segregation and the ICJ judges looked at two international instruments - the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute for guidance, both of which Israel has refused to ratify. Some legal experts have opined that the court did not specify whether the breach pertained to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. 5 out of the 16 ICJ judges have addressed the claim of apartheid in their separate opinions. Judge Tladi has been the most direct saying "I interpret this finding to be an acceptance that the policies and practices of Israel constitute a breach of the prohibition of apartheid, which itself is a peremptory norm of international law.".
CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That would be a WP:PRIMARY source. Andre🚐 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
And? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The best source would be a WP:SECONDARY source. We shouldn't cite the primary source directly. Andre🚐 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
You're right that WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred. WP:PRIMARY makes it clear when a primary source can be used. Namely, we can use high-quality primary sources that have been reputably published, to make straightforward statements of facts. I have quoted Judge Tladi verbatim, so it is a statement of fact. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It would have to be attributed to him directly, and it can't be used for interpretation or analysis. And it's not a statement of fact for the content of his quote, but merely that he said the quote. Andre🚐 02:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Do you think the version I offered falls short of any of those requirements? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The one attributed to ICJ? Attribution to ICJ isn't the same as to a specific judge unless he is writing for the Court Andre🚐 03:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it might be permissible, but it doesn't seem ideal to use primary sources when very good secondary ones are available, with at least four analyses by law professors explaining the aspects of the opinion that are most relevant to this article. — xDanielx /C\ 03:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Setting aside any concerns about primary sources, there seem to be some neutrality issues with Israel has refused to ratify and with the emphasis on Tladi's declaration in particular (which she frames as a personal interpretation of sorts, not a clarification of a collective court opinion).
I think some of the detail also doesn't seem important, IMO we should just briefly summarize the court's opinion as it relates to apartheid claims. That was what the older text aimed to do, and my edit kept that focus, just with small revisions to accurately match the authoritative sources. Can you explain what the concern is with my version? — xDanielx /C\ 04:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
What is the neutrality issue with Israel has refused to ratify? WP:SPADE applies. Here's a statement from Israel saying it refuses to ratify the Apartheid Convention instrument because "the UN is not the right place to be making these laws".
I offered the first draft with Tladi's declaration because it was the most direct. I am happy to summarize the position of the other judges as well. From memory, Xue indirectly agrees with Israel committing apartheid by quoting Desmond Tutu on Israel. One of the other judges says "Israel is definitely committing racial segregation and it's an open question of whether it has crossed over into apartheid". The other judges go into the mechanics of the various laws. Tladi's declaration is important because of the direct call out of the peremptory norm of International law.
I think the summary you provided loses nuance. Keane mentions both Judge Tladi and Judge Nolte, but editorializes Tladi's statement and leaves out the peremptory norm argument. He gives a lot of space to Nolte's argument, indeed almost rehashing it. Is this truly an exhaustive summary of WP:SECONDARY sources? WP:BALANCE requires when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • As a way to move forward, is there a way to rejig the wording of the first sentence to something like Israeli apartheid is a term used by some commentators to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel. The only doubt within the ICJ judgment is whether Israel's violation of Article 3 constitutes apartheid or a lesser crime.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
MOS:WEASEL likely rules that particular "some commentators" solution out. This is an issue that editors have struggled with for over a decade. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure that "doubt" is the right way to say this, there is not any doubt that the ICJ found a breach of Article 3. After that we are in opinion territory. I dislike having an expression like "some commentators" as the lead in when there is a finding of fact available. It is not as if the ICJ could find one way or the other if neither is defined by ICERD.
