Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 7

message: How about we go with the title "Religious segregation in Israel-Palestine".  It uses the more appropriate term "religious segregation" and it mentions both "Israel" and "Palestine".  I recently created a Racial segregation in the United States -- I find it is more accurately termed than the alternative "Apartheid in the United States".
In such an article, I would imagine that one can describe the many ways in which the two cultures tend not to mix, whether by design (in some cases) and by self-organization (in many of the cases).  I would even go so far as to say that the term "apartheid" shouldn't be prominently used throughout most of the article, although a section should probably still deal with the use of the term by some critics of Israel.
BTW I just today created an article called crime of apartheid - very interesting history and a good place to centralize that research.  --Ben Houston 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2 cents, not a good title. Based on what I have read here, it is not only religious. But maybe I am completly wrong on this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change suggestion: [[Religious segregation in Israel-Palestine]]

message: Sources used to show it the phrase is used by these kind of groups:
* http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20020604ib.html http://www.davidduke.com/?m=200407 
* http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-genocide-palestinian-apartheidlaws.html 
* Israel: An Apartheid State – a book by an Israeli who became a member of the PLO. Book published in 1987 and can not be used for events after that date.
* http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm - an encyclopedia blog by itself not a primary source
* An article by Desmond Tutu in the guardian in which only the Headline (by Guardian editor) uses the phrase Israeli apartheid:  – in the text itself Tutu specifically refer as "The apartheid government" twice to the South African regimen (this use of language indicate uniqueness of the phrase apartheid is reserved to SA) 
***Question, does this imply according to you that Desmond Tutu did not use that term, or that we simply can not tell based on this article?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that WP:RS is a good way to proceed. Zeq, I took the liberty to format your list. Feel free to undo if you feel this was inappropriate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS]] - analsys of sources used for this article  

message: There is a proposal at Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa on moving that article to [[Apartheid (political epithet)]. Editors interested in this article may be interested in opining on that proposal.Homey 19:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Apartheid outside of South Africa]] to [[Apartheid (political epithet)]] 

message: I have made a subpage at my userspace to centralise the wider discussion on the apartheid articles. I have made a proposal at User:KimvdLinde/Apartheid, and I invite others to come with thei proposals, and discuss those at the talk page User_talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid. This fragmented discussion is not going to help us, so I invite everybody to come over and try to resolve this basic issue of which page with what content first. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralised discussion 

message: I have:
# per large majority that epithet as qualifyer is unacceptable
# per small majority for no qualifyer
# per WP:DAB guidlines to use qualifyers only to seperate two articles with the same name
moved this page to Israeli apartheid. This as discussed in detail in my post from some days ago. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. There is no such consensus; and you clearly acted improperly. This has been reported as an incident --Leifern 23:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded there. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By what count is there a "small majority" or any majority at all for no qualifier?  I count a majority for some sort of qualifier, whether it be "phrase," "epithet," some "qualified" name like "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid," etc.  6SJ7 00:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Allegations" is a good way to describe it. Also since there is no apartyheid in israel a good name is use of the term "israeli apartheid" in the propeganda war against Israel. This is an NPOV description of whaty takes place. Zeq 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: It is quite common in political rhetoric for one party to coin a phrase that effectively hijacks the premise. For example, when Ann Coulter joins together the terms "liberal" and "treason," she is placing the burden on "liberals" to prove that they are not treasonous. One can come up with any number of such phrases to make life difficult for a political opponent, and the more they catch on the more they skew the debate. The term gets hits in Google not because it is a noteworthy topic, or even a noteworthy issue, but because it is a popular term among a certain group of people involved in the debate. If we are prepared to accept a phrase as a noteworthy article, we can take this any number of places. "Bleeding heart liberal" gets 225,000 hits, as an example; "welfare mothers" gets 200,000. We can keep coming up with terms like this until everyone on Wikipedia gets insulted, and rightly so.
Perhaps a comparison between Israeli policy and South African apartheid is a noteworthy topic, but it can't be accomplished with a title that accepts the premise that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid. --Leifern 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic vs rhetoric 

message: * "Israeli apartheid" (as phrase) - 487 unique hits in Google
* Israel apartheid (as two words) - about 5 million hits.
Even an article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency uses the phrase.
The phrase has enough hits to be notable for Wikipedia purposes.  --John Nagle 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But a phrase doesn't constitute a topic. --Leifern 23:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does if it's a significant phrase. We have articles on hundreds of phrases, in fact. Consider curiosity killed the cat, read my lips: no new taxes, etc. -Silence 00:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I get 247.000 hits for "Israeli apartheid" at google  -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only about 500 of those sites are unique. Which is still a decently large number. -Silence 00:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a known bug in Google.  You can't trust Google hit counts on a phrase; you have to page through the listing out to the last entry and see how many were real.  Getting that number right would run up the cost of phrase searches considerably, because they'd actually have to run the join to completion when returning the first page of results.  --John Nagle 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, learned something new today. :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let us not forget cocksucking motherfucker and bitch ass douchebag.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Israeli apartheid should not be redirected to Anti-Zionism -- that implication is, at least for individuals such as Desmond Tutu, incorrect and can serve as a basis to create a straw man argument.  In general, your above comment (which starts off with "As for other notable epithets") is based on the believe that the term is only used as a epithet.  I do not believe that is a correct characterization of the more reliable source based usages of the term -- thus again from my perspective you appear to be making a straw man and then shooting it down.  --Ben Houston 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there aren't very many reliable sources which use the term; there are many unreliable sources which use it, and some reliable sources which refer to unreliable sources using it, but not much about it in the peer-reviewed literature, and even then it's mostly from extremely biased sources (e.g. Israel Shahak, notorious anti-Zionist).  From what I can tell, it's almost exclusively used as an epithet, and reliable sources never use the phrase.  As for Tutu, his one off-the-cuff statement is neither here nor there; while he may know a lot about apartheid, he's mostly a figurehead, and is no sort of expert about Israel or the Palestinian situation. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Desmond Tutu is a single person that does not have any experience dealing with the Israeli-palestinian conflict, he only really gets his information from people that he is aligned with, the result is that his opinion can be just as bias as others but he is used as a sort of proof that "peace-loving christians" cannot support the Israeli government.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israeli apartheid" - Google hit counts 

message: 1.These sources (every single one of them) are not in use in the article - so why are we even discussing them.
2.Anyone who would bother to read the text (such as benbenisti text in the guardian) will see that he tals about the future. Should an encyclopedia be enagaed in sopeculation ? clearly benbensiti just added the prefix/sugffix word "apartheid" to every time he discuss the state of Israel. No real proof is offered in the article that Israel has apartheid laws. There is even the speculation that the failure of Sharon's plan (what is it ) will cause Washington to push Sharon toward an aprtheid state - what utter nonsense.Is this what you want to based an article on ?  let's dicuss the poor sources used in this article (instead of bring poor new sources)  
3. The benbensosti text can indeed be used to show that "Israeli paratheid" is an ex[pression voided of any meaning (other than being used in propeganda agaisnt israel) Zeq 14:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on these sources

message: Question, do all reliable sources agrees that this are only allegations? Or is there a difference of opinion about this among sources? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case?   6SJ7 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It cannot be a fact.  As stated in my comment in the previous section, discrimination or segregation would be a fact, if it is true, and if it is disputed as to whether it is a fact, then it is an allegation.  "Apartheid" is a name, and its use instead of discrimination or segregation (outside of South Africa, where it was the government's official label for a policy) is just name-calling.  6SJ7 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to consider the Statute of Rome a reliable guide to standard English usage.Timothy Usher 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that discrimination and apartheid are distinct.  Apartheid is described fairly accurately in Crime_of_apartheid#Original_definition.  --Ben Houston 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But interpreting by us of the current situation in light of that would be WP:OR. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Has Israel been charged with this crime?  Are they a signatory to the treaty that defines it?  I know they are not a party to the Rome Statute that gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over charges of apartheid, then again the only Middle Eastern country that is, is Jordan -- and the U.S., Russia, China and India are not signatories either.  I looked at that treaty and I see the word "racial" but no definition of that term.  Does it also include discrimination based on ethnicity?  Does it include discrimination based on religion?  If so, then the U.K. (which did sign the treaty) might be considered an apartheid state as well, see Act of Settlement 1701.  6SJ7 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Judging from the abstracts shown above, it would seem that authors are comparing Israeli policies to South African apartheid.  That's different from asserting they are apartheid.Timothy Usher 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be reason to very carefully word the lead and the remaining article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Uri Davis, has a chapter in his latest book (he has two it seems on the topic) called "Israel and South Africa: Two Forms of Apartheid".  This isn't a comparison statement but rather an assertion on his part.  --Ben Houston 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw this.  That's the only good example I've seen so far, and it's not enough to warrant an article.Timothy Usher 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only allegations?

message: I might be not available in the coming days due to power outage as Hurricane Alberto is expected to hit us full force. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability