Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 23 June 2006

Template:User article ban

This article was nominated for deletion on 29/5/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Israeli apartheid received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Older discussions may be found here: Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; Archive 5; Archive 6; Archive 7; Archive 8;

hafrada

The term is miss understood. The hafrada aims to create two contries for the two nations rather then to seperate Arabs in a jewish counrty.

Two sides of the coin?

Might this article be a typical two sides of the coin issue? -- Kim van der Linde 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very much similar to someone an article on the subject: When have I stopped beating my girlfriend. Zeq 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Misplaced Pages is not a guide to contemporary political invective. By the standards under which this article was created (see also Islamofascism, Islamophobia, and I'm sure many more), we could have American Fascism, BushChimpHitler, Feminazis, Red Diaper Doper Babies...etc., etc., etc. All such articles ought be deleted. They go up for AfD, and there are enough editors who either agree with their sentiments and/or don't know the policy to let them stay. They're perpetually (and rightly) disputed, leading to countless wasted edit-hours. None will ever be a good article, much less a featured one.Timothy Usher 06:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More sources

• “Against the Wall: Israel's Barrier to Peace" from New Press, edited by Michael Sorkin, ISBN: 1565849647

The book is referenced in the Feb 23, 2006 article in The Economist "Israel's Wall: Where grown men cry". There is a chapter called "Barriers, Walls and Dialectics: the Shaping of Creeping Apartheid in Israel/Palestine" by Oren Yiftachel and Haim Yacobi.

Also, the Economist article begins "TO THE Israelis it is a security fence or separation barrier; to Palestinians “an apartheid wall”"

• Another Economist article from Feb 19, 2004 titled "Israelis and Palestinians Voices from the front line" makes the following claim:

"To many people in poor countries, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians means that the rich always abuse the poor. To many Muslims, it is proof that the West conspires to crush them. To many Jews, Israel is the last refuge for a persecuted people. To some fundamentalist Christians its existence is an essential precondition for the return of the Messiah. Some westerners applaud Israel as the Middle East's sole democracy, a beleaguered ally in the struggle against Islamist terror. Others revile it as the new apartheid regime.

This last accusation is inexact. Unlike blacks under apartheid, Israel's own Arabs enjoy full political rights. What is more, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle looks less tractable. The South Africans had plenty of land to share, and none of it was holy. White South Africans feared expropriation; Israelis fear extinction. And the Holy Land has no Mandela."

• The Economist, Jan 8th 2004, "Israel: No through road"

"In August, Avraham Burg, a leading Labour man who was chairman of the World Zionist Organisation, published an article, noticed worldwide, giving warning that the occupation was undermining Zionism itself. A month later a group of air-force pilots and navigators shocked Israelis by saying they would refuse to carry out attacks over the Palestinian territories. Their dismissal did not deter a dozen reservists in Israel's foremost special-forces unit from joining the refuseniks.

In any event, demography bears an apocalyptic message. The left has long cited the Palestinians' surging birth rate as reason enough for the Palestinians to be given a state before Israel, in its expanded territory, is engulfed by them or hardens into an apartheid state. "

• According to the August 11, 2005 edition of The Economist in the article "Israel's settlers: Waiting for a miracle":

"All the while, however, the breach between the religious and secular was growing. Israel's left and even much of its right has lost faith in “Greater Israel” thanks to military setbacks, Palestinian intifadas, and, not least, demographics. The Palestinians between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river will soon outnumber Jews. Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority."

• There is a quote by Shulamit Aloni in our article warning of Israel becoming an apartheid state. I think we need to take this usage into account as well, a number of Israeli leftists are using the terms "Apartheid Israel", "Israeli apartheid" or "apartheid state" not necessarily as a description of what Israel is but as a warning of what it may be becoming. A spectre, if you will. And it seems the Economist shares this viewpoint, at least in the two articles quoted immediately above. We should include this usage of the term apartheid as a warning in the article, particularly given the Economist's invocation of it. Indeed, I believe you'll find a number of centrists in Israel who have also warned that without the Sharon/Olmert disengagement plan Israel is in danger of falling into apartheid.

