Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 20

message: Great new article in the New York Review of Books publication: Jimmy Carter and Apartheid.  Recommended reading.  --70.51.228.158 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Review of Books: Jimmy Carter and Apartheid 

message: Middle Eastern, which are the weasel words?  SlimVirgin (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: Since I came here to offer serious questions and concerns after seeing this page mentioned on the Admins Noticeboard, user:Slimvirgin has used that as "evidence" that I am a banned user. I am not, but this has not stopped his/her lies and false accusations. Therefore, I am leaving Wikipedia. Feel free to take my note above into account, but I won't be responding to anything else. Sorry to go this way, but when the admins are doing this sort of abusive stuff and nobody will stand up to them, wikipedia is not worth contributing to. One Elephant went out to play... 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike this elephant man, mainly because of his views - however, his view on admins is totally correct, there must be clearer restrictions on what administrators can do, they cannot be the judge and jury of Wikipedia - we must be democratic --MiddleEastern 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I am leaving, and remove my objection thereby.

message: An article entitled "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" must discuss its subject matter, that is, allegations. It should first tell the reader what the allegations are, and who is making them. Then only after that should it tell us what the objections are, though of course not with any less emphasis or weight. —Ashley Y 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserting an argument for rejecting the analogy in the lead, without any discussion there of the arguments in favour, in no sense counts as NPOV. Please stop doing it. —Ashley Y 04:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations 

message: The following sentence was added to the intro:
:The Israeli government refers to its policy of separating the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the Israeli population as hafrada (Hebrew: הפרדה‎, separation).
I suspect this should probably go in the body of the article, if it belongs, since it has a somewhat POV effect in the intro (at least as it is currently written).  I'm not sure where to move it, though, since it lacks a source or any context.  If people feel this sentence belongs, could they explain where it might go?  Mackan79 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It obviously has a POV effect, and it's not even clear how it relates to the article. Moreover, even if it were relevant to "Israeli apartheid", it only refers to Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not in Israel, so it can't be fully relevant anyway. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Israel doesn't have a "policy of segregation", though. It has a policy of keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip out of Israel, which is something else. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The United States has a "separation policy" regarding Mexicans in Mexico. Is that a "segregation policy"? Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an international border.--Domitius 18:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, in your view, is the Green line (Israel)? Palestinians insist it is an international border. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel doesn't though, yet still imposes restrictions.--Domitius 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Is it a border or not? You can't have it both ways. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not competent to decide that, it's disputed internationally. Suffice it to say that it's de facto not an international border.--Domitius 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely neither side gets to have it both ways? john k 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Which reliable sources make the argument that the two are related? Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the people making the "allegations of Israeli apartheid", what are they referring to?--Domitius 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This Ecumencial Center  explicitly made the connection in 2004:  "NOTE: Originally the word apartheid was an Afrikaans word that simply meant “separation”. It reflected the desire of the whites to separate from the blacks in South Africa. In time, the word acquired a racist connotation for racial segregation. Similarly, Sabeel has been recommending to its friends to use the word “hafrada” which is Hebrew for separation. This is the word which the government of Israel is using as it builds its separation wall. In time, the word hafrada can become synonymous with apartheid because it harbors within it the hatred of and discrimination against the Palestinians. Tiamut 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, Sabeel; a highly partisan group at best. Now, why would you include the argument of an unreliable source, one that is not even quoted in the article (for good reason), in the lead? And why would you insert it as a mere statement of fact, rather than the rather obvious argument it is? Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to be a policy of keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip outside of Israel's de facto borders, doesn't it? It has no effect on Israeli Arabs, though, so it can hardly be about "segregation", which included not just borders, but use of public facilities etc. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If when you defined hafrada as a "policy of keeping Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip out of Israel," you were referring to Israel's de facto borders, then why did you invoke the Green Line to buttress your point?--G-Dett 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, you're confusing the issues. That Israel has a separation policy called hafrada is a fact the Israeli government does not deny. You asked for a source making the link between this and apartheid. I gave you a source. That it is partisan is unsurprising given that many of those who use the term "Israeli apartheid" are. Here's another:  . There are others too. But it's relevance is clear without the sources, per Bertilvidet above. And we are slipping into arguing the existence of "Israeli apartheid" again, rather than discussing article content. Tiamut 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance may be clear to you even without any sources, but the idea that hafrada is equivalent to apartheid has not been attributed to any reliable source. Anti-Israeli websites don't count as reliable sources. Beit Or 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice when people talk frankly; "publications I disagree with are not reliable". Thanks. Bertilvidet 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not have to be attributed to reliable sources (within your meaning of the term). It needs to be attributed to those making the allegations. When someone alleges an Israeli apartheid, what are they referring to?--Domitius 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does have to attributed to reliable sources. Why would be bother quoting anyone who wasn't a reliable source? Can we quote my Aunt Bessie on the subject too? Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So those making the "allegations" are not reliable sources. Odd - the article's title invokes them so they can't be that unreliable.--Domitius 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the sources alleging Israeli apartheid with those making a connection to hafrada; they are not the same. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments for that POV are clearly stated in the article. Bertilvidet 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They are in many cases indeed the same.--G-Dett 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are? Which ones? Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this ?--Domitius 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you name them please? Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not clear why anyone should respond to a comment which describes the removal of unsourced material as "censorship"; perhaps you can re-phrase. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps things could be rephrased. But yes, I believe one should argue for the deletion. So the problem is that there is no sources confirming the existence of such a policy? Bertilvidet 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the problem is there are no reliable sources which tie hafrada to Israeli apartheid, and even if there were, it's not clear why that specific argument should go in the lead, and be presented as a "fact", rather than an argument by proponents of the Israeli apartheid allegation. I've said all this before, so the issue is not that people aren't "arguing for deletion", but that others aren't actually reading the arguments. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The hafrada argument isn't sourced to any prominent and published writers, is it? In fact, it's an unsourced argument masquerading as an "innocent fact", isn't it? Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, Jay.  If it's going to go in the lead, it should be clear that reference to it forms part of the proponents' case.  Of course there are RS's who use it in this way, but it has yet to be demonstrated that it's a key component of their argument.  I think Mackan's right that if it's going to stay, it needs to be rephrased in compliance with WP:ATT and almost certainly moved out of the lead and into the body of the article. --G-Dett 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See the Hafrada sub-section below for sources that explain what it is and how it is linked to this discussion. Tiamut 21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli Government Term

