Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Israeli apartheid

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 18 August 2017 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44

Hafrada - unaccepted policy of crime or accepted policy of peace

The article now opens with the following text: "crime of Apartheid, as expressed by the Israeli concept of hafrada." and a source is given, showing the use of the term Hafrada, separation, which sounds similar to Apartheid. This is a purposfully chosen term for an overall Pov tone of the article.

Here are several sources that prove this is a falacy, and that it is missing the context that exists as I time and again proved: Anti Israeli bias, and not just arguments against current Israeli policies. I am sure that good secondary sources exist, but am bringing these just to show that the way the article is currently being handled and written is definitely biased and even skewed with a one sided POV.

Emphasis in the following links, and translations are mine:

"...We wish to bring a permanent end to this blood filled conflict... in a state with 80% of the population Jewish... while a promise that non-Jews: Muslims, Christians, Druze and others, will all have full rights, personal, religious, civil rights just like all citizens of Israel. Judaism and racism are opposing terms. We understand the permanenet solution to be in the area... of most of the Land of Israel under the Brittish Mandate, alongside a Palestinian entity which will be a home for most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."
"... We Jews and Arabs... We the people, we shape the face of history. And we the leaders hear the voices and sense the deepest emotions and feelings of thousands and millions and translate it into reality...
"Peace Now currently works to ensure Israelis embrace the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: two states, meaning the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. "
Hashem Mahamid (Arab Member of Knesset, about the living alongside the Jewish settlers in Hebron) "There cannot be co-existence, there is no possibility, only a decieved co-existence, because you cannot co-exist with someone who believes he is the master and all the others are just his slaves... Let's not smear and blur the issue, the truth must be said. There is no room, Mr. chairman, for extremists from either side. No room for those who want the full Land of Israel, and not for those want the full Palestine.... Hebron is not Israeli, and Jaffa is not Palestinian... whoever says its all mine does not seek peace, and is dancing on the blood of both nations.
Abd Wahab el-Darawsha (Arab Member of Knesset)
Mr. Chairman. We are witnessing a historical process of reconcilliation between the two national movements... which will terminate the blood spilling and stop tragic acts in which Jews and Arabs are killed... and wounded. Even here... people are saying 'we cannot make peace with the Palestinians'... and I want to tell him: "It is not possible to realize the full land of Israel dream. You can continue dreaming but you must be realistic and wake up... in the same way that I tell the extreme Palestinians that believe in the dream of the full Palestine. To them too I say: you can continue dreaming, but in fact, there is no way you can realize that dream. There is only one option open for the two nations: a compromise... by which the Israeli army will withdraw from the captured areas... and by which the Palestinians will build an independant state in the west bank and in the Gaza strip.
Raanan Cohen - Member of Knesset from the left:
...and there were worrisom calls for a Jihad on Jerusalem. He found himself a great place to declare that from, in South Africa. They are very dangerous... because they are religious... as long as the Palestinians see this as a religious dispute, there will be no solution... We have no other option, Jews and Arabs to find what unites us... and first and formost is to leave the Almighty out of it. We shall not fight His wars because we must live here and we must do all we can for the peace and co-existance, because there is none other. Thank you.
Deputy minister of defence and former general Motta Gur:
...around 1988 the Syrians and Palestinians began to realize that the state of Israel is alive, exists, an indesputable fact, not to be conquered in battle, and the only way to continue living with it is to reach co-existance and peace. The whole Palestinian theory... of obliterating Israel off the map, of annihilating Israel, and replacing it with the Greater Palastine... but realized that they must come to terms with us. ...We are strong... and must be careful... but should we step back from the chance to reach peace and security? No way!
... (following further questions) There is no room for anyone but the Jewish people to the historic claim that Jerusalem was their state... The united Jerusalem will forever be ours.
Now! End occupation. Now! The right of return... my party which I represent talks about two different states. One state for all citizens which is non-Zionist state. Non-Jewish state. Within the borders of '48. And a Palestinian state, with the the right of return. ...This is the program of my party.

I stress again to point out that I DO NOT agree with a policy of separation. But that does not make any policies of separation with the Palestinian authority, a policy of deliberate segregation. And the use of the word Hafrada (partition) hinting to apartheid is therefore not acceptable. To the contrary. They were and still are the policies of an expected peace process to terminate the blood bath that the region has been going through. The three anti Israeli sources (electronic intifadah, counterpunch and Zu'ubi) I brought above make this point crystal clear, in Israel's enemies' own words.

