Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

OK, I promised I would put something forward, and here it is.

Israel has been accused by various critics of conducting policies toward Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that are reminiscent of those perpetrated by the South African apartheid regime. Though the accusations vary in their severity and scope, they are largely based on the separation of Palestinian communities from each other and from Israeli infrastructure. Others, including critics of Israeli policy, reject the comparison with apartheid as unfair given Israel's defense needs and possibly motivated by a desire to demonize Israel. --Leifern 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Various critics accuse Israel" to avoid the passive voice? —Ashley Y 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I think this is an improvement, as it just gives a rough outline for both sides, leaving further detail to later paragraphs. —Ashley Y 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree it's an improvement. It's briefer, but what's up there now is already pretty brief for a lead. And in this case brevity ≠ concision; this newly suggested paragraph is rather wordy for how little it communicates. There is nothing alluding to the categorically different arguments for the West Bank and Israel proper (even though some major writers deplore the use of the term "apartheid" for the latter but use it themselves for the former). And there is a serious if subtle NPOV problem, in that the critics' case is summarized in their own terms ("Israel's defense needs," "possibly motivated by a desire to demonize Israel"), while the proponents' case is made in awkward, inert, weirdly abstract and passive language: no one talks about Palestinians being "separated...from Israeli infrastructure." Lastly, the "including critics of Israeli policy" clause is POV-massaging. I'd accede to it only if it's matched by a similar (and equally true) clause in the previous sentence about proponents (e.g., "including longtime supporters of Israel"). Better yet would be to leave it to readers (and reliable sources) to say who's a critic and who's a supporter.

In any case, I think what's up there on the article page right now is a better template. If "cantons" is the problem, then someone should suggest a synonym. But that's the commonly accepted word, pace Zeq, for the carved-up Palestinian sections of the post-Oslo West Bank; it's used by Haaretz, the New York Times, etc. and mainstream commentators all over the political map. As long as the substitute isn't some weird coinage or circumlocution, however, I'd be fine with it.--G-Dett 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Including longtime supporters of Israel," is a) original research, and b) prejudicial. At the same time, you insist that the term "Israeli infrastructure" is a novel interpretation. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you will accept no other lead than one that treats as a premise - against feeble protestations - that Israel is an apartheid state. --Leifern 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How is "including longtime supporters of Israel" original research and prejudicial, but "including critics of Israeli policy" is not? I'd say to have neither such statement.

john k

00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This stuff:

• 'arguing that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights and equality under the law, that the cited policies and practices are based on security needs[1] and that the practices of many other countries, to which the comparison is not made, more closely resemble South African apartheid'

argues against arguments that have not yet been made. We should either include what they are intended to rebut, or save both sides for the body of the article. I tend to agree with john k, above. Jd2718 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent). The lead I proposed seeks to summarize the basic positions of both sides. I'm sure - like everything else - it can improved. It does not get into the whys and why nots of the allegation, as this belongs in the article itself. "Critics of Israeli policy" refers to the particular policies that give rise/pretext to the comparison. The phrasing is very careful not to say, for example, "critics of Israel," or "anti-Zionists," etc. It is reasonable to say that those who are critical to the relevant policies are those who compare it to apartheid, isn't it? --Leifern 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with john k above, that it would be best to include neither the phrase "including longtime supporters of Israel" nor "including critics of Israeli policy". Not because they constitute OR (in fact neither does) but because each seems to be urging an argument, and is therefore inappropriate for a lead. But these are symmetrical facts, so NPOV requires that we include both or neither.

Leifern, I didn't say and don't think "Israeli infrastructure" is a "novel interpretation." I said and think that the phrase about Palestinians being "separated...from Israeli infrastructure" is euphemistic to the point of obscurity. Let's summarize the positions both of proponents and critics with clarity and fairness, in terms that accurately represent them.

I'm happy to work with Leifern's template instead of mine, but my concerns are the above.--G-Dett 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted there. Along your lines, I don't think Leifern's approach is totally unworkable, but I guess my sentiment remains that it seems a bit more circuitous than would be ideal. Mackan79 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I could see this being turned into something generally agreeable; I'm simply having a hard time with the form. According to

WP:Lead, a first sentence is supposed to be a definition. Granted, the situation is a bit odd here, since we're talking about something fairly abstract (an allegation of apartheid), but starting with a defining sentence still seems like the right approach. Starting with a sort of background sentence is an interesting idea, but I think goes a bit too far toward trying to make people comfortable. Shouldn't a premium be placed on clear and direct? To me, G-Dett's approach above of 1.) Definition, 2.) Proponents, 3.) Opponents 4.) Summary, if we can simply then agree on what kind of detail is then appropriate, would seem like the more promising framework. Mackan79

03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we go back to the original proposal as our template, for the sake of its verbal clarity and normative structure (definition, proponents, opponents, summary)? Again, it goes:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era and Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel. Proponents of the analogy liken the cantons of the West Bank to the Bantustans of South Africa, draw parallels between the system of separate roads, infrastructure, rights and privileges for Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank on the one hand, and the policies of racial separation in apartheid South Africa on the other, and in some cases point to allegedly second-class citizenship of Arabs living within Israel proper. Critics of the analogy call it inaccurate and illegitimate, arguing that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights and equality under the law, that the cited policies and practices in the West Bank are based on security needs[1], and that the practices of many other countries, to which the comparison is not made, more closely resemble South African apartheid.[2] In recent years, the analogy has become a contentious component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A couple of editors have mentioned reservations about the word "canton." I chose it because it's the only word I've ever heard used for the separate and semi-autonomous zones of Palestinian territory portioned out in the wake of Oslo. It seems to be the default word in the mainstream media, as well as pundits everywhere from William Safire to Josh Marshall to Noam Chomsky. I thought it was one of those rare words that everyone uses, a sliver of neutral semantic territory – indeed, if anything, one rather Swiss in its connotations. If someone objects, can they say why and suggest a synonym?--G-Dett 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you check out my comments below? The basic problem surrounding how to present the issue remains because of the POV inherent to the title. Thanks. Tiamut 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, how about combining them into an article entitled Israeli aparthied that reads:

Israeli apartheid is a term often used by those who make political arguments that draw

Proponents of such analogies liken the cantons of the West Bank to the Bantustans of South Africa, draw parallels between the system of separate roads, infrastructure, rights and privileges for Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank on the one hand, and the policies of racial separation in apartheid South Africa on the other, and in some cases point to allegedly second-class citizenship of Arabs living within Israel proper. Critics call such analogies inaccurate and illegitimate, arguing that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights and equality under the law, that the cited policies and practices in the West Bank are based on security needs[1], and that the practices of many other countries, to which the comparison is not made, more closely resemble South African apartheid.[2]

What do you and others think? Tiamut 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re my attempted compromise: On second thought, I guess what we have now is somewhat redundant. Perhaps a better option would be to mention the cantons, separate roads, etc. in the second half of the sentence, to make it more palatable. "Proponents of the analogy draw parallels between the limited rights and privileges of Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank and the policies of racial separation in apartheid South Africa, pointing specifically to the ..." or something like that. Then we'd just need to combine the statements re: Israel and the West Bank in some way. Just a quick thought. Mackan79 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great new article in the

Middle Eastern, which are the weasel words? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a term used by some Wikipedia editors to prima facie marginalize and undermine the legitimacy of political arguments that make

C'mon folks! Let's be real. Tiamut 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I have a problem with your suggestion. The problem is that the vast majority of uses of the term "Israeli Apartheid" are not by "respected scholars", but are by known racists and seriously biased individuals who use it as a pejorative in the writing of propaganda. Counting google hits is also misleading, as these writings and the term are parroted over and over on anti-semitic and fundamentalist islamic forums and pages all over the web, creating a false dichotomy. The term has been debunked at least as often as it has been used, and as such, I feel the title is better here as-is. One Elephant went out to play... 19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you feel strongly that the term itself is illegitimate, but I believe this is something that can be covered and expressed in the article defining the term, rather than in an article title that slants the POV of the debate to one side from the outset. The reader should be able to judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the term based on the article content, which would cover all sigificant POVs as per

WP:ATT. Also, it would prevent us from a circuitous definition and discussion of the subject at hand. Tiamut

19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I have read through a number of the references provided in this article, and they fall into two categories: the first are people who worry about the effects of the current policy, fearing that it will create a system that has elements similar to those seen during the apartheid era; the other is people who use it entirely for polemical purposes. The assertion that the "system in Israel ... is apartheid" falls squarely into the second category and should be treated as such. Even Jimmy Carter goes to great lengths to say that whatever it is, it's not racism, and that it only is like apartheid in one narrow sense. As far as I'm concerned, the comparison would be funny if it didn't do so much damage to the prospects for peace and security in the area. --Leifern 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if everything you have said is true, the article should still be entitled "Israeli apartheid". And it should deal with the points you've raised as well, reliably sourced and attributed of course. Adding "Allegations of" before every term that is viewed as poelmical is a ridiculous way of organizing information and a violation of

WP:NPOV. I've noticed articles around here discussing much less notable polemical terms like Pallywood, without putting the disclaimer "Allegations of" before it. We should be consistent, but not in setting and using bad precedents. Tiamut

20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because "Israeli apartheid" as a title is hijacking the premise. To create a parallel: several people think Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. We can undoubtedly find several articles from notable individuals, etc., that make that assertion. We still couldn't write an article called "War crimes committed by Henry Kissinger," could we? --Leifern 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I love the way I go away for a couple of months and return to discover that the same people are arguing against a name change that they have made for a year while the ground has rapidly shifted under them. When the article was first created, it was speedily moved without sufficient discussion; and since then the sequence of votes have consisted of scrabbling rationalisation of what people wanted anyway. (Truth be told, I am reminded strongly of my mother.)

As I have said earlier, and have been saying in the context of this article since week one: if the term itself has reached notability (I used to say if the term ever reaches a certain notability) then the title of the article should be about the use of the term; consider Islamofascism, which everyone agreed sometime last year was a benchmark - an agreement that some seem to have since found reason to forget. A discussion of the introduction of the term, of the increasing use and popularity of the term, and a brief discussion of the reasons people advance as to why use of the term is illegitimate or justified. This is so blindingly obvious to a neutral that my head actually hurts considering the sort of mental exercise intelligent people must undertake in order to avoid seeing it. Hornplease 17:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have a better idea: Let's delete the whole article. It is nonsense. 6SJ7 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying there are no allegations? —Ashley Y 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NPOV. Articles that can not be NPOV should not be here at all. This is an incentive for those who want to keep the article to compromise. Zeq 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think those wanting to keep the article have really shown a lot of willingness to compromise. At the same time, there seems to be a seriously flawed premise here, that if a topic relates to a negative aspect of something, the content should then strongly support that something in order to create some kind of cosmic balance. Compromise or not, that won't work.

What we need here, as Ashley suggests, is to focus on the WP guidelines: Notability, Attribution, NPOV, etc. Specifically, that means "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." That means if there's a view that this allegation is reprehensible, then we represent that view "fairly and without bias." Nobody here is contesting this. If there is also a view which makes the allegation, however, then we also present that view "fairly and without bias." If we'd all simply work from these policies, I think the process would be a lot smoother. Mackan79 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, WP:NPOV doesn't mean there aren't points of view in Wikipedia. It means that the presentation itself present those views neutrally.--G-Dett 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, you are so absolutely right. The bar for notability on this term has been met. It need a new name "Israeli apartheid" and then we need to faithfully represent the usage, and the debate. Can somebody please put their foot down here? Tiamut 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the other side that's put its foot down, Tiamut. Wikipedia works by consensus, and there have been several votes on the article title. Usually consensus has a healthy Habermasian quality to it; other times it descends into groupthink or worse. I've voted for the title to be changed, and will do so again, but to be honest I'm not terribly passionate about it. Those who've demanded that "allegations" be kept in the title imagine that it throws the whole subject into doubt, like scare quotes or the adjective "so-called" or something, but they're just confused about the term. "Allegations" doesn't just mean something dubious or debatable. It means assertions of fact, which could conceivably be proven beyond doubt but have yet to be. You don't use it for metaphors, or comparisons, or hyperbolic insults or epithets or whatever. Which is why "Allegations of Islamofascism" would sound ridiculous, as would "allegations that so-and-so is a wanker."