In any case, I challenge anyone to accuse The Economist of using the term apartheid as an epithet in the aforementioned articles or to challenge the acceptability of The Economist as a source. Homey 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we are struggling to get the point across to you here, or you are unwilling to listen. There is no question Israel is often accused of apartheid policies, but what is equally clear is that such accusations and comparisons are a rhetorical tool. I may be convinced that an article on the topic of Israel and apartheid is noteworthy, but I can not be convinced that a title such as "Israeli apartheid" does anything but beg the question. Yes, I agree that it's going to take some art to come up with a title that is NPOV, but this one is unacceptable. --Leifern 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to get this straight. You claim that all sources that use either Israeli apartheid (and variant thereof) or make comparisons along that line, are just rethoric? -- Kim van der Linde 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's parse this, ok? Making comparisons is not mere rhetoric; but of course the comparison (as with any political comparison) has to hold up to criticism. It is not our job to resolve this controversy, but to articulate it for our readers. Using the term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question and breaks that rule; it accepts a disputed assumption as true in the way it is phrased - hence it is a rhetorical device. Think of it this way: if I created an article called "Henry Kissinger's war crimes," or "Christopher Hitchens's delusions" it would surely be disputed, since the way I phrased it also begs the question; and since Henry Kissinger and Christopher Hitchens are real people, they might even sue me for libel. Countries can't sue for libel, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply the same standards of NPOV to them as we do for individuals.--Leifern 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As you avoiding the question, let me ask it differently. What kind of sources would you need before you would accept that the phrase Israeli apartheid is more than rethoric? -- Kim van der Linde 20:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not avoiding the question - it seems rather to me that you do not wish to concede that there is any legitimate controversy to the premise that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid. It seems to me you are asking me what it would take to convince me that Israel is practicing a policy of apartheid. Well, ehm, facts. Of which there aren't any to support the notion. Apartheid is a precisely defined policy, and Israel doesn't practice it, never has and hopefully never will. The term is used by people who are short on facts and logic and are only left with rhetorical devices to make their point. I think it is time for you to abandon the semblance that you are impartial on this issue, as it is clear that you aren't. --Leifern 21:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do think you avoid the question. What I get back is your opinion, time and time again. You are yourself saying that you need facts, and my logical question is then, what kind of sources would provide you with those facts? And if I need to step away, I suggest you start a section in which you say that and see what the rest thinks. I am willing to help out, but if uit is not appreciated, I am willing to let it be, and I wish you good luck to find someone else who is willing to do this. Maybe it is time that the people of this page request formal mediation and I will be happy to step aside for that. -- Kim van der Linde 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are asking me, 1) what would convince me that the term "Israeli apartheid" (in one form or another) is in use, I am already convinced. If you are asking me, 2) what it would take to convince me whether the comparison is made in the debate, I am already convinced. If you are asking me 3) what it would take to convince me that Israel practices apartheid, I would have to insist on facts and logic. The sources you have provided prove 1) and 2), but merely proving 1) qualifies the term "Israeli apartheid" at best as dictionary entry; 2) might qualify the topic for an article in Misplaced Pages, but absent proof for 3), the term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question. I do appreciate your effort, but you seem to be missing a very important point - please try reading articles on rhetorical fallacies and you will understand what I mean. --Leifern 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have only provide some of the sources, in the quest for WP:RS, many where already in the article. One way to resolve disputes about content is actually finding better sources, and if an mediator has to do that, I see that as perfectly valid. I think it would be pretty rediculous when you try to mediate between fighting parties while the whole fight would be over in a second when the sources in line with WP:RS would solve it. I think your disctinction in three pieces is a helpfull one. As for the logical falacies, I see them flying around here all the time, both in sources and from editors. -- Kim van der Linde 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We could rename the article Apartheid (Israel) - that would deal with the pedantic argument that we can cite a reference that says "Israeli apartheid" but not one that says, "Apartheid in Israel"Homey 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

sounds like a complete non-sense to me. -- tasc _deeds 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Apartheid Israel? Interview with Uri Davis on "The Religion Report" with David Rutledge, Radio National (Australia)

David Rutledge: If we take an example of South Africa under apartheid, we had a situation where black and white South Africans had separate public transport, separate benches in public parks; you don’t see this in Israel, so why do you say that Israel is an apartheid State?

Uri Davis: You’re quite right, you don’t see petty apartheid in Israel. But the core is very similar, both in South Africa and in Israel; the core is a conflict between a settler-colonial State and the indigenous population, and these conflicts are anchored in the quest of the settler State to appropriate control of the land and the sub-soil, and deny the indigenous peoples their rights in the land and the sub-soil. The consequence of this project in South Africa resulted in some 87% of the territory reserved in law for white settlement cultivation and development.

In Israel it’s worse. At the core, namely access to land, housing and sub-soil, 93% of the territory of the State of Israel, 93% is reserved in law exclusively for Jewish settlement, cultivation and development. So at core, it is comparable but the Israeli sovereign, the parliament, the Knesset, in many ways was more careful and wiser than the South African apartheid legislator, and refrained from legislating petty apartheid. If you for instance visit parks and recreational centres developed by the Jewish National Front in Israel on weekends or on public holidays, you would probably witness Arab families happily entertaining their children and barbecuing next to Jewish families, without segregation. But I would refer to the Jewish National Fund of Australia, the park that they developed in a locality known as Kerima a haral. I doubt that representatives of the Jewish National Fund of Australia would also reveal to visitors that the park and the non-segregated facilities have been developed over the ruins of a destroyed Arab village of Idzim, over the lands of the destroyed Arab village of Idzim. That indeed Arab citizens of the State of Israel have access to these facilities, but the refugees of the village or the internally displaced persons inside the State of Israel of the village, have been denied their property rights, the titles to their homes, and the park is there veiling a massive war crime possibly classified under international law as crime against humanity. So the absence of petty apartheid is there in order to veil and cover a good deal, the apartheid at the core of the system, the war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli Army in the 1948-’49 war, and it is this veil, this absence of petty apartheid that is crucial to the successful marketing of the State of Israel, as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Homey 00:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources subpage

To avoid to much clutter at this page, I have made a subpage with my first categorization of links in broad groups. See Talk:Israeli_apartheid/RS for more. -- Kim van der Linde 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Request permission to eliminate all non WP:RS material

I think the next step of the resolution of the content dispute would be to eliminate all entries in the article that are not based on reliable sources. The workshopping of a list of what are reliable sources at the subpage Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS is going fast, and I would like to have formal permission of the editors of this page to do eliminate all text based on non-reliable sources. Please, let me know if you agree or object with me doing that at this point (I will leave it open for a few days before doing anything).-- Kim van der Linde 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, did not feel like ending up at the admin noticeboard again. -- Kim van der Linde 01:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that. You - and we - shouldn't even be in this position.Timothy Usher 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Give permission