Partition is at the foundation of the region. It was the UN resolution on partition that allowed the Jews in Israel to survive an all-out onslaught, after under the British "mandate" Jews were being slagutered in the 1921 Jaffa riots, in the 1929 Palestine riots, during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, and would have been by the 8 armies fighting it in 1948.

Please correct. And help me find secondary sources so that this article can be factual, correct and at least transparent about the controversies and about the sides using the term.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • This is indeed a fallacy - and to boot - is not support by the citation provided (which does not contain the word Hafrada) - but does perhaps seem cited in the section in the article. Hafrada/Separation from the Palestinians - a step towards 2-states / disengagements - is indeed entirely separate and in a counter direction from continued occupation. However, since the whole article here is really filled with wild claims - refuting that someone claimed this is a connection between Hafrada and supposed apartheid is difficult - as these wild armchair claims have been made by various writers.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
So what do you propose. Just leave the article as it is written now, slowly work through it starting with the opening sentences, or is there any other option? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The whole article, as far as I am concerned, is a collection of opinions. Some with some basis. Some with no basis. However as we are covering opinions, you end up covering whatever opinions are out there, however bizarre and unfounded (and really - the Hafrada connection is one of syntax (Hafrada sounds like segregation - and viola! We're back 1960s America) and not substance (as most of the "Hafrada" policies - were/are aimed to create a 2-state reality (and opposed by many right-wing Israelis who don't want 2 separate states)). You have similar issues with pages devoted to say 9/11 conspiracy theories. What can you do about it? Attacking it on the merits, on Wikipedia, e.g. saying the whole thing is absurd... Won't get you far. You need to find academic critiques that refute. You need to work in the antisemitism angle - backed up by RS (which actually does exist) - e.g. If every other ethnic group can get an ethnic based Nation state (e.g. Hungary, Latvia, Finland, etc.) - why not the Jews? There are RSes that assert this. I frankly tend to stay out of an article like this one - it is really one big POV-fork, and unless you have wide consensus for balancing, you end up with a whole new collection of opinions pushed into the article as a response.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The comparison of Hafrada to apartheid can be sourced to academic sources, but it's placement in the first sentence of the lead may be too prominent and also limit too narrowly the scope of the page—not all sources discussing apartheid explicitly mention Hafrada. The lede should reflect the article content. The current sentence is too narrow and essay-like, but Hafrada is not the only problem. The entire sentence is essay-like and would need to be revised for NPOV. Seraphim System (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I was BOLD and cut it out of the lead - it shouldn't have been there - it can stay in one of the many sub-sections where it is. I'd note that in many social science disciplines an academic paper is often just an opinion (sometimes an absurd one - [1]).Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is discussed in very great detail above, and it is clear that many academic sources do indeed make this explicit link. It was appropriate to add this a couple of months ago, and inappropriate to remove it today. I have restored the phrase. RolandR (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus here, and doesn't seem to be in the previous discussion, to put this term in the first sentence of lead. I also think it's UNDUE where it is now and will remove it shortly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "Hafrada" alone (one of it seems god-zillion arguments) shouldn't stand in the lead alone. It doesn't like this particular line of reasoning is used by most of the apartheid claims, but just by some (while other advance other lines of reasoning).Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Could somebody please add the following opinion of a Sudanese human rights activist in the section Israel and the apartheid analogy#By others:

Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, writing for the Gatestone Institute, has criticized Desmond Tutu for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, stating that Arabs in Israel enjoy a variety of rights that blacks in apartheid-era South Africa did not, including the right to vote, and that Palestinians are only stopped at checkpoints to prevent attacks. Deng asks why Tutu criticizes Israel for apartheid policies it does not have, but ignores what Deng believes to be actual apartheid practices in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and especially his own country Sudan.[ref]Bishop Tutu and "Israeli Apartheid"[/ref]--Newer wiki (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this paragraph was previously removed by User:Seraphim System, so what we're looking at here is not just a simple edit request. It is a request for an editor to come along and revert Seraphim's edit, so anyone who's counting their reverts should know that making this edit would exhaust their whole 1RR for the day. Alephb (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This was removed because as User:Newer wiki says himself in the above comment, Deng is a primary source who compares Israel to his own experience, in his country Sudan. This article is full of primary sources, and I am removing them. They should be replaced by academic or expert secondary sources per WP:RS WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:NEWSORG - I also find it strange that this is the second post requesting that citation cleanup on this page be reverted - this time by a user with only one post. Seraphim System (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Simon Deng is a known Sudanese human rights activist no less reliable or "expert" than Naomi Klein and other individuals in the 'support' section. The only mistake was that he was included in the section of South Africans. It was a matter of mistaken nationality, that's all. He could be in "others" opposing the comparison. This article is full of primary sources for both sides, since they are reliable to present attributed opinions.--Newer wiki (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The section is of opinions by "others" after a section about "notable and scolarly". The section is about opinions, Simon Deng is in fact notable and in fact a human rights activist, and therefore the source from Gatestone institute is good and should not be treated as OR. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not done cleaning up, but most likely Naomi Klein is also not necessary for this article, as there are an abundance of academic sources available on the subject. This effects the readability of the article. Notability is not a guideline for WP:RS, scholarly expertise is...notability is also not a free pass for primary sources. Please review the policy. Seraphim System (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
How many days are needed till you finish "cleaning up"? There is a slightly uncomfortable feeling with a bit more than an inkling of a notion of proof that your "cleaning up" is only done on texts opposing your POV? I hope I'm wrong. I don't know who Naomi Klein is, or what that has to do with the removal of Deng's opinion. I repeat: This section is about opinions, so RS is not the issue here and therefore notability ABOUT THE OPINION, and about the sayer definitely is. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, User:Newer wiki, you probably meant Kenneth Meshoe a member of the South African parliament in his presentation on the "Prager University" youtube channel here. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pashute If you scroll up you will see I have pinged several users to see if they have any objections to my rather conservative changes. So far none of the users who have been involved in the extensive discussions about cleaning up this page have objected to my edits. I am not imposing large unilateral changes because I have to give other involved editors an opportunity to comment and discuss any changes I make. I do think you should read our policies more carefully. We do not make exceptions for WP:RS because an editor believes the section to be about "opinions" - I will point out also, that Deng's comments are impossible to disentangle from his comparison to events that he lived through. Unless there are academic secondary sources that discuss Deng's theory it is, by definition, WP:OR. Seraphim System (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —MRD2014 talk contribs 02:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Israeli apartheid allegations. Most respondents below either supported, or were happy with, this alternative formulation, suggesting it was a better fit than either the current title or the proposed title, per WP:CONCISE, WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISE.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing to no consensus: it seems there is a lot of confusion in this discussion, and a new RM had been star. Despite a clear consensus in the RM here, there have been objections made, and it appears that a new RM was started before the old one was finished. @Hungarian Phrasebook: please do not do that again - all RMs will be closed eventually, and it creates a lot of confusion to have two running at the same time for the same article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy – The proposed title is more concise, as per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title, without altering the meaning or connotations of the current title or losing any information, and thus without reopening the settlement that was reached several years ago regarding the name of this article. More concise titles, made up only of content words with the exclusion of funciton words, makes it easier for Wikipedia users to navigate the encyclopedia. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Support as mover. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose This title would take a view on that there is an "Israeli Apartheid" - which is contested POV. You'd have to change analogy to defamation or possibly the more neutral allegations to make this fly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
    • No it does not, you're parsing the title. The title is neutral but if you wish to suggest it takes a view you'd have to say it takes a view that there is such a thing as an "Israeli apartheid analogy" which is a different thing (Perhaps because of the way the box is formatted you failed to see that the word "analogy" is still in the title). I think everyone agrees that an analogy has been made, regardless of whether or not one views that analogy as accurate (and whether or not it is is beyond the scope of this discussion). Hungarian Phrasebook (talk)
      The suggested title allows such parsing to be made, unlike the current one. If this is contracted, analogy should be counterbalanced to make clear, in the title, that this is a viewpoint against Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
      The suggested title is not "allowing such parsing to be made", indeed with three words instead of five, if anything, the title is less likely to be misleading. You're also now arguing for changing the content of the current title. The proposed title is no different in content from the current title, it simply removes the non-content words. Your complaints are about the current title rather than about the proposed change per se. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
      No, as the "and the" contraction takes no viewpoint of the relationship between A and B. One can "and the" an infinite set of pairs of disjoint subjects. E.g "Genocide and the cubism analogy" as opposed to "genocidal cubism analogy". The first draws no connection between A and B. The second ascribes A to B.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
      You're splitting hairs. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Icewhiz's opposition is correct; the proposed title assumes such a thing as "Israeli apartheid" exists as a thing unto itself. The apartheid analogy per se is the subject of the article, and the proposed title invites, if not demands, the parsing (Israeli apartheid) (analogy), when it's actually a (South African apartheid) (analogy) (applied to Israel). The hairs need splitting; the current title does that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's a better title, "and the" is unnecessary. Above users comments are ill-informed - - I can't make sense of the above comments supporting the use of "and the" - it makes no difference to the meaning of the title to remove this. in fact the use of analogy at all in the title is a POV violation - the page should be more properly called Israel apartheid allegations - as that is NPOV. John Dugard said apartheid in Israel is " worse than the one that existed in South Africa" - this is not an "analogy". He is not talking about "Oh they had "No blacks" signs on the bathrooms in Africa and they don't in Palestine" - he is talking about murdering persons of a racial group, torture, administrative detentions, etc. Seraphim System (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    So in other words you don't support the proposed rename but wish a different one? I could live with "allegations", though starting your argument with a personal attack isn't a good way to get the support of other users. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see there had been comments already, I added a strike through since it has been responded to already per WP:TPG Seraphim System (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, he supports the proposed rename (as indicated by bolding) since "it's a better title" but would prefer a further renaming. However, removing or replacing "analogy" isn't part of this proposal so is not under consideration here. I suggest if editors wish a different name than that proposed then that can be suggested later in a new vote. However, if those editors think the current proposal is better than the status quo (as in Seraphim's case, above), readers should vote support and then vote later for a further renaming should that be proposed by someone. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree that removing the "X and Y" construction would better follow our policies on naming articles then the current title, so I have voted support. Seraphim System (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the change to Israeli apartheid analogy, although I also echo that replacing analogy with allegations would better fit WP:NPOV. The relevant text "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X")." That would seem to be a discussion for another day, however. WP:CRITERIA states that: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." TrickyH (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Support per TrickyH. The idea behind the move is good, but it should be "Israeli Apartheid Allegations", maybe "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel". Heptor talk 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, the suggested title is more concise and does not connotate what Icewhiz says, IMO, any more than "Austrian sheep question" would equate Austria with sheep. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I simply don't understand the purpose of the word "Analogy" in this context. The article is - or, rather, should be - about the argument that Israeli policies meet the definition of the crime of apartheid in international law. It is not or, at any rate, should not be about whether those policies are like apartheid. Apartheid is a crime in international law, with clear definition, and there is a legal argument that Israel is committing that crime. So the title should be "Israel and Apartheid". Not apartheid-like. Not "Similar to apartheid" or "analagous to apartheid", but "apartheid".
Please note that I am not taking a position on the legal question one way or another. I'm just saying that there is an argument that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, and that that argument is the subject of the article. Ravpapa (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