Para 229 says "that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD." Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
MOS:WEASEL is absolutely not an issue here as it says may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.. Weasel words are very often the best option in cases of disputed interpretations.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I still maintain that we do not have to deal with different interpretations at this point, the ball is now back in CERD's court, the case (Palestine v Israel) has already gone on for 6 years and now, following the failed attempt to conciliate, need to decide what to do next. In the meantime, we do have a finding of fact and imo we should be leading with that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Although the sources have concentrated on the Article 3 breach, that is not all of it, the Court, in relation to whether Israeli practices are "discriminatory", also determined that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD" and then on to Article 3. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, so how about Israeli apartheid is a contested term used to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel. The existence of the system of institutionalised segregation and discrimination is a legal fact, the definition of this as apartheid doesn't yet seem to be.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think one of the problems here is that, take Amnesty for example, it is perfectly OK for Amnesty to hold the view that there is apartheid (including in Israel) and the ICJ opinion's reference to an article 3 breach allows that, at least for the OPT (it says nothing about Israel because they weren't asked for an opinion about Israel). Ditto HRW, etc. But the AO also allows others to hold the view that it is "only" segregation (it's really just a question of degree) or neither of them (eg Nolte).
    So if in the lead we are going to try and juggle both the preexisting opinions and the AO/interpretations at the same time, then we need to consider what weight to give to the respective opinions and/or AO interpretations. MaT would (I think) like to stipulate that the weight of the former completely outweighs the latter. I would say that the preponderance of opinion is that there is apartheid but that there is a not insignificant minority view that there is not.
    Perhaps tackle it this way rather than getting tangled up only in interpretations arising by virtue of the AO, it's not just about segregation versus apartheid, in other words. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Stepping back from the wording, would you agree that neither viewpoint should be stated in wikivoice? Since not insignificant minority view that there is not would mean we're in opinion territory, as well as meeting the standard for viewpoints that NPOV tells us to represent. — xDanielx /C\ 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    xDanielX, you are edit warring a POV (and restoring wrong information at the same time). 1R is not an allowance. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem like anyone is continuing to defend the old inaccurate wording, which was based on non-expert summaries of the opinion and contradicted by at least five expert analyses. Makeandtoss who reverted appears to be undecided now, pending more research. I thought this was more or less settled. Are you defending the old summary? — xDanielx /C\ 15:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Why are you calling ICERD CERD? I explained that in edit summary, did you even bother to read it? And no, it is not "settled". Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I made the CERD -> ICERD correction. If you don't think it's settled, I invite you to reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus that this is the correct interpretation. (Well you sort of did reply, but your replies seemed to be about mostly-unrelated lede issues rather than how to properly summarize the ICJ opinion.) — xDanielx /C\ 17:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    @XDanielx: My comment in no way suggested I have dropped my objections to the disputed content which you have just reinserted for the second time despite an ongoing discussion. Please immediately self-revert and stop edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well, I'm awaiting a reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus (based on analyses from four law professors and a judge) that my edit reflects the proper interpretation of the ICJ opinion. If that didn't resolve your objections, please explain why in that thread above. — xDanielx /C\ 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    This thread is called "Interpretation" while the other is called "Tags" so if it's all the same to you, I will continue to deal with the questions around interpretation (and some other related matters) in this thread. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    It seems that You merely picking out from sourcing that which matches your POV (which I assume is something along the lines of "It might not be apartheid"). This is a very simplistic way of looking at the matter, I already gave above a more nuanced version of affairs, for example here are interpretations of the interpretations and more relevant stuff here as well. And there is more, never mind, we will get there in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    I wasn't cherrypicking based on a POV at all, please assume good faith. It's just the reality that all expert analyses agree on this point: the ruling implies racial segregation and/or apartheid, not apartheid specifically.
    Bastaki's analysis focuses on whether Israel is guilty is apartheid, not whether the ICJ finding implies that. She acknowledges that disagreed on whether the mens rea requirement was fulfilled, which roughly supports my edit although it's not the most clear and direct source for it.
    Jeßberger and Mehta are more clear: the Advisory Opinion itself is silent on whether discriminatory policies satisfy the constitutive elements of apartheid. Not sure how you could read this as anything other that corroboration of my revision. — xDanielx /C\ 19:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    That is correct, the AO is silent on the matter and judges gave individual views. Btw, the material you edited was already in the article in another section above, anyway I have fixed things up now to properly reflect the full findings and current situation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with xDanielx that his version was an improvement. Andre🚐 18:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Good to know, not really a surprise tho. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
So, I think maybe the problem here is that we need to make clear that it is now accepted in law that a system of racial oppression exists, but although I think it is pretty self-evident that Israel is an apartheid state, this is not yet fully acknowledged. So we could try this Israeli apartheid is a contested term used to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination which exists in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It is not a contested term among the most relevant qualified expert organizations and scholars that have rendered their judgment on the matter: The world's leading human rights organizations, including Israel's, who have done so in detailed reports: HRW, Amnesty, B'Tselem, and many, many more. Then there are the countless subject-area legal experts, also listed on that page, and it's the consensus view among Middle-East scholars.
