Jump to content

Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Add to South Africa

Over 200 South African academics have called for a boycott of Israeli universities because of their complicity in the Israeli system of apartheid.[1]

Thanks. Hcobb (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Faculty Senate of the University of Johannesburg voted down the petition and refuses to participate in the proposed boycott of Ben-Gurion University (which was the actual focus of the boycott campaign). It considered the proposal neither constructive (in advancing peace) nor justifiable (in terms of ensuring academic freedoms or in terms of the actual record of Israel or of Ben-Gurion University). Ben-Gurion University in fact has had a particularly strong involvement in Arab-Jewish cooperation and needs encouragement for that by the international community. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3962055,00.htmlTempered (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Pulse reports [1] "Last week the University of Johannesburg, following a campaign endorsed by over two hundred of South Africa’s most prominent public intellectuals, voted “not to continue a long-standing relationship with Ben Gurion University (BGU) in Israel in its present form” and to set conditions “for the relationship to continue.” Though falling short of an outright boycott of BGU, the UJ Senate set an ultimatum of six months for BGU to comply with two conditions:
(1) that the memorandum of understanding governing the relationship between the two institutions be amended to include Palestinian universities chosen with the direct involvement of UJ;
(2) the UJ will not engage in any activities with BGU that have direct or indirect military implications, this to be monitored by UJ’s senate academic freedom committee.
The Ynet article that Tempered cited mentioned that South Africa trade unions have adopted a boycott against Israel. harlan (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The boycott petition failed, and was voted down by a majority of academic faculty at the University of Johannesburg, despite the best efforts of anti-Zionist polemicists and a lot of ballyhoo. Harlan naturally objects to that, and so prefers to phrase things as if it succeeded and as if UJ condemned BGU and gave it a harsh "ultimatum." The term is his own. UJ instead sought a "compromise" which "called for" more "Palestinian" and Israeli engagement, to be demonstrated over the next six months. Actually, BGU already does have such engagement and can show that - and did before the vote. So a break or even a change in UJ and BGU research links is doubtful, especially since it would chiefly harm UJ research. BGU already has plenty of university links around the world, and is much sought after; UJ links are minor. Of course the present Vice-Chancellor of UJ is Arab and closely linked to very leftist members of the ANC. So we will see what will happen in six months time. Meanwhile, the response of a former Dean at BGU, written before the Faculty vote rejecting the boycott, is worth meditating on, and so are some of the reader comments: http://www.newstime.co.za/SouthAfrica/Troen_-_Tutu_allegations_baseless_and_mendacious/11992/Tempered (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't object to anything. I provided a verbatim quote from a Pulse report and obviously did NOT rephrase it. I'd suggest that you keep your comments on the content and stop using the talk page to discuss other editors. A quick search of Google News turned up another article [2] which contains a statement from the South African Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC). It says that the UJ Senate laid down some other conditions regarding renewal of the memorandum of understanding with BGU:
"The conditions for UJ renewing its cooperation with BGU were:
  • That UJ will not be involved in any activities with BGU that have “direct or indirect military implications” (in its statement, UJ acknowledged that BGU had a relationship with the Israeli occupation forces);
  • That BGU respects UJ’s duty to take all allegations against BGU seriously;
  • That BGU supplies UJ with information regarding the former’s “formal policies and informal practices”; and
  • That the MOU between the two universities be amended to include Palestinian universities — which will be chosen with UJ’s involvement.
If BGU is unable to fulfill these conditions within six months, UJ’s senate said the MOU will lapse."
The 200 South African academics signed a petition which, inter alia, supported the decision of the UJ Senate to reconsider the terms of the agreement between itself and BGU.[3] Both of the reports that I quoted say that the UJ Senate is seeking changes in the relationship and that it has issued an ultimatum that probably will result in the lapse of the agreement. harlan (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What weight does 200 academics out of thousands have? Seems quite NN to me as well as most of the country. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently enough weight to cause the University Senate to demand a change in the relationship with BGU (or else). The situation is being covered by the mainstream press. harlan (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
But nothing has happened yet. CRYSTALBALL. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mairead Maguire

Here's another Nobel peace laureate who has now called Israel an apartheid state (source1 source2). She can probably be grouped in with Tutu when the article is, after protection is removed, written gradually to a less list-oriented format. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald?

In the list of "Critics of the Israeli apartheid analogy" is Glenn Greenwald, and as a citation a blog post [2] is given.

The post doesn't doesn't seem that blatantly critical of the analogy - he calls it "largely semantic" and discusses the controversy, but it doesn't seem like he's taking a firm stance against the analogy. I think his name should be removed from the list.

Ben the Bos (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben is correct. Here's the most "critical" that Glenn's cited post gets:
there has been an intense campaign to demonize those who analogize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid (as Carter did, in the same way as Barak). That demonization campaign becomes impossible if Israel's own Defense Minister makes exactly the same point. So Cohen just shuts his eyes tightly and pretends the whole thing never happened. Beyond that, Barak's willingness to explicitly raise the comparison that is all but off-limits in American political discussion once again illustrates the bizarre fact that debates over Israeli policies are far more permissive and open in Israel than they are in the United States.
Greenwald isn't endorsing the analogy in this piece, but nowhere is he denouncing it. Instead he's denounce the demonization of people who use the analogy. Any objections to removing his name?--Carwil (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No objection from me. --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Title glitch

A major glitch in the title structure has been solidified by the protection of the article. In this edit, a level 2 title "Critics of the Israeli apartheid analogy" was inserted into the middle of the "Support for Israeli apartheid analogy" section. This moved the level 3 subtitles of the "Support for..." section such as "In relation to the Israeli disengagement plan", "By notable authors", "By Adam and Moodley", "By the United Nations" etc. into the new "Critics of..." section, which is clearly incorrect. Can someone who can edit under protection please fix this? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are also other glitches, such as removal of a lot of sources from the text, which should be addressed once protection is lifted. --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing as government policy

I don't think the Serbs were ever so bold in official statements.

So does this go here or in a new Israel and Ethnic Cleansing article?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lieberman-presents-plans-for-population-exchange-at-un-1.316197?localLinksEnabled=false

Hcobb (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb - With all due respect, I think those comments are 1)somewhat inflammatory & 2) in contravention of WP:FORUM. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Lieberman has previously clarified that those are his personal views and not those of Israel's government (but this was before he presented them to the UN). However, I agree that even as personal views of a cabinet minister they're still outrageous. In terms of using that source as material for this article, it should be pointed out that the source doesn't connect Lieberman's comments with apartheid. Here is a source that does. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just move this article, as more sources discard the apartheid analogy for being too weak:

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/crisisingaza/2009/02/20092191518941246.html However, the carnage caused by Israel's latest war has apparently rendered the apartheid comparison too weak to evoke the full horror of what Palestinians have suffered.

Hcobb (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

alJazeera, whose newseditor is a Palestinian, naturally considers any self-defense by Israel against Palestinian terrorism and rockets aimed into civilian populations a crime worse than apartheid. What is noteworthy about that?Tempered (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the source that remotely infers ethnic cleansing. Population exchange does not = ethnic cleansing. After all, it is the Palestinians that are demanding an ethnic cleansing of Jewish settlements to make way for a Jew-free Palestinian nation. Sigh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing:"the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups" So it's not too far off although Lieberman's plan hinges on at least marginal amounts of cooperation (not that it helps the legality of the issue). It's nothing he hasn't been saying for years, just a different venue. I'd stick it in the "Lieberman Plan" article since he's not PM just yet. Sol (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No, population transfer is not necessarily ethnic cleansing. It seems Lieberman is arguing from a political, and not racial POV. Israelis who subscribe to a Palestinian and non-Zionist identity are seen as extensional threats to the balance of a Jewish state. If Lieberman said he would like to see Palestinian Israelis forcibly moved out of their homes 10 kilometers east or south (Gaza/West Bank) to a new Palestinian nation simply because they are not Jews would be ethnic cleansing. As far as I know the Lieberman Plan does not actual involve moving Arabs out of their homes, but ceding parts of Israel in exchange for part of the Palestinian West Bank. Many Israelis and some Palestinians argue it is a much better alternative and more feasible than removing 500,000+ Israeli settlers from their homes to create an Arab Palestine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And now we are completely off topic ;)At some point I'll work the incident into the Lieberman plan article which is already in dire need of some attention. Sol (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The proposed population and territorial exchanges are not an example of ethnic cleansing. The process is called Bantustanization. The Lieberman plan would be a textbook example of apartheid, since it would redraw de jure national boundaries between the de facto, physically-separated, ethnic enclaves inside the State of Israel. Ynet and Haaretz are reporting on an MK who said that Lieberman represents apartheid and ethnic cleansing. [4] [5] harlan (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Wait to misrepresent sources, as usual. A single Israeli-Arab MK, Hanin Zoabi, is the actor invoking apartheid buzzwords. So what? You are again twisting the definition of apartheid. The Lieberman plan might be motivated by racism but its implementation would not alter the laws of Israel and turn the Israeli state into an apartheid government. Whatever happens the Palestinian Arabs will always be less prosperous than the Jews so the situation will always be apartheid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, insofar as the comments above are relevant to the main article, it can be argued that Lieberman's proposals are the opposite both of ethnic cleansing and of apartheid. After all, he insists that Israeli Arabs willing to pledge loyalty to the State of Israel, as already are most Arab Christians, the Druze generally and several Arab towns and bedouin tribes, would remain full Israeli citizens, so there would obviously be no racial definition of citizenship operative against Arabs per se. Those who are not willing to pledge loyalty, and instead consider their nationality to be "Palestinian," would simply be enrolled in the proposed state of "Palestine." The borders of Israel would be redrawn to put towns whose majority considers themselves "Palestinian" inside the state of Palestine. There would be no ethnic cleansing movement of populations, just a redrawing of boundaries. It is ironical that precisely if the claims of "apartheid" were valid that advocates make in the main article here, all Israeli Arabs would certainly be overjoyed to be included in the state of "Palestine" and not in Israel. But they are not overjoyed, as a matter of simple truth. They don't want to be under Palestinian authority, because they well know that their rights in such a state would be far more severely abridged and restricted than ever they have been inside Israel. The standard equal rights of assembly, religion, free speech, political representation and so on that they enjoy and take for granted in Israel do not exist in the P.A., either under the Fatah/PLO or Hamas. It is also ironical that Palestinian "refugee camps" still persist in Palestinian Authority territory, with the rights of their ghettoized inhabitants even more severely restricted than that of other inhabitants, so that they cannot obtain work or move elsewhere: the "refugees" are hopelessly bantustanized and exploited in the P.A., as they are in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world. Theirs is already an apartheid situation. Meanwhile, Christians are so persecuted that they seek to flee altogether, while it is official P.A. policy that Jewish settlements must be ethnically cleansed as a precondition for "peace," and that there are no Jewish religious sites anywhere in P.A. territory, no Jewish right to employment at all, etc.Tempered (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan I didn't misrepresent what Hanin Zoabi said. Tempered you should argue on your own talk page, unless you are discussing relevant published sources. Haaretz has reported that Israeli Arab leaders already stated they will reject any deal achieved by the current PA leaders. [6] harlan (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy

"Some opponents consider the analogy ... reflecting a double standard when applied to Israel and not neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their own Palestinian minority has been described as racist and discriminatory." is the fallacy Ad Hominem Tu Quoque and certainly shouldn't be in the beginning paragraph. --Calibas (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. harlan (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If opponents of the analogy use this argument we can say so, even if it's not a good argument. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources cited say actually that. It is merely an Ad Hominem employed by our editor:
  • The HRW source, the Assessment for Palestinians in Jordan, and the Tikkun article do not mention the term apartheid, the apartheid analogy, or make comparisons with the conditions in Israel or the Palestinian territories.
  • The Gideon Shimoni article mentions apartheid, but does not mention Palestinian mistreatment in other countries. The same is true of The poisonous myth of 'Israeli apartheid', by Alan Baker, in the National Post (still available @archive.org)
  • Jean Rufin mentions apartheid, but does not comment on mistreatment of Palestinians in other countries. Neither does Matas in the Rufin citations that he employed in Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005.
  • "Israeli Arabs - in the trap of self-deception" compares the standard of living statistics of Israeli Arabs (not Palestinians) to Arabs living in other countries; says that democracy isn't workable in the region; and that demands for equality have to be more realistic. The article talks about discrimination against Muslims in a laundry list of EU Countries and Canada and episodes of sectarian violence in other Arab countries, but does not mention discrimination against Palestinian minorities. harlan (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's not a good argument, then it certainly doesn't belong in the introduction. Put the misleading and fallacious arguments near the end, if you include them at all. --Calibas (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, commentators criticising the application of the apartheid analogy to Israel have often pointed out what they call the glaring double standards of analogy advocates, in that those advocates conspicuously ignore what could be called the far worse racism and discrimination both institutionalized in law and practiced in fact in the Palestinian Authority territories. The discussion here invites a further contribution to the main article giving references to commentators who have highlighted these double standards. To those commentators, such double standards indicate prejudice and bad faith motivations in the invocation of calls for justice and morality, calls that only relate to one side of the conflict but are used to justify any possible atrocity from the other. Since this is a fairly common complaint from those who would defend Israel from apartheid accusations, documentation of these complaints would be a constructive and important addition to the "Differences in Motivations" section. I will turn to that in future weeks. As a preliminary sample, however, I began by checking just two of Harlan's references given above by having a look at the Alan Baker article he cited (it can be found at http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/the_poisonous_myth_of_israeli_apartheid), and the David Matas book he also cited, which I have to hand. I did not check any others of his references, but probably the same can be found in some of them too. In both the sources I did check, there is an explicit mention and criticism of double standards in regard to apartheid-related accusations and themes, and reference to the very much worse reality in the Palestinian Authority territory and other neighboring Arab states. Matas complains explicitly of these "double standards" on pp. 35, 42f., 47, 51, 53, 56, 59, and etc., since I have not reread the entire book. Matas explicitly tackles in these pages the allegation that criticism of "double standards" is a diversion from the specific charges made against Israel, arguing that if the charges are seriously meant, then this is shown precisely by applying them impartially and fairly, not by holding Israel to a standard no other state in the world, and certainly not the Palestinian government and society, is held to - on the other hand, if they are not serious but mere mythicizing propaganda to cloak actual criminal behavior far worse than anything Israel does, then double standards are the inevitable expression of this. As for Ambassador Alan Baker, among other remarks on the sharply contrasting far worse situation in the Palestinian territories and in neighboring Arab states to that actually existing in Israel, he says specificially concerning charges of racism and cruel discrimination:
Complete freedom of religion for all is strictly protected in Israel -- unlike in neighbouring countries, which recognize only one state religion, Islam, and even criminalize and persecute the practice of other faiths. Consider, for instance, Saudi Arabia, whose police recently arrested 40 Christians for the "crime" of praying in a private house. Followers of the Baha'is religion, who are persecuted in Iran, are welcomed in Israel, and maintain their central religious institutions in Haifa and Acre. Coptic Christians, who face restrictions in neighbouring Arab countries, enjoy freedom of religion in Israel.
Regrettably, the freedoms enjoyed by Israel's Arabs are unknown to Jews in some Arab countries, who are prevented by law from owning property, and frequently suffer persecution. In many Arab nations, Jews cannot even become citizens.
In Israel, heads or other body parts are not chopped off as criminal punishment. Government-incited religious gangs do not run amok burning buildings and vehicles. In Israel's schools and universities, suicide terrorists are not glorified by posters on the walls. Israel's hit-parade figures genuine pop songs -- not songs calling for jihad and murder.
It is worth keeping in mind that many of the critics of rampant double standards, including diplomats like Israeli Ambassador Alan Baker and responsible legal scholars like David Matas (he is Canadian), speak in restrained fashion and do not want to name and blame the Palestinians too specifically and baldly, however justifiable they consider their complaints against the double standards of anti-Zionists and the explicitly racist hatreds and violence of the Palestinians, because they want peace between the two peoples, not the sort of hateful language, endless violence and war that apartheid advocates perpetuate and even wish for in their demonization of Israel. Nevertheless, the criticisms of double standards and false morality, even "hypocrisy" as Matas terms it (p. 53), must be stated as such and are still made clear, however diplomatic and generalizing the language. E.g., Jews are prohibited from being citizens, or even residents, in the proposed Palestinian state (settlements must be utterly removed), and guess which governmental entity glorifies suicide bombers and killers of Jews in posters on school walls and in children's songs?Tempered (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The passage in question in the main article is therefore correct in its main drift, but perhaps needs modification either in citations, so that those that do specifically compare the treatment given Palestinians in Arab states to that given Israeli Arabs in Israel are named as such, or are added to, or in its text, to point specifically to the difference between the treatment given Israeli Arabs in Israel and that given to Jews and other minorities in the Palestinian Authority territories and in Arab states generally. Either is a possible edit which does not change the sense of the sentence unduly. Another possible edit, which would require no further change even to the citations, which do cover both groups, is simply to add "Jewish inhabitants and/or" before the words "their own Palestinian minority" to the sentence; by the way, the verb that follows should be in the plural, "have," not "has," since it refers to "policies."Tempered (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources currently cited actually make the claim that appears in the lede. Several of the sources do NOT even contain the word apartheid. No rephrasing of the sentence can fix that. It is a glaring example of WP:Synth. harlan (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, Harlan's assertions just above only disprove his overall case (assuming of course the correctness of the assertions - as demonstrated immediately above in regard to David Matas's and Ambassador Baker's actual writings Harlan's assertions about sources are sometimes misleading and can even be disconfirmed when actually checked directly). If, in regard to Israel, alleged events of the sort A, B, and C justify the application of the "apartheid" terminology, demonizing or criminalizing the Jewish state according to its apartheid critics, but reports of events of the same sort A, B, and C, and even D, E and F in addition, in Palestinian territories and neighboring Arab countries in regard to the treatment of "Palestinian refugees" and of other minorities there, including Jewish inhabitants if any, are not described by anti-Zionist groups and advocates in terms of "apartheid," are even treated with indifference, and do not according to them delegitimize or demonize those states and political systems, then this proves the operation of a strong double standard just as is claimed in the lead sentence, at least to defenders of Israel against those same critics. Thus the statement in the lead sentence in the main article is supported by the sources cited, even in Harlan's account of them. There is no "logical fallacy" here. I do think, however, that my suggestion to add "Jewish inhabitants and/or" before the words "their own Palestinian minority" to the sentence helps clarify and strengthen the sentence.Tempered (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede says "Some opponents consider the analogy defamatory and reflecting a double standard when applied to Israel and not neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their own Palestinian minority has been described as racist and discriminatory." Ambassador Baker doesn't mention the treatment of Palestinian minorities in neighboring states. In any event, his editorial about freedom of religion in Israel is not relevant to the Israeli administration in the occupied territories or apartheid. Religion is not included in the definitions of apartheid, racial discrimination, or racial segregation contained in the ICERD or ICSPCA. FYI Op-Eds are a questionable source of information. Numerous violations of religious freedom in Israel and Muslim or Arab states have been addressed in the universal periodic reviews conducted by the responsible treaty bodies using the criteria contained in the ICCPR and other human rights conventions. NGOs including the World Jewish Congress, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are invited to submit their own reports to those treaty bodies, e.g. see the WJC report on Religious Freedom and Minority Rights (page 11) in their UPR report on Iran [7] and Adalah's questions regarding the lack of equal access and legal protection of Muslim Holy sites (under item #11 Freedom of Religion) [8]

WP:RSUE says that when citing a non-English source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. I'm going to ask for that in this instance. In the past, all of the editors here have been asked to stick to sources that specifically mention apartheid. The A,B, C example above would be an example of WP:Synth unless one of the sources says that the policy, practice, or discrimination in question is a constituent act of apartheid. harlan (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you tried, Harlan. Actually, the sources cited do claim that legally endorsed radically discriminatory practices in neighboring countries that go well beyond anything Israel is accused of are not treated in the same way, as examples of "apartheid" which justify demonizing delegitimization of the state, or criminal accusations, by critics of Israel. As I wrote above, a simple addition of "Jewish inhabitants and/or" would in fact be sufficient to cover the cited works, certainly those by Ambassador Baker and David Matas, and indeed one must add that, even according to you, Harlan, the reports on Jordanian discrimination confirm the charge made by critics of the "apartheid analogy" (the ones also cited in the footnotes) and serve as an appropriate example that pervasive Arab practices and institutions are not called "apartheid" by those accusing Israel of the same sort of behavior. This does indeed prove the operation of a double standard, and does not constitute "Synth" since it is explicitly stated in the pro-Israel sources themselves that a double standard of this sort is operating here, insincerely and hypocritically. As for your lengthly rebuttal of religion being relevant, actually it is, inasmuch as discrimination against a minority group, especially one (wrongly) regarded as a "race" as Palestinians often refer to Jews, can include systematic discrimination against the religion that identifies it, creates its identity, and unifies it as a distinctive group. The Nazis did this, too, as an integral part of their racist antisemitism. Thus the official P.A. declaration (that so shocked the Americans at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat insisted on this - see Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace, pp. 694, 699, etc.) that there are no Jewish holy sites anywhere in Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (nor even, it has also been later claimed, in the whole of the Biblical Holy Land), and that the Jewish assertions otherwise are simply concerted lies and based on forgeries and hoaxes even introduced into their Scripture, is an obviously antisemitic attempt to deny the entire religious foundation of the Jewish people and their title as a people to any part of the Holy Land. But in any case, Ambassador Baker's remarks go well beyond religious discrimination. As you might have noticed if you had really paid attention to his words, Harlan, so your comments are beside the point.Tempered (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that you have cited a single source which compares the treatment of Palestinian minorities in neighboring states to apartheid. The request for the translations of the two non-English sources still stands. Unless you have a published source which actually says "legally endorsed radically discriminatory practices" are the same thing as apartheid or the apartheid analogy, please don't continue your off-topic discussion on this article talk page.
Matas is critical of those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state, but he does NOT mention discrimination against Palestinian minorities in neighboring countries in connection with apartheid AT ALL. He does not mention a "double standard" in connection with the term apartheid either. The only mention of apartheid by Dennis Ross is on page 797 where he agrees with Ehud Olmert that if Israel remains in the West Bank and Gaza it will "find its Jewish supporters internationally unable to defend an apartheid reality."
I'm going to insist on the removal of all the footnote references to sources which don't actually mention the term apartheid, the apartheid analogy, or make comparisons with the conditions in Israel or the Palestinian territories. That would include the HRW source, the Assessment for Palestinians in Jordan, and the Tikkun article.
Ralph Wilde explained that: "the racialized concept of a “standard of civilization” was deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilized”, lacking organized societies, a position reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilized” peoples." [9] The ICJ definition of apartheid in the Namibia case was grounded in the denial of the national right to self-determination. Alan Baker was the settler, Ambassador, Deputy Director General, and Legal Adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs who prepared the written pleadings in the 2004 ICJ Wall case. In the National Post article Baker said "Apartheid is the state-sanctioned and -generated degradation of one or more ethnic groups, based on an assumption of racial inferiority. Such a system relies for its implementation on segregation, denationalization and the denial of basic rights." I'm pretty sure that he does NOT consider the PNA to be a state and that he only mentioned "persecution", not "apartheid" in some Arab states. He didn't mention the situation in the occupied territories at all. In the ICJ Wall case, Israel deployed the concept of "sovereignty" in its pleadings to claim that the norms of international law and the humanitarian and human rights conventions do not apply to the Palestinian people or the territory that they inhabit. About a half-dozen other states seriously equated that situation and the Israeli military regime to a state-run system of apartheid in their written statements. harlan (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to thank Harlan for drawing my attention to this issue of double standards in making the "apartheid" accusation. I am sure that the articles and sources cited in the sentence in the lead paragraph of the main article are all valid citations and appropriate to show the points being made in the sentence; those I checked certainly are. However, I thought I might add a few more, both relating to apartheid in the Palestinian Authority territories and in the Middle East more generally regarding Jews, Palestinians themselves, and other minorities, by checking on the internet, and found after only a short search that there are truly masses of material, too many really, a lot of them quite powerful, and worthy of a separate extended discussion in the main article. So I will definitely write up a further contribution to the section "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy," in the main article, in the sub-section "Differences in Motivation," citing just some of those sources under the general rubric of criticism of the "double standards" used by "apartheid analogy" advocates. Wait for it, Harlan: it will further substantiate every assertion made in the lead sentence you are so agitated about. Thanks again. By the way, I came across the Shimoni article again while scanning the internet, and it definitely does say that human rights violations, some of which are listed, said by anti-Zionists to be equivalent to "apartheid" are much worse in Arab countries but are ignored by those criticising Israel, which, says Shimoni, proves that the real motivation is not concern for human rights or Palestinians, but just to demonize the Jewish state. One instance having particular ironies is the criticism made not just by Jewish commentators but even by Palestinian "refugees" themselves against the "apartheid" way they are being treated in the Palestinian Authority territories: they are denied citizenship or associated benefits even in the P.A., employment, even the right to move out of the camps, while their aid money flows outward to support the wider P.A. economy and is often intercepted and syphoned off into Swiss bank accounts by Palestinian leaders.
However, I cannot resist offering a few citations here relating to the treatment of Palestinians. By all means, Harlan, let us insert these into the citations for the lead sentence. I am sure you will agree. We will leave aside for now the even more articles pointing up the highly racist treatment of Jews in Arab lands, or other minorities, as well as "gender apartheid" and "religion apartheid" practices. Here therefore are just a few about discrimination against Palestinians that is ignored by anti-Israel partisans and shows the bad faith and insincerity of their anti-Israel demonizing:
Impressive collection of sources. Hopefully when the article opens up we can merge some of the information into the relevant sections. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered is citing blogs which are not generally acceptable sources. He is still citing articles that do not use the term apartheid at all. There are two sources, regarding conditions in the camp in Palestine and in Jordan that could be used to support the statement in the lede. My objections to the use of the sources that are currently cited remain unchanged. When the article is unprotected, most of those will be deleted. harlan (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I see two blog cites, including Pajamas Media which is a mainstream organization though I am unsure of its reliability. Can't rule out op-eds for now, considering much of the article (especially those promoting the israel apartheid analogy) is predicated on editorials. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Would the consensus then be to exchange the current sources for the two aforementioned sources in the refs, and leave the text as-is? --Dailycare (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy regarding "self-published sources" recognizes their legitimacy as reliable sources for their author's own opinion, and their acceptability in a Wikipedia article therefore depends on the context. Where the subject of the article or the context in the article is the various opinions held about something, they become relevant. Whether or not they can be cited depends further on the representativeness, expertise and standing of the author in the discipline or subject being discussed. E.g., if the author has academic standing in the subject, and/or has published well-accepted books elsewhere on the subject, the opinion piece can be cited, with attribution to the author in question. This is how WP:RSI phrases it:
Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both.
The reliability of a source and the basis of this reliability depends on the context.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Statements of opinion: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.
What this means for our discussion is that even the blogs cited are relevant. I am quite willing to omit the Ostroff article, and also the reference to "Elder of Ziyon," although his analysis of topics is at a very high, informed and professional level (his demolition of the Goldstone Report was one of the most knowledgeable, factually detailed, legally informed and extensive of all critiques, for example). But the opinion piece he cites and links to, by Abraham Miller, is certainly acceptable according to the above Wikipedia principles: Miller is an expert in Middle Eastern politics, academically qualified, with third-party publications and recognized standing. All the other cited sources are RS by any standard. That includes the four Abu Toameh articles, both of the Judith Miller and Samuels articles (either of which will do), Cohn's article, Zahran's article and Libdeh's. With Abraham Miller's article, and taking just one of the Judith Miller and Samuel articles, that makes nine unquestionably RS citations, quite enough for the purpose. (I replaced the attributed location of the Libdeh article from www.realclearworld.com to the original Jerusalem Post webaddress where it first appeared, although "www.realclearworld.com" is not a blog, but simply a website dedicated to collecting together articles on given topics that have already appeared elsewhere in reputable newspapers, etc.) Harlan misrepresents things in his statements: all the cited articles discuss "apartheid" explicitly in terms of Arab treatment of Palestinians, as claimed, so all are relevant to the topic. This is true of the substance of the articles, but comes out even in their headlines, so Harlan's claims are patently incorrect. I have not looked at the HRW source (they are notoriously partisan and anti-Israeli so their views are a matter of indifference to me) or the Tikkun article, but nothing will be lost if they are dropped. The other citations appear to be acceptable. As for Dailycare's suggestion that we can have a consensus on using the new sources listed to add them to the present sources of the "lede" sentence, as Harlan terms it, I am in agreement.Tempered (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Judith Miller article doesn't even mention apartheid. There are a number of editors here who have been told time and again that they cannot use sources that do not mention apartheid or attempt to equate references to discrimination or racism with apartheid. In this case, there are a number of sources that are still being used in exactly that fashion. Those constitute WP:Synth and need to be removed. harlan (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I see the questionable section is still in the article. It implies one of two things, (1) that it's okay for Israel to do what it's doing because it's neighbors are doing things that are just as bad, or (2) critics of Israel are wrong because they're hypocrites. Both assumptions are logical fallacies and they still have no place in the introduction. If this doesn't make sense to you, consider this as well, the article is "Israel and the apartheid analogy" not "Israel's neighbor's and the apartheid analogy".

