Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →

Contents

hafrada

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


Two sides of the coin?

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

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

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

More sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we are struggling to get the point across to you here, or you are unwilling to listen. There is no question Israel is often accused of apartheid policies, but what is equally clear is that such accusations and comparisons are a rhetorical tool. I may be convinced that an article on the topic of Israel and apartheid is noteworthy, but I can not be convinced that a title such as "Israeli apartheid" does anything but beg the question. Yes, I agree that it's going to take some art to come up with a title that is NPOV, but this one is unacceptable. --Leifern 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to get this straight. You claim that all sources that use either Israeli apartheid (and variant thereof) or make comparisons along that line, are just rethoric? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's parse this, ok? Making comparisons is not mere rhetoric; but of course the comparison (as with any political comparison) has to hold up to criticism. It is not our job to resolve this controversy, but to articulate it for our readers. Using the term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question and breaks that rule; it accepts a disputed assumption as true in the way it is phrased - hence it is a rhetorical device. Think of it this way: if I created an article called "Henry Kissinger's war crimes," or "Christopher Hitchens's delusions" it would surely be disputed, since the way I phrased it also begs the question; and since Henry Kissinger and Christopher Hitchens are real people, they might even sue me for libel. Countries can't sue for libel, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply the same standards of NPOV to them as we do for individuals.--Leifern 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As you avoiding the question, let me ask it differently. What kind of sources would you need before you would accept that the phrase Israeli apartheid is more than rethoric? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not avoiding the question - it seems rather to me that you do not wish to concede that there is any legitimate controversy to the premise that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid. It seems to me you are asking me what it would take to convince me that Israel is practicing a policy of apartheid. Well, ehm, facts. Of which there aren't any to support the notion. Apartheid is a precisely defined policy, and Israel doesn't practice it, never has and hopefully never will. The term is used by people who are short on facts and logic and are only left with rhetorical devices to make their point. I think it is time for you to abandon the semblance that you are impartial on this issue, as it is clear that you aren't. --Leifern 21:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do think you avoid the question. What I get back is your opinion, time and time again. You are yourself saying that you need facts, and my logical question is then, what kind of sources would provide you with those facts? And if I need to step away, I suggest you start a section in which you say that and see what the rest thinks. I am willing to help out, but if uit is not appreciated, I am willing to let it be, and I wish you good luck to find someone else who is willing to do this. Maybe it is time that the people of this page request formal mediation and I will be happy to step aside for that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are asking me, 1) what would convince me that the term "Israeli apartheid" (in one form or another) is in use, I am already convinced. If you are asking me, 2) what it would take to convince me whether the comparison is made in the debate, I am already convinced. If you are asking me 3) what it would take to convince me that Israel practices apartheid, I would have to insist on facts and logic. The sources you have provided prove 1) and 2), but merely proving 1) qualifies the term "Israeli apartheid" at best as dictionary entry; 2) might qualify the topic for an article in Wikipedia, but absent proof for 3), the term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question. I do appreciate your effort, but you seem to be missing a very important point - please try reading articles on rhetorical fallacies and you will understand what I mean. --Leifern 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have only provide some of the sources, in the quest for WP:RS, many where already in the article. One way to resolve disputes about content is actually finding better sources, and if an mediator has to do that, I see that as perfectly valid. I think it would be pretty rediculous when you try to mediate between fighting parties while the whole fight would be over in a second when the sources in line with WP:RS would solve it. I think your disctinction in three pieces is a helpfull one. As for the logical falacies, I see them flying around here all the time, both in sources and from editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