So I agree with @CoolAndUniqueUsername, @Makeandtoss, @Bluethricecreamman that consensus among high quality RS and topic-relevant experts warrant the lede to remain as is.
There will always be some dissent on highly contentious topics, but when there is strong consensus on the matter from every leading human rights organization, it is frankly absurd to pretend like dissent from that is a serious view that has to be given equal space. We wouldn't consider doing that in any other context, and we shouldn't do it here either. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you please clarify who is contesting the term? There are 3 stances - yes, we don't know, and no. From the comments so far, it's clear that there are human rights organizations and lawyers (notably Judge Tladi of the ICJ Advisory Opinion) who have said "yes".
The examples shared by xDanielx seem to be firmly in the "we don't know" category. They focus on the legal technicalities. Daniel's example of professor Milanovic's essay is particularly revealing:
As always, there was a price for obtaining that consensus: ambiguities and silences in the Court’s analysis on some important points (for example, on whether Israel’s practices in the OPT amount to apartheid, or whether Palestine has already achieved statehood).
Is there an RS that firmly says "no"?
If a secondary RS says there is ambiguity and silence by design, it doesn't mean the term is contested. We cannot use the term contested unless there are strong RS' that say "no". CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources that clearly and explicitly endorse the ruling, designating it as apartheid:

  • OHCR - The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid, and 35+ human rights experts said “Laws and policies that penalise opposition to or impede advocacy against Israel’s occupation and apartheid must be rescinded,”
  • Jacobin - Munir Nuseibah, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ examination led to a finding that Israel is indeed violating its duty to avoid racial segregation and apartheid. The advisory opinion concluded that Israel practices racial segregation and apartheid
  • The Intercept - Jessica Peake, an international law professor at UCLA Law, said the ruling basically made a finding that Israel is creating a situation of apartheid against Palestinians within Israel
  • AJ - Mai El-Sadany, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ describes the situation as racial segregation and apartheid and that “The majority of countries across the world agree with the ICJ’s advisory opinion”
  • AI - Erika Guevara Rosas, a human rights lawyer and senior director at AI, said The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid The occupation is a key pillar of the system of apartheid that Israel uses to dominate and oppress Palestinians
  • HWR - Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Advisor at HRW said the finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid
  • ICJ - (International Commission of Jurists) Echoing many Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations, the ICJ draws the Council’s attention to the fact that Israel has perpetrated the crime of apartheid
  • Research Society of International Law - the Court, while reproducing Article 3 of the CERD, added emphasis only on the word “apartheid”. This assertion is also confirmed by Judge Tladi, who asserted that the “Court was correct to find that the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are in breach of the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid” in Article 3 of the CERD

Some other sources preceding the ruling:

  • ToI - Tamir Pardo, former head of the Mossad, said “There is an apartheid state here In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.”