And if those two points aren't enough, the section says "Some opponents consider the analogy defamatory and reflecting a double standard when applied to Israel and not neighboring Arab countries". Who's not applying it to neighboring countries? Certainly not everybody who supports the analogy is creating a double standard, so who is doing this? --Calibas (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Tempered, my suggestion was to replace the current sources with the two aforementioned sources, not add this entire lot to the existing ones. --Dailycare (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking over the Judith Miller and Samuels article again, the better, unabbreviated one at the "Independent" website (that is the one that should be cited, I now think), I notice that double standards in Arab accusations of racial discrimination against Palestinians is highlighted at the very start of the article. It is precisely the point that is asserted in the "lede" sentence, so the source supports this point. This is what the Miller and Samuels article starts with: "It is a cynical but time-honoured practice in Middle Eastern politics: the statesmen who decry the political and humanitarian crisis of the approximately 3.9 million Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and in Gaza ignore the plight of an estimated 4.6 million Palestinians who live in Arab countries." Further down, the authors go on to claim that the situation for Palestinians under Arab rule are actually far worse than in Israel: "One can only imagine the outrage that the world community would rightly visit upon Israel if Israeli Arabs were subject to the vile discriminatory laws applied to Palestinians living in Arab countries." So, Calibas, your objections are mostly answered by the article itself (for the rest, see my above posts). The situation is worse in Arab countries, including by the way under the Palestinian Authority as this and the other cited sources indicate, than in Israel, and the hypocrisy is that of the chief spokespeople for Middle Eastern states, according to this cited article, Palestinian leadership itself, and rabid anti-Zionists generally, as the other cited sources show. That is sufficient. As for the logic of the argument, already clearly indicated here, also see my post above at 20:52, 6 October 2010. There is no "logical fallacy." However, I must point out that since this is not a blog, all that needs to be demonstrated is that the critics of the apartheid analogy make an issue out of the double standards that seek to criminalize Israel alone, despite far worse discrimination amounting to real and institutionalized racism and apartheid situations being ignored when it is a case of Palestinians, Jews, and other minorities in Arab countries. And they do make that criticism, as the cited sources show. Whether Calibas considers the criticism "logical" is irrelevant. Case closed.
As for Harlan's claims - 1. The assertion that only articles that explicitly utter the term "apartheid" can be cited is nonsense. The issue in the main article is the accusation of systemic racial discrimination, as the entire article shows. Very significant in this connection is that most of the sources cited in the main article to substantiate the "apartheid analogy" do not mention apartheid either: they merely criticize the alleged discrimination against Arabs in Israel or in the "occupied" P.A. territories. Perhaps, Harlan, we must throw them all out too? To be consistent, we must. But he will not request that. 2. Harlan's treatment of the cited sources is also incorrect. The Miller and Samuels article, as indicated, explicitly refers to Arab propaganda claims about the discriminatory mistreatment of Palestinians in Israel (this naturally includes the apartheid claim, of course - or perhaps Harlan does not consider "apartheid" to express discrimination?), and also in contrast the actual "vile discriminatory laws" found in Arab countries and not found in Israel. 3. Harlan's suddenly restricted definition of "apartheid" is also insincere, since a very broad if not meaningless definition (aside from its slanderous intent) is defended by him elsewhere, one that does not turn on racial discrimination institutionalized in law, or even racism. Thus he can simply ignore as irrelevant that Israel does not endorse racism nor institutionalize it in its laws, that in any case it admits Arabs, identical in race to the "Palestinians," in Israel to full citizenship and all civil and political rights (even the currently discussed loyalty oath would accept in future applications for citizenship all Arabs willing - as many are - to support Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and in any case fully accepts all those presently citizens regardless of their views or backgrounds), while those laws relating specifically to Jews cannot be called racist nor explained by "racism" since the Jews are multi-racial.
Dailycare, your suggestion lacks any clarity. Which two "aforementioned sources" are you talking about? As for that, I have no objection to just using a few of the sources I cited, to strengthen the introductory sentence in question (the "lede," whatever that means) - on the understanding that the "lede" remains unchanged itself; I will draw upon all the proposed sources, and others, when I formulate a proper text for inclusion in the main article that stresses the "double standards" characteristic of those pushing the apartheid analogy. So they will be cited elsewhere in the article.Tempered (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The two sources Harlan mentions in his post stamped 06:14. (I read only the last paragraph of your long entry, to the rest I applied WP:TLDR --Dailycare (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, you're one of the last people that should be editing this article, you're bias is extreme. To quote you, "Far worse discrimination amounting to real and institutionalized racism and apartheid situations being ignored when it is a case of Palestinians, Jews, and other minorities in Arab countries" while the Israel only has "alleged discrimination against Arabs". And would you mind keeping your responses short and simple? You're wasting your time.
I see your rebuttal of why it isn't a logical fallacy, and you must not understand ad hominem tu quoue. Even if the accusations are true, that Israel's neighbors practice even worse apartheid, that still has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Israel practices apartheid. That's the topic of this article, and you're distracting from the main point. -Calibas (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Calibas, logical syllogisms lead to different conclusions depending on what postulates are put in. Since this is not a blog, your objections reflect only your own POV and remain irrelevant. And as for extreme bias, how about your own? Ad hominem attacks on me will get you nowhere. That short enough for you? And Dailycare, TLDR applies to the actual articles themselves. This is a Talk page. Clarity and effective argument sometimes requires surgical precision. For example, your brevity just now is still too vague, as was Harlan's. Please specify which two articles are in question.Tempered (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
So what exactly do Israel's neighbor's treatment of Palestinians have to do with whether or not Israel practices apartheid? It's a distraction and it's tu quoue no matter which postulates are put it. A classical, cut and dry, logical fallacy. Just because some speaker knows how to use fallacies or actually believes it's a logical point, doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. These articles are based upon logic, not political propaganda.
And darn straight I'm biased towards you, which means in Wikipedia land that I simply shouldn't be the one writing an article upon you. You extreme bias towards this issue means the same thing as well. --Calibas (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Human rights are universal Calibras so it is extremely notable if states accusing Israel of practicing apartheid against Palestinian Arabs are in fact committing the very same crime. It is not a distraction or political propaganda. Arab nations have made very little effort to defend their policies towards Palestinians. From what I understand numerous Arab leaders openly profess their hatred and distrust of the Palestinian population living in their country. The talk discussion has become a bit SOAPY but it is rather selective of you to single out Tempered when Harlan has been just as emotional. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan12345, Palestinian nationality is legally recognized by many other states today. It has its basis in international law. See for example, Japan to recognize Palestinian nationality, KUNA, 10/5/2007 [10] Palestinian nationality was originally founded on Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne and the LoN Mandate for Palestine. See The international law foundations of Palestinian nationality [11]
The Palestinians have always been lawful inhabitants of the territory within the boundaries of the Palestine Mandate. That is NOT the case with the neighboring states. The ICERD provisions regarding racial discrimination and apartheid do not apply to "distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party between citizens and non-citizens." [12] Alan Baker complained about acute ignorance regarding the meaning of the word "apartheid". He said that "Apartheid is the state-sanctioned and -generated degradation of one or more ethnic groups, based on an assumption of racial inferiority." FYI, the official position of the State of Israel is that it cannot be held responsible for compliance with the "universal" human rights laws in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that the IDF administers due to the on-going armed conflict; and that the PNA is not a State. See E/1990/6/Add.32, para 5-7 or CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8. So, most of these sources are engaged in legal fallacies, not just logical fallacies. harlan (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan12345, there's a difference between what you described here and what's actually in the article. Were it in reference to states accusing Israel of apartheid, I would agree, but the article currently references everyone who uses the analogy and doesn't apply it to neighboring countries. If you'd like to rewrite it your way I'd support it.
And I'm not singling out Tempered, he's just been the main one responding to what I've brought up. --Calibas (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I pointed out above that this is a legal fallacy. If you want to see Wikifan get emotional, suggest the creation of a separate article on the topic of Israel and the crime of apartheid. All of the "criticism of the analogy" ad hominem arguments are irrelevant and immaterial to the crime of apartheid. harlan (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the immediately preceding discussion is irrelevant. There is too much in it of personal attacks and POV. Calibas, even if you were right about your logical fallacies, it still doesn't matter. The only relevant issue for a Wikipedia article is what the critics of the apartheid analogy actually say, and that the citations be verifiable. Whether their or your views are logical do not come into it (although your effort to strip critics of apartheid analogy of the faculty of reason is rather suspect!). This is not a blog, and matters of philosophical "truth" are not germane. On this subject of ultimate-truth-opinions, see clear statements in WP:NPOV that this cannot be the criterion governing treatment of controversial subjects in Wikipedia articles. Harlan's claims, as usual, also fail that test, and therefore make no constructive contribution here either. He should restrict his opinions to his own talk page. Let's get back to the question of the specific sources and references, and which "aforementioned two sources" should be added to the "lede" sentence.Tempered (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article, to remain NPOV, must discuss on Israel and the apartheid analogy, both the view of it supporters,that this about apartheid, and its opponents, that it is anti-Israeli propaganda. Comparison to analogy supporters response to status of Palestinians living in Arab states is one of the reason they cite for their belief that this is propaganda,and has nothing to do with Palestinian human rights, so it must be included. Also The fact that ICERD provisions regarding racial discrimination and apartheid do not apply to "distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party between citizens and non-citizens,should be mentioned in the article. since it has exactly the same relevance to Israel, as much as to neighboring countries. The Palestinians have always been lawful inhabitants of the territory within the boundaries of the Palestine Mandate,and Ottoman Empire before that. Palestinians shared citizenship with Israelis, within Palestine Mandate, and with Israelis, Lebanese, Sirians, Jordanians and more within Ottoman Empire.Ottoman Empire formally ended in 1923, and Palestine Mandate in 1948. Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza are not citizens of Israel,and never were, and common citizenship within states that existed in the past has no influence on that, otherwise it would affect neighboring Arab states also. Also Alan Baker view can be also added to article, even those who use the analogy, argue that there is no assumption of racial inferiority involved.Igorb2008 (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Igorb2008, under international law the Palestinians can be considered guests in the neighboring host countries, but they are not guests in their own country. There are dozens of states that have exchanged ambassadors and which legally recognize the State of Palestine today. 169 UN member states have regularly adopted resolutions recognizing the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over their territory. Judge Rosalyn Cohen Higgins said "This is not difficult - from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same - that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State."
I did not say that Tempered cannot use well-sourced material that mentions apartheid. If he intends to introduce sources that merely mention racism or discrimination, then the rest of the editors here will have to be allowed to do the same.
After reading reports from rapporteurs and written pleadings about Israel's policy of Bantustanization, the ICJ advised that, according to the applicable international law, Israel cannot treat the indigenous population of the territory it occupies as a foreign threat as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Court advised that Israel is just an occupying power that has established settlements illegally in the Palestinian territories. It also advised that the Wall and the associated administrative regime are illegal.
The Court noted that Israel had previously reported that the human rights contained in the ICCPR were applicable to the settlers, but not to the Palestinians and that Israel was violating the human rights of the Palestinians, but not those of the settlers. The subsequent fact finding missions by Dugard and others have concluded that the occupation has taken on elements that constitute apartheid. The Goldstone Mission reported on the discriminatory dual legal system based upon Jewish race or descendancy (paras 206-208) and concluded that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin (1548). harlan (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, Palestinians of West Bank and Gaza are not even in Israel, and there is no international law that says that occupying power must grant citizenship to occupied territory population. Those Palestinians are citizens of future State of Palestine, and have no more claim for Israeli citizenship then to Lebanese or Jordanian.So it is not apartheid, according to ICERD provision you mentioned, if Israel discriminate between citizens and not citizens. And comparison to Bantustan does not stand, as Israel never taken citizenship from parts of its population,or created any territory like that.Dugard missions concluded that Israeli practises in OPT does not constitute apartheid,but that some of the policies resemble it.As for Goldstone claim that two-tier civil status based upon Jewish race or descendancy,and privileges for members of Jewish nationality exist because of Law of Return(1950) and Israeli Lands(1960) , it is simply strange.See the laws he mentioned yourself, [13],[14], nowhere it make the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis. Also note that Goldstone in his report calls Law of Return as Basic Law(page 64), which it isn't, something that cast doubt on the depth on his understanding and research on the subject.Igorb2008 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Igorb2008, cite published sources which support your arguments. Plenty of legal experts have commented on the discriminatory nature of Israel's laws and military directives. See for example lists in "Apartheid against the Palestinian people", Luciana Coconi, pp 26-28 [15]
The term Basic law is a legal term of art used in the jurisprudence of many countries to refer to any fundamental or constitutional laws. The Law of Return is treated as part of Israel's body of constitutional law:
  • On the day he introduced the Law of Return and the Nationality Laws, during the 160th Sitting of the First Knesset, David Ben Gurion said: "These two laws determine the special character and destiny of Israel as bearer of the vision of the redemption of the Jewish Nation. ... ...The Law of Return is one of the State of Israel's Basic Laws. It encompasses one of the central missions of our country, the in-gathering of the exiles." See Lorch, Netanel (ed), Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 2, JCPA/University Press of America, 1993, pp 611 and 613
  • The JCPA says that "Beyond the Basic Laws, other legislation has constitutional implications and is so treated. Thus the Knesset has constitutionalized the definition of who is a Jew for immigration and registration purposes through the Law of Return." http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/const-intro-93.htm]
  • Monte Palmer wrote that The Law of Return was passed in 1950 and is generally treated as a Basic Law. See The politics of the Middle East, page 117
  • Itamar Rabinovich said: Although the Law of Return is not a Basic Law because it was not drafted according to the procedures outlined in Harari's proposal, it is generally agreed that in the unlikelv event that a formal constitution is adopted, the law of return will be treated as if it were a Basic Law. See Israel in the Middle East: documents and readings on society, page 96.
The Palestinians declared their state in 1988. The State of Palestine has embassies in 64 other countries around the world today. The Namibians did not need citizenship from South Africa, and the Palestinians do not need citizenship from Israel. Denial of the right to a nationality and self-determination are constituent acts of apartheid that critics of Israel have cited in published reports. See for example the HSRC study on Occupation, Colonialism, and Apartheid, pp 18, 215-217. The Working Group of Experts of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights established the elements of the crime of apartheid. Those include the “Bantustan policy” consisting of the creation of reserved areas for certain groups. See Apartheid against the Palestinian people, Luciana Coconi, page 9. The ICJ findings of fact included the dislocation of parts of the population and the creation of isolated Palestinian enclaves (para 133). Those findings were based upon reliable reports from rapporteurs and interested state parties that the Israeli government was pursuing a policy of Bantustanization. See the Secretary General's dossier and the written statements of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Cuba, Republic of Guinea, et. al. [16] harlan (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, I cite laws themselves. The Law of return is not a Basic law,it is a fact. No mater how strongly somebody feels about this law`s importance or wish it to be Basic Law, Supreme Court cannot disqualify laws that contradict it, on the contrary it can disqualify Law of Return if it contradicts some Basic law. Also Law of Return(1950) and Israeli Lands(1960) do not give Israeli Jews any rights or privileges that Non Jewish Israelis do not have. It is also a fact,the laws are not secret and can be read by anybody. Law of Return does not even mentions citizen rights, and Land Law do not mention any nationalities, so Jewish Israelis cannot use the laws in court,to demand special rights.I have no doubt that you can provide a lot of respectable sources that accuse Israeli laws as being discriminatory,but none of them cannot give even one example of privilege that laws give to Israeli Jews over not Jewish Israelis. All those who claim Bantustanization policy, cannot give a single territory or public place, that non Jews cannot legally enter, or job they cannot legally hold,or any ethnic, religious or even territorial group that were disenfranchised. On the contrary, this kind of discrimination is illegal in Israel, by laws I can cite.
Study Occupation, Colonialism, and Apartheid, was not made by HSRC,only published by it, and it is made clear it the report, as well as on HSRC web site, that Middle East Project group, that conducted the report is independent, as its views, and do not represent official position of HSRC. Virginia Tilley, Its chief editor, and primary contributor,called for Jihad, armed struggle and boycott against Israel,as well as Israel termination as a state well back in 2006.Also,it is easy to see that at least 2 of 8 principal contributors of the report, are not scholars, but members of Adalah, human rights, as well as political organization, that accused Israel of Apartheid, even before the research.2 other were members at Al-Haq, similar Palestinian organization, that also accused Israel of Apartheid before the research.3 other (Max du Plessis,Iain Scobbie and Victor Kattan) expressed their very anti-Israeli opinions or even comparison to Apartheid in their prior publications.That all eight of them.There where no chance of balanced report from the beginning, with its authors already stating their opinions before the study.
As for your original argument that, Arab states cannot be compared to Israel, because Palestinians are not citizens there,by pointing out that Palestinians declared their state, recognized by 64 other countries, and that they do not need citizenship from Israel, you contradict your own statement, that ICERD article 1.2 cannot apply to Israel. Also Palestinian right for a state and self determination is recognized by Israel,since 1948, by almost all governments,including current one. I also can provide plenty of sources for that.Igorb2008 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Their belief that this is propaganda,and has nothing to do with Palestinian human rights." Again, I would completely support something like this in the article as it would be informative and logical, but this is not what the article says. From the article, "Some opponents consider the analogy defamatory and reflecting a double standard". Vague, weasel words, not the makings for a good Wikipedia article. And simply calling it a double standard is a lot different than calling it propaganda, which I'm sure much of it is.

Tempered, logic isn't based upon some philosophical "truth", nor is it opinion. We have an article discussing whether or not A is C, and then somebody brings up the fact that B is C as if that invalidates the original premise. Simple logic states that B being C has nothing to do with whether or not A is C (and just in case somebody doesn't get it, A = Israel, B = Neighboring Arab States, and C = Apartheid). Now if we were to explain that B accusing A of being C is propaganda, and use the fact that B is C as evidence that B doesn't really care about A being C, that would make a lot more sense. --Calibas (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tempered on this. If "opponents of the analogy" are using this as a argument against the analogy, it doesn't matter if it's a crap argument, we should state that it's what they say, with appropriate context, per WP:NPOV. As I see it, there are two ways you can read this argument (and the argument has probably been used both ways, by different authors). One is that proponents of Israel's current practices are saying "other countries have similar practices, and people don't complain about that so much, so the practices can't be that bad". That's not logical, but if it's a significant point being made in this "Israel apartheid" discourse then we have to mention it, per WP:NPOV. Alternatively, it could be that proponents of Israel's current practices are saying "our practices may not be perfect, but that's not the real reason they're getting so much attention. If it was, these other countries would get similar attention for their dodgy practices. We are being singled out for other reasons, not because our practices are especially bad" which is actually quite logical, and I suspect what most authors mean by the argument. I also suspect that the authors making this argument believe that those "other reasons" include antisemitism. The alternative explanation is that the West considers Israel to be part of it, and invests massive funding into it, and therefore holds it to higher standards than some middle eastern/asian/african countries that may have practices that are just as bad, or worse. Although it has to be born in mind that the West does give a lot of attention to human rights in those other places too. This whole thing is actually quite an interesting aspect of background to the "Israel apartheid" discourse, addressing the question of why proponents of the Israeli apartheid label are using it, and why opponents are opposing it. The proponents of the label would presumably say they're using it to fight for human rights in "Greater Palestine", and some opponents of the label argue that it's used for other political/racial/religious reasons. I don't see why discussion of the motivations behind the discourse shouldn't have a place in this article. If there are suitable reliable sources for a section about that, it could be illuminating. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ryan Paddy, you are right and the views in question therefore naturally and properly belong in the already existing sub-section "Differences in Motivations" under "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy." That is where they must be allowed full expression, according to Wikipedia principles of NPOV, whether or not specific editors like that or agree with them. And thus the "lede" sentence, summarizing those views at the head of the main article, is also justified by those cited authorities and sources below in the main article, as well as by the sources cited for that sentence and the further sources I have listed.
In particular, the second alternative you outline and agree is quite logical is in fact very much part of the explicit argument of the critics of the apartheid analogy already cited in the main article and also in my proposed edit. Another key point made by them which in fact relates to the first alternative which you decry as not logical, and a legitimate and in fact quite logical rebuttal to Dailycare (re: his remarks on Hadar), Calibas and Harlan, is that the apartheid advocates intentionally ignore qualitative differences and slur all distinctions illegitimately when applying the label. "Not every distinction between people, in all circumstances, is necessarily an improper discrimination, and not every improper discrimination is Apartheid," as the President of the Israel Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch, stated pithily in a landmark ruling just last year. So she suggests there are at least three grades: proper discrimination (practiced for various entirely legitimate reasons), improper discrimination, and Apartheid. I suspect there are even further gradations in each category, in real life. All of this, in any case, is ignored by apartheid analogy advocates. (I take the translation by Adi Schwartz of her Hebrew judgment from http://www.adi-schwartz.com/justice-beinisch-apartheid/. The official English "synopsis" of the judgement, at http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/07/500/021/m19/07021500.m19.pdf, adds: "President Beinisch warned against referring to security measures adopted in order to protect persons travelling on the roads as segregation based on improper reasons of race and ethnicity, and she held that the comparison made by the petitioners between preventing the traffic of Palestinian inhabitants along road 443 and the crime of Apartheid was so extreme and radical that there was no basis for raising it at all.") The only way the apartheid analogy can be applied to Israel (and to Israel alone despite its discriminatory practices not amounting to apartheid at all and their like - and worse - elsewhere being ignored as mere "discrimination" and not "apartheid") is by stripping the terms of all specificity, generalizing it so that proper clarity and context is lost, and then the term can be applied almost to anything one likes. This is the phony "logic" of propaganda, obscenities and slander (and placards at often explicitly antisemitic rallies), not of law, decency, or sense.Tempered (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I take it back, we don't agree on this! :) We agree that arguments from reliable sources should be given coverage regardless of their quality, but we disagree over the quality of these specific arguments. As luck would have it, our opinions as editors about this don't matter, so we're on the same page in terms of editing the article. However, I'm not sure I agree that the "Differences in motivations" section is the right place for coverage of discussion of why the apartheid label is being applied to Israel. I think that discussion will suffer if described in a partisan manner under a "pro" or "con" title, and that if there are suitable reliable sources for it then it belongs in the "Use of the analogy" section. Which is currently missing, I note... but I'll raise that elsewhere. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether you agree with my (and President Beinisch's) logic at all points, Ryan Paddy, is, as you say, not germane to the discussion. (If logic really led to only one ineluctable and irrefutable conclusion, there would have been no further history of philosophy after Plato, but even now, 2,400 years later, philosophers have still not reached any fixed views even on basics, and Plato himself, and the Socrates he channels, has had his own allegedly irresistable logic demolished by later critics.) But we do agree on the Wikipedia guidelines on editing; that is the important thing. However, may I add, it seems to me a bit paradoxical, shall I say, that you believe that a discussion of "the motivations behind the discourse" does not belong in the section explicitly entitled "Differences in Motivations," and it seems even more paradoxical to say that the discussion suffers if described in a partisan manner under a "pro" or "con" title. After all, the topic is precisely a dispute, so how else can it be described? NPOV requires fair presentation of both sides, but that there are sides must be granted first. Anyway, what you seem to be calling for is a complete rewrite of the main article, and I can only agree with you there. There is a good reason why, after years of edit-warring and rejection of NPOV of the sort we see on this Talk page, the article remains in the "Start" class.Tempered (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, part of this whole debate revolves around the fact that apartheid doesn't have a solid definition (which also makes it impossible to prove whether or not Israel really is an apartheid state). In it's broadest term, it's simply segregation, and I don't know a single nation in the world that doesn't do that. A little less broader definition, it's a governmental policy of segregation, and there's plenty of recent laws in the US and Europe that fit that description. All Dorit Beinisch does is give her own very-narrow definition of apartheid, which really doesn't prove anything. You mention you suspect there's other gradations, which is entirely correct but also completely subjective, just like the definition of apartheid.
I don't think we should remove the "Some opponents consider the analogy defamatory and reflecting a double standard when applied to Israel and not neighboring Arab countries", I just feel such an empty statement should be moved from the introduction or put into proper context. If calling Israel apartheid is just propaganda from hostile neighbors, then that should be mentioned along with that sentence, that would make sense. As to logic changing, there's never been a point in history (that I know of) when simply stating that B is C has anything to do with whether or not A is C. Usually that's used to distract from the matter at hand and is the sign of a very weak argument. --Calibas (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Differences in motivations" section refers to supposed differences in the motivations behind the policies of segregation employed by the Israel as compared to apartheid South Africa (in brief "we're not racist, we're just security-conscious"). This is entirely different to a discussion of the motivations of people who describe Israeli segregation as apartheid (i.e. "they're not really promoting human rights, they're just antisemitic"). They both have the word "motivation" in them, but they're separate subjects. My point about not discussing the motivation for the label under "pro" or "con" titles is that such splitting won't suit this specific subject matter well, as it won't allow for the kind of point-counterpoint presentation that I think would express it best. But anyhow, before such a discussion can be put anywhere appropriate sources for it would need to be identified, and the protection removed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tempered, part of this whole debate revolves around the fact that apartheid doesn't have a solid definition." Hmm? From my understanding apartheid is very real and defined policy. Institutionalized in Australia, Kenya, and South Africa - designed by the British Empire. So analogies to apartheid are principally based on the South African apartheid. Tempered argued before that many proponents of the analogy have simply hijacked the literal definition of apartheid into a buzzword that describes any and all real or imagined inequalities in israel west bank/gaza strip. On another note, when the hell will this article be unlocked???? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I seriously doubt that removing edit protection will improve things. Quite the contrary. Have a look above at my comment on the need to impose permanent edit protection on this article, back at 02:17, 6 October 2010 in the section "Reverted Contribution continued". The reason for the heavily slanted article we have here is precisely the lack of proper edit protection and procedures for managing the formation of text over the years. It should be necessary for would-be contributors to arrive at a proper Wikipedia consensus in conformity with Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV, etc., here on the Talk page, with this being monitored and subject to the regular mediation and arbitration procedures in case of deadlock, before reverting or adding any material whatsoever to the main article. Once there, it would then be safe from the constant irresponsible and anonymous reverting characteristic of this article's history, reflecting various hateful, extremist and even Judeophobic agendas. I also notice that it is precisely the absence of edit protection and the requirement to meet proper NPOV guidelines that has led to the heavy majority of the over one-hundred articles currently listed under "General Sanctions" in Wikipedia relating to Israel, alone out of all the over 190 countries in the world, including this article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_general_sanctions). These articles should be treated differently from those relating to less contentious subjects, in my opinion, with better protections to preserve NPOV. So far, the open model has failed for this article.Tempered (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, the literal definition of apartheid is simply separateness or segregation, with the "official" English synonym being "separate development". That's rather vague and could describe a whole bunch of different nations. Segregation doesn't necessarily take race as a factor, so (in it's broadest definition) apartheid would include Israel's discrimination of Palestinians based upon "security concerns". --Calibas (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Gaming semantics. this article isn't about the "literal definition of apartheid" but the real, universally-accepted definition of apartheid. Social inequalities does not = apartheid. If that were the case every nation on this planet would be an "apartheid." Australia and the aboriginals, USA and African Americans and Native Americans, Europe and Muslim immigrants, the Muslim world and non-Muslim/muslim minority citizens..etc..etc. I don't know much about Israel's segregation policy but it seems the majority of critics try to argue the apartheid analogy from a racial perspective. That narrative has been soundly defeated when considering the facts so now we have ambiguous references to segregation like it's supposed to mean something akin to apartheid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, Article 1 of the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" provides the legal definition of the term "racial discrimination", i.e. "In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[17] Article 3 condemns and prohibits racial discrimination in the forms of racial segregation and apartheid.
The legal definition of the "crime of apartheid" consists, in part, of a list of specific "policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination". [18] Article 1 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid says "The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and constituting a serious threat to international peace and security." Any of the constituent acts listed in Article II is, by definition, an instance of the crime of apartheid. harlan (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Still blogging, Harlan? You are way off topic. But anyway, even if the definition you offer is accepted, how do you slide from that to a blanket condemnation of all forms of discrimination as listed by Supreme Court President Beinisch, slurring categories and demonizing as "apartheid" all forms of discrimination whether proper or improper, or even merely alleged and falsely claimed, in the case of Israel alone among all the countries on earth? Your pretended legal precision here disappears when you attack Israel. Furthermore, since Israel openly and officially, legally and actually, extends full citizenship and associated equal rights to Israeli Arabs, and this is institutionalized in Israel (thus there is redress for discrimination if and when it occurs, as in all democracies) and Jews are not a race themselves but a multi-racial national-religious people, "racism" does not apply to Israel's policies either to Israeli Arabs or to Palestinians attacking Israel. — Tempered , — (continues after insertion below.)
If that was true, then discrimination against Jews would not be racism either. Which is absurd. RolandR (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it appears that blogging is acceptable here after all. I will go off topic too, for a moment: it is too tempting. I apologize for it in advance. A key point about racists, RolandR, is precisely that they eagerly indulge in absurd falsehoods, and are given to mythological ideas demonizing whole peoples. Antisemites, being the worst racists, are the most driven to demonizing myths and false libels. As, for example, the slander that the only Jewish state in the world and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, is actually the only apartheid state remaining in the world and alone amongst all other states should be delegitimized and demonized. The Jews include converts from all races, and Judaism is indisputably at the source of very many of the most treasured values and teachings that are in Western and Middle Eastern civilizations, including Christianity and Islam themselves (thus explaining most of the animosity towards the Jews: how dare they persist in their distinctive loyalties and independence, undermining our claims merely by their existence, for are we not the fulfillment of their own tradition?). Nazism, at war with those traditions, values and teachings, "logically" insisted the Jews were a race who were the source of all evil, and murdered six million Jews on that mythological basis. The Nazis were certainly antisemitic racists. Interestingly, Hitler himself, eventually realizing that the Jews were in fact not a race after all (even including Aryan converts down through the ages), shifted his accusation to the idea that they were the archetypal "mongrel" people who by existing threatened the purity of the Aryans. Thus he was able to continue his mythic "antisemitism," while in fact becoming extremely friendly and supportive to Arab "Semites," including the leader of the Palestinian terrorist faction in that generation, Haj Amin el-Hussaini. el-Hussaini spent WWII in Germany, broadcasting radio "fatwas" to the Middle East requiring all Muslims to fight with the Nazis, even forming some Muslim Arab SS divisions of his own; he obtained a promise from Hitler that after the war el-Hussaini would be given the task of wiping out any remaining Jews in "Palestine." el-Hussaini was Arafat's uncle and mentor in the 50s, thus passing on his antisemitic racism to the PLO. Fatah cannot bring itself to admit that Israel, founded by the UN to be a Jewish state, is a Jewish state, and has historically devoted itself to the elimination of the Jewish state through whatever means, including intentionally indiscriminate terrorism and murder. Hamas also cites Nazi texts assuming that the Jews are a race and must all be murdered. Back to our topic: these are the people apartheid analogy advocates are advocating for. There seems to me a logical if not a moral fallacy there somewhere.Tempered (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, I pointed out the legal definition of the crime of apartheid to some of the other editors who said it had a vague definition. That is definitely not "off-topic" or blogging since apartheid is the topic of this article. For example, the case of Palestinians living in a UNRWA refugee camp would not satisfy the necessary elements of the crime of apartheid, i.e. the conduct isn't being committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over members of another racial group or groups. See Crime against humanity of apartheid, element 4 on page 11 (17 of 50) [19] The banner at the top of the page indicates that blogging is not alright here. Your off-topic comments can be collapsed or removed. harlan (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me see if I've got this right. Jews are not a race, so discrimination by "the Jewish state" in favour of Jews is not racism. However, since racists are illogical, discrimination against Jews is racism, even though Jews are not a race. I'm sure there is some sense there that my limited intelligence has failed to grasp; please spell this out for me in terms that even I can understand. RolandR (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Antisemites justify themselves by malicious lies, RolandR. So their claims cannot be equated to statements of truth by Jews, as you are doing. Nevertheless, antisemites act on these falsehoods, so their actions and rationalizations can indeed be called "racism." What other term is applicable? E.g., Nazi antisemitic persecution of "the Jewish race" was certainly racism in its own terms. That does not make it true that their victims were actually a race. Nazi charges were false through and through. I hope that that is simple enough for you. Israel was specifically created in the Jewish homeland to be a refuge for Jews of any and all races against such malice, and to enable Jews to defend themselves against such attacks, while continuing the development of Jewish tradition and culture on its own terms. Otherwise, Israeli law does not discriminate against any people or religion, so your premise is false.Tempered (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I understand at last. Jews tell the truth, and are not a race, so if they are compelled to discriminate against non-Jews, this is not racism. But antisemites are malicious racist liars, so discrimination by them against Jews is racism even though Jews are not a race. Thank you Tempered for making this clear to even my inferior understanding. RolandR (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No you do not understand, RolandR, but willfully put your words into my mouth. I did not say that Israel "is compelled to discriminate against non-Jews" -- I would deny that it does so discriminate (Palestinians by the way are at war with Israel, if you noticed - which is why there are peace talks - and do not according to Israel comprise Israeli Arabs nor all non-Jews). Neither did I say that racism is by definition impossible for Jews to practice against others - they are human like everyone else. I have finished with this exchange. Tempered (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, in this article we are going to concentrate on what published sources have said about Israel, not the rest of the world or other editors. Israel legally discriminates against its citizens based upon their nationality, not their citizenship. It does NOT legally or officially give the citizens it labels "Israeli Arabs" equal rights in either theory or actual practice. It is not too surprising that Supreme Court President Beinisch objected to the charge of apartheid in the highway 443 case. Israel's judges could be considered co-perpetrators under the joint criminal enterprise doctrine contained in Article 25 of the Rome Statute. After all, they are the government officials who gave final approval to the wall and administrative regime in the occupied territories after the ICJ advised they were illegal (H.C.J. 7957/04). Authors have called attention to the Court's complicity in the occupation and in creating the dual legal system. See for example "The Legacy of Justice Aharon Barak: A Critical Review", by Nimer Sultany, 48 Harv. Int'l L.J. Online 83 (2007) [20] and Apartheid at the Israeli High Court, By Uri Weiss [21]
In the 443 case, the Court left the system of road apartheid intact in the rest of the territories and allowed the IDF sufficient latitude to implement a solution that effectively sidestepped the ruling, e.g. [22] harlan (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You have implicitly refuted your own case. Finally, as Wikifan has stated numerous times, how do you even know that there has been a "crime of apartheid"? This has not been found to be the case in regard to Israel in any court of law, and there is no conviction of Israel in these terms anywhere. Your claim is wishful thinking, a.k.a. propaganda, such as enlivens much of the main article. Calibas shows this when he applies the term "apartheid" even to what he grants could be justified security measures by Israel (in other words, the idea is that it is a crime for Israel to defend itself). According to him, the segregation implied in men's and women's toilets would also be "apartheid," only in Israel I presume. Ryan Paddy implicitly also rebuts the entire main article, when he says that in his opinion "apartheid" is merely a subjective term that can be used so loosely that it applies to every state in the world. This clearly undermines any "logic" to the application to Israel alone. However, enough of this boring stuff. Is it possible to get back to the "lede" sentence, and discuss what specific sources if any might be added to its citations? Or is there a consensus just to leave it as is? The "two sources" mentioned by Dailycare and Harlan have still not been specified and named.Tempered (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not presenting "a case". I'm discussing what reliable published sources have said on the topic of Israel and the crime of apartheid. I specifically mentioned two articles that support the lede statement, but have not changed my mind about the subject of WP:COATRACK articles and "the apartheid analogy". Material about the neighboring states has nothing to do with whether or not Israel's policies and practices conform to the legal definition of apartheid or the South African "analogy" for that matter. There is a policy that explains what Wikipedia is not, e.g. "WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM".
FYI, the United Nations declared that the Axis regimes had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity and that the responsible individuals would be prosecuted. [23] The General Assembly declared that South Africa's policies and practices were a crime against humanity. There was no requirement in either case to obtain a verdict regarding the regimes from any Court. harlan (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, I'd rather you didn't mis-paraphrase me so outrageously, the way you've summarised me bears no resemblance to anything I've written. Possibly you're mistaking something Wikifan wrote for a contribution of mine. From what I can see in your replies, you haven't grasped the meaning of my original statement at all. I said that sources opposed to the Israel apartheid label may be making a logical point in questioning the motivations of those using the label, in terms of asking why they don't use it about other nations. However, whether that's a good argument depends on whether those other nations actually have practices resembling apartheid or running against the crime of apartheid, which I haven't commented on because it's not something I've looked for sources on. And in any case, it's only a logical argument for questioning the motivations of those using the label. It's a terribly illogical argument if you're trying to say "there's no apartheid here, nosiree", which was Harlan's original point. A source can have questionable motivations but still be entirely correct in their statements. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ryan Paddy, I do apologize. I think that in the quick to-and-fro of the exchanges I must have too hastily misread Calibas's comments, which immediately followed my response to you several posts back, as being from you too. That was certainly incorrect and my oversight surprises me too. It is Calibas who asserts the basic vagueness of the term "apartheid" concept. As for the logic issue, I think that that has already been dealt with: we will not agree on that, but that's OK. I am more interested in getting back to the issue of the specific sources that can be cited for the "lede" sentence. Perhaps Dailycare can be more specific?Tempered (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not apartheid, it's Jim Crow

