| Revision as of 13:01, 24 June 2012 editHarlan wilkerson (talk | contribs)5,190 edits →reliable source for settlement restrictions to "Israelis" vs. "Jews"← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:04, 24 June 2012 edit undoHarlan wilkerson (talk | contribs)5,190 editsm →reliable source for settlement restrictions to "Israelis" vs. "Jews"Next edit → | ||
| Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
| :I don't even understand what "Israeli-only settlements" would be and why they'd cause controversy here... ] <sup>]</sup> 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | :I don't even understand what "Israeli-only settlements" would be and why they'd cause controversy here... ] <sup>]</sup> 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::This appears to be a case of wikilawyering. The CERD Committee itself has explicitly addressed the subject of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territory as a violation of its published guidelines and an concern under article 3 of the Convention:<blockquote> The prevailing human rights doctrine was that a State was responsible for actions in a territory under its control. In the case now under consideration, it had been argued that the situation was under the control of the Palestinian Authority but, regardless of the validity or otherwise of that argument, <b>it failed to address the issue of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries.</b> There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. -- CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 | ::This appears to be a case of wikilawyering. The CERD Committee itself has explicitly addressed the subject of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territory as a violation of its published guidelines and an concern under article 3 of the Convention:<blockquote> The prevailing human rights doctrine was that a State was responsible for actions in a territory under its control. In the case now under consideration, it had been argued that the situation was under the control of the Palestinian Authority but, regardless of the validity or otherwise of that argument, <b>it failed to address the issue of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries.</b> There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. -- CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 ... The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its General Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any 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.-- page 6 CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16, 9 March 2012.</blockquote> | ||
| ... | |||
| The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its General Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any 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.-- page 6 CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16, 9 March 2012.</blockquote> | |||
| The material in the article about Jewish-only settlements should be restored. ] (]) 13:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC) | The material in the article about Jewish-only settlements should be restored. ] (]) 13:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:04, 24 June 2012
| Skip to table of contents |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
|
 | 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. |
 | 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:
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.
|
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Israeli apartheid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Israeli apartheid at the Reference desk. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 Archives |
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11, |
|
|
The main discussion area for this series of articles was at: WP:APARTHEID
reliable source for settlement restrictions to "Israelis" vs. "Jews"
Dailycare reverted a change made by an IP editor of the phrase "Jewish-only" settlements to "Israeli-only" settlements. Dailycare's justification here was a quotation from testimony at the UN Committee to End Racial Discrimination at which a committee member, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr responded to testimony of an Israeli official with a series of (more or less rhetorical) questions, including:
- The Israeli delegation had referred to Chief Justice Barak. Was he the same judge who had ruled that the torture of Palestinians was legal? Could the Committee have a copy of the decision by that court, issued on 15 November 1996, allowing Palestinians to be shaken so roughly that death could ensue? It was likewise difficult to see what was democratic about the daily bulldozing of Palestinian homes or the construction of a dozen new settlements in the Jerusalem area for Jews only.
I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source for the claim that settlements are for "Jews only". This is something of an off-the-cuff remark from, what the Jerusalem Post describes as a former Egyptian and Arab League diplomat with a history of controversial statements about Israel. See: . Can we get a better source for this claim? GabrielF (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, and the article repeatedly refers to Israeli settlements, using the expression Jewish settlements only once. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Can I offer a non-neutral source?
Clearly biased, right? Hcobb (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- And clearly off-topic. What does that have to do with the subject of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Criticism of "Jewish only settlements" has been published in mainstream sources, but only in a way that could be attributed to the author or to critics, not as fact from the sources I have seen. , , , , , . Perhaps a compromise here would be to use "Jewish settlements" which would be easy enough to attribute to RS . Dlv999 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Quoting off my source above:
"After the 1967 Six-Day War, the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as the Sinai peninsula, came under Israeli control. In the 1970s, a group called Gush Emunim dedicated itself to the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the biblical Land of Israel and the places where events recounted in the Bible took place. After a protracted struggle, the government finally permitted settlement in these areas, until then populated solely by Arabs, and by the mid-1990s some 150,000 Jews lived in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip."
