Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
Allegations of Israeli apartheid is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
This article is part of WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 15, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Peer review Allegations of Israeli apartheid has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20

Contents

[edit] "Consensus" lead

The lead should fairly characterise the views of both sides. One of the similarities between Israel and South Africa, as conceived by those who use the term, is that both were colonial states. The comparison is fairly interesting because in both cases land rights are nothing like straightforward. One could bicker over whether Israel is a colony or not, but we are representing the views of both sides, not posting the "truth", whatever we believe it is. Grace Note 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's OR to mention colonialism in the lead just because one or two of the quotes attach it to the accusation of apartheid. In fact there seem to be colonialism quotes added to this article, which should be removed if they're not directly attached to quotes about apartheid. It seems like many of them are just added to show how much these people hate Israeli policies, rather than to discuss the accusation of apartheid.
By the way, has anyone noticed how noone cares when protestors talk about apartheid and nazis and colonialism at this point? Great way to ruin a legacy of anti-racism, people! Anyways, focus on the first paragraph I just wrote. This was just my own amused rant.--Urthogie 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As per my edit: The rights and privileges are "disparate" not seperate.

disparate \DIS-puh-rit; dis-PAIR-it\, adjective: 1. Fundamentally different or distinct in quality or kind. 2. Composed of or including markedly dissimilar elements.

The term "separation" refers to physical separation/apartheid. This should also be included in the lead, since the allegations refer to disparate rights AND physical separation of the two groups impose largely by Israel. (i.e. the wall, etc.)

I have tried to make the lead more accurate. Kritt 06:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was considering that word before; I think it's good for clarifying the meaning, though other improvements may be possible. Mackan79 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Apartheid Banner

Is there a reason we have a list of four countries other than South Africa? The banner seems rather ridiculously POV. Was there a discussion of this that I missed? Mackan79 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because South Africa wasn't allegations. Read the template, allegations is the key word. Apartheid actually happened, today we have allegations and analogies. Feel free to add countries to the template. I know I will.--Urthogie 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, for starters, the banner is a mess. More importantly, your whole premise here is to distinguish real apartheid from mere allegations. Whether accurate or not, that's clearly one POV. I'm going to remove it for now; I think this needs to be discussed before being thrown into the article. Mackan79 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
South Africa said it was practicing "apartheid". The government gave that name to its own practice, in its own language. In the case of Israel, other people are accusing the government not only of practicing similar things, but they are using a word imported from another time, place and language to do it. I would say that is a legitimate distinction. 6SJ7 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The distinction is real, I agree. The question is whether it's neutral to make it the premise for a banner at the top of the page. My longstanding problem is making this kind of statement indirectly. If we want to say that this is an important distinction, then I think we should state that clearly, not make it the premise for a banner that's included to illustrate it. Mackan79 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If the distinction between apartheid-era South Africa and current-day Israel were properly made, this article would not even exist. 6SJ7 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Mackan, banners that hold lists always go at the top of pages if there is only one. There is therefore no NPOV issue because it's a useful list of related pages, and no style issue because of the traditional way banners are placed. Noone ever got mad at me on hip hop music, yknow? If you insist on adding the content of the banner to the article explicitly, I say go ahead, I'd like that very much. Then again, would it not be kind of retarded to have such redundant information? I like the tidy little template more. Feel free as a bird to make that thing look better. But please don't try to hide it, because it's completely in line with Wikipedia practices and policies. --Urthogie 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The banner 1. editorializes, and 2. defaces the article. Both of these are POV issues. Also, banners don't always go at the top, see Anti-Zionism. As far as the helpfulness of the list, I don't think it helps show your good faith when the first article, which you recently (today) created, starts off "Some go so far as to allege that there is racial apartheid in Australia." I'm sorry, but is this really the best you can do to respect WP:NPOV? Beyond that, I'll await further comment. Mackan79 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't editorialize. I used the same method for deciding to create it as is used in any other info box. Info boxes go at the tops of article on the right, usually, so point number 2 is also invalid. Also, the banner on anti-Zionism is at the bottom because the word anti-Semitism isn't in the title of the article. It's a subsection that's part of the series, not the article itself. This ENTIRE article, not just this section, is part of an obvious series of allegations of apartheid. Check the title.--Urthogie 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
A series that you created today for the purpose of placing this banner? If you want to play games, we could of course create a very nice big banner here on Allegations of Apartheid, with links to all related articles. Primary articles could include Apartheid, Crime of Apartheid, Allegations of Apartheid, with all of the secondary articles you list here. Is this something you would support? Personally, I would not, for reasons that I would hope you'd see. Mackan79 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, think logically. Are Apartheid and Crime of Apartheid equivelant to, or a subset of Allegations of Apartheid? No, of course not. Info boes aren't based on going up a category. The info box on anarchism doesn't have links to Hobbes's work, despite the fact that they're both political philosophy.--Urthogie 18:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're looking at. Anarcho-capitalism, Christian_anarchism, Collectivist_anarchism, etc., all have a large banner on Anarchism, as do Anarchism_and_religion, Anarchism_in_Austria, Anarchism_in_Sweden, etc. The banner contains all aspects of Anarchism, as would be most helpful to a person researching the topic. So would you approve or disapprove of something similar here? My feeling is that these banners are much less appropriate on sensitive topics where they look like editorializing. I'd appreciate it if you took this seriously, or if others would offer their opinion. Mackan79 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Mackan, the anarchism template proves my point exactly-- Every single title is a subset of anarchism. This is specifically what I made clear about info boxes earlier, and repeating my point for me doesn't really accomplish anything for this discussion. Everything is in the realm of anarchism on that info box. Not political philosophy, but anarchsm. The same paradigm holds logically true for this template, as well-- everything invovled deals with allegations of apartheid. It would be just as much of a complete non sequitor to "play games" by adding Crimes of apartheid to this info box as it would be to add a link to Hobbes's political philosophy to anarchy's info box.
You are yet to shed any light on how this box editorializes in any way whatsoever. Is it a POV that these are allegations of anti-semitism? Sensitive topics which are this large tend to have one box or another, grouping them with other topics. If you view it as normalizing the accusation, I might ask why you don't say the same thing about the anti-semitism infobox. (Aren't we "editorializing" by showing how prevalent anti-semitism is? Perhaps the info box should be removed from every single page??)--Urthogie 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that Anarchism in Austria belongs to a subset of Anarchism, but Allegations of Israeli Apartheid does not belong to a subset of Apartheid? Mackan79 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, of course I'm not saying that, I'm saying that: Anarchism in Austria belongs to a subset of Anarchism, but Apartheid does not belong to a subset of Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. I've been trying to explain that to you for a while.--Urthogie 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that Anarchism in Austria has a large infobox on Anarchism. Are you disagreeing with this? I'm suggesting we could equally place a large infobox on this page regarding Apartheid. As far as I can see above, you're agreeing with me, but then adding some other point which doesn't seem applicable. Can you please clarify your position? Mackan79 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would support putting an an apartheid template on Allegations of apartheid, but not this page. Seperate templates for seperate levels. Allegations of apartheid now has its own template, so it would be redundant to add its content to a seperate apartheid template.--Urthogie 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on the fun, but all this talk of subsets and supersets, going "up" a category or down, is a red herring, and a rather lurid and pongy one at that. The banner is just a clumsy POV-pushing effort. It lists nine countries (well, eight plus the amateurishly bigoted catch-all "Muslim countries"), only three of which actually link to articles, only two of which in turn existed before today, when Urthogie revved up his google engines and found six instances where the word "apartheid" was used in connection with Australia. 6SJ7 is right that there's an important difference between South African apartheid and the system of rule in the occupied territories so unsettlingly reminiscent of it to so many. There's an equally important difference between the South Africa – Palestine parallels, which have been the central subject of numerous books and articles, scholarly and popular, on the one hand, and the ad hoc for-the-nonce metaphorical usages Urthogie is busy collating and building articles around in his effort at well-poisoning, on the other.

There's an argument you want to make: Israel's been accused of apartheid, but so has everyone else. Fine. Just find a source that makes that argument, and we'll include it. The sources critical of the analogy on the whole don't say this, though. In fact by and large they say precisely the opposite: they say Israel is being singled out for special opprobrium. That's a pervasive argument, so it's well-represented here. As far as I know, however, the argument that everyone's been accused of apartheid – where apartheid is everywhere it's nowhere etc. has only been made by Wikipedians. It doesn't belong here, and certainly not in the form of a coy banner.--G-Dett 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Infoboxes actually are based on categorically grouping concepts. This is not a red herring, but a fact of how things are grouped.
  • Red links are actually supported on Wikipedia. They allow the encyclopedia to grow.
  • You are assuming bad faith by attempting to describe my "effort" to POV everything here.
  • What would you propose we replace "muslim countries" with? The article is "Islamic apartheid". Info is on it in the Allegations of apartheid article.
  • I didn't use search engines, I just read the above page, and noticed that it was actually POV to only have a page for Israel and Cuba.
  • I didn't find those sources for Australia, they were already on the Allegations of apartheid page. Please don't lie.
  • The infobox isn't an "argument." It's completely NPOV, and approaching it as an "argument" is the only red herring in this entire discussion.
  • Since when the hell are sources required for an infobox? I love the double standards, ey!

Yeah, well double standards aren't allowed. We're keeping this.--Urthogie 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I almost but a merge tag onto Allegations of Australian apartheid until I saw it was less than a day old; I imagined Urthogie has plans to expand it beyond a stub. OTOH, Allegations of apartheid is getting rather long. Cuba is a special case anyway, as the problem there is chiefly about a small handful of tourists, not a more general societal problem, so I'm not sure that belongs in this new template per se -- Kendrick7talk 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, first of all, sorry for attributing to your personal researches what was in fact culled from that content-dump of an article, Allegations of Apartheid. Now, to your bill of particulars:

  • I know that infoboxes are "based on categorically grouping concepts," but that doesn't mean their use is therefore by definition NPOV. We could, for example, add an infobox to this page categorically grouping "Crimes under international law associated with the Israeli Occupation." That infobox would, like yours, be a violation of NPOV.
You would need an article called Crimes under international law associated with the Israeli Occupation to do that. We already have an article for Allegations of apartheid.--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a secondary question of whether grouping together every country whose policies someone at some time or another has likened to apartheid creates a compelling, relevant, and self-evidently justifiable "category." I would say it does not. The invocations of "apartheid" raked together in this crude manner vary enormously in number and kind in their different contexts, from ad hoc rhetorical flourishes to extended academic comparisons intended with greater literalness. Take a parallel case. "Ethnic cleansing" originally applied only to the former Yugoslavia. It has since been applied to many contexts. Sometimes the comparison is literal and widely used; other times it's metaphorical and idiosyncratic. The difference is important. You wouldn't create an infobox about "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and list therein the Junjaweed's campaign in Sudan side-by-side with the socioeconomic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District, even though all three have been the subject of such "allegations."
First off, notice how not every country is on the template. Only those countries which have significantly large sections on Allegations of apartheid (or which already have large articles of their own) were added to the template. This is not a crude manner, it is a manner reflecting the content on wikipedia, namely, an article entitled Allegations of apartheid. As for "Allegations of ethnic cleansing", that is not comparible to apartheid, because apartheid is named after a specific racist south african policy, while ethnic cleansing is concretely recognizable in some circumstances. "apartheid", in short, is subjective outside of its original home (south africa).--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't propose we replace "Muslim countries" with something else; I propose we get rid of it. It's crude and bigoted. There are 20+ "Muslim countries" comprising a billion+ Muslim people. So far as I know no serious scholar has written about apartheid as a common feature of these.
It's crude and bigoted? Well, you're entitled to your POV, as are the accusers. What would you suggest as an alternative text for the link to the soon to be made Accusations of Islamic apartheid?--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The comparisons with anarchism, Hobbes, etc. are misleading. In such cases there are copious reliable sources linking the topics that we link with our infoboxes. So far as I know there aren't reliable sources linking the discourse of "apartheid" in Israel-Palestine to the discourse of "apartheid"-like conditions in the tourist industry in Cuba, or Brazil, or elsewhere. In this case, the categorical grouping of "related" concepts seems to have been performed by Wikipedians and Wikipedians only.
There are no "sources" for any info box as far as I know of you just made up this concept of sourcing an infobox because you don't like this one. The anarchism info box isn't "sourced", it's just so damn obvious that an article with anarchism in its title fits under anarchism. Same goes here with an article with allegations of apartheid in its title. Also, another point-- the subsets of a given subject's info box don't need to be connected to each other by any given source. If this were the case, you couldn't put Existentialism in a philosophy info box if it hadn't been once linked with Zoroastrianism.--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize if you thought or think I'm alleging bad faith on your part. WP:AGF is one thing, WP:NPOV another. Discussions of POV-pushing are pretty routine on contentious talk pages, and aren't usually thought to amount to accusations of bad faith. Everyone has opinions in these areas, and sometimes one has to take a step or three back to see how those opinions are shaping their approach to article content and presentation. All best,--G-Dett 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a good tone to set. Thank you, --Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the right place to discuss all this (though it may be all the same crowd anyway) is at Allegations of Apartheid. I think the banner would mean splitting that page up into dozens of articles when it has only been so recently unified there so it's pertenent to that article most of all. -- Kendrick7talk 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you could just create a link from that page to here, since we already have something going on here.--Urthogie 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, what you haven't answered is why you decided the correct infobox here is one which provides the different countries in which Apartheid has been alleged, and yet then nothing about apartheid itself. Your statement about "separate templates for separate levels" is simply nonsensical, as well as inconsistent with the example of Anarchism that you provided. What you're saying here is that all of the United States should link to each other, but shouldn't link to the United States itself, because that's on a different level. Really?