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/safed-rabbis-urge-jews-to-refrain-from-renting-apartments-to-arabs-1.320118?localLinksEnabled=false Rabbis' letter says renting properties to Arabs would deflate value of homes as well as those in neighborhood.

Such persons are bad for property values? That's an American attitude. Can we rename the article to "Culture of racism in Israel" please? Hcobb (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This comment could be added to Racism in Israel. But there is no need to rename this article, which is about something beyond such casual racism. RolandR (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid Drive-by tagging

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. Tagging or removing sentences due to missing citations, when the facts are verifiable and cited lower in the same article, is simply laziness. Please make at least minimal effort to correct the issue before adding tags. Marokwitz (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

The article contains long lists of supporters and opponents of the use of this analogy. However, although there are citations for all of the supporters, most of the opponents are simply listed with no evidence. Last week, the list of opponents was duplicated in the article. I removed the duplication, and deleted the unsourced claims. (I also deleted one unsourced alleged supporter). This was reverted by Wikifan12345, so I added "citation needed" tags to the unsourced alleged opponents of the analogy. This request has twice been reverted by Wikifan, without any attempt to supply the information or to verify these claims. I consider this removal to be disruptive, and I request that Wikifan (and others) devote time to providing the requested verification, rather than to edit-warring. If no evidence is provided that these individuals iindeed oppose the allegation, would it be appropriate to remove the names? RolandR (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Roland, you spammed the section with unnecessary tags. A simple template or section header would have sufficed. I've added numerous cites to the section, after all - I'm the editor who created the "support for Israeli apartheid analogy." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Since this editor has oince again removed my request for citations, I am taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard.RolandR (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? What sources are you petitioning? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Subtitles of the "Support for Israeli apartheid analogy" section

Okay, on another note - I think it should be pointed out that there is serious structural issues with the article. I brought this up in a previous discussion but it has been mostly trampled on over the latest fighting between Harlan and Tempered. Everything from this this section to here needs to be formatted better soon. Enumerating even remote criticism or allusions to the Israel-apartheid analogy by assigning unique sections relating to a critics genetics, racial, citizenship, political party, pressure groups, etc...is obnoxiously undue. I don't know how editors got a way with it but this is truly a miracle how it has remained in the article unchallenged. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you think this approach to the structure of the "Support" section is inappropriate? The "Support" section can't just be one long section without any sub-titles or it would be unreadable. Breaking it down by broad categories of who supported the analogy, or why, seems like a reasonably approach to me, as readers may wonder "have any Israelis/South Africans/politicians/etc supported it?", and the existing structure makes the answer easy to find. Can you explain why you think it's not and suggest an alternative structure? Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Breaking even remote support for the apartheid analogy according to identity defines undue. Special sections for Jimmy Carter, South Africans, Israelis, Activists, no other article on wikipedia is crafted this way and for good reason. Another problem is within support for the apartheid we have scattered rebuttal that get buried. It seems most of the article is made up of people who say Israel is or isn't an apartheid. We might as well move the article to "People who think Israel is an apartheid." And not to mention much of the information is almost word-for-word copy and paste from sources. Look at this:
Adams and Moodley. Who cares? Since when do these two academics deserve their own section? A huge section, almost entire pages from the book copied into the article. The article should be about why Israel is an apartheid, direct comparisons. Commentary is important but it cannot suck up the whole page. Support and criticism should be merged into one unique section. Separating the negatives and the positives and placing the negative first is dubious at best. I've created a draft of the section in my userspace if anyone wants to take a look. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "undue" here. On Wikipedia "undue" usually refers to undue weight, an aspect of the WP:NPOV policy. But that policy doesn't relate to whether it's appropriate to group sources by the country the source is from, which seems to be what your objection about grouping sources by "identity" is about (you seem to be implying that it's discriminatory to group the South African sources together, or something, which would have nothing to do with NPOV). You could argue that a specific source, say Adams and Moodley, is being given undue weight. Or that arguments in support of apartheid label are being given undue weight. If that's your argument, then the solution would be for editors to go over the text and discuss whether some sources are being given too much space for their relative prominence. But that doesn't really relate to the structure of this section, except that it might be decided that some sources might not be prominent enough to warrent having their own subtitles.
Your draft seems to break the "Support for Israeli apartheid analogy" section into the following sub-sections:
  • Israeli disengagement plan
  • Similarities with South African Apartheid
  • Desmund Tutu
  • Accusations of apartheid by academics
I'm not sure that these sub-sections make a very consistent group. The existing sub-sections at least have the consistency of all answering the question "who supported the analogy?", except for the first section. Your draft structure is less coherent, breaking it down by 1) relation to one specific Israeli action 2) comparison to South African apartheid 3) one specific person (and it's unclear why you think Desmond Tutu should have a section but Jimmy Carter shouldn't), and 4) a grouping of people that already exists in the current structure. I don't think a reader could follow the logical flow of the sub-sections you've suggested. Can you explain what the logic of this structure is intended to be? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Paddy, please find me another article on wikipedia that resembles half the navigation scheme as this one. Editors took the liberty of designing their own makeup for the article without considering policy. Dedicated sections to some individuals but not others is offensive. Why does Jimmy Carter deserve his own section? Why is there more space devoted to people who say Israel is an apartheid rather than literal comparisons between South Africa and Israel? Like I said before, a lot of the information is word-for-word copypasta. I think it would be impossible to simply gut information but we should start focusing on eliminating redundant or synthesized content. Take this for example: Adam and Mooley. This should be reduced by about 90%. This needs to go and be merged into a single South African section. This always needs to be massively reduced if not outright removed. The problem is the major section header says "support for israel apartheid analogy" but not all figures cited actually support apartheid. Some are responding to claims, some are hinting to apartheid, others are merely discussing the similarities between south africa and israel. And anyways, it shouldn't matter who is saying what. we might as well classify critics by their religious status, sexual orientation, or hair color. It is extremely difficult to sift through the article because editors have been piling on endless information that borders on Card stacking. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, policy is more important than precidence. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV, which says that perspectives should be described with due weight based on their prominence in reliable sources. If a given source, Jimmy Carter for example, has made highly prominent and widely discussed statements about Israel and apartheid, then according to NPOV that prominence should be reflected in the article with appropriate weight relative to other sources with different prominence. Exactly the same weighing up approach should be applied to perspectives that are present in reliable sources with varying degrees of prominence. So if you're suggesting that we should reassess the relative prominence of the various perspectives in reliable sources and change their weighting in the article accordingly, I agree. But you can't start that process by assuming you know what the result will be - the prominence of the perspectives presented by Adams and Moodley, for example, would have to be compared to the other sources - due weight is relative.

As for splitting up a section of the article based on nationality: this is a subject that revolves around nationality, nationhood, ethnicity, a political system that has its most prominent example in the particular nation of South Africa, and that is speculated to be present in Israeli practice, so the nationality of people making points is relevant. It's not a subject that's about sexual orientation, so that would be an irrelevant way to describe sources in the context of this subject.

If you can come up with an alternative way of dividing up the information that is systematic and has logical flow, I for one am all ears. For example, we could ditch both the For and Against sections, and merge the content into a single section called something like "Discussion of the analogy" with sub-sections based on the various perspectives that have been presented: that the analogy is correct, that the analogy is an understatement (it's literally apartheid, or worse than apartheid), that Israel is on a "path to apartheid" but isn't necessarly there yet, that the analogy has some relevance but isn't entirely accurate, that the analogy is entirely inaccurate, etc. Each of these could be further divided into arguments for those positions, using all the sources we already have. Something like that approach wouldn't have the national divisions that you object to (although I'm not convinced those are a problem), it would do a better job of displaying the various shades of grey that exist in perspectives on the subject, and it would be systematic and readable. I'm not sure that how easy it would be to massage the existing content into that structure, but good things take effort. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And what policy on wikipedia justifies blatant plagiarism (copying entire pages word-for-word) and dividing critics by lifestyle, ethnicity, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion...? Instead of trying to rationalize the current edit, which is 100% indefensible, why not try and remove the plagarism first as that is probably the most important issue, and move on to balancing the article. All POV should be represented but it seems editors have included every little critic and voice regardless of notability, while the critical section is less than a third as long as the support. There is nothing NPOV about any of this. We'd be better off splitting the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The Adam and Moodley section doesn't have any issues with plagiarism, because the perspectives described in the Adam and Moodley section are clearly attributed to them. Quoting sources word-for-word is normal and correct. I've already addressed your other points. You have made no response to my suggestion for a new structure. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Copying and pasting entire passages from books is not okay Ryan, you should know this by now. And the section is bloated beyond belief, endless conjecture. Their ideas should be summarized, not given such a huge platform. Some of the sections could act as their own article. Obviously editors want the status to stay the same for whatever reasons, but it is more than clear it is not remotely consistent with wikipedia policy. I don't understand how editors are okay with this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit: Oh, and the Jimmy Carter section has whole paragraphs directly pasted from his novel. Way to go. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There's some merit in the idea in restructuring the pro and con sections into subsections based on the more varied and subtle positions adopted by various sources, instead of the existing structure. This would be better than the inaccurate black & white structure of stuffing everything into pro and con labels, and it would also happen to address some of your complaints by replacing the national breakdown of sources. What do you think? Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I care less about the pro and con sections than enumerating the identity of critics based on their nationality, ethnicity, notability, etc. After all, what gives us the right to declare an individual notable? A lot sections are just redundant, like this. If we can re-structure content in a more neutral manner, consistent with the "cricisim of apartheid analogy," then that will give us room to remove excessive commentary and/or plagiarism. But right now the section is so overwhelming. I know if I start removing content it will just end up turning into an edit-war. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Any bold edit to introduce a new subtitle structure should leave all of the existing content & citations intact. That way you won't get an edit war over the removal of content. If a new structure is acceptable to most editors it will stick. Once a new structure is in place, then consideration could be given to changing the weight given to various sources, based on an assessment of the reliability of the sources and the prominence of the perspectives they present. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So removing plagiarized content and excessive quotations is unacceptable? Then what's the point of editing? First and foremost the section headers need to be reduced, non-notable subjects need to go, and the 10 paragraph adam/mooley sect. should be cut down. We won't be eliminating any real perspectives.

Let's look at Jimmy carter. The section is huge, entire quotations pulled out of the book. I think this is a more fair and NPOV edit:

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States maintained in his bookPalestine Peace Not Apartheid that Israel's options included a "system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed ..."[3] Carter has also argued that the Israeli system is in some cases more onerous than that of the apartheid government of South Africa.[4][5][6] President Carter has frequently reiterated the point that his "use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel."[6]

Concise and to the point. We could easily cut down the commentary by 50% and this should allow to get rid of the ridiculous section headers. Any serious comparisons between Israel/SA should obviously be moved outside of the commentary area. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan's version of a better citation of Carter has great merit. Frankly, I also think Ryan Paddy's suggestion for how a reordering of the entire article might look also has great merit. Gradations and nuances are always more sane than mere black-and-white contrasts. In fact, though, it would have to be pointed out in the proposed re-write that very many of the most activist pro-apartheid-analogy advocates do employ strongly black-and-white, delegitimizing and demonizing langauge. Nuances are anathema to them, so they would be very likely to reject this suggestion of a more nuanced text heatedly. E.g., see the almost laughable responses in the section on Ehud Barak's alleged endorsement of the apartheid analogy, below. Tempered (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan - I'm all for conciseness, so long as info isn't lost. My point wasn't "don't edit it", it was that if you want to restructure it, restructure it, and if you want to edit it, edit it, but I'd recommend not doing both at once because it's less likely to stick. Making one change at a time allows editors to consider that change on its merits. I would note that the "Criticisms" section is just as heavy on quotes - look at the John Strawson one, it's huge, plus all those side-quotes. Arguably excessive quoting is happening all over, trimming some of it is reasonable so long as due weight is still given to significant perspectives. Tempered - assume good faith. If there was a "Israel may be heading for apartheid" section, both sides might agree that Barak's comments fit in there. When significant perspectives are grey, grey sections are needed for them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Ralph, the support for the apartheid analogy is more than 3 times as long as the criticism. Far from balanced. I don't think it would be improper to get rid of the plagiarism and non-notable sources. We shouldn't have to enumerate every person on the planet that has joined the apartheid-movement bandwagon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Critics of the analogy" paragraph doesn't address all points

The "Critics of the analogy" paragraph in the lead only discusses arguments against the use of the apartheid label to describe "Israel proper". It doesn't describe the arguments against the apartheid label being applied to the West Bank, Gaza, etc. There's no mention of the argument that the barrier, separate roads, etc are security measures, not separation devices, that those areas are "not part of Israel", and that their use is not motivated by racism. These arguments are described at length in the "Criticism of the apartheid analogy" section, so they should be summarised in the lead. The apartheid label is most especially applied to Israeli practice in regard to the West Bank, Gaza, etc, so it's bizarre that the rebuttal to such arguments is completely absent from the lead despite being covered in detail in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Marokwitz (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Namibia was located outside South Africa. John Dugard said the three main aspects of Apartheid were territorial separation (grand apartheid), racial discrimination (petty apartheid), and the security laws.[24] He testified to the Third Committee that Nelson Mandela had once been referred to as a terrorist by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.[25]
The barrier is called Geder Ha'hafrada - a separation fence [26]. Wikipedia used to have an article on Hafrada that explained "In Israel, the term is used to refer to the concept of separation, and to the general policy of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." The lead of this article used to mention the fact that the ICJ advised that the Wall and the associated administrative regime were illegal; and that Israel could not cite a state of necessity to preclude the wrongfulness of that situation. So, most of the rebuttal of the criticism has been removed too. harlan (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point: the lead must summarise the article. The first paragraph contains a summary of the arguments that Israeli practices in the West Bank & Gaza, including the barrier, resemble apartheid. However, the second paragraph contains no summary of the arguments that those practices do not resemble apartheid. Per both WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, it should. Your suggestion that it's appropriate to remove the entire summary of the "con" arguments just because some details of the "pro" arguments have been removed is nonsense. It's true that this article labours under childish, unreasonable, antagonistic tit-for-tat attitudes towards editing, but it's a sad day when rationales like that are given for editing that's contrary to policy and guidelines. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely true. I'm tagging the lead pending the resolution of this issue. Marokwitz (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixing the issue would be much better than tagging it. But when I looked at the sources making this con argument, I had trouble summarising them - they tend to make the argument more in an implied rather than explicit manner. How about you? Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ryan I did NOT suggest that it is alright to remove the summary of the con argument. I pointed out that the opposing POV had been removed too. Israel presented the security arguments to the World Court in an attempt to justify its construction of the separation fence and the implementation of the associated administrative regime. The written statements of Palestine and other interested parties described the creation of isolated walled enclaves, property demolition and leveling of agricultural land, the establishment of a closed zone, establishment of bypass roads, and a permit system that were compared to the conditions in the South African Bantustans and the Court's definition of apartheid in the Namibia case (a country located beyond the borders of South Africa). The Court said that Israel had contributed to the state of necessity and could not cite that as an excuse to preclude the wrongfulness of its actions. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says the lead is supposed to summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. That well-sourced material about the legal controversy regarding security/separation used to be included in this article and was formerly mentioned in the lead section. I didn't remove any of it. harlan (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is not about the pro argument. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Does someone have a proposal how to remedy this deficiency? There appears to be another logical fallacy-type of objection (security) since whether something is done "for security" has no bearing on whether it fulfills the definition of apartheid. (compare to a situation where a bank clerk embezzles money to improve her financial security. It's no less an embezzlement) --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
A slight problem with the supposition that the restriction of road-use by Israel to those living in or going to Israeli communities in the West Bank is "racist," is that Israeli Arabs can use those roads, too, although they are of identical race to the "Palestinians" and are kin to them. And the road is also equally open to all other races living in or visiting Israel. This eliminates the "racism" explanation, and makes the "security" criterion the only likely one, just as the Israeli government has said and as indeed the Israeli Supreme Court ruled.Tempered (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The solution is to summarise this aspect of the con arguments in the second paragraph of the lead. It will only need one sentence, with appropriate citation(s). It doesn't matter whether arguments pro or con are good arguments, it is not our job as editors to assess that. We simply state what all the prominent viewpoints are in the body per WP:NPOV, and summarise them in the lead per WP:LEAD. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've summarised some key con arguments regarding the occupied territories in the lead, based on my reading of the Criticism section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"by the United Nations"

It's a bit rich to say "the United Nations", when we're talking about 2 individuals. Neither spoke in an official capacity for "the United Nations". Anyone who knows anything about how the UN works would know this is a ridiculous thing to posit on its face: "The United Nations" would never make such a statement.

And yet I've been reverted twice in less than 3 hours?

Weird.

AzadZardost (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Soon the article will descend into epic-editing wars and admins will lock it indefinitely without blocking the offenders, as usual. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Reverted again. This time in 27 mins! How do I do one of those "Request for Arbitration" thingys? AzadZardost (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been reverted because you are incorrect. Special procedures' are UN mandates. They usually call on mandate holders to examine, monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, known as country mandates, or on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide, known as thematic mandates.[27] "Special Rapporteurs" are mandate holders who serve in an "individual capacity". That means they do not represent a UN member state and that they are not part of the UN delegation of their home country. Each mandate holder is considered an “expert on mission” within the meaning of the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, i.e. they are "United Nations human rights experts" conducting UN fact finding missions. [28] harlan (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know exactly what a Special Rapporteur is. All kinds of people work for and with the United Nations, and all kinds of controversial political statements have been made by such people. To use the definite article "THE United Nations", implies a lot more than that of one individual and one Special Rapporteur. "The United Nations" hardly ever "condemns" or even expresses "deep concern" directed at specific countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Rights_Council#Controversial_country-specific_rapporteurs) - and when it does so, it uses very mild and neutral language, and certainly never draws analogies with other issues. This is an issue to do with the integrity of The UN, as a whole. AzadZardost (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A response in 16mins! Interesting - this must be one of the most closely monitored articles on Wiki! How do I request for comment/arbitration? AzadZardost (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The Security Council and General Assembly have adopted a number of resolutions condemning or deploring actions taken by Israel. You obviously do not understand the terms "mandate" or "mandate holder". The General Assembly has endorsed the findings of the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza regarding collective punishment, persecution, the dual legal system based upon race or descendancy, the movement and access policy regime which discriminates against residents on the basis of race or national origin, & etc. The reports of several mandate holders, including Dugard and Ziegler, were included in the official dossier that the Secretary General submitted to the Court in the ICJ Wall case.[29] The Israeli Supreme Court said that the reports of the Secretary General, Dugard, and Zeigler were the basis of the ICJ's official findings of fact. See paragraphs 43, 44, 45, and 61 of HCJ 7957/04 [30] FYI, your personal opinions and an open wiki are not reliable sources. The article is quoting third-party verifiable official reports submitted by UN mandate holders to the responsible treaty bodies or UN organs. harlan (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's all well and good, but it doesn't address the problem at all, does it? Look, if you can find me a reliable source, that says "the United Nations endorses the apartheid analogy", then our problem will be solved. But you won't, because that's an absolutely ludicrous scenario. The UN Human Rights Council would never make such a statement. Individuals, yes, "the United Nations", no. AzadZardost (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you having "I didn't hear that" issues? What he said above says just that, and more than justifies the text in the article. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No Tarc, its not WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT issues, but WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH issues. Those ignoring the latter appear to be guilty of the former.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Original research" on whose part? Tarc (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) "I didn't hear that" issues much? The claim that the UN endorsed this analogy is based on the (false) extrapolation from primary documents. Original Research.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought for a moment that maybe you were being smart and opposing this WP:SPA's false claims, but alas. There's nothing being extrapolated from the primary source; they said X, we report that they said X. Simple. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
SPA? I see a whole bunch of them here at the talk page. But the usual ad hominem's aside, no, "they," as in the UN never made such an official statement. And that is why there is this inability to find any support for this statement in one secondary source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Brewcrewer in this case the United Nations is not "they". The UN organization has its own international personality, powers, and immunities which are distinct from the member states. Its subsidiary organs, such as the Human Rights Council and its appointed experts, have been granted the necessary power to make claims within their area of competence when performing their Charter functions. See for example UN GA resolution 60/251, 15 March 2006. FYI, that question was laid to rest by the ICJ when an “expert on mission”, Count Folke Bernadotte, was killed in the service of the United Nations. The Court explained that "States, representing the vast majority of the members of the international community, had the power, in conformity with international law, to bring into being an entity possessing objective international personality, and not merely personality recognized by them alone, together with capacity to bring international claims." See Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations [31]
What I'm seeing here is that "The United Nations" was killed in service of itself, since the "Expert on Mission," who is the United Nations in terms of statements they make, was killed. QED. Davidmanheim (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The experts appointed by the old UN Commission on Human Rights wrote reports that were included in the official UN dossier that accompanied the request for an advisory opinion. The ICJ based its conclusions regarding the legal consequences of the Wall on those reports. That has been reported in secondary sources, like Israeli HCJ 7957/04 and tertiary sources like the Cambridge University's International Law Reports. [32]
Yes it does answer your objection. Why don't you find a citation which says endorsements are required in the first place? The UN special rapporteurs are appointed by the UN to fulfill official UN mandates and UN missions. The resolutions that establish special procedures request fact finding reports on violations of international law, but do not mention any endorsements. The General Assembly endorsed the conclusions of the Gaza report in the course of implementing the recommendations that were contained in the report.
The WP:COATRACK topic of "the apartheid analogy" is poorly defined and unencyclopedic. See Template:NOT The article is discussing official reports rendered by UN mandate holders which said that elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law; and that reliable public reports had detailed a conscious Israeli government strategy of Bantustanization. e.g. see parargaphs 18 & 19 on page 9 [33] harlan (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of huffing and puffing - but no reliable source saying that "The United Nations" endorses/supports/uses the apartheid analogy. And yet it still stands. Why? AzadZardost (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see a whole bunch provided by harlan. But hey, to each his own, eh? Good luck. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The "United Nations" declares itself in Security Council resolutions, expresses non-binding opinion in General Assembly resolutions, and the General Assembly may even seek "official" status in international law for these declarations from its in-house kangaroo court, the International Court of Justice (justices are elected from states for eight year terms, and are therefore bound to the states' policies that placed them there and to which they return - their findings would not dare be contrary to the specific state that nominated them and continues them in office). The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference therefore has far more weight in the U.N. General Assembly than the one small Jewish state. The OIC decree runs through the UN, being joined in most things to the wishes of authoritarian, anti-American states and given lee-way by European democracies afraid of losing business ties and alienating their own Muslim populations. The misnamed Human Rights Council, which honors Sudan, Libya, Iran, Russia, China, et al., therefore reserves almost all its condemnation for Israel. So it is possible that in the future the "UN" - or at least the General Assembly - will declare Israel an apartheid state. That does not make the UN a moral arbiter, nor correct. Far from it. It just shows the political nature of all its statements. AzadZardost's point is valid. The sentiments of Special Rapporteurs reveal only their views, and cannot per se be taken as official "U.N." views as such. That needs endorsement by the wider institutions of the U.N., first the Human Rights Council to which the Special Rapporteurs report, then the General Assembly to which the HRC reports, ultimately by the Security Council, and on this matter, official endorsement by the ICJ, for what that is worth (and it has not happened). So there is definitely a hierarchy of "official authoritative declarations." Special Rapporteurs are way down the authority chain, and do not speak for the U.N..Tempered (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The UN also publishes reports regarding violations of international law through its special procedures. It is fairly obvious that you could not cite a published UN source which says that reports submitted by expert mandate holders regarding violations of international law require an endorsement. harlan (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Harlan, they do not require an endorsement, and may not get one. They are just reports, and are merely taken on board by the HRC, but have no binding authority in themselves in terms of ideological judgments, and can even be contested in regard to factual statements. Everything else I stated above is true, as you know.Tempered (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a cite which says that the concluding observations regarding treaty compliance made by UN treaty body experts and panels, such as the CERD and CERD country rapporteurs, are non-binding? harlan (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
And yet it remains... let's see how long before I will be reverted this time.... AzadZardost (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that this is a sock of someone, probably Drork, as no new editor is going to arrive at this article and dive right in in such a belligerent manner. And of course it won't take long to revert at all, since you are fundamentally wrong about this subject. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
46mins. Not bad. Nice to see you guys are taking it in turns though :-) (I am not a sock of anybody. I have edited anonymously on a wide range of issues, and will continue to do so now as a registered user - as you will see) AzadZardost (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
AzadZardost, I note that no one has responded to your request for information on how to deal with "edit warring" (constant "reversions," or deletion of editor contributions). For general information on Wikipedia policies dealing with "dispute resolution," click on this link, WP:DISPUTE. For problems relating to edit warring, also see Wikipedia:Administrators; noticeboard/Edit warring, often written in short as WP:AN3. You should know that according to Wikipedia rules, no one should make 3 reversions or restorations of reverted material within 24 hours. If they do, they can be blocked from contributing further for a time to the article. This of course gives a very unfair advantage in situations where one side is very small in numbers, for example just 14 million Jews, but 1.4 billion Muslims and a lot more militant leftists and even plenty of obsessive antisemites in addition. All it takes is that three different editors wipe out your edited text but if you restore it 3 times a day you risk exclusion from the page. Mob rules apply. Under these circumstances, and as presently set up, Wikipedia is no more a neutral authority than is the United Nations (cf. UNWatch website at:http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1277549/k.D7FE/UN_Watch__Monitoring_the_UN_Promoting_Human_Rights.htm). Since you are interested in the UN, and UN views are the topic of this subsection, I recommend this website to you. For example, and relevant to this subsection topic, there is a devastating legal analysis and demolition of the most recent "report" ordered by the UN HRC (on the Gaza Flotilla) and compliantly composed for its edification regarding Israel, as an illustration of the highly biased lawfare directed against Israel at the UN and elsewhere, seeking to criminalize every kind of self-defense by Israel, at http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&ct=8828277&notoc=1 Tempered (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be awaiting ARBCOM-mandated moderation. Wake me up if UNWatch ever delivers a "devastating legal analysis" inside a courtroom. The current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights served as a Judge in the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court. Another former ICC Justice headed-up the Gaza Flotilla probe in question. They both concluded that Israel's blockade is an illegal form of collective punishment and that Israel therefore has no right to enforce it. The General Assembly, the EU, and the ICRC also have concluded that the blockade constitutes collective punishment.
Unless you and AzadZardost come up with a citation to a reliable UN source which says that reports from special procedure mandate holders or treaty monitoring body experts and panels are unofficial, you are going to be reverted. It has nothing to do with mob rule, you've been provided published sources above which say that they are officials on mission for the UN with mandates to report on violations of human righs or international law. harlan (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be for the text to read "representatives of the United Nations", or something similar. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a constructive suggestion. But they are not so much representatives of the United Nations as employees. More specifically, they are "Special Rapporteurs," so how about "Two Special Rapporteurs in the United Nations say .."?Tempered (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues for AN/I or ARBCOM

