Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 18

message: We could reorganize and help the reader compartmentalize this article to organize the sources of the allegations by country.  For instance: South African views, Israeli views, Palestinian and Arab views, American views, Other.  South African views, in particular, should be covered in a less cluttered fashion. Kiyosaki 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization of the Allegations

message: :Kiyosaki, you're engaged in original research. You can't add material that you believe is related to the allegations, otherwise this will end up as your personal essay. You must find sources who discuss "allegations of Israeli apartheid" and then add what they say, but only what they say: not what you think they imply, or what you think is a related topic. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fine: "Pappe has stated that "the results of 56 years of continuous ethnic cleansing, discrimination, a whole legal and practical apparatus is the definition of apartheid", and that the Jewish National Fund is the "main agency of apartheid in Israel"."  But you can't use this quote as an excuse to discuss the one-state solution. You could add the material to Binational solution instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If he discusses his views on "allegations of Israeli apartheid," then those are the parts of his book/article that you must discuss and quote. You can't go wandering off into other things he talks about. It's partly the way you're writing that isn't appropriate, but it's mostly that you're trying to turn this into an essay on what you see as prejudice against Arabs in Israel. But that's not what the article is about. It's only about this specific allegation. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. We should say who makes the allegation and, if they explain why, we should include that. We can't get into what their various beliefs about the future of Israel are, because that has nothing to do with the allegations they're making. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about allegations of Israel apartheid, so the material in the article and sources used must deal with allegations of Israeli apartheid, not speculative proposals for Israel's future. Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At the title suggests, this article is about the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", not about "Proposals for a one-state solution".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that, but once again this article is about the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid, not about proposals for one state solution. Your additions are simply not relevant to this particular article, I'm sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is about the allegation, not a crystal ball for discussing possible future states of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if you realize this but the qualifications of individual wikipedia editors are irrelevant and I am not exactly sure what you hope to accomplish by attempting to bring them up.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apartheid conditions leading to a South African style one-state solution

message: I may have overlooked it, but a key feature of the apartheid analogy appears to be missing from the article, namely the appropriation of land and the marginalisation of the (allegedly) oppressed group on the basis of land ownership and access, including the "homelands" solution in South Africa and the ghettoisation of palestinians.
* In both of the cases, the ascendant group (whites/jews) did come into possession of choice landed property in one way or another, whereas the disaffected group (coloureds/arabs) became segregated into townships and homelands.
* On the basis of the homeland constructs in South Africa, and the occupied territories in palestine, the inhabitants were denied effective political and civil rights as well as the opportunity for a prosperous future. Asgrrr 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you reviewed WP:NOR? You need to find reliable sources that discuss this topic in the context of "Israeli apartheid". You can't just make up your own arguments regarding this. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Asgrrr, you didn't provide any sources for much of the material you inserted, only one of the two sources you did provide actually discussed "Israeli apartheid", and that source was an opinion piece by a non-notable individual. You need to find reliable sources that make these arguments in the context of "Israeli apartheid". And believe me, this article has been gone over with a magnifying glass. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian ghettos

message: To understand more about this matter I recommend the book the seven pillars of wisdom from Lawrence of Arabia
If you read the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration you are probably able to understand how they got their "holey" mercenary Israel.--Ekkenekepen 13:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The seven towers of wisdom