  • HRW - the former Northern Commander of the Israeli army described the situation in the West Bank as one of “total apartheid.”, former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and former UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson highlighted the “ever growing evidence” they found that “the situation meets the international legal definition of apartheid”
  • B'Tselem - (human rights organization) the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met
  • AlHaq - (human rights organization) we urge the UN General Assembly to take urgent and effective actions to end Israel’s occupation, its regime of apartheid over the Palestinian people as a whole
  • AI - Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid
  • UN - Ban Ki-moon, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, wrote in 2021 that the intent of Israel to maintain “structural domination and oppression of the Palestinian people through indefinite occupation … arguably constitutes apartheid”. Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu stated in 2014: “I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation.” The Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Naledi Pandor, spoke in 2022 about her country’s “significant dismay at the continued apartheid practices of Israel against the long-suffering people of Palestine”. Michael Ben-Yair, a former Attorney General of Israel, said in 2022 that Israel had become “an apartheid regime … a one state reality, with two different peoples living with unequal rights”. Ami Ayalon, the former Director of Shin Bet, wrote in his memoir: “We’ve already created an apartheid situation in Judea and Samaria, where we control the Palestinians by force, denying them self-determination.” Furthermore, two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa – Ilan Baruch and Alon Liel – stated in 2021 that the systematic discrimination of Israel “on the basis of nationality and ethnicity” now constituted apartheid etc etc
  • Yesh Din - Michael Sfard, Israeli lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law, said the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime
  • Research Society of International Law - Michael Lynk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 concluded that Israel’s policies in Palestinian territory amount to apartheid

Also this list compiled by CJPME includes a list of notable figures and organizations supporting the apartheid denomination (pre and post ruling). I'll echo CoolAndUniqueUsername question. Do we have a similar compilation of organizations/experts stating the opposite? - Ïvana (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating racial segregation and apartheid with just apartheid. Nobody disagrees that the court found a breach of the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid, implying one or the other (or possibly both). — xDanielx /C\ 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The court did not imply anything, they found systemic discrimination and then in view of that, a breach of article 3 and left it to individual judges to comment beyond that.
The point of these refs is to address whether the lead is correct, which is not solely about the AO. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: the topic of the article is Israeli apartheid. Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid, and expanding the section to focus on less-relevant aspects of the opinion? It was left to judges in their individual opinions also seems like odd wording - the court simply didn't address it, it's not as if they requested that judges personally opine on it (and most did not). My wording was closer to that of the expert analyses mentioned above. — xDanielx /C\ 16:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid The AO doesn't discuss apartheid, it is silent on the matter. Most of the available RS (again I can add it in specifically if you wish) specify that the reason the material re apartheid was not addressed in the AO was in order to get a maximal consensus in the AO eg "nor did it explicitly specify whether it considered Israel’s policy to be apartheid or racial segregation or both – presumably an outcome of the collective nature of the decision-making process of the Court." Your editing as well left out all the precursor material about the finding of systemic discrimination, for example, hardly surprising, as I already indicated that you appeared more interested in those parts of sources supporting a rather simplistic non-explanation of the actual AO findings, instead concentrating on lawyerly navel gazing about what exactly Article 3 means (not a new debate either). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
In fact since it seems to me that the section "2024 ICJ advisory opinion" which was and is now again, duplicated at "The legal standard" section, does not really belong there exactly because the AO is silent on the matter of applicability and so I have deleted it and moved the first sentence up to the properly relevant section. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's likely that the opinion's silence on apartheid was intentional, in the interest of consensus. We can mention that if you like. The issue with your edits is that they focus on court findings which sound similar to apartheid to a casual reader, while obfuscating the fact that the opinion contained no finding on the matter of apartheid. My edit didn't give undue attention to systemic discrimination because that's not the topic of the article, and not the primary focus of the ICJ opinion either. — xDanielx /C\ 22:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Systemic discrimination is the precursor to the article 3 finding, one leads to the other:
"As part of this step , the Court then turns to assessing whether Israel's "legislation and measures" related to its "policies and practices" in the OPT are "discriminatory" (Opinion, paras. 180-184). For this, it necessarily turns to IHRL, without abandoning the overall context of the jus in bello within which that law must be interpreted given Israel remains an occupying Power in the territory. Applying this framework, the Court determines that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD" (Opinion, paras. 192-223). Not losing sight of the foundational problem of the settlements, the Court observes "that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities", leading it to conclude "that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD" by which States parties – including Israel – "particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction (Opinion, paras. 224-229)"
We can per the above quote, try to make the connections clearer if you like. The thing with this part (in fact the entire AO) is that it is all of a piece, with each part linked to every other part, directly or indirectly:
"The Court emphasizes that its reply to the questions put to it by the General Assembly rests on the totality of the legal grounds set forth by the Court above, each of which is to be read in the light of the others, taking into account the framing by the Court of the material, territorial and temporal scope of the questions (paragraphs 72 to 83)" .
Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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)
Categories: