Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 12

message: This passage now reads:
"Proponents also allege that 93% of the land inside the Green Line is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli Lands Authority(ILA)[20]. The actual figures are 79.5% of the land is owned by the government and 14% is privately owned by the JNF, Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel. ILA lands can not be sold - to either Jews or non-Jews, they can only be leased, to both Jews and non-Jews.[21]."
Somehow, this line seems to have been removed:
"This land was reserved exclusivly for Jews until an Israeli Supreme Court ruling in 2000."
The source, a BBC News article titled "Battling against Israeli 'apartheid'" says as follows:
:"But in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the Israeli Land Authority, which leased land to the Jewish Agency to establish Katzir as a Jewish-only community, had acted illegally. 
:The authority did nothing hoping Mr Kaadan would just go away but after he filed for contempt of court, it finally caved in. This May it granted him his plot of land at 1995 prices - about $15,000 rather than $100,000. 
:Dana Alexander calls this "a landmark ruling which proves that all citizens should enjoy equal rights in a democratic Jewish state". 
::Foot dragging 
:But the battle is not over. Earlier this month some members of the Knesset tried to introduce a new bill which would circumvent the Supreme Court verdict and once again allow for exclusively Jewish communities on state land. 
:The bill was narrowly defeated and the former Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said he opposed it because "it smelled of apartheid". 
:So on paper Mr Kaadan remains the winner. In practice though bureaucrats are dragging their feet. There is still no lease and he hasn't started building his house. 
Homey 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line was removed because it is incorrect, anf is not claimed in the source cited Isarig 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The ILA could refuse to lease property to Israeli Arabs in hundreds of Jewish-only settlements existing in Israel until 2000 when the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that it could not discriminate against Arabs.[Dr. Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar, Haifa University Law School"A First Step in a Difficult and Sensitive Road": Preliminary Observations on Qaadan v. Katzir</ref> Following the ruling, the Israeli government attempted to introduce a law permitting Jewish-only settlements within Israel's pre-1967 borders but the measure was narrowly defeated."Lucy Ash, Battling against Israeli 'apartheid', BBC News, December 23, 2004
He has made the following edit comment: "no it couldn't as the court ruling shows"
Quite clearly the ILA "did* follow discriminatory practices, otherwise they wouldn't have been taken to court and otherwise they wouldn't have *lost*. The court ruled their practices were illegal. Isarig, please stop removing references to the court ruling against the ILA and the subsequent attempt by the Israeli government to introduce a law permitting Jewish only settlements. You may not like these facts (I certainly don't) but that doesn't justify censoring them for facile reasons. The sensible edit would have been to change "The ILA could refuse" to "the ILA refused" as they were found to have refused to rent to Arabs. Instead you remove any reference to the Supreme Court ruling or the aftermath. If someone could please restore these statements (with corrections to fit Isarig's apparent point that yes legally they couldn't do what they did) it would be appreciated. Homey 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a "sourced statement", but rather your POV spin on what the source said. Nowhere in BBC article did it say that the ILA could do this - and the court ruling proved the opposite- that they could not. Your entire position is preposterous - using a court ruling that established that a certain action by a gov't agency is illegal to claim that it was legal until that point. It is as if someone was to write that until the US supreme court ruled that burning the flag is protected under the freedom of speech amendment, that such acts were illegal. If you want to quote the court ruling - go right ahead an quote it - say the ILA tried to discriminate against the Kaadans in katzir, but the Israeli supreme court ruled that the ILA could not discriminate against Arabs, under Israeli law - and I have no problem with you quoting that , as it establishes what nonsense this analogy with Apartheid is. Isarig 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land 

message: "Dugard has since abandoned any pretense of impartiality and become an outspoken enemy of Israel." 
This statement is clearly POV and nowhere in the link is he described as an "enemy of Israel". Homey 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's grossly POV. I already changed it earlier today but User:SlimVirgin restored it as part of a wider package of changes/reverts . I sincerely hope that she didn't intend to do this, as the line is totally incompatible with WP:NPOV (since when did "critic" equal "enemy"?), is not sourced (violating WP:CITE) and is quite possibly libellous to boot. I've changed the line to "Dugard has since become an outspoken critic of Israel", which the referenced article does support. I strongly recommend that nobody should try to restore the previous version. -- ChrisO 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits 

message: This is getting absurd. Are we now going to list everyone who has ever used the term (except for Conservative MPs, of course). Neo-nazis, anti-semites and Holocaust deniers?Homey 07:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third paragraph 

message: I'm totally confused now because stuff keeps being added and immediately removed then added again. I'm about to go back and re-add some edits I just made, which may have been removed, or else may simply not have taken, I'm not sure. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Less unexplained reverts = progress. 72.232.204.226 08:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: There seems to be an ongoing attempt to somehow get the extremists from the Klu Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis into the article.  If those go in, we really should have an "ethnic cleansing" section to balance it.  Some good cites on ethnic cleansing in the West Bank are
* Rep. Dick Armey Calls for Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians "Last night on MSNBC's highly-rated program Hardball, House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey ( R-TX) called for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the occupied territories and endorsed Israel's conquests of those lands."
*  Uzi Cohen of Israel's Likud party proposes ethnic cleansing "Cohen has been accused - mainly in his own words - of advocating ethnic cleansing, giving the Palestinians 20 years to get out of the West Bank voluntarily, and, in the event of his political patron Silvan Shalom being shunted to the sidelines, World War III." 
Should material like that go in? --John Nagle 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. WP is not a place for tit-for-tat POV pushing. Allegations of ethnic cleansing are not directly related to allegations of "Apartheid". OTOH, usage of the term "Israeli Apartheid" by extremists is relevant to the discussion, as it supports the critic's position that the term is used as a political epithet by antisemites. Isarig 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No. WP is not a place for tit-for-tat POV pushing. 
True. So let's get rid of the POV pushing on all sides, including the nonsense about neo-nazis which is only there to push the NAS POV.Homey 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Including this article as a separate article.  6SJ7 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on extreme positions 

message: I have created an article on John Dugard, the international law professor who formerly pushed for international intervention against apartheid and who is a judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and who reported to the UN, as Special Rapporteur about what he felt where apartheid like conditions in the occupied territories.  If people wanted to help improve that article further, it would be appreciated -- I've taken it up to something reasonable but it is not really complete.  I have not yet covered the controversy in that article or explicitly detailed his role in the fight against SA apartheid.  --Ben Houston 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that claim in the article.  --Ben Houston 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ChrisO did... -- Heptor  talk 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't revert, but it's pretty apparent that he's pretty anti-Israeli, to put it kindly. --Leifern 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New [[John Dugard]] article