Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 22

message: The debate on the two-state solution 
See also: Israel's unilateral disengagement plan#Pro-withdrawal criticism
Some have also predicted that aspects of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan would also lead to apartheid-like conditions. These predictions are raised both by those who advocate a two-state solution and by those who advocate a one-state binational solution. These opponents of the plan generally agree with the principle of making territorial concessions, but object to the limited scope of the plan, which  would leave much of the currently-occupied territory under some level of Israeli control.
* Desmond Tutu has advocated a two-state solution, saying, "Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders."
* In January 2004, Ahmed Qureia, then the Palestinian Prime Minister, said that the building of the West Bank barrier, and the associated Israeli absorption of parts of the West Bank, constituted "an apartheid solution to put the Palestinians in cantons." Qureia: Israel's unilateral moves are pushing us toward a one-state solution, Haaretz, January 9 2004. Accessed June 26, 2006. He predicted that Israel's unilateralism could prompt an end to the Palestinian efforts towards a two-state solution, and instead shift favour towards a one-state solution.
:* When asked for comment on Qureia's statement, Colin Powell, then U.S. Secretary of State, responded by affirming U.S. commitment to a two-state solution while saying, "I don't believe that we can accept a situation that results in anything that one might characterize as apartheid or Bantuism." PMO rejects Palestinian assertion on right to declare state, Haaretz, January 11 2004, accessed June 26, 2006  
:* Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, commented in April 2004 that, "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."Is the two-state solution in danger?, Haaretz, April 13 2004, accessed June 26 2006
* An academic paper by Professor Oren Yiftachel Chair of the Geography Department at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev predicted that Israel unilateral disengagement plan will result in "creeping apartheid"  in the West Bank, Gaza, and in Israel itself. Yiftachel argues that, "Needless to say, the reality of apartheid existed for decades in Israel/Palestine, but this is the first time a Prime Minister spells out clearly the strengthening of this reality as a long-term political platform."Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben Gurion University of the Desert (2005) Neither two states nor one: The Disengagement and "creeping apartheid" in Israel/Palestine in The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe 8(3): 125-129. Yiftachel argued that the plan would entrench a situation that can be described as "neither two states nor one," separating Israelis from Palestinians without giving Palestinians true sovereignty. 
* Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist and the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, predicted that the interim disengagement plan would become permanent, with the West Bank barrier entrenching both the isolation of Palestinian communities and the existence of Israeli settlements. He warned that Israel is moving towards the model of apartheid South Africa through the creation of "Bantustan" like conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
* The Economist, in an article on the debate over withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, asserted that "Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority.""Israel's settlers: Waiting for a miracle", The Economist, August 11, 2005.
Doright 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should go under the territories section I think--Urthogie 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not clear on why it is here? -- Kendrick7talk 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, why is any of this here?Doright 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pasted From Article