sounds like a complete non-sense to me. -- tasc talkdeeds 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Apartheid Israel? Interview with Uri Davis on "The Religion Report" with David Rutledge, Radio National (Australia)[1]
David Rutledge: If we take an example of South Africa under apartheid, we had a situation where black and white South Africans had separate public transport, separate benches in public parks; you don’t see this in Israel, so why do you say that Israel is an apartheid State?
Uri Davis: You’re quite right, you don’t see petty apartheid in Israel. But the core is very similar, both in South Africa and in Israel; the core is a conflict between a settler-colonial State and the indigenous population, and these conflicts are anchored in the quest of the settler State to appropriate control of the land and the sub-soil, and deny the indigenous peoples their rights in the land and the sub-soil. The consequence of this project in South Africa resulted in some 87% of the territory reserved in law for white settlement cultivation and development.
In Israel it’s worse. At the core, namely access to land, housing and sub-soil, 93% of the territory of the State of Israel, 93% is reserved in law exclusively for Jewish settlement, cultivation and development. So at core, it is comparable but the Israeli sovereign, the parliament, the Knesset, in many ways was more careful and wiser than the South African apartheid legislator, and refrained from legislating petty apartheid. If you for instance visit parks and recreational centres developed by the Jewish National Front in Israel on weekends or on public holidays, you would probably witness Arab families happily entertaining their children and barbecuing next to Jewish families, without segregation. But I would refer to the Jewish National Fund of Australia, the park that they developed in a locality known as Kerima a haral. I doubt that representatives of the Jewish National Fund of Australia would also reveal to visitors that the park and the non-segregated facilities have been developed over the ruins of a destroyed Arab village of Idzim, over the lands of the destroyed Arab village of Idzim. That indeed Arab citizens of the State of Israel have access to these facilities, but the refugees of the village or the internally displaced persons inside the State of Israel of the village, have been denied their property rights, the titles to their homes, and the park is there veiling a massive war crime possibly classified under international law as crime against humanity. So the absence of petty apartheid is there in order to veil and cover a good deal, the apartheid at the core of the system, the war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli Army in the 1948-’49 war, and it is this veil, this absence of petty apartheid that is crucial to the successful marketing of the State of Israel, as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Homey 00:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources subpage

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

Request permission to eliminate all non WP:RS material

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

Sorry, did not feel like ending up at the admin noticeboard again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that. You - and we - shouldn't even be in this position.Timothy Usher 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Give permission

  • Agree - I don't have time to engage in this game at the moment, but your approach seems sound. Good luck, you're gonna need it! --Coroebus 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • no need to vote on it - this is the policy. Of course this is the only logical thing to do. well done. Zeq 19:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is policy. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - And thanks. IronDuke 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - no need to vote as WP:RS is a policy. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. as per WP:RS, why is this vote even taking place? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree as per Zeq, Humus sapiens, PinchasC. Although it's easy to answer why this vote is taking place: [[WP:3RR] and WP:NPA are enforced; WP:NOT and WP:RS almost never are. We've had to go through this lengthy and time-consuming process to negotiate the most basic content policies, and now as you say, we're stuck voting on it.Timothy Usher 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As for WP:RS, that is a guideline, so that is less easy to enforce. The related policies, WP:V and WP:NOR is a different story, and I agree, those should be enforced more rigourous at times. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree as Jimbo Wales put it, such stuff must be removed aggressively. Pecher Talk 07:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, but let's be clear what the sources prove. The fact that a comparison is made does not justify the title. I am also very uncomfortable with the fact that Kim, who is clearly biased against Israel, has sole editing rights to this article. --Leifern 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, find someone else to take over from me who is acceptable to you and the other editors. I do this in my own time, and if it is not appreciated, I am more than happy to spend my time on other projects within wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Kim, we all do this in our own time, so lighten up. I appreciate your efforts and have no doubt they are well-intended, but articles like this either have to be subjected to edit wars and emerge somehow at the end of them; or a mediator has to show that he/she understands both sides. You seem completely unwilling to understand the point I and others have gone to great pains to make here, which is that the very term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question - it assumes a premise that is in dispute. Unless you address that issue, you are not going to make progress on the mediation efforts and will inevitably come across as biased. --Leifern 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What you are doing is ask me to take a position about the term, which I am not going to do, because that is not my position. I read and understand the opinions of both sides and I respect those, and what I ask is to back those opinions up by verifiable reliable sources, without own interpretations. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
i.e. if you don't delete this article you are biased? --Coroebus 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not give permission

Preview

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

Much of what you are deleting can be easily sourced using the sources you are listing on the subpage. For instance, Uri Davis' books assert most of the points made currently in the "analogy" section. Also, while the bullet on the Apartheid wall is not sourced, it can be by using a sources from the Israeli West Bank barrier article or the Economist. Homey 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I am at this stage just cutting out to eliminate bad sources. The next step will be to start modifying sections and adding new sources. I am willing to do it if others do not have a problem with those replacement of sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sabeel reference is completely unreliable. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I will have a look at it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with draging more time. What is not sourced need to be removed. These lines should not have been inserted into the article to start with. This was done in violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV in order to have an unblanced article protected . Enough of gaming the system. Zeq 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Fact tags as an interim measure? Absolutely not. This material should never have been placed on Wikipedia to begin with.Timothy Usher 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Fact-tagging is completely unacceptable. QUoting Jimbo Wales from WP:V: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Pecher Talk 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
But the page is protected and Kim is having to act unilaterally (unlike normally when someone could just find another source and reinsert the claim), so it would be up to Kim to find the sources, by fact tagging them she can get others to go find them so that she can insert them, or, if no one bothers, eventually delete the claim. She'd get complete uproar if she just deleted claims willy-nilly without giving anyone the chance to back them up. --Coroebus 10:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

Well I guess reliable sources of opinion are sources that can be relied upon to report an individual's opinion accurately (e.g. newspapers generally). What I think you're trying to get at is notability, whether we should care about these individuals' opinions. I'd say that we are in this article because a considerable number of people are making the comparison, and we should say who and why. It works similarly to Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, we can't declare these 'real' phenomena because that is too contentious, but people would like to know what others means by them, hence the articles. --Coroebus 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are at least partially agreeing with me. At least a majority of the sources do not really present reliable source issues, they present "notability" issues. I have looked at the "workshop" page and while I think there were a few issues of translation, in most cases there is no dispute that the magazine or journal or whatever has correctly reported the person's opinion. Once that conclusion is reached, the issue is not one of "reliability" because it is a matter of opinion and not fact. The fact that the issue is one of "notability" leads back to my overall issue with this article, and that is, are the opinions that Israeli conduct is analogous to apartheid "notable" enough to deserve their own article. A few weeks ago, I had never heard the term "Israeli apartheid" or Israel referred to as an "apartheid state." Now I must conclude that these accusations have been raised by enough people that they deserve mention, and refutation, somewhere in some article on the Israeli-Arab conflict. The question is, is the opinion so notable that the opinion itself deserves it's own article? I think not. I would be consistent with other articles as well; as I may have said previously, I do not necessarily think the term "Islamofascism" deserves its own article, and if it does, it should at least have a "qualifier" in the title. I have never looked at the other article you mention so I don't know if it is analogous. But as I have said, Wikipedia is not a journal of name-calling. Or at least, it shouldn't be. 6SJ7 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done

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

More sources

October 23, 2001 speech to the South African National Assembly by Ronnie Kasrils, Member of Parliament and Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in the South African government [2].

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

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

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

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

They are not a "scholarly source". Homey I sincerely suggest you review this arbCom decision:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Verifiability_and_sources Zeq 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Move to delete article

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

If I may make a suggestion, I would not try to decide on individual articles, but discuss the whole series and try to find a single solution for the issue of the apartheid pages at large. I think discussions at he seperate pages will result in the same no consensus over and over again, because of the unclarity in the larger context. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Who says you can only propose that the article be deleted? You could ask to have it unlocked. Maybe made into a feature article even. There are tons of things you can propose. His Excellency... 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wikibreak (June 18, beginning of July)

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

We are going to have to dock your mediation pay for that.  :) 6SJ7 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That is fine. :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The origins section is wrong

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

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

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

Why? Because there are editors in Wikipedia who hate Israel so much that their only alternative to factually based articles is POV fork after POV fork. Since they know that google searches favor Wikipedia articles, an article called "Israeli apartheid" (sic) will often get attention by people who are wondering about the phrase when they read it or hear it from others. In short, they are trying to make Wikipedia a propaganda outlet for a point of view that has no basis in reality, fairness, or decency. --Leifern 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps, given the above, they want to provide an outlet for a balanced discussion of the origin, use, and rationale behind the phrase for those that are searching for it? --Coroebus 12:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No Coroebus, I'd say Leifern had it correct in the first place. 6SJ7 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
From my standpoint, the self-determination of the Jewish people is a good thing -- the problem though is when the main entity for Jewish self-determination, i.e. the state of Israel, engages in polices and practices (and individuals, potentially such as yourself, work to rhetorically justify these policies and practices) that serve fairly directly to undermine the rights of others to self-determination. This, at least from my perspective, strongly appears to violate the Golden Rule. I can understand how one can confuse criticism of Israel's policies with criticism of Israel's existence -- but, at least from my perspective, these are separate things. Also, from my perspective, it is hard for me to tell if some people purposefully and cynically conflate these two things in order to deflect criticism. --Ben Houston 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if this is the starting point in this discussion, I can see this is not going anywhere. Because if this is the contention, how would it ever be possible to resolve this? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why you are so pessimistic, I see intelligent people involved in an intelligent discussion. Some people are no doubt trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool; I do not believe this applies to Coroebus.
Ben Houstons comment is especially interesting. It is some times difficult to tell the difference because some (but not all) people have anti-semitic motivation for their criticism of Israel. In some cases the anti-semitism is obvious, but knowing about other people's motivations is in principle impossible. On Wikipedia, we simply assume good faith and hope that bad faith editors will expose themselves eventually. This is really the only way to get around.
I am even smelling an attempt of a deeper philosific investigation here. Personally I think they are way past the Golden Rule over there. The question I was pondering lately is whether it may be justified to risk killing innoscent civilians to prevent attacks on innoscent civilians. Is it morally justifiable to distinguish "their civilians" from "our civilians"? I don't think this discussion is limited to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it was the recent IDF screw-up(s) that made me think.
Heptor talk 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about the most recent hoax? Basically, that's the job of the army to distinguish between our civilians and their civilians; any army is supposed to defend its own civilians, while defending enemy civilians is the job of the enemy. Enemy civilians may get hurt during a military operation, which is not a crime as long as the the operation itself is legitimate. Pecher Talk 07:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting into the politics of this one, but Pecher, your sentiment from any side is extremely depressing. --Coroebus 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I've heard there was another similar incident later, but I did not catch the details of the last incident. On the first, I have not seen enough evidence (if any) to dismiss what happened as a hoax, and I wrote insident(s), ie possibly plural. It is also suspicious that IDF did not want an independent investigation. Still, the moral issue in this does not apply only to IDF. -- Heptor talk 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