message: here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article 

message: It seems most of the comparisons with apartheid South Africa are being made for what's going on in the Palestinian territories, not for Israel itself. There are some criticisms in this article about the situation inside Israel, but I don't think any of them use the "A" word? Meanwhile most of the "arguments against the term" focus on inside Israel. —Ashley Y 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed a problem.  The reliable sources go out of their way to underscore this distinction; we seem to have gone out of our way to elide it.--G-Dett 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel vs. the Palestinian territories 

message: How can Christians maintain a virtual silence about the persecution of their fellow worshippers by Muslims across the world, while denouncing the Israelis who are in the front line against precisely this terror
A. Who said he was silent?
B. ISnt the article called Allegations of Israeli apartheid 
C. Who said they were on the front line? This is a NPOV
It is also loaded with language of a uneducated anti-Islamic individual. To suggest that Muslims are some global percecutors of Christians is a load of nonsense it is a NPOV, because Muslims could agrue G Bush is a Christian and it is Muslims doing the majority of the dying. In a nut shell I think the extended comment doesnt belong here, it should be limited to his statement which is under debate. Also again who said he was silent? maybe he doesnt share this extream POV. and y should he?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Please stop arguing with the sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this have to do with this article?

message: Another source: .  CJCurrie 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jamal Zahalka

