Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 11

message: :::Interestingly, Sarkozy's policies towards Muslim immigrants have been described as "urban apartheid" in Le Monde.Homey 01:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lesson in that, Homey. Everyone is accusing everyone else of apartheid of some kind. The overuse has undermined it, and it has become meaningless, like "terrorism." A quick search on Google shows Desmond Tutu using it constantly. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Brian Klug made precisely the same point about the New anti-Semitism when he writes "when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance. " Homey 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homey's opinion

message: I think that the topic of political rhetoric is an important, yet apparently underserved issue in Wikipedia. Perhaps we should start a series of articles covering a full range of political issues that specifically explore the rhetoric used. This would certainly include the Arab-Israeli conflict through its various stages. That would put this article in its right place and might stave off some of this controversy. Thoughts? --Leifern 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another bold suggestion 

message: The Request for Move vote page for the proposed move "Israeli apartheid" -> "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid".  Please go there to work on this issue.  Thanks.  --John Nagle 03:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Could editors bear in mind that footnotes come after punctuation, not before it?  Like this, abc not like this xyz. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone keeps slightly changing the way the refs are written so that the software no longer recognizes one as the same as the other. Please don't do that. Also, could whoever moved the Matas section in Criticism to the end please leave it alone? It was written to introduce the section and shouldn't be moved to below the list. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: I've removed this because I feel the use of the reference was misleading. It was a 1969 article by Ian Gilmour MP ("Zionist doctrine and Israeli expansionism", Ian Gilmour MP, The Times. 25 June 1969), but was being used to give the impression that "conservative British politicians" support the use of the term, which they do not, so far as I know. If we want to say that they do, we need up-to-date sources, and more than one. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative British politicians

message: I removed *"Brothers in Arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria", in The Guardian, February 7, 2006 from further reading list. See , , , . If you insist on inserting it, add these four links because our readers deserver better than Chris McGreal. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chris McGreal as a source

message: SV why did you revert this:
"Israeli apartheid (alt: Apartheid Israel, Israel as an apartheid state) is a "
You have reverted this as "POV" - why? It's simply making clear that there are several terms being used. "Apartheid Israel" and calling Israel an actual or possible "apartheid state" are both phrases in use. There is not a single expression and we shouldn't pretend that there is. I also took out the scare quotes which we have not used thus far in the article.Homey 21:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening line 

message: The current quote in the introduction is 91 words; this is a ridiculous length for a quote in general, and verging on copyright violation, but it's particularly absurd to have a quote of this length in an introduction.  On top of that, it's virtually unreadable, containing a quote within a quote.  I'm going to clean it up to something reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've cleaned it up to something readable instead, which actually gets the point across far more effectively than that unreadable mess.  The extra length was actually hurting your cause, not helping it. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And by the way, it's hard to believe there's ever been a consensus about anything on this page. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutu quote 

message: Jossi's edit makes the most sense, I think. Rather than characterise by saying "extreme left" or "across the spectrum" it lets readers determine for themselves. Homey 23:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm content with it. -- ChrisO 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I explained it above. British conversatives do not use that expression, to the best of my knowledge. You quoted one article from 1969! SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it's not from 1969!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, the 1969 citation is the earliest media reference that I've found. I don't know whether Ian Gilmour originated the idea but he does seem to have been among its first public proponents. It's worth pointing out that in those days the British right was quite pro-Arab while the left was generally pro-Israeli - how times have changed! -- ChrisO 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  left right and centre 

message: The Jew Watch reference seems somewhat tenuous to me as what the link actually shows is an article from Ha'aretz posted on the Jew Watch site..
And, as I've said previously, there are examples of white supremacist groups using the phrase "evil empire" to describe the Soviet Union  - does this mean we should say in our Evil empire article that "The phrase has been used by Ronald Reagan and white supremacists"? Clearly that would be guilt by association and poisoning the well and I believe that's the effect of including isolated instances of the far right using the phrase - a phrase they neither originated nor popularised and for which we can only find two or three citations. Homey 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The expression is constantly used by fascists and people on the far left, who agree about Israel and anti-Semitism. If you don't like Jew Watch, put in Stormfront. If you don't like them, try the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. You can take your pick because there are lots of them using it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Homey, you know very well that your views are shared by fascists, which is why you're trying to censor this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it hypocritical that Homey claims to be "appalled" by this undeniable fact - after weeks of multiple-page rampage targeting the Jewish state. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jew Watch 

message: Let's be clear here: there is a difference between the following:
* "Israel is just like/worse than apartheid era South Africa"
* "Israel's policy has some features that are similar to apartheid-era South Africa"
* "A comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa shows that..."
Only the first of these is an analogy, and barely that. Merely mentioning apartheid and Israel in the same sentence does not justify the term "Israeli apartheid." In fact, it is very easy to make the comparison with facts and conclude that Israel is among the countries in the world least like apartheid-era South Africa. --Leifern 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an analogy