The only reason "allegations of Israeli Apartheid" doesn't sound similarly ridiculous is that "apartheid," in addition to being an iconic metaphor for ethnic separation and systemic domination, is also a legal term referring to a crime under international law. All that those insisting on retaining this solecism in the title have succeeded in doing is making it look like it's an article about formal criminal charges brought against the state of Israel. Of course anyone who happens on this article will quickly see that's not the case, and figure out soon enough that the title is just a clumsy attempt to stamp "taboo" on the topic.--G-Dett 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But on the other hand, the title cannot be

Israeli apartheid, because there is no such thing, and besides, it will never get a consensus. I don't think the word "apartheid" should be in the title at all, but I was willing to compromise. However much you object to the current title, most likely it is the best, or worst (depending on your perspective) that it is ever going to get. 6SJ7

00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no "new antisemitism" either, as Brian Klug points out, but we have an article on that. Personally I would have preferred "Comparisons between Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and Apartheid South Africa" or somesuch. —Ashley Y 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we have Allegations of the Easter Bunny? --G-Dett 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you can name the article about the Easter Bunny anything you want, as long as it does not have the word "apartheid" in it. That has nothing to do with what this article should be named, however. 6SJ7 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7, like I said I'm not terribly concerned about the violation of NPOV in the title, partly because of the way it backfires (making it sound if anything more serious, a legal imbroglio rather than a merely provocative metaphor), and partly because smart readers tipped off by the solecism will quickly figure out the special pleading, double standards, etc. that require such disclaimer words in titles of articles unflattering to Israel. So that quaint old canards like "Zionism and Racism" have to be retitled "Zionist and Racism Allegations," whereas the orgy of plagiarism, propaganda and hate stored under "Islam and Antisemitism" will keep that title.

So I have no intention of putting up a big fight over this title, amateurishly biased as it is. But I have to take issue with you saying a) this article can't be called "Israeli Apartheid" because "there's no such thing," and b) that the precedent for the titling of other articles on subjects the real-world existence of which is dubious or disputed "has nothing to do with what this article should be named." These are serious matters of principle, and you're wrong on both counts. Regarding (a), the reliable sources are divided about the truth of "Israeli Apartheid." For you to say that your own judgment resolves the matter definitively is a violation of basic Wikipedia principles. Regarding (b), there is no precedent in Wikipedia for putting disclaimer-words in the titles of articles with controversial subjects, and precedent indeed does matter. If you ignore precedent you get special pleading, double standards, etc., as well as a amateurish, bloggy sort of online encyclopedia.--G-Dett 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If everyone here is willing to remove all the material about the allegations from the article, and stick to merely discussing the term (as with Islamofascism), then we might have something to discuss. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Would there be a better place to put the substantive discussion? Mackan79 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I came here to offer serious questions and concerns after seeing this page mentioned on the Admins Noticeboard, user:Slimvirgin has used that as "evidence" that I am a banned user. I am not, but this has not stopped his/her lies and false accusations. Therefore, I am leaving Wikipedia. Feel free to take my note above into account, but I won't be responding to anything else. Sorry to go this way, but when the admins are doing this sort of abusive stuff and nobody will stand up to them, wikipedia is not worth contributing to. One Elephant went out to play... 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I dislike this elephant man, mainly because of his views - however, his view on admins is totally correct, there must be clearer restrictions on what administrators can do, they cannot be the judge and jury of Wikipedia - we must be democratic --MiddleEastern 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

An article entitled "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" must discuss its subject matter, that is, allegations. It should first tell the reader what the allegations are, and who is making them. Then only after that should it tell us what the objections are, though of course not with any less emphasis or weight. —Ashley Y 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review

WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Inserting an argument for rejecting the analogy in the lead, without any discussion there of the arguments in favour, in no sense counts as NPOV. Please stop doing it. —Ashley Y 04:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose that this page is moved back to its correct and proper title "Israeli Apartheid" or "Apartheid in Israel", we are all fully aware that it happens. Why else would there be a huge stone wall across our country, or innocent Muslims used as human shields by Israeli Military! Anyone who is not a hardline right-wing Israeli should have no objections, possibly Americans who are also effected greatly by this political situation. However we cant allow people's interpretation of TV news to become the "accepted view", just as we can't allow the perpetrators of this apartheid crime in Israel to play it down, and censor the article on wikipedia --MiddleEastern 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My objections are noted a few sections up (among other places). This has been suggested before and there has never been a consensus, nor do I think there ever will be. And your view of who "should have no objections" is irrelevant, as people decide for themselves whether they should object to something. 6SJ7 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I never really understood the rationale for not following

There's no explanation, it's the "handfull of admins" episode over again, the exact reason why I'm running for adminship! (To stop hierarchal control) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MiddleEastern‎ --MiddleEastern 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason for that is very simple: there is no Israeli apartheid, and no reasonable person could possibly conclude there is. The term itself is a malicious libel that would be met with ridicule and scorn if it were about any country besides Israel. Now, I could propose with considerably more substance that the article be moved to Libel of Israeli apartheid, but that would clearly be a POV title. So we can either get into an argument that surely won't (nor shouldn't) be resolved in Wikipedia, or we can try to make this article as NPOV as possible. --Leifern 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

...there is no Israeli apartheid, and no reasonable person could possibly conclude there is...

So pushing that personal opinion into the article is a NPOV? Interesting...--

Domitius

15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, I'm not. My opinion is irrelevant to the article, as is "MiddleEastern"'s and everyone else's. But just as I don't expect him - or anyone else - to accept this view as a premise for the article, neither should other opinions be accepted as premises, either. This is why the title - awkward as it is - is still the most NPOV for this article. --Leifern 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So if no one's opinion counts and everything must be presented in a neutral fashion, then how come there is no such title for any other article (even for the most contested views, from the

Domitius

15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read

WP:WTA, the overarching purpose of this guideline is to qualify something that shouldn't be qualified. In this case, the assertion that Israel commits apartheid is highly controversial, and "apartheid" is clearly "derogatory or offensive" to quote the guideline. And so we have to use one word we'd rather avoid rather than one that is even worse. I and others have repeatedly said that this article should be deleted altogether, the points easily being covered by other articles on the topic. --Leifern

15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It still looks like POV pushing, most articles on disputed theories on Wikipedia don't have a title saying

Domitius

16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the term "Israeli apartheid" is even more POV-pushing. Apartheid is a specific crime in international law with specific criteria. It's as if someone wrote an article called Henry Kissinger's War Crimes and complaining that "alleged" needed to be included. As you'll see if you read the various threads here, you'll see that a large portion claim that there is Israeli apartheid. MiddleEastern is extreme, to be sure (just look at his recent and incredibly short-lived RFA), but it's indicative. --Leifern 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, you are totally right. Hornplease, G-Dett and many others have pointed out the double-standard being employed here. Unfortunately, there are a couple of admins who have had a history of turning a blind eye to policy when it comes to this article, and who have allowed opponents to the listing of this article under its proper title "Israeli apartheid", to persist in setting a bad precedent for the discussion of controversial topics. Islamofascism (as pointed out in the discussion somewhere above) has less currency as a concept and yet it is presented under its proper name despite the controversy associated. There are many other such examples. The exception being made for this article is really indefensible. I wish that more editors without a stake in the debate (in other words, neither pro or con about the aptness of apartheid analogies in discussing Israel) would step in and offer their opinions too, as you have done. But even though there have been requests for peer review here, most people seem to run away scared due to heat the debate tends to generate. Putting all political debate aside however, the title does need to be changed though if Wikipedia wants to hang onto its reputation as a credible encyclopedia. Tiamut 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental difference between the two article being that the Islamofascism article doesn't actually discuss the allegations itself; that radical Islam is fascistic. Instead, it just discusses the term, when it was coined, its uses, objections, etc. If this article merely discussed the term "Israeli apartheid", its uses, objections, etc., then it might be an appropriate title, but since it also spends a great deal of time discussing the allegation that Israel practices a form of apartheid, it obviously has to stay here. So, rather than an double-standard being employed here, you are actually proposing a double-standard. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• We have consensus - with only one irrational objector, I will place request on the applicable admin board now! --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? What double standard? --Leifern 17:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

From

WTA is a guideline, and one which you've misinterpreted in this case. In any event, there have been many debates about this, even Arbcom cases, many many people have objected to removing "Allegations" from the title, and the proposals of two new editors and a sockpuppet of a banned user aren't going to overturn that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about "alleged" either, but "apartheid" is even more prejudicial. --Leifern 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Jayjg. As pointed out above, the issue is about consistency in naming articles and not allowing the controversial subject matter to distort how an article is titled. I find no basis in fact for the phenomena described as

WP:WTA might be only a guideline, it is certainly a more respectable basis for an argument than claiming that "two new editors and a sockpuppet of a banned user" aren't going to make a difference. There is a lot of substance in the arguments being put forward here by many different editors (See sections sbove). Let's try to keep it substantive. Thanks. Tiamut

18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Islamofascism doesn't discuss the allegations, does it? Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, the article ought to be something like "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa". This would avoid the question of the international crime of apartheid, and more closely match what most of the complainants are saying. —Ashley Y 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should be entitled

Israeli apartheid. It should define the term, explore the origins of its uses, outline sigficant arguments for and against the use of the term and related analogies. It could follow the lines of the Islamofascism article in this regard. But there should be a subsection that mentions of discusses the legal definition of apartheid and an "Allegations" section would be appropriate for that discussion, since it would be arugments for and against the legal applicability of the term. Tiamut

18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the "Islamofascism" article investigate the allegations that Islam is fascistic? Have arguments pro and con? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are rhetorical questions your idea of a substantive discussion? Seriously though. If you take a good look at the

Israeli apartheid. Tiamut

19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you are retreading old material and tired arguments. An assertion can not be a title, and "Israeli apartheid" commits an egregious rhetorical fallacy. It would be equivalent to "Palestinian religious persecution" or "Iranian belligerency," all of which I'm sure would be shot down. For heaven's sake, the term "Palestinian terrorism" isn't even allowed as a title here but as a redirect, and we're talking about shooting children in schools. I'm not going to defend Islamofascism, but I don't know enough about the term to weigh in. --Leifern 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I make no claims of being clairvoyant Leifern, but perhaps the reason you have heard these arguments before is that they are valid and compelling.

New Anti-Semitism is a highly disputed concept that attempts to slur all anti-Zionists as anti-Semites. Let's try to even here and not employ double-standards. Also, see G-Dett's comments below ont he article about Islamofascism and what it does and does not include and how this article's differential treatment exemplifies the double-standard at work here. Tiamut

20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Titles Allegations of X are not uncommon in WP. Regarding Islamofascism, see this. All that has been discussed to death, but somehow when it comes to Israel and Jews some users lose any sense of rationality. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Which editors here do you think are anti-Semites? It would seem to be good to be specific. Also, can you name any "Allegations of X" titles in which X is a comparison, a metaphor, a meme, etc.? I don't know of any. Scratch that, I know of one – "Zionism and Racism Allegations." All the other "Allegations of X" titles that I know involve statements-of-fact-that-could-conceivably-be-proven-or-disproven-but-have-yet-to-be. In other words, they use the word "allegations" correctly.--G-Dett 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone here accuse any editors of being antisemites; why did you bring that up? I do note that User:Kirbytime is insisting that the Holocaust is merely an "allegation": Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_of_articles_with_.22allegations.22in_their_name Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, is there a difference between an antisemite and a person who "loses all rationality" when it comes to Jews? I don't know of any difference between the two, so I responded to Humus assuming that's what he meant. Since accusations that certain editors are irrational about Jews, or like to "blacken" them, etc., are fairly common on this and related discussion pages, perhaps you or Humus could explain to me how these accusations differ from accusations of antisemitism. Because to me they're synonymous.--G-Dett 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about "assumptions," Jay, we're talking about synonyms and basic definitions. I tend to use language precisely, as you know; if you and Humus will take care to do likewise, especially with serious issues like accusations of antisemitism, problems like this can be avoided. Thanks.--G-Dett 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And now I note that he has described The Holocaust as a "political epithet". These are your allies, G-Dett. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a sleazy and

stupid smear

, Jay.