message: Before someone claims that this is original research
"Israel is not alone in being accused of apartheid. Australia, Brazil, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, France, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malysia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, the Former Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all been accused of this crime as well."
I would argue that such background information does not make an argument, but puts the issue in neutral context, and therefore cannot be considered original research, as original research is either an analysis or a synthesis or an argument.  Background sections need not be considered as any of these, so why should a background sentence in the lead be treated any differently?--Urthogie 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't say others "did anything" too, it says others are accused of this.  And yes, you might see a mention of South African apartheid in a Jim Crow article.  For example you see a comparison with the Holocaust on Armenian Genocide.--Urthogie 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me like a political guilt sharing tactic, shouldnt be in the lead in any event. It is called normalizing, like i say Africans r oppressed, and someone replies but all humans have oppression. negating the degree and the impact on the African reality. Normalizing it as "its a common accusation" hence water doing its impact as it relates 2 Israel.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't about oppression, but the allegations of oppression.  An article on  allegations of African oppression would include background info on similar allegations.  This is background info, that you seem to oppose because of your POV.  You are yet to quote any policy or guideline page to backup your view that this is "madness", and not just background info that would appear on any article if POV didn't prevent it.--Urthogie 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hold on one second there Urthogie. This is not an article about "allegations of oppression". Palestinians are oppressed by Israeli policies and there are few people who dispute that - though they might provide equivocations as to why. The article is about "Israeli apartheid" (a term and acocmpanying concepts) and it's only called "Allegations of" said subject because of a refusal to treat the concept on its own merits and discuss the controversy surrounding the designation in the article, rather than in the title. Tiamut 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, this is an article about allegations that Israeli policies towards Palestinians resemble those of South African apartheid. People on one side argue they do, people on the other side argue they don't. This is a political debate about terminology, not an article which shows the "fact" of "Israeli apartheid", and then lists the views of some people who make excuses for it. The only reason people want to remove the word "Allegations" from the title is because they refuse to treat the subject as controversial, and discuss the controversy around those allegations, but instead feel the title and article should state the "fact" of "Israeli apartheid", and then afterwards have the article throw in some weasely defenses of the practice of "Israeli apartheid" from various barely credible bigots and ethnocentrists. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your entire argument relies on your belief that the article is inappropriately named.  Start a new section on that, and try to gain consensus.  Until then, it is unfair for you to hold the article hostage because you don't like the name.-Urthogie 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you care to rephrase your comments? I'm not holding anything hostage. I have participated at a ratio of about 100:1, talk:article edits as regards this page. And I did apply for a page move thanks, above. I only made my comments to address your comments on how Palestinians "allege" they are oppressed and express my concerns about the article title in cultivating that kind of sick denial of the reality of some of the injustices they have had and continue to face. Tiamut 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care what you think about palestinians.  Address my point, not some non-existent argument about who's oppressed.--Urthogie 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine. Your background info isn't helpful to the lead at all. It comes off as equivocation. Further, since the categories Alllegations of apartheid and Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba are listed, I don't see the point of including such a long-winded sentence in the lead. Tiamut 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see where you're coming from.  Why do you think it comes off as equivocation?  A POV Israeli editor could accuse listing facts on Israeli Arabs as equivocation, and I would disagree with them.  Why do you see basic background facts as equivocation, and secondly what proof do you have that they are an argument, rather than an important contextual sentance?--Urthogie 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Where's your reliable source making the link between apartheid in Israel and elsewhere? Why are the cats insufficient to provide this context? It's your burden of proof, I might remind you, not mine. Tiamut 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think some of that material would serve the body of the article quite well, but I stand by my earlier comments that it doesn't belong in the lead. It's not quite so cut and dry as you make it out to be and "saudi apartheid" certainly does not have the same currency in use as "israeli apartheid" (though maybe it could, if we were talking about the gender situation there). Tiamut 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it belongs in the lead.  You don't.  We have a situation here where I have justified my view as adding important background info to the article.  You say it should be in the body.  Why not a sentence or two as well, in the lead?  Please back your view up, now, since I have found sources and used logic to defend mine.  Thank you, --Urthogie 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I stated above, your sentence is a long list of other coutries that is long-winded and makes tenacious links between apartheid in Israel and accusations of apartheid elsewhere. It is actually tangential to the debate at hand. I compromised on the cats that link to other apartheid pages, and I think that's sufficient in providing the reader with some background. As a further compromise, after you insisted, I agreed there might be a place for that information in the body. Don't tell me that I have to agree with exactly what you want just because you think you made a cogent argument. We all make cogent arguments and not all of us get what we want out of them. I think I've compromised enough on the issue, thanks. Tiamut 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new sentence added to the lead 

message: I plan to restore the balanced lead.  I have so far seen no argument against it, other than that, in order to balance the rhetorical weight of this concept, we need to counter-balance the lead against the concept.  I believe this is a clear break from both WP:Lead and WP:NPOV, and so will return the previous paragraph, which offers 1.) A definition, 2.) A sentence re proponents, 3.) A sentence re opponents, and 4.) A summation.  If people oppose this format, please explain why and maybe we can make progress. Mackan79 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, we really have to be somewhat balanced nomatter opinions of editors. The title is not Arguments against using the term Apartheid for Israel. Bertilvidet 12:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. —Ashley Y 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please quote which parts of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV it breaks?  And if it does violate these guidelines/policies, can you explain why Background sections like a "race" section in an article on race and the Ancient egyptians are allowed?  Thank you, --Urthogie 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead changes very fast. But we have to admit that it tend to list arguments against the use of the term, rather than actually explaining why some people draw parallels between Israeli policy and the apartheid regime. Right now the article does even not mention that there is an official Israeli policy named hafrada, which means separation in Hebrew. There are thousands of articles of Wikipedia that I cannot explain, including race and the Ancient egyptians. Bertilvidet 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please back up that claim. I've looked hard, and been unable to come up with evidence for such policy. The word "Hafrada" is not even used in that context in Israel. See my comment above (in "Sources for Hafrada"). okedem 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced Lead