• Agree - I don't have time to engage in this game at the moment, but your approach seems sound. Good luck, you're gonna need it! --Coroebus 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• no need to vote on it - this is the policy. Of course this is the only logical thing to do. well done. Zeq 19:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. This is policy. Jayjg 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - And thanks. IronDuke 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - no need to vote as WP:RS is a policy. ←Humus sapiens 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. as per WP:RS, why is this vote even taking place? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as per Zeq, Humus sapiens, PinchasC. Although it's easy to answer why this vote is taking place: and WP:NPA are enforced; WP:NOT and WP:RS almost never are. We've had to go through this lengthy and time-consuming process to negotiate the most basic content policies, and now as you say, we're stuck voting on it.Timothy Usher 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As for WP:RS, that is a guideline, so that is less easy to enforce. The related policies, WP:V and WP:NOR is a different story, and I agree, those should be enforced more rigourous at times. -- Kim van der Linde 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree as Jimbo Wales put it, such stuff must be removed aggressively. Pecher 07:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, but let's be clear what the sources prove. The fact that a comparison is made does not justify the title. I am also very uncomfortable with the fact that Kim, who is clearly biased against Israel, has sole editing rights to this article. --Leifern 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, find someone else to take over from me who is acceptable to you and the other editors. I do this in my own time, and if it is not appreciated, I am more than happy to spend my time on other projects within wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, we all do this in our own time, so lighten up. I appreciate your efforts and have no doubt they are well-intended, but articles like this either have to be subjected to edit wars and emerge somehow at the end of them; or a mediator has to show that he/she understands both sides. You seem completely unwilling to understand the point I and others have gone to great pains to make here, which is that the very term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question - it assumes a premise that is in dispute. Unless you address that issue, you are not going to make progress on the mediation efforts and will inevitably come across as biased. --Leifern 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is ask me to take a position about the term, which I am not going to do, because that is not my position. I read and understand the opinions of both sides and I respect those, and what I ask is to back those opinions up by verifiable reliable sources, without own interpretations. -- Kim van der Linde 17:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i.e. if you don't delete this article you are biased? --Coroebus 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not give permission

Preview

For those who would like to see what it becomes, see User:KimvdLinde/IA. I have to reduced the impression that many sources are used by translating everything to foot notes, which also facilitates it for the user to check the acuracy of the articles. This is not the last word on cleaning, and comments here please. -- Kim van der Linde 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you are deleting can be easily sourced using the sources you are listing on the subpage. For instance, Uri Davis' books assert most of the points made currently in the "analogy" section. Also, while the bullet on the Apartheid wall is not sourced, it can be by using a sources from the Israeli West Bank barrier article or the Economist. Homey 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I am at this stage just cutting out to eliminate bad sources. The next step will be to start modifying sections and adding new sources. I am willing to do it if others do not have a problem with those replacement of sources. -- Kim van der Linde 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Sabeel reference is completely unreliable. Jayjg 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it.-- Kim van der Linde 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggest that points that need new sources have a tag inserted to replace the "bad" source, at least as an interim measure. Homey 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. -- Kim van der Linde 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with draging more time. What is not sourced need to be removed. These lines should not have been inserted into the article to start with. This was done in violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV in order to have an unblanced article protected . Enough of gaming the system. Zeq 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags as an interim measure? Absolutely not. This material should never have been placed on Misplaced Pages to begin with.Timothy Usher 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fact-tagging is completely unacceptable. QUoting Jimbo Wales from WP:V: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Pecher 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But the page is protected and Kim is having to act unilaterally (unlike normally when someone could just find another source and reinsert the claim), so it would be up to Kim to find the sources, by fact tagging them she can get others to go find them so that she can insert them, or, if no one bothers, eventually delete the claim. She'd get complete uproar if she just deleted claims willy-nilly without giving anyone the chance to back them up. --Coroebus 10:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So can we work on finding sources for the deleted bullet points? The article is now unbalanced with the "con" section being much longer than the "pro" section. Homey 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want something to be absolutely clear. The bullet points in question have only been removed pending their being properly sourced. Once proper sources are given they will be restored. Homey 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not participate in this "reliable source" process because I have a serious question about it, which I have not gotten a chance to ask until now. And that is this: How can the source of an opinion (as some of these statements are) be reliable or unreliable? It is not a fact, it is just someone's opinion. Which I guess leads to another question: While clearly an encyclopedia will have some recounting of peoples' differing opinions on different subjects, does Misplaced Pages really need to devote as much attention to opinions as it currently does? I don't think so, and the Israeli-Arab issue is the best (meaning worst) example I know of where there is entirely too much concern with peoples' opinions as opposed to facts. There are entire articles that are (in my opinion) superfluous because they are based entirely on opinions... such as this one, which is not about any facts, it is just about how some people think that a term that was one government's official name for its policy, also applies by analogy to other situations. Who cares what they think? Why do we need an article about it? All the work on the reliability of sources misses the point; it is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it is sinking. 6SJ7 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess reliable sources of opinion are sources that can be relied upon to report an individual's opinion accurately (e.g. newspapers generally). What I think you're trying to get at is notability, whether we should care about these individuals' opinions. I'd say that we are in this article because a considerable number of people are making the comparison, and we should say who and why. It works similarly to Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, we can't declare these 'real' phenomena because that is too contentious, but people would like to know what others means by them, hence the articles. --Coroebus 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are at least partially agreeing with me. At least a majority of the sources do not really present reliable source issues, they present "notability" issues. I have looked at the "workshop" page and while I think there were a few issues of translation, in most cases there is no dispute that the magazine or journal or whatever has correctly reported the person's opinion. Once that conclusion is reached, the issue is not one of "reliability" because it is a matter of opinion and not fact. The fact that the issue is one of "notability" leads back to my overall issue with this article, and that is, are the opinions that Israeli conduct is analogous to apartheid "notable" enough to deserve their own article. A few weeks ago, I had never heard the term "Israeli apartheid" or Israel referred to as an "apartheid state." Now I must conclude that these accusations have been raised by enough people that they deserve mention, and refutation, somewhere in some article on the Israeli-Arab conflict. The question is, is the opinion so notable that the opinion itself deserves it's own article? I think not. I would be consistent with other articles as well; as I may have said previously, I do not necessarily think the term "Islamofascism" deserves its own article, and if it does, it should at least have a "qualifier" in the title. I have never looked at the other article you mention so I don't know if it is analogous. But as I have said, Misplaced Pages is not a journal of name-calling. Or at least, it shouldn't be. 6SJ7 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done

Ok, done. With the permission. -- Kim van der Linde 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

More sources

October 23, 2001 speech to the South African National Assembly by Ronnie Kasrils, Member of Parliament and Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in the South African government .

