Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 13

message: Many people have suggested that we step back and look at all of the "apartheid" articles together. I've put a proposal at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid and would appreciate your comments. Why don't we head over there, hang out for a few days, and see what happens? Su-Laine Yeo 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed structure and terminology guidelines for all "apartheid" articles 

message: I invite all concerned editors to an informal poll on structure and terminology here: Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid Su-Laine Yeo 06:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New straw poll 

message: I thought this article had been merged into Apartheid outside of South Africa (it should be "Apartheid outside South Africa," by the way). Does anyone know how that discussion is progressing? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How it is progressing, or where it is, for that matter. I think I expressed support for it in about three different places, and then more discussions and polls and sandboxes and whatever kept opening up to talk about it, and I couldn't keep repeating myself.  Then it seems to have been merged and unmerged.  Am I the only one who thinks that the history of these "apartheid" articles proves that for extremely controversial subjects, the Wikipedia principle of anyone-can-edit/revert/re-revert/move/re-move simply doesn't work?  6SJ7 01:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I'm completely confused about where it was discussed and what was decided, if anything. Perhaps we should start the process again. :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Do you want this article to be renamed "Allegations of Israeli apartheid"? Please vote and comment here: Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid. Su-Laine Yeo 05:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on renaming the article 

message: "According to a Geocartographia survey conducted for the Center for the Struggle Against Racism that was released last week, 68% of Israeli Jews would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Israeli Arab, while 26% would do so.  46% of Israeli Jews would refuse to allow an Arab to visit their home, while 50% would welcome an Arab visitor.  41% of Israeli Jews support the segregation of Jews and Arabs in places of recreation, compared with 52% who would oppose such a move.  Support for segregation was higher with lower income and religiously observant Israeli Jews, as well as with Jews of Middle Eastern origin.  40% of Israeli Jews believe “the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens,” while 52% do not.  34% of Israeli Jews agree that “Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture,” but 57% do not agree with the statement." 
It was removed by Isarig as irrelevant.  Although it does seem to show that there is public support for segregation.  Although one needs to determine if the Geocartographia group (whose homepage is here ) is reputable or not.  --Ben Houston 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whether or not there is public support for segregation is irrelevant to the section's subject, which is accusations that the Israeli state practices Apartheid. Similar polls have been run in many European countries, with very simialr results. Will we now set up articles tilte "French Apartheid" or "Dutch Apartheid" becuase a significant percentage of their populations have expressed anti-immigration sentiments accurately described as racist? Isarig 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still trying to figure out if it is true or biased presentation.  I found a reference in the Guardian here 41% of Israel's Jews favour segregation, Chris McGreal, The Guardian, March 24 2006: "The poll was conducted by a respected Israeli organisation, Geocartographia, for the Centre for the Struggle Against Racism, founded by Arab-Israeli academics."  --Ben Houston 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Question: is there an article in Wikipedia that covers the perceptions of Israel Arabs and Israeli Jews (and possibly Palestinian Arabs and Jewish Settlers) have of each other?  It would be useful since it would show how much ill will there is on all sides and it would put it into context.  --Ben Houston 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, sort of - Israeli Arabs, and this poll is relevant there, and is discussed there. It is not relevant here. Isarig 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The survey seems relevant to me, given the context, I'm not inclined to fight over it, but I think it is an insight into the mentality.  Then again, as someone pointed out, this sort of racism is pretty widespread in other parts of the Med and Europe too. --Coroebus 22:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're ok with me creating an article called "German Apartheid" based on [this|http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/9gilad.htm] - "The 1994 public opinion poll of Emnid Institute reflected a similar trend: 68% percent of the Germans agreed they would not like to have Romanies as their neighbors. " -we can mention this poll here. IMHO, it is irrelevant. Isarig 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PeaceNow converage of Israeli opinion

message: This article is rapidly filling up with original research, as proponents for each side attempt to build cases for the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the analogy.  I've cleaned up some of it, but there's much more to go (for example, most of the section about land use policies). Please remember, the sources used must be about "Israeli apartheid", or at least refer to "apartheid" and associate it with Israel.  This article is not a soapbox for proving/disproving the analogy, but rather an article which describes what proponents/opponents of the analogy have to say about it. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please watch the [[WP:NOR|original research]] 

message: CJC, reverted the intro reasoning "HS: your version is leading, and it is also bad writing". 
There is no dispute that the expression IA is [mis]used to isolate and condemn Israel. Its proponents welcome this outcome and its opponents oppose it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bad writing" 

message: The current criticism section, a list of bullet points, is not really appropriate.  It would be better to have the bulleted section broken out into sections acknowledging the source and their argument in their words.  One good example is how it was handled on the New_Anti-Semitism#Other_critics article -- broken down by who said what and letting each response to the criticism make its case congently.  A global summary of the responses should still be provided though for reader ease.  Also, we rely on fairly horrible sources for a lot of the rebuttal -- the over-reliance on the NGO Monitor Op-Ed piece is not great, it would be better to find academic sources, and some of the citations such as BICOM are very partisan -- have a look at how they frame the overall conflict in the FAQ  - this site is promoting an exclusive and one-sided narrative in its explanation of just about everything, its frankly scary.  --Ben Houston 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you that the list of bullet points isn't ideal, I must disagree about the sources. The fact that a source is partisan doesn't make it a bad source. It just means it's partisan, and thus it's presenting it's own POV. That's the whole point of the criticism section, to present alternate(but notable) points of view. Just about every source in the entire article, both the critics and the supporters of the term, however are very partisan. If we removed partisan sources, we'd delete just about the entire article.  Bibigon 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactoring of Criticism Section Needed

message: There is a sentence in this article as follows:The term "apartheid" has been used by groups protesting the Israeli government, particularly student groups in Britain, the United States and Canada, where "Israeli apartheid week" is held on many campuses."Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week" at Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul
I read the article that supposedly supports this sentence, and I followed the link from that article to another article about student protests, and unless I am missing something, these articles do not support the contention that "many campuses" have "Israeli apartheid week."  In fact I see a reference in the linked article to exactly one such "week," at Oxford.  The secondary link has a reference to a protest at Georgetown (in the U.S.), but no reference to it being called "Israeli apartheid week."  So unless someone can show me quotes from the outside articles that prove me wrong, I think "many campuses" needs to be changed to "Oxford," the reference to Canada should be deleted, and the reference to the U.S. needs to be fixed so it talks about one campus, with an un-named protest.  I'll give this a few hours.   Of course, a better question might be, does every protest on a college campus deserve a mention in an article?  I (vaguely) remember quite a few from my college days that clearly don't, and I'd say these fall into that category as well.  6SJ7 00:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, those are new references, but obviously they support keeping "Canada" in the sentence, which I am sure fills you with great glee.  Now I guess "many" should be changed to "three" rather than "two."  Not even "several," of course, since I guess we have now established that "three" is not "several."  However, based on the second new article, we also need to add the protests of the Jewish students at the use of the word "apartheid."  These Jewish students sure seem to be worried about the implied threats from these anti-Israel protests.  I would be too.  The word "pogrom" crosses my mind.  6SJ7 01:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for quoting every reputable mention -- that is what the article should aim to be in the end.  --Ben Houston 02:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that WP is a wrong place to heal overcompensate for childhood traumas, Homey. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't care who you are. It is what you do, not who you are. Sorry for not meeting your preconception. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: University advocacy groups are not balanced representatives of what is going on -- University students tend to have lots of passion and poor understanding of issues and perspective -- and I am referring to both sides.  --Ben Houston 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless the hatred is fought (as opposed to being whitewashed/justified/inflamed as certain WP editors try to do on these pages), these students tend to grow into adults who "have lots of passion and poor understanding of issues and perspective". ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Many campuses"?  Or two campuses?

message: Origins
The origins of claims linking Israel and Zionism with apartheid policies go back at least to the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War. Following the Israeli victory in the war, there was an intense debate in Israel and elsewhere about the future of the large Palestinian Arab population of the territory captured by Israel from Jordan and Egypt.
Some invoked the example of South Africa, where a white-dominated government controlled by force a large and politically hostile black African population. Moshe Dayan, the Israeli Defence Minister, publicly called for the creation of "a sort of Arab 'Bantustan'" in the West Bank structured along similar lines to the nominally independent "homelands" established in South Africa.[16]
Others saw the South African example as one to be avoided, rather than emulated. The senior British Conservative politician Ian Gilmour was an early proponent of this school of thought. In June 1969 he wrote a lengthy article in The Times of London arguing that an apartheid-style system was the "logical culmination" of "Zionist exclusiveness." [17]
====Ahhah====
Some say there is apartheid and some say it shoud be avoided. Indeed thuis is wikipedia NPOV on the question: is there or is there not an Israeli apaartheid.... Zeq 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is in fairly decent shape.  Wikipedia isn't in the position to resolve absolutely a contentious issue but rather to put in both sides.  --Ben Houston 14:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right:One side sais that there should be apartheid and the other sais it is no such a great idea. That is your view of NPOV ? This article is a joke as it does not really deal with the issues. What Moshe dayan said in 1967 has no bearing at all 40 years later. Apaartheid is an instituntalized recism and the article has no good scholarly relaible WP:RS source about such phenomena in israel today. Zeq 14:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree. However NPOV means that we raise the arguments of both sides. To just say that soem thought it is a good idea and others that it is bad one is not the real issue - the whole origin section is not NPOV. Zeq 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this NPOV ? _ if so where is <b> the other </b> view point ?  

message: Some say there is apartheid and some say it shoud be avoided. Indeed thuis is wikipedia NPOV on the question: is there or is there not an Israeli apaartheid.... Zeq 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is in fairly decent shape.  Wikipedia isn't in the position to resolve absolutely a contentious issue but rather to put in both sides.  --Ben Houston 14:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right:One side sais that there should be apartheid and the other sais it is no such a great idea. That is your view of NPOV ? This article is a joke as it does not really deal with the issues. What Moshe dayan said in 1967 has no bearing at all 40 years later. Apaartheid is an instituntalized recism and the article has no good scholarly relaible WP:RS source about such phenomena in israel today. Zeq 14:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree. However NPOV means that we raise the arguments of both sides. To just say that soem thought it is a good idea and others that it is bad one is not the real issue - the whole origin section is not NPOV. Zeq 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahhah

message: I've reverted User:Humus sapiens's premature move of this article to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Considering that discussions have not been concluded and there is no consensus yet, this was clearly an improper and out-of-process move. The matter has been raised by User:Nagle at WP:AN/I#Move of Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid while Request for Move poll in progress. Please discuss questions related to Humus' actions there rather than here (it's best to keep the discussion in one place). -- ChrisO 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that heading should be "Allegedly out-of-process move."  That is intended with a bit of humor, but this isn't:  The whole "process" regarding this article was broken almost from the beginning.  With Wikipedia having hundreds of contributors, apparently millions of readers and potentially many more, the idea that one person can create and name an article, and 12 to 15 others can block a renaming, is absurd.  Is Wikipedia going to have any credibility or not?  6SJ7 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 6SJ7, claiming that the move was out of process is either intentionally humorous, or just really strange. The previous title only existed because another administrator innappropriately used his admin powers to move the page against the objections of a majority of editors. A "consensus" is never going to be reached because a number of editors here want to see the accusation of Israeli apartheid seem more official because of their personal politics, not because of what is appropriate. If we waited for "consensus" as Chris suggests we should, the result would be that an obvious minority are allowed to get their way despite the objections of the majority of editors here, and indeed despite common sense as well. Chris's suggestions would lead to an exercise in absurdity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing has been a farce since Homey created it, what with all the polls on various pages that no one could keep up with. There was no process here at all, that's the problem. An injection of common sense was needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started this poll thinking that it would be a quick way to de-escalate the conflict while we sorted through deeper issues. Lord, what was I thinking? In any case, most "oppose" comments invoke the fact that other political terms used as article titles do not have qualifiers. They either don't hear, or disagree with, the point that the title in question is in danger of being taken literally. I think if we create general guidelines on political terms in article titles, consensus on specific issues such as this one will come more easily. If people realize they are faced with potential titles such as "Murder of the unborn" (to be placed, of course, on Murder (disambiguation)), it might be the fastest way to resolution.Su-Laine Yeo 03:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a good idea, Su-laine. The problem was that there had been so many polls already, and people were losing track. Several people who wanted to vote didn't, because they got fed up with it, or didn't know where to go. Your point about "murder of the unborn" is a very good one. We had a similar problem a few months ago over Islamofascism. We badly need some kind of guideline, but it's going to be a hard one to get the wording right with. It'll be a guideline (term). :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I set up the move poll as a binding Request for Move poll; so we could get the  name issue nailed down, and go on from there.  We are making progress.  A previous issue was whether the article should exist at all. There's been an AfD, which did not result in a delete, and that issue is now closed.  Next we get the name issue resolved.  Then we work through the content issues.  On the content front, we now have much more sourced information than we used to, and verifiability is improving.  Patience, everyone.  Try not to get too wound up; with an arbitration pending, it won't help your position.  Thanks. --John Nagle 04:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before working through the content issues, and perhaps even before resolving the name issues, I believe we need to figure out the purpose issues. This article was supposed to be about the term "Israeli apartheid" and it's turned into a discussion on the alleged phenomenon of Israeli apartheid. Is it appropriate to have an article on the term, an article on the alleged phenomenon, neither article, both articles, or both subjects in one article? How do we get an answer to those questions?Su-Laine Yeo 04:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out-of-process move

message: This matter has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid  --John Nagle 00:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The out-of-consensus process move appears to have broken all of the archive links at the top of the page, btw. -- ChrisO 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop calling it an out-of-consensus move. There is no clear consensus, and therefore no out-of-consensus, but there is a majority, and more importantly, there is common sense and accuracy, and that's what we ought to act on. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should have been "process", not "consensus". Apologies. The move was indisputably and admittedly undertaken without a consensus or the poll being closed - i.e. in violation of established process - which is at the root of this particular dispute. As for motives, I'm afraid that the disputed actions were clearly motivated by overtly POV reasons; Humus has made this explicitly clear. I've now documented it with diffs on WP:RfAr. -- ChrisO 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that the move was out of process is absurd. The previous title only existed because another administrator innappropriately used his admin powers to move the page against the objections of a majority of editors. A "consensus" is never going to be reached because a number of editors here want to see the accusation of Israeli apartheid seem more official because of their personal politics, not because of what is appropriate. If we waited for "consensus" as Chris suggests we should, the result would be that an obvious minority are allowed to get their way despite the objections of the majority of editors here, and indeed despite common sense as well. Chris's suggestions would lead to an exercise in absurdity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, you can hardly accuse anyone else of POV as though you are above it. You were involved in editing the article. You had voted not to move it to Allegations. You then moved it back three times and protected it! You did more than anyone else did today. You might want to think about that before accusing anyone else. That is why I e-mailed you in the hope we could quickly sort out a compromise and present it, as reasonable people, to other reasonable people. But you didn't want it. And so here we are. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referred to arbitration 

message: this edit is aclear violation:  Zeq 07:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of NPOV 

message: For some reason User:Xed keeps trying to add well-poisoning information to the statement by Lee Bollinger.  Specifically, he keeps adding He supported a counter-petition, which was also supported by some of Columbia's richest donors. Socialist Worker report The university hired Howard J. Rubinstein & Associates to handle the case – the same firm that was hired by the Israeli foreign ministry to improve Ariel Sharon's image.Censoring Thought report
While Bollinger himself made statements directly about the analogy of apartheid to Israel, I cannot, for the life of me, see what these two statements have to do with the allegation that Israel practices apartheid.  One is about a petition, allegedly supported by "some of Columbia's richest donors". The other claims that Columbia hired the same lawyers that the Israeli foreign ministry had previously hired to do some unrelated thing.  Neither website is a reliable source, and though Xed has described the pages themselves as "reports", both items are essentially "letters to the editor" or opinion pieces by completely non-notable individuals.  I can see a half-dozen policy reasons why this stuff doesn't belong in this (or indeed any) article, but I'm having a hard time seeing any reason why it belongs. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Bollinger comment 

message:  
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfM 

message: This repeats a comment I made on the title vote: I am highly critical of Israeli policy.  I wish that the article on Israel, or an Israel-linked article, drew more on real research, e.g. by Ian Lustick, rather than the original research and editorializing we see here.  This article is not about an Israeli policy or set of policies (they exist and have been the object of research by historians and political scientists and that reasearch belongs in an encyclopedia, but those scholars reveal how Zionist and then Israeli policies developed in historically specific ways quite dissimilar to Apartheid, which is a similarly historically specific set of policies), it is an article about popular allegations.  Thus, the title. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable, although I do not think it can currently be classified as OR though, it is all properly sourced to noted individuals and organizations.  --Ben Houston 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merely sourcing an article doesn't ensure NOR. Every statement could be sourced, but if those statements formed a novel argument synthesized from but not present in any individual source, that'd still violate NOR. Nysin 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and NOR 

message: Ok, let's deal with these one at a time. First up:
:After the court ruling, the government of Ariel Sharon introduced a bill into the Knesset that would have permitted Jewish-only towns to continue. The bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote.
I don't think the OR tag at the end of this paragrah is warranted as everything stated in the paragraph is verified in the source. The paragraph does not interpret the source in a unique or unwarranted way or make any original argument, it simply repeats documented facts.
This is what the source says:
:But in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the Israeli Land Authority, which leased land to the Jewish Agency to establish Katzir as a Jewish-only community, had acted illegally. 
:The authority did nothing hoping Mr Kaadan would just go away but after he filed for contempt of court, it finally caved in. This May it granted him his plot of land at 1995 prices - about $15,000 rather than $100,000. 
:Dana Alexander calls this "a landmark ruling which proves that all citizens should enjoy equal rights in a democratic Jewish state". 
:But the battle is not over. Earlier this month some members of the Knesset tried to introduce a new bill which would circumvent the Supreme Court verdict and once again allow for exclusively Jewish communities on state land. 
:The bill was narrowly defeated and the former Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said he opposed it because "it smelled of apartheid". 
Rereading the two the only thing that isn't supported is the assertion that the defeated bill was introduced by the government of Ariel Sharon. However, there is an article in Ha'aretz that says:
::In a decision that set off a storm of debate, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet Sunday voted to endorse a bill that would allow areas within Israel which have been designated as state land to be devoted to residential use by Jews alone. The bill still faces considerable legislative hurdles before it can be passed into law.
and later says
::The bill was prompted by a landmark Supreme Court ruling over the efforts of the northern Israel Jewish village of Katzir to bar an Israel Arab from buying a house there. Although defined as a "community settlement", without the complex communal interrelationships of kibbutzim and moshavim, Katzir residents voted to keep Israeli Arab Adel Ka'adan from
buying a plot and building a house there
Incidentally, the article also carries this quotation:
::"If we are not already totally an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it," said former cabinet minister and leftist Meretz party founder Shulamit Aloni.
(There is a cached version of the article here though the date given for it is incorrect - the actual date of publication is July 8, 2002 as can be seen in this reprint.)
I think if we add the Ha'aretz article as a second source and change "introduce" to "endorse" we can have a fully sourced paragraph. We can also include the Aloni and Lapid references to apartheid:
:After the court ruling, the government of Ariel Sharon endorsed a bill into the Knesset that would have permitted Jewish-only towns to continue. The bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote. Tommy Lapid, leader of the liberal Shinui party opposed the bill claiming that it "it smelled of apartheid" while former Meretz leader said of it's introduction "If we are not already totally an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it," 
So, if we rewrite the paragraph as above and including both the BBC and Ha'aretz articles as sources can I remove the OR tag?Homey 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good rewrite to me, and much better than the current version.  One quibble: if it were me, I wouldn't call Shinui "liberal" - it just complicates the issue, and I personally would call them "centrist" or "moderate."  TheronJ 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly deals with my concerns. It establishes that Wiki is not the source of the apartheid analogy with respect to this bill. While I don't know enough about internal Israeli politics to say whether Shinui is liberal or not, the Wiki page on Shinui calls them a liberal party, which makes it reasonable in my mind to call them that here. I like this version a great much more. Bibigon 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research claims 

