Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 4

message: This reference was added in March 2006 in Apartheid wall (old edit) and deleted by User JayZ on March 27 (old edit) under the excuse of : "(none of these are arguments that proponents of the term "apartheid wall" make; please focus on the subject of the article. The article you're looking for is Israeli West Bank barrier)" — no doubt that if it was considered unappropriate on "apartheid wall" page by this user he would, however, have considered it perfectly legitimate on Israeli West Bank barrier. Consequently to the nomination for deletion of all Apartheid (disambiguation) articles, I've added it here and on Afd to prove the point that the United Nations have used the term. Same User JayZ reverted it on June 1, 19h53, June 1, 20h04 before finally accepting it.  User Moshe Constantine then deleted it again on June 2, 07h48. Of course none of them provided explanation for this deletion, although the statement is sourced and is perfectly relevant — probably the reason for which it was deleted. Satyagit 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was removed for two reasons: (1) The source cited was actually not the Dugard report, but an AI article which does not refer to "Apartheid". (2) the sentence Dugard used did not say Apartheid either, it called the Palestinian territories "cantons or Bantustans". If it is legitimate to infer that he thinks Israel is an Aprtheid state based on the word "Bantustan", then surely it is just as legitimate to infer he thinks Israel is like Switzerland, or that the Swiss Federal system of cantons is also Apartheid? All this has been explained here on Talk before. Isarig 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is obviously an opinion not shared by everyone. Bantustans have a very clear link to apartheid, do you want me to draw a picture for you? Satyagit 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever the source, the report is there. The original source inserted in the first time had a direct link to the report, which has gone dead. But the report is still there, it hasn't "disappeared" in thin air. The true reason for its repeated deletion is of course that it is a UN report, but that's simple vandalism let me tell you, not an attempt at NPOV. So Israel is like Switzerland in your eyes? Of course, the country of chocolate, banks and mountains! Why didn't I think of it before??? Satyagit 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Dugard 2006 United Nation report 

message: From today's Toronto Star:
Union drawing attention to Israeli injustice
CJCurrie 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linda McQuaig article

message: Much of the content in this article is based on sources which do not conform to WP:RS. They are propaganda sources who mislead the facts , making irrelevant claims and false categorizations based on misleading compressions.
The lead paragraph claims that Israel former minister is among those who call Israel an "apartheid state" but read carefully she only said Israel is getting close to it. There is a big difference between being an apartheid state and not being an apartheid state. If she wanted to say Israel is such a state she could have said it. I also have serious doubts if she used it in the context that this article points too. This is the real problem with such loaded words used as polemic analogy: different people use them for different rhetoric arguments.
Writing an encyclopedia article on such a term should have been done with great care, careful adherence to policy (especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There is no place in such articles to quotes from people and organizations which are known to engage in a propaganda war (either against Israel or for Israel). As such this article needs to become much shorter and describe:
Who uses the term
Why they use it
What are they trying to get by using it
Where it is used
i.e. the article should be about  the phrase and avoid becoming a soapbox or an internet discussion board.
PS, the person who instigated all that has also got the article "protected" after he got it to the shape he watnted it. This is a serious disrupption for wikipedia in order to make his WP:Point. Enough. !!!! Zeq 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find any other reference for that statement?  The source is somewhat partial and I can't find any other web hits for the phrase. --Coroebus 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Cheers, I see the original quote was a misquote of "if we are not an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it." --Coroebus 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottomline, the facts are:
*Aloni has not used the term "israeli apartheide"
*Aloni has not claimed that Israel is now such a state
Zeq 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a bit disingenuous isn't it...she said that Israel is getting close to being an apartheid state, that is like McCarthy saying he thought that the US was getting close to being a communist country - which would be ridiculous but certainly notable.  I guess the problem is that the article is about the idea that Israel might be an apartheid state, but the article is called 'Israeli apartheid (phrase)', I'm not too sure how to square that circle --Coroebus 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a bit disingenuous isn't it...she said that Israel is getting close to being an apartheid state, that is like McCarthy saying he thought that the US was getting close to being a communist country - which would be ridiculous but certainly notable.  I guess the problem is that the article is about the idea that Israel might be an apartheid state, but the article is called 'Israeli apartheid (phrase)', I'm not too sure how to square that circle --Coroebus 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aloni did not say anything that unambiguously indicated that it was her position that Israel was an apartheid state. Her inclusion gave the impression that she believed it, which is a jump we are not permitted to make.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree, but it isn't really parallel to McCarthy and communism though, since she was indicating she thought that Israel was getting dangerously close. --Coroebus 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS]] and mis quotes. 