"We take note of the fact-finding report by members of South Africa’s Parliament who visited the Middle East in July 2001. Their report observes: “It becomes difficult, particularly from a South African perspective, not to draw parallels with the oppression experienced by Palestinians under the hand of Israel and the oppression experienced in South Africa under Apartheid rule”."

See also The Analogy to Apartheid by Ian Urbina from Middle East Report #223. Homey 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? There are parallels between all kinds of things. That's not sufficient to support calling one by the name of the other.Timothy Usher 07:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That a group of South African legislators see a parallel between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and South Africa under apartheid is notable - regardless of your desire to dismiss *all* references linking Israel and apartheid. Homey 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not a "scholarly source". Homey I sincerely suggest you review this arbCom decision:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Verifiability_and_sources Zeq 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I don't see anything in the ArbComm ruling against you that dismisses references to notables such as legislators or parliamentary committees. Please stop throwing out rulings that don't actually support your claims. Were you citing elected legislators or parliamentary committees? No. I'm sorry but your past misdeeds are not relevent here. Academics routinely cite government and legislative reports. Homey 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to delete article

Since the article is now locked, I can only propose here that the article be deleted. No progress is made on it, the sources cited only illustrate the concept as a rhetorical tool. It is time for a delete, and possibly a speedy one. --Leifern 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, I would not try to decide on individual articles, but discuss the whole series and try to find a single solution for the issue of the apartheid pages at large. I think discussions at he seperate pages will result in the same no consensus over and over again, because of the unclarity in the larger context. -- Kim van der Linde 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says you can only propose that the article be deleted? You could ask to have it unlocked. Maybe made into a feature article even. There are tons of things you can propose. His Excellency... 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, there's already been an AFD and it failed. Homey 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article just survived a long and contentious AfD. Putting articles up to multiple serial AfDs until you get the result you want is not appropriate or collegial behavior. --Ben Houston 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added the following to the article: "Opponents of the term argue that the security wall is a reasonable and necessary security precaution to protect Israeli civilians from terroristic violence, and that its existence was made necessary by the Palestinians themselves." I believe, however, that due to the obvious violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy-- the use of an inflammatory term like "apartheid wall," that the entire article should be deleted. Bill Levinson, 23 June 2006

I don't think the use of the term is intended to be inflammatory but explanatory (i.e saying they use it, not endorsing it), and it certainly isn't grounds to delete it (there may be other grounds as you can see in the discussions here). See below for my comments, I've moved your edit into the criticisms section --Coroebus 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak (June 18, beginning of July)

I wll be away from wikipedia for the second halve of this month, as I have to go to a conference at Long Island. I will probably leave at the 18th, and be back at the beginning of July (around 3-5). I might chim in from the conference when I feel like it, but that will be minimal. -- Kim van der Linde 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We are going to have to dock your mediation pay for that.  :) 6SJ7 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. :-) -- Kim van der Linde 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The origins section is wrong

Sorry PLO, the title was not invented by Uri Davis.

1. Take a look at 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution 3379: see how they put zionism next to apartheid and read below: "the Organization of African Unity... considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure..."
2. Quoting a 1984 Syrian letter to the UNSC: "...Zionist Israeli institutional terrorism in no way differs from the terrorism pursued by the apartheid regime against millions of Africans in South Africa and Namibia..., just as it in no way differs in essense and nature from the Nazi terrorism which shed European blood and visited ruin and destruction upon the peoples of Europe." <ref->UN Doc S/16520 at 2 (1984), quoting from Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1987. Edited by Y Dinstein, M Tabory. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9024736463 p.36</ref->

Isn't it time to stop playing this silly game of protecting propaganda and pretending that it makes an encyclopedic article? Why do we need this subarticle in addition to Apartheid outside of South Africa, Zionism and racism, Anti-Zionism, Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, Post-Zionism, New anti-Semitism, Jewish state#Criticism, Hafrada, Israeli-occupied territories, etc.? ←Humus sapiens 11:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because there are editors in Misplaced Pages who hate Israel so much that their only alternative to factually based articles is POV fork after POV fork. Since they know that google searches favor Misplaced Pages articles, an article called "Israeli apartheid" (sic) will often get attention by people who are wondering about the phrase when they read it or hear it from others. In short, they are trying to make Misplaced Pages a propaganda outlet for a point of view that has no basis in reality, fairness, or decency. --Leifern 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps, given the above, they want to provide an outlet for a balanced discussion of the origin, use, and rationale behind the phrase for those that are searching for it? --Coroebus 12:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No Coroebus, I'd say Leifern had it correct in the first place. 6SJ7 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From my standpoint, the self-determination of the Jewish people is a good thing -- the problem though is when the main entity for Jewish self-determination, i.e. the state of Israel, engages in polices and practices (and individuals, potentially such as yourself, work to rhetorically justify these policies and practices) that serve fairly directly to undermine the rights of others to self-determination. This, at least from my perspective, strongly appears to violate the Golden Rule. I can understand how one can confuse criticism of Israel's policies with criticism of Israel's existence -- but, at least from my perspective, these are separate things. Also, from my perspective, it is hard for me to tell if some people purposefully and cynically conflate these two things in order to deflect criticism. --Ben Houston 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if this is the starting point in this discussion, I can see this is not going anywhere. Because if this is the contention, how would it ever be possible to resolve this? -- Kim van der Linde 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you are so pessimistic, I see intelligent people involved in an intelligent discussion. Some people are no doubt trying to use Misplaced Pages as a propaganda tool; I do not believe this applies to Coroebus.

Ben Houstons comment is especially interesting. It is some times difficult to tell the difference because some (but not all) people have anti-semitic motivation for their criticism of Israel. In some cases the anti-semitism is obvious, but knowing about other people's motivations is in principle impossible. On Misplaced Pages, we simply assume good faith and hope that bad faith editors will expose themselves eventually. This is really the only way to get around.