message: The suggestion that (without peace) Israel is an apartheid state analogous to South Africa is simply wrong. The basic evil of South African apartheid, against which I and so many other Jews fought, was the absolute control over a majority of blacks by a small minority of whites. It was the opposite of democracy. In Israel majority rules; it is a vibrant secular democracy, which just today recognized gay marriages performed abroad. Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court and get to vote for their representatives, many of whom strongly oppose Israeli policies. Israel has repeatedly offered to end its occupation of areas it captured in a defensive war in exchange for peace and full recognition. The reality is that other Arab and Muslim nations do in fact practice apartheid. In Jordan, no Jew can be a citizen or own land. The same is true in Saudi Arabia, which has separate roads for Muslims and non-Muslims. Even in the Palestinian authority, the increasing influence of Hamas threatens to create Islamic hegemony over non-Muslims. Arab Christians are leaving in droves. 
:::Muslim practices, especially those of Saudi Arabia are material for another article. Dhimmtude is not currently expressed in the literature as apartheid, but there is no rational distinction. Fred Bauder 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred: don't bother responding to this.  Zeq cut-and-pasted it directly from an Alan Dershowitz letter.  CJCurrie 01:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CJCurrie is correct; this quotation does not really belong on the talk page, especially unattributed.  Instead, the most pertinent portions of it belong in the article itself.  Following the link that CJCurrie provided below, I see that this is an excerpt from an article by Dershowitz, an indisputably notable person with unquestioned expertise in human rights and liberty.  I'd also point out that (while this is not evident from the portion quoted above) the Dershowitz article is a critique of Jimmy Carter's use of the "apartheid" analogy in his new book, and probably should be mentioned alongside any mention of Carter's book in the article.  I'll let someone else give that a go, as my inclination when selecting portions of the Dershowitz article would be to include far more of it than would probably be acceptable, on a few different levels.  6SJ7 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid the meme is rapidly spreading with two major books by prominent human rights spokesmen on the horizon. It is a public relations disaster, and on top of that essentially wrong: people need space where they can be themselves. Fred Bauder 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. But given that the meme is rapidly spreading, I repeat the question I laid out earlier: when do the similarities between this and, say, Islamofascism (also a pejorative term with strongly disputable basis in fact) start to outweigh the differences, namely the shrinking degree to which the term is known outside WP? And, at that point, how can we justify the divergent approaches to the two articles? Hornplease 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article seems to ignore 

message: According to NPOV policy we must show the other POV.
There for each of the sections such as "Occupation of the West Bank" "Israeli West Bank barrier " "Land policy inside the Green Line " etc... -  must  include under the same section a paragraph about why it is "aprtheid" (according to some) and why it is not (according to others).
In a similar way the opening paragrpah as well as the 1st and 2nd paragrph need to be changed - both POVs must be refelcted in the same paragraph. Zeq 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I invite all to come to  to discuss mediation. WikieZach| talk 03:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above MedCab case was opened by the banned sockpuppet Kiyosaki, so has been automatically closed. Hornplease 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: For those unaware, check user confirms that Kiyosaki is the so-called Disruptive Apartheid Editor, a user banned for edits such as blanking a user page and calling the editor "a filthy jew, unclean." Some of his accounts are listed at :Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Azure1; others at User:Jayjg/DAE. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kiyosaki

message: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795055.html
"The figures show that Arab towns are reluctant to collect city taxes from their residents."
"determination on the part of city officials. Officials at the Israeli ministries charge the clannish nature of Arab society means the town leaders aren't taking steps that would be unpopular in their social circles, for instance, demanding their relatives pay tax. "
Zeq 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important article 

message: <message from banned user deleted>
:Editors should read Jimmy Carter in his own words, but they should also know that this is the Disruptive Apartheid Editor again.  CJCurrie 09:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Carter in his own words

message: this article should be deleted. By definition it is a POV, and most importantly it is not encyclopedic material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILikeHowMuch (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic 

message: The following comments were written before the proposed renaming was properly listed at WP:RM so I have moved them out of the section below to avoid confusing people:
I just noticed there is a "Requested Move" template at the top of this section.  It says the request has been listed at WP:RM but I do not see it there, so I don't know whether the correct procedure is being followed here.  I also am not quite sure that the procedure  for these things is the same is it was the last time I participated in such a request.  I don't see anyone voting oops, I mean listing whether they support or oppose a move with the words "Support" or "Oppose" at the beginning.  But I will do it anyway: [The first comment under "Rename" then followed, and several comments down was the following, with "bullet" and bold type now removed.]
Update:  As far as I can tell right now, there is no valid "move poll" going on here.  I see that the "Requested Move" tag has been removed, most likely because it was never listed in the proper place.  I am not even sure who put that tag there, or when.  The "Opinions" sub-heading probably should be removed as well.  6SJ7 12:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then ill fix it. --Striver 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated comments on proposed renaming

message: #Support per Jewish lobby, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and Islamofascism, none of with contains any qualificator, and they should not, since the term are notable enough on their own, just as this term is, obviously. --Striver 07:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Israeli Apartheid isn't a term which can have an article about it (e.g. Islamofascism which doesn't imply that Islam as a whole is fascist), it's a clear statement - that Israel is practicing apartheid. This is in itself POV and therefore an article shouldn't be named as such. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is called "appealing to authority" and is considered a logical fallacy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose for all the reasons I have stated on the talk page since last May, including the last poll, I mean, consensus-determining procedure, which approved the move to the current title.  This was not my first choice for a title, but the fact is, the article is about allegations, actually it is about propaganda, so if anyone wants to change it to "Israeli apartheid" propaganda, with the quotation marks in the title, I'm ok with that, but I am doubtful that this would achieve consensus.  The current title did, and so it should remain.  6SJ7 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #I think this is better than either. I agree with G-Dett that the word "allegations" is inaccurate. —Ashley Y 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The PA that was created by Arafat and Hamas ? Amoruso 12:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid" (or similar)

message: I suggest renaming to "Israel and Apartheid". This broadens the topic, which is of course not always a good thing, but I suspect in this case it would enrich the article. I have not researched this broader topic in any depth, but the abstract for an academic paper entitled Israel and South Africa: The Unnatural Alliance, which I found very quickly by a google search on "Israel SADF" is enough to satisfy me at least that this is fertile ground. For instance I don't think anyone would dispute that Israel and the South African Apartheid regime faced very similar strategic problems, namely those of being surrounded by hostile neighbours and having a large and predominantly hostile subaltern ethnic group within its own borders. It is also known that there were trade connections between the two states, including arms sales. And because we also know that the Apartheid regime was for many decades successful at counterinsurgency, it would be surprising, or even astonishing (well to me at least), if we were to find that the government or the military of Israel never looked to Apartheid South Africa for solutions to its own political and military problems.
So the title "Israel and Apartheid" would have three big advantages:
# It would put allegations of Israeli Apartheid (true or not) in a fuller (and very interesting) historical context.
# It would make it possible to consider the alleged similarity between the South African Apartheid regime and Israel as one of degree rather than a yes/no question (although it would still of course be important to acknowledge that many people claim that Israel practises full-fledged apartheid while many others deny this adamantly).
# Because the title would no longer explicitly reference Israeli apartheid (real or imagined) as opposed to South African apartheid, it would cease to be so contentious which would mean we could avoid another painful debate like this in future. Yes, it would be fudge, but a rather good and reasonable one nonetheless.
I hope the above makes sense because I am extremely tired right now. Apologies if it is at all garbled. Ireneshusband 08:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense but your idea is little different from many other previous proposals.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to "Israel and Apartheid"