message: to Allegation that Israel is still beating its wife -- Y not? 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh.  As though the article isn't ridiculous enough, now you want to rename it?  I suppose that name would demonstrate just how completely unencyclopædic and unencyclopædizable the article, along with all the "Allegations of apartheid" articles, really is...  Tomertalk 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Illegitimate Zionist entity apartheid is actually the best name; why hasn't that been suggested already? Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we keep the post-AfD petulance to a minimum, please? Let's try to move forward from here. —Ashley Y 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, Ashley, that was pre-AfD-close petulance -- Y not? 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a better title; please address the issues, not the editor. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was addressing the edit, not the editor. Thanks. —Ashley Y 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Petulance" is an emotional state; proposed titles don't have emotions. Please address the issues, not the editor. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find actions (such as your edit) can be petulant. Are you seriously suggesting renaming the article to "Illegitimate Zionist entity apartheid"? It rather looks like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point to me. —Ashley Y 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making value judgments and assumptions about my Talk: page comment, rather than addressing their content. Please address the issues, not the editor. And yes, I think it would be a better name; the pejorative demonizing rhetoric "Illegitimate Zionist entity" is a perfect match for the pejorative demonizing rhetoric "apartheid". Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making a value judgement about your comment, yes. I offer no particular value judgement about you. There are no "issues" here, suggesting adding "pejorative demonizing rhetoric" just because you happen to believe something else is "pejorative demonizing rhetoric" is unhelpful and petulant, and violates the spirit of WP:POINT. —Ashley Y 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims that one can distinguish between "value judgments about comments" and value judgments about the people making them are specious. I'm suggesting a better title; I take it you don't agree it is better? Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Urthologie, are you referring to the Israel apartheid analogy suggestion? I think that would be an improvement. —Ashley Y 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be much worse. It's not an analogy, it's a rhetorical allegation, usually without any thought or substance. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's a false analogy that uses an appeal to emotion, a simple dry fact I put into the article lead here...which Ashley Y reverted here, characterizing my change to the lead as "POV"—a charge s/he has thus far declined to clarify.  I am still waiting, albeit with increasing impatience...  Tomertalk 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion, not a "simple dry fact". —Ashley Y 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of it is my opinion?  Tomertalk 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the analogy is false and an appeal to emotion. Some sources say it is, and other sources say it isn't. —Ashley Y 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sources lie. According to the government of Egypt, Jews use muslim children's blood to make matza. That doesn't make it true, and saying it's not true isn't POV. The analogy is obviously and ridiculously false to anyone who knows anything at all about apartheid. The term was chosen quite deliberately in order to vilify Israel in the hopes that the Arabs' boycott of Israel would be picked up on by supporters of boycotting .za. Saying otherwise is deliberate intellectual dishonesty, not "maintaining neutrality". Tomertalk 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Adams and Moodley ("experts writing scholarly works in their area of expertise, and backing it up with sources" apparently) refer to it as an analogy. Jayjg, do you disagree with them? —Ashley Y 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam and Moodley are just about the only ones who use it as an analogy, and explore that analogy. Please note the use of the word "usually" in my comment. I suggested long ago that this article summarize the views of A&M, Pogrund, and perhaps one other, and leave it at that. That article would be about an analogy. This article is about rhetorical allegations, usually without thought or substance. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But from the quote given, Adam and Moodley refer to it as an analogy that other people are using. According to A&M, what is it that "the majority is incensed by"? —Ashley Y 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who are incensed realize that the people using the term are not making a real analogy, but rather merely mouthing mindless demonizing rhetoric. That is what incenses them. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's your own OR and not what the source says. It simply refers to "the very analogy". Of course I don't think A&M are implying that it's a good analogy, only the rather plain fact that it's an analogy. —Ashley Y 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you re-write the article from A&M's POV, then your argument might hold weight. As it is, there has been a concerted effort to de-value what A&M say; most of their opinion has moved from the top of the article to the very bottom, under "Other views". Why don't you fix that, and, while you're at it, delete the vast majority of the article; then we can discuss a more appropriate name for it.  Oh, and while you're at it, you might consider cleaning up that doctored quote from Jimmy Carter; it would be better to delete his shallow meanderings altogether, but somehow I don't think you're up to that. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now "somehow I don't think you're up to that" is an example of addressing the editor rather than the issues. Since I haven't touched the Jimmy Carter quote, I'll leave it to someone else. In any case, I'm pretty sure that all the material that you object to is exactly what A&M are referring to as "the very analogy" that incenses people. —Ashley Y 04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, you weren't up to for it; Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy is tough. And considering that 6 of the main editors currently editing the article support the analogy, and 2 do not, the article is only going to sink further and further. Tomer is right. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not up for it would be the non-personal-attack way of putting it, but perhaps that's what you meant. If you want to make a change, go right ahead (per WP:BRD). —Ashley Y 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you had the opportunity to rise to the challenge, show you were a better editor than you seemed, but alas... As for me, I'm letting this festering mass sink under the weight of its own nearly incomprehensible rhetoric. I've contributed a bit to better articles on analogous topics, but this one appears beyond redemption. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rather odd challenge to make, isn't it, to ask someone else to perform a reversion of an edit that "obviously doesn't make the article worse"? As for me, I'm letting the post-AfD petulance subside before making further suggestions here. —Ashley Y 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly odd to challenge someone to ensure that Wikipedia articles at least adhere to minimal standards by not doctoring quotes, but it's not surprising when they refuse to do even that, given their beliefs and previous editing record. I'm not sure what you can do about your post-AfD petulance; perhaps if you take a wikibreak the feeling will go away. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I'll be sure not to suggest adding any pejorative demonizing rhetoric in an attempt to prove a point, claim the word "analogy" doesn't really mean "analogy", mistake a judgement on a comment as a personal attack, or issue bogus "challenges" in the mean time. —Ashley Y 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, Ashley, petulant post-AfD comments like the one you just made are unbecoming. You're obviously not up to the rigors of WP:NPOV right now; you might feel much better after a wikibreak. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, given your behaviour here after the AfD closed, I think a wikibreak of your own would be rather more appropriate. Tell you what, though, why don't you stay off just Middle-East related articles for awhile? Your new-found interest in Brazilian social issues might be worth exploring. —Ashley Y 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion seems to have strayed rather far from its original subject, no matter how seriously that subject was taken...and, in fact, no longer carries even the remotest pretense of having anything to do with the article at hand... Tomertalk 05:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Tomer. To get back on subject, I hope we might get a consensus on the idea that "analogy" doesn't necessarily imply good or bad analogy, and that the word is used equally by those who reject it. Pollak's article is a good example. —Ashley Y 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the subject was renaming the article.  If you really wish to discuss the matter of analogies, legitimate or otherwise, I'm game...I'll readily agree that "analogy" doesn't pass judgement on the "goodness or badness"...but I maintain that this is a false analogy and that calling it one is neither POV nor OR.  For the record, I am not opposed to an article about Israeli apartheid, but such an article should discuss the term, by whom it's used, and to what end it's used, it should not be a lengthy anti-Israel diatribe, which is what this "article" was when it was called by that name, and now is even more absurdly and unabashèdly so...  It is categorically not an encyclopedia article, it is little more than a bloggish collection of anti-Israel politically and/or antisemitically-motivated crap.  That it was kept after the latest AfD underscores a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another time and place.  (Unlike JayJG, I happen to think the Allegations of Brazilian apartheid article needs to be nuked as well, and for analogous, if not the exact same, reasons...Although I frequently find myself in agreement with JayJG, had I known about the AfD there, I would have !voted exactly the opposite of what ended up being the majority.)  Tomertalk 06:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was proposing renaming it Israel apartheid analogy, mostly to include people in Adam & Moody's "third group which sees both similarities and differences", which includes many of the sources I believe. The word "allegations" suggests a more polarised true or false, whereas analogies can also be in between. The idea is to imply less with the title. —Ashley Y 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your proposal for eliminating POV from the article so-renamed?  Right now it's such a mess of POV that it seems almost hopeless that it can be rescued, a hopelessness exascerbated as much by the title as by the POV-pushers the subject attracts.  Tomertalk 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article by its title is all about points of view, both for and against. I know that was a big issue in the recent AfD, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. The important things here (per WP:NPOV) are that they are all presented fairly and without the implication that any of them are the truth. —Ashley Y 06:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No I'm not referring to that.  I'm referring to the rename to Human rights of Palestinians in the Israeli territories or Human rights in the Israeli territories.  It was Gatoclass's idea originally, but I'm building on it.--Urthogie 02:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We already have Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority and Human rights in Israel. Which one would you like to merge this into? -- Y not? 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither seems appropriate.--G-Dett 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, neither of them covers the territories.  Would you support the whole idea of expanding the scope of this article to a complete rather than shallow discussion of the human rights in those regions?  See above talk section for this suggestion.--Urthogie 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose rename 