I am even smelling an attempt of a deeper philosific investigation here. Personally I think they are way past the Golden Rule over there. The question I was pondering lately is whether it may be justified to risk killing innoscent civilians to prevent attacks on innoscent civilians. Is it morally justifiable to distinguish "their civilians" from "our civilians"? I don't think this discussion is limited to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it was the recent IDF screw-up(s) that made me think.

Heptor _talk 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the most recent hoax? Basically, that's the job of the army to distinguish between our civilians and their civilians; any army is supposed to defend its own civilians, while defending enemy civilians is the job of the enemy. Enemy civilians may get hurt during a military operation, which is not a crime as long as the the operation itself is legitimate. Pecher 07:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the politics of this one, but Pecher, your sentiment from any side is extremely depressing. --Coroebus 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard there was another similar incident later, but I did not catch the details of the last incident. On the first, I have not seen enough evidence (if any) to dismiss what happened as a hoax, and I wrote insident(s), ie possibly plural. It is also suspicious that IDF did not want an independent investigation. Still, the moral issue in this does not apply only to IDF. -- Heptor _talk 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

From here: this article alone or with context?

Where are we going from here? I have heard various suggestions, and I think we have to get this sorted out. The ideas go from deleting the article althogether to merging in as a small section into Apartheid outside of South Africa to expanding it considerable. This brings us to the larger question of all the apartheid related articles and the structure in those combined. I do not see we can resolve the question of this article alone outside the context of those other articles. Do people agree with this assesment, or should it be resolved as a narrow question, this article alone?-- Kim van der Linde 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem: Apartheid has several meanings that are being confused in the debate. One is the policy of apartheid that was articulated and practiced in South Africa; the other is the legalistic definition of the crime of apartheid, for which no country that I'm aware of has been charged; the third is the moral accusation of policies that resemble apartheid. "Apartheid outside of South Africa" doesn't make it clear which of these three we're talking about, but in practice (of course) it's always the latter. If we wanted to be precise, we'd concede that "apartheid" in its broadest sense, refers to a policy of systematic discrimination of a country's residents on the basis of ethnicity or race, especially if it enforces a separation between groups. And that it's a subset of institutional discrimination. We would have a much richer and useful set of articles if we dispensed with the "apartheid" cliche and focused on institutional discrimination. We could ascertain the extent to which it happens in Israel, Palestinian-controlled areas, and even countries like Norway; and those who highlighted such phenomena wouldn't be forced to prove (which they never could) that "apartheid" is an apt comparison. --Leifern 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

More sources

• "Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison" by Daryl J. Glazer in Ethical and Racial Studies, vol 26, number 3/May 2003

Abstract: This article subjects to normative-theoretical scrutiny the common claim that Israeli Zionism is 'like' South African apartheid. Drawing on a range of historical and sociological evidence, it shows that this claim (or accusation) is substantially justified in two senses. Firstly, Israeli Zionism is, in many areas, morally bad in the same way as apartheid; secondly, where it is different from apartheid in character, it is in some respects anyway as bad - that is, the difference is not invariably morally favourable to Israeli Zionism. 'Israel proper' (within its pre-1967 borders) is neither much like nor as bad as apartheid. The justification of the analogy only becomes clear when we view Israel and its occupied territories as a single political entity. The article argues that we are justified in so viewing them.

• Neither Two States Nor One:The Disengagement and “Creeping Apartheid” in Israel/Palestine by Oren Yiftachel

Department of Geography and Environmental Development , Ben Gurion University of the Negev

From “Creeping Apartheid” to Binationalism?

The disengagement has indeed made a significant difference to the political geography of Israel/Palestine, but a close examination reveals not a crossing of the watershed toward ending Israeli colonialism in favour of a two-state solution but, rather, an Israeli policy of “oppressive consolidation,” a “politics of suspension,” and a perpetual probability of mutual violence. These have combined to create a political geographic order best described as “creeping apartheid.”

Under this order, a hierarchy of rights is gradually institutionalized and legalized based on ethnicity and location. This order is “creeping” because it has never been openly declared, nor endorsed by any political movement. In a game of deception, all actors turn a blind eye and continue to support the illusion of impending peace. This order is also “creeping” because Jews continue to settle in the West Bank, the illegal wall is still being constructed, and the treatment of some groups among Israel’s Palestinian citizens increasingly resembles the fate of their brethren in the Occupied Territories (see Yiftachel 2001, 2005).

This predicament requires new thinking among peace-seeking Israelis and Palestinians. Several avenues are possible, along religious, liberal, revolutionary, and post-nationalist lines. My approach calls for serious re-examination of binationalism aspossibly a superior moral, political, andgeographic order for the future of Israel/Palestine, but one that is best introducedgradually. Discussion of this option has already begun in several intellectual andpolitical arenas and, given developments in Israel/Palestine, is likely to accelerate in thenear future. "

Homey 00:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Apartheid Israel? Interview with Uri Davis on "The Religion Report" with David Rutledge, Radio National (Australia)

David Rutledge: If we take an example of South Africa under apartheid, we had a situation where black and white South Africans had separate public transport, separate benches in public parks; you don’t see this in Israel, so why do you say that Israel is an apartheid State?

Uri Davis: You’re quite right, you don’t see petty apartheid in Israel. But the core is very similar, both in South Africa and in Israel; the core is a conflict between a settler-colonial State and the indigenous population, and these conflicts are anchored in the quest of the settler State to appropriate control of the land and the sub-soil, and deny the indigenous peoples their rights in the land and the sub-soil. The consequence of this project in South Africa resulted in some 87% of the territory reserved in law for white settlement cultivation and development.

