Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 19

message: I added a reference to Mustafa Barghouti as an example of someone referring to the West Bank barrier as an "apartheid wall". This was fairly quickly removed, and I'm quite curious as to why. Can anyone explain? Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious reference removal 

message: Looks like there isn't enough support for it. I'm going to remove it from WP:RM. If someone wants to propose it at a later date, feel free. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move proposal 

message: This article deals with "Critism of Israel"  (or Critism of Israeli policy) - this should be the article proper name Zeq 12:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New title for this article 

message: Whether Israel started west bank barrier/wall in response to intifada or using intifafa as an excuse for stealing Palestinian land depends on your POV. So it is correct and NPOV to say that "Israel maintains that building of the barrier is response to the Intifada". --Magabund 10:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the "true" reason, it was the 2nd intifadeh that prompted it; until then successive Israeli governments opposed any barrier. Please stop trying to insert "revisionist" POV into this article as well; perhaps you can just stick to defending David Irving for a while. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its simply your POV that second intifada prompted it. I don't really understand why my NPOV edit disturbs you so much that you start personal attacks? I am not going to revert, it is useless to fight such childish behavior. --Magabund 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Barrier 

message: I've removed the following "Marriage" material to the Talk: page.
This is reminiscent of South African apartheid immigration laws, which adversely affected Indian practices of endogamy, in that they were forbidden from importing brides from their native country as they had done for generations prior to the apartheid regime. but as the Israeli court explained these laws exist in every country in times of war with other countries and in general countries have many limitations on citizenship through marriage.
The first sentence misquotes its source, which does not make this analogy as regards the marriage law, and the second is unsourced. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage material 

message: I've removed this reference from the Pass laws sub-section: http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=225 ; the source is poor quality and propagandistic, and the point is already supported by the Farsakh source. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pass laws material

message: I've given the chronology and start of the barrier more or less exactly as described by Human Rights Watch, in an article that is highly critical of both the barrier and Israel. This should satisfy any NPOV concerns. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something about the barrier not following the Green Line should also be in the summary. Catchpole 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it did not say that it is called an apartheid wall because it diverges from the Green Line. It just states the fact that the barrier diverges from the Green Line and that land confiscation took place. Catchpole 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's not related to the "apartheid wall" argument, then why mention it in the first place? I'm afraid you're caught between the rock of original research and the hard place of irrelevance. Please find a relevant source that makes your point, or don't include it. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you think that HRW was trying to POV the article in favor of Israel? If you're concerned about OR in articles, have you taken a look at the opening sentence under "Occupation of West Bank": Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, but are subject to the policies of the Israeli government. Israel has created roads and checkpoints in the West Bank that isolate Palestinian communities. Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem? Not a single reference to "apartheid", "bantustan", "apartheid", etc. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: West Bank barrier material

message: I have moved the sub-page for reliable sources that was previously at Talk:Israeli Apartheid to Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS. Catchpole 14:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RS subpage

message: War against Israel propaganda should be labelled as such. There are no serious sources justifying this article; just hysterical wack-jobs—and I am being uncharitable to wack-jobs. No serious encyclopedia would have an article with such an outrageous enty.--Lance talk 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the hoax tag unless you can come up with some reasoning other than proof by assertion. Catchpole 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've gone over this issue many many times. It is indeed a fact that people compare Israel's policy with apartheid. The usefulness and veracity of these comparisons is debatable at best, and I tend to agree with Lance6968 that they are so outragous that it's hard to take them seriously. But since there is no disputing the fact that the allegations have happened, the article is allowed to stand. But then every once in a editors try to change the title so that it's no longer about assertions but instead about the alleged particulars of the alleged apartheid. --Leifern 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax 

message: Can an older user place the footnote?
http://counterpunch.com/aloni01082007.html
This Road is for Jews Only
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
January 8,2007
By SHULAMIT ALONI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siortega (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shulamit Aloni

message: I just came back to this page after a long absence. The first thing I encounter after the usual preamble is a long section of apologetics from a couple of obscure sociologists - before scarcely a word has been said about the nature of the allegations themselves!
Viewers of the page would be wondering what the heck the page is supposed to be about after a start like that. If Adam/Moodley are to be included at all, surely it should be after the allegations have been detailed, not before.
Oh, I note the same thing has been done further down the page - the "Criticism of the term" section comes before the "Arguments for the term" section. Is somebody trying to play "poison the well"? That's certainly what it looks like.  Gatoclass 17:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heribert Adam is a well-known and respected academic who is very well-placed to write about this issue, which you'll see if you read his bio. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bizarre how people who know nothing about a subject feel qualified to dismiss the foremost experts in the field on that subject. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, Gatoclass, downplaying them as "sociologists" is a nasty little bit of well poisoning. Adam, for example is actually "professor emeritus of political sociology at Simon Fraser University, specializing in human rights, comparative racisms, peace studies, Southern Africa, and ethnic conflict." Perhaps we should put that in the article, what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thanks for the info Jayjig, but you can hardly describe my identification of these two as "sociologists" to be "poisoning the well". The point is that there was absolutely no information about Adam and Moodley at all, they might have been a couple of street sweepers for all the reader would know. And last time I looked, "sociologist" is not a derogatory term.  Gatoclass 11:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction - I just realized that I missed the reference to Adam and Moodley in the paragraph above the one I edited last night, I guess because it was late at night and I was tired. All the same, I still think they should be a bit better identified in the article itself rather than requiring the reader to hit the hyperlink, so I've included a mention that Adam is a Professor of Sociology. Gatoclass 11:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:LEAD states that the lead should "include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Note that it says "should include criticism," rather than "should consist primarily of criticism."  Which do you think our lead does now?--G-Dett 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: G-Dett, I think it signifies that we are dealing with a very controversial subject, which we are.  You say "taboo", someone else says "extremely offensive and unencyclopedic."  It is probably worth keeping in mind that in the two AfD's on this article (I'm not counting the one that was open for about a half-hour, and there were serious problems with the other two, but that's not the point here), a majority favored deleting this article.  The deletion did not get a consensus, so it didn't happen.  But, given the number of people (including me) who do not think this article should even exist, because the term is an offensive and unjustified slur, it should be no surprise that many of the same people think the criticism of the term should receive prominent mention.  6SJ7 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion, again, was this: "Those who reject the analogy contest the factual basis of the allegations, adding that legitimate security needs necessitate Israel's practices, [1] and that the practices of many other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid.[2]" Following this, I would put another neutral sentence to close out the lead.  My reasons were 1. This is a better balance between theory and criticism, 2. Critical points are all still there, 3.  Specific accusation that it's inherently to slander and malign Israel is left out, while general point is still implied (saying other countries are worse), 4. "Justifies" is changed to "necessitates," which strengthens the criticism while being slightly less passionate, 5. Inconsistency of hyper-intensive "no factual basis" vs. "but it's justified" and "and other countries are worse" is removed.  (If there's no factual basis, what exactly is justified?)  Any thoughts?  It really seems like an improvement to me.Mackan79 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible to me. Catchpole 08:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent suggestion.--G-Dett 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree.  I think the deletion of what is now the second sentence of the intro would slant the article in favor of the "apartheid" allegation.  I do not think NPOV-ness of an intro can necessarily be determined simply by counting sentences or words.  This is an article where all of the most "visible" elements are highly controversial -- the article's very existence, the article's title and the intro.  (The body of the article has to be part of the mix also, but I don't believe that consideration of that text would change the outcome of what I am saying.)  I think that determining "balance" requires that all of these elements be taken into account and weighed together.  While I still believe that this article, on the whole, is slanted against Israel, if (for the sake of discussion) we are to take as given the article's existence and current title, then the current intro achieves a sort of rough balance, in a "big picture" sense.  The proposed change would destroy that balance.  6SJ7 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I understand you to be saying that a biased intro is necessary for overall balance?--G-Dett 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How about we write a solid, accurate, serious, and dispassionate article on the subject at hand, but every time we use the word "apartheid" we write NOT! in parantheses, to satisfy the censors.--G-Dett 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam and Moodley

