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.
*:::::::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)
*:::::::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)
*::::::::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)
*::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)
*::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)
*:::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)
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.
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
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
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.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Article history and WikiProjects |1=
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
ICJ and apartheid
The issue of what the ICJ opinion really means regarding racial segregation versus apartheid is unclear from the opinion itself and this is why so-called RSs can't agree on it. However, the matter is discussed at length in the separate opinions. See in particular the opinions of Brant, Iwasawa, Nolte, Salam and Tladi. I read somewhere the suggestion that the lack of elucidation on this point in the official opinion was so that more judges would sign up to it. None of the judges argued against the ruling that Israel is in violation of Para 3 of CERD, but they did not agree on exactly what that means regarding apartheid. Hopefully we will soon get learned articles in law journals that we can cite. Zero03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
'Racial Segregation and Apartheid' in the ICJ Palestine Advisory Opinion We now have some more detailed legal analysis. Confirms "a breach of Article 3 could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. This is seen in the Separate Opinions, some of which considered the finding of a breach of Article 3 as a finding of apartheid; others believing the Court had not made such a finding."
Also, as regards the still ongoing CERD proceedings "CERD has yet to reach a final decision in this case. With a strong finding of a breach of Article 3 from the ICJ and several judicial opinions interpreting this as a finding of apartheid, this may well create a platform for CERD to determine the issue." & "The questions put by UNGA to the Court ‘concern Israel’s "discriminatory legislation and measures" under international human rights law and not apartheid as an international crime." "the Opinion considered that the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute 'can inform the interpretation of Article 3 of CERD'". Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The German source above is an official statement by the German spokesperson for the Federal Foreign Office, while the other Israeli source is the Israel Democracy Institute which has every interest in downplaying the ICJ ruling. Just as I wouldn't trust a South African think tank or US government in the 1980s to comment on apartheid in SA. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying they are good sources, and there are certainly caveats that would be worth discussing in their use, but your initial statement was cavalier. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
True, but since these two examples hold fringe opinions they should not be taken as seriously as the rest of the sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The "best" one (in the sense of having the deeper analysis, not just the opinion but how it relates to the ongoing CERD case) is the second one but the others are not "bad". What we are seeing is a slow but steady accumulation of material explaining the advisory opinion as it relates to this particular article. There are two salient points I would say, the first being that only certain of the ICJ judges have said that the breach of Article 3 constitutes apartheid and that what the various judges have said may well have some impact on the ongoing CERD case and the outcome there.
The ad hoc conciliation commission has produced its report/appendices, available Report, App 1 and App 2. We will have to wait for secondary reporting filtering it all but the recommendations look a lot like giving up and passing the buck to CERD/UNSC, that's just my opinion tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Report seems to also say that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention in both its apartheid and racial segregation aspects: "44. The commission, having considered the serious allegations raised by the State of Palestine under article 3 of the Convention regarding discriminatory practices and policies of racial discrimination and apartheid committed by Israeli authorities, recalls that in recommendations addressed to Israel, the Committee has urged the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate such policies or practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and which violate the provisions of article 3 of the Convention." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I did notice that slightly ambiguous wording, I think CERD itself, (rather than the conciliation commission, whose job really was to get the sides to reconcile), needs to step up here and clarify the state of play having regard to ICJ AO. We'll see. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Old moves template
I noticed that the most recent move is noted in its own banner at the top of this Talk, separated from the list of other moves several banners above it. Would someone be willing to rectify this? (Or is this intentional? for some reason I'm not grasping?) I would do it myself but I don't quite understand how the {{old moves}} template works. It also looks like the discussion links all need to be updated. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 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. GhostOfNoMan12:08, 20 September 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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. ISBN978-1-4422-7575-1., 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. ISBN978-1-108-84525-0., 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 conditionsAndre🚐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)
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. SPECIFICOtalk17:19, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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? SPECIFICOtalk12:24, 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. SPECIFICOtalk15:43, 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)
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)
@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.
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)
"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.
"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."
Did the Court state or did its opinion define that Palestinian and Israeli are "races"? This would need explanation, as you say. SPECIFICOtalk15:33, 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)
@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)
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)
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)
Half done. Thanks. There is still work to do regarding the links. Template:Article history should be used. —Alalch E. 09:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