It was hardly that. But it's good to be aware of the people who support your position. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with G-Dett more. Is that your best argument, Jayjg? Sad, really. Tiamut 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, it wasn't an argument. Did you think that was an argument? Sad, really. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why even say it? Don't feign innocence about the weight those kinds of slurs have. Try apologizing for your off-topic intimations instead of being smug. Tiamut 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You have mistaken a cautionary note for an intimation; if you find your positions being supported by people who say very unsavory things, then perhaps you should re-examine your positions. This is not about G-Dett personally. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So if an anti-Semite say the earth is round, I should reconsider? Like I said, Jayjg: is that your best argument? Sad. Really. Tiamut 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw man arguments aren't helpful, and you promised to turn over a new leaf in your rhetoric. Sad, really. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a strawman, Jay. Tiamut is talking about

guilt by association, which is indeed the logical fallacy underlying your cheap smear.--G-Dett

01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's pointing out that when people with rather offensive views argue in favor of your political positions, then it's wise to review those positions to understand why they appeal so much to people with such offensive views. By the way, saying the earth is round isn't a political position (in case you were wondering). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, what views do I share with Kirbytime? And how do they relate to the idea that the Holocaust should be treated as an "allegation"? --G-Dett 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not speaking for myself when I said the Holocaust is "alleged". I was speaking for the revionists and other nutjobs (the same kind of nutjobs that deny the existence of an Israeli apartheid). I'm not going to refer this breach of

Of course you weren't. Jayjg took your comments out of context and used them to connect you, G-Dett, myself, and by extension everyone else making arguments for a page entitled "Israeli apartheid" to Holocaust denial and anti-semitism. It's a not only a violation of

WP:NPA, it creates an intimidating editing environment and it's insensitive and rude. Tiamut

14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, in reacting to Jay's crass attempt to smear me with another editor's views, I didn't take into consideration the possibility that Jay was misrepresenting those views in the first place. I don't know you as an editor and I don't know the village pump dispute in question; my sincerest apologies if I gave implicit credence to a misrepresentation of you. Cheers.--G-Dett 15:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok. I understand. Now back to the issue at hand. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want the page moved, list a proposal for this page at

Thanks for the suggestion Minderbinder. I have done just that. For those interested, you can check out the proposal under today's date at

WP:RM. Tiamut

15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I object. I also refer you to the title Palestinian political violence, used instead of the obvious, and completely accurate (do you agree?) "Palestinian Terrorism". okedem 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends what the article includes, and how it is defined. If it includes all armed activity carried out by Palestinians, then the current title is fine. Palestinian have a right to resist the occupation under international law, so even though all such activity might be viewed as terrorism by some, "political violence" is a more apt term. If strictly limited to those acts carried out against specifically against civilians to kill and to instill terror to achieve political aims, then perhaps it needs to be renamed. Tiamut 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We will get nowhere trying to change the article to Palestinian violence, even if we should agree here. But it's interesting that you once again enter your own opinions as premises for what the article should and shouldn't be - others will argue that there is no occupation, and certainly not one that is illegal, and if there is a right to "resist" against it, then there surely is an equal right to fight that resistance. All these are controversies that can't and shouldn't be resolved in Wikipedia. --Leifern 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's trying to resolve any controversy. It's just that terrorism is defined as violence against civilians. By definition it doesn't include attacks on IDF soldiers, attacks on checkpoints, throwing rocks at tanks, and so on. So if

unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs

) 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I suspect this should probably go in the body of the article, if it belongs, since it has a somewhat POV effect in the intro (at least as it is currently written). I'm not sure where to move it, though, since it lacks a source or any context. If people feel this sentence belongs, could they explain where it might go? Mackan79 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It obviously has a POV effect, and it's not even clear how it relates to the article. Moreover, even if it were relevant to "Israeli apartheid", it only refers to Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not in Israel, so it can't be fully relevant anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's POV, it merely highlights how Israel describes its policy of segregation. I think it has the opposite effect because it emphasizes that Israel does not consider what it's doing the creation of an apartheid (in that area at least).--

Israel doesn't have a "policy of segregation", though. It has a policy of keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip out of Israel, which is something else. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "separation policy" and a "segregation policy" exactly? Tiamut 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The United States has a "separation policy" regarding Mexicans in Mexico. Is that a "segregation policy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an international

Domitius

18:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What, in your view, is the

Green line (Israel)? Palestinians insist it is an international border. Jayjg ^(talk)

18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel doesn't though, yet still imposes restrictions.--

Domitius

18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So? Is it a border or not? You can't have it both ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not competent to decide that, it's disputed internationally. Suffice it to say that it's de facto not an international border.--

Domitius

19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely neither side gets to have it both ways?

john k

19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid means separation. Hafrada means separation. This article is about allegations of Israeli apartheid. How can it not be notable that Israel has an official policy called separation. Arguments against the analogy between the two terms are very clear stated in the article. But leaving this information out seems heavily POV. Bertilvidet 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Which

reliable sources make the argument that the two are related? Jayjg ^(talk)

19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the people making the "allegations of Israeli apartheid", what are they referring to?--

Domitius

19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This Ecumencial Center [2] explicitly made the connection in 2004: "NOTE: Originally the word apartheid was an Afrikaans word that simply meant “separation”. It reflected the desire of the whites to separate from the blacks in South Africa. In time, the word acquired a racist connotation for racial segregation. Similarly, Sabeel has been recommending to its friends to use the word “hafrada” which is Hebrew for separation. This is the word which the government of Israel is using as it builds its separation wall. In time, the word hafrada can become synonymous with apartheid because it harbors within it the hatred of and discrimination against the Palestinians. Tiamut 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Sabeel; a highly partisan group at best. Now, why would you include the argument of an

unreliable source, one that is not even quoted in the article (for good reason), in the lead? And why would you insert it as a mere statement of fact, rather than the rather obvious argument it is? Jayjg ^(talk)

19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you described hafrada as a "policy of keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip out of Israel," and then emphasized this point by invoking the Green Line. But hafrada as I understand it, and as it's defined by our article on it, isn't about keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza out of Israel, it's about "separating the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the Israeli population." Hafrada isn't implemented along the Green Line, separating those within from those without; it separates Arab and Jewish populations living outside the Green Line.--G-Dett 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a policy of keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip outside of Israel's de facto borders, doesn't it? It has no effect on Israeli Arabs, though, so it can hardly be about "segregation", which included not just borders, but use of public facilities etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If when you defined hafrada as a "policy of keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip out of Israel," you were referring to Israel's de facto borders, then why did you invoke the Green Line to buttress your point?--G-Dett 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, you're confusing the issues. That Israel has a separation policy called hafrada is a fact the Israeli government does not deny. You asked for a source making the link between this and apartheid. I gave you a source. That it is partisan is unsurprising given that many of those who use the term "Israeli apartheid" are. Here's another: [3]. There are others too. But it's relevance is clear without the sources, per Bertilvidet above. And we are slipping into arguing the existence of "Israeli apartheid" again, rather than discussing article content. Tiamut 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevance may be clear to you even without any sources, but the idea that hafrada is equivalent to apartheid has not been attributed to any reliable source. Anti-Israeli websites don't count as reliable sources. Beit Or 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice when people talk frankly; "publications I disagree with are not reliable". Thanks. Bertilvidet 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to be attributed to reliable sources (within your meaning of the term). It needs to be attributed to those making the allegations. When someone alleges an Israeli apartheid, what are they referring to?--

Domitius

19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does have to attributed to

reliable sources. Why would be bother quoting anyone who wasn't a reliable source? Can we quote my Aunt Bessie on the subject too? Jayjg ^(talk)

19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So those making the "allegations" are not reliable sources. Odd - the article's title invokes them so they can't be that unreliable.--

Domitius

19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the sources alleging Israeli apartheid with those making a connection to hafrada; they are not the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for that POV are clearly stated in the article. Bertilvidet 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They are in many cases indeed the same.--G-Dett 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They are? Which ones? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this [4]?--

Domitius

20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you name them please? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of editors not participating in the talk keep (seem well-organised) on removing the sentence. Anyone who even will argue that we should censor out the information that there is an official Isreali policy labeled hafrada? Bertilvidet 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear why anyone should respond to a comment which describes the removal of unsourced material as "censorship"; perhaps you can re-phrase. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps things could be rephrased. But yes, I believe one should argue for the deletion. So the problem is that there is no sources confirming the existence of such a policy? Bertilvidet 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is there are no

reliable sources which tie hafrada to Israeli apartheid, and even if there were, it's not clear why that specific argument should go in the lead, and be presented as a "fact", rather than an argument by proponents of the Israeli apartheid allegation. I've said all this before, so the issue is not that people aren't "arguing for deletion", but that others aren't actually reading the arguments. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the question of whether Jay's Aunt Bessie can be quoted, I think it should depend on whether she's a prominent and published writer, not whether her opinions are at odds with her nephew's.--G-Dett 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The hafrada argument isn't sourced to any prominent and published writers, is it? In fact, it's an

"innocent fact", isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk)

20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Jay. If it's going to go in the lead, it should be clear that reference to it forms part of the proponents' case. Of course there are RS's who use it in this way, but it has yet to be demonstrated that it's a key component of their argument. I think Mackan's right that if it's going to stay, it needs to be rephrased in compliance with WP:ATT and almost certainly moved out of the lead and into the body of the article. --G-Dett 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may try to strike a balance here, I think the Hafrada sentence, at least without context, does probably upset the balance of the lead. Considering the controversiality of this issue, I think it's important to put things in context as much as possible. My suggestion would be that the Hafrada point should be moved lower (first section, maybe) if the hope is any sort of concensus on intro. Otherwise, I think the continued reversions of the "proponents" sentence in the lead is clearly unjustified, as it leaves the paragraph overwhelmingly negative on the concept, against

I'd be glad to see a reliable source showing me such a policy even exists, or that it uses the name "Hafrada". The only thing I'm aware of, or could find, was "Geder Haafrada" ("Separation fence") which separates Israel from the territories, mostly along the green line, but also sometimes deviating from it to protect settlements built in the territories. The fence's construction was begun a few years ago (after a lot of public pressure), in response to Palestinian terrorism - to keep the suicide bombers out. There are claims that it's also being used to determine a de facto border, and annex (small) parts of the territories. See Israeli West Bank barrier for more details on that.

I could not find evidence of a "Hafrada" policy beyond that. okedem 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See the Hafrada sub-section below for sources that explain what it is and how it is linked to this discussion. Tiamut 21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you say above that "the fundamental difference" between

Can you tell me a) in what sense this "doesn't actually discuss the allegation [sic] itself?"; and b) how is this different from the kind of substantive material you've suggested we'd need to remove from this article in order for it to be appropriately titled "Israeli Apartheid"? Thanks.--G-Dett 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Up until late February none of that material was in there. In fact, editors on the page assiduously and successfully kept it out for two years, against strong opposition. Though their defenses seemed to have weakened for the past couple of weeks, I have no doubt they will soon have it out again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds are they assiduously keeping it out? I haven't followed the debates in that article, but the bulk of what I've quoted there does appear to be

original research. The material arguably supports the connection, but it appears to be Wikipedians making the connection – not the cited sources for the most part. I don't think comparable material would last fifteen seconds in this article. Would it?--G-Dett

20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparable material has lasted in the lead of this article for many hours now; in fact, you are supporting the maintenance of that material. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Which? Are you talking about hafrada? I just said you're right about this.[5] I see my post went in only a minute before yours; you probably missed it.--G-Dett 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you still support its insertion, because when Bertilvidet continues to insert it (using the false edit summary "rv unexplained deletion"),[6] you follow his edits with your own, [7] rather than removing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Boo, Jay, boo. Desperate stuff.--G-Dett 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett conceded that point about one minute before you made that posting Jayjg. It can be moved into the body to discuss its relevance to the title more throughly. But G-Dett's basic point remains true. This article is held to much higher standrads and the fact that you did not remove the comparable material there (unreliably cited to boot) speaks volumes. Tiamut 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett just recently made that concession. As for "speaking volumes", I don't edit the Islamofascism article; haven't really looked at it in years. I have no interest in the subject. Why would that "speak volumes"? Am I now responsible for removing all

original research from every article on Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk)

20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A few clarifications. 1. Yes, I did just recently concede your point, but do look at the edit history and take note that I had already done that before you posted saying I hadn't. My point is not to take you to task for the oversight – there was only a minute window and the concession was in a different section – but I do want it to be very clear that this wasn't some sort of calculated concession. Clear? 2. No, you're not responsible for anything over at Islamofascism. But you are responsible for the comparison you're making, and the conclusions you draw from that comparison. Your comparison says that that article addresses only the term and not the allegations [sic], whereas this one deals with both – hence the different titles. What's your evidence for that? Your evidence can't be that you have "no doubt" that something I quoted from that article won't last – especially if the material in question looks for all the world like original research. Is there RS-material on the links and resemblances between Islamism and Fascism that's being kept out of that article? Are the editors over there insisting that the article can quote someone using the term but it can't quote them justifying it? If so, then that's good evidence for what you're saying, as well as being a problem in its own right. But if not, then I think the distinction you're drawing between treatment of a controversial term, on the one hand, and treatment of "allegations" [sic] that are an intrinsic part of that term, on the other – is imaginary.--G-Dett 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In the past, which I still have not forgotten, huge wars were fought over that article, and yes, all material discussing the validity of the analogy was kept out. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then that's a serious problem. Can you point me to those disputes? I don't mean go out and collect all the diff's – I just mean tell me the topic, the month, etc.? Thanks Jay.--G-Dett 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been going on for years; here's one example Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, the diff you've directed me to clearly doesn't support your point. In it, someone rightly removes from the lead the following chunk of badly written POV-pushing original research:

While some movements self-describe themselves as "Islamist", few today will refer to themselves publicly as "fascist", even if their views fit with the meaning of neo-fascism because of the associations with the term in modern times with groups such as the former Nazi Party, Soviet Communism and modern Neo-Nazism.

The editor replaced this and other related junk with an intro that – in its brevity and balance – would serve well as a model for

"Islamofascism" is a controversial political term. It is used by some journalists, politicians, and academics who perceive some

neofascist or totalitarian characteristics. Others view the term as propaganda and as profoundly insulting

to Muslims.

If anything, this diff undermines your point. You need to find a real example of what you're talking about, or perhaps reconsider the distinction you imagine exists between the two articles.--G-Dett 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit removed huge amounts of text regarding its application which you failed to mention, and the putative reason for removing it was telling. Look at that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you're basing all of this on the wording of the edit summary: "This is an article about the term Islamofascism." The edit was a good edit – an excellent edit in fact, but with a rather vague edit summary that appears to have confused you. The "huge amounts of text" I failed to mention consisted of two clunky, verbose phrases – "It has come to be used by some non-Muslim journalists, politicians and academics to refer to those Islamist movements that are perceived to have neofascist or totalitarian characteristics, particularly groups of Islamic fundamentalists" etc. etc. – the modification of which reflect the editor's good taste and ear for decent prose, not his ideological inclinations.

To reiterate: this is a great edit, an edit the likes of which we need more of around here. The editor removed a chunk of tendentious and absurd original research from the article lead, and edited the remaining legitimate part of the lead for clarity, brevity, balance and vigor, and in full compliance with

WP:LEAD

.

Do you have any real examples demonstrating that Islamofascism is an article only about a term, whereas this one is about a term and the allegation implied by that term? Real evidence, Jay...because otherwise I think you need to concede the point, and agree that what we need for articles like this is a single clear standard, one with self-evident fairness.--G-Dett 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get carried away with partisan hyperbole; reverts aren't "great edits", they're just reverts. In addition, this was one of many similar edits, both before and after; feel free to peruse the edit history and Talk: pages for more examples. Meanwhile, you're still supporting the insertion of the "hafrada" material, contrary to your earlier claims. It seriously impinges on your credibility. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When someone says, "you're right, Jay," have the grace to accept it. And if grace is too tall an order, bear in mind that the deliberate misrepresentation of the positions of other editors erodes

WP:AGF. I haven't edit-warred over 'hafrada' because a) I assumed you were on the case, and you're a more formidable and well-connected edit-warrior than I; and b) because I've got a couple of reverts on this page already today and wanted to give it a rest. Now, do you have any good evidence of the distinction you're claiming exists between Islamophobia and this article? If not, will you consider conceding the point?--G-Dett

01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you were to actually take out the hafrada stuff, your protestations are pretty meaningless. As for the Islamophobia stuff, I've pointed out that for years it has only been about the term, never about the allegation; it's hard to see what more you could ask for. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is very silly indeed, not so much for the way it wilfully ignores my explanation (and continues to misrepresent me) as for the way it trivializes the whole process of reaching consensus on talk pages. In any case, please note that I'm also leaving Humus's propaganda edit. Your second point is, well, very silly as well, a rival in silliness to your first. What more could I ask for than you saying it over and over again for years? Good G-d, Jay. Learn the difference between assertion and argument, and when you've got that down, come back with some evidence.--G-Dett 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're back to your old style of Talk: page comment; you'll never achieve consensus that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GK Chesterton says something somewhere about not only suffering fools gladly but enjoying them immensely. What you call the "old style" is just my formal wear for these special occasions. Thanks for noticing.--G-Dett 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, is accusing someone of lying when they say they agree with you and think you're right a good way of reaching consensus? Do you think you've perhaps been a bit of a troll here tonight?--G-Dett 03:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit reverted by Humus sapiens contained the hafrada reference indeed. If FOSNA is the only source, it should be demonstrated how it would qualify as

• [8]: Jews call it hafrada, "separation," in Hebrew. Critics call it apartheid. The more technical neo-nomenclature is, quote, unquote, "unilateral disengagement." It's an idea that has gained ground in Israel.

• [9]

Barak explained hafrada — separation — this way in 1998: “We should separate ourselves from the Palestinians physically, following the recommendation of the American poet Robert Frost, who once wrote that good fences make good neighbors. Leave them behind [outside] the borders that will be agreed upon, and build Israel.”

• [10]

Known by many names—security fence, separation barrier, hafrada wall, or simply “the Wall”—the $1 billion construction project undertaken by the Israeli government through the West Bank is a combination of razor-tipped fencing and concrete wall that will snake across 450 miles of the Holy Land when it is completed next year. —The preceding

For one thing, they aren't even talking about the same thing. The first is about a disengagement policy, the second about finalizing borders, the third about the barrier - if anything, that would link them to the articles on the disengagement policy and the barriers, not this one. On top of that, who is saying these things? You can't just take any internet source with the words "hafrada" and "apartheid" in them, and assert that they are talking about the same thing, and that they are reliable sources. And, on top of that, even if you insisted that the article was related, why on earth would you remove a "See also" to

Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba article? How could you possibly imagine allegations of apartheid against various countries are unrelated? They all link to the same parent article! Jayjg ^(talk)

20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that none of these three sources is talking about the same thing is debatable but immaterial. If there are three things being talked about here, they're all aspects of "hafrada," which in each case is being linked or likened to "apartheid." So it's appropriate for us to link. As they say, don't argue with the sources.--G-Dett 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, Jayjg, so let me spell it out for you slowly. These sources are saying that they are all the same thing. Barak used hafrada to describe his new policy for dealing with the Palestinians as early as 1998 - which was separation in the form of unilteral disengagement. The "disengagement" is actually referred to as hafrada in Hebrew, or the Hebrew transliteration of unilateral disengagement plan is "Tochnit Ha-Hafrada Ha-Had-Tzedadit" (this is not in a source listed here but it is in a footnote here:[11]. The first source

I gave you from The American-based McLaughlin Group news program makes the link between all this by explicitly saying "Jews call it hafrada, "separation," in Hebrew. Critics call it apartheid." In other words, these sources establish that to critics, the unliteral disengagement plan = the hafrada policy = apartheid policy. Tiamut 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS, setting agendas on public issues or defining the way an encyclopedia should use a term. --tickle me

21:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I doubt the

Bill Maher show is a reliable source here either.--Urthogie

21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can someone point me to the reliable sources which connect the situation in Cuba to the one in Israel-Palestine?--G-Dett 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The connection was also made by

Catchpole

21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the titles and the fact that they're part of the same category of allegations of apartheid.--Urthogie 21:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some misinformation here. As a Hebrew speaker, who reads the newspapers, the websites, listens and watches the news, I can tell you this - there no widespread usage of the word "Hafrada" in this context. It just isn't used, and certainly isn't "government policy". I have yet to see any source for this claim.

The only widespread usage is in "Geder Hahafrada", "The separation fence", regarding the barrier. It's meant to be a tool against terrorism, but it's also extremely important (though somehow many people miss it) - it's Israel's concession of the "Whole Israel" dream. Unless I'm horribly wrong, the whole idea of the peace process was to reach a two state solution, and that barrier means Israel actually sees the Green Line as the basis for a future international border. So, sure, there are deviations for various reasons, but anyone looking at the map can see it's built along the green line. The two state solution, which is the stated purpose of the whole process, and most likely outcome, means there will be a border between the states. Considering reality, it will not be an open, european-style border, but a well guarded one. The fence has absolutely nothing to do with so-called apartheid. It's meant to separates Israelis from Palestinians, not Arabs from Jews (is there a fence between Shfar'am and Haifa? Abu-Gosh and Jerusalem?). It can only be connected to the apartheid claims if one says the Palestinians should be Israelis, i.e., a one state solution, which most people are against (the Palestinians have accepted the two state solution).

The Disengagement plan, despite Tiamut's claims, was not called "Hafrada" in any way, but "Hitnatkut" (which can also be translated as "Disconnection"). Again, with the point of leaving the Gaza Strip, to make way for a future Palestinian state (unfortunately, the Palestinians, as usual, failed to understand the huge importance of Israel evacuating settlers, and intensified their attack from Gaza, causing public opinion in Israel to change and oppose future concessions). okedem 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the intentions of the Israeli government in pursuing its policy of "disengagement" or "separation" is interesting, but not exactly relevant. Some people who accuse Israel of apartheid see the disengagment plan as apartheid, whereas you see it as moving towards a two-state solution. Each is entitled to their opinion on the matter, but in this article we are representing their view, and not yours. Now, I'm sure you can find sources that contend that the separation wall and its associated policies are designed to make peace (every Israeli hasbara organization has a nice long list on their pages for their advocates). So, when we include the arguments that make this link, you can add your own sources that argue as to why it is inappropriate, for the sake of NPOV. Until then, please don't accuse me of lying about what words are used for the disengagement plan in Hebrew. While Hitnatkut may be used in some circles, Hafrada was the original formulation as put forward by Barak, and adopted by Sharon. Perhaps the change was designed to avoid the negative PR backlash from such a poor choice of words originally. But the fact remains that that is what is has been called and continues to be called in some circles. Tiamut 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling the barrier "apartheid" is absurd. Both parties (Israel and the Palestinians) have agreed to a separate future. Attaching claims of apartheid to the barrier means going towards a one-state solution, which no party wants. So it's not my "interpretation", but the reality here. I say again, while one can claim Israel is using the barrier for land grabs (heck, even I say that), it's obvious to anyone that the barrier is based on the green line. Now, this isn't an article about the barrier, but about Apartheid claims. Can you explain how building a fence along (mostly) what both sides agree should be a future international border can be seen as apartheid?

You seem to be confusing two very different things - first, "Geder Hahafrada" (the barrier). Second, the "Hitnatkut" (the disengagement plan). The second was not called "Hafrada" at any stage, and had nothing to do with Barak. The Hitnatkut was first raised by Sharon in 2004 (read

here). The Hitnatkut cleared out settlers living in the Gaza Strip and northern samaria, and gave back the land to the Palestinians. If you can explain to me how that's apartheid, I'll be very impressed. Now, some people might say that the Hitnatkut's is to separate between Palestinians and Israelis (true enough, and seems to be an obvious step to peace, no? Evacuating settlers and giving land back), and they might have used the word "Hafrada", being a completely ordinary word in the Hebrew language, meaning "separation". But the claim the "Israeli government has an official policy called Hafrada" is fallacious, and I challenge you to bring sources (respectable sources) for that claim, or withdraw it. okedem

14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Okedem. You seem to be misinterpreting what it is that I am trying to say, which could be because I did not explain myself clearly. So let me try again. We are talking about a policy that has gone by many different names which makes it difficult to discuss the issues at hand. When Barak first inauguarated this shift in policy in 1998, he termed it hafrada or separation policy (as evidenced in this reliable source I already provided above: [12]). This source also explains that Sharon continued with the implementation of this policy and that part of this policy’s implementation included the building of the Geder Ha-Hafrada or "separation wall" (as you pointed out). Another part of this policy was the "unilateral disengagement" or "unilateral separation". Now, either you are being disingenuous (which if you live in Israel must be the case) or else you are simply unaware of the fact that this plan is has many different names used by many different people at many different times. Some call it the unilateral "disengagement" (or hitnakut) plan, some (particularly on the right) call it a "retreat" plan (or nesiga: [13]), and some like Aluf Benn from Ha’aretz call it Tochnit Ha-Hafrada Ha-Had-Tzedadit, or the "unilateral separation plan" (See: footnote here that cites Aluf Benn’s article and translates and tranlisterates the titles between English and Hebrew: [14]). Now, critics of the separation wall and the unilateral separation plan characterize this policy as apartheid, as did former President Jimmy Carter. In other words, to some of those who claim that Israel is an apartheid state, their assessment is based on an understanding of the separation wall and the unilateral separation plan as part of a separation policy: [15]. Given further that apartheid means separation when translated from Afrikaans into English, it seems that it is the Israeli government that has since played "linguistic gymnastics" in an attempt to correct an earlier tactical error that gave their critics a clear case in alleging a policy of separation or apartheid in Israel. Tiamut 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again you evade my request to bring sources for the claim such a government policy exists. I can only conclude you have no such sources, and such a policy does not exist. Your source says "Barak explained hafrada — separation — this way..." - it doesn't say "Hafrada" is or was government policy, or that he even used the term "Hafrada".

I've already said that one can refer to the Hitnatkut using the word "Hafrada", being a regular word in Hebrew. However, that was not its name, and was not widely used at all. In fact, googling the term "תכנית ההפרדה החד צדדית" (Tochnit Ha-Hafrada Ha-Had-Tzedadit) found 3 results. Googling the words תכנית ההפרדה ("Tochnit Ha-hafrada") found 155 results (but only 50 actual hits), some of which refer to the barrier (oh, please translate accurately - Geder Ha-Hafrada means "separation fence", not wall), some to the Hitnatkut (a few), and some to separating between road and railroad by building bridges and tunnels. Non-notable.

Again I ask you, how can building a fence along what both sides agree should be an international border be considered apartheid? okedem 15:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The barrier (which is generally translated as "wall" in English, though the Hebrew word may literally mean "fence") does not follow an agreed-upon international border. Jd2718 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? It mostly follows it. It uses the Green line as a basis for its route. And both sides agree the Green line will be the basis for the border, possibly with small changes.

I was referring to what Tiamut wrote, which made it seem as though "Geder Hahafrada" translates to english as "Separation Wall", which is untrue. The word "Wall" is used for political purposes only, and is untrue, as the barrier is almost completely a fence, with a wall in only very short parts of it. okedem 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, you've made some important points here, especially about how these words are used in Hebrew. But I think Jd2718's point stands. Even if the wall "mostly follows" the Green line, it does deviate from it in order to include settlement blocs, as well as desirable land and resources, while excluding the Palestinian communities who live on this land, and in the midst of whose inhabitants the settlements have been strategically placed. These deviations have profound consequences, both for the lives of Palestinians and for the legitimacy of the wall in international eyes. This sense of a supple, moving boundary defined, as Golda Meir once said, "by wherever Jews are living, not a line on the map” – so that wherever Jews decide to live in the West Bank, they take a virtual border with them, and enjoy different rights and privileges from the Arabs in their midst, who are by definition "outside" of that border (even if they're living on the same street, as in Hebron) – this is what animates, rightly or wrongly, the comparison with South African apartheid.--G-Dett 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your meaning, and as I said before, I oppose such deviations for settlements. Do note, that the barrier's route (around Jerusalem) was changed after an appeal to the supreme court, so Israel is taking into consideration the Palestinians' needs, though certainly not enough. However, the claims of "Apartheid wall" are false - Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, nor do they want to be. The obvious future of the region is two states, which means separation. Many settlements are not within the wall, and several have been evacuated in the Hitnatkut. Of course the wall is used for grabbing land, but it has nothing to do with apartheid.

My point is this - it may be a land grab, it may be wrong, but it has nothing to do with apartheid. okedem 18:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and my other point remains - calling a barrier composed of more than 95% fence, and less than 5% wall - "the wall" is misleading and political. It's a barrier, or a fence. It's like calling Finland a lake, because it has some lakes in it. okedem 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (or a better example - the US, which has 4.87% water area - should it be known as "Lake USA"? okedem 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

I see Okedem. The problem is not that I am not explaining myself clearly, it's that you are refusing to understand, or even to admit that I have provided you with evidence, throughout this discussion, and that I continue to do so. In response to your latest request, here are four more sources that prove there is a 'separation policy in Israel:

• B’tselem: "Israel implements its separation policy in a patently arbitrary and indiscriminate manner. Almost all restrictions are imposed on entire groups of people, based on sweeping criteria, without examining the threat that the individual person poses." [16]
• Ha’aretz: "Unlike Sharon, the master of ambiguity, Olmert is crystal clear on what he means to do. He has no choice. He was forced to clarify his commitment to the separation policy - the "Sharon Way," the first step of which was his path-blazing withdrawal from Gaza last year, ending 38 years of Israeli occupation there. He had no choice because Olmert is not Sharon, there is no way he could be Sharon." [17]
• Business Week: "But Sharon is also moving ahead with another radical plan that is widely popular in Israel and could well scuttle the Saudis' regionwide push. The Israeli Prime Minister announced on Feb. 21 that steps are under way to impose "buffer zones" in the West Bank to protect Israelis from Palestinian militants. The policy, known as "unilateral separation," could cost up to $400 million and would involve the construction of elaborate fences, checkpoints, and military patrols along the 240-mile 1967 border with the West Bank." [18]
• The Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies: "The Oslo process has been deadlocked since attempts to reach a permanent settlement fell through, and were followed by the violence that has raged since September 2000. This deadlock has triggered thinking on possible unilateral policy steps that could improve Israel's strategic and political situation. These ideas, which are generally referred to as "unilateral disengagement" or "unilateral separation," are based on two fundamental assumptions. [19]

And as for my translation of Hafrada Ha-Geder as Separation Wall, I don't really care if you think it's inaccurate. I've seen the wall as it cuts through houses in a neighborhood in Baqa al-Gharbiyya and in Qalqilya and in Ramallah at Kalandia and Bethlehem and Jerusalem and its a wall alright [20], so spare me your faux indignation. Thanks. Tiamut 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you provide no evidence of a government policy called "Hafrada". Your sources only nickname actions with the word "separation", not "Hafrada". You also fail to respond to the evidence I brought that the word "Hafrada" doesn't seem to be widely used with regards to the Hitnatkut.

And spare me the heartbreaking examples. I was protesting the way you wrote the words, making it seem, to the non-hebrew speaking reader, as though the word "Geder" means "Wall". It doesn't. Also, your example are completely superfluous - I did not claim there is no wall, but that to refer to the barrier as "the wall" is political and demagogy - less than 5% of it is walls (Oh, and building a wall along the green line to prevent the people of Qalqilya from firing at Israelis, which they often did, really makes me teary-eyed). I don't think that deviating from the green line for all those settlements is right, but I do want accurate terms, and not false names like "the wall", used to fool people unaware of the facts. okedem 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, if hafrada is the Hebrew word for separation, then "separation policy" in English mean "hafrada policy" when we are talking about Israel. This is clear because the two seem to be used interchangeably in many of the examples cited above. This is common sense. Not original research. In any case, having noticed that there is no article discussing the "separation policy", I created one: Separation policy (Israel). It's a separate but related issue whose existence is rather beyond dispute, despite your ongoing equivocations. Tiamut 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. You can't translate back from separation to Hafrada. If you claim there is a policy called "Hafrada", you have to prove its existence as such. You have still not shown that there is a even a "separation policy", only that some, limited, steps have been made to separate between Israel and the Palestinians, in accordance with the agreed two-state solution. In the end, no matter how you spin it, both parties do agree the part ways, they only argue over the how, not the what.

Can you show a source which ties all the components you listed together, and says they are a part of a whole "separation policy", or is it your own OR?

By the way, your little article makes a mistake on its first sentence - Ehud Barak only became PM in 1999. okedem 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinians have been working for years to get their own state, free of Israel's occupation, with the support of many Israelis. Now that Israel is finally taking steps towards that end, like the Hitnatkut, you call it apartheid. Come on. okedem 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion with you Okedem. I don't feel like trading underhanded insults or being combative, especially not with you. You and I usually enjoy quite a good give-and-take despite our differing views, but it doesn't seem to be happening today. You are ignoring the links I provided to you and you are definitely not reading them or else you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying. With respect. TiamutTiamut 18:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do as you wish, but believe this - I have read all your links. To my understanding, none of them support the claim of "Hafrada" as government policy, and the whole "separation" thing doesn't seem to go beyond the barrier and the Hitnatkut. Given that there is no separation between Israeli Arabs and Jews (though there is some discrimination, that is a different issue), to call such apartheid is just... untrue. The steps Israel has taken are mostly along the lines of the two state solution. On a personal note - I was greatly discouraged by the Palestinians response to the Hitnatkut. Instead of realizing what an enormous step it was for Israel, and encouraging the evacuation of settlers, they chose to respond with violence, setting us back. I hope they realize it some day. Goodnight. okedem 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sopaboxing Okedem? That's not really like you. In any case, as you know, there is a new article now called Separation policy (Israel). I now realize that it should be merged with Hafrada and it thoroughly establishes that there is a separation policy, it is called hafrada, and its origins find inpiration in a book by Daniel Schueftan entitled "Disengagement, Israel and the Palestinian Entity" (in Hebrew, Korah Hahafrada: Yisrael Ve Harashut Hafalestinit)[21] and it was officially adopted as Israeli government policy. In sum, I would like to thank you and others for your stubborn insistence that I find more reliable sources since a lot of confusion about all of these concepts has been cleared up for me. Tiamut 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of the comparisons with apartheid South Africa are being made for what's going on in the Palestinian territories, not for Israel itself. There are some criticisms in this article about the situation inside Israel, but I don't think any of them use the "A" word? Meanwhile most of the "arguments against the term" focus on inside Israel. —Ashley Y 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. The reliable sources go out of their way to underscore this distinction; we seem to have gone out of our way to elide it.--G-Dett 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How can Christians maintain a virtual silence about the persecution of their fellow worshippers by Muslims across the world, while denouncing the Israelis who are in the front line against precisely this terror

A. Who said he was silent? B. ISnt the article called Allegations of Israeli apartheid C. Who said they were on the front line? This is a NPOV

It is also loaded with language of a uneducated anti-Islamic individual. To suggest that Muslims are some global percecutors of Christians is a load of nonsense it is a NPOV, because Muslims could agrue G Bush is a Christian and it is Muslims doing the majority of the dying. In a nut shell I think the extended comment doesnt belong here, it should be limited to his statement which is under debate. Also again who said he was silent? maybe he doesnt share this extream POV. and y should he?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Please stop arguing with the sources. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not even relevant to the article. This is about Israeli apartheid, not Accusations of Christians ignoring persecution by Muslims or some other nonsense. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Another source: [22]. CJCurrie 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Before someone claims that this is original research

"Israel is not alone in being accused of apartheid. Australia, Brazil, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, France, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malysia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, the Former Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all been accused of this crime as well."

I would argue that such background information does not make an argument, but puts the issue in neutral context, and therefore cannot be considered original research, as original research is either an analysis or a synthesis or an argument. Background sections need not be considered as any of these, so why should a background sentence in the lead be treated any differently?--Urthogie 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is madness now, i am happy to see it deleted. This is not about sharring, this article has a name Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. and that is what is under discussion not who else got fingered. Furthermore if discussing stalin you would run a list saying "it was only Stalin that killed people, Hitler and POl Pot did it 2." Doesnt put anything into context it is original research at best at worst it is whitewashing. THe article reflects the accusation you dont feed the reader useless info. I dont see this info in a Jim Crow article saying "Well these other guys did it 2"--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't say others "did anything" too, it says others are accused of this. And yes, you might see a mention of South African apartheid in a Jim Crow article. For example you see a comparison with the Holocaust on

Armenian Genocide.--Urthogie

18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me like a political guilt sharing tactic, shouldnt be in the lead in any event. It is called normalizing, like i say Africans r oppressed, and someone replies but all humans have oppression. negating the degree and the impact on the African reality. Normalizing it as "its a common accusation" hence water doing its impact as it relates 2 Israel.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't about oppression, but the allegations of oppression. An article on allegations of African oppression would include background info on similar allegations. This is background info, that you seem to oppose because of your POV. You are yet to quote any policy or guideline page to backup your view that this is "madness", and not just background info that would appear on any article if POV didn't prevent it.--Urthogie 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on one second there Urthogie. This is not an article about "allegations of oppression". Palestinians are oppressed by Israeli policies and there are few people who dispute that - though they might provide equivocations as to why. The article is about "Israeli apartheid" (a term and acocmpanying concepts) and it's only called "Allegations of" said subject because of a refusal to treat the concept on its own merits and discuss the controversy surrounding the designation in the article, rather than in the title. Tiamut 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is an article about allegations that Israeli policies towards Palestinians resemble those of South African apartheid. People on one side argue they do, people on the other side argue they don't. This is a political debate about terminology, not an article which shows the "fact" of "Israeli apartheid", and then lists the views of some people who make excuses for it. The only reason people want to remove the word "Allegations" from the title is because they refuse to treat the subject as controversial, and discuss the controversy around those allegations, but instead feel the title and article should state the "fact" of "Israeli apartheid", and then afterwards have the article throw in some weasely defenses of the practice of "Israeli apartheid" from various barely credible bigots and ethnocentrists. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your entire argument relies on your belief that the article is inappropriately named. Start a new section on that, and try to gain consensus. Until then, it is unfair for you to hold the article hostage because you don't like the name.-Urthogie 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to rephrase your comments? I'm not holding anything hostage. I have participated at a ratio of about 100:1, talk:article edits as regards this page. And I did apply for a page move thanks, above. I only made my comments to address your comments on how Palestinians "allege" they are oppressed and express my concerns about the article title in cultivating that kind of sick denial of the reality of some of the injustices they have had and continue to face. Tiamut 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you think about palestinians. Address my point, not some non-existent argument about who's oppressed.--Urthogie 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Your background info isn't helpful to the lead at all. It comes off as equivocation. Further, since the categories Alllegations of apartheid and Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba are listed, I don't see the point of including such a long-winded sentence in the lead. Tiamut 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from. Why do you think it comes off as equivocation? A POV Israeli editor could accuse listing facts on Israeli Arabs as equivocation, and I would disagree with them. Why do you see basic background facts as equivocation, and secondly what proof do you have that they are an argument, rather than an important contextual sentance?--Urthogie 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's your reliable source making the link between apartheid in Israel and elsewhere? Why are the cats insufficient to provide this context? It's your burden of proof, I might remind you, not mine. Tiamut 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are sources which makes clear that possible "apartheid" of other countries is relevant to many, and that other countries, for comparison are part of the debate.:

Certainly, Israeli Arabs are not always treated well, though not nearly as badly as the Egyptian Copts, or the few Jews left in the Muslim world. Israeli Arab towns are neglected and, particularly since the latest intifada, public suspicion has led to social discrimination. To make things worse, some politicians make no secret of their desire to remove the Arabs from Israel altogether. But apartheid, however satisfying it is for the morally outraged to think so, it is not.([Guardian Opinion piece)

According to the American Anti-Slavery Group (www.iabolish.com): "Though slavery was legally abolished [in Mauritania] in 1980, today 90,000 slaves continue to serve the Muslim Berber ruling class. Similarly, in Sudan, Arab northerners are known to raid the villages in the South - killing all the men and taking the women and children to be auctioned off and sold into slavery."

Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries deny equal rights to women, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others. Where are the protests against Saudi apartheid?

Anyone who cares about human rights should support countries where they are respected and protest against those which don't.

Israel, like other democracies, does not have a perfect human rights record. But the Orwellian attempt to lump Israel among odious regimes, while ignoring real abusers, employs a double standard so blatant as to fit international definitions of anti-Semitism. Such libelous campaigns are themselves an abuse of the lofty cause of human rights and, in the context of calls to "wipe Israel off the map," contribute to the ultimate human rights abuse, incitement to genocide.(Jerusalem Post Editorial)

This shows that other countries's policies and what they are accused of is relevant background info for this discussion. Not to mention the obvious connection betwen "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" and "

I think some of that material would serve the body of the article quite well, but I stand by my earlier comments that it doesn't belong in the lead. It's not quite so cut and dry as you make it out to be and "saudi apartheid" certainly does not have the same currency in use as "israeli apartheid" (though maybe it could, if we were talking about the gender situation there). Tiamut 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it belongs in the lead. You don't. We have a situation here where I have justified my view as adding important background info to the article. You say it should be in the body. Why not a sentence or two as well, in the lead? Please back your view up, now, since I have found sources and used logic to defend mine. Thank you, --Urthogie 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, your sentence is a long list of other coutries that is long-winded and makes tenacious links between apartheid in Israel and accusations of apartheid elsewhere. It is actually tangential to the debate at hand. I compromised on the cats that link to other apartheid pages, and I think that's sufficient in providing the reader with some background. As a further compromise, after you insisted, I agreed there might be a place for that information in the body. Don't tell me that I have to agree with exactly what you want just because you think you made a cogent argument. We all make cogent arguments and not all of us get what we want out of them. I think I've compromised enough on the issue, thanks. Tiamut 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I plan to restore the balanced lead. I have so far seen no argument against it, other than that, in order to balance the rhetorical weight of this concept, we need to counter-balance the lead against the concept. I believe this is a clear break from both

Agree, we really have to be somewhat balanced nomatter opinions of editors. The title is not Arguments against using the term Apartheid for Israel. Bertilvidet 12:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Ashley Y 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please quote which parts of

race and the Ancient egyptians are allowed? Thank you, --Urthogie

18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead changes very fast. But we have to admit that it tend to list arguments against the use of the term, rather than actually explaining why some people draw parallels between Israeli policy and the apartheid regime. Right now the article does even not mention that there is an official Israeli policy named hafrada, which means separation in Hebrew. There are thousands of articles of Wikipedia that I cannot explain, including

race and the Ancient egyptians. Bertilvidet

18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please back up that claim. I've looked hard, and been unable to come up with evidence for such policy. The word "Hafrada" is not even used in that context in Israel. See my comment above (in "Sources for Hafrada"). okedem 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring my question by bringing up Hafrada. I never commented on Hafrada. The question here is this sentence I added that was removed, not hafrada. Please start a seperate talk section to discuss Hafrada, if necessary. You have still not answered my questions:

Can you please quote which parts of

race and the Ancient egyptians

are allowed?

The reason you can't explain thousands of articles on Wikipedia that follow this convention of adding background info is because you are not acquainted with policies which justify the inclusion of background info. Please answer my questions. Thank you, --Urthogie 19:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial

apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank

and Israel. Proponents of the analogy draw parallels between the separate rights and privileges of Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank and the policies of racial separation in apartheid South Africa, and allege second-class citizenship of Arabs living within Israel proper.

Seems to have incorporated some compromise points. What are the objections to this version? Jd2718 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if the second sentence ("Proponents of the analogy" remains, the reference to South Africa is unnecessary because that is covered in the first sentence. Also, the last sentence of the current intro should be deleted, as it is meaningless and original research. 6SJ7 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the last sentence, in addition it is covered in the begining--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

moved from my talk Jossi, today you re-reverted a change on

• "'it is political. there is no doubt about that.'"

It is not clear what "it" you are referring to. Again I would suggest clearer, less ambiguous edit summaries. Further, you might like to read over Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is a guideline, not policy, but it makes for more productive editing when there is controversy or disagreement. Jd2718 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that the term is political? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't have any POV-related issues with "political." I removed it because I think it isn't stylistically or encyclopedically appropriate in the sense you're using it. Though I agree with Jd2718 that it's a bit ambiguous, you seem to be using "political" in its casual, conversational sense, meaning controversial, disputed, loaded, etc. But the stricter, more formal and encyclopedic meaning of "political" is actually a neutral description, designating something to do with the forms and structures of governments, civic life, demography and electorates, etc. "Bicameral legislature" is a political term. So is "soccer mom," "plausible deniability," "rump parliament," and so on. It's sort of confusing to say "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" is a political term in this sense. This article is by and large about a controversial category of moral rhetoric; it's not really about a point-by-point comparison of governmental policies in Israel and South Africa. I suppose that's debatable, but in any case it doesn't seem like this is what you intend by "political." You mean that the subject's loaded and disputed. Be assured that "controversial" takes care of that, not to mention the rest of the lead. "Political" in the sense you're using it is not only too informal for an encyclopedia, but also redundant, even tautological. --G-Dett 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but by not asserting that is it a politically loaded argument, and using instead "controversial", the lead is already leaning in the direction of giving an unwarranted weight to the term itself. A way to resolve this, would be to start the article framing the controversy, rather than asserting these allegations as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since "political" in this sense means controversial, I don't see how eliminating the redundancy would throw off the ideological balance of the lead. The lead makes very clear that the article's subject is thoroughly disputed; it doesn't need the volume turned up with superfluous adjectives, which just make the article sound unprofessionally written. But I'm not going to edit-war over this. --G-Dett 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither I will. I hope the latest edits addresses your concern. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This reads better. Thank you. Jd2718 22:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, thanks Jossi.--G-Dett 20:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We can talk about "allegations of Israeli apartheid", and we can talk about "the term 'Israeli apartheid'", but surely it's a bit silly to talk about "the term 'allegations of Israeli apartheid'"? I'm not sure we even have any reliable sources that use the term "allegations of Israeli apartheid". —Ashley Y 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have changed the lead to address your concern. Note that the article describes the use of the term in a political context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"You are sad," the Knight said in an anxious tone: "let me sing you a song to comfort you.... The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes.'"

"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.

"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed. "That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The Aged Aged Man.'"

"Then I ought to have said, 'That's what the song is called'?" Alice corrected herself.

"No, you oughtn't: that's another thing. The song is called 'Ways and Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!"

"Well, what is the song, then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A sitting on a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

--G-Dett 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, also having to do with someone named Alice: "This song is called Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the restaurant, but Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant, that's just the name of the song, and that's why I called the song Alice's Restaurant." I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the article, however. 6SJ7 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If no one has any objections I'm going to put it in. Minus the tune, which appears to be original research.--G-Dett 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett you are too cool babe. I say that in the most honorific sense possible. Tiamut 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Taken that way.--G-Dett 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it slightly to read as follows:

The term Israeli apartheid is used to make a controversial analogy between Israeli policies of those of apartheid era South Africa.

Proponents of the analogy point to the separate rights and privileges of Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank, and/or further allege second-class citizenship of Arabs living in Israel proper.

I think the first sentence is just much simpler and clearer this way. It retains "controversial", minus "political" and doesn't ascribe it to anyone. The next two paragraphs then outline proponents and opponents. I changed "and", in the second sentence above to read and/or, since not all who use the term use it the same way. I hope this is okay. See the text itself for the other paragraph which I left as is. Tiamut 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Look like good changes to me. Mackan79 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

in the first sentence we have "...term ... is used to make an ... analogy between x of those of y...." I think the first of should be an "and." I will make the change Jd2718 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great.--G-Dett 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's actually another ambiguity, though, which might be fixed: Is the second sentence alleging that all residents of the West Bank have less rights, or that Palestinian residents have less rights than Israelis? I think it's the latter, though both might be alleged; in any case, it should probably be clarified. One solution might be moving "in the West Bank" to the earlier position "separate rights and privileges in the West Bank of Palestinian and Israeli residents." I'll make the change if someone agrees, or maybe I'm missing something. Mackan79 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. The meaning must have been unintentionally distorted after Shamir1's edit introducing Palesitnian and Israeli in the place of Arab and Jew. I asked him to discuss those changes, but he declined. I second your change Mackan79. Tiamut 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

this is actually correct because Arabs - as long as they have an israeli ID - can drive on every road, pass every checkpoint in the west bank. This means that there is nothing racial here and it is based on Nationality: The people under occupation have less free movment than the occupaying power. Is this different in other occupied countries ??? Zeq 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might have had to do with the choice of language. Well, I'll try a different option -- "difference in rights between" -- which I hope is ok. This is consistent with your point, Zeq, which I take as true, but clarifies what the sentence means. Mackan79 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with what kind of ID a person has: i.e. is he a citizen or resdient of israel ? If a Person is palestinian by origin and even by citizenship but he lives in Jerusalem or otherwise got an israeli residency he can move freely as any other israeli. In fact some towns are closed to israelis and such a person is forbeeden to enter those towns (like any other israeli - jewish or arab) Confusing ? it should be - nothing is simple in this area.Zeq 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well just to ask first, how about "Proponents of the analogy point to the difference in rights and privileges between Palestinian and Israeli residents of the West Bank, or allege second-class citizenship of Arabs citizens in Israel proper." I think that's more accurate in terms of what the proponents argue, which of course is what we're putting forth. Understanding that of course you have a problem with the statement, is that more fair? Mackan79 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But Palestinian citizens do face differential treatment in the West Bank. They can't buy property or live in Israeli settlements there and its well-known that they face differential treatment at checkpoints. Settlers (all Jews) are just waved right through and we get the full monty. Tiamut 22:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can Jewish Israeli citizens buy property in the West Bank, or live in Arab cities there? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to check what the laws are governing buying property but they certainly can live and rent places there. I'll get back to you on the second part in a minute. Tiamut 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized, it's actually irrelevant since its not the PA that controls the borders or determines who goes where and why. And about a third of Israeli settlements are built on private Palestinian property whose families were given no compensation and are often relatives of those Palestinian citizens inside. It's just not that cut and dry. Tiamut 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, under Palestinian Authority law, selling land to a Jew is a crime punishable by death.
• Palestinian Authority Minister of Justice Freih Abu Medein has now apparently reinstated the edict, having said in a December 23rd interview that Arabs selling land to Israelis are traitors and "we are planning to send them to execution."
• under PA law, selling land to a Jew is a crime punishable by death.

-- did they get it wrong? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason we've dropped from the lead the comparison proponents make between Bantustans and semi-autonomous Palestinian "cantons"? It's a pretty pervasive meme. --G-Dett 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, how is that relevant? You can create a Palestinian apartheid article and put those claims in, but this article is about the mistreatment of Palestinians. Just because the PA plays the "Eye for an Eye" game doesn't mean that neither is mentioned. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to Tiamut's statements that Palestinians face "differential treatment" in the West Bank. Please follow the discussion before commenting, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was Jayjg. Perhaps you should address the issues raised by myself and others as to the relevancy. Tiamut 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevancy of what; your claim that Palestinians suffer from "differential treatment" because they can't buy land in Israeli settlements or live there? It seems that that's not differential treatment, but standard treatment in the West Bank, Palestinians can't live in Israeli areas, and Israelis can't live in Palestinian areas. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, separate but equal. And if the Israeli areas need to expand into the Palestinian areas a little, to accomodate their need for 'natural growth' or whatever, so be it.--G-Dett 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Obviously not equal, since Israelis would not be killed for selling land to Palestinians. You're very amusing tonight. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you my dear, I do my best for you.--G-Dett 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Coding issues

This edit [23] by User:Shamir1 might have the one to introduce a coding issue into the article that has split that "Racism" section off from the rest (such that the "References" section is now between them). Does anyone know how to fix this? I tried to wade through the code, but I couldn't make much sense of it. Thanks. Tiamut 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, and should have said thanks. Thanks. Tiamut 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

May I inquire as to the logic of including a link to

Another country accused of practicising a form of "apartheid". Why wouldn't it be included? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there an RS linking the two?--G-Dett 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An RS, a reliable source. See

WP:RS. Is there any reliable source who links these two subjects?--G-Dett

23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A source, Jay, not a word that makes the relevance self-evident in your mind. A source, like you wanted when the question was whether Hafrada could be linked to. [24] Is there a single source that thinks these two subjects are related?--G-Dett 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely unclear, without a RS, that "Hafrada" has anything to do with "Apartheid". Frankly, it's still not clear. On the other hand, claiming that one needs a RS to claim that "Apartheid" has something to do with "Apartheid", is, frankly,

trolling. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, this isn't the first time you've recklessly invoked "trolling" to describe honest disagreement;[25][26] try to watch that. What you say is unclear to you is clear to others, and vice-versa. Is there an RS that agrees with you, or not?--G-Dett 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm describing

trolling, not "honest disagreement". Please don't pretend that the latter is the former. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, at the risk of repeating myself, someone who has made only 214 edits to articles, but 825 to article, user, and project talk, most of which involve insulting people, is coming pretty close to the definition of a troll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any and all comments on my talk page, including gratuitous insults, personal harassment, and fan mail from your old friend Kiyosaki the crank. So feel free to post comments of this sort there, Slim, and in the meantime use article talk pages for their intended purpose, content discussion. Thanks.--G-Dett 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett engages in extensive talk so as to build consensus. This is a wise practice considering that she edits at articles where such an approach defuses tensions and helps to reach amicable compromises. That you cite her editing article to talk page ratio as "evidence" that she is a troll is a violation of

WP:CIVIL. It is also bad taste and goes against community consensus where in administrative reviews, it is often noted that a good article to talk page ratio is 1:10. G-Dett has never attacked anyone during the time I have had the good fortune of editing articles with her. You should apologize for your comments. Tiamut

15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if I'd go so far as to say she's trolling, but neither would I say that the "extensive talk" is indicative of "consensus-building." There's a lot of POV advocacy in there. --Leifern 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, can people not ask you to be consistent? One minute you say not even the slightest bit of synthesis is allowed; the next minute you say a comparison between apartheid in two places doesn't require a source of any kind comparing them, and that asking for one is "disruptive trolling." Was it disruptive trolling for you to suggest that two discussions of whether or not opposing Israel is antisemitic can't be used together unless they were both specifically talking about Anti-Zionism by name? By your analysis, unless the source on Cuban apartheid is talking about Israeli apartheid, we can't include it, end of story. If you want to say you were mistaken, feel free, but I don't think you can accuse others of trolling for asking you to be consistent. By your standard, this link goes in Apartheid, not here. Mackan79 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is not linked from the Cuba page. CJCurrie

23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The

Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba article was only added here recently, and almost as swiftly removed. Feel free to add it there. Jayjg ^(talk)

23:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you not inclined to do it yourself? CJCurrie 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have lots on my plate right now; are there any other edits you'd like me to make? Feel free to list them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the connection is a compelling one. It has not been shown that a single RS finds it to be a compelling connection.--G-Dett 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The "apartheid" referring to Cuba is of a different meaning that the one in this article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

They're both allegations that countries are practicising a form of discriminatory behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I'll link it both ways then. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Jay if he has any sources to back up his opinion. He's responded by calling me a "troll," which in my experience means he doesn't have any. If no one else does, then in my vote the "see also" link should be removed. Reading the Cuba article will not further someone's understanding of this article, and if the connection hasn't even been mentioned by any RS's, then Jay's belief in its self-evidence is not enough. --G-Dett 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Erecting straw man arguments is rarely helpful. They're both daughter articles of the same mother article. But feel free to assert that they are nevertheless unrelated, even though they both allege that the countries in question practice a form of apartheid. It's very amusing. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So their Wikipedia parent article is your reliable source?--G-Dett 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good straw man! :-D Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is right that both articles are daughters of the same parent article. But the parent is already listed in the "see also" category anyway. So unless we want to add all the other "allegations of apartheid ____" categories as well, I think advocating for the inclusion of the Cuba one alons constitutes

WP:POV, and an indirect attempt at ridiculing the arguments here. Tiamut

01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is an RS.--G-Dett 01:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use this page for discussion about whether/where to move the page.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects?

Unless you type "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" into the search bar in exactly this way – capital A, capital I, lower-case a – you won't get to this page. If you write everything lower-case, for example, you get a "No page with that title exists" message. We need comprehensive redirects (including for "Israeli Apartheid") which I don't know how to do. --G-Dett 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We also could use a page "G-Dett is a numb-nuts." --140.247.125.126

Slim’s working on it. I suggested we link to at least one RS saying “G-Dett is not a numb-nuts,” but Slim said this was trolling.--G-Dett 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Numb-nuts figured it out.--G-Dett 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Tiamut 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The current lead is not balanced at all. It contains too much "criticism".Kritt 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It contains the information the reader needs.

The problem with the "apartheid" claim, is that it's skin-deep. People just shout "apartheid", but never bother backing it up with specifics. They just hope the word "apartheid" would sound scary enough to turn people against Israel, much as is being done with "the wall", which is actually 95% fence.

That's why there are few specific claims of proponents here. That's why the claims are also all muddled up, mixing together the situation of Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians, doing neither of them justice. Because the thing is, once you start a point by point comparison of Israel and South Africa, you find there are practically no similarities. The proponents seem to use the word "apartheid" as a generally "bad word", much as many people use the word "racism" to describe any sort of discrimination, regardless of actual race issues.

The proponents seem to contradict themselves, on the one hand demanding the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinians state, and on the other condemning Israel for trying to separate itself from the Palestinians. The lack of well defined claims leads to absurdities like describing the Disengagement plan as a form of apartheid, when it is, in fact, required for the two state solution, and basically consisted of giving back land to the Palestinians - an obviously positive step in the peace process. This is why the article looks like it does. The proponents shout "Apartheid", a word which contains a load of accusations, and the critics address those accusations point by point. okedem 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Strawman, and

WP:NOT a soapbox. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ

14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not strawman, these claims do exist, and I've had to argue with them often enough. Not soapboxing either, since I'm trying to clarify why the article looks like it does - with "too much criticism" - it's because the proponents seem to think that their accusations are summed up in the word "Apartheid", and rarely make more specific claims, and that's why we don't list many of them. Since the word apartheid is a claim by itself, critics need to address it point by point, leading to what looks like an unbalanced article. okedem 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A Jewish member of South Africa's cabinet has sent a message of support to the organizers of last week's "Israeli Apartheid Week" at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa's minister for intelligence, sent the letter to the Palestinian Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies. In the the message, Kasrils said he was writing "in his personal capacity," the Palestinian Society said.

Nevertheless, it cited his position and was titled a "message of support from South Africa."

"Please convey to all involved my wholehearted support for your week of solidarity with the Palestinian people in your appropriately entitled 'Israeli Apartheid Week,' he wrote.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1171894488294

PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE ARTICLE.

"To any fair minded person, this process of colonial-style dispossession is the fundamental cause of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and is certainly akin to the racist-style humiliation and brutality of the notorious apartheid system Italic textunder which South Africa's landless and dispossessed people suffered," he continued.

Dugard, a prominent South African professor of international law, has served as a judge on the International Court of Justice and as "special rapporteur" for both the UN Commission on Human Rights and the International Law Commission. He is considered an expert on apartheid.

In the report, Dugard said: "The international community has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights - colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation. Israel is clearly in military occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories. At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law."

He suggested that the issue of Israeli actions in the territories be brought before the International Court of Justice.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879095396&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE ARTICLE.

Joseph Massad is associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University. His latest book is The Persistence of the Palestinian Question; Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians [27].

Massad states (15 March 2007):

"The condition for peace as far as Israel and the US are concerned is that both Hamas and Fatah recognise and be committed to Israel’s right to be an apartheid state inside the Green Line as well as its imposition of apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza. Short of this, there will be no deal…

It should be clear then that in this international context, all existing solutions to what is called the Palestinian-Israeli “conflict” guarantee Israel’s need to maintain its racist laws and its racist character and ensure its right to impose apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza. What Abbas and the Palestinians are allowed to negotiate on, and what the Palestinian people and other Arabs are being invited to partake of, in these projected negotiations is the political and economic (but not the geographic) character of the Bantustans that Israel is carving up for them in the West Bank, and the conditions of the siege around the Big Prison called Gaza and the smaller ones in the West Bank. Make no mistake about it, Israel will not negotiate about anything else, as to do so would be tantamount to giving up its racist rule.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6679.shtml

PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE ARTICLE.

University of California Divestment from Israel Petition, based on Israeli Apartheid:

An online petition has been initiated by faculty at UC Berkeley and includes all of the University of California campuses. The campaign for divestment from Israel follows the precedent set by the anti-apartheid campaign of the 1980’s.

There are currently 228 Faculty Signatures.

U of C Faculty allegations of Israeli Apartheid:

"Israel has made itself into a white colonial settler state, mimicking South Africa before the end of apartheid. I am Jewish and I abhor the human rights abuses against Palestinians committed in our name." - Lisa Rofel, Anthropology, UC Santa Cruz

"During the 1970's and 1980's a very successful divestment campaign was waged in the US and Europe which undoubtedly had an effect on the end of Apartheid. The Israeli occupation of Palestine and destruction of human rights and democracy is at least as severe as that of the South Africans. A similar moral and political response is in order at this time." -

http://www.ucdivest.org/ucindex.php

According to the prominent Israeli New Historian, who teaches at

“The basic feature for apartheid in Israel is the issue of land, not allowing Palestinians to have any relations to landownership, land transactions, and so on. Many people don’t know that the land in Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and because of that it cannot be sold and transacted with non-Jews. […] It’s legal, it is part of the Israeli constitution in law that 93% of the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. […] This is the reason why since 1948 you have hundreds of new Jewish settlements in Israel, neighborhoods being constructed and not one new Arab village or neighborhood was built. […] That is, I think, the worst side of apartheid in that part of Israel.” Ilan Pappe on the Israel-Palestine conflict, interview Saturday March 04, 2006 http://www.imemc.org/article/17103 (search under Ilan Pappe).

PLEASE ADD ILAN PAPPE TO THE ARTICLE. —The preceding

NISHUL (DISPLACEMENT): ISRAEL’S FORM OF APARTHEID

Jeff Halper -- Dr. Halper is a Professor of Anthropology at Ben Gurion University in Israel and involved with the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/REGIONAL/IAS/documents/apartheid.doc PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE ARTICLE.

The decision to abandon or modify such a powerful and useful term as “Apartheid” is a strategic, not semantic, one. “Apartheid” highlights some of the most salient elements of the system of domination, control and displacement that has been constructed by the Jews in Palestine over the past century, a system close to completion. It identifies “separation” based on national/religious grounds as the basis of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. Hafrada (Apartheid in Afrikaans) is the official Hebrew term for Israel’s vision and policy towards the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories – and, it could be argued (with qualifications), within Israel itself.

PS It looks like the Jeff Halper article could be more balanced with some work and contributions.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

PLEASE ADD TO THE ARTICLE these comments to balance the partisan comments of less noteworthy journalist, Melanie Phillips, already included in the Wikipedia article as "Criticism".

"The most telling criticism of Mr. Sharon on his home front is that Israel, on its present course, will become an old South Africa under apartheid — a Jewish minority ruling a Palestinian majority confined to reservations in the West Bank and Gaza. Longer term, Jewish apartheid would have to give way to the emergence of a single Levantine state where Jews and Arabs would eventually learn to live together as Christians and Muslims have done in Lebanon. But that would be 10 to 20 years down a very bloody road."

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031204-083353-8249r.htm —The preceding

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/March_2007/0703057.

University of Massachusetts at Boston Professor Leila Farsakh described the differences between apartheid in South Africa and the Zionist movement. Whereas Afrikaaners were a demographic minority dependent on indigenous South African labor, she explained, Zionists seek a demographic majority and attempted from the beginning to employ only Jewish workers. “Although they started differently,” she said, “they converge similarly” with Israel’s post-1967 “Bantustan reality.”

How should these newer items be incorporated? Kritt 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Recenet edit [28] have removed a sourced view and claimed it is POV.

There seems to be a misunderstandinf of what is POV and what is NPOV.

NPOV is preseneting both sides of the argument . What you removed was you removed ONE POV but left the OTHER POV.

Please for NPOV restore what you removed. Zeq 09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most proponents (such as Jimmy Carter) favour a two-state solution, so it's not clear the paragraph is even relevant. I have cleaned up the POV in the mean time. That the Jewish people have a right to self-determination that justifies excluding Arabs to maintain a majority is just one POV and certainly cannot be presented as fact. See Self-determination#Israel and Palestine. —Ashley Y 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is not an issue of what you consider as "fact". NPOV means that we will caryy in WP the POV of each side - their truth not your "fact" Zeq 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether "some" or "few" proponents favor a one-state solution is immaterial. After much paring down of the lead, with an eye to the most concise NPOV overview of the topic possible, we've gone and added an entire paragraph about a different topic, the

It's part of the subject. Those who call Israeli policies "apartheid" are using that word as a weapon. The goals toward which the weapon is used are definitely an important part of the topic. Thank you, Zeq, for adding it. 6SJ7 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If your premise is that those who use the analogy are using it as a weapon, I'm afraid your premise is POV. Let's please not fight needless battles. If you think a specific discussion of this analogy as a weapon toward promoting the binational solution is appropriate, let's find a way to include it in the article, not as 50% of the lead.Mackan79 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the material:

Some of proponents use the analogy in order to push for a boycott on Israel (similar to the South African

Israeli-Palestinian conflict[30]. Opponents of this solution reply that because the majority of people in the Israel-Palestine region are Arabs, any single democratic state comprised of Israel proper and the occupied territories would certainly elect Arabs to power, and the Jewish state would effectively cease to exist, claiming that such a solution is a denial of the Jewish people of a right to self-determination.[31][32],[33]

--Mackan79 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is original research to include the opinions of the opponents, unless the sources of those opinions mention the claim of apartheid. The article is not on debate over

binational solution.--Urthogie

21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with urthogie's assessment of the issue. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is POV-pushing at its worst. CJCurrie 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, it looks like an attempt to make this article less POV. However, in looking at the sources quickly, I am not sure that the stuff about the one-state solution really belongs. I need to take the time to read them carefully. The sources do, however, support the contention that the "IA" analogy is used to justify boycotts, as well as terrorist attacks on Israel, though I realize that this needs to be written carefully. I think it also needs to be remembered that this entire article is about opinions, and not even opinions about facts, but opinions about how to analogize one situation to a different situation, and how words in three different languages equate to each other. It is all very shaky and beneath the standards of Wikipedia, but unfortunately the article is not going anywhere, so we need to try to make the best of it and try to balance the anti-Israeli propaganda in this article with some facts. 6SJ7 00:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some proponents support the one-state solution; some don't. Some proponents support Palestinian right-of-return absolutely; some support it only within the borders of what will be a Palestinian state; some support it as a "right" that should be honored in theory but not practice, etc. Some proponents think the green line is absolute; some are interested in land swaps. Some call the barrier an "apartheid wall"; others don't. Some proponents think the situation is trending towards apartheid; some think apartheid is and always has been the de facto situation while the occupation is in place. Some proponents have blond hair and are outdoorsy types; others are bookish brunettes. Some of them in all likelihood this very moment have a finger resting pensively on the side of their nose.

Is the lead a good place for some-this-some-that? The reason we're inserting this non-sequitur paragraph about the

binational solution is because the binational solution, though a completely different topic than the apartheid analogy, is, like the apartheid analogy, controversial. Someone wants to place controversy on top of controversy, in a game of POV jenga, in the hopes that this article will collapse on those who are trying to improve it.--G-Dett

14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't undestand your addition of "some critics" to make it less weasely. Here we are talking about a claim; if we want to say who makes the claim, we should say that later, as we do. Mackan79 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the first sentence might stand, but only if we can as you say change "some critics" to particular sources. As for the rest, the issue of a one-state solution is off-topic for the article. —Ashley Y 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Some critics" would be found weasel-ish in any article, especially in the lead paragraph. Let the intro paragraph simply do just that; introduce the subject matter. Save the "critics" stuff for a later section, with sources. Tarc 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

CJ: Please be civil and discuss why you reverted the lead. You don't want to repeat the whole Homey thing again (I hope). let's resolve this via discissuion. Please list you objections here. Zeq 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The objections have already been listed. CJCurrie 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than syaing "it is POV" you did not provide any justification. Sure providing each POV is actually NPOV and this is what wikipedia is about. The addition to the lead arepart of the subject 9and are already in the article itself. Those who call Israeli policies "apartheid" are using that word as a weapon. The goals toward which the weapon is used are definitely an important part of the topic - all this has tio be in the lead. If you have REAL objection (not just crying POV when both POVs from both sides are provided) feel free to list them here. Zeq 06:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let'sadd this to the discussion: Those who call Israel an apartheid state wants to make a change that would give Palestinians equal rights. Among these rights (as in SA) is the right to vote. As such who is the majoority and who control the country is an important part of the subject. Wikipedia readers deserve to know that. Clearly those who remove this NPOV description from the lead are pushing their OWN POV which is to simplify and hide the real issues. We can not let this politization of the article to continue. Zeq 06:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • and last word to CJ: If you think the addition to the lead is wrong - please bring other sources which explain the goals and reason why those who use the ternm use it. Let's take you for example : What are your goals ? you want to use Wikipedia to push for those goals. The last one who did this had to use sockppupets to do it. Zeq 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Others have already raised other objections. G-Dett's assessment of the matter seems entirely accurate, IMO. CJCurrie 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Goals? There is no goal. It would be asking what the "goal" of calling the

• That is your OR. Sources clearly say there is a goal. just read the sources in the dleted section. Zeq 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What sources?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

see sources in the text of the article and the lead. Everything is sourced. Zeq 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, we've been trying very hard to create a NPOV lead, which gives some sort of equal treatment to both sides. You're now adding a long section on the motives of the people who use the analogy. This is the primary problem. Also, you may have sources saying there is a goal, but this is one POV. I do not believe we have sources establishing that every person who uses this phrase has the same tactical purpose. The lead isn't for arguments of individuals, but for summaries, with particular care for NPOV, per

WP:Lead. If you want to include the material, I think we should consider where else to put it. Mackan79

12:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead should include: What, Who , Where , How and Why . I tried to add to the "why" and "who" the best NPOV I can.

NPOV is providing two POVs: POV of one side and POV of the other side.

NPOV does not mean removing all POVs. please read

wp:lead - specifically the lead should stand on it's own as a mini article. so far it does not. !!!!Zeq

13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that it doesn't, but it's the compromise we've currently reached. What you seem to have, though, is one questionable sentence about the political motives of proponents, followed by another extended sentence with reasons why these motives are misguided. I don't think that works. For a discussion like this to work, I think we'd need a more significant expansion of the lead, to discuss more of what this claim is actually about. G-Dett suggested something of that nature here, though it so far hasn't achieved consensus. I'll say your intention here actually sounds fine to me, but I think we would need to find a better way to do it. Mackan79 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you agree that I am right in appliying policy I will re-instate the text which include sources. The text yiou call "compromise" is not something that was agreed and removing it is more POV than keeping it in. Zeq 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)