OtterAM replaced a statement of Benjamin Pogrund for another declaration of the same person which is already in article. I ask somebody to delete the redundant quotation here and restore this one:

Benjamin Pogrund, author and member of the Israeli delegation to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, has argued that the petty apartheid that characterized apartheid-era South Africa does not exist within Israel:

The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasized at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other's homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.[ref name=Pogrund]Pogrund, Benjamin. "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote", MidEastWeb. First published in Focus 40 (December 2005). Retrieved 29 December 2006.[/ref]

--190.230.70.122 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Both quotes need an academic secondary source, we are trying to clean up the quotes on this page and IP editors should not keep posting requests to add quotes without reading the talk discussions, this is the third IP request to add a quote in the past month. Sorry, one was the first post made by a new account which was rejected, and the other was from User:Alephb who does have other contributions, and that quote was added in by consensus. However, the issue of "petty apartheid" should not be inserted by quote, unless that issue is discussed by the major scholarly sources it is both WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. There are arguments on both sides, including aout Israel's marriage laws - I don't insert my own WP:OR and neither should you. We are not supposed to build Wikipedia articles by using one blockquote after another to support a position, we are supposed to summarize secondary sources. Seraphim System (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What you need to do is find a source that cites Pogrund, or let us know who Pogrund is citing if he is secondary for the comments, from for reading the quotes, it sounds primary. Example: Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. - this is not an acceptable quote. Seraphim System (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Sources for who Pogrund is can be found here: Benjamin Pogrund.
A good source for this quote is from the Times of Israel here: Is Israel an Apartheid State? - From Somone Who Knows. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of who he is, I am asking for an academic secondary source that cites Pogrund to evaluate whether inclusion is WP:DUE. It should ideally be cited by more then one academic source to evaluate due weight. I believe he wrote a book about this, but I am asking how widely has that book been cited and by whom. Seraphim System (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
So Pogrund, who is established as an activist about apartheid, and who gave an interview of his opinion (based on personal experience) is not DUE? He has to write a bogus supposedly unbiased scientific study? This is beginning to remind me of my studies in Neuroscience about the mechanists' argument against the existance of a synapse between brain cells. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pashute: If I made a mistake, feel free to revert my change. OtterAM (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Why can't you? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Closing due to no responses in six weeks. —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 17:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_41&oldid=796039520"