message: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3338907,00.html Zeq 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you linking to youtube videos, what point are you trying to make, and why are you using this Talk: page for whatever you are doing? Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews can marry whoever they want in a civil ceremony outside of Israel or without this ceremony they can be common law spouses with ALL THE RIGHTS of a married couple.  This applies to gays as well as straights---an only instance of gay rights for the whole middle east where homosexuals do not only NOT have equal rights, but can be jailed (Egypt) or even killed (Iran).  Orthodox jewish rabbis have religious views and follow them when blessing a union as do clergy from all faiths.  What is wrong or racist about this?  Striver, when you post views like this, you lose credibility as an editor.  Elizmr 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? "lose credibility as an editor"? Did you see me formulating it as a question? "It states that Hareetz said that Jews may non marry non-Jews?! Is that true?" If i see a questioner on C-Span talking to a former president of USA referring to Hareetz, quoting that Jews may not mary-Non jews, and then i ask if that is true in the talk page of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", then I am loosing "credibility as an editor"? Is that a scare tactic? --Striver 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Muslim men can marry whoever they want, the kids are considered muslim and that what counts (according to the father). The woman is just a womb.  On the other hand should a muslim woman marry a non mulim man both can be killed .
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008060.php
http://www.comeandsee.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=677
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000706.php
<B> BBC link : </b>   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4229136.stm
Zeq 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is relevant to this article because? (note: i am not even commenting the info's accuracy)--Striver 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What are people going on about? Can this part of the discussion be archived? And why are people feeding a responding to a banned user's cryptic link?Hornplease 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What does that have to do with this article? Do any of those links mention "Israeli apartheid"? Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have misunderstood something, this is new to me, but if true that non-Jews may not marry jews in Israel, even if they want, how is that not apartheid?--Striver 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And don't take this personally, but how is it not racism? Yes, its a good faith question. --Striver 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well because non-Jews can marry Jews in Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this mean: Dimitri and Inessa Yakubovich met in early 2004. She was 25, he 24. Both of Inessa's parents are Jewish. Dimitri has a Jewish father, meaning he is not Jewish according to halakha. They both served as drivers in the Israel Defense Forces. A short while after they first met, they began living together...."You feel like a second-class [citizen] who cannot marry in Israel and must go abroad," says Dimitri. "I serve in the reserves like everyone else, and no one asks me if I'm half-Jewish. It shouldn't be like this..."We fled Siberia because of anti-Semitism," says Inessa. "There I was a Jew and here I am a Russian. What is being done to us is not fair." "? --Striver 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver, are you familiar with the original research policy? Are there any reliable sources which refer to whatever you are talking about as "Israeli apartheid"? If not, then I request that you stop using this Talk: page as a soapbox, per policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second time im being accused of going against policy, on the same section, regarding two different subjects? Is that a systematical behavior in this part of wikipedia? It is not a good way to promote cooperation i tell you. Now, read this: "9. Israel: Israelis who marry Palestinians are not allowed to bring their spouses to live with them in the Jews-only part of the country - South Africa: During the mid-1980s, the Komani Case successfully challenged the Apartheid "pass laws" that broke up black families by preventing rural spouses from joining husbands or wives who worked in towns. "--Striver 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Oh, but Striver, that is not a RS!". Oh, yes it is, it is a RS for Muslim opinions in Canada. Anyhow, how about this: "Under Sharon's tenure as prime minister from 2001, new forms of discriminatory legislation were passed, including the now notorious Nationality and Entry into Israel Law, which bars Israelis who marry Palestinians from bringing their spouses to live in the country. The legislation applies solely to Palestinian husbands or wives. Hassan Jabareen, a lawyer and director general of Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, challenged the law before the supreme court. He told the judges there was a parallel with a landmark case in 1980s South Africa - the Komani case - which successfully challenged the pass laws that broke up black families by preventing spouses from joining their husbands or wives in towns. " And that was only my two first hits on this search--Striver 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, random google hits. There's a formulae for a great article. Shouldn't you Striver leave this article for people with actual knowledge about the region , and not just someone who hit a random google link and wanted it to be inserted ? just a thought. Amoruso 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, so can a Muslim man marry a Jewish woman in Israel, having an Islamic ceremony? --Striver 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Islamic religious authorities approve of it, yes. Isarig 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What other supposed western democracy does not have civil marriage?  Even if the reason for such a rule is not to promote segregation between Jews (as defined by Orthodox rabbis) and non-Jews, that is surely the effect of such a policy. john k 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Muslim-Jewish, if they find a muslim clerk (sharia) who will agree to perform the marriage then yes they'll be married by Muslim law. But the Israeli law states that people of mixed religions who are married will be under the jurisdiction of the Court of Family matters. This court deals normally with all issues of family except the legality of the marriage and divorce. In this case , this court will decide which religious court has authority on the matter. It might decide to refer the case (it will come up probably only in a request for divorce) to the Muslim court or it might decide to keep it in its own jurisdiction probably. John k, "supposed democracy" sounds quite offensive. Is there any legal authority who doubts that Israel is a democracy ? Your question is a  good one though. The history in Israel of not having a civil marriage is actually not an Israeli policy - it goes back to Ottoman Empire times. The Ottomans had this system for the differnet indigenous people of the land - Jews, Chrisitans and Muslims and let them perform their own religious cermenoies. There was no demand for a civil marriage back then. The British Mandate incoporated the same system and then Israel did too. Anyway, there is no effect for this claimed segregation. People can still live together as known in public and they can also marry abroad usualyl Cyprus and then come back as legally married.... Civil marriage will probably become a fact of law in the next few years, but it's more of a formality - it doesn't prevent the mixing of two people with different religions in any practical way. Amoruso 12:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that Israel is a democracy, and I regret a choice of words that implied that, but I find the lack of civil marriage to be a profoundly illiberal policy.  That it dates back to the Ottomans is no real excuse.  My understanding is that it was a result of the need of early Israeli governments for support from the Orthodox parties, who demanded pretty much complete control over personal status issues as their price for supporting Labor governments. But this doesn't really relate very closely to the subject of this article. john k 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, except for the fact that Jonathan Cook would hardly be a reliable source on this topic. Please remember, we're trying to use top-notch academic or similar sources wherever possible, not a partisan political activist and polemicist. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're talking about apartheid comparisons as a type of discourse, then the point is to show what prominent commentators have said on the subject, not to determine whether or not they are "reliable sources" for the factual truth.  Cook's comments are a reliable source about what Cook thinks, and Cook is fairly representative of a certain reasonably prominent strain of leftist European commentary on Israel/Palestine matters, and, as such, his opinion is relevant to this article. john k 21:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can provide a source that states that Cook is "fairly representative of a certain reasonably prominent strain of leftist European commentary on Israel/Palestine matters" I don't think he could be considered a reliable source for the purpose of this article's subject.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He writes for Counterpunch.  That should be sufficient. He's not a reliable source on the facts of Israel's situation, but he is a primary source on the ways that people have made these kinds of comparisons. john k 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing for Counterpunch is definitely not evidence that someone's a reliable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; if anything, it indicates the opposite. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you even reading what I'm saying?  He's not a reliable source about conditions in Israel.  He's a reliable source as to the kinds of arguments made by leftist, pro-Palestinian European journalists, because he is one.  Counterpunch may not be a reliable source for facts, but it is a fairly representative source for what a certain segment of leftist opinion believes about Israel.  Jay himself has argued that this article should be about rhetoric, and not about actual conditions, but if this is the case, then we have to actually discuss the rhetoric, don't we?  john k 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ultimate proof of Israeli apartheid 

message: It seems the arguments in favour of the term mostly refer to the situation in the occupied territories, while the arguments against the term mostly refer to the situation in Israel proper. Could this be clarified, please? —Ashley Y 10:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very important point.--G-Dett 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's excellent news, Amoruso. I'm glad to hear Arabs living in the territories have finally been given representation in the Knesset. —Ashley Y 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, as opposed to in the Palestinian parliament? Israel isn't even in the Gaza Strip; if you'll recall, it unilaterally withdrew last year. Are you suggesting that Israel should annex the West Bank? Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent news, Jayjg, I'm glad to hear that the Gaza Strip is a sovereign and independent country. And also, of course, that the Palestinian parliament has sovereignty over any territory at all. —Ashley Y 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's the beef, then the article ought to clearly state that international law recognizes much more stringent control in militarily occupied territories, and the concept of "apartheid" wouldn't apply at all, prima facie. Which I thought the proponents of the term knew; if not, that probably accounts for the disconnect Ashley Y refers to above. Gzuckier 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid where? 

message: On another matter, I'm a bit troubled by the editing habits of User:Carbonate.  He's clearly in violation of the 3RR at present, and his behaviour seems oddly similar to that of another recent contributor to this page.  (It's possible that my suspicions on this latter front are unfounded, in which case I'd invite him to correct me.)  CJCurrie 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbonate

message: It seems to me that articles about human rights within the contexts of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestinian territories outside the 1949 armistice lines, in Israel, etc., are all appropriate for Wikipedia, and there are lots of articles about these topics.
What I think is missing are articles about the rhetoric employed for the controversies. Charges of apartheid are clearly an example, but there are many others: comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, which is quite prevalent. I don't know if it's possible, but I'd rather that we not conflate these two topics (human rights and rhetoric) but put our energy toward making both well-covered, NPOV articles in Wikipedia. --Leifern 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support this initiative for an article on the rhetorical landscape of the Israel/Palestine conflict.  It should include the examples Leifern gives, as well as others like: comparisons of Palestinians to Nazis; the comparison of Islamist movements to European Fascism; phrases like "terrorist sympathizers" or "apologists for terror"; the deliberate blurring of the distinction between "the Israeli government" and "the Jews" in both Arab Islamist and American Zionist discourse; the use of "antisemite" or "self-hating Jew" as epithets for critics of the occupation in American political discourse (and the relationship of these to propaganda phrases like "America-bashers" or "the blame-America-first crowd") etc.  This could be an interesting article.--G-Dett 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd support restricting this article to the specific topic of the political rhetoric around "apartheid" allegations, rather than it being yet another platform to fill with opinions about the human rights and political situation in Israel, the West Bank etc., which already have lots of polemics articles on those topics. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that you don't actually support including the political rhetoric around apartheid allegations, because it's not from "reliable sources". john k 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm very much in favour of articles that relate specifically to the discourse. If there does turn out to be a consensus for renaming this article to "Comparisons...", I would recommend discussing the various comparisons people have made (Jimmy Carter, for instance), with relevant supporting or opposing facts. This article shouldn't be about the specific phrase "Israeli apartheid" but rather about any comparison between Israel and apartheid, whether it notes similarities or differences. —Ashley Y 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future and purpose of this article 

message: The issues section has turned into a personal essay about issues Wikipedia editors don't like about Israel. It must focus on who has called these issues apartheid and why i.e. what the SOURCES say, not what individual Wikipedians believe. I reverted CJCurrie's latest attempt to make this section even worse. We need to find good sources, if possible academic, and add which practises the sources cite as evidence of apartheid, and what the sources say about why those examples are evidence, and we need to leave our own opinions entirely out of the mix, otherwise it's OR. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  My "latest attempt to make this section even worse" was simply a reversion to the previous text (before JayJG's most recent edit), and I'm not certain why you're carrying on about sources when you've just removed two citations on the roads issue.  CJCurrie 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues section