message: The first paragraph of this article has turned into a worse mess than ever, and that is saying a lot.  Omitting the reference at the end, it reads:
Allegations that Israeli policies approximate those of apartheid-era South Africa are highly disputed: its proponents use it to compare Israel's policy with respect to the Palestinians on the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens to apartheid-era South Africa; according to its opponents, it is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel.
This reads poorly.  The first part of the paragraph has been changed to reflect the article's new title; the second part has not.  Also, apartheid-era South Africa is now mentioned twice in what is more-or-less the same sentence, although with one colon and one semicolon it is difficult to tell whether this paragraph actually consists of one, two or three sentences.  I think there are two reasonable alternatives and I would like to try to get some discussion (not necessarily a consensus or even a majority) as to better ways to do it, or perhaps even some agreement that one of my alternatives is tolerable.  Please note, even if one of these changes is made, I reserve the right to change it again or to agree to anyone else's changes, if I think they are better than mine; I am just aiming for some immediate improvement.  My goal here is both accuracy and readability, and for that reason I have tried to shorten what will, inevitably, be a long sentence.  As for the revised second sentence (the same in each alternative), I am not very happy with it, but I think it is better than the current version.  I am not sure what connotations people see in "According to," which I have deleted and replaced with the equally neutral "state."  Let's see what happens.
Alternative One:
"Israeli apartheid" is a highly controversial allegation that seeks to compare the policies of Israel toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens, to those of apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of this allegation state that the term is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel.
Alternative Two:
Allegations that Israeli policies toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, Arab citizens of Israel approximate those of apartheid-era South Africa, are highly disputed.  Opponents of this allegation state that the term is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel.
Now that I am done with this, I have to go with Alternative One because the first sentence of Alternative Two is too run-on.  But I will give some time for comment before making the change; not too much time though, the current version is hurting my eyes.  6SJ7 23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative One seems fine.  That's reasonably balanced.  I'd drop the "highly", purely on the grounds that Wikipedia prose should be understated.  I'd also change "both without merit, and misused" to "without merit, and is misused", as a style issue.  But those are minor points. This is a big step forward over what we have at the top of the article now, which, let's face it, reads badly. --John Nagle 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think Alternative Two is better, after implementing the same changes John Nagle suggests for the first.  Either alternative is an improvement.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, either one is better. If pressed to choose, I'd prefer #1 - maybe because I read it first. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put option 1 at the top of the article, followed by a section header "Introduction to the Controversy", after which follows all the stuff that was there before.  It's appropriate to have a one-line neutral header before plunging into the argument.  To prevent edit wars, we're going to need a really bland first line, and we're getting close.  The TOC may need to be moved, though; now there's too much whitespace at the top.  --John Nagle 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, Nagle made the change to my first alternative, minus "highly."  I am considering adding that word back in; while Wikipedia may seek an "understated" style, I think language can also properly be used to identify extremes of disagreement, and I hope all would agree that the intensity of this disagreement is pretty extreme compared to others.  But that can wait for another day, or at least another hour.  At least the first paragraph is in English now.  6SJ7 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going for "understated", even "bland" in the first line.  Any strong language will attract opposing strong language, and we'll get a mess again.  --John Nagle 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that there was a change to the first line, and someone reverted it back.  I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I think we have to stay with a rather bland intro, or we'll never get anywhere.   --John Nagle 05:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: Israeli apartheid is a term used by those who oppose israel's right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people. The proponents of using this term claim that there is a analogy between Israel's policy toward Palestinians (inside Israel and in the Palestinian territories) and the apartheid regimen policy toward blacks while opponents of using the term point out that it is not accurate historically and that even critics of  Israel's policies should not be using a term that is offensive and used as justification for attacks on Israel's right to exist with a goal of turnning Israel to a country rulled by Palestinians. 
The accusation is often found on webs sites of all ranges of new anti-Semites – from neo-Nazis to extreme left.
See :
http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/Apartheid.html
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000117.html
see example in homosexual agenda :
The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is considered offensive by many,[1], particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3]  Zeq 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Nagle made the change to my first alternative, minus "highly."  I am considering adding that word back in; while Wikipedia may seek an "understated" style, I think language can also properly be used to identify extremes of disagreement, and I hope all would agree that the intensity of this disagreement is pretty extreme compared to others.  But that can wait for another day, or at least another hour.  At least the first paragraph is in English now.  6SJ7 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going for "understated", even "bland" in the first line.  Any strong language will attract opposing strong language, and we'll get a mess again.  --John Nagle 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that there was a change to the first line, and someone reverted it back.  I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I think we have to stay with a rather bland intro, or we'll never get anywhere.   --John Nagle 05:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd suggestion