message: I have unprotected the article, as the reason for blocking was edit war during AfD, and the closure of that takes away one part of that motivation. If the edit war starts again, I will also reblock the article if needed. Edit warring is just not the way to resolve conflicts of any kind.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the gentlemen and ladies at this page think that edit warring is the way to resolve disputes, I am perfectly willing to block the page again until a full resolution of the text has been reached by consensus forming. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should protect the page and try to facilitate a consensus?Homey 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will consider facilitating/mediating if and only if all 'kind of regular' editors would agree with that, and if we can set a few basic rules of how to deal with things, such as discussions are limited to the content, not the fellow editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: The article include this:
"*Israel has constructed "Jewish-only"  settlements in the West Bank, which preclude "some of the most fertile land and richest water resources in the West Bank" from the "indigenous population"  . (Ibid)"
The source for this are political activists:
Lucy Mair is currently based in Jerusalem and works as the Palestine Program Representative for Boston-based Grassroots International. Mair has worked on human rights and development projects in New York and Palestine for the past five years.
Robyn Long works with the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON) and Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign; in Jerusalem. In 2002-2003, Long undertook research and volunteer work on Palestinian land rights in the West Bank as a Compton Fellow)"
This statement has no real basis in facts (the settlements are usually build on hill tops which are mostly barren). The Israeli settlers are for the most part not working in agriculture. 
The source is poor and did not go through editing review of a news paper or per review of academic source. (see /Talk:Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29#Decision_by_ArbCom
The source is clearly biased.
Even if the statement was true this has nothing to do with the concept of "apartheid".
I therefore removing this line from the article. Zeq 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertile land 

message: I have explained in talk why a specific setnce should be removed but homey just trying to "sneak it in":
By not mentioning it in the edit summary.
Homey, You behaviour in this article is getiing to be VERY disruptive. Clearly you are 
pushing Aloni although the facts how she did not use the ord you calim "used by .. such as(her)" Zeq 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another dishonest edit by homey 

message: How can anyone justify referncing David Duke in the first paragraph, who has only used the phrase twice and has never been quoted using it in major media, while not mentioning users of the phrase like Desmond Tutu, Aloni or various Israeli MKs? This is an attempt to poison the well. Homey 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoning the well 

message: Homey claimed Galon used the  phrase  "israel apartheid"  while infact she said "the level of an apartheide state". There is a different and I again ask that remove the false you put into this article accuracy is important here. Zeq 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another misquote by homey 

message: This edit  is very starnge maybe we should move the whole article to apartheide state(phrase to accomodate this strange edit ? Zeq 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? No, I'm just saying if it's already bold, we don't need scare quotes. —Khoikhoi 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you propsing a move ? 

message: Zeq, where is your evidence that Gal-On used the term apartheid state in an effort to convince world public opinion to "dismantling" what they term as an "apartheid state" and replacing it with a Binational solution? I see no evidence of Gal-On supporting binationalism. Your following sentence is extremely POV The term is used to de-legitimize Israel's right to exist with a hope to force's Israel demise in the same way that the apartheid regimen in South Africa was brought down after international boycott. Homey 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeq's pov edit 

message: While the source is verifiable and conform to WP:RS this :  is just a fishing expodiation to find the word "aparheide state" and finding it in a news report which bring politions initial sound bites about a specific law in Israel.
Such a quote should not be used in the WP:Lead section where the main issues about the phrase are handled. This quote should be moved to a specific sentnce about the marrige law. Zeq 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of this quote in the [[WP:Lead]] section