message: It's time to get serious about this article.  I mentioned above the importance of context.  Adam and Moodley write that ""The majority [of academic and journalistic commentators] is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."  SlimVirgin glosses this by saying, "it is a highly controversial term that's rejected by the majority of academics and journalists who have commented on it," and cites Adam and Moodley's observation as authority for writing a lead that consists mostly of criticism from those "incensed by the very analogy."  She stresses that the author "is a well-known and respected academic who is very well-placed to write about this issue, which you'll see if you read his bio."  Jay backs her up, arguing that Wikipedia editors are in no position to question Adam and Moodley: "It's bizarre how people who know nothing about a subject feel qualified to dismiss the foremost experts in the field on that subject."
What do you find if you actually read Adam and Moodley's work?  For starters, you find that they absolutely do not endorse the position of this majority that is "incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."  Adam and Moodley write:
Most university administrations in North America, from Concordia to Harvard, would like to declare the controversial issue taboo and ban all discussions among agitated students and activist faculty.  Such a position shirks rational, analytic debate where it should be encouraged.
And they go on to write: 
"We are puzzled as to why morally sensitive individuals react allergically to the slightest condemnation of Israeli behavior.  People who rightly celebrate the Jewish overrepresentation in the anti-apartheid resistance react uncomfortably when the possibility of Israeli apartheid is merely queried."
It is striking that the very editors here who uphold Adam and Moodley's unassailable authority on this topic do not seem to be aware what Adam and Moodley's position is.  Ironies abound when these same editors move repeatedly to delete this article, or declare that its subject matter consists entirely of a defamatory epithet, and so on.  Adam and Moodley explicitly disdain this kind of response to comparisons between apartheid South Africa and the situation in Israel-Palestine. 
 
There is something genuinely bizarre about heaping praise on Adam and Moodley for their unparalleled expertise in this subject, then saying at the same time that this subject itself is unworthy of an article in Wikipedia.  In any case, Adam and Moodley make very clear that they think the comparison is a problematic but partially valid and decidedly valuable one; and they say so, in plain language, in the very work the authority of which Slim and Jay say we mustn't question.
It is not my position that the authority of Adam and Moodley (much less that of lesser figures like Benjamin Pogrund) is not to be questioned.  This article should include the views of a range of notable figures.  But given the degree to which this article has foregrounded A & M, it would be helpful if editors here would actually read their work and represent it accurately (as it stands now, all of the A & M quotes in the article come from one section of one chapter – a section which happens to have been scanned onto the internet).  At the very least, A & M's work tells us that this subject is a serious one which transcends any alleged "epithet," and is indeed worthy of a serious Wikipedia article.  And as regards this last, I think we should move immediately, following Mackan79's lead, to rewrite the incredibly loaded and well-poisoning intro. --G-Dett 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we are stuck in this strange debate that on the one hand, some editors want an article about the rhetorical device of the comparison, on the basis that the comparison is widespread; but then immediately afterwards want to enter as a premise their own conclusion of the comparison, namely that Israel, that manifestation of evil in their imaginary world, is fully guilty of apartheid. This article must either be about the rhetoric itself or about the alleged crimes. If it's the latter, it has a tough burden to meet NPOV standards, as any reasonable person could only conclude that Israel is not guilty of the crime of apartheid; if it's the former, it has to stick to a narrow focus. --Leifern 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is responsive, but I'd expect an article that discussed the accusation, the background of the accusation, and criticism of the accusation. Having changed the title to "allegations," I don't see a danger of implying WP's endorsement of the accusation. At the same time, I also don't see a sufficient concensus to treat the article as some sort of completely senseless slur, as you seem to be advocating. I think your statement of "any reasonable person" is largely a straw man, since this is much more than a legal debate, but when Carter and Tutu and so many others have made the comparison, it seems pretty clear that an encyclopedia would have to treat it as a legitimate debate, even if there is a large majority on one side, if that's true. Mackan79 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed I added that this morning.--G-Dett 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What the "foremost experts" actually say

message: There is text in section "Other Views" in this article that states: "noting that the anti-Apartheid resistance that formed against South Africa was disproportionately Jewish" and "many liberal Zionists were active in the antiapartheid struggle", etc.  But this could be balanced and less POV if it also noted the following:
Israel had a cosy relationship with the racist South African apartheid regime in South Africa. Israel had a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South Africa.  Israel had a fruitful and deep military relationship with that racist regime too. In April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South Africa - one of the architects of the system of apartheid - paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin.  
Let's not try to allow Israel to painted as only an ANTI-Apartheid entity, as the form of the Adam and Moodley text currently is positioned.  That wouldn't be accurate.  Let's work to make this article NPOV.Siortega 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that Israel's close relations with apartheid South Africa is relevant.  To include it, however, you'd need to find a reliable source that discusses those relations in the context of the main subject matter of this article.  It would be great if you could find something of that sort.  Otherwise it's OR, as you probably know.--G-Dett 18:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel's relationship in support of Apartheid in South Africa

message: Re: Leifern, I think Israeli-Palestinian is better simply for being more specific.  In the end, this could implicate all kinds of things, but the specific relevancy is to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is also where people would most likely want to look for additional information.
Re: 6SJ7, I think the sentence is important for the reasons stated in history, to provide context, and so it doesn't simply close out on the harsh criticism.  The issue seems to have flared up recently, particularly with Carter's book, which I think warrants a comment.  Otherwise I was just going to put a truly meaningless neutral statement, like "Support and opposition to the phrase is discussed below," but I thought this was better.  If you don't like the wording, I'd certainly welcome something better.  I also called it contentious in deference to your wish, however, to make it clear that there is strong opposition to the phrase, which will be discussed below, so people know this isn't just something that everybody accepts. Mackan79 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "so it doesn't simply close out on the harsh criticism"... it sounds to me like you are trying to make the criticism less prominent in the intro.  There is no need to "sandwich" the criticism between other stuff.  The criticism should be at least as prominent as the phrase itself, since the whole thing is preposterous anyway.   6SJ7 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less prominent than it originally was, perhaps, but not as a means of minimizing it.  I'm simply of the belief that an encyclopedia should discuss subjects dispassionately, and not to favor sides.  Here, the criticism is indeed at least as strong as the idea; in fact, no support for the allegation itself is even given, whereas three arguments for the opposition are given at the outset.  At the same time, I think it's good not to give either side "the last word."  I also think the context is relevant.  You've referenced the need for broad balance, though, so you certainly understand it, and I agree with you that this type of broad balance is necessary.  So that's what I'm going for. Mackan79 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never quite understood why certain editors want to link to Arab-Israeli conflict over Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The was at one point a sentence where Adam & co. mention the relation to Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically, and I had to revert changes back to the conflict the ref was actually talking about like 4 or 5 times. Strange groupthink.... -- Kendrick7talk 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, comments like the one about "groupthink" have a really good chance of helping to resolve the disputes over this article.  6SJ7 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why you would find that diagnosis offensive; I'm hard pressed to think of a more innocent explanation as to why different editors would each repeatedly introduce the same error into a sentence (thought there was a fourth one): , , . Then Leifern the same edit thing  in the lead (though of course, this doesn't pertain to a reference). Then, your last edit deleted the sentence from the lead entirely. And I see this in other articles too. It just strikes me a completely odd. -- Kendrick7talk 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab-Israeli vs. Israeli-Palestinian 

message: Here is another Israeli making the comparison:
:Yoram Kanyuk, "an intellectual hardliner and former liberal"Arnaud De Borchgrave, Commentary: Carter's echo in Israel, United Press International, reprinted by Middle East Times 
January 11 2007 wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli daily newspaper, that "Israeli action in the Territories corrupts the Zionist dream, and is no better than apartheid. . . .  I have not been a leftist for years, because I do not believe the Arabs would agree to share this country with us, and I believe in the Jews' right to a home and a state in our historic homeland. Yet what we have been doing in the territories borders on the criminal. When President Carter, who was never a friend of Israel, writes that what we are doing in the territories is similar to apartheid, everyone cries out in protest. Yet he wasn't far off from reality: our behavior is worse than that prevalent in South Africa at the time. It's unpleasant to say this, but this is the way it is."
And here is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National_Security_Advisor_%28United_States%29, comments on the matter, which appear to fall into the "The debate on the two-state solution" section:
:"the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid: i.e., two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation."Ask the Expert: US policy in the Middle East, Zbigniew Brzezinski, London Financial Times December 4, 2006.
--70.48.240.99 17:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two additional commentators 

message: The introduction of Adam & Moodley's work, when we write that they 
"state that in the "ideological battle" of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, "frequent references to apartheid are made wherein Palestinians are equated with black South Africans." [5] They write that academic and journalistic commentators on the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" can be mainly divided into three groups..."
 – is extremely misleading.  Their subject is not "the term".  The sentence about people equating Palestinians with black South Africans comes from the first paragraph of their book.  It is followed immediately by a  sentence about other people equating Jews with black South Africans, and then a sentence about how both comparisons are problematic.  Their main topic is not either of these comparisons, but a broader one that includes both: "Above all we are interested in the lessons one can glean from South Africa's negotiated settlement that can be applied to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."  End of paragraph one.  Statement of thesis/trajectory of book.
Eleven pages later and in the next chapter, when they write about dividing "journalistic and academic commentators on the topic" into three groups, they're not talking about "the use of the term 'Israeli Apartheid'," as our article so inaccurately suggests.  "The topic" is their topic – that of broad comparisons between peacemaking in South Africa and peacemaking in Israel-Palestine.  This will be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the passage.  It is also very clear that Adam & Moodley count themselves among the third group that they list, and that their very book ranges itself as a rebuttal to the first group – the group that is "incensed by the very analogy."  The analogy they're talking about is not between Israel and apartheid, exactly; it's between the South African impasse and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, and between the conditions of peacemaking and moral accounting that framed the former and now frame the latter.  The analogy that incenses the first group they list – and incenses so many editors and administrators on this page – is one endorsed by Adam and Moodley, who have made it the central theme and guiding logic of their book.
Obviously, the introductory paragraphs of our article need to be radically rewritten.
I assume the good faith of all involved here.  But the sloppiness and opportunism with which Adam & Moodley's work has been used here has set a bad precedent for standards of quality in Wikipedia articles with contentious subject matter.  We should move quickly to undo the damage.--G-Dett 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One should always move slowly and seek to avoid direct confrontation otherwise it just leads to more problems than it solves.  It may be useful to water down end final paragraph of your comment and get Mel Etitis's thoughts on the matter.  Mel has a great reputation.  But if this page deteriorates into extreme hostilities, then it precludes any reasoned arguments.  --70.48.240.99 17:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited my last paragraph to remove even oblique references to specific editors.  I've left in the references to sloppiness and opportunism because I think those two things (and not ideology per sé) are the chief quality-control problems besetting this page.  I appreciate your tactful blow of the whistle, and I look forward to Mel's work here.--G-Dett 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten the introduction to the material in question.  My goal in doing so was to preserve quoted material important to my 'opponents,' while ensuring that it's framed and presented in a way that isn't misleading.--G-Dett 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked it to get rid of all the quotes, which made it look as though we're not capable of understanding plain English. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the streamlining very much, Slim; only now it looks like Adam and Moodley are discussing "whether" lessons learned from South Africa can be applied to Israel-Palestine, whereas that is in fact their premise, and detailing those lessons is their purpose.  Your excellent editing needs another tweak.--G-Dett 23:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine as it is — or "whether" could be replaced with "the extent to which," if you feel that's clearer. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd already tweaked it before seeing this.  A & M do say that "the main focus of  this study" is to "draw strategic lessons from the negotiated settlement in South Africa for the unresolved conflict in the Middle East," and they make very clear that this is the analogy that provokes the three types of commentary they list.  That's the general analogy that is the centerpiece of their book.  There is a more specific analogy which is the centerpiece of our article, between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and Afrikaner policies toward black South Africans during apartheid.  They deal with that too, but that's not what the tripartite classification refers to.  My current tweak makes clear these distinctions, while preserving the brevity of your edit.--G-Dett 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just an idea: The "Other Views" section should be retitled if it's all about Adam and Moodley.  Plus, I thought people were going to balance out the Adam and Moodely POV that has been picked out from their report, and showcase their work in a more balanced fashion.  Has anyone read it?   This Wikipedia article, as is, doesn't represent their report accurately.Siortega 08:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Uses and Misuses of Adam & Moodley 

message: This article deserves a  tag on account of its mentioning "critics" of the allegation without ever saying who those critics are.
The "arguments for the term" section does not mention that, quite simply, Israeli law makes distinctions between persons who are racially jewish and those who are not, and this in and of itself is (by definition) racist.
:Well, I hear you, but the criticism is discussed throughout the article.  We simply didn't cite it all at the top.  Basically, it was a compromise. Mackan79 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the article spends more time discussing the criticism than the actual apartheid issue. Even the section about proponents of the term is basically mostly about the criticism. I don't think it's POV entirely, but it has a certain degree of bias in trying to not sound pro-use of the term. I completely agree that the term "critics" needs to be made more specific. For example, if the critic is the Israeli government, I doubt that should be even considered! 64.194.250.99 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why you would find it unusual that there is more about the criticism than the allegations -- assuming that is actually the case, I haven't measured the article recently.  If one person says "the sky is yellow", I would expect that there would be more people saying "no, the sky is blue (at least sometimes)", and some of them would provide you with proof that the sky is blue, and some would provide detailed explanations of why the sky is blue.  Meanwhile, the person who said the sky is yellow can do little but say, "no, the sky is really yellow, and here are a few other people who agree with me."  The discussion of how the sky is blue will always be longer than the part about how the sky is yellow, because the sky is, in fact, blue.  (And yes, I realize that the analogy is imperfect when dealing with something that is mostly a matter of opinion, like whether something should be called "apartheid", but it is close enough.)  As for excluding the reaction of the Israeli government to these allegations, that is ridiculous.  Doesn't someone who is accused of something, even informally, have the right to defend themselves?   6SJ7 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the critics? 

message: Please, any older user who can edit, have the article reflect this source and quote:
"Carter also responded to the severe criticism he has received for using the term "apartheid" in the book's title, calling it "completely appropriate for Palestine"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-carter12dec12,0,524214.story?track=tothtml
Carter made his remarks in a brief session with reporters before a book-signing appearance at a jammed Vromans bookstore, which attracted an overwhelmingly supportive crowd estimated at nearly 2,000. Siortega 05:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carter: Apartheid completely appropriate (term) for Palestine

message: Does anyone know what's happened with Mel's informal mediation?  I've been refraining from editing pending his intervention, whatever form it was going to take...--G-Dett 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain if this is still pending.  CJCurrie 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel? 

message: Maybe we should have a section popular culture. The term "Israeli aparthied" is becoming increasingly prevalent on university/college campuses who call for divestment etc. Also, it's not just students, but groups of profs as well that do this. There is even art and possible some music devoted to the concept.Bless sins 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be safe to hold off on this until an event akin to the Tibetan Freedom Concerts happens. Way too much cruft possibility as things stand. -- Kendrick7talk 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the art gallery could also include some photos of Israeli young mothers and their babies who were blown up by Palestinian terrorists, to remind people of what all this is really about.  6SJ7 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I don't mean to turn this into a debate, but there's no running away from the fact that this term is steadily gaining popularity amongst students in teh West. I can pull up local university/college newspapers to show this. But do users on this page object that a section covering this would be irrelevent to the article?Bless sins 04:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on popular culture

message: Personally, I believe that the article should include how the US media has portrayed the issue. For Example, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, who also appears on CNN, has commented time and again that using that term is not justified. See his CNN program transcript here 
He has a considerable following among conservatives, so his views and way he handled the issue is going to affect American public`s view on the issue.
Also, I suggest the the article should contain detailed comparative account of life as an Arab Muslim and as Jew in Israel. It will show the people the level of injustice against Palestinians. I emphasize on Israel and not on Palestinian and occupied territory because people living outside Israel believe that even though things are bad in   Palestinian and occupied land, within Israel it is better.
Ghimirebhumika 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an account would be considered a primary source, and probably not merit inclusion into this controversial article. However, reliable secondary sources are more than welcome.Bless sins 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referring to the Us media`s reaction to the use of term Apartheid 

message: You can see the bias at Wikipedia in the fact that this article is entitled "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid," whereas there are no "allegations" of New Anti-Semitism. Why not Allegations of New Anti-Semitism, or simply Israeli Apartheid? --172.193.13.134 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, the bias (in the opposite direction) is found in the fact that this article exists at all.  The "qualified" title was part of an uneasy "compromise" (not exactly the right word but fairly close) that, evidently, remains uneasy.  6SJ7 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title bias

message: There are those whio claim israel is an aparheid state and there are those who don't.
the attempt to call this article "allgations of...." and come up with NPOV resulted in arguments that can not be sourced such as :
"Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era to Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel"
we need to stick to the facts:
*The term used is "Israeli partheid"
*we can say for sure who uses it
this is where agreed upon facts end and the controvesy starts.
Zeq 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are two sides