message: The current version:
: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. Proponents of the analogy draw parallels between the separate rights and privileges of Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank and the policies of racial separation in apartheid South Africa, and allege second-class citizenship of Arabs living within Israel proper. 
:Those who reject the analogy argue that it has no basis in fact and is intended as political slander, further arguing that Arab citizens enjoy equal rights in Israel's democracy,Irshad Manji: Modern Israel is a far cry from old South Africa that the cited practices of the analogy are based on security needs, Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55. and that the practices of many other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid. Buruma, Ian. "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa",The Guardian, July 23, 2002. In recent years, the analogy has become a prominent and highly contentious component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 
Seems to have incorporated some compromise points. What are the objections to this version? Jd2718 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the second sentence ("Proponents of the analogy" remains, the reference to South Africa is unnecessary because that is covered in the first sentence.  Also, the last sentence of the current intro should be deleted, as it is meaningless and original research.  6SJ7 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the last sentence, in addition it is covered in the begining--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current (Shamir, rv Zeq) version of lead 

message: moved from my talk
Jossi, today you re-reverted a change on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid with the following edit summary: 
*"'it is political. there is no doubt about that.'"
It is not clear what "it" you are referring to. Again I would suggest clearer, less ambiguous edit summaries. Further, you might like to read over Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is a guideline, not policy, but it makes for more productive editing when there is controversy or disagreement. Jd2718 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any doubt that the term is political? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, I don't have any POV-related issues with "political."  I removed it because I think it isn't stylistically or encyclopedically appropriate in the sense you're using it.  Though I agree with Jd2718 that it's a bit ambiguous, you seem to be using "political" in its casual, conversational sense,  meaning controversial, disputed, loaded, etc.  But the stricter, more formal and encyclopedic meaning of "political" is actually a neutral description, designating something to do with the forms and structures of governments, civic life, demography and electorates, etc.  "Bicameral legislature" is a political term.  So is "soccer mom," "plausible deniability," "rump parliament," and so on.  It's sort of confusing to say "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" is a political term in this sense.  This article is by and large about a controversial category of moral rhetoric; it's not really about a point-by-point comparison of governmental policies in Israel and South Africa.  I suppose that's debatable, but in any case it doesn't seem like this is what you intend by "political."  You mean that the subject's loaded and disputed.  Be assured that "controversial" takes care of that, not to mention the rest of the lead.  "Political" in the sense you're using it is not only too informal for an encyclopedia, but also redundant, even tautological.  --G-Dett 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point, but by not asserting that is it a politically loaded argument, and using instead "controversial", the lead is already leaning in the direction of giving an unwarranted weight to the term itself. A way to resolve this, would be to start the article framing the controversy, rather than asserting these allegations as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "political" in this sense means controversial, I don't see how eliminating the redundancy would throw off the ideological balance of the lead.  The lead makes very clear that the article's subject is thoroughly disputed; it doesn't need the volume turned up with superfluous adjectives, which just make the article sound unprofessionally written.   But I'm not going to edit-war over this. --G-Dett 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither I will. I hope the latest edits addresses your concern. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reads better. Thank you. Jd2718 22:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, thanks Jossi.--G-Dett 20:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political term 

message: We can talk about "allegations of Israeli apartheid", and we can talk about "the term 'Israeli apartheid'", but surely it's a bit silly to talk about "the term 'allegations of Israeli apartheid'"? I'm not sure we even have any reliable sources that use the term "allegations of Israeli apartheid". —Ashley Y 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. I have changed the lead to address your concern. Note that the article describes the use of the term in a political context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a similar vein, also having to do with someone named Alice:  "This song is called Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the restaurant, but Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant, that's just the name of the song, and that's why I called the song Alice's Restaurant."  I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the article, however.  6SJ7 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one has any objections I'm going to put it in.  Minus the tune, which appears to be original research.--G-Dett 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: G-Dett you are too cool babe. I say that in the most honorific sense possible. Tiamut 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken that way.--G-Dett 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "term" and "allegations" 

message: I changed it slightly to read as follows: 
The term Israeli apartheid is used to make a controversial analogy between Israeli policies of those of apartheid era South Africa.
Proponents of the analogy point to the separate rights and privileges of Arab and Jewish residents of the West Bank, and/or further allege second-class citizenship of Arabs living in Israel proper.''
I think the first sentence is just much simpler and clearer this way. It retains "controversial", minus "political" and doesn't ascribe it to anyone. The next two paragraphs then outline proponents and opponents. I changed "and", in the second sentence above to read and/or, since not all who use the term use it the same way. I hope this is okay. See the text itself for the other paragraph which I left as is. Tiamut 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look like good changes to me. Mackan79 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in the first sentence we have "...term ... is used to make an ... analogy between x of those of y...." I think the first of should be an "and." I will make the change Jd2718 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're right. The meaning must have been unintentionally distorted after Shamir1's edit introducing Palesitnian and Israeli in the place of Arab and Jew. I asked him to discuss those changes, but he declined. I second your change Mackan79. Tiamut 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought that might have had to do with the choice of language.  Well, I'll try a different option -- "difference in rights between" -- which I hope is ok.  This is consistent with your point, Zeq, which I take as true, but clarifies what the sentence means. Mackan79 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, well just to ask first, how about "Proponents of the analogy point to the difference in rights and privileges between Palestinian and Israeli residents of the West Bank, or allege second-class citizenship of Arabs citizens in Israel proper." I think that's more accurate in terms of what the proponents argue, which of course is what we're putting forth.  Understanding that of course you have a problem with the statement, is that more fair? Mackan79 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Palestinian citizens do face differential treatment in the West Bank. They can't buy property or live in Israeli settlements there and its well-known that they face differential treatment at checkpoints. Settlers (all Jews) are just waved right through and we get the full monty. Tiamut 22:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can Jewish Israeli citizens buy property in the West Bank, or live in Arab cities there? Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to check what the laws are governing buying property but they certainly can live and rent places there. I'll get back to you on the second part in a minute. Tiamut 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any reason we've dropped from the lead the comparison proponents make between Bantustans and semi-autonomous Palestinian "cantons"?  It's a pretty pervasive meme. --G-Dett 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, how is that relevant? You can create a Palestinian apartheid article and put those claims in, but this article is about the mistreatment of Palestinians. Just because the PA plays the "Eye for an Eye" game doesn't mean that neither is mentioned. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to Tiamut's statements that Palestinians face "differential treatment" in the West Bank. Please follow the discussion before commenting, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe he was Jayjg. Perhaps you should address the issues raised by myself and others as to the relevancy. Tiamut 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevancy of what; your claim that Palestinians suffer from "differential treatment" because they can't buy land in Israeli settlements or live there? It seems that that's not differential treatment, but standard treatment in the West Bank, Palestinians can't live in Israeli areas, and Israelis can't live in Palestinian areas. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, separate but equal.  And if the Israeli areas need to expand into the Palestinian areas a little, to accomodate their need for 'natural growth' or whatever, so be it.--G-Dett 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Obviously not equal, since Israelis would not be killed for selling land to Palestinians. You're very amusing tonight. :-) Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you my dear, I do my best for you.--G-Dett 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed it. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed, and should have said thanks. Thanks. Tiamut 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the lead

message: This edit  by User:Shamir1 might have the one to introduce a coding issue into the article that has split that "Racism" section off from the rest (such that the "References" section is now between them). Does anyone know how to fix this? I tried to wade through the code, but I couldn't make much sense of it. Thanks. Tiamut 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed, and should have said thanks. Thanks. Tiamut 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coding issues