From here: this article alone or with context?

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

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

More sources

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

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

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

Department of Geography and Environmental Development , Ben Gurion University of the Negev[4]

From “Creeping Apartheid” to Binationalism?

The disengagement has indeed made a significant difference to the political geography of Israel/Palestine, but a close examination reveals not a crossing of the watershed toward ending Israeli colonialism in favour of a two-state solution but, rather, an Israeli policy of “oppressive consolidation,” a “politics of suspension,” and a perpetual probability of mutual violence. These have combined to create a political geographic order best described as “creeping apartheid.”
Under this order, a hierarchy of rights is gradually institutionalized and legalized based on ethnicity and location. This order is “creeping” because it has never been openly declared, nor endorsed by any political movement. In a game of deception, all actors turn a blind eye and continue to support the illusion of impending peace. This order is also “creeping” because Jews continue to settle in the West Bank, the illegal wall is still being constructed, and the treatment of some groups among Israel’s Palestinian citizens increasingly resembles the fate of their brethren in the Occupied Territories (see Yiftachel 2001, 2005).
This predicament requires new thinking among peace-seeking Israelis and Palestinians. Several avenues are possible, along religious, liberal, revolutionary, and post-nationalist lines. My approach calls for serious re-examination of binationalism aspossibly a superior moral, political, andgeographic order for the future of Israel/Palestine, but one that is best introducedgradually. Discussion of this option has already begun in several intellectual andpolitical arenas and, given developments in Israel/Palestine, is likely to accelerate in thenear future. "

Homey 00:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Apartheid Israel? Interview with Uri Davis on "The Religion Report" with David Rutledge, Radio National (Australia)[5]
David Rutledge: If we take an example of South Africa under apartheid, we had a situation where black and white South Africans had separate public transport, separate benches in public parks; you don’t see this in Israel, so why do you say that Israel is an apartheid State?
Uri Davis: You’re quite right, you don’t see petty apartheid in Israel. But the core is very similar, both in South Africa and in Israel; the core is a conflict between a settler-colonial State and the indigenous population, and these conflicts are anchored in the quest of the settler State to appropriate control of the land and the sub-soil, and deny the indigenous peoples their rights in the land and the sub-soil. The consequence of this project in South Africa resulted in some 87% of the territory reserved in law for white settlement cultivation and development.
In Israel it’s worse. At the core, namely access to land, housing and sub-soil, 93% of the territory of the State of Israel, 93% is reserved in law exclusively for Jewish settlement, cultivation and development. So at core, it is comparable but the Israeli sovereign, the parliament, the Knesset, in many ways was more careful and wiser than the South African apartheid legislator, and refrained from legislating petty apartheid. If you for instance visit parks and recreational centres developed by the Jewish National Front in Israel on weekends or on public holidays, you would probably witness Arab families happily entertaining their children and barbecuing next to Jewish families, without segregation. But I would refer to the Jewish National Fund of Australia, the park that they developed in a locality known as Kerima a haral. I doubt that representatives of the Jewish National Fund of Australia would also reveal to visitors that the park and the non-segregated facilities have been developed over the ruins of a destroyed Arab village of Idzim, over the lands of the destroyed Arab village of Idzim. That indeed Arab citizens of the State of Israel have access to these facilities, but the refugees of the village or the internally displaced persons inside the State of Israel of the village, have been denied their property rights, the titles to their homes, and the park is there veiling a massive war crime possibly classified under international law as crime against humanity. So the absence of petty apartheid is there in order to veil and cover a good deal, the apartheid at the core of the system, the war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli Army in the 1948-’49 war, and it is this veil, this absence of petty apartheid that is crucial to the successful marketing of the State of Israel, as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Homey 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete

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

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


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

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

Homey, FYI: I am blocked from this article for no good cause it is just my decision not to chalange this right now. Indeed you are right when you quote me syaing:

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

Zeq 14:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course Zeq, I forgot, in your mind nothing that ever happens to you is justified. It's that thinking that keeps getting you into trouble. Point remains the article is locked due to an edit war - are Jay, Moshe, Humus et al now prepared to accept the article?Homey 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"...are Jay, Moshe, Humus et al now prepared to accept the article?" I guess "You can call me al." (For the uninitiated, that is the title of a Paul Simon song, with the "A" in Al capitalized of course. I just thought it was funny.) In case it isn't clear, which it probably is because I have said it about 10 times, I think the information in this article should be a section, or a paragraph or two, in some other article. The title is inherently POV, with or without a qualifier, and the subject of the article is not notable enough to justify its own article. 6SJ7 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the rest of the proposal, as you and a few others want the article deleted for all time your proposal to temporarily delete is disingenuous as you would simply never agree to return it in any form no matter how NPOV the article was.Homey 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, read WP:AGF I have always been an advocate of WP:NPOV. It is you who object relating this article in a way that conform to policy. If you want an NPOV article you will have to understand one very basic fact:

  • The basic tenant of any Apartheid is that it is imple,ented via the law. There is no leagl set of laws in Israel that specifically exclude Arabs. Yes, there is discrimination, yes, there is occupation but all those are covered elsewhere as Humus has pointwed out. So the only thing that remain to be covered here are "claims of apartheid and who is behind them". Zeq 15:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


As far as I am concerned, if you want it deleted, start a new AfD. I would not be surprised if that one would end in a speedy keep as it has just gone through an AfD, and because it is in the middle of a mediation. As for the NPOV, that does require editing skills but also acknowledging unpleasant unwanted facts by editors of both sides of the debate. The polarizing debate that often takes place here is not going to bring this article further. I will be gone in the next weeks, and my suggestion is that someone starts a sandbox version and people try to make a better version. Furthermore, I repeat that I think that a discussion in the wider context is needed, but that seems an opinion that is nor shared. I effectively will leave it here at this for the momentas I have to do some preparations before I leave. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete and merge into articles about Israel and/or Palestine-israel conflict

Humus has noted several articles that the usefull information (if any) from this article could be merged to.

Who else supports this ? Zeq 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, I think Kim's attempts to sort the article out should be given a chance, and only then should any consideration be given to a merge (i.e. see what it looks like when she's finished). --Coroebus 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeHomey 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all my prior comments. I realize I just said that Kim should be running the votes for now, but since I "voted" in one I am "voting" in the other. 6SJ7 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is just a way to have another AfD, we just had one. --Ben Houston 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comment - This is not a 2nd AFD. This is a ersult of the fact that the article can not be NPOV. such dadlock should reword any particular version of the article. Zeq 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose This is not an AFD, but an AFD is where you're driving this. There is no consensus to delete this article. His Excellency... 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess those who vote to keep should also present a way out of the deadlock. Zeq 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support This term, besides being a term contra WP:NOT, is a minor aspect of the larger conflict, and ought to be treated as such.Timothy Usher 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per 6SJ7.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong rejection This is obviously yet another attempt to get this article deleted, misnamed or otherwise buried. No dice. Al 05:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Results:

Most people who work on this article understand how non-NPOV it ios and how it violates WP:Not by using sources that violate WP:RS. But,... there are enough people who push this POV article and want to keep it as it is. They don't work on making it NPOV cause the protection suits them just fine.

Kim, Time to unprotect this article. This mediation is going nowhere fast. You were offered a way out two weeks ago (WP:RS ) but you have decided to avoid using this opportunity to fix this article. I would humbly ask that you resign as mediator. Zeq 13:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I see evenly divided fractions, as usual. As far as I am concerned, the article remains protected untill the dispute has been resolved, because that was the primary purpose. However, if you can find an uninvolved admin to unprotect it, I will not protest. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I would be prepared to try partially unlocking the article if editors promise to leave the opening paragraph alone and work to add to the rest of the article rather than remove items. I'd also like to see the article continue to be locked against moves so we don't have any more renaming without consensus. Homey 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No deal. Homey, you are not making any attempted conditions on this artiocle because you do not own it. The problem in this article is clear:
  1. WP:RS
  2. WP:Not
  3. WP:NPOV

Zeq 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"I have always been an advocate of WP:NPOV."

Zeq, is User:Zeq/apartheid propeganda your idea of an NPOV article?Homey 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No. It is not and this is why it is in my user space. It is however a POV that is completly missing from your article. Zeq 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if you sourced it some of it could be integrated. --Coroebus 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not agreed, for all the same reasons I have given in the past. Homey, if the title of this article still had "epithet" in it, I sincerely doubt you would be making such a proposal. As for the first paragraph, although I agreed to a compromise at one point, the renaming of the article broke the compromise as far as I am concerned. Therefore, I think the first sentence needs to start with "The phrase," or "The term" before "Israeli apartheid" -- as it once did as the result of my editing. Also, while I guess Zeq's and my comments could be construed as "votes," I think that we should either let the mediator take the votes (or polls or whatever one wishes to call them), or declare the mediation process to be deceased. 6SJ7 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with "the phrase" or "the term" in the first sentence. I don't really see the difference, though, between the current "Israeli apartheid is a controversial term" and your proposed "The phrase Israeli apartheid is controversial".Homey 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox version

I think the best way forward, and to see whether the article can be unblocked because people are conscious enough not to edit war and to discuss changes, I have created a sandbox version Israeli apartheid/Sandbox. I suggest people edit this according to WP:NPOV, WP:ISNOT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and come up with a better version. Good does not equate to longer, writing concise is a skill in itself and improves the quality of an article dramatically as it is easier to read for people and they get faster to the main content. I am curious. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a proposal for a title that doesn't beg the question. --Leifern 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, what would be a title acceptable by all, and which is not in violation with wikipedia policies? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I liked my 'Allegations of Israeli Apartheid', shame no one else did. --Coroebus 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that one is ok as it does not violate policies, and if there is a consensus to move it there, I will do it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"acusations " seems more accurate Zeq 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I still prefer a merger, but if this thing has to have a title, I would go along with Accusations or Allegations. I don't see much of a chance of consensus as such a title would not promote the political agenda of certain editors, which is what this is really all about. I also sense an implication that the previous proposed titles including a parenthetical such as "epithet," violates policy, and I think that is a subject of dispute as well. 6SJ7 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is to dispense with the apartheid matter altogether and rather write a topic on Charges of Israeli discrimination that could then parallel similar articles. The specific accusation, or comparison, of apartheid should obviously be included in the article. Much richer subject, easier to substantiate and refute, and avoids this semantic minefield. --Leifern 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the phrase 'Israeli Aparthied'. That phrase is used quite often, and its mention here for that reason is defended in the AFDs in relation to it. It is not an advocacy piece under that label. Renaming the article would convert it into something else altogether. The title of the article should stay as is. The fact that some may be offended by the terminology shouldn't be weighed into whether it stays or not. His Excellency... 20:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:Not Zeq 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is inherently an "advocacy piece." As for the phrase being used "quite often" there are many phrases that are used in English but only a fraction of them merit their own encyclopedia article. "Israeli apartheid" is not one of them. 6SJ7 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If those phrases are of such significance and popularity, they should be here as well. Zeq, I know WP:NOT, my point was that the article should be a factual account of the use of the phrase. On both sides of the issue, there's alot to be said. The phrase 'aparthied wall' and 'israeli aparthied' is as popular amongst some people as 'war on terror' might be here in the US. It's significant, it's present in public discourse, it should have an article about it here. His Excellency... 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Leifern 15:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
His Excellency...: I understand your point. This all article is an excersize in WP:Point Zeq 13:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving the article to Allegations of Israeli apartheid seems pretty reasonable. There's no reason to define the topic as only referring to the phrase itself, rather than the concept, and the concept is disputed. The War on Terror article refers to the phenomenon, not the phrase.--Nectar 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability

The question whether an article has the right to exist on wikipedia is generally notability. And I think that this is the question that needs to be answered first, bascially, is the term Israeli apartheid notable enough for wikipedia to have its own article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, this question was settled long ago. The term has been used heavily and by many notable sources. Al 05:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"Settled" how? When? Where? What was "settled"? 6SJ7 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not clear that any articles about terms ought exist at all. I've not seen one which looked like it really needed to be here.Timothy Usher 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Timothy and have been saying the same thing with regard to "Apartheid Wall" (since merged elsewhere, fortunately), "Wall of Shame" and all these "Whatever apartheid" articles. I tried to think of a term that deserves its own article and the first one I thought of was "Whip Inflation Now" (from the mid-70s in the U.S.) and then I looked and saw that it does have an article -- but when I read the article, I remembered that "WIN" was more than just a term or even a slogan, it was a whole campaign, initiated by a U.S. President no less, and it deserves the stub article that it has on Wikipedia. Then I thought of "Star Wars," not the films, but the nickname for the strategic missile defense program. That term does not have its own article. It was one of the most widely-debated issues in the U.S. for years, and usually called "Star Wars" in the media, it was certainly "notable" under that name, yet it does not have its own article under that name. Instead, the nickname is mentioned in the first sentence of the story about the actual program, the Strategic Defense Initiative -- where it belongs. There are probably other and better examples, but these were the two I thought of first. 6SJ7 05:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If it wasn't notable, we wouldn't have this many people arguing over it. We have a tough NPOV problem, but not a notability problem. --John Nagle 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
We have such problems, we can't even agree what problem we have. 6SJ7 18:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ending my mediation

I am going to end my efforts to mediate in this article. It is clear for me that there is not enough willingness to resolve this issue by seeking consensus. I also see this continued article-centered discussion as a dead end road, as I am convinced that this issue can only be addressed in a wider context of all apartheid and related articles. Furthermore, mediation does not work in a hostile environment in which people are effectively set to their preferred solution and are not willing to find a solution other than the one they already have narrowly defined for themselves. I will leave it to another uninvolved admin to decide when and how the article should be unblocked. I think I can use my time better at different Wikipedia projects, than to continue this probably endless repeat of the same arguments over and over again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reaction and further discussion

Kim, this is a very bad charteriztion of what went on here. One side tried to resolve the issues but the other side just wanted to keep it protected in it's current form. While edit war is not a solution protection for weeks and weeks of one-sided version never helps to create a motive for both sides to work for comporomise. This article should be unprotected and let it carefully being edited. Zeq 13:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I diaagree with your characterisation, but lets agree to disagree on that. Second, the article is protected to resolve the edit dispute, which as far as I am concerned has not been resolved, hence no reason to unblock the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we please let Kim make a graceful exit from this process? 6SJ7 13:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This comment was later the basis for my creating the subheading "Reaction and further discussion." 6SJ7 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there was anything gracefull in blaming both sides. Either you don't place any blame or you tell the real story of what is going on here. Zeq 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I have a pretty good idea from what is going on, and in my opinion, both sides are to blaim for this situation. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is totaly unfair for you as mediator to place blame on any side.
For me, however, as non neutral party to this, I see things differently than you do. There are people like Humus, 6Sj7 who really tried hard to find a compromise but there were those who were keen on using wikipedia to what it is WP:Not - It strike me as odd that you fail to see that clearly. Zeq 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, I am not the mediator anymore, so I can now express what I think is going on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You could always express what goes on. The problem is that you are trying to be "NPOV" and place the blame equallly where it is clearly not so. This article was created by violating 3 key wikipedia policy. Your attempt to find "other sources" for it (while you were "mediator" clearly shows you understood the problem in the sources used in this article. You staetment about "equal blame" ignore that one side created this article in clear violation of not only WP:RS but also of WP:Not and WP:NPOV. This same side was violating WP:Point in the way they got this article protected for so long in a way that looks as if this is the only version possible on Wikipedia. To place this blame on good people like Humus, Moshe and 6SJ7 is really not fair of you. Zeq 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, it is clear that we disagree about this, lets agree on that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Although this is another term voided from any meaning. so we "agree to disagree" so what. Does it move us forward toward solution ? does it remove the cloud you have placed on good people who workwed for weeks to counter the clear policy violations in this article ? Zeq 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be a lei and a dishonesty towards myself if I would say that as I do not see it that way, and so, I am not going to do that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Its articles like this one that convince me that Jews need organizations more aggressive than Kach and JDL that will do what is necessary to put a stop to such insults. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does not make the term go away. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the issue (at least for me) is whether the term should go away. The issue is the prominence with which the term is going to be displayed -- i.e. whether it gets its own article -- and the degree of legitimacy that Wikipedia gives the accusation implied in the term. The latter is related to what the title of the article is, and what is said in the text, both in the lead paragraph and the degree of balance in the remainder of the article. The fact that the real issues are prominence and legitimacy is evident in remarks by the supporters of this article, including the comment by the person who created this article that some of us are trying to "bury" the term by merging the article into something else. He is not satisfied with having Wikipedia deal with the term; rather, an inherent part of his agenda is making the term a headline, and having the headline and the text give as much implied legitimacy to the term as possible. 6SJ7 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that Kim decided to stay but not as mediator. I welcome any editor who wants to work on this article with GF - no matter what POV she/he may hold.
As for notability: This term is notable but only in a very soecific group of people: Those who want to impose sanctions on Israel that will bring it down like it did to SA. We should focus the article (and the title) on how/why this term is used and by whom. We should <b. not accept their claim and use this article to propegate their lies. If Kim would have done what I asked her to do several weeks ago and analyze the sources currently in use in the article we would see that not much is left in the article after all the non WP:RS is removed. Zeq 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Bwahahahaha is that what the leftist trash think? What sanctions on SA? You mean like when IBM changed the name of its SA divisions to ISM (complete with an ad campaign showing construction cranes hoisting large letter B's and replacing them with letter S's) and anounced that they had pulled out of SA? Or like when GM changed its SA divisions name to Delta Motors and announced they had pulled out of SA? Bwahaah or perhaps when Pepsi announced that it had pulled out of SA because of apartheid when it had already died years before because SAfricans preder Coke to carbonated gasoline? Or maybe you're referring to the fact that we couldn't get Elvis Costello records that weren't counterfeit? Bwahahahaha, well yes there were official announcements of sanctions and sadly as a result the government slowed down reform to a snails pace (SA was in the mood to end apartheid around 1984, along come "sanctions" and everyone decides to get stubborn and apartheid got drawn out a whole decade longer only ending in 1994. Bwahahaha personally I think Jews should start flying planes into buildings then maybe we'll get all our land back. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please desist with this sort of baiting, it isn't helping --Coroebus 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The fact that I need to write this whole section about this instead of making a minor correction by deleting this falsity is itself outragous and I beleive that if Wikipedia cannot allow its users to edit an article then maybe such an article doesn't belong in Wikipedia! I suggest this article will either be deleted or merged in another article, or else it should be opened for editing.Tal :) 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Here are articles about the lottery system for East Jerusalem Arabs to vote in PA elections. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6994 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4633574.stm


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Maybe unlocking isn't such a hot idea

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

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


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

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

Homey, the original version of my comment said that I had already counted your "No" vote, but I took it out to avoid criticism. It turns out I was correct. As for "non-consensual," it is pretty clear that the "consensus" principle will not work for this article. In fact, its very existence is due to lack of consensus. I suspect you are only talking about "consensus" because, under the current circumstances, it promotes your goal of keeping this article as a separate propaganda outlet. Anyway, I am talking about merger, not deletion. 6SJ7 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Policy wise, Homey does have a point, it really would encourage massive disruption. --Coroebus 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to, say, the neat, orderly and harmony-filled process that has taken place to date? 6SJ7 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Policy wise, the policy that we should look into here is WP:Not. Homey have violated it and because it needs consensus to undo what he did we are unable to prevent further dispruption. So it is Homey that is also violating WP:Point.
So either we will reach some mediated solution or if all wp:Dispute resolution attempts will proven putile we will have to have ArbCom rule on how Homey is uing wikipedia to desemanate his political agenda. Clearly this article only represent a tiny minorty and WP:NPOV clearly sais:

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

Zeq 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A merger is my compromise, and it has not been determined. I think it needs to be voted on with a concrete proposal as to where it is proposed to be merged. Anyway, Homey, I am going to take myself out of this discussion for awhile. It might be nice if you did the same. Everybody knows what we (and Zeq) think about this. We should hear from everybody else. 6SJ7 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The article should be merged, but renaming is also a good idea. Merger is not a deletion, with difference being that merger preserves the article content. In any case, with "apartheid" now apparently being a name for a crime, shouldn't the proper title be Allegations of apartheid against Israel - more or less like Allegations of a secret male raping gang led by Homey and Heptor? Proposal goes for all other apartheid allegation articles. -- Heptor talk 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

That just wouldn't be funny, but I have a compromise in mind. It may be quite far off, but, as long you are happy... :) -- Heptor talk 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Now it's just tasteless.Homey 19:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Factually correct statements:

  • 1) There is no consensus for a merger.
  • 2) In the past you have moved references to Israeli apartheid from article to article, reducing them in space and ultimately doing away with them altogether. Homey 16:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
An NPOV solution would be an article is also NPOV. something like "Use of the word apartheid in context other than south Africa" or "Allegations of present day apartheid" Zeq 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Talk%7EIsraeli_apartheid_Archive_8_ff45.html"