In Israel it’s worse. At the core, namely access to land, housing and sub-soil, 93% of the territory of the State of Israel, 93% is reserved in law exclusively for Jewish settlement, cultivation and development. So at core, it is comparable but the Israeli sovereign, the parliament, the Knesset, in many ways was more careful and wiser than the South African apartheid legislator, and refrained from legislating petty apartheid. If you for instance visit parks and recreational centres developed by the Jewish National Front in Israel on weekends or on public holidays, you would probably witness Arab families happily entertaining their children and barbecuing next to Jewish families, without segregation. But I would refer to the Jewish National Fund of Australia, the park that they developed in a locality known as Kerima a haral. I doubt that representatives of the Jewish National Fund of Australia would also reveal to visitors that the park and the non-segregated facilities have been developed over the ruins of a destroyed Arab village of Idzim, over the lands of the destroyed Arab village of Idzim. That indeed Arab citizens of the State of Israel have access to these facilities, but the refugees of the village or the internally displaced persons inside the State of Israel of the village, have been denied their property rights, the titles to their homes, and the park is there veiling a massive war crime possibly classified under international law as crime against humanity. So the absence of petty apartheid is there in order to veil and cover a good deal, the apartheid at the core of the system, the war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli Army in the 1948-’49 war, and it is this veil, this absence of petty apartheid that is crucial to the successful marketing of the State of Israel, as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Homey 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete

NPOV is wikipedia most important policy. This article has been locked since it can not reached NPOV state and most likely never will. Keeping this article "protected" ensure it will stay ina version that the POV pushers who started it want it to remain. The only solution is to delete it.

POV pushers should not enjoy tgaming the system. re-creating this article should take place only in a private name space (sandbox) and only after it was voted as "NPOV-compliant" by consensus of editors who worked on it. Zeq 08:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"This article has been locked since it can not reached NPOV state and most likely never will."

No, you're making things up again. This article has been locked due to edit wars caused by some editors refusal to accept this article's existence. You've been banned from it for tendentious editing so that solves some of the problem. If Jay promises to stop trying to merge this article without consensus and others promise to accept and improve the article then it can be unlocked and stop trying to put in POV terms like "epithet". Homey 14:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that Kim decided to stay but not as mediator. I welcome any editor who wants to work on this article with GF - no matter what POV she/he may hold.

As for notability: This term is notable but only in a very soecific group of people: Those who want to impose sanctions on Israel that will bring it down like it did to SA. We should focus the article (and the title) on how/why this term is used and by whom. We should <b. not accept their claim and use this article to propegate their lies. If Kim would have done what I asked her to do several weeks ago and analyze the sources currently in use in the article we would see that not much is left in the article after all the non WP:RS is removed. Zeq 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bwahahahaha is that what the leftist trash think? What sanctions on SA? You mean like when IBM changed the name of its SA divisions to ISM (complete with an ad campaign showing construction cranes hoisting large letter B's and replacing them with letter S's) and anounced that they had pulled out of SA? Or like when GM changed its SA divisions name to Delta Motors and announced they had pulled out of SA? Bwahaah or perhaps when Pepsi announced that it had pulled out of SA because of apartheid when it had already died years before because SAfricans preder Coke to carbonated gasoline? Or maybe you're referring to the fact that we couldn't get Elvis Costello records that weren't counterfeit? Bwahahahaha, well yes there were official announcements of sanctions and sadly as a result the government slowed down reform to a snails pace (SA was in the mood to end apartheid around 1984, along come "sanctions" and everyone decides to get stubborn and apartheid got drawn out a whole decade longer only ending in 1994. Bwahahaha personally I think Jews should start flying planes into buildings then maybe we'll get all our land back. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please desist with this sort of baiting, it isn't helping --Coroebus 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs is East Jerusalem Have the right and ability to vote!

In the article under the subjecy "criticism" it is stated that: "With the exception of Arabs residing in East Jerusalem , the Israeli Arab minority have voting rights and are represented in the Knesset (Israel's legislature)..."

There is NO EXCEPTION Israeli Arabs in East Jerusalm,can vote both in Municipal and parliamentary elections in Isarael AND are in a special status that allows them to ALSO vote for the Palestinian parliament, but not instead.

The fact is that most of them boycott Israeli elections, and don't consider themselves Israeli, but saying they are not allowed or able to is outright falsity.

The fact that I need to write this whole section about this instead of making a minor correction by deleting this falsity is itself outragous and I beleive that if Misplaced Pages cannot allow its users to edit an article then maybe such an article doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages!

Here is a source B'tselem (http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusalem/Legal_Status.asp) which is an Israeli Human Rights watch group on the issue of East Jerusalem arabs. Those (which are the majority in East Jerusalem) are residents and carry identity cards. They can only vote in local elections not the knesset. The "citizenship" was a one time offer and involved Jim Crow like standards (had to speak Hebrew, swear allegiance to a Jewish nation, etc.). The Oslo Accords gave them the right to vote in PA elections. The 2005 EU report on East Jerusalem verifies the status of East Jerusalem as blue ID cardholders now ineligible for citzenship or the right to vote for Knesset representatives. http://www.holyland-lutherans.org/05%20Nov%20EU%20Jerusalem.doc or http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=8994&CategoryId=7