This is the fundamental problem from which the POV is apparent: on a neutral basis, these choices don't make sense. A neutral attempt to give background on this subject would not simply provide other countries where the allegation has been made: it would provide the full information on Apartheid, the crime, the allegations, and everything else. The problem, of course, is that this adds further gravitas to the article, which everybody here is willing to accept is not needed. Equally problematic, though, is what you're attempting to do, which is pick only the information that appears to promote one POV. I say that not as an accusation, but as an objective statement of how it appears to the reader.

Also, you're incorrect again that infoboxes don't have to be sourced. If something is contested as original research, it has to be sourced like anything else. Mackan79 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • First off, you're attacking a straw man. "What you're saying here is that all of the United States should link to each other, but shouldn't link to the United States itself, because that's on a different level. Really?". No, not really. As you can see, this template already does link to Allegations of apartheid, just as you would have the State link to the United States. --Urthogie 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your second paragraph is barely comprehensible. Please write in clearer english as I can't even follow the logical progression of your thoughts. It might be partially my fault but this paragraph honestly seems to make no logical sense.
  • Ok, so on to your final point (third paagraph). No, I'm not incorrect to say that infoboxes don't have to be sourced. If they did, then you'd have to consider every info box an "original synthesis" of links.--Urthogie 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
See my response below. Regarding the third, though, yes, they are, and are impermissible if they promote a viewpoint. Otherwise, if they're uncontested, they're fine. Mackan79 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we'd need all that in such a template; it does already link to allegations of apartheid which does point the way to all the subtopics of apartheid, and, I would imagine, as the historical etymology of the word becomes less relevant in the coming decades, stands to evolve into the main apartheid article anyway. -- Kendrick7talk 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Apartheid is a redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, and has been for a while now. It seems somewhat strange that my little template added to an Israel criticism page would spark such a revolutionary change in the structure of Wikipedia's coverage of apartheid. One can't help but feel that such a monumental merger would be out of the scope of this discussion, and more suited for the history of south africa page itself.--Urthogie 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing a merger of anything, I just imagine there will come a point when few people immediately thinks of South Africa when they think of apartheid in much the same way few people immediately thinks of Armenia when they think of genocide. Anyway, Kendrick7 is not a crystal ball. -- Kendrick7talk 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, nor is Wikipedia.--Urthogie 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure the template is necessary at all. I'm simply saying: the assumption of an infobox is that we're providing information that readers are most likely to find useful. That said, would a person ariving at this article actually not be much more likely to want to read more on Apartheid than they would other countries where the phrase has been used? Certainly there's a curiousness to finding out that Australia or Cuba has been accused of Apartheid, but I can't think those are the most notable things people would be looking for.
The reason you say it's not necessary, I'd guess, isn't because you don't think it would be useful, but because you probably recognize it would be too pointed. Surely the information is otherwise useful enough to provide, right? In fact, if Urthogie and I were talking about the Cuba article, I bet we'd both agree that extended links to articles about Apartheid would be useful. Why not?
Anyway, I can't say this is the end of the world for me either way, I just think these things cheapen WP. What we probably need is a better policy on avoiding political use or appearance of templates/categories/etc. Mackan79 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Can you think of any other big article, which has links to its subpages, some of them very big themselves, which have the main article's name in their titles. Can you cite one other example of an article which fit these criteria that doesn't benefit navigationally from having an info box? Perhaps it's your personal POV of the world that makes you think such a template doesn't benefit the article. To me, it is obvious that any educated person should examine how allegations such as apartheid are used today. This doesn't imply a POV. It's possible to think Israel has apartheid and still get some insight on how the word is used from navigating through this handy info box..--Urthogie 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My point is that we should either have a full template or none at all. If you look at Template:Antisemitism or Template:Discrimination or Template:Anarchism, you'll see they discuss many issues across many levels and relating to many things. My problem is picking out one group of things which also happens to be an argument from one side. Regardless, you clearly have more energy than me on this issue, so I guess that's to your credit. Mackan79 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Those are higher level templates. They cover more things because their articles cover more things.--Urthogie 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break in infobox/banner debate

Thanks for your point-by-point reply above, Urthogie. May I ask however that in the future you provide a single rebuttal to my posts rather than breaking them up into little pieces? My post was intended to present an integrated set of points, rather than a grab-bag. I also think that interjecting point-by-point rebuttals leads quickly to impasse, in the form of thick, gnarled, weed-like arguments between two people, instead of a vigorous but open debate that anyone can join.