message: Assuming consensus was reached for how the article would be structured, would you support the renaming and expanding of this page to Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories? (make sure to explain why or why not)
;Yes
# Gives better context than just discussing everything through the prism of a single "allegation."  Seems to be a better way of teaching people about the actual things going on in the territories.--Urthogie 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To those reviewing this vote, please note that User:Leifern added the above sentence on a counterproposal at midnight on April 30 2007 after most of the NO votes listed below had been cast . In other words, the no votes cast before that time were in response to the original proposal only. Those made afterward may or may not be responding to the original proposal due to potential confusion that may have ensued by the placement of this counterproposal here while voting was already underway on the original proposal. Tiamut 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds better, still not sure it is the best title ('issues'?!), but it is a marked improvement on the above proposal. --Coroebus 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A quick straw poll

message: So it's interesting to note that once I suggested that we create one or several articles that describe and discuss the plight of Palestinians in all the places they can be found, along with the various causes for their situation, only one thought this was a reasonable idea. The others quickly returned to the subject of singling out one interpretation of Israeli policy. I can't help but conclude that this is a clear indication of how little some editors care about Palestinians or creating a good encyclopedia compared to how much they care about demonizing and vilifying Israel. It's worth reflecting upon, for the majority of editors who may have differences in opinion but want the same thing, both for the Palestinians and Wikipedia. --Leifern 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all this trouble, and yet there's still no article on the world's smallest violin. sniff -- Kendrick7talk 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is the Palestinian diaspora a small violin?--Urthogie 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure how to take that comment, but I certainly don't think any refugees' conditions are to be trivialized. --Leifern 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought your comment was interesting. I was partly responding to you in noting that we can always generalize to try to make things less controversial, like the article on American Empire could be incorporated into the one on American foreign policy.  Ultimately, I think it's pretty clear that the Palestinian situation in the West Bank is not one that would generally be discussed with conditions in other surrounding countries, though an article on that topic could also certainly be created. Mackan79 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with writing an article about the conditions for Palestinians on the West Bank; but I think it should deal comprehensively with all the factors that affect their well-being (or lack thereof), not just those that someone might arguably blame Israel for. And when the article is about a rhetorical device used to overstate Israel's motivations, it loses credibility entirely. I also think that if we are at all concerned about the situation and future for Palestinian refugees, we should also include the conditions they face in other places where they're treated as a special group. --Leifern 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special cases, etc. 

message: Can I ask what this article is doing in this CAT?  Does this category exist in the first place for any non-POV purpose?--G-Dett 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's how it's categorized, like all the other articles associated with wikiprojects.--Urthogie 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You couldn't have drawn a more perfect circle with a compass, Urthogie.  Do you have an answer to my question?--G-Dett 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because its a page about an allegation.
Middle East conflict
--------------------
Views of the Middle East Conflict
---------------------
Views on the Palestinian territories/humans rights
---------------------
the allegation that the situation there somehow amounts to apartheid
To say this 4th tier subject is high importance is a blatant falsehood.Urthogie 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So the answer to the second of my original two questions is "No"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-POV purpose is to sort it according to importance for Wikipedia 1.0.--Urthogie 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying all Wikiprojects have these ranks?--G-Dett 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The major ones do, yes.  I know wikiproject hip hop has them...--Urthogie 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All the major Wikiprojects have article assessment in place. I've ranked 1000s of articles myself.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I get it now.--G-Dett 15:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Low-importance Israel-related articles 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&curid=5329520&diff=126703430&oldid=126670865
Check that out. That change (or the previous version) is by definition POV. One person sees the article as saying one thing, and another sees it as saying the entirely different. Doesn't that, by definition, mean a POV is present in both cases? --Remi 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article, Carter recieved a letter from Rabbi Straus which he quotes. This is what the first version is. The second version is Carter's quoted response to the rabbi's letter. --Tom 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant differences.... 

message: Both in the overview and at the bottom of the article, I think an unbalanced amount of space is devoted to airing the views of Adam and Moodley. At the moment, I am too tired to do anything about it though. Organ123 06:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess all the discussion of this has been archived. Agreed, it makes no sense for them to be in the "Overview". Start by just taking them out of there and reuniting the text with that in Other Views..., as I've done several times. It'll get reverted, but right thinking will prevail eventually... I hope. Andyvphil 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not insisting here, but I'm still not sure it's as bad as you suggest.  Whatever their purposes, it is one interesting way to give some perspective on popular sentiment toward the analogy, which seems fairly accurate.  Also, to the extent people are saying we should be talking more about the analogy itself and less about "why," this type of comment seems to be exactly what we want: an assessment on how people feel about the analogy, rather than in depth analysis of its basis.  That's largely what we wanted, no? Mackan79 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I don't want A-M out of the article, just out of the "Overview", which I want to be history. I'm hoping the timeline will eat the "Overview" and the we can then concentrate on culling the unimportant from the timeline... Andyvphil 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much space given to Adam and Moodley 

message: :... And there is a decided shortage of Arabs making the allegation in the "Overview". The Syrian government and such Arabs as may be in student groups hardly covers it. Andyvphil 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm not sure these instances are historically significant enough to go in the "Overview" or timeline, but I will look at adding them elsewhere if some other editor doesn't beat me to it (which I urge them to do). Andyvphil 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab sources

message: To the section titled Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel, I added the following Diff[]:
:President Carter has reiterated the point that his "use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel." []  
This was immediately reverted and the following text was put in its place:
:President Carter has reiterated the point that "apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence." []
The material below is the source text (emphasis added) from the Carter Center.  It demonstrates that my original edit is correct.  It also demonstrates that the other editor's revision was a bit of a reach.  Again, the title of this section is Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel. Clearly, not only do the other editor's edit not reflect the above material, it is not focused within Israel and therefore does not belong in this section. 
The chairman of the group, Rabbi Andrew Straus, then suggested that I make clear to all American Jews that my use of "apartheid" does not apply to circumstances within Israel, that I acknowledge the deep concern of Israelis about the threat of terrorism and other acts of violence from some Palestinians, and that the majority of Israelis sincerely want a peaceful existence with their neighbors. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate these points. []
Please note what carter says he reiterates: 
*my use of "apartheid" does not apply to circumstances within Israel
*I acknowledge the deep concern of Israelis about the threat of terrorism and other acts of violence from some Palestinians
*the majority of Israelis sincerely want a peaceful existence with their neighbors
-Doright 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this is what I find fascinating about Carter's view on all of this. Imagine what would be left of apartheid in South Africa if race had been taken out as the criterion? And, as it turned out, apartheid was effectively abolished when universal suffrage was introduced there. He bases his entire view on his view on the motivation of Israel, which he believes is to steal land. He's entitled to his opinion, but I can certainly find examples in history that fit that particular accusation better than apartheid. Land policy in the US in the 19th century comes to mind. --Leifern 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Do you agree with my analysis? -Doright 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That Carter does not allege apartheid in Israel proper (as he defines it) may be a useful clarification in that section, I guess, but I can't see repeating a phrase already quoted. Andyvphil 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only does Carter not allege apartheid within Israel, he has gone to great lengths to clarify this point.  I, of course, agree, as does apparently Carter, that it is a vital clarification of his views with respect to policies inside Israel.  I can hardly imagine a greater violation of WP:NPOV than excluding it from this section.  Clearly, if it is to be excluded from this section, then the entire section must be excluded from this article. Whether it is repeated in another section is a question that may be better addressed in that section. -Doright 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The line I removed is not Carter's quote. It is what the Rabbis asked Carter to reiterate and Carter provide the quote as it now reads. Otherwise, it looks like Carter said that when in fact it is what the Rabbis said. --Tom 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you might benefit from the use of a dictionary.  Look up the word reinterate: to state or repeat.  What is quoted are the words that he reiterates.  That is, his "use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel."  It's not too complicated.  Also, the edit you replaced it with is a non-sequitur. -Doright 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Doright, maybe we should leave that whole section out, or we have to expand it. Maybe we should use your block quote above where he says he wants to reiterate the points the Rabbis make in their letter? Anyways, --Tom 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the pro-Israel side. However, i feel we don;t to draw quite so many issues. if we leave just the factual points about allegations in, we can allow more subjective aspects of this debate to wind down. Just my two cents. --Sm8900 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel - Carter reiterates these points 

message: Some noncontroversial stuff:
* Footnote 59 is a dead reference backlink, and I'm not sure where it should link.  Please fix.
* Footnotes 25 and 61 have bullet items within the footnotes.  That's inconsistent with the style elsewhere. Probably should be turned into multiple footnotes. 
* Footnote 17 has an "op. cit." cite to Adam and Moodley which precedes the main reference.
--John Nagle 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed ref 59. As to the order of op cit ref's in an endlessly mutable encyclopedia, I would hope people can get used to them being out of order. -- Kendrick7talk 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote/formatting fixes needed 

message: Perhaps we should limit the lists of allegations to historicall notable cases.  What do people gain by seeing every notable person who has made a given allegation?  Are these allegations really notable in their own right outside of Carter, Tutu, and the various statements made at the UN?  Chris McGreal's article wasn't exactly monumental in the course of history.  Oh "According to Leila Farsakh, associate professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts Boston".  Ah, everyone knows about Farsakh, great guy Farsakh, at the Poli sci University of Boston.  He's not a professor, you say?  Just an assistant?  Oh well, who cares, include him anyways, he's a monumental apartheid commentator.--Urthogie 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please abide by WP:POINT and don't pollute the talk page. I think people benefit from seeing notable people wheighing in on the subject. And, oh, Farsakh is a gal not a dude. Lixy 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, everyone should have known!  Farsakh, after all, is a very notable assistant professor who lives in Boston.--Urthogie 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed she is, Urthogie, indeed she is.  When you've finished gorging yourself on StandWithUs leaflets and MEMRI press releases, you might take a moment and read "Independence, Cantons, or Bantustans: Whither the Palestinian State," published in the US's oldest peer-review journal on the Middle East.  There's a world of scholarship out there, Urthogie, and some of it's even on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lists 

message: The norwegian minister of finance Kristin_Halvorsen on a tour to palestine in 2002 (before she was a minister) commented to the newspaper Dagbladet  : "It is insane that a civilized country can act like this. What I have seen and experienced down here is horrifying. So far I have abstained from calling Israel an apartheid state, but after this it is no way around it." (my translation. original quote for those that understand norwegian:  "Det er vanvittig at et sivilisert land kan oppføre seg slik. Det jeg har sett og opplevd her nede er skrekkelig. Jeg har hittil unngått å betegne Israel som en apartheidstat, men etter dette er det ikke noen vei utenom, sier en rystet Kristin Halvorsen til Dagbladet." I don't know. maybe this should be added to the article? pertn 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should include quotes from finance ministers?--Urthogie 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kristin Halvorsen's comments were made as the leader of the radical left party that is now part of the coalition government. She's had to tone down her anti-Israeli rhetoric as a minister of finance, but SV (the socialist left party) has always had a strong anti-Israeli platform. --Leifern 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adoption of the allegation by the head of a ruling coalition party in an EU state is certainly a marker for the success of the allegationist campaign (pace Matas). This would be obvious except for the geographic straitjacket that Urthogie imposed on the article. Maybe rather than delete the "Overview" by parceling its parts out to the other sections (which is what I've attempted to precipitate) the solution is to transform it into an historical account, cannibalizing the other sections as needed. Andyvphil 22:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another quite prominent source 