Ryan unless Tempered and AzadZardost can cite published UN sources, there is no reason to compromise. So far, they are simply making-up arguments out of thin air and/or edit warring. The final decision in WP:ARBPIA contained a reminder that editors must utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions. The UN was established by a multilateral treaty. The functions and purposes of its subsidiary organs are not unofficial simply because a few editors wish that they were.
  • The UN fact sheet on special procedures explains that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights/Human Rights Council has mandated "experts" to study and report on particular human rights issues, and that "Although the mandate holders have different titles, such as special rapporteur, special representative or independent expert, each is considered as an “expert on mission” within the meaning of the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations." See page 3 [34]
  • United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 established the Human Rights Council and its mandates. It says that protection of human rights is a Charter responsibility of all member states. In the "Reparations" case,[35] the ICJ advised that all Members have a treaty obligation to give the United Nations "every assistance" in any action it takes in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter; and that the UN Organization enjoys the necessary legal capacity for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes in the territory of each of its Members in accordance with Aricle 104 of the Charter. Officials on UN missions have specifically called attention to the continuing "unlawful non-cooperation" of Israel with the work of mandate holders, e.g. See the summary on page 2 of A/64/328, 25 August 2009 [36]
  • Special procedure reports are a mandatory element of the Universal Periodic Review and annual General Assembly (Third Committee) reporting mechanisms. They are "United Nations Official Documents". See for example Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, "Documentation 15(b)" [37]; Journal of the United Nations No. 2010/202 Third Committee agenda, page 5 [38]; or the words "United Nations Official Document" in your web browser title bar: A/HRC/4/17 E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2
  • Ziegler and Dugard are not alone. Other UN working groups and experts have made similar observations or cited their reports. For example, the "high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun" headed-up by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, cited the description of conditions contained in John Dugard's 2007 "apartheid" report, A/HRC/4/17. See paragraphs 11 and 17 of A/HRC/9/26 The reports of the current rapporteur, Prof. Falk continue to state that elements of the occupation constitute apartheid. See the summary on page 2 A/65/331 Those blue things are UN cites, where are the ones supplied by Tempered and AzadZardost? Removing well-sourced material and complaining about the number of minutes it takes editors to restore it is disruptive point-making. harlan (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why a statement from some part of the UN can't be attributed more specifically to the part of the UN that made the statement. If the Security Council or the General Assembly had made a statement, would we be arguing against attributing it to those specific bodies? That would be silly, and so is this. Stating the source a little more specifically makes it less ambiguous to readers, which is a good thing so long as the specific attribution isn't overly detailed or technical. Something like "United Nations investigators" would be an appropriate attribution that would cover all the special rapporteurs, fact-finding missions, etc. who have made the statement in question. As for any edit warring that's going, it's not relevant to the question of what a good text would be. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not objecting to specificity. I was objecting to the bald assertion of an unsourced personal opinion that UN mandate holders who are "Experts on mission for the United Nations" within the scope of the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, are writing unofficial reports and the complete removal of any mention of the UN. That is nonsense that goes over like a lead balloon. harlan (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Great, so the "United Nations investigators" attribution should be acceptably specific then. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
AzadZardost is obviously trolling. I've supplied links to Falk, Ziegler, Dugard, and other high level fact finding missions above. That account is still edit warring over "one SR". harlan (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
AzadZardost was not trolling; he was obviously correct, even if his familiarity with Wikipedia procedures was deficient and a more friendly and supportive help to him would have been in order. The block imposed on him contributing any further to Wikipedia was manifestly excessive, and should be cancelled: he should be given another chance, along with advice on how to deal with questionable material in articles. To the other and chief point raised by Harlan: Christian Tomuschat, appointed by the UN HRC to implement the findings of the Goldstone Report, has made several statements in past years prejudging Israel as guilty of "total" warfare comparable to Nazi war methods and attitudes, using language officially definable as "antisemitism" according to the European Union. The UN HRC has come under strong criticism for appointing him to head up the Tomuschat Committee. "In a statement, Claire Kaplun, spokeswoman for the Human Rights Council in Geneva, said: “The President of the Council has always remained firm on the principle of freedom of expression. He has also made it clear on various occasions that all stakeholders are expected to engage with each other in an appropriate, respectful and constructive manner on human rights issues.” Kaplun added that “such statements are made under the sole responsibility of their author and do in no way mean that the Human Rights Council or the Office of the High Commissioner for human rights endorse or condone their content in any way whatsoever.” ... " This sufficiently refutes Harlan. Statements made by Special Rapporteurs, heads of commissions, and other "stakeholders" do not necessarily represent the official views of the HRC or the UN in general, unless officially endorsed as such by the relevant bodies. (It may be added that even official statements of the HRC do not necessarily represent the views of the wider UN, e.g., the Security Council or even the General Assembly. There, too, official endorsement and acceptance is necessary by those bodies. But that is a wider question. See, in general, regarding the procedural status and often the extreme bias of HRC-appointed Special Rapporteurs and other such figures, the analysis by UN Watch at: http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1344115/k.B46/Independent_Experts.htm) On Tomaschut, see the article that came out just today, "UN Watch urges Christian Tomuschat to resign," on the UN Watch website www.unwatch.org, reproducing "Dershowitz: Goldstone follow-up commission head a 'bigot'" Jerusalem Post, Nov. 2, 2010 http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?/id=193618 Tempered (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Crime of apartheid

This edit is worthless. We have no right as editors to provide understanding or background history to introduce "key concepts." If these key concepts are explicitly listed in relation to Israel policy vis-vis Palestinians/Arabs, then we should include them but right now it is merely fluff designed to legitimize an illegitimate philosophy.

The section header itself is suspect as Israel has not been convicted of committing the crime of apartheid in any international court or binding UN-body. So instead of trying to expand bloated sections, why don't we keep are efforts in cutting down the commentary which currently takes up the majority of the article?! We might as well split to unique page, or move it to "People who talk about Israel and apartheid." Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As editors, it's our job to write an article that readers can understand. If we suddenly start throwing around references to UN laws that haven't been introduced to the reader, most readers will have no idea what we're talking about. That's why writers like Ronald Bruce St John describe the crime of apartheid before going on to discuss whether Israel is committing it. We're just doing the same - and citing him in the process as it happens. We can't expect readers to go off and read every article we link to, we have to give them a minimum of context so that the article makes sense on its own. I've trimmed the introduction down a lot, as I agree that defining the laws shouldn't be a big part of this article. But we do need a summary of them, to provide the reader with the necessary background of who made the laws, when, and what they say apartheid is. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, why don't you try reading the citations provided in that subsection you keep deleting? Apartheid was defined as a prohibited form of racial discrimination by Article 3 of the ICERD in 1965. John Dugard cited the definition of racial discrimination from the ICERD and the definition of the crime of apartheid from the 1973 Convention which criminalized practices of racial segregation and discrimination in his 2007 report to the General Assembly. See "VII. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND APARTHEID" in A/HRC/4/17, 29 January 2007. That is an official report from a UN mandate holder that does contain observations about Israel and the crime of apartheid.
I think that the legal opinions of political commentators, like Ronald Bruce St. John/Counterpunch, are out-weighed by the views of the mandate holders and the legal experts serving on the CERD. The 1965 ICERD convention has always defined "racial discrimination" in terms that are broad enough to permit its application to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, i.e. “any distinction, exclusion, restriction preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin". Years before the Rome Statute entered into effect, the CERD panel of experts said that the status of Jewish settlements was clearly inconsistent with the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies of racial segregation contained in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries; and that there was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. FYI, the CERD panel is a treaty monitoring body elected by the contracting state parties. Its concluding observations on treaty implementation are official. [39] CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 harlan (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for another lesson Harlan, but the edit has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. Briefing readers on the background of the "crime of apartheid" without serious concrete data to support such an inclusion (i.e, israel convicted of committing apartheid) is woefully undue. In other words, it isn't NPOV for us to edit in a beaming headline of "crime of apartheid" in an article that doesn't contain a shred of evidence demonstrating Israel has committed the crime like South Africa. The article is obnoxiously huge as it is and the last thing we need is more words. South Africa under apartheid barely describes the crime of apartheid, and simply sends users to the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, I am not interested in your unpublished legal opinions. John Dugard's report is cited in the appropriate subsection here and it provides all of the information that you are complaining about. So, the material is clearly relevant to the human rights situation in the territories occupied by Israel, well-sourced, and third-party verifiable. BTW, you are one of the editors who re-directed readers to this article from the Crime of apartheid article using the "Main Article" template.
FYI, South Africa was never found guilty of "the crime of apartheid" by an international court. The UN itself is a treaty-chartered intergovernmental organization with its own powers, functions, and international personality. Its expert mandate holders have submitted reports on their fact-finding missions containing detailed prima facie evidence regarding violations of international law, including the crime of apartheid. To date, Israel has refused to offer any rebuttal evidence or to submit the required reports on the human rights conditions in the occupied territories. harlan (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Dugard is well represented in the article Harlan, the section paddy is advocating for has little to do with Dugard or Israel. If users want to know something about "crime of apartheid" then they can go to crime of apartheid but Israel has not been convicted of committing the crime and the israel-apartheid movement is fringe compared to the mainstream consensus. Am I the only one who has a problem with such a charged headline when the subject is simply describing an analogy? Even South African apartheid article provides less background on the crime of apartheid. The section was moved many times before when you tried to add the exact same data, almost word for word. So what is the deal? More tag-team editing? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The discourse regarding whether Israel is committing the crime of apartheid is a notable subject covered by numerous reliable sources, so it should be covered somewhere, and this article is the closest to having it in scope. The alternative is to dedicate an article to the subject. The title "Israel and the crime of apartheid" for this section is neutral. The intropductory paragraph I've added is needed to give sufficient context for the reader. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not neutral in the slightest. It is even factual. Israel has not been convicted of any crime in the UN or international courts. The nation has never been indicted. We have no right to provide context for the reader if it comprises the neutrality of the article. IMO, editors are trying to turn the analogy into a reality by overwhelming readers with unrelated and irrelevant legalism that has jack and aquat to do with Israel policy in regards to the Palestinians. Like I said before, the South African apartheid article doesn't even focus on the crime of the apartheid. So why are editors bent on shoving it here when the issue of apartheid has been rejected by the international community? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
In the discussion concerning the move it was recognized that this article has two types of content, analogy content and content relating more directly to Israel and apartheid. What's under discussion here is the latter type. The reason this content is here is that Israel has been connected to the crime of apartheid by weighty figures, which is what counts toward NPOV. --Dailycare (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole discussion about Israel or South Africa being found guilty in a court is a non-starter. The ICSPCA and Rome Statute both contain articles that required the establishment of a permanent international criminal court with complimentary jurisdiction to the national courts of the contracting member states. See Final Report on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court for the Implementation of the Apartheid Convention and Other Relevant International Instruments; Bassiouni, M. Cherif; Derby, Daniel H., 9 Hofstra L. Rev. 523 (1980-1981)[40] The scope of both treaties was strictly limited to individual criminal responsibility of natural persons. There has never been any requirement for contracting states to find another state or "legal persons" guilty of the crime of apartheid before issuing arrest warrants or prosecuting responsible government officials. FYI, none of the previous ad hoc international criminal tribunals, including the WWII tribunals, required a preliminary court finding regarding state responsibility for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The UN experts always envisioned the crime of apartheid as having universal application, i.e. "Although southern Africa is the chief concern of the Convention and of the Working Group, the discussion of implementation is general. This is not out of a spirit of neutrality; on the contrary, it is-out of concern that apartheid be recognised and dealt with for 'what it is, regardless of where it occurs. Accordingly, general discussion ensures that implementation measures would be suitable for application in every context. That the official government policy labelled "apartheid" is not the sole concern of those combating the crime of the same name is readily apparent from, such works as the progress report of the Ad. Hoc Working Group of Experts (E/CN.4/1365) prepared in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 12 (XXXV) and Economic and Social Council decision 1979/34." See [41] page 3 paragraph 7. harlan (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More off-topic lectures Harlan? Am I supposed to be overwhelmed here? The edit Paddy is supporting has nothing to do with the apartheid analogy. Israel has never been convicted of practicing apartheid by any tribunal or international court. A charged section like "crime of apartheid" infers Israel has committed such a crime. The content says nothing about Israel and is merely fluff designed to bombard readers with irrelevant legalism. Like I said several times, and this has been ignored for obvious reasons, that the real South African apartheid article doesn't even touch on the crime of apartheid, so why this one? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Per NPOV, we must present all significant perspectives. The "Israel and the crime of apartheid" section details the significant perspective that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid. It's irrelevant whether Israel in fact resembles apartheid, or is in fact commiting the crime of apartheid. What matters for NPOV is that significant sources have said it is, and that we present those sources. As for the "South Africa under apartheid" article, it is up to the editors of that article whether to describe the perspective that SA was committing the crime of apartheid in that article. Perhaps they have decided not to do so because it would be redundant, given that the crime was defined as a response to the SA situation, so SA was clearly committing the crime. The decision of those editors on whether to include such content in that article has no bearing on this article, they are different articles with different needs. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan I've asked several times for an agreed-upon published definition of "the apartheid analogy". Unless you are prepared to provide one which says that "the crime of apartheid" has nothing to do with "the apartheid analogy", then I'd suggest you refrain from delivering unsourced soapbox lectures; deleting well-sourced material from this article; and wikilinking this article to the Crime of Apartheid article. harlan (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a perspective Paddy. Israel has not been convicted of the crime of apartheid. The content doesn't even mention Israel. Don't believe me?

In 1973 the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.[33] The ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them."[34] In 2002 the crime of apartheid was further defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as encompassing inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[35]

This is basically lifted from the original Crime of apartheid article. So instead of edit-warring in new content that was already rejected more than a month ago, why not seek a consensus first? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan what happened a month ago was that some of us decided to wait for the outcome of ARBCOM-mandated MEDCOM on this issue. However, if you decide to unilaterally delete well-sourced material about the crime of apartheid, then I'll be happy to open a request for clarification from ARBCOM about that particular issue. The content that you are complaining about is summarized in the UN reports from the rapporteurs which are cited in the same subsection. They of course do mention Israel in connection with apparent violations of the conventions. harlan (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Straight to ARBCOM Harlan? Is that your method to solve content disputes? If I had a dollar every time you threatened an editor with sanctions I'd have....10 dollars. Anyways, this article is not about crime of apartheid. The fact that it is well-sourced doesn't matter, it is basically copypasta from Crime of apartheid and says nothing about Israel. Do you see Israel anywhere in the paragraph? Is Israel even mentioned once? No? Wait....Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan I didn't threatening you with sanctions. I said that I would request clarification from ARBCOM on this particular issue. I've been discussing this article with you since June of 2009 [42] I already participated in the informal MEDCOM process that you elected to skip, and intend to participate in any formal MEDCOM case. So, your concerns about me going straight to ARBCOM are slightly misplaced.
I'll be happy to quote the background material from the 2007 report of the special rapporteur regarding Israel, the 1965 ICERD, and the ICSPCA. It is already cited in that subsection in any event and it is NOT reflected elsewhere in the article. harlan (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to keep up with how much you change the subject Wikifan. One minute it's just the first paragraph you're complaining about, then it's the whole "Israel and the crime of apartheid" section, then it's just the first paragraph again. My point about presenting a perspective was in response to your concerns about the section as a whole: the content of this section needs to be present in the article in order to comply with WP:NPOV, because the section as a whole describes the significant perspective that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. As for the introductory paragraph, I've already repeatedly explained why that is needed: to define unusual terms and concepts before using them. That's a basic principle of good writing. You removed the introductory text a month or two back. That was a poor edit, and I've only just gotten around to fixing it. However, in deference to your objections I've edited the paragraph to be as light as possible while still giving enough info to introduce the concepts discussed in the section. I'm not someone who reverts edits multiple times lightly - I know that I'm on the right side of good Wikipedia practice with this edit. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me clarify, the content dispute is over the first paragraph and the section title. Removing the first paragraph renders the rest of the section unnecessary, or at best could be merged into the "criticism by...whatever" area. I don't see a lot of sources to justify a unique section, especially with such a charged title. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's still unclear. Can we try to describe your overall concern so that we can address it? Is your overall objection that you don't think the discourse regarding "whether or not Israel is committing the crime of apartheid" warrants its own section in the article? In other words, do you think this discourse is being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article? Personally, again, I think large parts of the article (especially the pro and con sections) could benefit from being split into more specific "perspective" sections. In such a structure, this section could also be a "perspective" section - where the perspective described is that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, with whatever counter-arguments that are available in reliable sources also being described. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Stalling? I just copied and pasted the paragraph you lifted from crime of apartheid. I even put it in block quotes for emphasis. How much more clarity do you need? The paragraph has nothing to do with Israel and without it renders the section title irrelevant. Israel has not been convicted of practicing apartheid, so why the section header? I said numerous times the original apartheid in south africa article doesn't place half the emphasis on the "crime of apartheid" than this one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikilawyering? Falk and Dugard cite and quote the same text from the 1973 convention on the suppression of the crime of apartheid and the Rome Statute in the sources cited in that subsection of the article. Unlike you, they have both been published and report that the conventions are applicable to the human rights situation in the occupied territories and the Israeli administrative regime. harlan (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Falk and Dugard are represented proportionally, but the paragraph above has nothing to do with Israel. Israel has never been convicted of the "crime of apartheid." How many times must I say never? There isn't a lot of sources to back up allegations of crime of apartheid, let alone a charged section header. So why don't we axe the BS and make a re-direct to crime of apartheid. The article is about analogies between Israel and South African apartheid, it seems some users are more concerned about card stacking rather than quality comparisons. We have enough commentary already. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are simply wikilawyering. You yourself have repeatedly claimed that allegations of the crime of apartheid are examples of the "analogy". [43] [44] Falk and Dugard's views are that Israeli government officials are violating the provisions of the 1973 convention on "the crime of apartheid". Dugard and Falk hold official UN mandates to address violations of international law and make recommendations under the terms of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006. In the "Certain Expenses", "Namibia", and "Wall" cases the ICJ has ruled that the UN and its subsidiary organs are competent to make their own legal determinations within their areas of responsibility. How do you suppose apartheid became illegal in the first place? FYI the consensus of informal mediation was that the use of the term "the apartheid analogy" in the title is a violation of WP:NPOV policy. harlan (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not stalling, Wikifan. Your comments just don't make any sense, so I'm genuinely trying to figure out what you're on about. Specifically, the section is obviously about the point of view that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid (and the contrary opinion), regardless of whether the first paragraph is present. The title clearly describes the section. The first paragraph I've added helps define the concepts used in the section, that's all it's there for. So your complaints bear no relationship with the actual content. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"By the United Nations" section: my edit

I removed a paragraph which quotes Danny Rubinstein, because it is irrelevant to the section: Danny does not speak for UN, hence his words are not "by the United Nations". Yceren Loq (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've moved the content to "by Israelis". Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't think about something like that myself. Yceren Loq (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Political rights, voting and representation, judiciary

This section of the article is introduced by a narrative written in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia. None of the sources cited actually contain some of the information or support the claims of "guarantees" made in the text.

In "Apartheid Outside Africa", John Quigley writes that The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel does not carry the force of law. The Knesset website explains that the Supreme Court has stated, in a series of decisions that the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it. [45]

The CERD has expressed concern about the right to equality in Israel because neither the law of return, the citizenship law nor the basic law: human dignity and freedom, include a clause on the prohibition of discrimination or on the right to equality.[46] In fact, the text of the basic law says that it has no effect on ordinary laws that were in force before it was adopted. Human rights groups reported to the CERD that the Supreme Court, since 1948, has dismissed all cases which deal with equal rights for Arab citizens of the State and noted that the Israeli report had not cited a single discrimination case that had been accepted by the Supreme Court. They said that on the contrary the Supreme Court, in cases involving equal rights for Arab citizens, uniformly considers the differences between Jews and Arabs to be relevant factors in justifying privileges granted only to Israeli Jews. As a result, the Court consistently rules that discriminatory State policies are not invalid and discriminatory because they further legitimate distinctions.[47] The CERD concluded that "relying on jurisprudence of the Supreme Court according to which the principle of equality was [implied by the principles contained in the Declaration or] derived from the Basic Law on dignity was not sufficient."[48] harlan (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

45 and 46 are non-RS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy to attribute the opinions, would you be interested in doing the same for the unsourced editorial that is mentioned above?
Adalah is a UN-affiliate NGO that regularly reports to UN treaty monitoring bodies fact-finding missions, and rapporteurs, e.g. [49] [50] The Electronic Intifada article is merely a secondary source that calls attention to the CERD findings and observations. The analysis I'm employing is supplied by the UN panel of experts, the Knesset, and Quigley. Adalah's expert views will be included in any event, per WP:ARBPIA, because Adalah is a party to the conflict, i.e. Adalah practices human rights law in the Israeli Courts and participated in the HSRC/London University SOAS study on Occupation, Colonialism, and Apartheid. The link in question is a typical report containing their legal analysis that was submitted to one of the UN treaty monitoring bodies. Like it says "it is available in law school libraries in Israel and the United States", e.g. [51] harlan (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This seems like it could be a significant perspective. However, I don't think it will require you to change the wording of the first paragraph, because if it remains true that Declaration of Independence and the Basic Laws say what the first paragraph attributes to them then there is no conflict over those facts, only over what they mean in practice. Instead, you could introduce a new paragraph that presents the perspective that the Declaration etc. don't have the force of law, that the courts don't accept cases about discrimination in practice, etc. I suggest this paragraph should follow the Sayyed paragraph (so that the first two paragraphs are con, and the second two are pro the apartheid label, rather than intermixing which may confuse the reader), and should clearly attribute the POV as the opinion of its sources. The first paragraph does not need to do so, as the points of fact in it aren't disputed by your sources - only what those facts amount to "on the ground". Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Ryan, I intend to add the opposing views. But, I was pointing out that none of the sources cited in the first paragraph actually say the Declaration or basic law provide a "guarantee" or that "the Israeli Supreme Court has consistently interpreted"...& etc. If those opinions are going to remain, they should be properly sourced and attributed. harlan (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I haven't read those sources so can't comment on whether they actually support the text, I was just taking it on good faith that they do. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ehud Barak

  • No. His exact words are: " If there is only one political entity in this area it will eventually be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If that bloc of millions of Palestinians vote, then there will be a bi-national state, and if they don’t vote, then there will be an apartheid state. " He didn't "Support the Israeli apartheid analogy". The source doesn't say so, and interpreting what he said as "support for the Israeli apartheid analogy" is false, unverifiable , original research, and potential libel. Editors thinking otherwise are advised to provide a reliable secondary source saying that "Barak supports the Israeli apartheid analogy". Marokwitz (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the support/criticize is that anyone who alludes to the concept of apartheid without totally rejecting it is considered a supporter by editors. The way individuals are stacked and lumped into the support section is a gross violation of general editing policy. The article itself is one big obscenity to wikipedia policy. Perhaps we should move the commentary to a unique article since it surpasses actual analogies between israel and apartheid aouth africa. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Daniel Levy, Barak "(perhaps unintentionally) suggested that the existing situation could already be described as apartheid." (source). The Guardian says: "His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago ". By the way, in what way is this issue "potentially libelous"? --Dailycare (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. I'm sure you are aware that an opinion post in the "progressive realist" blog by Daniel Levy is not considered a reliable source for anything but his own opinions, especially not when discussing BLP matters.
  2. The wording of Barak is quite clear, he did not endorse the analogy, only said that it may become true in the future if certain conditions are met.
  3. The guardian article only stated the obvious, that "Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime.'" . In no way is this an endorsement of the analogy as applicable to Israel's present policies and actions.
  4. This issue is potentially libelous since falsely categorizing a living person as "supporting the Israeli apartheid analogy" when in truth he does not, is defamatory. The BLP policy clealy states, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person ... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source "Marokwitz (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I still don't understand how this would be "defamatory", but we don't need to address that point in detail. Concerning the two sources, Levy is an expert in the field so his material is RS to the extent it involves the Middle East, regardless of where it's published or self-published (see WP:V, the text is referred to e.g. here, British newspaper blogs are WP:RS per WP:V#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs). Concerning the Guardian source, my citation from the text above is all that's needed to settle this issue, IMHO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) :::, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian piece, not a blog comment but a bylined piece intended to spark off blog debate, is absolutely fine as a source for what Ehud Barak said - it's a matter of public record anyway. If the Guardian had misquoted him then we can be sure people would have said so, and they would have issued a correction. The problem is the way this article is structured, so that comments are classified as "for" and "against". I think the Israel-Palestine question is a bit more complicated than that? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian piece is a perfect source, but it doesn't claim in any way that Ehud Barak is a supporter of the apartheid analogy, instead it says that he warned that Israel might turn into an apartheid state if the peace process fails. That is a warning of what may happen in the future, Barak clearly doesn't think that it applies to the present situation in Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree that these and all comments should be paraphrased accurately. My point was: where would they belong in the article given its current structure? I'm assuming that they do belong somewhere? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point. We need to think of a new division. Marokwitz (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Try, but I'm wondering how it is possible to write an encyclopedic article about a trope in policy discourse. I can't think of any other examples of articles committed to such tropes. If there were some, we could use them as a guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a perfectly correct observation, this is clearly a problematic topic matter for an encyclopedia article. Marokwitz (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a trope since the term apartheid is used in this context in its literal sense (the sense defined in the apartheid convention). --Dailycare (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The "apartheid analogy" material is ill defined unencyclopedic Wikipedia:Coatrack. The crime of apartheid material is a suitable subject for an article. The current subsection heading employs the word "Supporters". That is a recent (after-the-fact) modification. The subsection was originally titled "Use of the apartheid analogy" (although many of the sources there, including Barak, are either discussing the crime of apartheid or make no comparisons to Southern Africa at all). See for example the TOC of this previous version [52] harlan (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about this article being mostly ill defined unencyclopedic Wikipedia:Coatrack. The article, in it's present form, is a shame to Wikipedia. Regarding the original title of the section, that explains many things. I wouldn't recommend reintroducing that title, though, since it is also ill defined, what consists "use" of the analogy? And why would the reader care about dozens of people who "used" the analogy regardless of the context or the opinion they voiced? Marokwitz (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the coatrack issue Harlan is referring to relates to the naming of this article, since the name is still "analogy" then analogy stuff is in-scope. --Dailycare (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Israeli government officials have a long tradition of ignoring their own warnings about creating Bantustans or an apartheid state in the occupied territories.
Gershon Gorenberg wrotes that "The occupation was colonial, and would produce rebellion. Exploitation of Palestinian labor was racist. Settlement would be illegal. Palestinian autonomy would resemble a Bantustan, a creation of grand apartheid. Israel would become an international pariah. These were not the arguments of distant campus radicals enamored of their megaphones; they were the all-too-accurate premonitions of Israeli patriots." See "And the Land Was Troubled for 40 Years" [53]
He wrote that Yigal Allon said that originally, he had wanted to keep the unpopulated parts of the West Bank and give autonomy to the populated areas. But by 1968, he favored returning the populated parts to Jordanian rule. He realized, as he later explained, that a Palestinian enclave under Israeli rule "would be identified as ... some kind of South African Bantustan." Pinhas Sapir complained the "moral danger" of Israel's dependence on Palestinian labor, which was creating "a class that does the clean work and those who do the dirty work" -- akin "to negroes in the United States." Continuing to rule over Arabs without granting them equal rights, Sapir said, would put Israel in a class with "countries whose names I don't even want to say in the same breath." It is odd that Olmert and Barak are describing the prevailing conditions as if they are still off in the future. harlan (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Odd maybe, but what I found even more odd is that at the same time, some Wikipedia editors decided to prove the exact opposite of this odd fact, based on a writer in some blog, and a misinterpretation of some vague words in another article. Marokwitz (talk)
Marokwitz, see my post above timestamped 12:53. Levy has been cited in e.g. the Economist and the Guardian], so he's RS regardless of where he publishes. --Dailycare (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Marokwitz, Israeli government and JNF officials in charge of settlement policy have been publicly claiming that there is only one political entity between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, Eretz Yisrael, since at least 1977. Erik Sharon told the Jerusalem Post in a 9 September 1977 interview that foreign governments had asked him about settlements in the occupied territories, and that settlements across the hypothetical Green line were a domestic matter that was frankly none of their business. He said "The former Government did not recognize the right of all Jews to settle in all parts of Eretz Yisrael. This government does." At the time he was the Agriculture Minister who headed-up the joint Government-Jewish Agency Settlement Committee. He definitely did not recognize the right of all Palestinians to settle in all parts of Eretz Yisrael and repeatedly referred to them as "poachers".
He also described his plans to divide the Arabs of the occupied territories into small segments, divided from one another by "lines" or "wedges" of Jewish settlements. In testimony and in materials supplied for the record during US Senate hearings, Israel Shahak, President of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights described that as a racist and an apartheid policy. For example he pointed-out that the sole reason Sharon had given for "the insertion of a wedge of Israeli settlements" on "the western slopes of Samaria" was the presence of "a string of Arab villages", inside the area of the state of Israel, whose population numbered close to 100,000, and "another band of dense Arab settlements" which also numbered "close to 100,000 inhabitants" on the other side of the former green line". These Arabs (including thousands of Arab citizens of Israel) constituted a danger just because they were Arabs. In a similar interview in Ma'ariv on 1 September 1977 Sharon said the reason for establishing Jewish settlements in this area was "to prevent such Arab continuity". See page 6 (10 of 188); discussion about apartheid 92-3 (96-7 of 188); and the Jerusalem Post articles starting on pages 117 (121 of 188) and 121 (125 of 188). [54] harlan (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As usual, Harlan brings up a load of red herrings to put us off the scent. Ehud Barak is not Ariel Sharon, so that is a non-issue. The allegations about creating small cantons in the "occupied territores" are false. (Harlan's term for these territories, "occupied," are his, not Israel's, for Israel insists on the terminology "Disputed Territories": "Occupied Territories" assumes they belong to the Palestinians and prejudges the borders which according to UN Resolution 242 are yet to be negotiated between the two parties in a final peace treaty). The supposed support by Barak for small cantons is openly contradicted by Barak's well-known and publicly confirmed offers at Camp David in 2000, on which see Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace (cf. p. 844: "territorial and border issues") and Bill Clinton, My Life (pp. 914-6, 943-4). It may also be pointed out that if Barak actually did say that Israel was an apartheid state, 1, it would create a big uproar, would be repeated endlessly in newspaper articles around the world and would evoke extensive commentary both in Israel and outside it, while nothing of the sort has happened, 2. Barak would lose his leadership position in the Labor Party and indeed it would be another nail in the coffin of that Party, leading possibly 3. to the exclusion of the Labor Party from the Netanyahu coalition. Marokwitz's comments are therefore entirely correct. There is no reason to grace a single blogger's casual insinuations, extrapolations and suppositions about what Barak's comments "might" mean in the future with the official Wikipedia imprimatur; if taken seriously as evidence of Barak's current views, they are manifestly slanderous and untrue.Tempered (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The pro/con lists, more generally

I find the giants lists of "pro" and "against" the analogy a form of poor writing. The non-rhetorical comparisons with South Africa are often based different issues, although they share the same Jewish vs. non-Jewish theme, and so are many of the refutations. It would be much better for the readers if those two lists could be diffused in the various sections, with the actual arguments extracted from the sources. This is an article, not an election or "RfC". Tijfo098 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ideally the article shouldn't contain lists of people pro and con. However, deleting them outright may cause headaches. So yes, they need to be merged into appropriate sections and their actual argument brought to the surface. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Side note: I've spent some time reading the embittered history of this article, including the 2006 ArbCom case. I suspect it would be pointless for me to try to convince anyone to refocus this article, but the main discussion here is really about the nature of Israel as a nation state, and the attempts to maintain this status. The focus on the fairly rhetorical device "apartheid" is more distracting than helpful. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The discourse regarding whether Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is/resembles apartheid is notable, and that's the subject of this article. It doesn't really matter what we think of this discourse, only what's been said about it in reliable sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It is more notable than Hamas and the Taliban analogy (deleted and then moved to User:Marokwitz/Hamas and the Taliban analogy for now, but currently disputed at User talk:Spartaz), but WP:N doesn't necessarily imply a separate article for a topic when a proximate slightly more general title covers most of it. I am concerned about the quote mining in some parts of this article where "apartheid" is used in less applicable contexts, but I agree that coverage like the UN stuff and 53 DISTINGUISHED STANFORD FACULTY STATE PUBLICLY, "ISRAEL IS NOT AN APARTHEID STATE!" makes the overall topic certainly more notable. The article is a bit confusing because the status of Israeli citizens and the status of non-Israeli-citizen Palestinians in occupied territories are both called apartheid by different commentators. But perhaps there is enough overlap in the two issues to justify a single, albeit more confusing article. I'm still not sure about this, though. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
From the perspective of many sources using the apartheid label, it pertains to the situation both inside Israel and in the occupied territories, and the two are intertwined. So framing it in this overall context is just following the sources that are broadest in their application of the label. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Replace pro and con sections as a single "Perspectives" section

Hypothetically, if we restructured the "Support" and "Criticism" sections into a single section called something like "Perspectives on the analogy", with a subsection for each significant perspective on the analogy, what would those sub-sections be?

A perspective such as "Israel may be in danger of becoming an apartheid state in the future", which doesn't fit neatly into either the Support or Criticism section, could have its own subsection of this hypothetical the overall "Perspectives" section. What other subsections would be appropriate in such a structure? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just tried to go through the article and imagine how a structure like the one I suggested above could work. The more I read the article, the more I'm convinced that the existing structure isn't a great way of presenting a lot of the content. However, I've also realised it's a very hard ask to fit all the varied content we have into another structure. So with that said, here's an example of how the "perspectives" structure might look, but I'm very aware more work would be needed. 

1 Aspects of the analogy
    1.1 Marriage law as example of apartheid
    1.2 Political rights, voting and representation, judiciary
    1.4 Segregation of Arabs and Jews in Israel
    1.5 National identification cards
    1.6 Land and infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
    1.7 Travel and movement
    1.8 The West Bank barrier
    1.9 Education
    1.10 Israeli disengagement plan
2 Perspectives
    2.1 Whether Israel is committing the crime of apartheid
    2.2 Whether the situation in the occupied territories resembles apartheid
    2.3 Whether the situation in Israel resembles apartheid
    2.4 Whether Israel should be sanctioned or boycotted for apartheid
    2.5 Whether Israel is at risk of apartheid in the future
    2.6 Whether there are differences between Israeli and South African policies
    2.7 Whether there are differences between Israeli and South African motivations
    2.8 Whether the apartheid label is propaganda

I think this is better taken as the kind of subsections that could come under a Perspectives section - I'm not saying the particular subsection titles I've come up with are any good, they're just examples. For example, I put the "sanctions and boycotts" subsection in there because there are a number of sources about it, and I can't see another section to contain them, but someone might have a better idea. As I see it, each subsection could present sources both for and against each perspective, where they exist. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of published texts which refer to Israeli laws and military ordinances that discriminate against Palestinians or Israeli Arabs. "Apartheid against the Palestinian people" contained a list which was current at the time it was published in early August 2009. See the discussion starting on page 25 [55] I'd suggest we combine those and the others mentioned above into a section on Laws as examples of apartheid. harlan (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like it's directly relevant to what I'm suggesting here, so you might want to discuss it elsewhere. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I like your proposal in general terms, Ryan Paddy. Like I wrote above, both the analogy-makers and those refuting it are sometimes more nuanced that "support/oppose". For instance even THE APARTHEID ANALOGY IS FALSE AND BREEDS CONFLICT. ISRAEL IS NOT AN APARTHEID STATE does not say anything about the occupied territories or non-Israeli Palestinians. (See my comment in the section above about the two analogies.) Tijfo098 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the Aspects and Perspective division you propose. For instance, "Whether the situation in the occupied territories resembles apartheid" can include both pro and con commentary, but it's also closely related to "Land and infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" of the Aspects you propose. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, that division is blurry. The reason I proposed it in this fashion is that the "aspects" subsections already exist, and I wanted to focus on the perspectives aspect of the article and come back to the structure of the aspects later. An iterative approach to rebuilding the structure. But I'd be interested to hear alternative ideas. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
"Details of the analogy" might be a better term for the first section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Segregation of Arabs and Jews

is this a fact?

The section relies heavily on an editorial by one Amnon Be'eri-Sulitzeanu and then another secondary cite from the Economist which is simply a brief on inequalities in Lod.

Any section header that states there is segregation between Jews and Arabs in Israel needs serious, hard-core references to support such a narrative.

Of course none exist, but this doesn't stop editors from warring with users over obvious content violations.

No analogies to apartheid have been made and it is merely the interpretation by editors. Textbook SYNTH. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you been living under a rock? FM Lieberman recently claimed that it is possible to draw international borders around the ethnic enclaves inside the State of Israel so that the majority of Israel's Arab population would end-up in a separate State.[56] Ynet and Haaretz reported that another MK had said that Lieberman represents apartheid and ethnic cleansing.[57] [58] harlan (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What does this have to do with segregation Harlan? Arabs and Jews can live anywhere they want in Israel. The section relies exclusively on an editorial by some unknown activist with no parallels to South Africa. Not exactly powerful stuff. So I suggest we remove it for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan there is no requirement for a source to establish a parallel to South Africa, since the prohibited policies of aggravated racial discrimination and segregation called "apartheid" were never restricted to the exact policies and practices that were employed by the Union of South Africa. The list contained in the 1973 apartheid convention was intended to be illustrative and inclusive, rather than exhaustive or exclusive. See for example the methodology used to determine whether an instance of apartheid has developed outside southern Africa by the authors of the HSRC study (page 17 [59]) or "Apartheid Defined" on page 2 of Quigley's "Apartheid Outside South Africa". The UN Treaty Organization explains that the Rome statute describes apartheid as "general denomination" crime and cites "Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (A/51/10), p. 49.http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html
Your recent posts contain a doubtful claim that sources which specifically mention "apartheid" should be removed unless they establish a parallel to South Africa. For example you said above that "No analogies to apartheid have been made", even though the term "apartheid law" appeared in the source. I'd suggest that you comply with the existing ARBCOM sanction regarding the disputed article title and wait to submit that postulation to the mandatory MEDCOM and dispute resolution process. harlan (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's nice Harlan, but it has nothing to do with the section that relies exclusively on an editorial. I decided to read the article and *gasp* found numerous errors in your paraphrasing that failed to meet the source material. I also removed the econ cite because it had nothing to do with apartheid or race. The incidents are exclusive to specific areas of Israel - a few communal villages and the crime-ridden city of Lod. I suggest you stop threatening users with MEDOM and ARBCOM sanctions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan the existing ARBCOM "Negotiation" remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid requires you to participate in a mandatory MEDCOM over the dispute regarding this article's title. I'm not threatening you, I'm pointing out that you need to quit begging "the analogy" question, since there is no consensus supporting that POV. harlan (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the title. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You definitely did contest the consensus title and article move that were proposed by the informal mediation process. Per the ARBCOM remedy, failure of negotiations requires formal moderation. FYI, Dailycare created the new subsection and added the Amnon Be'eri-Sulitzeanu cite and material that you are incorrectly attributing to me. [60].
The Haaretz article reports that the legislation is designed to reverse the results of the very long-running Ka’adan v. The Israel Lands Administration case by adopting new legislated admission criteria for all housing applicants. The CERD monitored the Ka’adan case for years. The government of Israel characterized it as a constitutional, not a communal matter. See paragraph 24 [61] The concluding observations of the CERD cited the decision in the Ka’adan case and said that the adoption of new admission criteria remained an ICERD Article 3 (apartheid/segregation) concern. See paragraph 23 of CERD/C/ISR/CO/13, 14 June 2007.[62] harlan (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Off-topic Harlan. The section "segregation of Jews and Arabs" is predicated on a single haaretz editorial. The writer himself describes the laws as "apartheid" so we attribute the claims to him. If anything, this should be moved to the "support for apartheid analogy" area. The issue of segregation is more hypothetical here anyways - the court disputes, at least according to the cite, were over a few communal villages in Israel. The econ source shouldn't be linked to the haaretz ref because both are covering two different issues. The situation in Lod is unique to Lod and can't possible be used as an example of "segregation." The idea that there is segregation in Israel consistent with apartheid is beyond fringe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan you have not cited any reliable source which says that the ILA and Knesset rules of admission are only applicable to "a few communal villages". That is your personal interpretation. Article 3 of the ICERD prohibits "apartheid". It does not mention South Africa or the "analogy" (whatever that irrelevant term is supposed to mean). The Haaretz article and the CERD report are both discussing the Ka’adan case, and the use of racially motivated admission criteria to circumvent a Supreme Court decision. So, I'm not off-topic.
FYI we are talking about every Arab communal village and municipality and hundreds of Jewish communal villages. Even the Jewish Agency for Israel published articles during the case in which the head of the Katzir-Harish council maintained that that Jews and Arabs should live "separately" and that "a policy of separate but equal could work, although he acknowledged that until now it has not. In fact, he admits, since its creation, Israel has not established even one communal settlement for Arabs on state land, while hundreds of such settlements have been established for Jews. And he also acknowledges that funding of Arab municipalities is less than the allocations to Jewish municipalities." [63] Paragraph 22 of the CERD concluding observations also noted another Article 3 concern because "separate “sectors” are maintained for Jewish and Arab persons, in particular in the areas of housing and education, and that according to some information, such separation results in unequal treatment and funding." [64] harlan (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, do you deny the section relies exclusively on an editorial? Do you deny the claim the the econ citation says nothing about apartheid and has no relations to the content in the original haaretz editorial? The allegation of apartheid is made by one individual. The fact that public funding is less for minority citizens is not necessarily inspired by racism. The disparity between minority demographics in the USA and Europe are far, far more disproportionate than in Israel. In Lebanon, Egypt, and even Jordan public funding for Palestinian is laughable compared to the non-Palestinian Arab population. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I've cited some of the additional sources that I'm going to add to that section in response to your sourcing tag. You appear to be wikilayering (very poorly) and making a lot of unsourced soapbox-style arguments. The CERD report and JAFI article discuss racially segregated Jewish communities and the lengthy legal battles waged by state and para-state agencies (the ILA/JNF) in order to deny residency to Arabs. That situation applied to all of the 2.5 million dunams of the JNF-owned lands. According to Meron Benvenisti two million dunams of that land was confiscated from Arabs.[65] The Quigley article, "Apartheid Outside of Africa", 2 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 221 (1991-1992), page 225 explains that the state imposed martial law on its Arab citizens from 1948 until 1966 and prevented internally displaced Arabs from returning to their "abandoned" homes and properties.
The Haaretz article and the CERD report discuss the use of state-sanctioned rules of admission to create a legal framework to perpetuate that institutionalized racial segregation and circumvent the Supreme Court ruling. FYI those observations of the CERD panel of experts regarding treaty implementation are not considered to be editorials. See for example "Violations Identified by the Treaty Committees" in Israel on page 15 of Luciana Coconi, David Bondia, "Apartheid against the Palestinian people", Alcor, August 2009, [66] harlan (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, you deleted two of the three sources used in that section and then complained that the section relies on only one source, I don't quite follow your logic. Do you want many sources or just one source? The Economist article describes racial segregation (e.g. the title "Pulled Apart") and discrimination (building permits, municipal services) in Israel, taking the city of Lod as an example so it fits the section like a glove. --Dailycare (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The econ article does not described racial discrimination (e.g pulled apart is your own interpretation and SYNTH) and was falsely linked to the Haaretz editorial. Harlan is going on another one of his rants. The section is about segregation between Jews and Arabs. We all know Jews and Arabs are not segregated, Arabs can live anywhere they want in Israel. There is on-going dispute in the SC about whether or not communal villages can ban certain individuals from their community (arabs for example) but this isn't necessarily "segregation" in the apartheid sense. Only one individual described it as an "apartheid law." Whoopty doo. The econ site was mostly about crime, not racism. I explained this thoroughly in the rationale. Whoever wrote is falsely attributed words as well, "intermingled" is never used. And anyways, this article is about apartheid comparisons, not inferences of racism and such. That belongs in Racism in Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan as usual you are not citing any published source of analysis. Who says banning Arabs isn't necessarily segregation? I've supplied well-sourced material about the Ka’adan case and the issue of state-sanctioned rules of admission which shows that the Courts and government of Israel, the CERD, & etc said it involved a constitutionally prohibited form of institutionalized racial discrimination, segregation, and apartheid. FYI, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), Ron Kampeas, says that anyone who claims that Arabs can live wherever they choose is simply being dishonest. [67] The Peace Now article that Kampeas cited is available here: See "Netanyahu has defended the plan by saying that Palestinians have the same rights as Israelis to live anywhere in Jerusalem. Is this true?" [68] harlan (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the Economist article is a tad on the 'not providing all the facts' and UNDUE alarmist insteead of being balanced. It does not say anything about the value of the Arab homes rising due to the influx of Jews looking for cheaper homes in the central area near Tel Aviv. The article does not mention the counter-segregation in that Jews are coming to live with Arabs. Referring to 'the wall' like that makes it really seem as if the Arab areas really are walled off which they clearly aren't. The Arabs can learn in the 'Jewish' schools. The Arabs can shop in Jewish stores and Jews can shop in the Arab stores. --Shuki (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Reverted Contribution" continued

A revised version of the proposed contribution follows, which incorporates the corrections or suggestions that carry any weight in previous assessments (see above, "Reverted Contribution to 'Israel and the Apartheid Analogy'"). I have indented the footnotes, rather than putting them in formal footnote reference brackets as would be done in the main article, to keep the footnotes with the written text but to enable easier reading of the text as well. It should be understood that this format breaks up what would be four continuous paragraphs of text in the actual main article, when it appears there. The second paragraph begins "Leon Hadar, a specialist", the third paragraph begins "Hadar adds", and the fourth begins "Omar Barghouti".

Many other critics of the apartheid analogy have considered "delegitimization" to be the key intention behind the "apartheid" accusations, i.e., attempting to remove the moral and legal justification for a Jewish state and criminalizing Zionism, Jewish national self-determination as such, labelling it as "racist" in essence, as part of a campaign to replace the Jewish state with a Palestinian one.
E.g., see Mark Silverberg, "The Delegitimization of Israel," March 7, 2010, http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3381; Ben Cohen, "Boycotting Israel: The Ideological Foundations," September 2008, http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/boycotting-israel%253A-the-ideological-foundations.html (Cohen, like several other commentators, says that one source for this delegitimization campaign was the Soviet Union's campaign at the U.N., in outraged response to Israel's survival and triumph in the Six-Day War of 1967, to equate Zionism with both apartheid and racism, a theme taken up by far leftists in the West and also spread amongst authoritarian states in the Third World); Robbie Sabel, "The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False charge of Apartheid," at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2009 Global Law Forum, at: http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=110; David Matas, Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism (Toronto: The Dunburn Group, 2005), pp. 53-55; Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace (New York: John Wiley, 2009), pp. 20-25, 28-29, 36, 44-48; Brian Blondy, "Debunk of comparison between Israel, apartheid South Africa," Jerusalem Post, 07.19.10, at: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181845; Gerald M. Steinberg, "BDS -- the New Anti-Jewish Boycott: Isolation as a tactic of Political Warfare," at http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12449&pageid=16&pagename=Opinion; etc. The article "Debunking the Apartheid Comparison," at: http://www.gfantisemitism.org/aboutus/Pages/DebunkingtheApartheidAnalogy.aspx#why%20the%20apartheid%20analogy%20is%20false, states: "Accusing Israel of "racism" is a sloppy, a-historical attempt to make Israel a pariah state, and is simply the latest Arab attempt to demonize Israel ... Labeling Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity, is not."
Leon Hadar, a specialist on international relations and Middle Eastern affairs, has sought to document the development of the explicit decision of some Fatah authorities and other leading Palestinian spokespeople to use the "apartheid" analogy in this fashion, in order to create what Hadar calls a "Greater Palestine."
Leon Hadar, "Two Peoples, Two States," January 19, 2010 issue of The American Conservative, at: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jan/19/00012/; also see his "The One-State Non-Solution," May 6, 2010 issue of The Huffington Post, at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-t-hadar/the-one-state-non-solutio_b_566494.html However, Hadar comments in the first cited article that even if a single "bi-national" Greater Palestine state were created, the dominance in it of the Jews (assuming their survival) due to their already attained higher economic, scientific and educational achievements, would lead to further violent reprisals and anti-Jewish claims of racial "apartheid" exploitation of the Palestinians. So, according to Hadar, even a single Palestinian state would not end "apartheid" accusations.
He cites an article by Edward Said, a leading Palestinian advocate, published in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly early in 2001, after the failure of the Camp David peace talks. In it, Said said the "two-state" solution was dead, and "The Only Alternative" - the title of the article - was a single state.
Edward Said, "The Only Alternative," reproduced March 03, 2001 on MediaMonitors.net - http://www.mediamonitors.net/edward9.html
He urged Palestinian leadership to mount a "mass campaign" to depict the Jewish state in terms of the apartheid analogy, removing from it its moral justification and working towards its dissolution into a larger Palestinian state embracing the entire region west of the Jordan River. "Separation can't work in so tiny a land, any more than Apartheid did."
Hadar adds that Diane Buttu, the then legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party in the Palestinian Authority under Arafat, stated in an interview in October 2002, during the Second Intifada, that her office had "basically concluded that if the colonization continues at this pace, we are going to have to start questioning whether a two-state solution is even plausible." So her office had advised Palestinian leadership that they should reassess "whether it really should be pushing for a two-state solution or whether we should start pushing for equal citizenship and an anti-apartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa."
Interview with Diana Buttu conducted by BitterLemons.org, entitled "Security for freedom," http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl281002ed39.html
Omar Barghouti, Palestinian founder and coordinator of the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign, which constantly refers to Israeli "apartheid" as a chief rationale, remarked, "I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution," at a BDS symposium recorded on video and accessible on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnpilMYsR0I&feature=player_embedded
He had already expanded much more fully and explicitly on this theme in an interview published in December 2007 having the title: "No to the apartheid 2 state solution: Omar Barghouti: 'No State has the Right to Exist as a Racist State."
http://www.voltairenet.org/article153536.html
There, Barghouti also connects the BDS movement he leads with the "Right of Return" demand, according to which all Palestinians have a right to "return" and set up residence inside the State of Israel, which he makes clear would necessarily mean the end of the Jewish state and of Zionism. He strongly criticises Palestinian leaders who support a two-state solution as betraying the Palestinian cause.
Ibid. Also see Barghouti's opinion piece in The Guardian of August 12, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/besieging-israel-siege-palestinian-boycott. See criticisms of this delegitimisation motivation by Ricki Hollander, "BDS, Academic/Cultural Boycott of Israel, and Omar Barghouti," February 24, 2010, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=51&x_article=1803; Juda Engelmayer, "Palestinians Using Academics and Liberal Ideals to Promote an Extremist Agenda," at http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12443&pageid=&pagename, and Chris Dyszyski, "True Colours of the BDS Movement," 12 August 2010, at: http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-true-colours-of-the-bds-movement.
[New paragraph to be added:] However, some PLO leaders state that they have the same goal, just different tactics, for they have never recognized the legitimacy of Israel nor its right to exist.
Khaled Abu Toameh, "'Fatah has never recognized Israel,'" Jerusalem Post, July 22, 2009; Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, "Fatah Official: Our Goal has never been peace. Peace is a means: the goal is Palestine," http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1032; Dore Gold, et al., "Have the Palestinians Abandoned a Negotiated Settlement?" Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1 no. 2, 6 September 2001, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-2.htm.
The PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, has stated that the peace talks pursued by the Palestinian Authority also have delegitimization as their motivation and make use of the apartheid South African analogy to this end. According to an article in the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, of September 9, 2010: "The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state."
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3188</ref>