• And your point is ? They are Palestinian citizens with full residency rights (like social security, national medical insurance, welfare, education) in Israel. So your point is ? Zeq 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are articles about the lottery system for East Jerusalem Arabs to vote in PA elections. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6994 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4633574.stm I suggest this article will either be deleted or merged in another article, or else it should be opened for editing.Tal :) 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Tal: "this article will either be deleted or merged in another article, or else it should be opened for editing"
• One correction: East jerusalem Arabs who choose to accept israeli citizenship are a tiny minority. The rest do vote in the Jerusalem municipal elections and in the Palestinian parlamentry elections. (not the israeli one) Zeq 07:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, if you're not going to mediate you should restore the analogy section to what it was before since it doesn't make sense in the state it's in at present and just ask people to add proper citations. Homey 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Only Homey version should stay. No one else is allowed to edit. Is that what you suggest ? Why not open the article for editing ? Zeq 19:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Zeq, one minute *before* you posted that personal attack I posted a request to unlock the article. Can you apologise now for your outburst?Homey 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, calling my edits "outburst" is an insult. I was comenting about what you wrote above, you wanted to keep the content as you like it and that is exactly what i was comnting on. I can not know what you do in other pages so I can based my comment about what I did not know. I am now glad to hear that you too want the article unlocked. Zeq 19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, your claim that I'm suggesting "no one else is allowed to edit" was wrong. That's why you should apologise. Zeq, when you assume things you tend to embarass yourself. This is exactly what's happened here, you assumed I didn't want anyone else to edit and wanted the article to remain locked and your assumption was wrong. Can you admit you were wrong and apologise? I doubt it. Homey 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, You asked her to restore the content to what you want it to be. This is after you caused this article to be stuck for weeks. Zeq 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The content is only being removed *temporarily* since it needs to be sourced. Since Kim has resigned I think he should restore it since otherwise there won't be anyone to do it. You are making an assumption that I don't want the article unlocked - you are wrong and in fact it seems 6SJ7 *doesn't* want the article unlocked. Are you now going to attack him for actually not wanted the article unlocked the way you attacked me when you falsely assumed that I didn't want it unlocked? Homey 19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe unlocking isn't such a hot idea

Not that I am not fascinated by the above debate over what two editors said or didn't about unlocking the article, but I think there needs to be a serious discussion about this suggestion. I realize that normally, an article does not stay locked for this period of time. I also realize that nobody really likes the article as it stands now, and something needs to be done with it. At the same time, everybody knows what kind of anarchy (revert wars, move wars, etc.) is likely to ensue as soon as the article is unlocked. In addition, merge requests are still pending. So, how about temporarily moving the article out of article-space, where it can be worked on (possibly in different versions), and at the same time an authoritative decision can be made as to whether to merge this article into another article? I really don't see any way to have a normal editing process while this article is "live," without the same mess that occurred before repeating itself.

Maybe my suggestion violates some rule. I am sure someone will tell me if it does; in fact, given recent history I suspect someone will say it violates a rule even if there is no such rule. Anyway, what does everybody think? 6SJ7 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is agreat suggestion that should also become policy: Article that are protected for too long should be removed from article-space" since protection is not an endorsment of the content. Zeq 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This would set a bad precedent that only encourages people who want to delete an article but cant win an AFD to be obstructive and non-consensual and then get the article removed by default. Homey 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, the original version of my comment said that I had already counted your "No" vote, but I took it out to avoid criticism. It turns out I was correct. As for "non-consensual," it is pretty clear that the "consensus" principle will not work for this article. In fact, its very existence is due to lack of consensus. I suspect you are only talking about "consensus" because, under the current circumstances, it promotes your goal of keeping this article as a separate propaganda outlet. Anyway, I am talking about merger, not deletion. 6SJ7 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy wise, Homey does have a point, it really would encourage massive disruption. --Coroebus 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to, say, the neat, orderly and harmony-filled process that has taken place to date? 6SJ7 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy wise, the policy that we should look into here is WP:Not. Homey have violated it and because it needs consensus to undo what he did we are unable to prevent further dispruption. So it is Homey that is also violating WP:Point.

So either we will reach some mediated solution or if all wp:Dispute resolution attempts will proven putile we will have to have ArbCom rule on how Homey is uing wikipedia to desemanate his political agenda. Clearly this article only represent a tiny minorty and WP:NPOV clearly sais:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages"

Zeq 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, removing the article from the namespace would essentially give the people who want it deleted but failed to achieve this goal through an AFD a back door way of deleting the article. It would not only set a very bad precedent for other articles that have failed AFDs but it would give the deletionists absolutely no incentive to compromise. 6SJ7, if the article were removed from the namespace what motivation would you have to reach a compromise in order to have it restored when you, yourself, have said a number of times you want the article deleted?

As for merger, there was no consensus for that in the AFD and there is no consensus for it now. Again, it would be a way of deleting the topic through other means. I have suggested renaming the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid, what about that? Homey 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A merger is my compromise, and it has not been determined. I think it needs to be voted on with a concrete proposal as to where it is proposed to be merged. Anyway, Homey, I am going to take myself out of this discussion for awhile. It might be nice if you did the same. Everybody knows what we (and Zeq) think about this. We should hear from everybody else. 6SJ7 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The article should be merged, but renaming is also a good idea. Merger is not a deletion, with difference being that merger preserves the article content. In any case, with "apartheid" now apparently being a name for a crime, shouldn't the proper title be Allegations of apartheid against Israel - more or less like Allegations of a secret male raping gang led by Homey and Heptor? Proposal goes for all other apartheid allegation articles. -- Heptor _talk 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a hard time thinking you didn't mean that as a personal insult. Are you going to remove it or are you going to make me raise it on the Incidents board?Homey 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This "allegation" was intended more for humor than for insult. But, since you do not seem convinced, I am removing it. -- Heptor _talk 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to restore it putting in your name instead of mine. If it's just meant as a joke and not an insult that shouldn't be a problem? :?Homey 22:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That just wouldn't be funny, but I have a compromise in mind. It may be quite far off, but, as long you are happy... :) -- Heptor _talk 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it's just tasteless.Homey 19:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging an article is obviously not deleting it, since all content is retained, and AfDs are about deletion, not about merging. Please restrict arguments to factually correct statements, it helps move things along. Jayjg 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Factually correct statements:

• 1) There is no consensus for a merger.
• 2) In the past you have moved references to Israeli apartheid from article to article, reducing them in space and ultimately doing away with them altogether. Homey 16:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An NPOV solution would be an article is also NPOV. something like "Use of the word apartheid in context other than south Africa" or "Allegations of present day apartheid" Zeq 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone cares about my opinion (which is unlikely but hey, I'm assertive) I favor renaming the article to Allegations of Israeli apartheid ot something else similar. --Ben Houston 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed structure and terminology guidelines for all "apartheid" articles

Many people have suggested that we step back and look at all of the "apartheid" articles together. I've put a proposal at User talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid and would appreciate your comments. Why don't we head over there, hang out for a few days, and see what happens? Su-Laine Yeo 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are suggesting a neologism, "Government discrimination", as an article title. Homey 15:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Use of the word apartheid to describe discrimination alegations" - seems very NPOV. Zeq 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New straw poll

I invite all concerned editors to an informal poll on structure and terminology here: User talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid Su-Laine Yeo 06:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you call NPOV

To demonize Israel and then "NPOV" it by saying "Pro-Israel groups consider objectionable the use of this term to describe the State of Israel or its policies." - I am sorry this is meaninless this is NOT NPOV.