message: Nice work guys, glad to see the great progress/compromise. If it isn't removed its just going to be trashed? Oh well, --Tom 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not everything put in the timeline belongs there, but actually editing seems to be too much trouble for some. Better to make wild claims that timelines are inherently POV, SYNTH and OR. When I came to this article very little could be dated without looking at the footnotes (and a lot couldn't be dated without actually following the links) which was absurd for a subject that should be a history. Andyvphil 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the original timeline points were a random collections of decontextualized tidbits that could - to an already prejudiced mind - serve as circumstantial evidence that the allegation had some merit. So the only proper response is to provide the context for those tidbits and allow the user to decide whether the tidbits add up to anything at all. --Leifern 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the origin of the timeline.. No tidbits. Andyvphil 23:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time line

message: ... per request on WP:RPP. It's way out of control, folks. Please - this action does not endorse any particular revision, just that this endless revert war needs to stop. - Alison ☺ 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrick7 made the request, I see. I was going to add several citations to the timeline. Oh well. --Leifern 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noted on WP:RPP. But yes, that was naughty. However, the article is out of control - Alison ☺ 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And if it was locked on a version that you would approve of, then the other half would be up in arms.  They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, so in the end it rally doesn't matter what version it is frozen at. Tarc 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Precisely. I've no interest in the subject either way and wouldn't attempt to decipher for myself which version is POV or what. The last full prot lasted a week and was obviously squandered judging from its aftermath. Hence the two week protect. If this is disputed, probably the best place to raise it would be on WP:ANI - Alison ☺ 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, if you guys don't like the current revision, the best option is to achieve consensus or some sorta agreement here ASAP. When that happens, let me know (or WP:RPP) and I'll gladly unprotect early - Alison ☺ 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) The two-week time period is not a rigid length. If this gets resolved in a few days or a week, you are free to head over to WP:RPP and request unprotection. Expiration dates for protection are estimates, ensuring articles are not protected for too long. I encourage you all to try one of the methods at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if this article truly has been heavily disputed for "almost a year" without resolution. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the methods of dispute resolution?  There has already been an arbitration and, depending on how one counts, three attempts at mediation, although admittedly the arbitration was about specific conduct near the beginning of the article's history (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop, all 391 Kb of it, for some interesting (?!) reading), and none of the proposed mediations have been about the timeline, which is a relatively recent addition to the controversy.  To really get an idea of what has been going on here for a year (since May 29, 2006, to be exact) you could read the 21 archived talk pages (I just noticed that the list of archived talk pages is starting to resemble a calendar), but only if you have a number of hours to spare.  But I think all you have to do is read the current talk page to see how difficult it would be for this article to ever achieve a consensus.   6SJ7 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are a lot of pages that are contentious for ideological reasons, but each side is trying to make what they think is a better article, so some sort of momentum gets underway.  Even NAS has something of this momentum.  This article is unique in that there are a significant number of editors who simply want to kill it; this puts their suggestions for what might "improve" the article in a certain light.--G-Dett 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the larger scheme of things, this article is a bit like a Seinfeld episode; it's about nothing of any consequence. If it were about the humanitarian and political situation of the Palestinians, it would be important. If it were about the effects of Israeli policy toward Palestinians, it would be important. But it's about one particular theme (of many) that is used for political polemics, and as such it is either tedious or tendentious, depending on how you want to see it. --Leifern 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or...important.  Somehow I don't think you're here because of a passion for sitcoms and much ado about nothing.--G-Dett 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Thus, I have added it to the template, and I also propose adding the template to this article.--Kirby♥time 03:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong oppose'. Such action would be very racist in nature, both a mockery to racial discrimination and to Israel.--Sefringle 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By that logic, I should add anti-zionism to the antisemitism template. Do you support that, Kirbytime?--Sefringle 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support whatever Wikipedia policy encourages.--Kirby♥time 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid is a form of racial segregation