Talk:Israeli apartheid

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

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

This article was nominated for deletion on July 15, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19

Proposed lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is "including longtime supporters of Israel" original research and prejudicial, but "including critics of Israeli policy" is not? I'd say to have neither such statement. john k 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could see this being turned into something generally agreeable; I'm simply having a hard time with the form. According to WP:Lead, a first sentence is supposed to be a definition. Granted, the situation is a bit odd here, since we're talking about something fairly abstract (an allegation of apartheid), but starting with a defining sentence still seems like the right approach. Starting with a sort of background sentence is an interesting idea, but I think goes a bit too far toward trying to make people comfortable. Shouldn't a premium be placed on clear and direct? To me, G-Dett's approach above of 1.) Definition, 2.) Proponents, 3.) Opponents 4.) Summary, if we can simply then agree on what kind of detail is then appropriate, would seem like the more promising framework. Mackan79 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Can people itemize their concerns, or better yet suggest concrete modifications?

If people want to add language to the opponents' sentence (regarding "demonization," alleged antisemitism, etc.), I'd have no objection.

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

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

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

Israeli apartheid is a term often used by those who make political arguments that draw analogies between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel. As with many other issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the term and the surrounding debate, is deeply contentious.

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

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

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

New York Review of Books: Jimmy Carter and Apartheid

Great new article in the New York Review of Books publication: Jimmy Carter and Apartheid. Recommended reading. --70.51.228.158 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) The book has been so thoroughly condemned for bias and for many glaring factual errors that it cannot be used as a Reliable Source: the only fair way to mention it is to mention the problems in it, and what a representative work of propaganda it is. One Elephant went out to play... 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

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

How about this? (to lighten things up a little :)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a term used by some Wikipedia editors to prima facie marginalize and undermine the legitimacy of political arguments that make analogies between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel, based on their strong belief that these kinds of analogies are inaccurate and illegitimate. The “alleged” analogies and how to write about them have become a contentious component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict both in the real world and in Wikipedia. Tiamut 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

and now for a serious proposal in the hopes of breaking the deadlock and improving the encyclopedic value of this entry

Let's be honest folks. This is totally unencyclopedic. There are a number of people with respected academic and professional backgrounds and relevant life experiences who have characterized the system in Israel as apartheid. It has even been called “Israeli apartheid” (It gets 281,000 hits on google as opposed to 664 for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid”). Wikipedia should not be allowing the contentious nature surrounding the legitimacy of such an analogy, distort how it is titled to favor a particular POV. Further, titling this article “Allegations of Israeli apartheid” begs the kind of introduction I supplied you with above, because if we honestly want to describe where that phrase comes from and what it means, that is probably how we should write it.

Now how about we write an article entitled “Israeli apartheid” that begins along these lines:

Israeli apartheid is a term often used by those who make political arguments that draw analogies between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel. As with many other issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the term and the surrounding debate, is deeply contentious.

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

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

I understand that you feel strongly that the term itself is illegitimate, but I believe this is something that can be covered and expressed in the article defining the term, rather than in an article title that slants the POV of the debate to one side from the outset. The reader should be able to judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the term based on the article content, which would cover all sigificant POVs as per WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Also, it would prevent us from a circuitous definition and discussion of the subject at hand. Tiamut 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Even if everything you have said is true, the article should still be entitled "Israeli apartheid". And it should deal with the points you've raised as well, reliably sourced and attributed of course. Adding "Allegations of" before every term that is viewed as poelmical is a ridiculous way of organizing information and a violation of WP:NPOV. I've noticed articles around here discussing much less notable polemical terms like Pallywood, without putting the disclaimer "Allegations of" before it. We should be consistent, but not in setting and using bad precedents. Tiamut 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But on the other hand, the title cannot be Israeli apartheid, because there is no such thing, and besides, it will never get a consensus. I don't think the word "apartheid" should be in the title at all, but I was willing to compromise. However much you object to the current title, most likely it is the best, or worst (depending on your perspective) that it is ever going to get. 6SJ7 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am leaving, and remove my objection thereby.

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

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

Allegations

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

Please review WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This page must be moved

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

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

I never really understood the rationale for not following WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, alleged, purported in this case, could someone please explain? If it's still disputed, perhaps {{POV-title}} should be added.--Domitius 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

So pushing that personal opinion into the article is a NPOV? Interesting...--Domitius 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

So if no one's opinion counts and everything must be presented in a neutral fashion, then how come there is no such title for any other article (even for the most contested views, from the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis to the Armenian Genocide need I continue...). I just don't understand why WP:WTA is being ignored in this particular case whereas the word "allegation" is persecuted elsewhere as being non-NPOV. I haven't edited this article, I have no opinion either way, I'm just curious.--Domitius 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read WP:WTA, the overarching purpose of this guideline is to qualify something that shouldn't be qualified. In this case, the assertion that Israel commits apartheid is highly controversial, and "apartheid" is clearly "derogatory or offensive" to quote the guideline. And so we have to use one word we'd rather avoid rather than one that is even worse. I and others have repeatedly said that this article should be deleted altogether, the points easily being covered by other articles on the topic. --Leifern 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It still looks like POV pushing, most articles on disputed theories on Wikipedia don't have a title saying Disputed theory of X, Allegations of X, Claims of X, it's always just X. After all, almost everything has been disputed by someone.--Domitius 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

From WP:WTA:

"Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.

In other words, "allegations of" shoudl not be in the title of a Wikipedia article entry, particularly since it is unattributed. The controversy can be discussed in the body of the article, like it is for almost every other article, (with the exception of a couple of "allegations of" articles that got started after this one was so named - a practice which should stop - now). Tiamut 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Hey, Jayjg. As pointed out above, the issue is about consistency in naming articles and not allowing the controversial subject matter to distort how an article is titled. I find no basis in fact for the phenomena described as Islamofascism or Pallywood and yet I don't go around appending "Allegations of..." as prefixes to the discussion of those issues. I think if you step back and reflect here, you will find that while the notion of Israeli apartheid might seem totally absurb to you, it is the proper descriptive title for the phenomenon being discussed in this page. And while WP:WTA might be only a guideline, it is certainly a more respectable basis for an argument than claiming that "two new editors and a sockpuppet of a banned user" aren't going to make a difference. There is a lot of substance in the arguments being put forward here by many different editors (See sections sbove). Let's try to keep it substantive. Thanks. Tiamut 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This article should be entitled Israeli apartheid. It should define the term, explore the origins of its uses, outline sigficant arguments for and against the use of the term and related analogies. It could follow the lines of the Islamofascism article in this regard. But there should be a subsection that mentions of discusses the legal definition of apartheid and an "Allegations" section would be appropriate for that discussion, since it would be arugments for and against the legal applicability of the term. Tiamut 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Are rhetorical questions your idea of a substantive discussion? Seriously though. If you take a good look at the Islamofascism article, it acutally does make arugments for an against the use of the term in the Inro, Background, Origins of the term, and Criticism sections. That it is not under the sub-title "Allegations" anywhere there, only further goes to prove the point that such article or sub-section labelling is without precedent at Wikipedia. (And I'm sorry I suggested above). We can incorporate most of what is in this article very fairly into an article entitled simply Israeli apartheid. Tiamut 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I make no claims of being clairvoyant Leifern, but perhaps the reason you have heard these arguments before is that they are valid and compelling. Armenian Genocide is certainly as contentious a label to Turks who deny that it was a "genocide", but we do not write Allegations of Armenian Genocide, we discuss the controversy in the article. And we do not write Allegations of the New Anti-semitism even though the New Anti-Semitism is a highly disputed concept that attempts to slur all anti-Zionists as anti-Semites. Let's try to even here and not employ double-standards. Also, see G-Dett's comments below ont he article about Islamofascism and what it does and does not include and how this article's differential treatment exemplifies the double-standard at work here. Tiamut 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, what a sleazy and stupid smear, Jay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a strawman, Jay. Tiamut is talking about guilt by association, which is indeed the logical fallacy underlying your cheap smear.--G-Dett 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I was not speaking for myself when I said the Holocaust is "alleged". I was speaking for the revionists and other nutjobs (the same kind of nutjobs that deny the existence of an Israeli apartheid). I'm not going to refer this breach of WP:NPA, but the moment you pull another thing like this (towards anyone), I'm going to notify an unrelated administrator regarding your comments. Don't accuse your fellow editors of antisemitism.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you weren't. Jayjg took your comments out of context and used them to connect you, G-Dett, myself, and by extension everyone else making arguments for a page entitled "Israeli apartheid" to Holocaust denial and anti-semitism. It's a not only a violation of WP:NPA, it creates an intimidating editing environment and it's insensitive and rude. Tiamut 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you want the page moved, list a proposal for this page at WP:RM. --Minderbinder 14:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Minderbinder. I have done just that. For those interested, you can check out the proposal under today's date at WP:RM. Tiamut 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't think he's trying to resolve any controversy. It's just that terrorism is defined as violence against civilians. By definition it doesn't include attacks on IDF soldiers, attacks on checkpoints, throwing rocks at tanks, and so on. So if Palestinian Political Violence covers these things as well as suicide bombings, then it can't be moved (in its current form at least) to "Palestinian Terrorism". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Israeli Government Term

The following sentence was added to the intro:

The Israeli government refers to its policy of separating the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the Israeli population as hafrada (Hebrew: הפרדה‎, separation).

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

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

I don't see how it's POV, it merely highlights how Israel describes its policy of segregation. I think it has the opposite effect because it emphasizes that Israel does not consider what it's doing the creation of an apartheid (in that area at least).--Domitius 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

That's an international border.--Domitius 18:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What, in your view, is the Green line (Israel)? Palestinians insist it is an international border. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel doesn't though, yet still imposes restrictions.--Domitius 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm not competent to decide that, it's disputed internationally. Suffice it to say that it's de facto not an international border.--Domitius 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely neither side gets to have it both ways? john k 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Which reliable sources make the argument that the two are related? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the people making the "allegations of Israeli apartheid", what are they referring to?--Domitius 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Ah, yes, Sabeel; a highly partisan group at best. Now, why would you include the argument of an unreliable source, one that is not even quoted in the article (for good reason), in the lead? And why would you insert it as a mere statement of fact, rather than the rather obvious argument it is? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does not have to be attributed to reliable sources (within your meaning of the term). It needs to be attributed to those making the allegations. When someone alleges an Israeli apartheid, what are they referring to?--Domitius 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does have to attributed to reliable sources. Why would be bother quoting anyone who wasn't a reliable source? Can we quote my Aunt Bessie on the subject too? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So those making the "allegations" are not reliable sources. Odd - the article's title invokes them so they can't be that unreliable.--Domitius 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How about this [4]?--Domitius 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No, the problem is there are no reliable sources which tie hafrada to Israeli apartheid, and even if there were, it's not clear why that specific argument should go in the lead, and be presented as a "fact", rather than an argument by proponents of the Israeli apartheid allegation. I've said all this before, so the issue is not that people aren't "arguing for deletion", but that others aren't actually reading the arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The hafrada argument isn't sourced to any prominent and published writers, is it? In fact, it's an unsourced argument masquerading as an "innocent fact", isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

If I may try to strike a balance here, I think the Hafrada sentence, at least without context, does probably upset the balance of the lead. Considering the controversiality of this issue, I think it's important to put things in context as much as possible. My suggestion would be that the Hafrada point should be moved lower (first section, maybe) if the hope is any sort of concensus on intro. Otherwise, I think the continued reversions of the "proponents" sentence in the lead is clearly unjustified, as it leaves the paragraph overwhelmingly negative on the concept, against WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. The version I offered could possibly be more concise and informative, but that shouldn't happen by deleting one point of view. As far as I can see, the sentence is unquestionably fair and uninflammatory. Please, I think everyone needs to try to look for solutions here if we want this to go somewhere (as some are certainly doing). Mackan79 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"Term" vs. "Allegations"[sic]?

Jay, you say above that "the fundamental difference" between Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and Islamofascism is "that the Islamofascism article doesn't actually discuss the allegations itself; that radical Islam is fascistic. Instead, it just discusses the term." Tiamut rejects this distinction. I'll go further and say I don't even understand it. Discussing the "term" means discussing why, how, and with what stated justifications it's used. How does this differ from a discussion of "allegations"[sic]? Here's a sample from the Islamofascism article:

Provocation by modern Islamists of Holocaust denial[9] strengthens the comparison between Islamists and neo-Nazi movements. Two of the most influential Islamists of the twentieth century, Ayatollah Khomeini and Sayyid Qutb, asserted repeatedly in their writings that foreigners, especially Jews, were conspiring to destroy Islam and persecute the Muslim community.[8][9]

Other attributes shared by historical fascism and these Islamists[10] include

* inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism) * a desire to restore the perceived glory of this age with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system, [10] [11] * violent revolution to expel the perceived malicious, predatory influence of the alien forces from the nation/community [12][13] * belief in the decadence and weakness of the malicious, predatory enemy forces (this applies to bin Laden and Qutb, though Khomeini did not mention it) [14] * and offensive military or quasi-military campaign to reestablish the power and international domination of the nation/community [15] [16]

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

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

On what grounds are they assiduously keeping it out? I haven't followed the debates in that article, but the bulk of what I've quoted there does appear to be original research. The material arguably supports the connection, but it appears to be Wikipedians making the connection – not the cited sources for the most part. I don't think comparable material would last fifteen seconds in this article. Would it?--G-Dett 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

G-Dett just recently made that concession. As for "speaking volumes", I don't edit the Islamofascism article; haven't really looked at it in years. I have no interest in the subject. Why would that "speak volumes"? Am I now responsible for removing all original research from every article on Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The editor replaced this and other related junk with an intro that – in its brevity and balance – would serve well as a model for Allegations [sic] of Israeli Apartheid:

"Islamofascism" is a controversial political term. It is used by some journalists, politicians, and academics who perceive some Islamist movements as having neofascist or totalitarian characteristics. Others view the term as propaganda and as profoundly insulting to Muslims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When someone says, "you're right, Jay," have the grace to accept it. And if grace is too tall an order, bear in mind that the deliberate misrepresentation of the positions of other editors erodes WP:AGF. I haven't edit-warred over 'hafrada' because a) I assumed you were on the case, and you're a more formidable and well-connected edit-warrior than I; and b) because I've got a couple of reverts on this page already today and wanted to give it a rest. Now, do you have any good evidence of the distinction you're claiming exists between Islamophobia and this article? If not, will you consider conceding the point?--G-Dett 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The edit reverted by Humus sapiens contained the hafrada reference indeed. If FOSNA is the only source, it should be demonstrated how it would qualify as WP:RS. I fail to understand why some Portland, Oregon, liberation theology organization should be able to authoritively define terms, even if their alleged ecumenism wasn't self-styled. --tickle me 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hafrada sources

Thought I'd make a subsection here that people can keep adding to of reliable sources discussing the link between hafrada and apartheid (and more on the origins of hafrada and its confirmed meaning as separation and as Israeli government policy):

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

• [9]

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

• [10]

Known by many names—security fence, separation barrier, hafrada wall, or simply “the Wall”—the $1 billion construction project undertaken by the Israeli government through the West Bank is a combination of razor-tipped fencing and concrete wall that will snake across 450 miles of the Holy Land when it is completed next year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

For one thing, they aren't even talking about the same thing. The first is about a disengagement policy, the second about finalizing borders, the third about the barrier - if anything, that would link them to the articles on the disengagement policy and the barriers, not this one. On top of that, who is saying these things? You can't just take any internet source with the words "hafrada" and "apartheid" in them, and assert that they are talking about the same thing, and that they are reliable sources. And, on top of that, even if you insisted that the article was related, why on earth would you remove a "See also" to Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba article? How could you possibly imagine allegations of apartheid against various countries are unrelated? They all link to the same parent article! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

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

Israel vs. the Palestinian territories

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

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

What does this have to do with this article?

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

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

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

WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Please stop arguing with the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Jamal Zahalka

Another source: [12]. CJCurrie 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

new sentence added to the lead

Before someone claims that this is original research

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

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

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

This doesn't say others "did anything" too, it says others are accused of this. And yes, you might see a mention of South African apartheid in a Jim Crow article. For example you see a comparison with the Holocaust on Armenian Genocide.--Urthogie 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Balanced Lead

I plan to restore the balanced lead. I have so far seen no argument against it, other than that, in order to balance the rhetorical weight of this concept, we need to counter-balance the lead against the concept. I believe this is a clear break from both WP:Lead and WP:NPOV, and so will return the previous paragraph, which offers 1.) A definition, 2.) A sentence re proponents, 3.) A sentence re opponents, and 4.) A summation. If people oppose this format, please explain why and maybe we can make progress. Mackan79 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Can you please quote which parts of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV it breaks? And if it does violate these guidelines/policies, can you explain why Background sections like a "race" section in an article on race and the Ancient egyptians are allowed? Thank you, --Urthogie 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead changes very fast. But we have to admit that it tend to list arguments against the use of the term, rather than actually explaining why some people draw parallels between Israeli policy and the apartheid regime. Right now the article does even not mention that there is an official Israeli policy named hafrada, which means separation in Hebrew. There are thousands of articles of Wikipedia that I cannot explain, including race and the Ancient egyptians. Bertilvidet 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Can you please quote which parts of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV it breaks? And if it does violate these guidelines/policies, can you explain why Background sections like a "race" section in an article on race and the Ancient egyptians are allowed?

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