message: Please use this page for discussion about whether/where to move the page. WP:RM is not a space for debate. Thanks, cab 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion snipped from [[WP:RM]] 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support - I would also like to bring up a related dicussion on the Village pump here. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is huge opposition to any such move, as the proposer well knows from the current discussion on the Talk: page, and there have even been Arbcom cases over it. It would be unwise to stir up this hornet's nest again; the current name was seen as the most reasonable compromise between groups with widely diverging views of the topic and its legitimacy. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you always have to make personal attacks when contributing your opinion? I made the proposal on the recommendation of User:MinderBinder, in the sub-section above. There was no ulterior motive. I just think "allegations of (bllank)" is a ridiculous way to title encyclopedia entires. And if you notice, the first sentence now reads simply "Israeli apartheid" because it is awkward (not to mention WP:OR and WP:NPOV) to write "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy between" etc, etc. Tiamut 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to accept that proposal as a compromise option, if the current action fails.  CJCurrie 05:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think it's actually more sympathetic to Israel than the current title, so I hope it's seen has win-win by both sides. The credible sources use Apartheid as an analogy, not an allegation. Kla'quot 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said.  I'd support that; in fact I think it's the best title yet suggested.--G-Dett 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support - I would also like to bring up a related dicussion on the Village pump here. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is huge opposition to any such move, as the proposer well knows from the current discussion on the Talk: page, and there have even been Arbcom cases over it. It would be unwise to stir up this hornet's nest again; the current name was seen as the most reasonable compromise between groups with widely diverging views of the topic and its legitimacy. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Strong oppose. This has already been discussed many times and the Allegations title was the agreed compromise. This is just an attempt to open old wounds. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you always have to make personal attacks when contributing your opinion? I made the proposal on the recommendation of User:MinderBinder, in the sub-section above. There was no ulterior motive. I just think "allegations of (bllank)" is a ridiculous way to title encyclopedia entires. And if you notice, the first sentence now reads simply "Israeli apartheid" because it is awkward (not to mention WP:OR and WP:NPOV) to write "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy between" etc, etc. Tiamut 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to accept that proposal as a compromise option, if the current action fails.  CJCurrie 05:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think it's actually more sympathetic to Israel than the current title, so I hope it's seen has win-win by both sides. The credible sources use Apartheid as an analogy, not an allegation. Kla'quot 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said.  I'd support that; in fact I think it's the best title yet suggested.--G-Dett 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Ynhockey has suggested moving the article Pallywood to Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, following the naming principles presently used for Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The proposed move would avoid the use of a controversial neologism which has been the subject of POV and notability disputes. The new name would be more informative and neutral and would to enable a broader scope than the current article permits. Comments would be welcomed at Pallywood#Requested move. -- ChrisO 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related requested move

message: According to the prominent Israeli New Historian, who teaches at Haifa University, Ilan Pappe:
“The basic feature for apartheid in Israel is the issue of land, not allowing Palestinians to have any relations to landownership, land transactions, and so on. Many people don’t know that the land in Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and because of that it cannot be sold and transacted with non-Jews. […] It’s legal, it is part of the Israeli constitution in law that 93% of the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. […] This is the reason why since 1948 you have hundreds of new Jewish settlements in Israel, neighborhoods being constructed and not one new Arab village or neighborhood was built. […] That is, I think, the worst side of apartheid in that part of Israel.”   Ilan Pappe on the Israel-Palestine conflict, interview Saturday March 04, 2006  http://www.imemc.org/article/17103   (search under Ilan Pappe).
PLEASE ADD ILAN PAPPE TO THE ARTICLE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kritt (talk • contribs) 06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Israelis who have compared Israeli practises to apartheid include [[Ilan Pappe]]

message: Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.
    
PLEASE ADD TO THE ARTICLE these comments to balance the partisan comments of less noteworthy journalist, Melanie Phillips, already included in the Wikipedia article as "Criticism". 
"The most telling criticism of Mr. Sharon on his home front is that Israel, on its present course, will become an old South Africa under apartheid — a Jewish minority ruling a Palestinian majority confined to reservations in the West Bank and Gaza. Longer term, Jewish apartheid would have to give way to the emergence of a single Levantine state where Jews and Arabs would eventually learn to live together as Christians and Muslims have done in Lebanon. But that would be 10 to 20 years down a very bloody road."
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031204-083353-8249r.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kritt (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Journalist makes ALLEGATION of Israeli Apartheid

message: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/March_2007/0703057.
University of Massachusetts at Boston Professor Leila Farsakh described the differences between apartheid in South Africa and the Zionist movement. Whereas Afrikaaners were a demographic minority dependent on indigenous South African labor, she explained, Zionists seek a demographic majority and attempted from the beginning to employ only Jewish workers. “Although they started differently,” she said, “they converge similarly” with Israel’s post-1967 “Bantustan reality.”
How should these newer items be incorporated? Kritt 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations March 2007: Boston Conference Confronts Israeli Apartheid