NPOV is to present both POV not just one POV and then say the other side don't like it.

In this case NPOV would mean to include part of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda

Zeq 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is unprotected

Ho ho, and now the fun begins, I think you may have mistaken people running out of insults for some kind of detente --Coroebus 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, it's not too bad an article. This could work out. How about leaving the first paragraph alone for a while, and working on the "Criticism" section? Some of the arguments there could be strengthened, and some of them really aren't contributing much to that position. --John Nagle 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The division between analogy and critism section creates a situation of non NPOV. Instead the sections need to be combined and each accusations that has a valid answer should be in the same sentence. Zeq 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, won't it get awfully tangled if we have a to and fro debate in the article? --Coroebus 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• the problem here is NPOV.

• • The title is not
  • The lead is not (excpet where in the end in accuse thjose who use the term in antisemitism and terrorism - this is empty staements that do not help NPOV
  • next, is the analogy section - all one sided.
  • Next, useage section. long one.

By that point who wants to read the "Critism" section ? Zeq 19:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I've said, I'm happy with 'Allegations...', the lead is perfectly neutral (hedged with 'controversial'), and perhaps a bit anti the term at the end, the analogy section is actually quite short, and the usage section is not that long, then you get to the criticisms. I'd like to make the analogy and usage sections shorter so you'd get down to criticisms more quickly, but I'm also keen on slimming down the criticisms section too. --Coroebus 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There's no point me unilaterally editing, so I thought I'd give my thoughts:

• The comparison between Israel and South Africa is fictitious and is made in an attempt to demonize Israel as a prelude to an international boycott campaign. The long term goal is to pressure the United Nations to impose economic sanctions against Israel.

I'm not convinced this is a valid criticism as phrased, 'its not true' is a bit lame, but rephrasing it as a criticism that there are ulterior motives behind the comparison is to get sanctions imposed might work (I'll have to leave it in or Zeq'll go spare)

• The analogy "demean(s) Black victims of the real apartheid regime in South Africa."

This is a stupid criticism, it demeans them if it is false, but then the main criticism is that it is false.

• Zionism is not a manifestation of European colonialism.

This sounds like a rather weak objection to me, I suppose it is a rather technical objection to the term.

• Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid whilst Palestinians rely on employment in Israel due to the economic failures and corruption of the Palestinain Authority.

(note to self, correct spelling of Palestinian) - This again seems somewhat weak, could it not be better phrased that the Israelis are not exploiting the Palestinians for their labour?

• Equating Zionism with apartheid is propaganda used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and deny Israelis the right of self-defence by demonizing the construction of the West Bank security barrier with the name "Apartheid wall".

Bit of editorialising here, I wonder whether it ought to be merged with the other motives argument.

• Opponents of the term argue that the security wall is a reasonable and necessary security precaution to protect Israeli civilians from terroristic violence, and that its existence was made necessary by the Palestinians themselves.

I'm for removing the wall reference completely, so this bit would not then be needed.

• Dr. Moshe Machover, professor of philosophy in London and co-founder of Matzpen, argues against the use of the term on the basis that the situation in Israel is worse than apartheid. Machover points out some significant differences between the policy of the Israeli government and the apartheid model. According to Machover, drawing a close analogy between Israel and South Africa is both a theoretical and political mistake.

I'll have to read his specific objections about the analogy, but the 'its worse' objection is just slipping a pro-view into the anti- side at face value.

• According to Fred Taub, the President of Boycott Watch, "The assertion ... that Israel is practicing apartheid is not only false, but may be considered libelous. ... The fact is that it is the Arabs who are discriminating against non-Muslims, especially Jews."

You can't libel countries, and this is just another 'its false' objection, unless we consider the Arab discrimination turnaround to be worth including?

--Coroebus 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Analogy

• The Israeli West Bank barrier is referred to by detractors as the Apartheid Wall for its impact on the Palestinian population in the West Bank.

But isn't that a bit circular, isn't the name Apartheid Wall and extension of the apartheid accusation? --Coroebus 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage

• It has been widely used by Palestinian rights advocates and also by some on the Israeli Jewish left.

yet we then go on to say

• Several left wing Members of the Knesset (MKs) have also drawn an analogy between Israeli policies and apartheid

and

• The term has also been used by some Palestinian-rights activists and anti-Zionists

apart from anti-Zionists (who I think it is pretty debatable we need to explicitly identify here) we are not adding anything new in the last bit.

• and some neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals or groups such as David Duke and Jew Watch,.

are these groups really that notable as users of the term? I'm not convinced that people associate the use of the phrase 'Israeli apartheid' with these people particularly, if they're notable (I've heard of them at least) we mightn't want such a prominent bit, maybe more 'and has been used by the neo-Nazi David Duke and the anti-Semitic group Jew Watch' (if I've go that the right way around?). --Coroebus 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause Jerusalem Post op-ed by Gerald M. Steinberg (hosted in full at http://www.ngo-monitor.org)
2. Is it Apartheid? at Jewish Voice for Peace by Moshe Machover published 10 November 2004
3. Presbyterian Church Violates US Antiboycott Laws. General Assembly of Presbyterian Church, USA, votes For Illegal Action at Convention August 1, 2004 (Boycott Watch)
4. Cite error: The named reference guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Old requests for peer review