I believe that this clarifies and strengthens the proposed contribution and takes account of previous criticisms having any merit. It might be objected, however, that inclusion of Mr. Dyszyski's comment is not allowable on the grounds that it is personal opinion, and not authoritative. However, WP:RSI allows for use of personal opinions when they are identified as such, and here the citation of Dyszyski's comment is not as a chief or authoritative source, but merely as another personal assessment confirming the view of others - including (as indicated) Barghouti's own explicit statements about his own views.Tempered (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, let us know when you've finished editing this talkpage entry into its final form. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The entry is in its proposed final form, as presented.Tempered (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this looks much better now. A few comments: The first paragraph looks OK, though replacing "many other critics" with "some commentators" could be considered. In the sources there a smaller number would so since some of the look a bit shoddy (who is Ben Cohen and why is he an expert on the Middle East? The JCPA is an Israeli quango) In the second one, Hadar doesn't dispute that Israel practices apartheid and this should be made clear. Suggestion: remove the quotation marks from around apartheid in this paragraph, and add a mention that Hadar doesn't disagree with the analogy (he speaks of "Israeli repression" that will erode support for Israel). In the fourth one, you have a good interview of Barghouti to act as source so you don't need the slightly bizarre youtube video. --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As usual, and regrettably, Dailycare completely misrepresents things. He needs to be more of a "reliable source" himself. 1. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) is not an Israeli quango, i.e., a quasi-nongovernmental organization, one that is financed by the government yet acts independently of the government. It is "an independent, non-profit think-tank located in Jerusalem," as the Wikipedia article on it states, and as its own "About" description also states, cf. http://www.jcpa.org/about-jun04.htm. Articles appearing on the site are often by leading authorities and reflect a range of Israeli opinion, which need not agree with official government views. These articles are edited via peer review, and are widely cited elsewhere. It is a highly respected think-tank and research forum. Even if it were a quango, however, this does not disqualify articles appearing on its website from citation as sources of opinion. The objection might as easily apply to many websites freely cited in the main article, starting with the Electronic Intifada website. No one has reverted those citations. 2. Ben Cohen is a blog editor and commentator, who has contributed for years (and still does) to the www.z-word.com blog sponsored by the American Jewish Committee; he focuses on Israel-Palestinian issues. 3. Hadar certainly does not agree that Israel practices apartheid. Nowhere does he say that. He says in the cited articles that "the attempt to apply the apartheid analogy is so misplaced" because Israel and Jews generally are not comparable to the South African and White regime situation. He also says (at: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/25/showdown_at_the_settlements_corral_can_obama_remake_the_bush_baker_classic) that "the mostly liberal and secular Israelis ... recognize that continuing control of the West Bank would force the Israel [sic] to either provide the Palestinians with citizenship and turn Israel into a bi-national state or to deny them legal and political rights and be transformed into a Middle Eastern version of South Africa's Apartheid system." So Israel is not presently comparable to that system. However, he also says, in the first-cited article above, that if Israel were to be merged into a bi-national one-state Palestine, this would create an apartheid situation - again, one that does not presently exist but could come to pass. He has often pushed as an apparently third "post-Zionist" option, a wider "federation" of states in the region, as his preferred solution. In any case, none of this means he affirms that Israel presently practices apartheid. Non-legally-institutionalized discrimination or at least suspicions in Israel regarding Israeli Arabs who are after all closely linked to Palestinian populations at war with Israel does not constitute "apartheid" in Hadar's view, although he is critical of it. And the "repression" of Palestinian terrorism and freedom of movement may seem like apartheid to Dailycare but only reasonable self-defense to others. Hadar is not one of those who like to argue that any social deviation from a perfectionist equality constitutes full "apartheid" when it comes to Israel where civic equality for Israeli Arab citizens is enshrined in law, but is not really "apartheid" when it occurs anywhere else (one thinks of the far worse and actually institutionalized and official discrimination practiced within the Palestinian territories themselves regarding Jews, who as under the Nazis are to have no rights, but are to be killed or ethnically cleansed, or even regarding Christians). However, and in any case, Hadar's views are incorrectly characterized.Tempered (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You now have my comments to your proposed, rather long, edit. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Having dealt with the chief objections then, the contribution will appear as written. One more point occurs to me relating to the JCPA issue: BBC and al-Jazeera are formally constituted as quangos, and sources cited from them are accepted in Wikipedia articles. So there can be no objection to JCPA even if it was a quango. Cheers.Tempered (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit protected}} Since a consensus has now be reached, an "edit protected" request is now lodged for the above contribution. The proposed contribution, as per the four paragraphs given just above at the start of this thread, should replace the truncated version in the protected main article, the 8th and final paragraph in the "Differences in Motivations" section. The only thing needing some attention is that care should be made to include as footnotes to the contribution the texts of the indented paragraphs, as indicated at the start of this thread "'Reverted Contribution' continued'. I would also like to request that a previously reverted sentence and citation be added back to the immediately previous 7th paragraph under "Differences in Motivations," the paragraph starting "Gideon Shimoni ..." The sentence should be inserted after the words "... legitimate self-defense reasons." It should read: "The centrality of the "separation" of populations, as promoting the opposite effect than that sought in apartheid South Africa, is also argued by Alon Liel, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry. (Footnote reference: Alon Liel, "An Israeli View: Apartheid = Separation?!" in a symposium on bitterlemons.org entitled Democracy and the Conflict": see the August 12, 2002 edition at http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl120802ed30.html)" The reason this sentence was originally reverted by Dailycare was because, he thought, the bitterlemons.org website was an "unreliable source." However, this matter has now been clarified: as discussion of my proposed contribution has shown, and also as adjudication by RSI:Notification Board has established, bitterlemons.org has been accepted as a RS for the purposes of this kind of citation. Thank you.Tempered (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If you do not want your writing to be edited at will, then do not submit it here. Your edit is written from the minority POV that Israel is being delegitimized. For decades the General Assembly, Security Council, High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC, and the PLO have been saying that Israel's legislative and administrative actions in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, "have no legitimacy".
Members of Bhutto's Negotiations department assisted in the oral and written arguments in the ICJ Wall case. A brief summary of the legal positions of the Government of Israel and the PLO were contained in Annexes I & II of the Secretary General's report, A/ES-10/248, 24 November 2003 [69]. Their written pleadings contained the more complete legal arguments on those positions. [70] Palestine argued that Israel was pursing a policy of displacement, and the creation of enclaves that amounted to a policy of Bantustanization which satisfied the Court's definition of apartheid in the Namibia case. See for example paras 564-568 [71]
Palestine's complaints were hardly frivolous, since the Court found that both Israel's construction project and the associated administrative regime were illegal. Furthermore it found that Israel's actions had created enclaves and displaced portions of the Palestinian population while violating their rights to self-determination, freedom of movement, to health, to education, to work, and an adequate standard of living. See paras 85 and 132-134. [72] South Africa responded to the anti-apartheid campaign by claiming it was a matter of state security and by declaring various states of emergency. [73] The ICJ said that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of its actions. "Differences in motivations" is not a valid criticism of the crime of apartheid, since criminal responsibility accrues regardless of motive involved. See Article III of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid [74] harlan (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, I don't see any other editor but you who's in the "consensus" that you're now invoking. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is anothe piece by Diana Buttu on Bitterlemons. Citation: "keep Palestinians (as few of them as possible, of course) subservient to the state of Israel by demanding loyalty tests and residency tests; and maintaining an apartheid regime if in a different form." --Dailycare (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Harlan's comments are disingenuous: the proposed contribution has been on the Talk page for months, wide open for criticism and suggestions, so Harlan's indignant reproach that I have been too hasty, now that we finally have an agreed version, is very hollow indeed; in fact, I waited for a full two weeks after Dailycare expressed his acceptance of the present version to see if any other objections were forthcoming, and none were. This absence of any further objection is itself mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Consensus WP:CONS and WP:SILENCE as constituting grounds for assuming consensus. Dailycare has been the chief critic to put forward his objections, and they have all been dealt with at length even to his eventually expressed satisfaction. That makes a consensus, Dailycare. The "consensus" is to the verifiability, validity and acceptability of the cited assertions, that they do indeed represent the views of those named. A further criterion of acceptability is that the proposed edit contributes to the neutral POV of the article. Naturally, this consensus does not mean that Dailycare or Harlan have to agree with the views expressed in the contribution. Their own POV is not the issue. Merely the validity of the documentation and the contribution to NPOV. That means that while Harlan can have his own opinion about Israel, the article itself is dedicated to something quite different, namely to NPOV. His views have been (more than) fairly and even over-fully represented in the earlier sections of the article citing those who affirm the apartheid analogy. Despite his assertions, by the way, those views are in a tiny minority in the Western democracies; naturally it is a different matter in pro-Palestinian authoritarian and Muslim circles. In any case, what the ICJ said is not relevant here, as I pointed out when Harlan brought this up before, above. Neither do I have to refute his opinionated assertions to get cited views into the main article. The section of the main article I am contributing to is that dedicated to CRITICISMS of the apartheid analogy. A fair-minded defense of Israel must be allowed into the article at this point. That is where they are called for. I have shown with irrefutable references and citations that many defenders of Israel explicitly state and argue at length that the apartheid analogy is chiefly motivated by the desire to delegitimize Israel, and that this is supported even by statements by some of the chief Palestinian promoters of this analogy. My citations prove that many reputable and responsible sources, on both sides of the conflict, support this conclusion, and I could have added more such citations and assertions if I wished. The only legitimate objection that Harlan or Dailycare might make to these citations is that they are not reliable or reliably sourced, and it has been demonstrated at exhaustive length over months of discussion that they are. They must therefore be admitted into the sub-section "Differences in Motivations" (sub-section 10.2), which is part of "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" (Section 10).Tempered (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, consensus is achieved through the editing process. If you do not want your writing to be criticized and edited mercilessly, you are in the wrong place. If you re-read my original criticism of your reverted edit and the talk page archives, you'll discover that I've raised all of these issues before.
You cannot seriously expect to introduce material that says the apartheid analogy is chiefly motivated by the desire to delegitimize Israel without including material from other reliable sources representing the opposing viewpoint. In any case, the majority viewpoint for decades has been that Israel's administrative and legislative actions in the occupied territories are illegal, and that they have no legitimacy in the first place. harlan (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, there is no onus on me nor even any obligation in general to include criticisms of pro-Israel views, and anti-Israel advocacy, in the section of the main article devoted to defense of Israel against anti-Israel slanders. Your assertion that there is such an obligation is mind-boggling, and shows you do not understand Wikipedia goals and principles or what NPOV means. It does not equate to promotion of your own partisan and negative POV alone. I would also call your attention to a gaping double standard in your claim: you ignore that in the previous anti-Israel sections of the main article, there are no refutations entered of the anti-Israel claims there. Such refutations exist (including of the claims you promote that Israel "illegally" "occupies" the P.A. territories: both the "illegality" and even the "occupation" are highly questionable charges according to a good number of specialists in international law). Indeed, the chief rationale for this section 10, "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy," is to provide space for pro-Israeli voices and views (but the issue here is not the status of Israel's presence or absence of presence in the P.A. territories, but the "apartheid analogy" - the issues of legality and "occupation" should be argued elsewhere, not in this article and certainly not on this Talk page). So in any case there is already space provided for both pro and con perspectives dealing with the "apartheid analogy." I would therefore suggest that if you want to introduce sources demonstrating the good faith of the apartheid-analogy advocates, and that there is no demonizing delegitimization motivation behind their anti-Israel views, at least by some of its partisans, you are free to do so in those sections devoted to anti-Israel accusations. They do not belong here in the section devoted to presentation of pro-Israel views. The fact of the matter is that a good number of critics of the apartheid analogy have specifically and explicitly claimed delegitimization as a chief motivation, and this is even granted explicitly by some Palestinian leaders themselves. I have proven that this is the case. You may not like that, but you are not entitled therefore to erase or negatively edit evidence of it. I refer you to the article WP:NPOV, which states in its summary introduction, "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."Tempered (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tempered I didn't author the overwhelming majority of this article, much less agree with the way the material is organized. I cited Israel's written submission, its summary position on the case, and provided links for you to those documents in the section above. I didn't think I needed to described them for you here on the talk page. Israel's positions were mentioned throughout the text of advisory opinion. The Court considered the Secretary General's dossier and Israel's written pleadings. It concluded that the prima facie evidence was sufficient to establish the facts in question and that the evidence had not been rebutted by Israel. The fact that you think there are different or better rebuttals available somewhere else probably only indicates that you are trying to second-guess the positions that were already taken by the Foreign Ministry's legal counsel (i.e. "could of, should of, would of"). FYI, there were several other interested state parties in the Wall case that submitted written statements which said that the situation in the occupied territories corresponded to one or more of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid. They were not discussing the apartheid analogy. harlan (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tempered, I didn't say I agreed with your edit. To the contrary, I presented my suggestions on how it should be changed. With the changes I'd be OK with having it in the article, although I do of course reserve the right to edit it anyway. --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, you did not say, in mid-September, that you insisted on the changes being put in. What you actually said, back on 15 Sept., was that the proposed contribution "looks much better now." You then went on to say that the first paragraph was OK as it stood, despite one word that might optionally be changed ("many" to "some" -- although I gave many citations and could have given more, so I thought "many" was accurate enough; still, if this is a real sticking point I can concede the matter), and you cast doubt on two citations which, I subsequently showed, were OK as they stood. There was no further objection to them by you. In the second paragraph, you objected that Hadar believes Israel to be practicing apartheid; I showed that this is simply not true. The existence of some social discrimination does not amount to apartheid, according to his own phraseology. You did not even attempt to refute this, and accepted it. In the fourth paragraph, you suggested that I remove the reference to the YouTube video in which Barghouti declared his disapproval of a two-state solution, since the interview cited with him was sufficient proof of his views. But you phrased this as merely a suggestion; I think the inclusion of the YouTube citation strengthens the point being made. (However, I will not insist upon it.) And that's it. When I responded, after your subsequent silence, with a statement saying that, "Having dealt with the chief objections then, the contribution will appear as written," there was no further response or objection from you, even after about two weeks. So it appeared that all issues had been dealt with satisfactorily and nothing remained to discuss. Harlan only came in with his furiously indignant objections after the "Edit Protected" notice had been posted. And his objections are frivolous. They do not relate to the substance of the contribution, nor show that the citations are not verifiable, etc., but simply indicate his own dislike of the views being put forward. They are more appropriate for a blog-debate than for this Talk page. It is not a criterion of editorial consensus that the proposed contribution agree with the political views of all editors; the only proper issue can be the verifiability of the attributed assertions and their contribution to NPOV. Harlan has not shown any interest in these matters and has made no constructive contribution to the discussion. So, Dailycare, I think the issues remain between us two, as they chiefly have done for the past few months.Tempered (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
One further essential point: Dailycare wrote that he was OK with the article after his specific demands are met, but that he even then does "of course reserve the right to edit it anyway." That means that he must not be the editor who puts the agreed version into the main article, since he now declares openly even after all this discussion his intention and "right" to revise the text further and arbitrarily before final inclusion of the text in the main article, without any further consultation, to make it conform to his own manifestly hostile agendas. This is unacceptable. The version of the text, arrived at after months of discussion on this page, must be the version that is actually inserted into the main article. No one has the "right" as he claims to change it in the course of including it in the main article, under "edit protection." Another administrator must therefore take on this task, putting the finally agreed text into the main article without making further changes that have not been discussed and agreed to on this page.Tempered (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an admin and can't edit a protected article. My suggestion is that we return to this issue when the protection is lifted. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I see, Dailycare, you mean no consensus version will be agreed upon now by you, no matter what. And I am supposed to just accept that. No matter what validity and formal acceptability of text is arrived at here after interminable discussion, even to the point that you can think of nothing more to object to and are reduced to silence, you reserve the right unilaterally to prevent its entry into the edit protected article and to edit and change the proposed contribution anyway once the protection of the main article is lifted -- which means that no agreement in this Talk arena means anything or is binding. You refuse to be held to the text, no matter what you are forced to accept here in terms of Wikipedia principles. And you will not allow a consensus to be arrived at, ever, as long as there is an edit protection on the main article. It does not appear, if this is so, that there is any further point in discussing the proposed text with you, Dailycare. I would therefore suggest to the administrator editor who can place consensus material in the protected main article that Dailycare has removed himself from consideration in this matter, and his reservations cannot carry any further weight. His rejection of consensus is solely due to his partisan POV overruling NPOV. In this regard, he appears to have the same agenda as Harlan. If these suppositions about Dailycare are in error, and he is willing to arrive at a serious and binding consensus, allowing the proposed contribution in an agreed form to appear in the edit protected article, he must declare this now and act on it. Otherwise, he has ruled himself out of the discussion, and the text should be entered into the main article forthwith. In this regard I must point out the absence of any other significant criticisms or critics to the proposed text.Tempered (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, consensus is built by convincing other editors that your idea would improve the article, not by posting kilobytes of text in the hope that no-one bothers to read it. Consensus is also liable to change, please see WP:Consensus. As I noted above, I don't have huge problems with your proposed edit and the edits I plan to make into it consist largely of moving parts of it from the "criticism" section to another section. This is all most effectively achieved by the normal editing process. Speaking of which, why don't you suggest the protection be removed since the issues that caused it appear to have subsided? --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There can be no question that my proposed contribution would improve the article, Dailycare, and not even you raised this objection before; you cannot be serious about it. It makes some essential points that help restore a little more balance to the whole article. What's this now about kilobytes of text posted in the article to lengthen it in the hope that no one will read it? The allegation is not sincerely meant. The article is already extremely long precisely due to monotonously similar anti-Israel allegations cited from all sorts of opponents of Israel, filling six times more space than defenses of Israel; are we to conclude that only the few pro-Israel citations put in at the end, including those introducing essential points, would bore readers and should be drastically truncated? No one has challenged the relevance of my contribution to the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" section, nor denied even that various reputable and even authoritative sources have emphasized precisely these issues. If anything, your problem from the start, Dailycare, appears to be that it is too relevant, and too effective as a criticism of the apartheid analogy.
This relates to your urging that I agree that the edit protection be dropped. Actually, the experience I have had with your responses, Dailycare, and with Harlan, and my observations more generally about the constant reverting and distortion of material in the main article down through the years leading to the edit protection in the first place, suggests that the article should remain permanently under "edit protection." Unquestionably, the article is deeply flawed and biased, with extreme disproportion in length, style and substance between anti-Israel allegations and pro-Israel defenses against those allegations. However, opening it up to business as usual would perpetuate exactly that imbalance: the causes that brought on the edit protection have not gone away, as amongst other things discussion on this present proposed contribution very clearly show. A proper edit protection might enable a better and more NPOV article eventually to emerge. At least this is the only hope that it might. For it would mean that any proposed changes or reversions would always have to be brought to the "Talk" page first, and thrashed out and a responsible consensus reached in accordance with general Wikipedia principles, before the changes or reversions were put into the main article. This would prevent constant edit warring and irresponsible and arbitrary nastiness on the main article page, such has been so characteristic of this and allied articles in the past.
In fact, a proper edit protection may be the only assurance pro-Israel editors might have that their contributions will last in the main article without hostile editing and truncation or complete reversions. I would fully expect that even if and after consensus were reached on my proposed addition to the main article and it was placed in the article, as soon as edit protection were removed so would be my additions. That, I think, is highly probable.
As for your completely new statement that you would edit my otherwise acceptable contribution in such as way as to place it elsewhere in the main article, whatever in the world do you mean? Again, you betray a willful unilateralism and obstructionism that is not reassuring. This contribution belongs exactly where I intended to place it, in the section under "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy" dealing with differing motivations, explaining pro-Israel criticisms of those pushing the analogy. In fact, it flows on directly from the text in the present article citing Benny Morris's remark that those pushing the apartheid terminology are actually trying to eliminate a two-state solution and prevent peace. The contribution belongs exactly where I intended it to be, both logically and content-wise, and its final paragraph acts as confirmation of Morris's point. Yet another arbitrary and interminable diversion from you, to prevent any consensus from emerging? Why has not this proposal emerged before this point?Tempered (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered this is an encyclopedia article, not an OP-Ed page. The article already mentions Hadar and his views. Your experience with me doesn't have anything to do with the article being edit protected, since I wasn't editing the article during the revert war. If you don't include published opposing viewpoints, then other editors usually will. They don't need to be bashful or apologize about doing that. harlan (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned several times already, the viewpoints appropriate to a section entitled "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy" are those that are criticisms of the apartheid analogy. Opposing viewpoints have their own sections. They do not belong in this section. Obviously this is too complex for some to grasp. Duh.Tempered (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is noticeable that Dailycare refuses to clarify just what he means by his expressed intention to cut up the proposed text unilaterally into bits that will be dropped into the main article elsewhere, not in the "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy." This is obviously intended to gut the contribution. His determined and extended silence on this suggests he knows it is an indefensible position to take, and cannot be supported by Wikipedia guidelines and principles. So it cannot be openly discussed here, on the Talk page. Again, he rules himself out of the discussion.Tempered (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have waited five days now for clarification from Dailycare of his stated intention to remove portions of the agreed text from the "Criticism" section, and his refusal to give this clarification is significant. That means that it cannot be defended openly. I suspect that the sentences he wished to elide from the contribution, and/or place elsewhere, consist of the citations and quotations from Palestinian leaders (Said, Buttu, Barghouti) that confirm the delegitimization motivation behind their advocacy of "apartheid" language. This proof appears to be so disagreeable to Dailycare that he wishes simply to remove references to it or quotes that confirm it, unilaterally. That is not acceptable in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, and will lead to a revert war, and ultimately an appeal for adjudication. It would be simplest, Dailycare, if you dropped this idea now, and I would like a commitment from you that you agree to this.Tempered (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were waiting for something from me. I've repeatedly explained my views on this text in the discussion above. Since the "delegitimization" and Hadar's one-state solution points are now already in the article, I think dropping this is a good idea and indeed I'm not the one pursuing this. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean, Dailycare, "dropping this is a good idea"? Dropping what? Please clarify just what, exactly, you mean, and what, exactly, you propose to do with the edit we have arrived at after interminable weeks of discussion.Tempered (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I intend to move the material that doesn't criticise the apartheid charge to an appropriate section, possibly a new section in the article. Material that doesn't criticize the apartheid charge is Hadar, Buttu, Said and Barghouti. Hadar says that some Palestinians turned to the South African analogy in response to the failure of the Oslo peace process and the ensuing violence, not out of desire to "delegitimize" Israel but to "assert our common humanity as Jews and Arabs". I believe we've been through this before. Now I realize that you're a very new editor and you may be unfamiliar with how sources are used on Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, and particularly so in articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, you're limited to writing what reliable sources say. Earlier you expressed your wish to enter a "pro-Israel" edit to counter "anti-Israel" (you may have used a different word for that) editing. May I suggest that that view reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of this article. This article isn't a competition between pro/anti-Israel edits, but a text that reflects in a concise way what the best sources have written on the topic. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, Dailycare, you pretend that it is contrary to Wikipedia principles when dealing with disputed issues to allow one side to quote or cite statements from the opposing side that validate and even prove the claims of the critics. Of course, that is not so. I accept neither your reasoning nor your proposed edit. Now you reveal, only after being forced to it of course, your intention unilaterally to wipe out the entire proposed contribution, giving blatantly false reasons for this. Not only do you claim that it is not permissible to use statements by Palestinian representatives to validate criticisms of them by pro-Israel commentators, but you would even eliminate the reference to Hadar on the false grounds that he like them supports the apartheid analogy and has no problem with the delegitimization motivation whose recent history he traces! These assertions are untrue. The nonsense of the claim about Palestinian references is obvious on the face of it. As for Hadar, you misrepresent him and he makes exactly the statements I cite him as making. (And, by the way, even if you were right and he affirmed apartheid and delegitimization, his documentation of the implementation of a delegitimization motivation by Palestinian leaders remains suitable for citation in this section.) These persistent misrepresentations, both of fact and of interpretation of Wikipedia principles, added to those from you in the past weeks that have peppered our discussion, settle the matter. Consensus appears to be impossible. I think we have gotten to the point where no further discussion between us is likely to be useful, so I will appeal for a "third opinion" now (see WP:3O), as the first step in expert adjudication.
One further comment: your condescending personal remarks about my being new to Wikipedia and not therefore knowing Wikipedia procedures or how to use sources ring very hollow indeed, as our entire previous discussion over the past two months shows (e.g., your assertions about what constitutes a "Reliable Source," on which expert opinion on "Reliable Sources: Notification Board" disagreed with you.Tempered (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered the opposing viewpoint cannot be fairly characterized as "Support for Israeli apartheid analogy". I believe this article is awaiting formal mediation on that score. The article already gives more than adequate space and weight to the views of Leon Hadar regarding the campaign to delegitimize Israel. The majority viewpoint is that the administrative regime in the occupied territories is illegal and that it never had any legitimacy in the first place.
Buttu never mentioned Edward Said in the bitterlemons article. She said that considering "the facts" on the ground, the Palestinian leadership should consider adopting an anti-apartheid campaign like the one employed against South Africa. That resulted, among other things, in members of Buttu's Negotiations Unit taking Israel to the ICJ in-line with the Namibia case precedent. The Court did find that both the Wall AND the associated administrative regime were illegal.
The former Attorney General of Israel is much more qualified to discuss the applicable law and the legal situation than Mr. Hadar. But Michael Ben-Yair is practically reduced to a sentence and a mention in a bullet list. He said:

The Six-Day War was forced upon us; however, the war's seventh day, which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day, is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.[75]

Relevant views from qualified legal experts, like Ben-Yair and Boaz Okon are reduced to a sentence or two at most. There is no need to include a lengthy speculative essay about Leon Hadar's "Edward Said-Diane Buttu conspiracy theory". His views on that topic are already mentioned in the article. harlan (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, a few points: Firstly, no matter how many opinions you seek, you won't get consensus to misrepresent Hadar, Buttu et al in the article. Secondly, I said Hadar doesn't criticise the apartheid charge, not that he supports it (although arguments for that could be forwarded too). Thirdly, Bitterlemons wasn't found to be RS, Buttu was found to be notable. Fourthly, you are a new editor and appear to be having problems with using sources, which is why I went to the trouble of locating a source for you to use for the "delegitimization" point. And finally, I agree that this discussion is (sadly) not moving forward very much. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The claim, Dailycare, that I "misrepresent" Hadar, Buttu, et al., in the article is itself a misrepresentation. They say what I cite them as saying, and after lengthly verification of this over the past two months you yourself actually accepted that and pronounced yourself satisfied with the proposed contribution, a few minor caveats on wording notwithstanding. Again, the discussion above shows this and that you now misrepresent even your own previous arguments in order to avoid consensus and entry of the proposed edit into the main article.
Your claims now are entirely novel. Unfortunately, I must now state clearly, they are also undisguisedly purely obstructionist. You have whipped them up in the past week or so in order to wipe out the entire contribution, as if we have had no discussion over months at all. The statement about bitterlemons is yet another of the many misrepresentations you have made on that subject, too, including on the Reliable Sources: Notification Board discussion page itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Bitterlemons.org_website, also see further down the page at #Bitterlemons.org_issue_unresolved), as anyone who reads the discussion there will see. As for your supposed need, patronizingly, to direct poor ignorant me to additional sources, actually, Dailycare, I am quite competent to do that myself, as my citations on this Talk page demonstrate, both my original ones, and subsequent additions. Your contribution added little, but was appreciated as a constructive gesture, the only such one coming from you. Harlan's comments remain as irrelevant as usual, mere blogging and red herrings: no refutation is needed. He still has not grasped that Wikipedia does not exist to promote his own POV alone. Both you and he have made it clear that the guiding goal is to prevent any fair presentation of criticisms of the apartheid analogy at all. Neither of you appear to be open to NPOV articles on the subject and do not participate in discussion in good faith since you refuse consensus on principle, and permanently. That is why some arbitration is needed.Tempered (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered you've turn the talk page into a platform to discuss other editors. If you continue to do that I'll ask that you be blocked. The article already provides ample discussion of Hadar's views. I suggest that you give it a rest. The article is edit protected and there has been no ground swell of support for your proposed edit. harlan (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It is the nature of the editorial debate that I am commenting on. I have merely outlined here the reasons why I believe that this discussion must go into arbitration, and why no consensus can be reached given the nature of the editorial opposition. Dailycare even states plainly that he will never grant a consensus (and intends to wipe out the entire contribution), and of course you will not either. None of this is surprising: your responses are just what I expected even before posting my original contribution on the Talk page. My comments above need no further amplification.Tempered (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, ARBCOM does not accept content dispute cases. Your comments here about other editors are another matter. Keep your comments on content and stop editorializing about other editors. This is not a general discussion forum. harlan (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I said you won't get consensus to misrepresent sources, not that I'd perpetually withhold any consensus. Harlan is right, BTW, since this talkpage is meant to discuss content. As I've written before the proposed text contains material that I agree with you can be used on this page. I just don't agree with you in that those sources criticise the apartheid charge. --Dailycare (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
How can you say you are willing to come to a consensus, when you assert that the sources do not belong in the "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy" at all? This amounts to the elimination of the entire contribution. It appears to be your way or no way. That is a refusal of consensus, as stated. I look forward to the comments of the WP:3O, Third Opinion, on the admissibility of the proposed contribution to the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" section.Tempered (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously I mean a policy-compliant consensus. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for WP:3O

The request for a third opinion has languished on the listings for 5 days now. This normally means that editors who volunteer at WP:3O are wary of becoming involved. This is obviously because the debate is so long, and the issue possibly complex – it's taken me 5 minutes to skim through the discussion above and the September archive, which is hardly in keeping with the simplicity suggested at Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ and so I suggest we start by having both sides restate their position, as simply as possible. 10 lines ought to be more than enough. I also note that this is borderline suitable for a third opinion as there already seem to be 3 editors involved here. Once we have these position statements it might be possible to move forward. Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourselves, but it might also summarise the progress so far. Bigger digger (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

This article is about certain Israeli policies and how they relate to the crime of apartheid. One aspect of the article has been to cover criticism of the "apartheid analogy", by which it's meant that views according to which Israel doesn't practice apartheid are discussed to the extent they occur in WP:RS. The contribution under discussion in effect says that some critics of Israel would have fabricated the charge of apartheid in order to "delegitimize" Israel. This is a real point that's been made in some WP:RS. The problem in my view with this contrib is that Leon Hadar, Diana Buttu, Edward Said or Omar Barghouti don't in these sources say anything to this effect. Hadar says that some Palestinians began to apply the analogy as a response to the collapse of the Oslo process (i.e. not due to "delegitimization"). Buttu says that the expanding Israeli settlements have made the two-state solution impossible and the Palestinian leadership should act accordingly. Said says that Zionism is worse than South African apartheid. Barghouti says that he sees Israel as a racist apartheid state. So not only are these sources not saying that they've invented the apartheid charge to "delegitimize" Israel, they're not even disagreeing with the notion that Israel is an apartheid state. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tempered

Thank you for taking this on. The issue is simple, but it has taken us a long time to reach this point. The issue is whether the proposed contribution, presented at the start of the section "'Reverted Contribution' Continued," just above on this Talk page, can be properly entered into the main article's section "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy," or, on the contrary, into sections devoted to proponents of the Apartheid Analogy elsewhere in the main article. The contribution had been reverted by Dailycare back in August, leaving only a truncated version in the main article. This stripped it of its evidential basis. Dailycare is the sole editor who has proposed the elimination of the proposed contribution from this section, on the grounds that some of the persons cited are proponents of apartheid accusations, thus a third opinion seemed desirable when he refused any further consensus. The contribution flows on logically from the citation in the main article's previous paragraph, from Benny Morris, stating that advocates of the apartheid analogy seek to undermine the legitimacy of the two-state solution. The next proposed paragraphs strengthen Morris's point, and develop this issue of "delegitimization" further, ending with citations of Palestinian leaders who demonstrate Morris's thesis and its application to a wider "delegitimization" with their own statements proposing to replace Israel and a "two-state solution" with a single larger Palestinian and/or "bi-national" state. The proposed paragraphs constitute a significant, logical and coherent argument within the "Differences of Motivations" subsection, and sustain "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy" in the main article. It is permissible to quote authorities from an opposing side to provide evidence for a counter-argument. Dailycare denies this.Tempered (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tempered, it seems as though there are plenty of other editors active here with whom you should attempt to achieve a consensus. I am going to take this page off my watchlist as all the revdels are hurting my eyes! If you need my attention here again let me know on my talk page. Best wishes, Bigger digger (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is just to inform readers that, hopefully, Bigger digger will reconsider his/her withdrawal, but that, if not, I will appeal the next step up for "informal mediation." The proposed contribution should not be inserted in any manner into the main article until consensus has been arrived at, which also means that I accept and agree as well.Tempered (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by harlan

The views of Leon Hadar and Benny Morris are already given more than adequate space and weight in the article. Neither man cites any credible evidence to show that advocates of the apartheid analogy are seeking to "undermine the legitimacy of the two-state solution." On the contrary, the majority of sources say that the Israeli settlement enterprise, Israeli reliance on water extracted from the West Bank, & etc. have served to render a two-state solution moot.

For example Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, wrote that the assault on Israel's legitimacy results from the fact that it already is an overtly apartheid state which makes no pretense anymore about working toward a two-state solution. He says that if a Palestinian state comes into existence, it will have to be declared by forces outside of Israel. [76] Diana Buttu was talking about the same situation, i.e. "But given the facts on the ground, given the way that things have changed, one cannot unscramble an egg. The leadership is going to have to start reassessing whether it really should be pushing for a two-state solution or whether we should start pushing for equal citizenship and an anti-apartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa." [77]

The President said "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." [78]

The majority viewpoint is that Israel has ignored those warnings and that:

  • Israel's military administrative regime and civilian settlements in the occupied territories have been declared illegal. They had no inherent legitimacy in the first place. They have been used in the occupied territories for forty years to deprive the Palestinian majority of their territory and their right to self-determination.
  • The network of settlements, roads, and security infrastructure were established for the purpose of creating irreversible facts on the ground. They have created isolated Palestinian enclaves (aka open-air prisons) similar to South Africa's Bantu enclaves that render the possibility of a viable "two state solution" moot in any event. harlan (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
None of this relates to the issue on which a third-party opinion has been solicited.Tempered (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Bigger Digger, in withdrawing from giving a "Third Opinion," states that in cases where there are more than just two editors debating an issue, as on this article and Talk page, "Third Opinions" are not the best way to resolve matters, but that the opinions of other editors frequenting the Talk page should first be solicited on the point at issue. If consensus is still not achieved, then more formal mediation and arbitration is the next step. I am therefore calling for responses relating to the issue at hand, namely, whether the citation of pro-apartheid-analogy advocates, and quotes from them, which substantiate the claims of critics of "Motivations" behind apartheid-analogy advocacy, can be included in the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" section. Dailycare has claimed that they cannot. I claim they can. What is your view?