message: Please note: Hornplease's comments are made in response to SlimVirgin's edit from 20:30, 20 December 2006.  CJCurrie 04:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam/Moodley aren't a "single source", they are academics who specialize in the study of this specific topic, as well as related topics. They've written books and papers on it, presented at conferences about it, etc. They're not "pro-Israel" by any stretch of the imagination; on the contrary, they are quite dispassionate in their analysis, and sometimes quite damning. They are by far the single best source we have on the topic. However, because they are both academics and highly knowledgeable, they tend to show both sides of the debate. As such, those who wish to show only one side of the debate insist on downplaying them, and instead playing up non-academics like Desmond Tutu, who know almost nothing about the situation in Israel, and who compare practically everything to "apartheid"; or, even worse, they promote the views of Israeli businessmen like Fred Shlomka or partisan political groups like Sabeel, or dispense with policy altogether, and insert their own original research instead. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if we can't find neutral academics, other academics will do, but we should try to stick to scholarly sources as far as possible, and make the most use of the ones we do have. Instead, we've seen people try to use Israeli businessmen and poo-poo Adam and Moodley because they don't demonize Israel sufficiently — even though I believe they're the only sources we've found who've actually studied this allegation and who are in a position to understand it. That's the kind of attitude that has to stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your reluctance to accept material from journalists and advocacy groups is really quite puzzling.  There's nothing in WP:NOR that prevents, or even restricts, the use of such materials.  CJCurrie 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would WP:NOR be relevant? The more relevant policy is WP:NPOV: find the best and most reputable sources you can. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in WP:NPOV to prevent journalistic and advocacy sources from being used to represent particular positions.  CJCurrie 04:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing that explicitly says that, but the policies do advise us to use the best and most appropriate sources, so we shouldn't rely on newspapers and advocacy groups if academic sources are available — and relying on a businessman is just odd. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there may be something of a definitional problem in these discussions.  This article, as I understand it, is not about whether or not Israeli policies are like apartheid, but about arguments that people have made about whether or not Israeli policies are like apartheid.  What should be our sources for such an article?  Obviously reliable secondary sources, if any exist, would come first.  The best sources would be scholarly studies of the way the apartheid comparison has been deployed.  Do these exist?  In the absence of such studies, the best way to get at what this discourse is would be to a) look at journalistic secondary sources; and b) go to the primary sources.  I'm not sure where the issue of neutral sources comes into play, since what we are discussing is a polemical argument.  As such, any primary source that makes the comparison between the Israeli system and apartheid is bound to be, well, polemical and biased.  But that's not a bug, it's a feature.  This article is, or should be, about the polemic.  There are plenty of articles to discuss Israel's policy in the Occupied Territories (and the treatment of Arab citizens of Israel).  This article should be focused not on conditions themselves, but on the arguments that have been made about conditions.  As such, primary sources that represent the actual arguments being made should be included.  Counterpunch, or whatever, may not be a reliable source for what is actually going on in the Occupied Territories (or Nazareth, or wherever), but it is a good source wherein one can find leftist arguments making the Apartheid comparison, and as such should be usable as a source.  Now, if we can find secondary sources that have already synthesized this material, all the better, but these should not be mandatory, so long as the article is written in a neutral manner, emphasizing the claims people have made, rather than the supposed "actual" situation. john k 07:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John k says: The best sources would be scholarly studies of the way the apartheid comparison has been deployed.  Do these exist?  In the absence of such studies, the best way to get at what this discourse is would be to a) look at journalistic secondary sources; and b) go to the primary sources. But John, of course such scholarly studies exist; in fact, Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, who are experts in this area, have made just such studies, which is why some editors here keep recommending that we rely on such sources. Here's one example of a book-length treatment:  There has been a great deal of discussion of exactly this point on the Talk: page, so it astonishes me that you would still be asking this question. Given that you have now been made aware of this, I assume you will also agree that we should rely on such scholarly studies, rather than journalists. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That there's a couple of books discussing this is of course good, and we should use such sources for writing this article.  At the same time, there's no reason to rely only on those sources.  If Adam and Moodley don't talk about some particular issue relating to the subject of this article, we can turn to other sources, including journalistic ones.  For some issues relating to this, journalistic sources may be of equivalent reliability to scholarly ones.  Journalistic discussions of Carter's book, for instance, would be perfectly relevant.  john k 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I realize that this will come as a surprise to many editors who follow this page, but I've reached the conclusion that JayJG's decision to delete the "Hafrada" references was correct.  These references do not refer to official Israeli policy, and do not represent the viewpoints of persons who are cited as having made the apartheid analogy.  Therefore, they are not suitable for inclusion in the article.  It may be possible to include references to "Hafrada" from proponents of the analogy, but the previous wording was inappropriate.
The debates on this page have often extremely bitter, and it's probably safe to say that there is very little trust among certain participants.  It's quite easy, as a result, for contributors to become locked into inflexible positions, as was the case here.  I recognize now that my previous stance was the result of a misinterpretation; I apologize for this, and I will not attempt to return the deleted material.  I hope that other contributors will also take the necessary steps to correct themselves when they find themselves in error.  CJCurrie 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your saying this; let's try to move forward in a less hostile and entrenched way. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hafrada"

message: The Bishara link also doesn't seem to back up what the article says, so I've removed that too, along with Schlomka. The Bishara article could perhaps be used elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have anything to add to this section. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carwil has restored this, but it doesn't say what Carwil claims it says. Are you sure you have the right link and the right Bishara? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Catchpole, not Carwil. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the source you removed. . The headline reads "Israel's Pass Laws Will Wreck Peace Hopes". The byine reads "Apartheid in the territories". The first sentence reads "As Palestinians and aid agencies try to piece together life on the West Bank and reform Palestinian institutions in the wake of Israel's March invasion, Israel is putting in place a de facto apartheid system in the occupied territories that will only undermine international peace efforts and lead to further escalation and conflict.". What source are you thinking of? Catchpole 09:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the link that's in the article, at least not as my browser sees it. The link in the article is by the Bishara who's a Knesset member. See footnote 16. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what's happened. We've called the link "Bishara." There must be another link called Bishara somewhere, linking to the Knesset member Bishara's article. Even though the former link in edit mode is correct, when you click on it, you're taken to footnote 16, which is the Knesset Bishara. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've called it Bishara2 and it's now linking to the correct article. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishara link