Talk:Israel and apartheid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy
)

This merge is repellent.

I am shocked to find that this page on the view of the alleged genocide against the Palestinians (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_against_Palestinians&oldid=1179969952) has been replaced and merged into this page. As mentioned by others above, allegations of genocide simply do not just fall under allegations of apartheid and the magnitude of such accusations mean that it should have its own page. Pro-Israel editors seem to have also removed most claims that Israel has committed or is committing a genocide and instead reversed them. Such claims are interesting and perhaps true in some ways, but they should not overshadow the claims against Israel. As a result, the current section on genocide below is heavily biased and one-sided. This is wrong and frankly disrespectful and disturbing. I suggest that the page ‘Genocide against Palestinians’ be restored, and that a page representing more of the other side of the argument, e.g ‘Genocide against Israelis’, could be created.

Here is the section of heavy bias:

After the rise of Islamic fundamentalist groups as political forces in the region, some scholars and pundits began using the language of genocide in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both to describe calls for the destruction of Israel and the indiscriminate killing of civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian extremist groups, and also to describe the cumulative effect of Israeli policies in the Gaza Strip. In 2000, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported being "shocked by calls broadcast on Palestinian television and radio urging the killing of all Jews." Some human rights organizations and policy makers called out the commitment to destruction and violence against Jews in the Hamas Charter as incitement to genocide.

After the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and the electoral success of Hamas, some of these concerns about genocide perpetrated by Hamas were attributed to the actions of Gaza as a whole. Since then spokespeople for both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning a scheme of genocide. During spikes in violence in the conflict, some scholars have described attacks by Hamas as illegal under the Genocide Convention, and others such as New Historian Ilan Pappéhave compared retaliation by Israel and its overall policies in the Gaza Strip as a form of genocide, often broadening the term beyond the definitions of that convention. Scientelensia (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is one of
WP:RELIABLE sources to warrant separate articles? From what I can see, there is. We appear to have a situation where one or more WP editors have ignored WP:POL. 14.2.204.143 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
See
Genocide against Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Perhaps somewhere in the lede there should be a link to "Israel". I mean.... 38.73.253.217 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solid point, done. nableezy - 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you 38.73.253.217 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Why you have deleted my edit? You have provided the explanation: "In article body, controversial, inappropriate for the lead".

This is already mentioned in the article: In December 2019, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination announced commencing a review of the Palestinian complaint that Israel's policies in the West Bank amount to apartheid. Soon afterwards, two Israeli human rights NGOs, Yesh Din (July 2020), and B'Tselem (January 2021) issued separate reports that concluded, in the latter's words, that "the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met." In April 2021, Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold. It accused Israel of apartheid, and called for prosecution of Israeli officials under international law, calling for an International Criminal Court investigation. Amnesty International issued a report with similar findings on 1 February 2022.

So, my edit: "In 2017, a report by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia concluded that Israel is "guilty of the crime of apartheid"." is not starting some new topic but provides additional information for what it is already said.

Keeping in mind this, I don't see how providing information from the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia is "controversial" and why it is "inappropriate for the lead" when there are already information in the article about international and Israeli organizations claiming that Israel is an apartheid state (Zdravko mk (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)) Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@
crime of apartheid". The other reports deal with the situation adequately without the need for this particular report (in the lead). Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Lede problem

Lede is focused more on the issue of "debates" which doesn't really summarize the body that focuses on the details of apartheid system. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual problem, for now, it is more about the accusation/denial than the actual facts, depressing but true. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But does that really reflect the body, as a lede should do? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to remove first sentence

The first sentence in the lead does not add anything. I propose we remove it. "Israel's policies and actions in its ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations that it is committing the crime of apartheid."

The first paragraph would then become: "Leading Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights groups have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and by some in Israel proper, amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid. Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with the former often labeling the charge antisemitic." DMH223344 (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does no harm to have an intro sentence tho (Tell'em whatcha gonna tell 'em). Recall that the article is titled Israel and apartheid not Israeli apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't add anything, no? DMH223344 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think the first sentence is FALSEBALANCE. It's not just that Israeli actions have drawn accusations--every notable human rights organization and authority on the subject has stated that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. Just because "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation" does not mean that the characterization is legitimately called into question.
In any case, I'm not suggesting we say anything in wikivoice here. I'm suggesting that the first sentence suggests the description as apartheid is a spurious accusation. I do think "accusation" is not the right word to use here at all. DMH223344 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current lede structure makes sense: first we say that there are accusations, then we say who makes them and then who disputes it. Alaexis¿question? 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Otherwise we have to argue about which accusing group gets named first. Starting an article about Israel with the words "Leading Palestinian" would look like we are trying to undermine the apartheid viewpoint by highlighting that some of those who hold that view have a conflict of interest. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing "Leading Palestinian" can be changed to "Leading Israeli and Palestinian". DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of saying there are accusations. Why not just say what the accusations are? DMH223344 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an introductory sentence, get to the heart of the matter, which is not just the accusations but what has produced them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how it isn't totally redundant with the sentence that follows (although somewhat awkwardly the second sentence does not mention who is performing the human rights violations). DMH223344 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago, the first sentences were "
occupied Palestinian territories and, by some, in Israel proper. Israel and its supporters deny the charges.[1]
"
Which do you prefer?

References

  1. ^ Kingsley, Patrick (23 March 2022). "U.N. Investigator Accuses Israel of Apartheid, Citing Permanence of Occupation". The New York Times.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is fine. The proposed version "Leading...." places the focus of the article on the organizations making the "accusation"; while the other proposed version "Israel is accused" has an extremely negative connotation as if the allegations are unfounded. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are one of the world's leading rights organizations and they are reliable sources per WP; we are treating their claims with the seriousness they deserve. These claims are based on years of research and meticulous reporting. These are not claims made by Facebook pages, social clubs or government with conflict of interests. Adding to what I just noted, I think it's time we go even further and refocus the article on the existing apartheid system, rather than making this an article about the debates on the issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of wikilink

This edit simply ignores the fact that two separate sources with quotes supporting weaponization of antisemitism in the context of apartheid accusations were added in support of the statement made and that it is therefore entirely appropriate to wikilink that statement to Weaponization of antisemitism. The newly added refs were not reverted, if the reverting editor agrees with the refs then it is difficult to see what is wrong with the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of attribution to an RS that does not require one made the issue even worse by distracting from the main topic at hand-Israeli apartheid. I have reverted and waiting for the opposing editors to join the talk page discussion here so we can reach a proper agreement. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging האופה to make sure they're aware of this discussion. Do we feel the body of sources is strong enough that we can say in wikivoice that Israel is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism when it calls apartheid accusations antisemitic? If so, we should summarize those sources in the body of the article and make the claim explicitly in the lead. If not, then we need to attribute. I tried to get at the fact that it's not just Amnesty International, but I'm also sensitive to taking up too much space in the lead with this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only looked explicitly for the specific phrase but we all know what it means and what it is referring to. If we don't require the use of the specific phrase, I think it should be quite easy to source the fact that allegations of antisemitism in relation to apartheid accusations are being made for political purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, in a nutshell, the first paragraph says this: Israel is accused of apartheid, which is really severe, a crime against humanity. Only its "Western allies" think it's wrong (... so it must be true), and Israel itself says the allegation is antisemitic, but according to the very groups making the accusation, Israel is weaponizing the term antisemitism, so why care. and that's supposed to be a neutral intro. Sorry for being sarcastic, but the state of this article is... ridiculous. The intro paragraph is a one big POV violation. I propose we team up to enhance the neutrality of this article. I agree with what Firefangledfeathers is suggesting above: The weaponization thing is taking too much space in the lead. IMO, it is totally one-sided, making this undue. HaOfa (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been left as I left it, it wouldn't be a problem. Take up issues with the neutrality of the article in another section if desired, this section is just about the Weaponisation thing. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion went stale and now we're back to edit warring. I'm thinking to seek some outside opinions, maybe from
WP:NPOVN. Anyone have a different preference? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It is a fact that reliable sources cover weaponized accusations of antisemitism in the context of apartheid and I cannot see why a wikilink is causing so much angst, well I can but it is of the
WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. I don't think this is a question of attribution, after all, what else would you call it? "Politically motivated/bad faith accusations of antisemitism"? On WP, if editors went around doing that, we'd wheel out aspersions and blocks posthaste. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Let's assume for a second that I actually have NPOV concerns, and not just IDONTLIKEIT concerns. Given that assumption, would you rather I raise the question at
WP:NPOVN or another location? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't referring to your good self, other than in respect of attribution. I don't think it needs raising elsewhere, editors wishing to contest the lead as it stands can raise an RFC with this convo as RFCbefore. That's the most straightforward way to proceed as well as involve more editors. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be fine with an RfC. How about a question like:
Should the lead include or remove the wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism in the line "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_apartheid&oldid=1220573329"