With respect, I think you haven't quite answered the objections raised about the value of this infobox and the NPOV issues it raises. There are, as I said, many ways of "categorically grouping concepts," and some are indeed POV-pushing. Frontloading a "handy" list of all the other countries in which apartheid has been "alleged" is as POV-pushing as frontloading a handy list of all the other crimes Israel has been accused of. Now, you keep saying that infoboxes don't need reliable sources. This is true but only in the trivial sense; we don't, that is, include footnotes for infoboxes. The conceptual groupings they endorse, however, should be ones that are important to – or at the very least ones that have occurred to – the reliable sources that provide us with our understanding of the topic in the first place. Infoboxes are not little free zones where WP:NOR doesn't apply, where Wikipedians get to present their own idiosyncratic conceptual frameworks for the material at hand.

You rather breezily waved aside my point about the parallel case of "ethnic cleansing, saying that it's "not comparible to apartheid, because apartheid is named after a specific racist south african policy, while ethnic cleansing is concretely recognizable in some circumstances. 'apartheid', in short, is subjective outside of its original home (south africa)." I think this won't do, and if you don't mind I'm going to return to it and press you a little. Ethnic "cleansing" is a loanword from Serbo-Croatian named after specific policies in the former Yugoslavia, just like apartheid is a loanword from Afrikaans, named after specific policies in pre-1994 South Africa. The fact that you find the application of the term "ethnic cleansing" outside of its "original home" to be self-evidently justified in certain contexts ("concretely recognizable in some circumstances") is – with respect – beside the point. Many prominent persons with no particular axe to grind find apartheid conditions to be "concretely recognizable" in Israel-Palestine. That's also beside the point. What is not beside the point is that in both cases a morally charged historical analogy (apartheid, ethnic cleansing) is invoked in a huge variety of contexts. Sometimes the analogy is meant rhetorically and used merely for moral emphasis (describing the aftermath of Katrina as "ethnic cleansing" underscores the racial and socioeconomic fault-lines the disaster made visible, for example; referring to Cuban tourism as a form of apartheid, similarly, underscores the hypocrisy and unseemliness of a socialist pseudo-utopia kept afloat by a nakedly capitalist tourist economy). At other times the analogy is meant with much greater literalness, and becomes the subject of sustained historical comparisons by scholars, writers, journalists, activists and politicians (this is the case with ethnic cleansing in the Sudan, or apartheid in the occupied territories). An infobox that flattens these distinctions, and creates a single category for them, a category that is "so damn obvious" to Wikipedians with a given POV (but not obvious enough to have penetrated the thick skulls of our reliable sources), is POV-pushing original research. If apologists for the Janjaweed were well-represented on Wikipedia, they'd have a field day making little infoboxes about "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and neatly arraying within them whatever scraps of heated rhetoric they managed to comb together from their internet researches. I'd be opposing them as doggedly as I'm opposing you, so don't take it personally.--G-Dett 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I wrote above that "ethnic cleansing" is a loanword from Serbo-Croatian. In fact it's something called a calque. Sorry, I learned the word five minutes ago.--G-Dett 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other countries (other than Israel) that more closely resemble SA Apartheid? Which are they?

The lead includes the following statement that is not backed up by anything in the rest of the article, and the footnote itself doesn't mention a country "that more closely resembles" Apartheid either. The lead should not included weak and perhaps non-existent claims.

"and that the practices of other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid. [3]" Kritt 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen this argument made before. That the real apartheid is Islamic apartheid. Just add a citation needed template for now and we'll work on getting a source.--Urthogie 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can get a source, that seems like a good solution.--G-Dett 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream sources: Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel from the Jerusalem Post:

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

I can find other sources too if you want to be stubborn.--Urthogie 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Islamic nations are criticised for human rights violations, but are RARELY if ever compared to South Africa and Apartheid. Israel, a democracy, is compared to South Africa. That's a big difference.Kritt 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Critics

6SJ7, I don't believe you've explained why you think the lead needs to characterize the analogy as coming from "some critics of Israel." Being gramatically unnecessary, it seems to basically be your OR. If you think it's necessary, feel free to explain why. Mackan79 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed Jimmy Carter

His book says there is apartheid in Palestine, especially referencing the territories, but he never says that israel itself practices apartheid. He even makes this clear in speeches and interviews, etc., to it's essentially libel to say he makes this analogy for Israel when he only does it for Palestine. Removed him.--Urthogie 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"...he never says that israel itself practices apartheid"??? Carter writes "...A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed..."[2] I haven't yet looked at the edits being made to this article, and don't have time now, but these words are a clear allegation of Israeli apartheid, which is the title of the article. The title of the article doesn't say "...in Israel" Andyvphil 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, i really disagree. Since Carter makes his point using the concept of apartheid, it is really better to leave that information in the entry, where others can find it, and use it. This is an article to describe and detail broad uses of the term "apartheied" in relation to this topic, not to split hairs. --Sm8900 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You're ignoring what I said. I know he says "apartheid", that's the title of his book. But it's not a reference to Israel, but to the existential situation he thinks the Palestinians and the Israelis find themselves in, respectively. His book, I remind you, is called Palestine: Peace not apartheid. Palestine refers to the entire land both the arab palestinians and the jews are on. Not only this, but he's even devoted speaches and articles to clarifying how his view isn't that there is "Israeli apartheid." He blame both sides (israel for the wall, palestinians for terrorism) in creating this situation they find themselves in. I'm removing the libelous quote unless you have some further explanation for it, or can address what I'm saying here.--Urthogie 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Urthogie, if you don't like the treatment, you should try to change it as seems appropriate. Suggesting this is libelous because you see a slight distinction from what Carter has said doesn't seem helfpul. As we define the analogy, we say that it refers to several things which are broadly defined. For that matter, where do we say the analogy alleges a policy of apartheid in Israel? Particularly with Sm8900's clarifications, I don't see any possible misunderstanding. Carter is extremely important to this debate, though; again, if you want to change something, do, but we can't just delete him. Mackan79 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the article does in fact lay the definition square at the hands of Israeli policies: "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from the policies apartheid era South Africa to those of Israel." Neither Carter, nor Zbigniew Brzezinski use it this way-- to describe Israeli policies. Only to describe the situation that the sides find themselves in. It's not only OR, but it's libelous. I'm sticking to that.--Urthogie 16:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The only way in which Carter is releveant to this article is his many speeches and article in which he has made clear why he named his book what he did:

Well, he [Dershowitz] has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not "Israel." He should go to the second word in the title, which is "Peace." And then the last two words [are] "Not Apartheid." I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid. But there is a clear distinction between the policies within the nation of Israel and within the occupied territories that Israel controls[,] and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. . . . (Italics added.)[3]

Please stop libelling the man. The "apartheid" situation in the West Bank is a criticism of Israeli policies there, but not at all referencing anything close to an "Israeli apartheid" policy as defined by this article.--Urthogie 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, here is a quote which I just found from Carter. it completely proves that he does make the comparison. Now could we please stop arguing over this? Thanks.

"When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa." (ref: Jimmy Carter: Israel's 'apartheid' policies worse than South Africa's, haaretz.com, 11/12/06).

--Sm8900 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, very well. If we're keeping him though, it needs to be specified he's not talking about all of Palestine, but only the West Bank. This is a key point that seperates him from the bi-national supporters.--Urthogie 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My most recent change creates a section to specify between the two, so that this issue doesn't get confused. Some people say all of Israel is just apartheid because they believe Palestinians should own all the land. Others, like carter, believe Israeli policies perpetrate apartheid in the West Bank. Important distinction, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the writers of that article discussed in the overview section. --Urthogie 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely, Urthogie. This article should make that distinction very clear.--G-Dett 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
that sounds fine. thanks. --Sm8900 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, can you work to help me remove examples of original research in the arguments sections? That is, remove any link that doesn't talk about the relevance of whatever issue to apartheid in specific.--Urthogie 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we remove mentions of Gaza?

Israel unilaterally disengaged. Unless the criticism was written after the unilateral disengagement, I'm suggesting we remove it, as it makes a joke out of the arguments for the analogy, and for those who are ver ignorant on this subject it actually makes them think that Israel has done nothing to leave Gaza.--Urthogie 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that as long as Israel continues to control all land, air, and sea access routes into Gaza, then the territory is still under de facto control. Removing a ground presence was only a small part of the equation. Tarc 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the mentions of Gaza in the article relate to ongoing cantonization and border control issues that are still very much current. Don't see how removing these allegations makes sense solely because Israel has no feet on the ground there. -- Kendrick7talk 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tarq.Kritt 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the mentions of Gaza in this article seem to deal mainly with occupation of land, not with border control or land, air, and sea control to apartheid. I'm saying we should remove those that talk about the land control, pre-gaza withdrawl.--Urthogie 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you are seeing. There may be a need for a historical section of allegations that are no longer current. -- Kendrick7talk 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How about, to be more specific, "Historical uses of the allegation"?--Urthogie 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Historical allegations or something, sure. -- Kendrick7talk 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I really lean against any wholesale removals of any material. So let's keep it in, for reasons stated above. thanks. --Sm8900 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I d'know how moving it to a new section is "removal"--Urthogie 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hows the new lead?

I like to think of myself as a neutral person, because I'm rabidly pro and anti Israel at the same time. How is this lead?--Urthogie 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that anyone opposed this lead, but it seems like G-Dett might. Lemme exlpain why I wrote it this way:

When the allegation of Israeli apartheid is made, it can mean one of two things. The first thing it can refer to is the claim that Israeli policy in the West Bank is analogous to apartheid. It can also refer to a seperate claim--which by default accepts the first one as well-- that Israel is a South Africa- style apartheid state. The issues involved the first allegation are the conditions and restrictions placed on Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank, while the issues involved in the second allegation are supposed similarities between Israel and South Africa. A book-length study on the subject of these allegations said that the second claim is made most often by "Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state." The first claim, however, is associated with a seperate group, "which sees both similarities and differences, and which looks to South African history for guidance in bringing resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians." The majority of intellectuals and journalists, however, disagree with the allegation being used in any way "and deplore what [they] deem its propagandistic goals."

As you can see, the entire article is framed in a way which represents the largest piece of summarizing literature on the subject. This is about as close as we can get to fairly representing this material, and as far as we can get from original research. This stands in stark contrast to the mud-slinging fights that occured on the editing of the former lead, in which various people with opinions would add sentences that had subtle POV's.--Urthogie 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How do I like it? I like that what you wrote (which I've reverted by the way) drew the distinction between the situation in Israel and the situation in the territories. I didn't like that the phrasing was so casual and chatty and unencyclopedic. I didn't like the last sentence distorted a sentence of Adam and Moodley's, and I didn't like that you threw it up there so casually without getting consensus here.
I do like that you're interested in neutrality, and look forward to working with you.
I also gotta admit that I do kind of like how you've swanned in here, made a bunch of crazy suggestions (my favorite so far is that we should remove reference to Carter because he's talking about an "existential apartheid" for which Israel is blameless), and then cheerfully opened up edit wars on two or three fronts to defend them. The chutzpah of it. You're a man after my own heart.--G-Dett 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to give me credit though-- I recognize when I'm wrong :) Anyways, am I right to say the issues you have are with
  1. The style of speech being too chatty.
  2. The sentence: The majority of intellectuals and journalists, however, disagree with the allegation being used in any way "and deplore what [they] deem its propagandistic goals."
I can reasonably understand point number 1, although personally I'd take an informal voice over POV any day. I think that can be fixed as the article evolves. Point number 2... how does that misrepresent the authors who explicitly say: "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."?--Urthogie 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It misrepresents them because they're not talking about "allegations of Israeli apartheid." They're talking about broad historical comparisons; they're talking about any work (like theirs, for example) that attempts to "draw strategic lessons from the negotiated settlement in South Africa for the unresolved conflict in the Middle East." The mistake is hardly your fault; Adam and Moodley have been cherry-picked to death on this page. They're worth reading in the unadulterated original.
You say you prefer chit-chat to POV. Who was it who said, "I'd rather be rich than stupid"? Yogi Berra? Jack Handey? Help me here.
Have you recognized you were wrong about the infobox/banner issue? Because that silly tendentious thing with all its eager & hopeful red links is still sitting there at the top of the page.--G-Dett 20:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No, of course I wasn't wrong about the banner issue.
You're ignoring the basic fact that the three groups concern commentators on the analogy of apartheid. You're ignoring it by pointing out what the entire essay is about. Yes, the essay as a whole is about "broad historical comparisons", yes, but this ignores the fact that it's broken down into sections, and this is from one that deals with how people comment on the analogy. What you're saying is the logical equivelant of someone saying we can't use a book on dogs for a source on dalmations, because that quote doesn't deal with the "broader context" of dogs as an entire species.
As a sidenote, I have read them in the article/essay in its unadulterated original format and I think this cherrypicked quote is actually one of the best quotes to use for framing this article. Apparently, so do others, because they've chosen to use it for an overview before I even came here.
As far as Yogi Berra and such, how about you fix the voice, then if you're such a good editor in deciding how a sentence should sound. It's not a "false choice" as you would suggest, but it can be a win-win situation if you'll just improve the voice. I hope I've shown that there's no NPOV issue by highlighting your mistaken logic.--Urthogie 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The Adam & Moodley material is from a book, not an essay. One chapter of it is available online; that chapter has tended to be read in isolation here (as an "essay"), and it's that one that's been cherry-picked to death. Now, it is absolutely clear that the tripartite division you're quoting from refers to attitudes towards the broad historical comparison, not the apartheid "allegation" (a word, incidentally, never used by A & M). You will see this if you read the paragraph which precedes the tripartite division, especially the first two sentences of that paragraph (p.19 in the original, p.12 in the online pdf file). For Adam & Moodley's presentation of the various components of that broad comparison, which include but are not limited to the apartheid analogy, see the next section (p.21-27 in the original), "Uses and Abuses of the Israel-South Africa Comparison."
As for your last suggestion, I don't spit-polish shoes I don't intend to keep.--G-Dett 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are allegations of apartheid not a broad historical comparison or analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa?--Urthogie 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Read pages 21-27, especially the first paragraph.
Regarding the infobox, I'm still waiting for a reply to this.--G-Dett 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
One sec, if the overview already had conensus, why would putting similar stuff in the lead suddenly be "cherry-picking"? My lead already has consensus based on this fact alone, that the overview stayed so solid. The only element of my lead that needs improvement is it's style-- an issue you brought up just to denigrate my edits to stop them from staying in the lead. If you continue to take this approach I'll just revert you whenever I get a chance. Chances are, more people will help me with that than you think. So my advice is for you to try and more actively gain consensus.--Urthogie 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all the points made by G-Dett, as well as his overall approach and concerns. Thanks. --Sm8900 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Good, because I'd hate to have to discuss this with two people who have unique points of view on the issue. It gets confusing.--Urthogie 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, if you were being reasonable, you would admit that you came here a couple weeks ago to insert this argument in the lead,[4] failed, and so then decided to replace it in template form.

Either way, if you get around to responding to G-Dett's post, please also try to explain again why you think we should have this particular "lower level template" here rather than any "higher level template." As I pointed out above, your example of Anarchism actually cuts directly against your point, since all of the Anarchism in Austria, Anarchism in China, etc. articles actually have a plain Template:Anarchism, not a narrow one on Template:Regional Anarchism. It's gotten a little silly here to ask you to actually argue your point consistently, but since three editors are disagreeing with you, perhaps it's worth asking again. Mackan79 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Mackan79's last post. Again, I agree with both him and G-Dett. And Urthogie, I am glad you see the merits of aruging with one point of view. perhaps you will realize that the essence of Wikipedia discussions is that each user usually represents a larger group of users who have a similar set of concerns. Since that simple idea seems to be in doubt here, i am using this to express my support for the other two editors, as a group. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, I'd be fine deleting the template, but simply tend to take a more minimalist approach. The problem with this template happens only to be specifically in regard to this article, where it was included as a sort of WP:POVFORK, and serves to promote a particular argument. Does it make sense to require the deletion of the whole template because it presents a POV problem in one article? I'm afraid the result would be an unnecessary deadlock. Mackan79 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe apartheid, as a crime against humanity, is evil in all its forms, and while I certainly believe that Israel is the most egregious current example of its practice, I don't think a template listing it whereever it might reasonably said to be in practice is a terrible thing. I do understand that Urthogie's motive might not be pure, but considering the pre-existance of the general allegations of apartheid article, I can't say I disapprove of an overall (re)split with a navigatible template for this whole topic. Rome wasn't built in a day and I'd be happy were he to flesh out this template more fully, but I wouldn't mind giving this a week or two. At which point WP:TFD would be the best place to address your concerns. -- Kendrick7talk 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I, like the majority of journalists and commentators believe the analogy is complete propaganda in regards to calling Israel an "apartheid state", and hyperbole in regards to the West Bank. The wall, the west bank, all of this is because of Palestinian terrorism. The Jewish state of Israel, unlike apartheid South Africa, is here to stay, no matter how much it's smeared.--Urthogie 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You, like the majority of those who employ the analogy, don't think it applies to the situation within Israel proper.--G-Dett 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unindent. Lead had gotten quite ugly, with a fourth paragraph repeating an element of the third, a misplaced plural, etc. So I tightened it, not removing any substantive element, I think. Andyvphil 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

andy, the fourth paragraph did not in any way repeat the third. In fact, it directly recgonized and addressed some key allegations regarding apartheid. it did not deny them, but provided a rationale based on security considerations. Thanks. --Sm8900 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a few hours ago, and therefor old history, but the fourth paragraph redundantly repeated the now-removed third (equally badly written) paragraph phrase "...that the cited practices of the analogy are based on security needs...". What's missing from the fourth paragraph now is the "instead of" component... Of course, apartheid had a real security component too, so it's a badly thought out argument for the illegitimacy of the analogy. The analogy is an attempt to appropriate the opprobrium earned by the racist components of apartheid to a situation where those elements are a much less important part of the ideology... But, I didn't remove the argument from the lead because it is a poor one. I just removed the then-existant repetition. Andyvphil 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another request for editors of this page

Can you guys check to make sure that everything listed under "Israel alleged apartheid state" doesn't more accurately fit under "Israel alleged apartheid in territories." We don't want to libel anybody, so check the sources :)--Urthogie 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag replacement

Can I suggest use of Template:Noncompliant. Problems with this article appear to be not just WP:NPOV, but that this article reads in parts like an essay and contains non-encyclopedic content. Some people may feel WP:NOR applies to, but this seems to have plenty of references.--ZayZayEM 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This article has been tagged as POV for a year.

NPOV is the most basic of wikipedia policies.

I think we should set a date until which this article would become NPOV. If we fail by that date we should remove the article. Zeq 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, the reason people are removing the statements you're putting into the proponents sentence is that those are not what proponents say. It's not up to Wikipedia to try to rebut what the proponents say in the middle of the sentence where it's being put forward. What you're adding is right there in the next sentence, under what those who reject the analogy say. Mackan79 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead shouldn't give undue weight

I reverted back to a somewhat earlier version (not the version I wrote, but only with a small modification by me). It is a violation of WP:NPOV to give undue weight in the lead to those positions which accept the allegations. In fact, only in the final paragraph do we actually figure out what most commentators think about the allegation. Please don't remove this important fact, as we are otherwise giving undue weight to supporters (who are a minority in the press), and taking away the deserved weight of detractors (a majority in the press). If I were really being stubborn I'd insist we give more weight to the majority view on whether these allegations are valid, because the majority view is by definition deserving of more weight. However, I have been willing to compromise and give slightly less weight to the mainstream opinion which deserves immensely more. I've also compromised by not restoring my own lead, because I listened to consensus, despite the fact that I think it's immensely better than this lead.--Urthogie 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, you're the one who keeps saying we should acknowldge that some allegations pertain only to the West Bank, not to Israel itself or even the Gaza Strip. I am simply trying to reflect that difference. As for the restrictions, almost all commentators do accept that there are restrictions. They only differ on the cause. --Sm8900 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editor just removed this verified statement that most commentators reject the allegations as propaganda with the edit summary "RV POV". How is this qualification a point of view? Does anyone disatgree with it? It's a verified statement of fact.--Urthogie 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chill out on the lead for G-d's sake

Can we slow down a little with these incessant modifications of the lead? The usual protocol is to copy whatever version of the lead has enjoyed some stability (meaning weeks, usually) and paste it in on the talk page, list your objections to it and propose a substitute in draft form. Then others either echo your objections or dismiss them. If the latter, you're out of luck. If the former, then they make suggestions and modifications to your draft rewrite. By and by the draft rewrite tightens and refines and gets backing; and when it reaches some critical mass of consensus and stability it's moved, with a certain amount of fanfare, into the article itself.

The lead isn't the place to build sandcastles to be knocked down by the next caprice of the tides.

I'm not going to edit-war with you, Urthogie, but it may interest you to know that the last paragraph of the lead as you've got it now is virtually a word-for-word repetition of the second-to-last. Then again, that's probably all changed in the three minutes I've taken to write this.--G-Dett 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, this edit comment warring is a waste of time.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I hate that last paragraph too. I just kept it because I saw there was a seperate edit war going on over it. Feel free to remove it and edit war on it as I don't like it either. Sm8900 might get in your way though.--Urthogie 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
May I ask what problem you have with that paragraph? i thought it was constructive, as being fairer to Israel. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well like other users said, it's redundant.--Urthogie 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it redundant? it refers directly to the West bank, unlike the third para, which focuses mainly on Israeli Arabs. --Sm8900 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


  • I don't see any Wikipedia policy that talks about "stability". I wish there was one and only after an article would be stable (no editors change it) for 3 month it will become viewable to the public.
  • until such policy is in affect we will follow NPOV and LEAD policies. Zeq 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's how the last two sentences read when I posted my exasperated comment:

They also assert that Israel's limitations on Palestinians in the West Bank are justified by the ongoing hostility to Israel of numerous Palestinian groups.

They who reject the analogy also assert that Israel's limitations and protective measures against Palestinians in the West Bank are made necessary by security concerns, due to ongoing hostility to Israel from numerous Palestinian groups.

The protocol for lead revision that I outlined at the top of this section ensures that the lead, whatever other faults it may suffer from at any given moment, will not stammer and chatter its way through these faults.--G-Dett 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gaza should have its own section, as should west bank

Every single accusation of apartheid in Gaza before unilateral disengagement should be placed in a seperate section. While Israel controls the air space, and the borders, I'm yet to see any sources that say that this amounts to apartheid in the settlements. What reasons are there to oppose this rather logical division, aside to confuse people who haven't heard of the disengagement, or make this article not be taken seriously by those who have?--Urthogie 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] any secondary source for this quote?

"The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state" -- south African prime minister. I think it's likely true because South Africa was attempting to defend itself from criticism by associating with a morally just cause, but I'd still like to see a primary or secondary source even though my intuition is that it's true. The only source I could find was the guardian one, which is a tertiary source. Anyone know of a document or video from that era for this quote?--Urthogie 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] questionable examples

Shulamit Aloni, former education minister, Israel Prize winner, and a former leader of Meretz,[5] and Tommy Lapid, leader of the liberal Shinui and former Justice minister, used the term "apartheid" when describing a bill proposed by the government of Ariel Sharon to bar Arabs from buying homes in "Jewish townships" within Israel proper.[19][20][21]

Aloni's article clearly does not use the "Israeli apartheid" allegation in reference to Israel itself, but rather to its actions in the territories:

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

He therefore belongs in that section on settlements, not this one.

Lapid never even says there's apartheid. He variously says it "smell of apartheid" and that it's "getting close to apartheid". Note, he's saying this individual law is apartheid, not all of Israel, as well. Perhaps we need sections for specific laws and policies within Israel, so that we don't make it look like anyone who calls a given policy apartheid is saying the whole state of Israel is "apartheid state."--Urthogie 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel is an apartheid state if they are creating apartheid conditions in the West Bank, right? I understand the distinction you are trying to draw, but you need to make it more explicit. -- Kendrick7talk 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We intentionally created a new section just so we could distinguish between the claims against all of Israel vs. Israel in the territories. Do you still oppose my move, to that section, then?--Urthogie 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe your resplit into three sections makes more sense. -- Kendrick7talk 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my mistake

I just noticed that most of the quotes mention the West Bank and Gaza in the same sentence, so it's literally impossible to seperate the two from each other. I'm going to try to make clear in the lead of that section that Israel no longer occupies Gaza land. --Urthogie 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two problems with Kritt's changes

  • First off, Tutu's apartheid allegations are solely based on Israel's actions in the territories. He goes out of his way to say that Israel proper is democratic.
  • Second off, "most" is not a POV in the lead sentence. It's referenced to a source which, in dividing academic and journalistic commentators on the analogy into groups, says:
  • Note: not some, but "the majority." Important distinction.

"The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."

  • This page is called Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Kritt changed the lead to just have Israeli apartheid bolded, going against both style guidelines and NPOV. This is clear evidence that Kritt is not up to date with knowledge of Wikipedia policies.
  • Kritt butchered a sentence in the lead which explained reasons that mainstream critics cite for not accepting the analogy, thus removing perfectly good references without anything on the talk page.

I've reverted Kritt. --Urthogie 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the lead: I believe Urthogie's format used here better and more consise, and I made the same improvement: Allegations of Islamic apartheid. Why the diffence?

Tutu talks specifically about Jerusalem, not the West Bank and Gaza. Please read his comments, he talks about "Holy Land" (Tutu's own words), not the "occupied West Bank".

The lead should not contain the quotes of one person as a set in stone summary. The lead you restored is POV, and it removed the issue regarding physical separation.

Please do not Edit War.Kritt 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tutu doesn't say Jerusalem is apartheid though. He criticizes the situation in Jerusalem, but doesn't call it apartheid. He calls the situation in the territories apartheid.
Feel free to add back physical separation (as long as its made clear that its Palestinians, not Arab-Israelis who are physically separated.) T
The quote is not one person, but from a book length study on the comparison, which actually doesn't agree with the majority. To play it off as a POV issue is therefore ridiculous. Also, note how it has had constant consensus in the Overview section.--Urthogie 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. Tutu knows everything there is to know about apartheid, he's leveled the charge against Israel, and his direct quote refers to Palestinians that no longer can access their homes in Jerusalem inside of Israel itself. It's clear as day what Tutu is saying. Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue.Kritt 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're the one confusing the issue. You're saying that anything bad Tutu says about Israel is a reference to apartheid, even though he only uses the term explicitly in reference to the territories.--Urthogie 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead: "and that other countries whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it."]

Who says other countries practices more closely resemble South Africa's than do Israel's? Let's see some sources for that before it makes into a Wikipedia lead paragraph. Israel is accused of apartheid far more than is any other country in the world. South African anti-apartheid individuals have not accused Islamic countries, Cuba, Brazil, or Australia anywhere near the level they have Israel. The lead is POV and unsupportable.Kritt 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence carefully. It's specified as an argument among those who oppose the analogy only. Sources seem to be already provided.
Israel is accused more of apartheid more than any in the world because a large portion of the world doesn't think Jews have a right to a Jewish state in Palestine. But this petty argument has nothing to do with the article.--Urthogie 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the two sources you have are very weak for the claims you make in the Lead. They belong elsewhere. I read those sources and they do not agree with the sentence you support: "whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid". The sources you have provided do not make that claim. Even so, it's a very small contingent that you are using, it's very much like cherry-picking, to support a point-of-view. Islamic nations may commit human rights abuses, but nobody calls it "apartheid" as they do democratic Israel. It truly doesn't belong in the lead and it's POV and unsupportable. Please reconsider it. Thanks.Kritt 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Just noticed I misread you...Two sources work for that argument to establish that its made. I can add more if you insist.
Some Islamic nations bar non-muslims from entry, most treat women worse than anywhere in the world, most of them you can't live in safety if you're Jewish, and some of them you'll have econd class status in a lot of them if you're christian. I don't call it apartheid, though, because that's an insult to South Africa. People call Israel apartheid, despite the fact that arabs there have better lives than in any of their dictatorships, because they truly believe Palestinians own the entire land, believing that the Jews have no right to a Jewish state there. Such is politics. And that's why most educated commentators don't resort to such rhetorical violence.--Urthogie 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I said that I read through the sources that are provided as the footnotes ( I think currently #3, #4), and they do not say what the Lead sentence says. It's POV and maybe your personal view of things.
Because you might hate Islamic practices, doesn't mean that the world calls them apartheid, that's what I'm saying, and you haven't shown where the back up is for other countries whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid, where is it? We are talking about a lead paragraph, and there's no back up.Kritt 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the world does call it apartheid-- in major newspapers, policy magazines, etc. Two sources are enough to establish the argument exists for this page, by the way. I'll add more in a sec.--Urthogie 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
also, can I ask how you came here all of a sudden, having edited almost solely this page, and knowing how wikipedia works from the very first second? This is just a sidenote.--Urthogie 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I read through tons and tons of the Discussion page here.Kritt 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the sentence's own sources and footnotes (as weak as they are) do not back up the sentence! It's misleading and doesn't belong anywhere near the Lead. It's POV and speculative.Kritt 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


I looked at the sources, they do work. For example, from "Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel":

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

You need to look more thoroughly it seems.--Urthogie 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/l/Talk%7EAllegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_d6ac.html"