So the term used is "Jewish settlements" and the source is the UN recognized government of Israel. Hcobb (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't even understand what "Israeli-only settlements" would be and why they'd cause controversy here... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to be a case of wikilawyering. The CERD Committee itself has explicitly addressed the subject of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territory as a violation of its published guidelines and an concern under article 3 of the Convention:
The prevailing human rights doctrine was that a State was responsible for actions in a territory under its control. In the case now under consideration, it had been argued that the situation was under the control of the Palestinian Authority but, regardless of the validity or otherwise of that argument, it failed to address the issue of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. -- CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 ... The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its General Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any 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.-- page 6 CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16, 9 March 2012.
- This appears to be a case of wikilawyering. The CERD Committee itself has explicitly addressed the subject of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territory as a violation of its published guidelines and an concern under article 3 of the Convention:
The material in the article about Jewish-only settlements should be restored. harlan (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
UN Section
I have removed the following paragraph from the UN section:
- Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination says "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." A review of Israel's country report by the experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination took issue with the establishment of Jewish-only settlements and stated "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. In 2007 the CERD addressed a number of concerns regarding situations involving separation and segregation in Israel and the Occupied Territories and applied article 3 to violations of human rights generated by the construction of the Wall and its associated regime.
The first problem here is the sentence that starts out "A review of Israel's country report by the experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination..." and then continues on to a quote. The quote here appears to be attributed to the Committee's, "experts", however, it is actually from Theo van Boven, who is one member of the committee (or at least was, in 1998, when this meeting took place). One individual may believe that Israel is violating Article 3, but that doesn't mean that the committee has reached this formal conclusion.
Further, when we examine source 65 there is no mention of the word apartheid. This article's text says that CERD "applied article 3 to violations of human rights..."
Is any of this really relevant to this article? Article 3 includes language regarding "racial segregation and apartheid" but it doesn't define "apartheid". Let's look at what the committee actually says in reference 65. Here's the strongest language I could find that references Article 3:
- "The Committee is of the opinion that the wall and its associated regime raise serious concerns under the Convention, since they gravely infringe a number of human rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel."
Generally, the committee's language states that it has concerns about a particular Israeli policy given certain articles of the convention. That's not saying that the committee thinks Israel is violating those articles. But even if it were to say that Israel violated Article 3, which as far as I can tell it doesn't, to say that a violation of article 3 equals apartheid is original research. The implication of this paragraph is that this UN committee supports the apartheid analogy with reference to Israel. I see nothing in the given sources that indicates this.GabrielF (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The Concluding Observations of the entire CERD Panel for the 2013 report cited Article 3, the General Recommendation, and Apartheid. It said
The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its General Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any 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.-- page 6 CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16, 9 March 2012.
I think the article should cite these observations. harlan (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
20%
It doesn't state anywhere in the main article (apart from in quotation) that 20% of Israeli Citizens are Arab and enjoy full citizenship rights. You should probably consider including that to make sure the article is true and balanced. Don't want to be misleading people now do we? 128.243.253.111 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
And it doesn't state that it would be more than 20% if Israel wouldn't keep the rest segregated and without citizenship to maintain a regime demographically dominated by Jews, which falls under the definition of the crime of Apartheid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.193.54 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This article represent a subjective and dangerous opinion, not facts!
More over, the existance of such article in Misplaced Pages damages the site's reputation as an objective reliable source of information. It is almost similar to an article that will present the USA as a racist state, which is not true, not objective and not apropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't actually do any of those things. To report the criticisms that others have made is not the same as an endorsement of said criticisms. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- You might find the following guide useful, Misplaced Pages:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Toronto
Only the second part of this has anything to do with Israel and rhe apartheid analogy.
In March 2011, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has said that he will not allow city funding for the 2011 Toronto Pride Parade if organizers allow the controversial group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) march again this year. “Taxpayers dollars should not go toward funding hate speech,” Ford said. However, in April 2011, the city manager reported to the city's executive committee that the use of the phrase ‘Israeli apartheid’ does not violate the City’s Anti-discrimination policy, nor does it constitute discrimination under the Canadian Criminal Code or the Ontario Human Rights Code
The first part is a dispute about funding for a group. It needs to be made clear if there is any criticism of the analogy with apartheid. This is not there at the moment. It is not made clear as to what is meant by hate speech, or whether this claim has anything to do with the apartheid analogy.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class law articles
- Mid-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press