message: Somebody (I believe it was Kim?) stared a sub-page where you could list reliable sources for this article. After the latest move I´m not able to find it. Could somebody who knows where it is, please post a link to it here? Thanks.
The last time I did see it, Norman Finkelsteins book: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict was not on it. It should be. Chapter 7 in the 2. ed. of the book (2003) is called "Oslo: The Apartheid Option". 
Under Israeli_apartheid#Origins we should perhaps quote some from the book, see p. xi: "the Zionist movement sought [..] to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. [...] the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigneous Arab population.  For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine´s indigneous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession. [...p.xii:] Basically the Zionist movement could choose between only two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled ´the way of South Africa´-´the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording over a large, exploited native majority´- or the ´way of the transfer´-´you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out.´ In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sight on `the way of transfer´. [..p. xvi:] The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, for the first time   ´unequivocally prohibited deportation´of civilians under occupation (Articles 49, 147). Accordingly, after the June war Israel moved to impose the second of its two options mentioned above -apartheid."
--Regards, Huldra 05:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "truely defensive reason for the June war" is a statement Finkelstein would definitely not agree with. Regards, Huldra 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I happned to be in Israel at the time so I know the reason for the war were defnsive. after  the war israel made a mistake and stayed in the areas instead of ending the war and going back home. Zeq 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is here Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Huldra 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finding this source, it might do well in a new article dealing with the scholary opinion of Israeli Apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: what does this have to do with allegations of Apartheid? It seems what you quote (even if taken at face value) clearly shows the Zionist movement did not choose the Aprtheid option. Isarig 05:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is true, up until 1967. In the period 1949-1967 Israel did not conquer any land (permanently).  Finkelsteins point is that in order to achieve its aim (="to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine") Israel, after its new conquest of land and people in 1967, could not do as in 1948 (that is: "transfer" 80% of the people). This because of the   Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949 which prohibited such "transfers".  Regards, Huldra 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable sources