Dailycare therefore foreshadows his intention to eliminate the contribution, or distribute portions of it to the pro-apartheid-analogy sections rather than to the "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy" section. What is your view of that? One other claim by Dailycare, newly raised in the response to Bigger Digger, is that the cited sources do not state that the apartheid analogy proponents have intended to "fabricate" the charge to delegitimate Israel: that is, they do not say that the proponents intend to lie outright. But this is not the question that the sources address or that the proposed contribution is about. Whether they intend to lie is a "truth" issue that is not within Wikipedia guidelines. The cited sources solely address the issue of whether the charges are intended to delegitimize Israel, to portray it as a state lacking legality that should be banned. This motivation behind the charges, whether sincere or not, is all the sources indicate. It would be absurd to require a certificate from a consulting psychiatrist on the inner state of mind of apartheid analogy proponents, or the application of a truth detector, before their stated views can be criticised. Their explicitly expressed intentionality in the quoted sources should be sufficient, and that is all Wikipedia demands. Your views on this assertion from Dailycare, too, would be welcome. Thanks.Tempered (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A section dealing with claims that the apartheid label is part of a campaign to delegitimise Israel seems appropriate, but some of the specifics may be problematic. In the existing "pro" vs "con" structure, it perhaps fits in the "con" section. However, if you introduce large amounts of material someone will probably find somes part of it inappropriate and edit, move, or revert changes, or may revert the whole thing. For example, in the suggested text there is a bunch of stuff about Omar Barghouti. My impression is that this part of the proposed text is original research, although I'd be happy to be wrong about that. It appears to me that an editorial voice is re-interpreting statements by Omar Barghouti, contrary to Wikipedia policy. My suggestion to Tempered is to introduce the material a bit at a time, starting with the least controversial elements, and leaving a day or so before introducing more. Some of it will doubtless be edited/moved/reverted by other editors. Then discuss the specific aspects that are disputed, rather than trying to discuss this whole wodge of material at once. Editing a controversial article is most often an incremental process. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Reading over the argument, it seems to me that Hadar is inappropriately allowed to become our narrator here. Leaving aside the issues raised by harlan concerning undue weight, this is not the appropriate way to insert material by Said, Barghouti et al. Tempered, the best way to handle this would be to explicitly voice Hadar's accusation. Something like, "Hadar argues that Said, Barghouti, etc.--who are both proponents of the analogy and supporters of a one-state solution--are using the analogy to delegitimate the two-state solution, and to encourage the replacement of Israel with a secular, democratic state." And you can only do that if this is in fact Hadar's argument, available in cite sources. If some similar argument is not put forward by Hadar and his colleagues, then this entire exercise is WP:OR.--Carwil (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that some of the wording we're discussing is now in the article, at the bottom of the "Differences in motivations" section. Tempered, it doesn't look like you've taken my advice of starting with the least controversial text, instead you've started by introducing the text that I and others have suggested may be WP:OR. The interpretation of the Barghouti citation in the existing text appears to be WP:OR. I agree with Carwil's suggestions for improvement of the text. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the two Hadar sources cited. Neither source makes any mention of Barghouti. Both articles are largely arguing why a one-state solution won't work and a two-state solution is needed. The Huffington Post is especially irrelevant to the "delegitimisation" argument and should definitely be dropped. The American Conservative article implies that the apartheid label is part of a campaign for a one-state solution, but it doesn't say that campaign involves deligitimising Israel. I can't find Said calling for a "mass campaign" as quoted, or anything resembling it. I'm afraid that all this material citing Hadar in relation to delegitimisation looks like original research, it's too big a stretch to infer the delegitimisation argument from what he's actually written in those two articles. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, I believe the proposed edit already does what you recommend be done, namely, cites Hadar as presenting evidence that Edward Said, Diana Buttu, and others hold that Israel should be replaced by some other political entity, comprising a single state with different borders and a wholly different political system, on the grounds that Israel is a racist, apartheid state and does not deserve to exist as such: according to those spokespeople, it needs to be replaced by a single Palestinian or bi-national state, quite differently constructed politically from Israel, as the sole "moral" alternative. If this does not constitute "delegitimization," then nothing does, and perhaps we do not agree on the meaning of the word. It is clearly delegitimization, and it is not "synthesis" to say so, anymore than it is "synthesis" to say that black is a color. Use of the English language would be impossible if no generalization fitting appropriate definitions of words could be allowed. Anyone for example suggesting that the U.S. is a racist, apartheid state and to abolish this should merge with Canada to form a more just state with a different political structure, is clearly "delegitimizing" the U.S., its political structure and even its borders, whether or not the term is explicitly used, and this would be true of such views of any other state too. As for the "mass campaign" statement, this is actually said, verbatim, in the Edward Said article cited by Hadar. Hadar does not include this sentence, but the proposed full text of the contribution does not attribute the quote to Hadar, but to the actual Said article itself: see the proposed full text of the contribution, given at the top of this section, which reads:
He [Hadar] cites an article by Edward Said, a leading Palestinian advocate, published in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly early in 2001, after the failure of the Camp David peace talks. In it, Said said the "two-state" solution was dead, and "The Only Alternative" - the title of the article - was a single state. [Footnote reference: Edward Said, "The Only Alternative," reproduced March 03, 2001 on MediaMonitors.net - http://www.mediamonitors.net/edward9.html] He urged Palestinian leadership to mount a "mass campaign" to depict the Jewish state in terms of the apartheid analogy, removing from it its moral justification and working towards its dissolution into a larger Palestinian state embracing the entire region west of the Jordan River. "Separation can't work in so tiny a land, any more than Apartheid did."
All of this is exactly what Said said, and neutral citing of sources. If a fuss is made about it, we can rephrase the third sentence of the edit as follows: "In the article, Said ..." instead of "He ..." But I consider this redundant and awkward, given that much the same phraseology already exists in the second sentence. The meaning is clear enough that I am referring to Said's own article, not Hadar's here. I am OK with dropping the Huffington Post citation, the second article of Hadar's that is cited.
As for the claim that citing Barghouti is "Original Research," the actual Wikipedia article on the subject does not support this claim. It says:
Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.
Under these criteria, citing Barghouti as was done here is not "original research." Barghouti is cited, in a reliable published source, for saying exactly what he does say. He is explicit that Israel has no right to exist (as even the headline summary of the published source shows). He explicitly advocates for its replacement with a single Palestinian state. And he explicitly uses the "apartheid" terminology and accusation to justify this (as again even the headline makes clear). The published source says just what the proposed edit says it says. There is no editorial expansion, synthesis or extension of his statement to make a point he does not make. That his statement supports the views of Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy is sufficient reason for citing it here, as an important substantiation of the criticism.
It has been stated several times by various editors that Said thinks Israel's practices are even worse than those in apartheid South Africa, as if this somehow contradicts the assertions in the proposed edit. But it does not. On the contrary, this only underlines the intended delegitimization more. Whether or not one agrees with Said is irrelevant. The fact that he makes such extremely hostile accusations constitutes a clear rhetorical and deliberate delegitimization of the Israeli state, and of a two-state solution which would recognize the Israeli state and a Palestinian state as well, in favor of a single state entity.Tempered (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hadar doesn't explicitly say that these various people are conducting a campaign to delegitimise Israel. In fact, I don't think he even means to imply it, he's just saying that the apartheid label goes hand-in-hand with one-state solution rhetoric, which is not the same thing. If Hadar did make a point about delegitimisation, I would be perfectly happy for us to cite him as such. I was expecting to find such statements in his articles (which is why I suggested you start gradually adding your material) and was surprised not to when I actually read it. It is original research for an editor to cite a source as saying things it doesn't explicitly state, because that's an act of interpretation on the part of the editor - it's not good enough that you think what he's saying obviously implies delegitimisation, he actually has to state words to the effect himself. As for following up the Hadar citation with cites from the "various people", it's WP:SYNTHESIS. Synthesis is when an editor tells a story by mixing citations from various authors together in order to state or imply a conclusion that none of the sources reach individually. It's not our job, as Wikipedia editors, to put 2 and 2 together and reach 4. We have to find a source that does so, and cite it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, Ryan Paddy, you think that proponents of replacing Israel with some other sort of state cannot be described as "delegitimizing" Israel unless they use the magic word. I say otherwise, however, and so of course do most of the critics who speak of the delegitimization motivation who are cited in the previous paragraph of the main article, which is continued by this contribution. Hadar presents an argument that the named sources are urging the replacement of Israel as a Jewish state with some other sort of Palestinian state. This is not for you evidence that he believes or even means to imply that these sources are delegitimizing Israel and aiming to replace it with something "better." Amazing. As for combining sources to reach a conclusion that is not found in anyone of them, how is the conclusion found in each source that Israel must disappear as such into a larger single Palestinian state, because of Israel's allegedly apartheid and illegal nature, not "delegitimization" of Israel and self-evident demonstration of a motivation to delegitimize? I have added nothing to the statements, merely reported on them neutrally. It is not a case of 2 + 2 = 4. It is a case of 2 = 2 = 2. Nothing is added.Tempered (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it fair to say that you think promotion of the one-state solution is inherently an attempt to delegitimise Israel? Personally I don't see it that way, but once again our opinions as editors don't matter. What matters is that your source, Hadar, doesn't characterise promotion of the one-state solution as an attempt to delegitimise Israel: he just says that it's impractical. If he did say that about that one-state solution, then I could (just barely) draw a connection between him saying the apartheid label being used by promotors of the one-state solution means that it's being used for delegitimisation. But he doesn't, so I can't. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting the benefits of a change in political structure is not equal to delegitimising. Were the various European countries delegitimised by becoming part of the political and monetary unions of the European Union? If I were to suggest that New Zealand and Australia could beenfit from merging into a country called "Oceania", would that delegitimise either of them? Your source doesn't have to say the word "delegitimise" for you to paraphrase him as such. But he has to say words to that effect! You can't just say "that sounds like delegitimisation to me". That's original research. And stringing a series of sources together to imply a storyline that none of them explictly states is synthesis. I have no problem with the Sabel source, it clearly says what we're saying it says about delegitimisation. I haven't tried to access the Matas or Dershowitz sources yet. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If the premise of the European Union was that the English nation, in trying to maintain the English people and culture, was founded on an immoral, even criminal or racist ideology, and similarly for the German, French, Danish, etc., states, then yes, delegitimization of the member states would be a just characterization of the attempted justification for that proposed new entity. We also notice that the EU accepts the autonomous cultural and political structures and history of each of its member states, and they can even legitimately preserve their borders, defend themselves with their own armies and maintain their own political structures - but we do not find any of this is to be allowed to Jews or Israel in the proposed single-state solution. Moreover, the supposedly "bi-national" single state does not allow for semi-autonomous federation at all, but submersion, without any possibility of self-defense, in a Palestinian majority state similar to the nightmare for Christians in the state of Lebanon - which Hadar rather pointedly refers to in his second-cited article.
As for Hadar, are we reading the same article? Hadar makes clear that the one-state solution sought by "apartheid"-analogy advocates turns on delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish nation-state, giving up its Zionist rationale, and submerging the Jewish community or reframing it within a "bi-national" single state in which Palestinians would come to be the majority. All this is stated explicitly by Hadar. He does not use the "delegimization" terminology, but describes its operation. There is certainly no need for the word to be used before we can understand the article this way. After all, to take an example, bullying does not become bullying only if the bully formally announces that he is "bullying" someone. The "impracticality" analysis you did pick up on, missing the rest and mistaking the consequence for the cause, arises from the refusal of Israelis or Jews anywhere to accept this anti-Zionist and even anti-Jewish "solution": they just won't do it, and Hadar says so. But that is because the proposed solution is precisely a delegitimization and negation of all that they are and hope for. Hadar also indicates that Palestinians (Said and Buttu are quoted) and others using the "apartheid" label aim to justify in this way their desire to do away with Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state.
However, it is actually not necessary to debate this point about what Hadar does or does not think, or his opinion about delegitimization. Hadar in any case traces the history of the Palestinian uptake of this anti-Israel, anti-Zionist (and therefore we must confess delegitimizing) terminology, and shows the intention to deny that Israel is a liberal democratic state but is instead a criminally racist state, as part of an effort to replace Israel with something else, and that is all that the contribution points to or needs to point to. The things stated in the proposed contribution do not misquote or misuse Hadar, and that is the simple fact of the matter. The actual contribution just says: "Leon Hadar, a specialist on international relations and Middle Eastern affairs, has sought to document the development of the explicit decision on the part of the Fatah leadership and other leading Palestinian spokespeople to use the "apartheid" analogy in this fashion, in order to create what Hadar calls a 'Greater Palestine.'" (The "Greater Palestine" terminology is in the second of Hadar's articles, so perhaps it should stay in the cited sources after all.) All this is true. It is a neutral statement of fact. Said is quoted by Hadar to this effect, and so is Buttu. These too are simple matters of documented fact. And finally, Barghouti is cited by me as additional testimony explicitly summing up the entire thing. This Barghouti citation too is fact. Each source says exactly what the edit says it says. And each is really making the same points, from different perspectives. Hadar just traces the history of the claims, Said and Buttu document this, and Barghouti shows the same themes again. There is no "synthesis" that makes the various sources say something that they would not agree to.Tempered (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the direct connection between Hadar and these Palestinian authors. As I said before Hadar's opinion about Said, Barghouti et al., but it is not the way or the place to present Said and Barghouti's opinions. The place to present Said and Barghouti's opinions is in the Supporters of the Analogy section. Hadar's criticism of their advocacy should not be the main place where their opinions are placed. I'll leave it to you three to sort out whether "delegitimize Israel" is part of Hadar's analysis or just "Greater Palestine." However, Tempered, I wonder if you can concede that a summary like the one I presented of Hadar's interpretation of the other writers is a way of both explaining Hadar's argument and allowing Said, Barghouti et al to speak for themselves. It also avoids the ever-lengthening prospect of quoting at length everyone whose argument is critiqued by someone else in this article. To offer my suggestion again:
"Hadar argues that Said, Barghouti, etc.--who are both proponents of the analogy and supporters of a one-state solution--are using the analogy to delegitimate the two-state solution, and to encourage the replacement of Israel with a secular, democratic state."
Substantively, the very Said article that you quote simply does not call for delegitimizing Israel, nor does it advocate a "greater Palestine" as a framework for Jewish life in the one-state solution. I quote from another Said article, "The One-State Solution," at length:
This does not mean a diminishing of Jewish life as Jewish life or a surrendering of Palestinian Arab aspirations and political existence. On the contrary, it means self-determination :for both peoples. But it does mean being willing to soften, lessen and finally give up special status for one people at the expense of the other. The Law of Return for Jews and the right of return for Palestinian refugees have to be considered and trimmed together. Both the notions of Greater Israel as the land of the Jewish people given to them by God and of Palestine as an Arab land that cannot be alienated from the Arab homeland need to be reduced in scale and exclusivity.
The beginning is to develop something entirely missing from both Israeli and Palestinian realities today: the idea and practice of citizenship, not of ethnic or racial community, as the main vehicle for coexistence. In a modern state, all its members are citizens by virtue of their presence and the sharing of rights and responsibilities. Citizenship therefore entitles an Israeli Jew and a Palestinian Arab to the same privileges and resources. A constitution and a bill of rights thus become necessary for getting beyond Square 1 of the conflict because each group would have the same right to self-determination; that is, the right to practice communal life in its own (Jewish or Palestinian) way, perhaps in federated cantons, with a joint capital in Jerusalem, equal access to land and inalienable secular and juridical rights.
Finally, this is the only "mass campaign" discussed, an appeal to Israelis about a shared future:
Palestinian intellectuals need to express their case directly to Israelis, in public forums, universities and the media. The challenge is both to and within civil society, which has long been subordinate to a nationalism that has developed into an obstacle to reconciliation.
This perspective is echoed in the Said article you quote:
The second phrase was in his description of the anti-Apartheid campaign not simply as a movement to end racial discrimination, but as a means "for all of us to assert our common humanity." Implied in the words "all of us" is that all of the races of South Africa, including the pro-Apartheid whites, were envisaged as participating in a struggle whose goal finally was coexistence, tolerance and "the realization of humane values." ...
What we never concentrated on enough was the fact that to counteract Zionist exclusivism, we would have to provide a solution to the conflict that, in Mandela's second phrase, would assert our common humanity as Jews and Arabs. Most of us still cannot accept the idea that Israeli Jews are here to stay, that they will not go away, any more than Palestinians will go away. This is understandably very hard for Palestinians to accept, since they are still in the process of losing their land and being persecuted on a daily basis. But, with our irresponsible and unreflective suggestion in what we have said that they will be forced to leave (like the Crusades), we did not focus enough on ending the military occupation as a moral imperative or on providing a form for their security and self-determinism that did not abrogate ours.
Aside from reliable sources, citations, and quoted arguments, I think it's essential to see that this is not an attempt at "delegitimization" of Israel, but at proposing a joint national project to Israeli Jews. I would ask you to seriously reconsider the characterization you propose. If you insist on including the accusation that it is delegitimization, it should be properly rebutted.--Carwil (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Said sounds very nice or at least soft-spoken in the version you present, Carwil. However, that version very carefully picks only the nice bits and does not quite state things accurately. E.g., regarding "mass campaigns," Said calls in his article, "The Only Alternative," for a "mass campaign" specifically aimed at the Western world. It would also be aimed to divide and demoralize Jews, but this is not its chief focus. He explicitly bemoans the fact that: "We never concentrated as a people on cultural struggle in the West (which the ANC early on had realized was the key to undermining Apartheid)..." This campaign in Western countries would be used to remove the moral justification for Zionism and Israel itself, and instead stigmatize the national liberation movement of the Jewish people as inherently "racist," and "vicious and inhumane." He also, in traditional antisemitic and scapegoating mode if I may say so, decries the inexplicably hypnotic and sinister "Zionist lobby that has consistently lied in order to turn us [Palestinians] either into a non-people or into terrorists," and he asserts that Israel itself is a "racist" "virtual apartheid" state, filled with "spoliations, tortures," and "deprivations of the Palestinians just because they are not Jews," etc., etc. He makes lots of such intemperate, slanderous and demonizing claims, which do indeed constitute an attempted delegitimization of Jewish nationalism as such, Zionism and Israel, in any reasonable view. In any case, the proposed citation does not misquote Said, but presents what he actually says. As for the suggestion that his comments should only go into the pro-apartheid proponents sections, by all means quote him as you will there. But he can also be quoted to support criticisms of the apartheid analogy in this section, to demonstrate evidence for their criticisms too, and there can be no justifiable complaint about it so long as it meets basic criteria of verifiability, reliable sources, NPOV, etc.Tempered (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Buttu was specifically addressing the facts on the ground. By the time Edward Said wrote his article in 2001, both Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu had declared the Oslo Accords null and void. Israeli television 10 has shown the (now infamous) video of Netanyahu boasting that he personally destroyed the Oslo Accords the first time he was Prime Minister.[79] From 2001 to the present day, the Likud Party platform has flatly rejected the possibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state.[80] If Tempered's synthesis about the two state solution is correct, then isn't it still the Likudniks who are responsible for delegitimizing Israel? Channel 10 and Haaretz certainly seem to think they are being deceitful.[81] harlan (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I got drawn in and read Hadar. Hadar does not in fact describe how Palestinian leaders chose to "use the 'apartheid' analogy in this fashion." He describes how Said models Palestinian strategic choices on the choices faced by blacks apartheid South Africa. (Hadar also models the choices involved based on South Africa in the Huffington Post article you cite, but argues Israeli Jews have greater power of resistance than white South Africans.) Buttu's call for anti-apartheid campaign is like a choice of perspective and goal, not, at least as described by Hadar, a way "to use the apartheid analogy." Neither Hadar nor the his descriptions of Said and Buttu refer to "delegitimizing Israel." The Hadar material seems best suited for criticism of the one-state solution.
p.s., Convincing or not, harlan, your Likud analogy isn't going to help clear this up. --Carwil (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Carwil, I've already pointed out that Buttu was not "crying wolf". The "Likud analogy" amounts to apartheid. The PLO still favors the two state solution, but Israel has fragmented the territory and has illegally denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination. See Buttu in "Fragmenting the Palestinian State" [82]
The Negotiations Unit that Buttu headed-up filed a written statement in the ICJ Wall case [83] which said the present situation in the occupied territories is analogous to the human rights violations in the Bantustans and fulfills the Court's definition of apartheid in the Namibia case, i.e. continued occupation and denial of Namibian self-determination. Judge Higgins summed-up the legal criteria in her opinion: "This is not difficult - from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same - that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State." That entitlement is not subject to a Likud veto, e.g. "The European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto." [84] harlan (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am so pleased to learn from Harlan that the PLO "still favors the two state solution." Now all he has to do is inform the PLO of that fact. Even the supposed changes to the Palestinian National Covenant that Arafat was very begrudgingly and tardily forced into agreeing to, in accordance with the Oslo Accords he signed in 1994, which allegedly recognized the existence and legitimacy of the State of Israel, were never actually formally and officially adopted by the PLO: the supposed resolutions were merely theatre, but did not accord with PLO stipulations necessary for actual modification of their "Covenant". And several leading PLO members since then, including many in the present Fatah Council that governs the P.A. territory, have denied that they ever had accepted the existence or legitimacy of the State of Israel; rather, as even Arafat declared (in Arabic media, not English), the Oslo Accords themselves and all later peace negotiations were merely tactical tools or temporary measures serving the long-term goal of wiping out the Jewish state. Some cited sources on this have been added to the proposed contribution, at its end: see above under "'Reverted Contribution' Continued." More citations to this effect could easily be added, but what would be the real point? As for Netanyahu's declaration that he had closed down the Oslo process, this was only after the Palestinians under Arafat had openly disregarded every single one of the conditions laid on them in the Oslo Accords from the very beginning of their implementation through to the end of the 90s, indeed, Arafat, as has come out in recent archival revelations, actively directed and paid for the terrorist atrocities that punctuated the 90s at almost every point when Israel-PA relations seemed to have improved. The only process that Netanyahu halted was the on-going Israeli pretense that there was any Oslo process at all. Israel had continued to abide by its agreements without holding the Palestinians to account; Netanyahu ended that. This, Harlan, is not "Likud apartheid." As for the ICJ case, maybe you can give that a rest. It is irrelevant.Tempered (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tempered - this "apartheid label is an attempt at delegitimisation" argument certainly exists in the world, but neither Carwil or I can find it in Hadar. I would have liked to find it in Hadar, because agreeing with you would be less hassle than this drawn out discussion. My conclusion is that it would be better for you to find sources other than Hadar to cite in regards to this delegitimisation argument. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have already shown that Hadar presents evidence of Palestinian spokespeople who explicitly advocate the use of the "apartheid" analogy to stigmatize and isolate Israel and Zionism itself in the global community as was South Africa, and even more plainly, to replace Israel with another political entity altogether, a single state including the West Bank, Gaza (and the "Right of Return," although Hadar does not mention it - but Said and Buttu push this line too) in which Palestinians would either soon or immediately be in the majority. Such a demonstration and argument by Hadar is all that is claimed in the proposed contribution. He also says plainly that neither Israelis nor Jews elsewhere will buy this delegitimization of their state and political system, nor be willing to replace it with a highly prejudicial and insecure situation in a new Lebanon-like Palestinian state. So, manifestly, we do not read Hadar the same way: I say he clearly says these things, Ryan Paddy says he does not. Let us for example note a few statements in Hadar's "Two Peoples, Two States" article:
“In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communications have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism,” concludes leftist historian Tony Judt, who in a recent article in the New York Review of Books all but dismissed the idea of an Israeli-Jewish state and by extension its mirror-image, a Palestinian-Arab one, and joined the chorus of those advocating a bi-national state."
"So it’s good-bye anachronistic nation-state and hello borderless world, that is, less border between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. Since most demographers expect that Jews in historic Palestine/Israel will fall to 50 percent by the end of the decade and to less than 40 percent by 2020, those who propose the granting of Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the occupied territories assume that a majority of the citizens of the new Israel would choose to change the exclusive Jewish character of the state.
Hadar goes on to say that some Israeli "post-Zionists" have pushed a single state model that would involve giving up the Zionist rationale for the only Jewish state in the world, the rationale endorsed by the UN in 1947.
But there was certainly no sign of the emergence of a “post-Arabist” movement on the Palestinian side. And in any case, the collapse of the Oslo peace process and the start of the second intifada only played into the hands of more radical forces in the Israeli and Palestinian camps, with violence in the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River resembling more the civil war in Yugoslavia than the era of peaceful co-existence under Marshal Tito. So some Palestinian intellectuals started to change the narrative, to apply another historical analogy: South Africa."
There then follows Hadar's description of Edward Said's proposal to use the "apartheid" analogy to isolate, ostracize and finally force the collapse of the Zionist state. The reference to Buttu follows after this. All is as stated in my proposed contribution, both in regard to Hadar and to Said and Buttu.Tempered (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Tempered everyone has raised objections to the proposal on the grounds of WP:Synth, & etc. The article would have to present the opposing viewpoints in any event. Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has charged that Israel has become an "apartheid regime" worse than during South Africa's darkest hours and is doing its utmost to sabotage any two-state solution.[85] He also says "Those who continue with the settlement activities may end up with the one state solution, whether they like it or not. But that's not my option". [86] harlan (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No Synth is involved. And the assertion that one is obliged, only in the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" section but not in the proponents sections, to present opposing viewpoints rebutting criticisms of the apartheid analogy, is so nonsensical, and so contrary to Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV, Harlan, as to indicate a determination not to come to any consensus at all that does not conform to an "apartheid-analogy" advocacy bias.Tempered (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. Tempered, advocating for one-state solution = delegitimizing Israel is a POV position. You hold it, and believe that it is as obvious as 2+2=4, however at least one of the speakers you quoted—Edward Said—makes it clear that he does not find it obvious at all. (And advocates for equal parts of "post-Arabism" as "post-Zionism", i.e., limits to the exclusiveness of each national aspiration).
  2. Ryan Paddy is right to say that Hadar does not make the connections you describe in the texts you quote. I'm fairly confident others do, just make sure they do so clearly.
  3. Can you at least accept summarizing instead of narrating, as I suggested above?--Carwil (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. That Hadar writes of an intended delegitimization of Israel through tactical use of a demonizing "apartheid analogy," in the service of a "one-state solution" in which the Jewish state would disappear, all of which is clearly evidenced by the sources he cites, is a matter of fact. This is not just my opinion, Carwil, but citable fact: it is found in Hadar, expressly stated. See just above, the direct quotations from his article. (As for your comments on Said, these have already been shown to be highly selective, with the give-away bad bits obliterated since they do not serve your purposes here. This tendency to selective reading puts your version of Hadar under a cloud too. However, even if Said were "post-Arab" as you claim (and its sincerity can be debated, especially in the context of an Arab-dominant and highly nationalistic and racist Middle East), that is not the issue here: his explicit aim is the removal of the Jewish state from existence, and the replacement of it by something else, specifically on the demonizing grounds of the illegality and racism and all things bad of the Jewish state. Even you must admit that. And that is delegitimization. For Said, the state of Israel has no right to exist, just as for Omar Barghouti. Barghouti is Said's echo.)
  2. Many other critics of the apartheid analogy also find delegitimization in such efforts to abolish the "two states for two peoples" rationale first legitimated and endorsed by the UN in 1947. (In the present reverted version of the main article, cited sources that show this have been removed by editors who will not allow truth to disturb propaganda.)
  3. My POV is not the issue. Everyone has POV, but some openly use it in the service of falsehood by distorting and truncating contributions, removing their documentation and turning them into banalities, or eliminating them altogether, thus preventing the other side from speaking at all. It is that that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of NPOV, not the existence of a point of view in editors. The sources show what my contribution asserts. What is manifestly extreme POV is the refusal of anti-Israel editors to allow this contribution to enter the main article in any way, shape or form because it so clearly documents the stated extremist agenda and shows that criticisms of the apartheid-analogy motivations are justified. There is no "Synth" of 2 + 2 = 4, only 2 = 2. E.g., going on to cite Barghouti to the same end is no more than extending instances of the same delegitimizing motivation, which is yet further confirmed by citations of top Fatah leaders who state the same thing even more clearly and explicitly, if possible. It is all 2 = 2 = 2. And that this is so, is the real reason behind the objections just above. All of the editors who have commented on my proposed contribution have been anti-Israel editors, of one sort or another, most of them extreme, only one less so. This cannot produce a consensus. There cannot be a middle ground between those who wish to obliterate or eviscerate the voice of critics, and those who wish to document and substantiate the criticisms somehow. It is noticeable that none of the anti-Israel editors now involved have presented alternative ways of stating the points made in my contribution - they just wish it to disappear into single-sentence banality (as in the main article at present) or into non-existence altogether.
  4. So I think we have now reached the point where mediation of a more formal sort is called for.Tempered (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to have mediation I suggest the formal kind. It can take months to get an informal mediator to take on a subject relating to this page, months to discuss it, and then whatever outcome is reached gets overturned on the talk page. I think you'd be wasting your time and ours with any sort of mediation though, because it's reasonably clear that the source doesn't explicitly say what you think it does. I wish you'd just trust that we're offering advice in good faith - both Carwil and I have expressed that we're happy with roughly the sort of contribution you wish to make to the article, we just don't think you've found an appropriate citation in either of those Hadar sources. How about this for another idea - I would be happy to help you look for sources that make the "apartheid label = delegitimatisation" argument explicitly. I'm sure they're out there, as the whole delegitimatisation thing seems to be a popular meme with Israeli sources at the moment (whether in regard to the apartheid label or other issues). I have absolutely no problem helping with contributions that describe the "con" perspective, I've done so numerous times. I don't have a strong POV on the apartheid label, and even if I did I believe strongly that Wikipedia should have impartial coverage so I'm happy to help describe any significant perspective that can be clearly shown to exist in reliable sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, Ryan Paddy. Constructive responses have been few and far between, or rather non-existent until yours, which is precisely why I concluded that the next step had to be formal mediation. I do not mind however long it takes: the stalling tactics neither surprise me nor put me off. This is a matter of showing just how effective Wikipedia is in preserving NPOV in articles dealing with Israel and Jews. However, if you, or I for that matter, can find a source that is agreeable to us both to replace Hadar that develops the same historical evolution of the delegitimizing "apartheid" accusation, citing Said and Buttu, well and good. I am willing to wait for it before starting mediation efforts.
Still, I honestly fail to see why Hadar is not sufficient. His statements are plain enough. I quoted them above. What is wrong with them? How can it be said that they do not show that delegitimization, demonization of Israel as an apartheid state, and replacement of it with something like the highly discriminatory Lebanese situation (Hadar makes the connection explicitly), is behind all this? It is still not clear to me what the objection to Hadar is. (Perhaps it is that he does not solely devote the article to the Palestinian side of the delegitimization, but includes other "post-Zionist" figures? But that does not cancel out what he shows for the Palestinians.)
Moreover, I doubt that any source speaking of delegitimization/criminalization of Israel and citing Said and Buttu, or even Barghouti and the Fatah leadership for that matter, would be "persuasive" to other editors who have commented here. Hadar is not really the main issue. Carwil seems to find Said just a very nice guy who wishes heavenly post-modern egalitarian erasures of otherness, in the service of humanitarian bliss for all but Israel and "Zionists," sadly misunderstood. So no citation of Said quotes in such a context, however precise, full and telling, will be satisfactory to him. Harlan thinks no criticism about delegitimization could be justified about Buttu, who, he says, merely tells the simple truth, the "facts on the ground," which of course inevitably require the dissolution of the "criminal apartheid" Jewish state (how can one think this is delegitimization, he wonders), moreover the proposed contribution to the Criticism section is not permissible because it does not include refutations of the criticisms it presents, and besides, did not the ICJ issue statement number 000X34 on whatever it was I forget now? And so on. So aside from yourself, whose dedication to Wikipedia principles is evident, there seems to me no likelihood any formulation will be satisfactory to our editors, not just about Hadar, but also about Said, Buttu or any Palestinian leader. But I am still willing to be proven wrong on that. I invite more constructive and helpful comments from all, which demonstrate a willingness to engage seriously with the proposed contribution and to publish something like it in the main article without reversion, truncation, or banalization..Tempered (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Tempered I haven't prevented you from adding sourced material. I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to arguing your own points, you are NOT very good at summarizing mine. I have insisted that the views of the individuals involved be fairly represented. That is a WP:ARBPIA requirement. Buttu premised her remarks about the anti-apartheid campaign on the basis of "the facts on the ground". She no longer works for the PA and I don't think her interview was particularly noteworthy.
In any event the relevant points are that:
  1. The Chief Palestinian Negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has said that Israel has become an "apartheid regime" worse than during South Africa's darkest hours and is doing its utmost to sabotage any two-state solution. [87]
  2. He said "Those who continue with the settlement activities may end up with the one state solution, whether they like it or not. But that's not my option". [88].
  3. The PA is asking for recognition of a Palestinian state based on the two-state solution and the 1967 boundaries, NOT the replacement of the State of Israel with something else. They are also considering an international trusteeship to end the occupation. [89]
  4. Many sources say that Israel's administrative regime is illegal and has no legitimacy. See for example Ben-Naftali, Orna, Gross, Aeyal and Michaeli, Keren , "Illegal Occupation: The Framing of the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Berkley Journal of International Law, Vol. 23, p. 551, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098483
Your thesis appears to be unsourced and a little far-fetched at this point. It may not deserve a very lengthy treatment. harlan (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Harlan, none of your "relevant points" are relevant. The question at issue is not what Saeb Erekat et al. have said, but what the actually cited sources, including Diana Buttu, then legal advisor to the Fatah Council of the Palestinian Authority and therefore very representative and worthy of note, said, insofar as these, too, touch on the delegitimization motivation. To each of your "relevant points" some very trenchant responses could be made, with citations, but this is not necessary - they side-step the question. However, to the citations I have added to the final paragraph of my proposed contribution, above, I might add the following: Dore Gold, et al., "Have the Palestinians Abandoned a Negotiated Settlement?" Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1 no. 2, 6 September 2001, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-2.htm By the way, I asked for a "constructive" engagement that takes the proposed contribution seriously. Your response from that perspective only confirms my previous reading of your comments.
Just to remind everybody, the issue that began this subsection discussion is the question raised by Dailycare: is it within Wikipedia guidelines to cite and quote statements and articles of the opposing side in the context of describing sources criticising that side? Dailycare says no, and several of the editors here seem to endorse that. They want to place quotes and citations of Palestinian sources delegitimizing Israel only in the proponents of the apartheid analogy section, where their delegitimization motivation will not be highlighted or perhaps even granted, and to disallow them in the Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy section, even when the specific subsection is specifically about the motivations behind the advocacy of what some critics call the "grotesquely false" apartheid allegation. That is, critics of the apartheid analogy can talk about the "motivations" behind the apartheid advocacy, but they cannot be permitted to present any evidence for those motivations. It is just such a question that will have to go to formal mediation, I expect.Tempered (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you can say "X interprets what Y says to mean Z", but you must be careful with your phrasing to clearly attribute the interpretation to your source (X in my example) rather than stating it in Wikipedia's editorial voice, the interpretation must be explicit in the source you're citing, and there has to be careful weighting of Y's contribitions to the article (i.e. Y can't just be presented as interpreted by X, if X strongly disagrees with Y's views and gives them a strong interpretation). I think you ran into all of those problems. To give an example that turns the tables, if the only mention of "StandWithUs" in the article was from the point of view of proponents of the apartheid label, and StandWithUs were quoted solely to cast them in the light of being an unofficial propaganda wing of the Israeli government, then that would be in violation of NPOV. Especially if the source being cited didn't actually call them an unoffical propaganda wing etc, as it would then also fall foul of the WP:Verifiability policy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Tempered Diana Buttu worked in the PA Negotiation Unit which was headed-up by Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat. It is self-evident that his published views regarding the official PA positions are relevant. Article 25 of the Charter says that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". On a number of occasions, the Security Council has "decided" that Israel's actions in the occupied territories violate international law, the principles of the UN Charter, and that they have no legitimacy. All of the primary organs of the UN have called upon the member states not to recognize or assist the actions of the Israeli government or administrative regime in the occupied territories. That is obviously relevant to any discussion about "delegitimizing" Israel. harlan (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, I agree strongly with Ryan Paddy's formulation: "you can say "X interprets what Y says to mean Z", but you must be careful with your phrasing to clearly attribute the interpretation to your source (X in my example) rather than stating it in Wikipedia's editorial voice, the interpretation must be explicit in the source you're citing, and there has to be careful weighting of Y's contribitions to the article (i.e. Y can't just be presented as interpreted by X, if X strongly disagrees with Y's views and gives them a strong interpretation)." And I'm not trying to block the insertion of "X characterizes Said..." even though I think that interpretation is wrong, although I think that its wrongness should be noted somewhere (footnote, Edward Said, whatever).
I am skeptical about the whole apartheid allegations equal one-state solution equals delegitimizing Israel argument. Specifically, I think the second equivalence is only obvious from one POV, which I don't share. It is neither 2+2=4 nor 2=2. I suspect for economy of citation on this article it would be easier to find sources that say apartheid allegations equal delegitimizing Israel rather than apartheid allegation equals one-state solution. And I've said above that the one-state solution equals delegitimizing Israel POV should be described at the one-state solution page.--Carwil (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting Hadar

Tempered, I really don't want to get into another argument over Hadar because it's likely to be just as unproductive as last time. However, I see that unfortunately you're determined to keep trying to fit this square peg into a round hole. I'm addressing this here so we can keep the productive work further down on topic. To make it as clear as possible why this source isn't useful as a citation for this subject, here is a summary of the relevant points in Hadar (2004):

  1. In the 1920s the bi-national state concept was first proposed by an American-born Zionist called Judah Magnes, but it didn't get traction.
  2. In the 1960s peace activist Uri Avnery suggested that separate Israeli and Palestinian states could have their capitals in West and East Jerusalem respectively, and might someday form a confederation.
  3. In the 1990s, with violence happening between Israelis and Palestinians, Edward Said implicitly compared the conflict to apartheid in South Africa, and called for a one-state solution.
  4. In 2002 Diana Buttu called for a anti-apartheid campaign that would push for a one-state solution.
  5. The bi-national one-state solution was raised in "some Israeli left-wing circles" and by Meron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem.
  6. In 2003 the Association for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel proposed that "the creation of one democratic state is the only viable, long-term solution to the conflict" because the land "cannot be divided without creating further injustice."
  7. Hadar asserts that the one-state solution is unrealistic because of the growing nationalism of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
  8. Hadar asserts that the one-state solution would result in Jews dominating the state and exploiting the Palestinians, a new form of occupation that would worsen the violence.
  9. Hadar asserts that the apartheid analogy is misplaced because the Israeli Jews will never surrender power like the Afrikaners did. Some westerners will object to their their "repression of the Palestinians", but they'll have enough international support in the US Jewish community and in western societies (because they feel guilt about the Holocaust and are increasingly anti-Arab) to continue dominating the region.

Okay, given those last two points I'm really mystified why you think this an appropriate source to make your point with! Hadar seems to be saying that the main difference between apartheid in SA and in Israel/Palestine is that the Israelis Jews won't stop like the Afrikaners did. :) How you consider that an appropriate source for the "con" section is beyond me. But more importantly for your purposes: Hadar does say that the apartheid label is being used to promote the one-state solution. However, he doesn't state, or even imply, that the one-state solution is an attempt to delegitimise Israel. On the contrary, in points 1, 2 and 5 Hadar says that the one-state solution was originally formulated by a Zionist, and has since had support from Israelis who are concerned over the "morality" of the two-state solution. Hadar's objection to the one-state solution is expressed as purely practical based on the current extremes of nationalism in the two peoples, as demonstrated when he finishes the article by approvingly quoting Averny who says that "In the end, we shall reach the objective: to live together in peace, side by side. ... But today the propaganda for this utopia diverts attention from the practical, immediate objective, at a time when the whole world has accepted the idea of ‘two states for two peoples.’". There is no mention whatsoever that Hadar regards the apartheid label as an attempt at "delegitimisation", in those terms or any others. He just says that it's misplaced because the same end result isn't possible now in Israel/Palestine as it was in SA. If anything, he implies that he thinks a one-state solution is a preferable final outcome, just not a realistic immediate one for "the present Israeli generation, or its successor" because the Israeli ethos is so nationalistic. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just found this: Hadar (2010). He says that Israel is in danger of being "transformed into a Middle Eastern version of South Africa's Apartheid system" if it continues to control the West Bank. So again, he doesn't seem like an appropriate source for the con section, and again he isn't equating the apartheid analogy with delegitimisation. He actually outlines three choices for Israel: the two-state solution, the one-state solution, or apartheid. He's using the analogy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The last reference, like some of the others, tells us that Hadar says Israel might, in some future situation, if it does not abandon the West Bank, if it does not adopt his view of things, become "transformed" (i.e., that means, become changed in a radical way from what it is presently -- which clearly is not in the apartheid-category) into a Middle Eastern version of an apartheid state. The subjunctive future tense, the subordinate clauses, the word "transformed," all indicate a disbelief and distancing from the proposition that Israel is presently an apartheid state. It is not the case that Hadar says it is an apartheid state, but merely for "practical" reasons will not relinguish this present apartheid nature. Israel is not an apartheid state to begin with, but the reason for Jews refusing to relinquish Zionism and the Jewish state goes deeper: it is due to a strong and nearly universal Zionist self-definition amongst Israel's Jews, and most Jews outside Israel too, undergirding the creation and continued existence of the state of Israel. (The reference to the Jewish resistance being due to "growing nationalism" is odd, to say the least, since Israel was first founded on the affirmation of Zionism amongst Israeli Jews, and is still supported by it, but never mind.) The reasons he gives for a single state not being practical are therefore two: one, Jews would never give up their present state and Zionist rationale, and two, even if they did, what would result would also end up with a very unstable and possibly violent situation for Jews, and racist accusations against them, because their likely attainment of elite positions in the proposed single state would be resented by Arabs.
As for the references to Said and Buttu, the actual context of those references in Hadar's article was precisely delegitimization of Israel through application of the apartheid analogy. This addition of the apartheid analogy capped, according to Hadar, an already elaborated delegitimization from a leftist perspective such as we see in Judt's views. That is his account of it. See my quotations above. Hadar therefore says what my proposed contribution says he says. And his history of the development of the apartheid analogy surely is citable in itself, whatever his personal views, and it points to Said and Buttu, as claimed. Said and Buttu, even in the above account given by Ryan Paddy, are using that analogy consciously to claim that Israel is bad, and must be replaced by a single state. That's delegitimization.Tempered (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've done my best. You're still reading Hadar as saying something he doesn't say. I've spelled out what he says, and how it's not what you think. It hasn't helped, and there's nothing more I can do on this front. Do whatever you think best. You're wasting your time on Hadar, but I'm not going to continue to waste mine by discussing it with you. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that the actual passages I quoted above from Hadar, which I gave to show that he says what I claim, have oddly enough simply been ignored. They have not been addressed at all, just ignored, and the actual argument there, in the source, is just passed over in silence. E.g., the extended reference to Judt's position, taken as typical of leftist post-Zionists, is omitted, although it plainly delegitimizes Israel and leads immediately to the references to Palestinian (Said, Buttu) development of the apartheid accusation as a more demonized version of delegitimization. As this shows, the summary headlines given (above, numbers 1 to 9) for the various paragraphs do not actually 'spell out' their contents but instead are formulated in such a way as to avoid key aspects of them, and not only in regard to the passages I quoted at length (e.g., you still insist on taking the practical consequence Hadar points to, i.e., that Israelis will not accept the dissolution of their state, as indicating that he thinks this the sole difference from apartheid South Africa, when it depends, as he says, on the Zionist ideological commitment by Israelis and Jews generally to their present Jewish state -- which is already a liberal democracy). So, you are right, we disagree.Tempered (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, I think it's better form to enter completely new comments with timestamps, rather than edit your old comments without modifying the timestamps. --Dailycare (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You need not be concerned, Dailycare. My revisions were simply to smooth out style, and add clarifications, to avoid misunderstanding. No big deal, and certainly permissible. But I note that there is no response either by you or Ryan Paddy to the substance of my comment or even, still, the Hadar quote itself, which, I take it, means that no refutation can be made of my comment or the accuracy and meaning of the Hadar quote, so all that is again simply passed over in silence.Tempered (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Tempered, I believe that at this point the Hadar documents may be some of the most discussed sources on Wikipedia and I don't agree that your comments concerning them wouldn't have been responded to.
I haven't commented again for the reason in my last comment: we simply read this source completely differently, your comment is just more evidence of that, and I can't be bothered arguing in circles. This is also putting me off getting on with attempting a draft text as discussed below, as you're likely to disagree with whatever I come up with because your reading of the sources is so different to mine (and to me, it seems grossly inaccurate). Given that compiling a draft from the sources would be rather a lot of work, and that it's not a subject of particular interest to me, that's an unpleasant equation. Especially if you're going to insist on working Hadar back into the text despite its lack of relevance, which is where this seems to be heading. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
There is life after Hadar, Ryan Paddy. See my response below in the next section.Tempered (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for new sources

Thanks for the kind words Tempered, like I said I'm happy to help. Here's my first attempt at some sources just from a quick Googling:

There are many, many more such op-eds and editorials as you can see with those last two search links. Like I said, this delegitimisation meme is very popular, especially recently. Anyway, I think we'll have an embarressment of choice in regards to sources for this POV. The difficulty will be selecting the best sources in terms of author, publication venue and most especially the quality of reasoning employed. The goal should be to find the sources who do the best job of explaining the argument, and just cite them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more sources, identified via from Google Scholar:

There are still many more. I haven't made any attempt yet to discern which articles would make the best reliable sources. Given that some of these articles appear to have been published in scholarly journals, they would probably make better reliable sources than the various op-ed articles in my first list, but we'd have to look at the authors and the journals to be sure. Unfortunately this process is looking more like a marathon than a sprint. Tempered, do you have anything to add? To be honest, I'm finding this process a little depressing. One minute it's the Palestinians who are conspiring to delegitimise Israel, then it's the NGOs, then Israeli academics... apparently the whole damn world is conspiring to delegitimise Israel, and naturally Israel is entirely innocent and undeserving of any such criticism. Anyway, that's all by the wayside. It's clearly a significant POV and we just need to identify the best sources to identify it with. Do any of those above stand out as especially reputable or employing logic that we can describe in the article? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ryan Paddy, I am very impressed. Thank you. I have long had an extended list of other sources out there, but this is good. It has taken me a while to get into the various sources you list, and indeed some of them are definitely worth including. In particular, in a preliminary assessment, this applies to Raffel, Susser, Korn, Sela, Steinberg and Wistrich.
I have no problems with CAMERA and Honestreporting.com: they are pretty rigorous in their assessment of claims, unlike the Electronic Intifada, and a lot more responsible and accurate than a lot of major media outlets, to put it mildly. There are many articles on the extraordinary media bias in reporting on Israel. Just for one instance, see http://www.hudson-ny.org/1481/middle-east-western-media Also see in your own list the items by Seaman and Sela. CAMERA and Honestreporting.com have been instrumental in uncovering a good many media hoaxes or incorrect claims, and can be relied on for this; their findings have been substantiated by many other sources.
Anyway, in this list Steinberg and Wistrich are the most important, in my opinion, both because the authors are highly knowledgeable in their fields (Steinberg is a professor of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, as well as the head of NGO Monitor; Wistrich is a world authority on the history of antisemitism and has taught at Harvard and other top universities around the world; his huge magnum opus on the the history of antisemitism came out just this year) and because of the points they make. Steinberg also has some other excellent articles on the delegitimization theme online.
I have also looked at some others not in your list. There are a number worth attention. I particularly was pleased to locate, in this search through Google this time, an important article I had read some time ago but did not locate again, by the expert in international law Professor Irwin Cotler, former Attorney General of Canada, and recipient of many honors for his work in global human rights, entitled "Global Antisemitism: Assault on Human Rights," Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism; Working Paper No. 3, 2009, at: http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/irwincotlerworkingpaper10209.pdf. It is very relevant. Perhaps the most important of these other articles, however, is one which I did not know of before and have just finished reading, an article by Jean Kirkpatrick in Commentary Magazine, back in July 1989, entitled "How the PLO was Legitimized" (available at: http://www.aei.org/docLib/20030829_KirkpatrickPLO.pdf). She shows in detail how all the same sorts of claims, and agendas, including the South African apartheid claims, were present back in the 1970s in the UN (actually the Soviets fiercely pushed such defamation in the 60s in the UN and world arena, and internally as far back as the 30s, as a permissible expression of raw antisemitism) in the course of which the leading global terrorist organization of that generation, the PLO, was enthusiastically legitimized by the UN General Assembly, while, under Soviet sponsorship, the support of the Arab block, the Islamic Conference, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the same GA pushed through the "Zionism is racism" resolution delegitimizing Zionism and Israel (later rescinded with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991). Her detailed analysis of the legal process is very revealing of ramifications and agendas. This has very contemporary relevance for the current fight world-wide against terrorism. As the treatment of the Jews goes today, so the treatment of others goes tomorrow. So this certainly belongs in a revised version of the proposed contribution.
Several of the sources mentioned in your list, too, refer to historical backgrounds. All these can be used as supporting evidence expanding and preceding the Hadar reference, which still seems to me to be applicable and useful in its proper place. The revision would then offer a short historical review of the development of the "apartheid analogy" as an aspect of the war on Israel's legitimacy.
As for the simplifying and finally dismissive claim that all this material is predicated on the premise that Israel is "entirely innocent and undeserving of any such criticism," although there would be nothing exceptional in the history of antisemitism in this actually being the case, I would suggest with all due respect that you take seriously the actual text in the sources you list: you will find that they almost all make a firm distinction between legitimate criticism of this or that in Israel, and the quite Manichaean and mythologizing demonization that slurs over all differences in kind and degree. It is highly suspect to attempt to criminalize above all other states in the world the only (and quite intensely) liberal democratic state in the Middle East. And the "double standards" are relevant here too. Despite claims that behind the demonizing is deep concern for Palestinian well-being and human rights, much worse is passed over in silence or dismissive indifference that happens to the Palestinians and also to other minorities (including both Jews and Christians) just across the borders of Israel in every direction (including in the PA itself), but only "Israel Apartheid Weeks" are held. Demonization, Double Standards, and Delegitimization: these indeed are the signs of antisemitism unleashed, as Sharansky said years ago (to which I would add "Obsessiveness"). I refer you to his article, which he wrote specifically to clarify the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitic criticism, http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/articles/45181/3DTestofAntisemitism%3ADemonization%2CDoubleStandards%2CDelegitimizationbyNatanSharanskyTempered (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Compiling the new sources into text

I think between the sources I've found, and those you've got, we have enough to re-draft your contribution. We don't have to be exhaustive, more citations can always be added later, possibly by other editors. In terms of CAMERA, StandWithUs, Electronic Intifada, HonestReporting, etc - they are advocacy groups, and previous discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have concluded that such groups should usually be cited for the opinions they express, not for the "facts" they present. Scholarly and news articles (not op-eds, which are in the same boat as advocacy) are more appropriate for citing "facts", although naturally the source still has to be taken into account (especially when those "facts" are disputed by other scholarly/news sources). Anyway, as it happens this whole contribution falls under POV, not fact, so any source is suitable, however per WP:RS scholarly articles by respected academics and mainstream news are still preferable over op-eds and advocacy groups, so let's start with the preferable sources and see if we can get what we need from those. In terms of Hadar, I'm disappointed that you are still flogging that dead horse given the effort I've put into finding equivalent sources that explicitly make the "apartheid label = delegitimisation" point. I will continue to insist that you don't cite Hadar as saying something he doesn't explicitly say, per the WP:Verifiability policy. I'll message you about my personal opinions to keep the article talk page for discussing the article. How do you want to progress - do you want to come up with a draft, and I'll contribute to it? Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree along the broad lines concerning the preferable sources, however e.g. CAMERA shouldn't be used on this page even for its own opinions, since those opinions are "unduly self-serving", which disqualifies sources as sources on their own opinion in WP:IRS. This is also not the article on CAMERA, which is the place where CAMERA material is primarily usable to begin with. Another point is that the "delegitimization" point is already mentioned in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Mentioned. Right. That is what Dailycare has reduced it to in the main article: a highly truncated "mentioned." It needs to be highlighted, and evidence substantiating it from critics's point of view allowed and presented, because it is a major theme and central concern (apart from the falsity of the charge to begin with) in those criticising the apartheid analogy. All one has to do is read their many articles to discover this, as Ryan Paddy has done.
As for the re-write, I will attempt this in the coming day or so; thanks Ryan Paddy. I welcome your comments and suggestions for improvement and look forward to it. I still have not had a clarification from you, however, about what is deficient in my citation of Hadar. I presented quotes from him, above: what is wrong with them or missing from their "delegitimization" logic? Please do explain that. (Note, by the way, that there is a progression in the "delegitimization" theme as Hadar presents it: first comes the "post-nationalist" argument that Zionism is a passé kind of ideology, out of tune with the globalizing times, so Israel must go - Judt for example asserts this - but then comes the fully demonizing addition of the "apartheid" and "racism" argument, which Hadar links to the Palestinians Said and Buttu.) However, in a fuller review of the history of the "apartheid" accusation, Hadar's contribution will naturally take up a lesser place.
As for CAMERA and other "advocacy" sources, I agree with Ryan Paddy on that: CAMERA and Honestreporting.com are the sort of sources that can be cited for opinion just as the (much less reliable, in my estimation but surely at least equally "unduly self-serving") Electronic Intifada can, and this is in accord with RS principles.Tempered (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As luck would have it, we don't need to cite any advocacy groups on this subject, because we have a wealth of academics to cite. Academic citations sit at the top of the reliable source heirarchy. So we don't need to have yet another argument about advocacy groups, who typically sit in the "questionable sources" category because they are "promotional in nature". Let's get the thing written using the academic sources, with a sprinkling of journalists if necessary, and leave the argument over advocacy groups to a subject with a lessor wealth of reliable sources. I will reply regarding Hadar further up, so that this section can be productive. I agree that given the prevalence of the concept in the sources this deserves more than a mention. A paragraph or two should do it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
There are many reliable sources (including the Likud party platform) which say that the members of the Likud, the National Union, and pressure groups like the JCPA have actively worked to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, to deny Palestinians the right to a nationality and self-determination, and to delegitimize the Quartet Roadmap and the two state solution. MK Tzipi Hotoveley, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, and former defense minister Moshe Arens have recently declared support for a plan to unilaterally annex the West Bank in order to create a single state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. [90] [91] Just the other day there were Haaretz, Maariv, and JPost reports that Geert Wilders was joining forces with MK Eldad at a forthcoming Tel Aviv conference to back a call to end the US sponsored peace talks and adopt the so-called "Jordan-is-Palestine" two state solution. [92] [93] and [94] harlan (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
That's unconstructive to what we're discussing here, go ramble somewhere else please. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like 90 percent of the talk page archive is devoted to a one-sided rambling essay about the revert of a very doubtful thesis (that is part and parcel of an unsuccessful Israeli government re-branding campaign). Are you planning on renaming the article "Israel's strategic communications program for the apartheid analogy"?

Even some of the officials in charge of crafting Israel's latest narrative about "delegitmization" admitted that Israel's troubled international position flows from its "questionable human rights record" and lack of willingness to reach an equitable political settlement with the Palestinians/Arabs, e.g. [95] This article has always presented the viewpoint that the Palestinians living behind walls and barbed wire fences under foreign occupation, colonization, and blockades are merely slandering or libeling the State of Israel by conducting an anti-apartheid campaign. This new material isn't different from the existing material in that respect.

P.S. South African politician Kader Asmal has served on a commission of inquiry into reported violations of international law by Israel. He was a professor of human rights at the University of the Western Cape, chairman of the council of the University of the North and vice-president of the African Association of International Law. He says "The world worked together to help bring apartheid to an end. So why allow it to live on in Israel/Palestine?" and "It is time to delegitimise this entity. We did that to the apartheid government in South Africa, and the same must happen to Israel." So, some people view an anti-apartheid campaign to delegitmize an apartheid government as just another example of "the apartheid analogy". See "World must deny legitimacy to Israel".[96] harlan (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the delegitimisation argument is something that's just been cooked up by the Israeli government (although clearly it's not, it dates back at least decade in the sources), it's in a lot of sources so it's a significant aspect of the "con" argument and therefore something we have to cover. We can use as much of the talk page as we damn well please, it takes more time to reach a real consensus than it does to just dismiss people out of hand or to spout non-sequiturs. Thanks for the links, I'm sure they will slow down the discussion with arguments about whether we can include "Let's delegitimise Israel!" pro-apartheid label references in the con-apartheid label section of the article (without violating WP:Synth and so forth). Now, please wait until we have a draft and then make constructive suggestions instead of being dismissive. Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Taking into consideration time factors, Ryan Paddy, and if you are willing as you have suggested, it might be most effective if you presented a rewrite of the proposed contribution that you believe takes into account the most significant and relevant of the contents of the various sources we have located, and I write up my proposed rewrite, in the next few days (I find that I have quite a few other calls on my time, but I will make every effort) and then we work through to an agreed version. It may be that I can accept most or all of your version, and that might expedite things. And the reference to the Soviet response in the UN after the 67 war, which is mentioned by several sources, and Kirkpatrick's analysis of developments in the 70s, I believe should be part of the text, precisely to show the historical background and time depth to what was clearly revived after the collapse of the Camp David 2000 peace talks, the Durham Racism (or should I say antisemitic) conference in 2001, Said, Buttu, Barghouti, etc. These would be things I would like to include. I would also definitely use the sources already cited in the proposed contribution for the "delegitimization" theme. E.g., the first (by Mark Silverberg) gives an excellent analysis in general, highlighting double standards as well and at length, while the second and third (Ben Cohen, Robbie Sabel) in addition to other topics include good historical background, including the above-mentioned developments in the 60s and 70s at the UN, leftist agendas there, the Durham Conference, etc.Tempered (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It certainly does matter that the "delegitimization" theme is part of the publicly announced strategic communications strategy of the government of Israel and many of the Jewish and Zionist federations. You need to inform the readers about that fact. harlan (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay Tempered, I'll do my best. Harlan, I'll keep the considerations you've raised in mind. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't gotten onto this, for the reasons I've mentioned in the "Revisiting Hadar" section above. I'm not sure yet whether my desire to see this through will overcome the sense of pointlessness given how far apart we are on readings of some sources. If anyone else wants to have a go please do. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have held off contributing a revised version of the proposed contribution with the hope that we will be able to come to an agreed text on the basis of what you propose, Ryan Paddy. Although I am well aware that your views differ from my own in essential matters, with you being hostile to Zionism, etc., and that we do not even always evaluate texts the same way, I am quite willing to take your suggestions seriously and in general to make reasonable accommodations for the sake of consensus. This is because I had thought you at least upheld and followed Wikipedia principles and respected the right of those who differ from you to advance their case and document it without truncation or distortion, unusually on this page. I am puzzled, too, that you have waited silently so long before announcing your reservations and intention to pull out. The reasons given could have been advanced almost two weeks ago, or even a month ago, well before you suggested you would be willing to try to formulate your own compromise version. Nothing has changed since then. Perhaps, however, you found the actual sources too numerous and too hard to work through and summarize briefly and meaningfully in a fair and effective fashion? It is a pretty time-consuming task, as you wrote in your concluding remarks in the previous sub-section on Hadar, and demands good will and reflection. I have also found it difficult to summarize all that succinctly, so I can understand the problem.
You also say above that you are discouraged by the possibility of disagreement. Of course, agreement cannot be guaranteed ahead of time in any case, this is true, either on the main drift of the contribution or on this or that specific detail, but that is what consensus is supposed to work on. So why not take heart and give it a go? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. As for Hadar, I have already thought out a way of citing him in a more low-key way that conveys the essential points without involving his own view on matters nor the questions that have agitated various editors. As it turns out, just as you suggested several weeks ago, it is also possible to draw upon other sources to make at least some of the points that I have used him for in my present version. In fact, your own proposed version might do just that anyway. So I look forward to reading it.Tempered (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You misjudge my attitude towards Zionism, but that's not a topic for here. The explanation for the delay is the latter one you've given - the amount of work as compared to the potential for no benefit took some time to dawn on me. You seem to be committed to coming to a consensus, so I'll try again and keep my fingers crossed that I'm not wasting my time. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ South Africa's Israel boycott
  2. ^ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/02/israel
  3. ^ "Simon & Schuster: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover) – Read an Excerpt," Simon & Schuster November, 2006. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
  4. ^ Meet the Press, December 3, 2006 [97] Tim Russert quotes Carter, speaking to the Louisville Courier-Journal, 23 November 2006: "I would say that in many ways the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces is as onerous – and in some cases more onerous – as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the apartheid government."
  5. ^ "Jimmy Carter Issues Letter to Jewish Community on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" Carter Center, 15 December 2006. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
  6. ^ a b Carter explains "apartheid" reference in letter to U.S. Jews International Herald Tribune, December 15, 2006, accessed 23 April 2007"
    The six rabbis...and I...discussed the word "apartheid," which I defined as the forced segregation of two peoples living in the same land, with one of them dominating and persecuting the other. I made clear in the book's text and in my response to the rabbis that the system of apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence...my use of "apartheid" does not apply to circumstances within Israel."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid/Archive_36&oldid=1238717313"